By Oscar Gil-Garcia*&nbsp;

 
For more than a decade, I documented one man&rsquo;s deportation, the impact on his family and his eventual return to the U.S.

I did this as part of my work studying the migration of indigenous Mayan refugees from Guatemala to Mexico and the U.S. My telling of the story of this man, who I&rsquo;ll call Alex to protect his identity, is forthcoming in the journal Representations. I believe it can help shed light on the human consequences of deportations and family separations &ndash; and the enormous risks deportees are willing to take, irrespective of walls, fences, and the danger of reuniting with their families.

Here is Alex&rsquo;s story.

An immigration raid

Alex was born in a refugee settlement in Chiapas, Mexico. His family is one of more than 200,000 Guatemalans who fled a protracted war, supported by the U.S. and its allies, that largely targeted the indigenous people in Guatemala. In Mexico, barriers to legal status barred refugees from formal employment. To improve his family&rsquo;s situation, he decided to enter the U.S. through a human smuggler, often referred to as a &ldquo;coyote,&rdquo; in 2000. He worked at a meatpacking plant and sent money to support his parents in Mexico.

Two years later, Alex fell in love with his wife, who we&rsquo;ll refer to as Grace, a Guatemalan national. Grace arrived in the U.S. in 1999, also with the help of a coyote, to join her parents who enrolled her in elementary school. Grace too was smitten, and in 2002 she decided to forgo her high school senior year to be with Alex. One year later, Grace gave birth to their first child.

In December of 2006, Alex was deported, without a hearing &ndash; a violation of international human rights law &ndash; in one of the largest immigration raids in U.S. history. He was separated from his wife and 3-year-old child. Family separation due to deportation is common. It is also a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. Article 17 of the Convention, signed by the U.S. in 1969, states: &ldquo;The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.&rdquo; The statement of this principle underscores how deportation violates one of the fundamental rights protected by the Convention &ndash; the rights of the family.

Back in Mexico, Alex faced a lack of job opportunities, compounded by racial discrimination toward indigenous peoples. Meanwhile, Grace, faced economic instability in the U.S. without Alex&rsquo;s income. Even so, she advised Alex to stay in Mexico, due to her fear of more raids and concern over increased criminalization to punish unauthorized migration. In addition, under enforcement priorities initiated under George W. Bush, unlawful entry and re-entry would initiate a new era in the criminalization of migration that involved the creation of new classes of &ldquo;felonies&rdquo; that apply only to noncitizens.

Six months later, Alex&rsquo;s wife and their son joined him in Chiapas, Mexico &ndash; becoming what are often referred to as &ldquo;de facto&rdquo; deportees. Studies have identified how deportees face stigma and discrimination upon return. National origins, language abilities and presumptions of why one was deported can become significant factors in the reintegration to home countries or the countries of spouses or parents. For example, Grace is a Guatemalan national and could not seek legal employment in Mexico.

Despite their reunification, Alex&rsquo;s family continued to face significant hardships in Mexico. Alex&rsquo;s friend, a coyote, informed him that he could make a livable wage working as a coyote and stay close to his family. Alex decided to explore this alternative.&nbsp;

Clandestine migration

Alex&rsquo;s participation in a human smuggling network came with enormous risks. One day, for example, armed bandits surrounded a group of migrants he was leading across the U.S.-Mexico border and confiscated their belongings. Alex ran into the desert bush and escaped to the U.S. side of the border.

After a night in the desert without food or water, Alex returned to Mexico. He later learned that the bandits had taken the migrants hostage, but that they were released after relatives in the U.S. paid an undisclosed ransom. Alex returned home and informed his wife and parents of the incident. All insisted that he no longer continue to work as a coyote.

A large body of research documents how the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border has led to a militarization and reorganization of drug trafficking organizations. Drug cartels can interfere with smuggling networks, making migrants even more vulnerable to assault or being forced to transport drugs. Scholar Laura Ortiz argues that the increased participation of imposter coyotes, who recruit migrants only to extort them, has helped reinforce dominant perceptions of smuggling as intertwined with drug trafficking. Despite this dominant perception, scholar Sim&oacute;n Pedro Izcara Palacios argues that human smuggling and drug trafficking are operated by different groups. Drug cartels are not directly involved with human smuggling, but instead extort fees from human smugglers. Indeed, Alex identified how cartels pressured smugglers to pay a user&rsquo;s fee for crossing the Sonora-Arizona border. Failure to pay can result in violence.

The risk of violence in coyote work, along with an absence of viable job opportunities in Chiapas, prompted Alex and his wife, now with four children, to make arrangements to join other family in the U.S. in 2015. Although Grace&rsquo;s father is a U.S. permanent resident, he could not sponsor them through what politicians refer to as &ldquo;chain migration&rdquo; because he failed to meet annual income criteria - no less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level. Without legal options, Alex paid US$3,500 to a fellow coyote to take his wife and children over the border. This coyote successfully led them to a location on the Sonora-Arizona border where U.S. immigration officials at the time captured and later released migrants.

Grace and her children turned themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol. Because of new legal protections for families and children in the U.S., Grace and her children were released following one night in detention. The U.S. government filed removal proceedings; and to provide an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge to adjudicate her case, Grace and her children received deportation relief.

To help finance his family&rsquo;s crossing, Alex decided to make a final clandestine crossing with eight migrants in the Sonora&ndash;Arizona corridor. Hours after beginning their journey, heavily armed men captured and held them hostage in a secluded building. A ransom was requested from U.S. kin of every migrant. Despite Grace&rsquo;s offer to pay the ransom for his release, his captors refused. Instead, Alex remained captive for several weeks and was physically tortured.

