Nation of Immigrators - A public policy blog on America’s dysfunctional immigration system

Are we a trustworthy nation?  The world waits to see if the American government becomes a deadbeat on August 2, when the debt ceiling is hit.  Will the country break faith with its creditors?  Will it stiff Social Security recipients, the ill and disabled, fallen warriors and others whose lives or fortunes depend on Uncle Sam's unflagging reliability.

The New York Times reported recently on a set of already broken American oaths. Many would-be "Special Immigrants" in Iraq who've worked for the U.S., are stranded there, facing death threats, living in stairwells, checking for car bombs underneath their vehicles, losing hope that their oft-promised yet long-delayed U.S. visas will ever arrive -- green cards that Congress ordered to be fast-tracked -- all the time chastising themselves for their gullible belief in America's words.

A letter writer commenting on the Times story bewailed our "exceptional[ly]" roguish behavior: 

What have we become? Our word means nothing now. We break our word to Iraqi friends who helped us. Do we think that those whom we’ve left dangling in the wind will remain our friends? We want to break our word on debts we’ve already accrued.

Do we think that our creditors will continue to invest in us because we are “exceptional”? . . . I despair for a country that I see becoming . . . more removed from what I once thought were our high moral standards. And a country that does not keep its word.

As these despondent Iraqis have come to realize, institutional word-breaking is endemic within the U.S. immigration ecosystem. One small example tells a tale.

Consider the H-1B visa available to nonimmigrant workers in "specialty occupations" who possess at least a university sheepskin or its equivalent in the workaday world.  For those who prefer their learning via chart rather than text, click here; otherwise, read the following indented paragraphs:

This visa started life in 1952 as the H-1 for employees of "distinguished merit and ability" -- a term later interpreted to refer to degreed or degree-equivalent "professionals." In 1990, however, Congress rebranded the visa the H-1B and added an array of worker protections to be enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL), including a requirement that foreign citizens in H-1B status receive at least the going rate (the "prevailing wage") in the local area. The process was designed to be speedy.  It would be "attestation-driven" with penalties applied only later if DOL were to investigate a complaint and find that an employer had violated the worker-protection duties of the law.  The employer's attestation, in the form of promises that must be kept, is made under oath on a form known as a "Labor Condition Application," or LCA. 

The DOL is obliged to "certify" an LCA unless it is "incomplete" or "obviously inaccurate."  The employer then submits the certified LCA to an agency of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), together with a work-visa petition. USCIS then determines if the job and the worker qualify as "specialty occupations," meaning that the job requires and the individual possesses that combination of theoretical and practical knowledge typically gained in a baccalaureate program or through equivalent work experience. Thus, the DOL protects H-1B workers, while USCIS confirms visa eligibility.  All was well with the world, or so we thought . . .

Because the prevailing wage is defined by geography (usually the wage considered prevalent in a particular metropolitan area), the DOL maintains listings of prevailing wages for locales around the country.  If an employer learns of an unforeseen business need to dispatch an H-1B worker to a worksite not listed in the LCA, the DOL requires the employer to file a new LCA and obtain DOL's certification.

USCIS's H-1B regulations, however, do not expressly require employers to submit a new or amended visa petition when the change merely involves a job relocation.  After all, there'd be no reason, in principle, why such a filing would be necessary, since the employee and the job itself would not have changed.  Both would still be the very same specialty occupations that USCIS had already screened and approved. 

To be sure, at one point in 1998, USCIS's predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), had proposed a rule that an amended petition be filed for such job changes, but never took final action.  Instead, INS twice issued policy guidance, the Hogan and Aleinikoff memos, that each confirmed there is no need to report such changes unless the change invalidated the LCA.  The problem for INS and now USCIS, however, is that the DOL regulations do not prescribe any situations which invalidate an LCA.  Under DOL rules, an LCA may only be withdrawn by the employer or allowed to expire.

