AP: “Obama ends visa-free path for Cubans who make it to US soil”

President Barack Obama announced last Thursday that he is ending a longstanding US immigration policy allowing Cubans who arrive in the US to stay and become legal residents. The change for this policy, commonly referred to as the "wet foot, dry foot" policy, comes after months of negotiations and is an attempt to “normalize relations” with Cuba. It is contingent upon Cuba agreeing to take back certain Cuban nationals in the US who have been ordered removed. 

In a statement, President Obama called the "wet foot, dry foot" policy outdated. “Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal, consistent with US law and enforcement priorities,” he said. “By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries.” 

Since President Obama is using an administrative rule change to end the policy, President-Elect Trump could undo the change after the inauguration this week; however, ending a US policy that has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to enter the US without documentation would arguably seem to align with Trump’s comments on enacting tough immigration policies.

The Cuban government issued a statement calling the agreed upon policy change “an important step in the advance of bilateral relations” that will guarantee “regular, safe and orderly migration.” The government said the policy encouraged illegal travel in unseaworthy vessels, homemade rafts, and inner tubes.

The "wet foot, dry foot" policy was created by President Bill Clinton in 1995 to revise a more liberal immigration policy that allowed Cubans captured at sea to enter the US and become legal residents in a year. This change to the “wet foot, dry foot” policy comes after President Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro established full diplomatic ties and opened embassies in their respective capitals in 2015. In anticipation of this policy change, there has been an increase in Cuban immigration, particularly across the US-Mexico border. According to statistics published by the Department of Homeland Security, since October 2012 more than 118,000 Cubans have entered at ports of entry along the border, including more than 48,000 people who arrived between October 2015 and November 2016.

As part of the changes, the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, started by President George W. Bush in 2006, is also being rescinded. The measure permitted Cuban doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to seek parole in the US while on assignments abroad, but the president noted these doctors can still apply for asylum at US embassies around the world. "By providing preferential treatment to Cuban medical personnel, the medical parole program…risks harming the Cuban people," Obama said in his statement.

Reactions to the change in policy are varied. "People who can't leave, they could create internal problems for the regime," Jorge Gutierrez, an eighty-year-old veteran of the Bay of Pigs invasion, tells the AP. He adds: "From the humanitarian point of view, it's taking away the possibility of a better future from the people who are struggling in Cuba." Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican who immigrated to the US from Cuba as a child, says that eliminating the medical parole program is a "foolhardy concession to a regime that sends its doctors to foreign nations in a modern-day indentured servitude." 

Even with this policy change, Cubans are still covered by the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, which grants them permanent residency after they have been in the US for one year. Up until the policy change last week, Cuban nationals who made it to the US were given temporary “parole” status for the one year, but this will no longer be granted. While the change in policy is effective immediately, those already in the US and being processed under both the "wet foot, dry foot" policy and the medical parole program will be able to continue the process toward obtaining legal status. Officials also say the change in policy does not affect the lottery that allows 20,000 Cubans to come to the US each year.

BuzzFeed: “Senators Propose Bipartisan Bill To Protect ‘DREAMers’”

A bipartisan bill to protect “DREAMers”—who were granted temporary protection against deportation under President Obama’s executive actions—was introduced this past Friday by Senators Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin. The bill, called the BRIDGE Act, would effectively extend DACA protections for more than 740,000 young immigrants who have already taken advantage of the program by providing “provisional protected presence” for three years if applicants register with the government, pay the required processing fee, and pass a criminal background check. The senators introduced the bill in response to President-Elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise to end the DACA program, although after the election he has made conflicting comments about what actions, if any, he will take. 

In a post-election interview with Time, President-Elect Trump said regarding DREAMers: “We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud…They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.” In statements on Twitter, Senator Graham calls the original DACA order enacted by President Obama “unconstitutional” and says that President-Elect Trump would be right to repeal it but that nevertheless Senator Graham says he does not "believe that we should pull the rug out and push these young men and women—who came out of the shadows and registered with the federal government—back into the darkness…These young people have much to offer the country and we stand to benefit from the many contributions they will make to America.” 

While the bill will need to be re-introduced next year to the new Congress, Senator Durbin tells reporters they didn’t want to wait. “There’s so much interest in this issue and so much anxiety over this situation,” he says. “We want to move to make this public. I can’t go anywhere without someone raising this issue.” Durbin says that they’re encouraged by Trump’s recent favorable comments on DACA and says that both Republican and Democratic legislators will support the BRIDGE Act. “Generally speaking most Republicans, even though they are reluctant to come to the floor and make a speech, feel it’s only fair…even if they have strong feelings against other parts of comprehensive immigration,” he tells BuzzFeed. “This is a very difficult group—once you meet them—to oppose.”