Eventually, he escaped his captors, but was stuck in the desert again. Without food or water, he turned himself in to U.S. Border Patrol agents who documented the physical wounds he sustained from his prolonged torture and placed him in detention.&nbsp;

Few options

Alex&rsquo;s previous unauthorized entry prompted what&rsquo;s called a &ldquo;reinstatement of removal,&rdquo; a provision under the 1996 immigration reform that re-established the order of removal from 2006. At the request of his family, I located and covered the cost of an attorney. Because Alex expressed a well-founded fear of persecution or torture upon return to Mexico, his attorney advised him to apply for either a &ldquo;withholding of removal,&rdquo; or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, neither of these remedies offer a path to permanent resident status.

Additionally, the application would have required that Alex remain in detention &ndash; potentially six months to a year &ndash; during the adjudication of his case. Scholars have noted how prolonged detention can exacerbate post-traumatic stress and other harms that asylum seekers and their families may have suffered in their own countries. Others have identified how prolonged detention compromises due process protections that violate international human rights law and coerce migrants into surrendering to deportation. Several have identified how deportations can be tantamount to a death sentence.

His family feared that he too may be killed following deportation and begged him to permit the attorney to adjudicate his case. Alex weighed his options and declined legal counsel. Following the end of his sentence and deportation, he returned to Chiapas. Within a month he made arrangements with another coyote and paid $7,000 to cross via the Chihuahua-Texas border. Like most who attempt re-entry following an apprehension, he succeeded, and is now reunited with his wife and children in the U.S.&nbsp;

Family reunification

Alex says he never wanted to be a coyote. His story provides an opportunity to understand the complex motivations that fuel unauthorized re-entry of deportee parents with family in the U.S. A 2009 Department of Homeland Security report states that 21 percent of re-entries are those without a U.S.-born child, while more than one-third of re-entries are parents of U.S. citizen children. Scholars have also shown how deportees like Alex, who are separated from families in the U.S., are more likely to migrate again than those without family ties.

As the nation considers reforming immigration policy, it is important to remember that deterrence strategies are ineffective in reducing the intention to migrate, particularly among those with family in the U.S. Walls or even detention cells are no match for those with direct experience with crime and violence who have credible fear claims and those separated from their families in the U.S.

In 2017, two years after Alex&rsquo;s family&rsquo;s reunification in the U.S., Grace appeared in court for her immigration hearing. The immigration judge filed an order of removal. Like other returnees and recent unauthorized arrivals, both now face the threat of deportation. Until international protocols on the protection of migrants and their families are upheld, the U.S. will continue producing unauthorized persons or families who are at risk of deportation for years to come.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

* Oscar Gil-Garcia is an Assistant Professor &nbsp;in Binghamton University, State University of New York

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

While the U.S. considers reforming of immigration policy, it is important to remember that deterrence strategies are ineffective in reducing the intention to migrate, particularly among those with family in the U.S.