The view that a "geographic move" by an H-1B worker is not a material change (presumably because such a move does not by itself invalidate the associated LCA) was then confirmed by a senior USCIS official, Efren Hernandez III, Director of the agency's Business and Trade Branch, in 2003 correspondence to the American Council for International Personnel.

Now comes the institutional word-breaking.  Recently, USCIS has begun to rule in numerous individual cases that the employer's failure to amend the H-1B petition (something only the employer can do) and secure the agency's okay for a worker's change of job location means that the H-1B worker -- merely by following her employer's instructions to appear at a new worksite -- has violated nonimmigrant status.  Failing to maintain status is no small matter.  It is a violation of law that can lead to the worker's and her family's removal from the United States and banishment for at least five years.  It can also cause the employer to be charged with continuing to employ the worker while knowing that the right to work has been terminated -- a felony  -- unless the employer immediately fires the worker. 

The bitter irony here is that by relying on the USCIS to keep its word the guileless, relocated worker (the supposed "beneficiary" of H-1B labor protections) and the trusting employer have been placed into a cauldron of hot immigration water. Also ironic is the notion that serious thought is given to "Rewarding Employers Who Play by the Rules," as the Migration Policy Institute recommends, when the agency conferring the reward has systematically failed to publish intelligible rules of play.

How could this happen?  Four plausible theories come to mind:

1. Failure to publish a final rule.  Legacy INS and its successor, USCIS, must be greater believers in "The Secret" (visualize intention and it will manifest) than in the notice-and-comment prescripts of the Administrative Procedures Act.  Just because the agencies float an idea publicly does not make it binding law.
2. Ignorance of DOL regulations.  When Messrs. Hogan and Aleinikoff issued policy guidance, it seems no one bothered to study the DOL regulations.  Had they done so, they would have understood that LCAs can never be "invalidated." Hence, they would not have referred to the "invalidation" of the LCA, but would have at least expressly stated in policy guidance (or better yet in a final regulation) that an H-1B worker's change in work site from one metropolitan area to another requires the filing of an amended H-1B petition.
3. Writing a letter does not make the letter binding law. USCIS and INS know the rules of procedure and precedent.  They should not have allowed the release of informal, non-binding letters that can only serve to mislead stakeholders.
4. USCIS's creeping mission.  As armies of USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security ("FDNS") investigators and contractors performing "site visits" have appeared at business doorsteps nationwide, some learned that the H-1B worker whose file was to be audited had moved to another job site.  To an unschooled investigator (see # 2 above), this "suspicious" conduct looks like either fraud or a technical violation of the H-1B rules (even if the employer proffers an LCA covering the new worksite). 

None of these reasons justify indifference to the unpaid debts of promises unkept.  The poet, Robert Service, whose surname is what USCIS should be all about, said: "A promise made is a debt unpaid." USCIS should heed the poet's wisdom and put "Services" rightly back into its own name by promptly paying its debts to the stranded Iraqis endangered by American loyalty and by repairing the damage it has caused to relocated H-1B workers and their employers falsely accused of violating U.S. immigration law.

Credibility is the cornerstone of reputation.  That's why, despite the shock and awe that regular readers of NationOfImmigrators.com may experience, this blogger (who sees immigration dysfunction virtually everywhere, especially under the Obama Administration) now heartily applauds recent actions of two immigration agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services). 

As suggested below and in a Bender's Immigration Bulletin Podcast I recorded on June 18 at the 2011 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) annual conference in San Diego, Directors, Alejandro Mayorkas of USCIS and John Morton of ICE, as well as the President and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, must be commended for taking significant steps to improve the administration of immigration justice (and along the way help the economy).

