Washington Watch

Posted on: November 29th, 2017
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPrint this page

White House Proposes Strict Immigration Reform Policy

The White House released a list of requests related to immigration policies, described by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as the most radical policy proposals it has seen to date.  Hispanic Caucus Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham went to far as to identify these proposed changes as, “Even before I got to Congress, [the worst] I have ever seen by any White House, ever.”

Included in the requests was a demand that federal funding be withheld from “sanctuary cities,” areas which support the rights of immigrants, providing funding for legal support in court or denying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from detaining individuals. Another essential aspect of the demands was funding for the construction of a southern border wall. This is an issue which was a platform for Trump when running for office, and has been a point of emphasis throughout his first year in office. Another request included was mandatory inadmissibility for individuals with specific criminal accusations. Though the current immigration system would disqualify individuals with certain criminal convictions, the proposed policy would apply to individuals who are merely accused of involvement in such criminal activity. The violations specified included identity theft, drunk driving, certain firearm offenses, and gang activity. The policy change request also called for mandating the E-Verify program in order to ensure that employment for any illegal immigrant would be impossible. The program is a record of Social Security numbers and visa records which employers can reference to determine the legal status of a prospective employee. Among the requests was also a call to ensure the speedy return of unaccompanied minors to their countries of origin. This is in opposition to the current practice of waiting for these children’s refugee or asylum cases to be processed before making a judgment to force their return.

For more information, view the full article.

Back | Index | Next

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.