By Oscar Gil-Garcia* For more than a decade, I documented one man’s deportation, the impact on his family and his eventual return to the U.S. I did this as part of my work studying the migration of indigenous Mayan refugees from Guatemala to Mexico and the U.S. My telling of the story of this man, who I’ll call Alex to protect his identity, is forthcoming in the journal Representations. I believe it can help shed light on the human consequences of deportations and family separations – and the enormous risks deportees are willing to take, irrespective of walls, fences, and the danger of reuniting with their families. Here is Alex’s story. An immigration raid Alex was born in a refugee settlement in Chiapas, Mexico. His family is one of more than 200,000 Guatemalans who fled a protracted war, supported by the U.S. and its allies, that largely targeted the indigenous people in Guatemala. In Mexico, barriers to legal status barred refugees from formal employment. To improve his family’s situation, he decided to enter the U.S. through a human smuggler, often referred to as a “coyote,” in 2000. He worked at a meatpacking plant and sent money to support his parents in Mexico. Two years later, Alex fell in love with his wife, who we’ll refer to as Grace, a Guatemalan national. Grace arrived in the U.S. in 1999, also with the help of a coyote, to join her parents who enrolled her in elementary school. Grace too was smitten, and in 2002 she decided to forgo her high school senior year to be with Alex. One year later, Grace gave birth to their first child. In December of 2006, Alex was deported, without a hearing – a violation of international human rights law – in one of the largest immigration raids in U.S. history. He was separated from his wife and 3-year-old child. Family separation due to deportation is common. It is also a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. Article 17 of the Convention, signed by the U.S. in 1969, states: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” The statement of this principle underscores how deportation violates one of the fundamental rights protected by the Convention – the rights of the family. Back in Mexico, Alex faced a lack of job opportunities, compounded by racial discrimination toward indigenous peoples. Meanwhile, Grace, faced economic instability in the U.S. without Alex’s income. Even so, she advised Alex to stay in Mexico, due to her fear of more raids and concern over increased criminalization to punish unauthorized migration. In addition, under enforcement priorities initiated under George W. Bush, unlawful entry and re-entry would initiate a new era in the criminalization of migration that involved the creation of new classes of “felonies” that apply only to noncitizens. Six months later, Alex’s wife and their son joined him in Chiapas, Mexico – becoming what are often referred to as “de facto” deportees. Studies have identified how deportees face stigma and discrimination upon return. National origins, language abilities and presumptions of why one was deported can become significant factors in the reintegration to home countries or the countries of spouses or parents. For example, Grace is a Guatemalan national and could not seek legal employment in Mexico. Despite their reunification, Alex’s family continued to face significant hardships in Mexico. Alex’s friend, a coyote, informed him that he could make a livable wage working as a coyote and stay close to his family. Alex decided to explore this alternative. Clandestine migration Alex’s participation in a human smuggling network came with enormous risks. One day, for example, armed bandits surrounded a group of migrants he was leading across the U.S.-Mexico border and confiscated their belongings. Alex ran into the desert bush and escaped to the U.S. side of the border. After a night in the desert without food or water, Alex returned to Mexico. He later learned that the bandits had taken the migrants hostage, but that they were released after relatives in the U.S. paid an undisclosed ransom. Alex returned home and informed his wife and parents of the incident. All insisted that he no longer continue to work as a coyote. A large body of research documents how the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border has led to a militarization and reorganization of drug trafficking organizations. Drug cartels can interfere with smuggling networks, making migrants even more vulnerable to assault or being forced to transport drugs. Scholar Laura Ortiz argues that the increased participation of imposter coyotes, who recruit migrants only to extort them, has helped reinforce dominant perceptions of smuggling as intertwined with drug trafficking. Despite this dominant perception, scholar Simón Pedro Izcara Palacios argues that human smuggling and drug trafficking are operated by different groups. Drug cartels are not directly involved with human smuggling, but instead extort fees from human smugglers. Indeed, Alex identified how cartels pressured smugglers to pay a user’s fee for crossing the Sonora-Arizona border. Failure to pay can result in violence. The risk of violence in coyote work, along with an absence of viable job opportunities in Chiapas, prompted Alex and his wife, now with four children, to make arrangements to join other family in the U.S. in 2015. Although Grace’s father is a U.S. permanent resident, he could not sponsor them through what politicians refer to as “chain migration” because he failed to meet annual income criteria - no less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level. Without legal options, Alex paid US$3,500 to a fellow coyote to take his wife and children over the border. This coyote successfully led them to a location on the Sonora-Arizona border where U.S. immigration officials at the time captured and later released migrants. Grace and her children turned themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol. Because of new legal protections for families and children in the U.S., Grace and her children were released following one night in detention. The U.S. government filed removal proceedings; and to provide an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge to adjudicate her case, Grace and her children received deportation relief. To help finance his family’s crossing, Alex decided to make a final clandestine crossing with eight migrants in the Sonora–Arizona corridor. Hours after beginning their journey, heavily armed men captured and held them hostage in a secluded building. A ransom was requested from U.S. kin of every migrant. Despite Grace’s offer to pay the ransom for his release, his captors refused. Instead, Alex remained captive for several weeks and was physically tortured. Eventually, he escaped his captors, but was stuck in the desert again. Without food or water, he turned himself in to U.S. Border Patrol agents who documented the physical wounds he sustained from his prolonged torture and placed him in detention. Few options Alex’s previous unauthorized entry prompted what’s called a “reinstatement of removal,” a provision under the 1996 immigration reform that re-established the order of removal from 2006. At the request of his family, I located and covered the cost of an attorney. Because Alex expressed a well-founded fear of persecution or torture upon return to Mexico, his attorney advised him to apply for either a “withholding of removal,” or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, neither of these remedies offer a path to permanent resident status. Additionally, the application would have required that Alex remain in detention – potentially six months to a year – during the adjudication of his case. Scholars have noted how prolonged detention can exacerbate post-traumatic stress and other harms that asylum seekers and their families may have suffered in their own countries. Others have identified how prolonged detention compromises due process protections that violate international human rights law and coerce migrants into surrendering to deportation. Several have identified how deportations can be tantamount to a death sentence. His family feared that he too may be killed following deportation and begged him to permit the attorney to adjudicate his case. Alex weighed his options and declined legal counsel. Following the end of his sentence and deportation, he returned to Chiapas. Within a month he made arrangements with another coyote and paid $7,000 to cross via the Chihuahua-Texas border. Like most who attempt re-entry following an apprehension, he succeeded, and is now reunited with his wife and children in the U.S. Family reunification Alex says he never wanted to be a coyote. His story provides an opportunity to understand the complex motivations that fuel unauthorized re-entry of deportee parents with family in the U.S. A 2009 Department of Homeland Security report states that 21 percent of re-entries are those without a U.S.-born child, while more than one-third of re-entries are parents of U.S. citizen children. Scholars have also shown how deportees like Alex, who are separated from families in the U.S., are more likely to migrate again than those without family ties. As the nation considers reforming immigration policy, it is important to remember that deterrence strategies are ineffective in reducing the intention to migrate, particularly among those with family in the U.S. Walls or even detention cells are no match for those with direct experience with crime and violence who have credible fear claims and those separated from their families in the U.S. In 2017, two years after Alex’s family’s reunification in the U.S., Grace appeared in court for her immigration hearing. The immigration judge filed an order of removal. Like other returnees and recent unauthorized arrivals, both now face the threat of deportation. Until international protocols on the protection of migrants and their families are upheld, the U.S. will continue producing unauthorized persons or families who are at risk of deportation for years to come. * Oscar Gil-Garcia is an Assistant Professor in Binghamton University, State University of New York (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Man struggles to help his family survive due to US immigration policies

By Kevin Johnson, Alex Reilly* and Mireille Paquet**

President Donald Trump has called for overhauling the current U.S. immigration laws. Currently, the laws give priority to providing visas for family members of people already in the U.S. Trump and his Republican colleagues want to replace this with a primarily &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; system.

To this end, Trump endorsed the RAISE Act in February 2017. Republicans, including President Trump, continue to push certain elements of it like reducing the ability of immigrants already in the country to bring in their relatives.

The RAISE Act sought to cut annual legal immigration in half, from 1 million to 500,000. It would do so by reducing the total number of family-sponsored green cards from 226,000 to 88,000. Cuts to family-based immigration would primarily affect prospective immigrants from Mexico, China and India, the three nations that today send the most immigrants to the United States.

Under the RAISE Act, immigrants admitted based on a new points system based on &ldquo;merit&rdquo; would make up a majority of those who receive green cards. Visa applicants would earn points for higher paid job offers, English-language proficiency, advanced degrees, and the ability to make investments of more than US$1 million in the United States.

Reducing legal immigration will likely increase the pressures for undocumented immigration. Right now, there are already roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. A merit-based system will mean fewer families are able to be reunited with loved ones through legal immigration. It also will not address the high demand in the United States for low- and medium-skilled workers in the agricultural, construction and service industries, which currently employs many undocumented immigrants.