Mr. Mayorkas, to a far greater degree than any USCIS Director or legacy INS Commissioner in the last 30 years, expresses sincere respect for the rule of law.  He understands and requires compliance with the obligation of his agency's personnel to apply statutory immigration law in good faith as written and adhere to precedent decisions and national policies.   Mr. Mayorkas has brought the dispassion and intelligence of a lawyers' lawyer to USCIS, making changes based on reason and law, without favoring any person or interest, and committing to a policy of justice and equality of treatment and access.  (For any who may doubt or challenge my assertion, check out two sessions of the AILA conference in which Mr. Mayorkas offered his views [CD Nos. 17 & 86, purchase required]. If you think I routinely gush over the statements of USCIS officials at AILA conferences, disabuse yourself by checking out this prior rant.])

Mr. Morton -- despite a vote of no confidence by the ICE labor union -- has chosen to exercise leadership.  He has released two significant policy memos encouraging his officers to exercise  prosecutorial discretion, based on a 19-factor analysis, in favor of low-priority immigration violators and victims and witnesses of crime, and against perpetrators of violence and other serious felonies.

Most immigrants' rights groups chastised Mr. Morton, however, for not having gone far enough.  They attack ICE for not surrendering on the star-crossed program known as Secure Communities that has ensnared and deported far more petty immigration violators than hardened criminals. 

On the other hand, the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center and AILA, the national immigration bar association, have lauded the new prosecutorial-discretion (PD) memos as positive moves.  They argue persuasively that in the absence of comprehensive immigration reforms which would align America's broken and wobbly immigration system with our national interests, and in an era of limited resources, the memos reflect a leadership decision to apply "smart enforcement" policies.  Smart enforcement, as the memos articulate, ensures that ICE's officers on the ground make individualized determinations of eligibility for prosecutorial discretion. 

Noncitizens whose personal circumstances, immigration history and foreseeable path to legal status cause them to rank low on the enforcement-priorities list -- the memos declare -- should be given deferred action.  Deferred action, in turn, makes them eligible for a work permit.  On the other side of the PD equation, individuals with particularly unsavory backgrounds or with rap sheets suggesting that they are dangerous to the communities should be fast-tracked on the due-process train headed for a removal hearing.  (One less understood but welcome aspect of the memos is that now an ICE attorney can set aside any Notice to Appear that he or she determines would involve an individual who is better suited for deferred action than a removal hearing, thereby freeing up precious judicial and executive resources to remove highly undesirable or dangerous noncitizens.)

Despite the deserving plaudits at the top of USCIS and ICE, it remains to be seen whether these interim, though important, initiatives will bear fruit.  Will the line officers and supervisors of each agency embrace their leaders' moves?  Or, as is perhaps more likely, will they engage in passive-aggressive behavior, palace intrigue and heel-dragging? 

Given the ICE union's condemnation of Mr. Morton and his policy memos (and their probable unwillingness to excersise conscientious compassion), as well as the resistance of some within USCIS to Mr. Mayorkas' commitment to the rule of law, the stakeholder community must apply its own leverage.  Here are a few things insiders and outsiders can and should do:

