Grass is always greener in 3-parts

While immigration reform tends to inspire conversations about enforcement rather than admissions, immiwonk has posted on medium a three-part reflection on green cards. Part 1 is a primer on how green cards work in the U.S. Part 2 of the series explodes myths relating to green cards: (not) anyone can get a green card, you can() be deported if you have a green card, green cards are (not) forever.  Part 3 sets out statutory and adminstrative reforms to green card admissions.

Noting the introduction of HR 1044 and S.386, Part 3 notes possibly significant reforms relating to the green card: a removal of country quotas for employment based green card allotments, a doubling of quotas for family-based applicants, and additional employment flexibility for H1B visa holders who are in the process of applying for a green card. He notes other reforms in administraiton of immigration policy that will be influential as well:

1) Technology – [The State Department] has largely moved to electronic processing for newer immigrant visa applications and USCIS will soon follow suit, with online submission of family-based and later employment-based applications and underlying petitions likely implemented within the next 1-3 years (some family-based petitions and applications are already being filed electronically). This will greatly reduce the movement of paper files from office to office, streamline adjudication decisions, and provide greater oversight and tracking ability for supervisors and analysts.  

2) Policy – Longtime immigration advocates have differing views on comprehensive immigration reform and its merits. Some feel that the kind of grand compromise envisioned in these bills, particularly the dichotomy they draw between bestowing benefits on those immigrants already in the United States and toughening enforcement against future immigration, end up doing more harm than good in the long run. Others see these types of bills as the only way that significant systemic reform can occur, regardless of the tradeoffs. The makeup of the incoming Congress is such that significant action on immigration will probably be impossible without some form of compromise… but the seeming success of S.386 will probably lend credence to the belief among many legislators that the days are done.

3) Advocacy, particularly of the pro-immigrant variety, will probably need to change going forward… Yes, it was morally satisfying to oppose Donald Trump’s and Stephen Miller’s obviously (stridently) anti-immigrant policies and pronouncements, and the degree of social recognition and social media clout one could garner from doing so were also quite beneficial. That dynamic is going to quickly reverse when such criticism is seen to endanger the priorities or electoral prospects of politicians who are, on the surface at least, friendly to these causes… With the large number of people who have become engaged and energized by the events of the last four years, it’s important that advocates remain clear-eyed about their goals and aggressive in their advocacy for pro-immigrant initiatives.  

Nice to see some pragmatic analysis on an overlooked topic in immigration law. And a tone that suggests the political landscape is indeed shifting.

MHC