In Australia, half of all skilled migrants are actually family members of skilled migrants 

In 2015-16, Australia accepted 189,770 permanent migrants through its skilled and family immigration streams. In addition, Australia permanently resettled just under 18,000 refugees and other humanitarian migrants. This has been the level of migration to Australia for more than 10 years, adding nearly 1 percent to the Australian population of 24 million every year. This is a considerably larger proportion than the U.S. admits through its migration programs.

Twenty years ago, more migrants came through the family stream than the employer stream. By 2015-16, however, 67.7 percent of migrants came through the skilled stream. This change is a direct result of government policy prioritizing skilled migration because of its contribution to the economy.

However, these figures are deceptive, as numbers in the skilled migration stream include partners and dependents of primary applicants. So approximately half of all skilled migrants are actually family members of skilled migrants who do not have to meet the eligibility requirements of the primary applicant.

There are two pathways for skilled migration. The first, general skilled migration, requires applicants to work in an eligible skilled occupation. Most of these skills are in professional areas such as medicine or engineering, or trades in demand in the economy such as plumbers and electricians. The list is updated regularly based on an assessment of Australia&rsquo;s economic needs.

Visas for this group are awarded on a points system similar to what is being proposed in the U.S. Points are awarded for age, English-language proficiency, skilled employment outside Australia, skilled employment in Australia and qualifications that are linked to occupations on the skilled occupation list. There are also points available for an Australian education, being accredited in a community language, studying in regional Australia, partner qualifications and completing a professional year in Australia. Although migrants in this skilled stream are highly qualified, they do not necessarily find employment in their area of expertise and many remain underemployed.

The second pathway is for skilled migrants with an employer sponsor. This pathway is open to migrants with wider range of skills and has the advantage of migrants being in guaranteed employment when they first arrive in Australia. Employers must demonstrate that they have a skilled position available, and that there are no Australians willing or able to take up the position. This requires employers to have advertised jobs locally before seeking migrants to do the work.

Almost all employer-sponsored migrants apply from within Australia, and 44 percent of independent skilled migrants also apply from within Australia, transitioning from temporary work, international student and working holiday maker visas. This reflects the very high number of temporary migrants working and studying on these visas in Australia &ndash; 750,000 in December 2016.

The economic stream accounted for about 60 percent of the total permanent immigration to Canada with 24 percent family immigration.&nbsp; &nbsp;

In 2015-2016, Canada admitted 271,845 permanent immigrants. Canada&rsquo;s permanent migration inflows resemble those of Australia but are generally smaller than those received by the United States. Immigration is the largest contributor to population growth in Canada since the early 2000s.

The permanent immigration program is divided into three main streams: economic, family and humanitarian. The economic stream accounted for about 60 percent of the total permanent immigration to Canada in 2015-2016. Family made up 24 percent of the total immigration to the country. These proportions have remained relatively stable over the last 15 years, with economic immigration representing the largest share of those selected for permanent settlement in the countries.

The economic stream for permanent immigration is currently divided into several programs. The Federal Skilled Workers program is often used as the flagship example of Canada&rsquo;s approach to selecting immigrants in relation to their expected economic contributions. U.S. President Donald Trump has praised it on the grounds that it would create economic mobility for both native-born Americans and immigrants.

To be considered, candidates must meet baseline criteria for work experience, language proficiency in at least one of the two official languages &ndash; French or English &ndash; and education. Candidates are then assessed using a 100-point selection grid that considers factors such as education, experience, age, arranged employment in Canada and adaptability. Adaptability refers to spouse or partner language level, past work studies in Canada for the applicant and spouse or partner, and the existence of relatives in Canada.

To be eligible, a candidate must score 67 points or higher. The pool of eligible candidates are then ranked. The highest-ranking individuals receive invitations to apply for permanent residence. This system, called Express Entry, relies on a comprehensive ranking system that involves a total of 1,000 factors. The minister of immigration issues the number of invitations to be extended every month.

Despite a sophisticated assessment system, research demonstrates that immigrants to Canada still face challenges in finding jobs and achieving economic mobility in the short and medium term. Gender, race and geographic position in the country and employment sector are all factors that affect economic integration of immigrants to Canada.

* Alex Reilly is the director of the public law and policy research unit, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide, Australia

**&nbsp;Mireille Paquet **, professor of political science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US is seeking to create merit-based immigration while the rest of the world understands one based on family reunification