1. What Get's Measured and Rewarded Gets Done.  ICE must take steps to collect metrics on requests for prosecutorial discretion and individual ICE officer decisions.  The agency must make sure that it receives sufficient raw data to determine whether decisions on discretion align with ICE's national enforcement priorities.  For officers who persist in repeatedly routing objectively deserving cases to the immigration courts rather than to deferred action status, appropriate warnings and discipline should ensue.  Those, however, who instead apply the PD policy within its spirit and letter should receive ICE's approbation and career promotion. 
2. The Sunlight Brand of Disinfectant. DREAM Act supporters and others with favorable immigration equities should mount a grass-roots campaign to pressure ICE to publish meaningful data on the agency's actual exercise of prosecutorial discretion or enforcement.  To make this happen, community-based organizations (CBOs) should campaign to encourage individuals requesting prosecutorial discretion to waive personal privacy over key data fields that correspond with the worthy and adverse factors in their individual cases. If such waivers are coupled with the requesting parties' insistence that the decisions be released, then CBOs, the public and the media would know whether or not the PD policy is working. Congress can also make sure through its oversight function that reliable data is made available for all to see.
3. USCIS Must Issue Its Own PD memos. ICE holds no monopoly on discretion.  As legacy INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner, made clear in 2000, immigration adjudicators also have power to show leniency in deserving cases.  Mr. Mayorkas should formally instruct all USCIS officials that they too will be held accountable if they waste precious resources issuing burdensome requests for evidence and notices of intention to revoke or deny petitions or applications where a wise exercise of discretion under existing USCIS regulations would otherwise fairly resolve the case.  There should be no more spitting-on-the-sidewalk rulings placing otherwise law-abiding foreign citizens "out-of-status" who seek immigration benefits. A fairly administered PD policy could create immigration miracle cures that allow USCIS to forgive minor visa missteps.
4. You Get What You Pay For. Immigration notarios and unlicensed consultants (notwithstanding the commendable federal campaign to eradicate them) will no doubt continue to harm unrepresented immigrants by claiming that prosecutorial discretion is the new way to obtain work permission. Because there is no government form to request PD, however, the myriad immigration form-preparer outfits cannot legally represent persons seeking PD.  Only "accredited representatives" and lawyers in good standing may do so.  The business and nonprofit communities should therefore provide funding to lawyers (in compliance with ethics rules) so that well-documented and deserving PD requests with a good chance of success are submitted. Employers and labor unions who have tussled of late over the Obama Administration's "silent raid" policy should instead cooperate and identify/assist loyal and deserving workers with legal-fee-subsidized PD requests. 
5. Oppose Hypocrisy.  PD is not "back-door amnesty." No doubt House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith dislikes eating the words he wrote in 1999: "The principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established."  He also knows that the votes are not there to roll back smart enforcement or override an assured Presidential veto of any such measure.  Don't let Rep. Smith and his ilk get away with any false claims or ill-advised policy reversals.
6. Oppose Hate.  Immigration restrictionists are not pleased with the PD memos and will do whatever they can to attack any discernible trend to exercise discretion favorably.  The antidote to hate is the telling of truthful narratives by deserving persons who are allowed through PD to pursue, however tentatively, the American Dream. So, stakeholders, tell the truthful stories of honest people striving for a chance to make it in America and allow prosecutorial discretion to flourish. 

* * *

At least until our politicians begin to act like leaders who value country over power, let us hope that the new memos and the new direction signaled by DHS allow a meaningful chance for American justice to prevail against the insensate mob. 

The sage of the current age, Wikipedia, defines the term "nonmaleficence" -- from the Latin primum non nocere -- as a principle of medical ethics, one that in my view is equally applicable to the immigration sphere.  The princple holds that "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." Nonmaleficence comes to mind with the recurrence of an old controversy (largely out of public view) which, if its proponents win the day, could badly batter America's economy at a time when too many of our citizens are still reeling from the crash of 2008.  

The fight involves a "gallimaufry of foreign citizens" whom I listed in a 2000 article, "The Incredible Rightness of B-ing," including "truck drivers, tailors, computer professionals, missionaries, household workers, trainees, medical students, yachting crews, executives, seminar attendees, investors, athletes, corporate directors, plaintiffs, defendants, and expert witnesses."

They are not characters in search of an author, like the "lost souls in the Pirandello play." No, the members of this motley crew are all categorized as "business visitors" under U.S. immigration regulations and State Department guidance. Together with tourists, these soujourners from abroad comprise the "B" visitor visa category, and are also admitted as entrants to the U.S. with the designations "WB" (Waiver Business) and "WT" (Waiver Tourist) under the Visa Waiver Permanent Program.

