Slate: “Why Immigration Pushed Britons to Brexit”

Last week voters in England and Wales choose to leave the European Union in a nationwide referendum commonly referred to as the “Brexit” vote, with many voters claiming immigration fears as a top decider for them. The aftershocks of this referendum have been far reaching. In response, Prime Minister David Cameron, who opposed Brexit, offered his resignation, the Labour party is in turmoil, Britain’s credit rating has been downgraded, the British pound fell to a thirty-one year low against the dollar, the euro fell, and global stock prices have plummeted.

Many are offering their views on what exactly caused so many voters to want out of the European Union when many economists and financial leaders warned that it would not be a prudent move. Slate examines former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in opening up Britain’s borders to immigrants beginning in the late 1990s. Britain soon received roughly twice as many immigrants in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous half-century. Britain additionally become a highly sought-after destination for less-skilled European immigrants, due to the structure of the UK’s economy and its public policies, as well as the free movement of peoples, one of the core principles of the European Union. This, combined with loss of economic opportunity in many areas of the United Kingdom and the availability of public benefits for many recent immigrants, fueled an anti-immigrant backlash.

Many Leave campaigners, including Boris Johnson, the former London mayor, claimed that the EU was preventing the UK from enacting immigration controls. In the run-up to the vote, however, London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, who was for the Remain campaign, objected to the scapegoating of immigrants and said of his Leave opponents that it wasn’t so much “project fear, it’s been project hate as far as immigration is concerned.”

Tony Blair weighed in post-Brexit vote, acknowledging the role that high immigration numbers played, but framed it slightly differently:

The strains within Britain that led to this referendum result are universal, at least in the West. Insurgent movements of left and right, posing as standard-bearers of a popular revolt against the political establishment, can spread and grow at scale and speed. Today’s polarized and fragmented news coverage only encourages such insurgencies — an effect magnified many times by the social media revolution.

While the Leave campaigners promised to swiftly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Britain from other parts of Europe, with claims that  a vote to leave would “bring down the numbers” by 2020, afterwards, however, the Leave campaigners adjusted their remarks: “Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the E.U., they are going to be disappointed,” Daniel Hannan, a prominent Leave advocate and member of the European Parliament, admits now.  

The Brexit vote has already given rise to an increase in xenophobia and reports of abuse against immigrants. Meanwhile, many eligible UK nationals, unsure of what lies ahead for the United Kingdom, are busy applying for duel citizenship.   

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

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

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

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

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

O Visas for the Film and Television Industry: 10 Common Questions (and Answers)

So you’re a German production company looking to shoot a feature film in the United States, or an Australian actor who has been hired for a recurring role in an American television series. You’ve done a little research, possibly read our previous post on special considerations for film and television visas or common O-1 misconceptions, and now you realize that you and/or your production team are in need of O visas. (Almost any foreign national working on commercial or entertainment film or television projects in the US, for any length of time, will need an O-1 or O-2 visa.)

Read more

Fusion: “Undocumented victims of Orlando shooting face unique challenges and fears”

Among the many affected by the tragic mass shooting in Orlando last week are undocumented immigrants. While all those recovering from the horrific tragedy face obstacles and challenges, undocumented immigrants have their own unique problems due to their legal status. “In addition to the uncertainty about whether they qualify for state and federal assistance programs,” Fusion reports, “the undocumented immigrants have to worry about whether their legal status puts them at additional risk, and what it means to be outed from the shadows by a violent tragedy.”

Out of the three undocumented immigrants who have been identified as such, one is Victor, a twenty-four-year-old Salvadoran who was shot twice. With no relatives nearby and no idea when he will be able to return to work, he’s worried about how he’s going to pay for his hospital bills. Another undocumented immigrant recovering is a thirty-three-year-old Mexican man named Javier Nava, who was shot in the abdomen. Juan Sabines, the Mexico Consul General in Orlando, met with Javier and suggested he apply for a U visa, which are for victims of certain crimes who assist law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. While Nava would like to eventually pursue American citizenship if given the chance, what he wants most right now is to see his mother and child, which he hasn’t been able to do for many years since he came to the United States. During the hospital visit with the Mexican consul, Nava discussed how his family could apply for humanitarian visas to visit him from Mexico. 

A third undocumented man, a thirty-one-year-old Mexican, died earlier this week from his injuries, one of three Mexicans killed in the attack. For undocumented immigrants who die in the US, repatriating and burying the body can be especially expensive. For this Mexican man who died, it will cost approximately $6,000 to repatriate and bury the body in the coastal state of Veracruz. While the Mexican Consulate insists it will pay the estimated $3,000 to repatriate the body to Veracruz, friends and family of the victim still aren’t sure how they’ll afford the rest. Carmen, a friend of the victim, says that even with the consulate’s help it “won’t cover the funeral costs.”

“It’s very expensive to send their bodies back, people aren’t prepared for that,” Yesica Ramirez, an organizer with The Farmworker Association of Florida, tells Fusion. Since a trip to the United States is not possible for many families, repatriation of the body is often the only way that families can see their loved ones one time and attend the funeral. “For many families, no matter how much money they raise they still may not be able to get permission to come to the US,” Ramirez says. “For the family to be watching this back in their countries and not be able to help their sons is painful; this all hurts the family back home too.”

Immigrant rights activists have launched the website SomosOrlando.info to help immigrants find resources in their own language. The Hispanic Federation says many Spanish-speaking volunteer attorneys and mental health professionals have come forward to offer their services, which will be essential as undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Florida state health programs beyond emergency care. A crowd-funded effort by Equality Florida, an LGBT advocacy organization, is also raising funds to help all victims, regardless of legal status. “Victimization knows no status,” Jeff Dion, deputy executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, tells Fusion. “All of these [victims] and their families will be treated equally…Every situation is different and if we need to make adjustments for certain people...we will.”