By Kevin Johnson, Alex Reilly* and Mireille Paquet** President Donald Trump has called for overhauling the current U.S. immigration laws. Currently, the laws give priority to providing visas for family members of people already in the U.S. Trump and his Republican colleagues want to replace this with a primarily “merit-based” system. To this end, Trump endorsed the RAISE Act in February 2017. Republicans, including President Trump, continue to push certain elements of it like reducing the ability of immigrants already in the country to bring in their relatives. The RAISE Act sought to cut annual legal immigration in half, from 1 million to 500,000. It would do so by reducing the total number of family-sponsored green cards from 226,000 to 88,000. Cuts to family-based immigration would primarily affect prospective immigrants from Mexico, China and India, the three nations that today send the most immigrants to the United States. Under the RAISE Act, immigrants admitted based on a new points system based on “merit” would make up a majority of those who receive green cards. Visa applicants would earn points for higher paid job offers, English-language proficiency, advanced degrees, and the ability to make investments of more than US$1 million in the United States. Reducing legal immigration will likely increase the pressures for undocumented immigration. Right now, there are already roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. A merit-based system will mean fewer families are able to be reunited with loved ones through legal immigration. It also will not address the high demand in the United States for low- and medium-skilled workers in the agricultural, construction and service industries, which currently employs many undocumented immigrants. In Australia, half of all skilled migrants are actually family members of skilled migrants In 2015-16, Australia accepted 189,770 permanent migrants through its skilled and family immigration streams. In addition, Australia permanently resettled just under 18,000 refugees and other humanitarian migrants. This has been the level of migration to Australia for more than 10 years, adding nearly 1 percent to the Australian population of 24 million every year. This is a considerably larger proportion than the U.S. admits through its migration programs. Twenty years ago, more migrants came through the family stream than the employer stream. By 2015-16, however, 67.7 percent of migrants came through the skilled stream. This change is a direct result of government policy prioritizing skilled migration because of its contribution to the economy. However, these figures are deceptive, as numbers in the skilled migration stream include partners and dependents of primary applicants. So approximately half of all skilled migrants are actually family members of skilled migrants who do not have to meet the eligibility requirements of the primary applicant. There are two pathways for skilled migration. The first, general skilled migration, requires applicants to work in an eligible skilled occupation. Most of these skills are in professional areas such as medicine or engineering, or trades in demand in the economy such as plumbers and electricians. The list is updated regularly based on an assessment of Australia’s economic needs. Visas for this group are awarded on a points system similar to what is being proposed in the U.S. Points are awarded for age, English-language proficiency, skilled employment outside Australia, skilled employment in Australia and qualifications that are linked to occupations on the skilled occupation list. There are also points available for an Australian education, being accredited in a community language, studying in regional Australia, partner qualifications and completing a professional year in Australia. Although migrants in this skilled stream are highly qualified, they do not necessarily find employment in their area of expertise and many remain underemployed. The second pathway is for skilled migrants with an employer sponsor. This pathway is open to migrants with wider range of skills and has the advantage of migrants being in guaranteed employment when they first arrive in Australia. Employers must demonstrate that they have a skilled position available, and that there are no Australians willing or able to take up the position. This requires employers to have advertised jobs locally before seeking migrants to do the work. Almost all employer-sponsored migrants apply from within Australia, and 44 percent of independent skilled migrants also apply from within Australia, transitioning from temporary work, international student and working holiday maker visas. This reflects the very high number of temporary migrants working and studying on these visas in Australia – 750,000 in December 2016. The economic stream accounted for about 60 percent of the total permanent immigration to Canada with 24 percent family immigration. In 2015-2016, Canada admitted 271,845 permanent immigrants. Canada’s permanent migration inflows resemble those of Australia but are generally smaller than those received by the United States. Immigration is the largest contributor to population growth in Canada since the early 2000s. The permanent immigration program is divided into three main streams: economic, family and humanitarian. The economic stream accounted for about 60 percent of the total permanent immigration to Canada in 2015-2016. Family made up 24 percent of the total immigration to the country. These proportions have remained relatively stable over the last 15 years, with economic immigration representing the largest share of those selected for permanent settlement in the countries. The economic stream for permanent immigration is currently divided into several programs. The Federal Skilled Workers program is often used as the flagship example of Canada’s approach to selecting immigrants in relation to their expected economic contributions. U.S. President Donald Trump has praised it on the grounds that it would create economic mobility for both native-born Americans and immigrants. To be considered, candidates must meet baseline criteria for work experience, language proficiency in at least one of the two official languages – French or English – and education. Candidates are then assessed using a 100-point selection grid that considers factors such as education, experience, age, arranged employment in Canada and adaptability. Adaptability refers to spouse or partner language level, past work studies in Canada for the applicant and spouse or partner, and the existence of relatives in Canada. To be eligible, a candidate must score 67 points or higher. The pool of eligible candidates are then ranked. The highest-ranking individuals receive invitations to apply for permanent residence. This system, called Express Entry, relies on a comprehensive ranking system that involves a total of 1,000 factors. The minister of immigration issues the number of invitations to be extended every month. Despite a sophisticated assessment system, research demonstrates that immigrants to Canada still face challenges in finding jobs and achieving economic mobility in the short and medium term. Gender, race and geographic position in the country and employment sector are all factors that affect economic integration of immigrants to Canada. * Alex Reilly is the director of the public law and policy research unit, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide, Australia ** Mireille Paquet **, professor of political science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: India will one of the worst affected by Trump's merit-based immigration

An Indian man who fled persecution in his country and has been in the US for nearly two decades was detained in California on Monday after losing his latest appeal over a deportation order.

Gurmukh Singh, who is married to an American citizen and has two US-born daughters, was taken into custody by federal agents after failing to get a stay in his case, his attorney and family said.

The 46-year-old Sikh taxi driver from India&#39;s Punjab state sneaked into the United States without a visa through the border with Mexico in 1998.

He later applied for asylum, citing religious persecution. But his family and lawyer say he failed to properly pursue the case and was ordered deported.

Singh married a US citizen in 2010 but his deportation case resurfaced when he applied for a residency visa in 2012 given his new status.

He was subsequently jailed for about five months but after rights activists posted his bail, he was released and his case has since been going through the appeals process.

His family said in the past several years, he had been checking in with the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on a regular basis pending the outcome of his appeals against the deportation order.

Alexis Perez Nava, with Resilience Orange County, a group helping with his case, said Singh was detained on Monday after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to quash the deportation order.

&quot;We are completely devastated. This has completely broken us apart, emotionally and physically,&quot; Singh&#39;s 18-year-old daughter Manpreet told AFP.

She said her father has no criminal record, had always paid his taxes and just sought to &quot;live a normal life and feed his family.&quot;

&quot;Watching him emotionally break down is probably the last thing any daughter wants to see,&quot; Manpreet said, her voice breaking.

&quot;He just looked at us this morning and said &#39;I don&#39;t know what is going to happen to us any more. Please forgive me and take care,&#39;&quot; she added.

Lori Haley, an ICE spokeswoman, said Singh was ordered detained after his case had &quot;undergone exhaustive review at all levels of our nation&#39;s legal system.&quot;

She added that while the priority for federal authorities was to focus on criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety, those like Singh who violate immigration laws were not exempt from action.