In the 21st Century's first decade, however, visa hassles, security screens, faraway locations for consular interviews and other government-induced frustrations, have dissuaded legions of foreign visitors from coming to the U.S. and thus caused the loss to our economy of more than a half trillion dollars and 441,000 jobs, according to a Feb. 2010 report by Oxford Economics and the U.S. Travel Association ("The Lost Decade: The High Costs of America’s Failure to Compete for International Travel"). The problem continues in the second decade, as recent cyberspace postings (here, here, and here) attest.

Now Sen. Charles Grassley, a legislator on a vendetta to restrict legal immigration, has taken a swipe at a highly useful subcategory of business visitor, known in the arcane argot of immigration as the "B-1 in lieu of H-1" ("BiloH," for short).   In a letter to Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano (of State and Homeland Security, respectively), Sen. Grassley insists that the BiloH be eliminated as a lawful means of entry to the United States.  To understand his gripe, readers should first consider the longstanding interpretation of the BiloH here originating from the legacy agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), or this helpful explanation from the U.S. Embassy (Mumbai):

Any person holding a B1 or B1/B2 visa may be eligible to perform H-1B work in the United States as long as they fulfill the following criteria:

* Hold the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree

* Plan to perform H-1B-caliber work or training

* Will be paid only by their foreign employer, except reimbursement of incidental travel costs such as housing and per diem. The employee must not receive any salary from a U.S. source.

* The task can be accomplished in a short period of time.

Sen. Grassley voices concern, based on unproven allegations yet to be litigated, that the BiloH is being "abused" by multinationals to circumvent "the annual caps and prevailing wage requirements of the H-1B visa program" while "defy[ing] the intent of Congress."  

For newcomers to immigration, the labor protections of the H-1B visa category to which the Senator refers were first introduced with the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) -- a law that made no change to the visitor classifications or to the preexisting BiloH subcategory. As readers of this blog know, the H-1B category for workers in specialty occupations holding at least a bachelor's degree or the equivalent involves a convuluted process that only a bureacrat or pol could love.  In the years since 1990, the annual H-1B numerical quota has run out early several times, and businesses had to give up on otherwise lucrative projects because qualified workers with the needed education and skills could not be found domestically or imported until the next year's quota allotment.

In 1993, however, INS and the State Department tried to eliminate the BiloH and impose added restrictions on visitor visas, 58 Fed. Reg. 58982 (proposed November 5, 1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 40024 (proposed July 26, 1993).  Their proposals faced a storm of opposition and were never finalized.  Those opposed to eliminating the BiloH challenged the agencies' assertion, now resurrected by Sen. Grassley, that in passing new requirements on the H-1B in IMMACT, Congress must have intended (albeit silently) to eliminate the BiloH. 

Opponents, including this blogger, argued at the time that Congress must have wanted the BiloH to continue in use.  We maintained that the BiloH acts as a safety valve in situations where there is no U.S. job of an enduring nature to fill -- just a short term project that will go away before long.  This is in keeping with the agencies' view of the business visitor classification as a temporary "catch-all" category covering a wide array of commercial activities that are no threat to U.S. workers.

As even the most confirmed Luddite would be forced to admit, globalization has transformed the U.S. economy since 1993.  Thus, the importance of facilitating the entry of business visitors is even more important today than in decades past.  Regrettably, however, the State Department has responded to Sen. Grassley by rolling over.  Joseph E. Macmanus, State's Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, in a letter, replied that State is working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to "remove . . . or substantially modify . . . [the BiloH]," but this "may require Federal Register notice."

No kidding that Federal Register notice would be required.  But not just notice; how about an opportunity to comment, as well?  We've seen this pattern all too often before.  Sen. Grassley complains about a perceived abuse and the agencies cower in fear and obsequiousness -- without regard to the facts, or the legal merits of his asserted concern. If State and DHS can't stand the heat then perhaps a cabinet-level Department with a mandate to espouse immigration and thereby promote our economic interests should utter the nonmaleficence principle in plain English:  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 

I'm no fan of the U.S. Department of State's policies and actions in the immigration space.  State's approach, as manifested by the behavior of U.S. consular officers and the apparatchiks within the Visa Office at the Bureau of Consular Affairs, too often comes off as a mix of treacly haughtiness and callous indifference.