“Here’s what you’ve got to ask Republicans and Democrats: What do you do with these kids?” Senator Graham tells reporters. “Now, I’m not going to be part of a Republican Party that will take 700,000-plus young people who’ve done nothing on their own—they came here as small kids, they lived their life in America, they have no place else to go—and just ruin their lives.”

Many US mayors have also voiced support for DREAMers. In a letter signed by Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, and mayors of other cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Houston, Trump was warned of the economic harm that would come from canceling DACA. “This program helps foster economic growth and enhances public safety and national security," the letter states, and claims that as much as $9.9 billion in tax revenue would be lost over four years and $433.4 billion in US gross domestic product would be wiped out over ten years if he cancels the DACA program.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) also praises the BRIDGE Act legislation, even though AILA notes it does not provide a solution for many undocumented families and other individuals who have lived and worked in the US for many years. “Keeping DACA going is not only the right thing to do, it is smart business,” AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson states. “The BRIDGE Act would offer protection to DREAMers for three years, during which time we hope that Congress will move forward on what is really necessary: smart, effective, and humane immigration reform.”

New York Times: “Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan”

Today the US Supreme Court issued a 4 to 4 split decision in the long-awaited case, United States v. Texas, effectively upholding the lower court’s injunction halting the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the creation of a new program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The original DACA program launched in 2012 remains in place. This one-sentence decision is a major blow to the executive actions President Obama proposed in November 2014 as a result of congressional inaction on comprehensive immigration reform. The decision will potentially affect as many as five million undocumented immigrants who would have been shielded from deportation and allowed to legally work in the United States had these programs been allowed to proceed.    

President Obama, speaking at the White House, criticized the 4 to 4 tie. “But for more than two decades now, our immigration system, everybody acknowledges, has been broken. And the fact that the Supreme Court wasn’t able to issue a decision today doesn’t just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.” After Obama announced his executive actions in 2014, Texas and twenty-five other states challenged the plans, which were subsequently blocked in federal district court the next year. “Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law,” Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, says in an issued statement. “This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, says the decision illustrates how handicapped the Supreme Court is when it’s not fully staffed, referring to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year. The Supreme Court will not be able to issue an official ruling on the case until a ninth judge is confirmed. Vladeck tells CNN: "Although proponents of President Obama's immigration plan might prefer this result to a 5-4 loss, which would have set a nationwide precedent, rulings like these create uncertainty for the courts and the country going forward—uncertainty that, at the end of the day, puts more pressure on the political branches and dilutes the role of the Supreme Court." 

This decision is a disappointment to many activists who have been campaigning for comprehensive immigration reform for years. Summarizing the frustrations that many feel, Victor Nieblas Pradis, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), says: "In another blow, the Supreme Court has denied the opportunity for parents of United States citizens and students to seek refuge and protection from a dysfunctional immigration system that is broken and apparently unfixable by our elected leaders.” And Benjamin Johnson, AILA Executive Director, adds: “Though today's decision is disappointing, we must remember that this is not the end of the road for these incredibly important programs. The lower courts will continue to consider the case and ultimately, I would not be surprised if it ends up before the Supreme Court once again. In the meantime, Congress must do its job and pass smart immigration laws that will keep families united, benefit the economy, and propel our country forward.”

The Guardian: “G20 to discuss threat of ISIS infiltrators among EU migrants after Paris attacks”

After the horrific recent terrorist attacks and bombings by the Islamic State, or ISIS, world leaders at the G20 summit in Turkey are not only discussing their joint response to the global threat posed by ISIS but also the supposed fear of terrorists infiltrating the stream of migrants fleeing into the EU and elsewhere. This fear was sparked by the discovery of a Syrian refugee passport found near or on the body of one suicide bomber in Paris and has led many to speculate on the danger in accepting Syrians and refugees of other nationalities, even though there are still many unanswered questions about who the passport belonged to, whether it was stolen, and other key details. 

The Most Vulnerable

EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker said in the Guardian: “We should not mix the different categories of people coming to Europe. The one responsible for the attacks in Paris…he is a criminal and not a refugee and not an asylum seeker.” At the G20 summit, President Obama said: "The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism. They are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife. They are parents. They are children. They are orphans and it is very important...that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism."