&quot;All those in violation of our nation&#39;s immigration laws may be subject to arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removed from the United States,&quot; she said in an email.

Singh&#39;s detention comes amid a clampdown by the administration of President Donald Trump against undocumented immigrants.

(AFP)

The 46-year-old Sikh taxi driver from India's Punjab state sneaked into the United States without a visa through the border with Mexico in 1998

An Indian man who fled persecution in his country and has been in the US for nearly two decades was detained in California on Monday after losing his latest appeal over a deportation order. Gurmukh Singh, who is married to an American citizen and has two US-born daughters, was taken into custody by federal agents after failing to get a stay in his case, his attorney and family said. The 46-year-old Sikh taxi driver from India's Punjab state sneaked into the United States without a visa through the border with Mexico in 1998. He later applied for asylum, citing religious persecution. But his family and lawyer say he failed to properly pursue the case and was ordered deported. Singh married a US citizen in 2010 but his deportation case resurfaced when he applied for a residency visa in 2012 given his new status. He was subsequently jailed for about five months but after rights activists posted his bail, he was released and his case has since been going through the appeals process. His family said in the past several years, he had been checking in with the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on a regular basis pending the outcome of his appeals against the deportation order. Alexis Perez Nava, with Resilience Orange County, a group helping with his case, said Singh was detained on Monday after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to quash the deportation order. "We are completely devastated. This has completely broken us apart, emotionally and physically," Singh's 18-year-old daughter Manpreet told AFP. She said her father has no criminal record, had always paid his taxes and just sought to "live a normal life and feed his family." "Watching him emotionally break down is probably the last thing any daughter wants to see," Manpreet said, her voice breaking. "He just looked at us this morning and said 'I don't know what is going to happen to us any more. Please forgive me and take care,'" she added. Lori Haley, an ICE spokeswoman, said Singh was ordered detained after his case had "undergone exhaustive review at all levels of our nation's legal system." She added that while the priority for federal authorities was to focus on criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety, those like Singh who violate immigration laws were not exempt from action. "All those in violation of our nation's immigration laws may be subject to arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removed from the United States," she said in an email. Singh's detention comes amid a clampdown by the administration of President Donald Trump against undocumented immigrants. (AFP)

Indian man in US for nearly two decades ordered deported

The United States government led by Donald Trump has filed an appeal against a Maryland court order that blocked Trump&#39;s revised travel ban on the ground that it discriminated against Muslims.&nbsp;

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal with the district court in Greenbelt, Maryland, two days after that court and one in Hawaii dealt a new blow to the White House&#39;s travel ban, both ruling that it discriminated against Muslims.

The case now goes to a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia.

Trump has said a travel ban is needed to preserve US national security and keep out extremists.

His first effort, in January, banned travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries and all refugees but was blocked by a court in Washington state on the grounds that it violated the constitution`s prohibition of religious discrimination.

That block was upheld on appeal, and the administration said it would revise the ban to better adhere to the law.&nbsp;

But the new ban has run into the same problems.

It aims to close US borders to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for at least 120 days. Iraq was on the original ban but removed in the revision.

The White House said the six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet US security requirements.

While the ban does not mention Muslims, the courts have accepted arguments that Trump`s statements while he was running for president last year that he would open his White House term with a ban on Muslim arrivals effectively defined his approach.

Arguing the case in Hawaii, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said of Trump&#39;s comments: &quot;There is a difference between a president and a candidate.&quot;

&quot;This order doesn&#39;t draw any religious distinction at all,&quot; he added.

(AFP)

The appeal comes two days after courts in Maryland and Hawaii blocked Trump's revised travel ban order

The United States government led by Donald Trump has filed an appeal against a Maryland court order that blocked Trump's revised travel ban on the ground that it discriminated against Muslims. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal with the district court in Greenbelt, Maryland, two days after that court and one in Hawaii dealt a new blow to the White House's travel ban, both ruling that it discriminated against Muslims. The case now goes to a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia. Trump has said a travel ban is needed to preserve US national security and keep out extremists. His first effort, in January, banned travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries and all refugees but was blocked by a court in Washington state on the grounds that it violated the constitution`s prohibition of religious discrimination. That block was upheld on appeal, and the administration said it would revise the ban to better adhere to the law. But the new ban has run into the same problems. It aims to close US borders to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for at least 120 days. Iraq was on the original ban but removed in the revision. The White House said the six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet US security requirements. While the ban does not mention Muslims, the courts have accepted arguments that Trump`s statements while he was running for president last year that he would open his White House term with a ban on Muslim arrivals effectively defined his approach. Arguing the case in Hawaii, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said of Trump's comments: "There is a difference between a president and a candidate." "This order doesn't draw any religious distinction at all," he added. (AFP)

Trump administration files appeal against court order blocking revised travel ban

Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Wednesday against US&nbsp;President Donald Trump&#39;s planned border wall and his administration&#39;s treatment of immigrants.

Lopez Obrador, a fiery leftist who has led recent polls for the 2018 election, said he expects the commission to &quot;speak out in accordance with the law to protect immigrants from the harassment they are suffering since Trump took office.&quot;

Trump has ordered a wall built along the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico border, has moved to strip federal funding from &quot;sanctuary&quot; states and cities harboring illegal immigrants, and expanded the force of U.S. immigration agents.

During his election campaign, Trump described Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists and criminals and insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall. That caused simmering diplomatic tension and angered everyday citizens south of the border.

Lopez Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor and two-time runner-up for the presidency, said he hoped the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights would view Trump&#39;s moves as a &quot;violation of human rights and discriminatory.&quot;

The commission, an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS), is tasked with promoting and protecting human rights in the American hemisphere.