These Ugly American attributes are the foreseeable consequence of the grant of unbridled power. Straight-shooters call this power "consular absolutism" while the decorous dub it "consular nonreviewability." First established as a temporary, war-time measure in 1918 and then incorporated into current law by a McCarthy-era Congress that overrode President Truman's veto in 1952, the power of a single consular officer to determine the facts and refuse a U.S. visa cannot be overruled; not by the courts, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State or the President.

To be sure, sometimes State does the right thing.  Kudos to Hillary Clinton for using the immigration law to promote U.S. foreign policy objectives, as she did recently in allowing consuls to grant Iranian students multiple-entry two year visas, thereby supporting the Iranian people over their goverment. At other times, however, State stumbles and the hopes of countless innocent folks crash. Consider, for example, State's recent flubbing of the visa lottery selection process. Other pratfalls happen all too often, none more noticeably than missteps advertised in a much-watched State online resource, the Visa Bulletin.  Obscure to most Americans, the Bulletin tells watchfully waiting immigrants and their sponsors (American families and firms) how much or little, if at all, the "cut-off date" on the immigrant visa (green card) quota will move forward in the next month. 

The movement of the immigrant visa quota is less a math formula than a guesstimate.  A well-intentioned and competent State Department official analyzes reports of immigrant visa usage by consular officers (this is the easy, mathematical part), then grapples with the hard part -- the unpredictable flows of green-card issuance data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- and then tries to estimate the rate and volume of future USCIS grants of green cards (adjustments of status, or AOS).  The problem is that AOS grants are approved at several locations (the USCIS regional service centers and field offices and the courtrooms of the DOJ's Immigration Judges). 

Although Congress contemplates a FIFO (first-in, first-out) quota system under Immigration and Nationality Act §203(e), seasoned observers have reason to believe that what really happens behind the scenes at USCIS is much more of a catch-as-catch-can system. AOS files are housed and distributed helter-skelter in a USCIS salt-mine storage facility in the midwest, regional service centers, ICE attorney file cabinets or shopping carts wheeled between immigration courtrooms, and USCIS field offices.  Although a recent lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction in Seattle federal court challenging the immigrant visa (IV) quota allocation system failed, apparently for reasons urged by the government, this has not stopped ever-louder public complaints.

In recent years, the quotas dramatically and unexpectedly moved backward (retrogressed) twice  -- in 2007 under the employment-based immigrant visa categories, and in January this year under the family categories -- thus adding years more to the wait.  Although this might please the anti-immigration crowd that crows about the supposed honor of doing things legally by "waiting in line" (while silently celebrating that law-abiding immigrants are kept out), it hurts American interests.  American families are needlessly separated and the ability of U.S.businesses to compete on the global stage is hamstrung, while immigrant innovations that might have been are needlessly delayed or never happen.

Much of this harm could be avoided or lessened by President Obama, and virtually all of it could be eliminated by a willing, America-first Congress.

The President could take a lesson from Disneyland and the airlines -- businesses that know something about people waiting in lines.  These businesses know that opportunities for profit and reduction of complaints can arise even while customers wait (see Disney's techniques here and here; see airlines' approaches here).