If there is no end to the Syrian civil war, the EU is predicting that as many as three million refugees will arrive in the next year. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed that more refugees be given jobs and education in the semi-permanent camps on the border of Syria to discourage them from making the dangerous journey to the EU. Poland’s new government has already stated they won’t accept the EU migrant quotas. “In the wake of the tragic events in Paris, Poland doesn’t see the political possibilities to implement a decision on the relocation of refugees,” Konrad Szymanski, the nation’s future minister for European affairs, was quoted as saying on Wpolityce.pl website. “The attacks mean there’s a need for an even deeper revision of the European policy regarding the migrant crisis.”  

Anti-Refugee Backlash

As EU leaders continue to deal with the influx of Syrian migrants, many are fearing an anti-immigrant and refugee backlash, including in Germany which has taken in the majority of Syrian refugees and has seen a dramatic surge in attacks against migrants and refugee shelters. American Muslim communities are also fearing a backlash after the Paris attacks. 

In the US meanwhile, more than twenty-five states have declared they will not accept the resettlement of Syrian refugees, even though the security vetting process can take approximately twenty-four months, and many states have yet to receive any refugees. One South Carolina town even preemptively passed a resolution against the resettlement of refugees in their county limits, even though no Syrian refugees have been resettled in the entire state. The move to not accept Syrian refugees is more symbolic, given that out of the millions fleeing their country’s civil war, only 2,000 Syrian refugees have been granted entrance to the US in the past four years; moreover, it is unclear what effect these announcements will have, since it is President Obama not state governors who “has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States.” House Republicans are also creating a task force on Syrian refugees to pursue possible legislation to "pause" the flow of refugees into the US.

Religious Test for Refugees?

In a slightly different proposal, presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz suggested that the US prioritize and accept only Christian Syrian refugees, a move which President Obama condemned. “When I hear political leaders suggesting that there should be a religious test for admitting which person fleeing which country,” Obama said in the Guardian, “when some of these folks themselves come from other countries, that’s shameful. That’s not America. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

Top 4 Myths about Immigration

Although Paul Ryan, the newly-elected House of Representatives Speaker, ruled out working with President Obama on comprehensive immigration reform, the call for reform continues, this time from Robert Reich, political economist and former labor secretary. Reich along with MoveOn.org released a short video addressing four common myths about immigration.

Myth: Immigrants Take Away American Jobs

Not true, Reich says. “Immigrants add to economic demand, and thereby push firms to create more jobs,” he says. Although Reich doesn’t cite it in the video, a study using US census data backs this claim. The report, by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, with most of these created jobs going to native workers. In addition, immigrants appear to raise “local non-tradeables sector wages” as well as attract native-born workers from elsewhere in the country.

Myth: We Don’t Need Any More Immigrants

To counter this claim, Reich ties the importance of immigration to funding for American retirees. Twenty-five years ago each retiree in America was matched by five workers. Now it’s three workers for each retiree. “Without more immigration,” Reich says, “in fifteen years the ratio will fall to two workers for every retiree, which is not nearly enough to sustain our retiring population.” More specifically, it’s estimated that undocumented immigrant workers in particular are paying an estimated $13 billion a year in social security taxes for a total of over $100 billion in the last decade.

Myth: Immigrants Are a Drain on Public Budgets

Not so, Reich says. Immigrants pay taxes. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that undocumented immigrants paid over eleven billion in state and local taxes in 2012. If comprehensive immigration reform were passed, their combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would increase by another 2.2 billion. Although a study by anti-immigration group, Center for Immigration Studies, concluded that fifty-one percent of households headed by immigrants—legal or undocumented—receive some kind of welfare, this report was criticized for its research methods, and other reports show that immigrants pay more into public benefits than they receive back.

Myth: Legal and Illegal Immigration Is Increasing

The number of undocumented immigrants living in the US has declined from 12.2 million in 2007 to 11.3 million now, according to the Pew Research Center. Other reports confirm this decrease in immigration as well.

Reich concludes: “Don’t listen to the demagogues who want to blame the economic problems of middle class and poor on new immigrants, whether here legally or illegally.” He concludes: “We need to pass comprehensive immigration reform giving those who are undocumented a path to citizenship. Scapegoating them and other immigrants is shameful. And it’s just plain wrong.”