(Reuters)

Lopez Obrador, who has led recent polls for the 2018 election, filed his complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Wednesday against US President Donald Trump's planned border wall and his administration's treatment of immigrants. Lopez Obrador, a fiery leftist who has led recent polls for the 2018 election, said he expects the commission to "speak out in accordance with the law to protect immigrants from the harassment they are suffering since Trump took office." Trump has ordered a wall built along the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico border, has moved to strip federal funding from "sanctuary" states and cities harboring illegal immigrants, and expanded the force of U.S. immigration agents. During his election campaign, Trump described Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists and criminals and insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall. That caused simmering diplomatic tension and angered everyday citizens south of the border. Lopez Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor and two-time runner-up for the presidency, said he hoped the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights would view Trump's moves as a "violation of human rights and discriminatory." The commission, an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS), is tasked with promoting and protecting human rights in the American hemisphere. (Reuters)

Mexico presidential hopeful files complaint against Trump wall

US President Donald Trump is expected to issue an executive order to restrict work visas, H1B and L1 issued to professionals working in the US for a short period of time, as part of a larger immigration reform.&nbsp;

The H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ skilled foreign workers and are mostly used by Indian Information-Technology (IT) professionals.&nbsp;

This comes in after Trump issued a sweeping&nbsp;executive order banning foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.&nbsp;

The new order will not just block the visas but end employment permit cards to spouses on work visas, which was introduced by the previous Obama administration.&nbsp;

The move will also increase what some Indians informally&nbsp;call&nbsp;&quot;inspector raj&quot;, where&nbsp;Homeland Security will have to carry out &quot;site visits&quot; where workers with L-1 visas are employed.&nbsp;

During the daily news briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters,&quot;I think with respect to H1Bs and other visa is part of a larger immigration reform effort that the President will continue to talk about through executive order and through working with Congress&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;You&#39;ve already seen a lot of action on immigration and I think whether it&#39;s that or the spousal visas or other types of visas, I think there&#39;s an overall need to look at all of these programmes. You&#39;ll see both through executive action and through comprehensive measures a way to address immigration as a whole and the visa programme,&quot; Spicer added.

The proposed order was leaked and then published by a few news websites on Monday.&nbsp;

According to the leaked document, Trump would reverse former president Obama&#39;s order of extending foreign students stay in the US for a period of time after completing their course.&nbsp;

The draft order seeks the administration to &quot;consider ways to make the process of allocating visas more efficient and ensure that beneficiaries of the programmes are the best and the brightest&quot;.

The order also proposes to set up a commission to analyse US&#39;s current immigration policies and their impact on the American society, economy, workforce, and the foreign policy and national security interest of the United States.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

&nbsp;

Employment permit cards to spouses on work visas, introduced by the Obama government, are also expected to end

US President Donald Trump is expected to issue an executive order to restrict work visas, H1B and L1 issued to professionals working in the US for a short period of time, as part of a larger immigration reform. The H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ skilled foreign workers and are mostly used by Indian Information-Technology (IT) professionals. This comes in after Trump issued a sweeping executive order banning foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US. The new order will not just block the visas but end employment permit cards to spouses on work visas, which was introduced by the previous Obama administration. The move will also increase what some Indians informally call "inspector raj", where Homeland Security will have to carry out "site visits" where workers with L-1 visas are employed. During the daily news briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters,"I think with respect to H1Bs and other visa is part of a larger immigration reform effort that the President will continue to talk about through executive order and through working with Congress". "You've already seen a lot of action on immigration and I think whether it's that or the spousal visas or other types of visas, I think there's an overall need to look at all of these programmes. You'll see both through executive action and through comprehensive measures a way to address immigration as a whole and the visa programme," Spicer added. The proposed order was leaked and then published by a few news websites on Monday. According to the leaked document, Trump would reverse former president Obama's order of extending foreign students stay in the US for a period of time after completing their course. The draft order seeks the administration to "consider ways to make the process of allocating visas more efficient and ensure that beneficiaries of the programmes are the best and the brightest". The order also proposes to set up a commission to analyse US's current immigration policies and their impact on the American society, economy, workforce, and the foreign policy and national security interest of the United States. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Trump expected to order clamp down on H1B, L1 visas

There is a lot of talk in America right now on immigration, borders and crime. But let&#39;s look at some statistics to see if these issues really deserve their prominent place in the country&rsquo;s national discourse.

Criminal deportation under Obama

Over the last five years, criminal deportations by US Immigration and Customs enforcement investigations have steadily dropped, down 44 per cent since 2011 according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), citing figures released by the US Justice Department.

The TRAC says that in 2016, a total of 12,761 such prosecutions were carried out compared to 21,662 in 2011. It also claims that immigration matters accounted for 53.2 per cent of the total number of prosecutions in 2016. Drug prosecutions accounted for 30.6 per cent. But most recorded cases were of illegal re-entry, illegal smuggling of people into the United States or harbouring them in the country. The crimes, which Obama deported immigrants for, were overwhelmingly non-violent.

What Trump wants

Before taking office, in an interview with the CBS TV programme &quot;60 Minutes&quot;, Donald Trump said deportation of criminal immigrants will top his agenda.

&ldquo;What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,&rdquo; he said.

Post the swearing-in, the Trump administration seems to keep the narrative going. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, during his first press briefing, said the following on immigration: &quot;The focus is going to be on people who have done harm to our country.&quot;

Trump made several promises on his first day in office. This included deporting &quot;criminals&quot;, stopping all federal funding for &quot;sanctuary cities&rdquo;, taking steps to build a wall along the Mexican border.

Further, in an executive order, President Trump is now set to impose a temporary ban and a suspension of visas from Syria and six other West Asian and African countries.

Truth versus hype

While immigration was one of the hotly debated subjects in the US election campaign, there is nothing new in Trump&rsquo;s promise.

Back in November 2014, Former US President Barack Obama announced that immigration officials would put deportation of criminals at the top of their agenda, saying, &quot;we&rsquo;re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security&quot;.