• For intending immigrants waiting abroad, President Obama could remind State and its consular corps that wannabe green card holders, despite their desire to immigrate, are still eligible under law for all manner of nonimmigrant visas, and should be granted such status liberally in deserving cases.  I'm not talking about the misnomer that many immigration agencies and uninformed immigration lawyers call "dual intent" visas, as they refer to the H-1B and L-1 temporary categories (which are more accurately described as intent-irrelevant classifications).  No I'm referring to the true dual-intent categories, such as business visitors, tourists, students, exchange visitors and trainees).  The courts and immigration precedent decisions have long ago recognized that a visa applicant or nonimmigrant entrant can have a short-term intention to enter the U.S. presently, yet harbor the desire and intent to attain green card status when and if the law and the factual circumstances so permit, as long as the individual's overriding intention is to be law-abiding.  If the person, by prior conduct in compliance with immigration law and compelling ties abroad, has an intention to immigration in the future but no intention to break the law by overstaying the period of admission or violating immigration status, then s/he has legitimate dual intent (see cases cited, FN 51).
• The President could also tighten the reigns on the State Department by instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security to exert the superior authority granted her over immigration matters abroad under the Homeland Security Act, thereby cabining any rogue behavior by State's consular officers. 
• For law-abiding nonimmigrants in the U.S., he could -- as I noted in my last post -- take executive actions that would allow early filing (but not accelerated approval) of green card applications by persons with approved immigrant visa petitions (which would allow international travel and continuing employment permission) and administratively freeze the age of minor children as of the date AOS is filed. 

Our feckless Congress -- if they truly cared about American jobs, competitiveness and deficit reduction more than political posturing and electioneering -- could also make worthy changes in our national interests:

• Congress could also accomplish legislatively all of the outcomes noted above that concurrently fall within the authority of the President.
• Congress could set an example to other countries by putting reasonable procedural due process constraints on consular officers and allowing at least meaningful administrative review and a clear right to in-person legal counsel at visa interviews and administrative hearings.
• Congress could reap significant revenue by allowing quota line-jumping for a hefty premium fee. You may say this would be unAmerican, but we already allow premium processing at USCIS and provide wealthy investors with faster access to green cards (EB-5 visas) and nonimmigrant visas (E-2 and L-1A) by tendering legal tender.  We live in a capitalist state where theatres, sports teams and concert venues sell premium seats, airlines have first class cabins, and as Ernest Hemingway astutely observed in a misquote of an F. Scott Fitzgerald line: (Fitzgerald: "The rich are different than you and me." Hemingway: "Yes, they have more money.")

If you doubt the wisdom of better customer service for immigrants, consider the following excerpt from an unsolicited email I received from a foreign citizen (whose identity will not be revealed) in response to a three-part teleconference series I'm moderating next week (Illuminating the Dark Ages: Disturbing Trends and Pleasing Solutions in Employment Based Immigration):

I tried to get some help from 11 lawyers. Not a single one accepted. One told me that being in the US was a "privilege" and not a "right". Another one warned me about any action that could irritate the immigration service. The others just answered - when they answered - by one sentence: you have no possibility because there is still two years before your priority date.

As of today, I am still struggling. Why? Because:

- I want to get back to my career

- I want to achieve a degree at the University

- I want to open a business

- I want to buy my apartment

- I have hired 15 American citizens since I am a manager in my company and I think I am not a charge for anybody in the U.S.

But as you guess, I am the only one to believe that I will succeed.

I will conclude my message here, I thought that this story could be an illustration of the precarity of people like me, and I want to mention than I had never felt such a climate of rejection, suspicion and even in some cases, hostility, until this past few months. I had always felt very happy to live in the U.S. Today, the situation has created a daily anxiety, fear for the future and feeling that I am not welcome anymore.

Thank you for your reading. 

Our government leaders often ignore elementary rules of ecology and economics when trying to grapple with America’s immigration problems.

Ecology teaches that a system cannot thrive or long function if inputs far outnumber outputs. When rainwater enters the Mississippi in a volume that exceeds the river’s carrying capacity, levees are breached, adjacent lands are flooded, and people are devastated.

Economics teaches that because we live in a world of scarce and finite resources, a more or less functioning system of resource allocation will perforce arise. Not every one of the world’s inhabitants can sport a watch made of gold when this precious metal breaches the $1,500 per ounce price point, as has occurred recently. Thus, some mode of gold-watch allocation (be it capitalism, communism, despotism or another form of wealth transfer) will inevitably surface. The same or a similar system inevitably develops to allocate food, water, clean air and the real necessities of life.