Criminals who threatened national security, border security or public safety were made top priorities for immigration enforcement, after a memo from the then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. 
Even when the state machinery was devoted to act against &#39;criminal immigrants&#39;, deportations post-criminal conviction fell by 17 per cent.

This raises the question: Does America really have more than two million undocumented immigrants charged in criminal cases like Trump says? An estimate from the Migration Policy Institute says no. Such cases number 820,000.

Today&rsquo;s developments are in line with the proposals and promises made by Trump during his presidential campaign. He had slammed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s proposal to increase the arrival rate of Syrian refugees, saying he would impose extreme vetting of visa applicants.

But, if numbers are to be trusted, Trump&rsquo;s estimates should be taken with a pinch of salt. May be a lump will be good. &nbsp;

(WION)

Is the talk about these issues really justified? Well, a little bit of number crunching shows a different picture

There is a lot of talk in America right now on immigration, borders and crime. But let's look at some statistics to see if these issues really deserve their prominent place in the country’s national discourse. Criminal deportation under Obama Over the last five years, criminal deportations by US Immigration and Customs enforcement investigations have steadily dropped, down 44 per cent since 2011 according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), citing figures released by the US Justice Department. The TRAC says that in 2016, a total of 12,761 such prosecutions were carried out compared to 21,662 in 2011. It also claims that immigration matters accounted for 53.2 per cent of the total number of prosecutions in 2016. Drug prosecutions accounted for 30.6 per cent. But most recorded cases were of illegal re-entry, illegal smuggling of people into the United States or harbouring them in the country. The crimes, which Obama deported immigrants for, were overwhelmingly non-violent. What Trump wants Before taking office, in an interview with the CBS TV programme "60 Minutes", Donald Trump said deportation of criminal immigrants will top his agenda. “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” he said. Post the swearing-in, the Trump administration seems to keep the narrative going. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, during his first press briefing, said the following on immigration: "The focus is going to be on people who have done harm to our country." Trump made several promises on his first day in office. This included deporting "criminals", stopping all federal funding for "sanctuary cities”, taking steps to build a wall along the Mexican border. Further, in an executive order, President Trump is now set to impose a temporary ban and a suspension of visas from Syria and six other West Asian and African countries. Truth versus hype While immigration was one of the hotly debated subjects in the US election campaign, there is nothing new in Trump’s promise. Back in November 2014, Former US President Barack Obama announced that immigration officials would put deportation of criminals at the top of their agenda, saying, "we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security". Criminals who threatened national security, border security or public safety were made top priorities for immigration enforcement, after a memo from the then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. Even when the state machinery was devoted to act against 'criminal immigrants', deportations post-criminal conviction fell by 17 per cent. This raises the question: Does America really have more than two million undocumented immigrants charged in criminal cases like Trump says? An estimate from the Migration Policy Institute says no. Such cases number 820,000. Today’s developments are in line with the proposals and promises made by Trump during his presidential campaign. He had slammed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s proposal to increase the arrival rate of Syrian refugees, saying he would impose extreme vetting of visa applicants. But, if numbers are to be trusted, Trump’s estimates should be taken with a pinch of salt. May be a lump will be good. (WION)

Data never lies: Take Trump's talk on immigrants, deportation and criminality with a pinch of salt

In an interview with CBS&#39;s 60 Minutes, US President-elect Donald Trump said he was &quot;saddened&quot; by reports of a surge in the the harassment of minorities since his election and told his supporters to &quot;stop it&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;If it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

But he did also criticise the protests, saying he had seen only &quot;a very small amount&quot; of racial slurs aimed at minorities.&nbsp;

&quot;I think it&#39;s built up by the press,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

&quot;I&#39;m going to bring this country together,&quot; he added.&nbsp;

The interview was his first since being elected President.

Fine with same-sex marriage

When asked if he would try and revoke same-sex marriage, Trump said, &quot;It&#39;s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it&#39;s done.&quot;

&quot;And I&#39;m, I&#39;m fine with that,&quot; he added.

Trump told Americans protesting against him not to be afraid of his presidency.&nbsp;

&quot;Don&#39;t be afraid. We are going to bring our country back,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

At the same time he reassured loyalists with pro-gun and anti-abortion views, saying judges nominated to the Supreme Court under his watch would hold similar views.&nbsp;

And finally, he said he would adhere to his promise made during campaigning that he would not take the $400,000 the US President earns.&nbsp;

&quot;I&#39;m not going to take the salary. I&#39;m not taking it.&quot; He later added, &quot;I think I have to by law take $1, so I&#39;ll take $1 a year.&quot;

(WION with inputs from agencies)

He also criticised the protests against him, and said he had seen only 'a very small amount' of racial slurs aimed at minorities

In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, US President-elect Donald Trump said he was "saddened" by reports of a surge in the the harassment of minorities since his election and told his supporters to "stop it". "If it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it," he said. But he did also criticise the protests, saying he had seen only "a very small amount" of racial slurs aimed at minorities. "I think it's built up by the press," he said. "I'm going to bring this country together," he added. The interview was his first since being elected President. Fine with same-sex marriage When asked if he would try and revoke same-sex marriage, Trump said, "It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it's done." "And I'm, I'm fine with that," he added. Trump told Americans protesting against him not to be afraid of his presidency. "Don't be afraid. We are going to bring our country back," he said. At the same time he reassured loyalists with pro-gun and anti-abortion views, saying judges nominated to the Supreme Court under his watch would hold similar views. And finally, he said he would adhere to his promise made during campaigning that he would not take the $400,000 the US President earns. "I'm not going to take the salary. I'm not taking it." He later added, "I think I have to by law take $1, so I'll take $1 a year." (WION with inputs from agencies)

Trump to supporters harassing minorities: 'Stop it'

us-immigration

Us Immigration, News on Us Immigration, stories on Us Immigration, articles on Us Immigration, Us Immigration stories at Wion, Us Immigration news, Us Immigration latest news

us immigration