Consider then the interplay of ecology and economics as the Federal Government tries, but mostly fails, to deport foreign citizens whom Congress has declared, in a very long list, are undesirable. The process is broken and dysfunctional because ecology is ignored (many more persons are brought before immigration judges and ordered deported than actually forced to leave) and economics is given short shrift (deportation resources are not targeted to first remove the most dangerous or vile offenders).

Deportation system breakdown, like success, has multiple fathers:

• A multitude of reasons to require leaving. The grounds for deportation (or "removal," as it is technically known) range widely. Included are evildoers (such as terrorists and human predators), economic migrants (if they are without proper papers), and the unlucky or merely careless (the unfortunate, if capable, souls who are fired from a job for which a work visa had been issued; those who’ve unwittingly exceeded their required departure date by even just a day or a week; or, persons whose request for permission to stay longer than initially planned has been denied). 
• Too many ticket printers. Multiple officials within various units of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exercise authority to start the deportation process by issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA) at a removal hearing before an immigration judge (IJ). These include the Border Patrol, within Customs and Border Protection (CBP), adjudicators employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the deportation police at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Surprisingly, with CBP, USCIS and ICE all issuing NTAs, there are no published statistics, by issuing authority, on the numbers or percentage of newly opened immigration cases destined to appear before the immigration courts. This is a case of the left hand, the right hand and the other right hand not knowing what their counterparts are doing.
• No bouncers. DHS has not established an orderly and intelligently-designed system to determine the integrity and propriety of each NTA that has been issued.  No designated official systematically decides which NTAs should or must be filed with the immigration court, and which ought be held in abeyance or disposed of in one of several non-judicial ways. (Almost every NTA, although styled as a "notice to appear" before a judge, contains no courtroom and date certain for the convening of a removal hearing. Instead, the document states factual allegations and legal grounds for removal and tells the person receiving it that the date and place of hearing will be announced in a future notice.) The system as presently operated requires no formal screening of NTAs to determine whether each is legally justified and sufficiently serious to warrant a hearing before a judge, potential incarceration, appellate review, and actually-enforced removal from this country. Clearly, some NTAs should be rejected. Why schedule an IJ hearing for a more-than-six-months, less-than-a-year overstay who can avoid the blotch of removal and a three-year-bar to reentry by complying with an administrative order of voluntary departure? Why waste an IJ’s time if the obvious resolution is to let time pass and await the individual’s turn in the green-card queue?
• No ushers. Only a finite number of NTAs can be processed to the point of actually removing the person to his or her country of origin. This is not just an example of the theoretical principle of prosecutorial discretion. It is a rational system of ecological management (refraining from flooding the system beyond its carrying capacity) and economic realism (allocating scarce resources of money, time and energy to process only the most compelling cases for actual removal). 
• Too few referees with too little power. Without appointing more IJs (and providing other required resources, like courtrooms, detention facilities, interpreters, law clerks, etc.) the over-issuance and over-filing of NTAs with the courts create the reality of assembly-line (in)justice and the illusion that the removal laws are carried out. Either the IJs should be given more authority to terminate proceedings where NTAs are improvidently issued or grounds for relief from removal are best handled outside the immigration courts, or, Congress must allocate sufficient judicial resources to accommodate the flood of NTAs.

* * *

Our federal lawmakers and the Obama Administration need to be told by Progressives, Tea Partiers, frugal independents and traditional partisans that the innumerable NTAs and outstanding but unfulfilled orders of removal flooding our deportation system mock both the duty to make and execute the laws faithfully, and proven principles of ecology and economics. We simply cannot and should not deport everyone for whom a technical ground of deportation can be cited. Some we should allow to stay, because they exemplify our values and their presence enriches us. Others who are really bad must go. A wise polity knows and acts on the difference.