The Japan Times: "Romance dance routine featuring Santa-clad Ambassador Kennedy an instant online hit"

日本で大人気の「恋ダンス」をケネディ大使と一緒に米国大使館、在札幌米国総領事館、在名古屋米国領事館、駐大阪・神戸米国総領事館、在福岡米国領事館、在沖米国総領事館のアメリカ人外交官と職員みんなで踊りました！スペシャルゲストとして熊本県からくまモンも参加し、総勢50名+3キャラクターが出演。是非ご覧ください♪ （撮影協力　熊本県東京事務所　©２０１０熊本県くまモン） 音源： 「恋」星野 源 © SPEEDSTAR RECORDS: A Division of Victor Entertainment http://www.jvcmusic.co.jp/-/Information/A023121.html?article=news132#news132

US Ambassador Caroline Kennedy and Embassy staff in Japan made a special Christmas video that has since become a social media hit with over five million views. The video consists of the US embassy version of a koi (falling in love) dance routine from a popular Japanese TV drama series “Nigeru wa Hajidaga Yaku ni Tatsu” (roughly translated as “Running Away is Shameful but Useful”). 

The video begins with Santa-clad Kennedy performing the choreographed dance, and she is joined by various other diplomats and staff from the US Embassy office in Tokyo as well as the Consulate offices in Sapporo, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Fukuoka, and Okinawa. US Embassy spokeswoman Marrie Schaefer says the diplomatic mission was “pleasantly surprised”  at the response to the video, especially considering the video was originally meant to just be shared internally. “This is the holiday season and we try to do something nice and light, and we try to be merry, like Merry Christmas,” Schaefer tells the Japan Times. “Originally we were just going to do something internal, to say ‘Hey guys!’ in the mission… But after it was finished we said, ‘This is good! We should upload it!’ And everyone said, ‘Great idea!’ and so that’s what we did.” A female staffer at the US Embassy filmed and choreographed the movements. “We practiced, but we didn’t have to practice a whole day,” Shaefer says. “We do have other work to do.”  

The dance is inspired by the theme song from the TV drama which features actress Yui Aragaki and actor/singer Gen Hoshino, who also sings the theme song. Hoshino plays an “introvert computer engineer who nurtures love and trust with a woman with whom he gets into a fake marriage.” In a nod to the show, the Embassy video also features one male official wearing eyeglasses and acting like the husband character played by Hoshino.

With this video, the US Embassy joins a growing list of people and institutions across Japan that have joined the “koi dance boom” and filmed and uploaded their own versions. The US Embassy dance video impressed many YouTube users, with some commenting on the “high quality” of the dance and the showmanship. “This would make even (US President-elect Donald) Trump smile,” one user commented. 

It wasn’t just the US Embassy in Japan making cute holiday greetings. Inspired no doubt by James Corden’s “Carpool Karaoke,” the US Embassy in Oslo, Norway released a creative Christmas video. The video features Ambassador Samuel Heins, who is spending his first Christmas in Norway, singer Tone Damli, and journalist Ole Torp, who drive around Oslo singing Christmas carols and practicing Norwegian in their quest to find “julestemming,” a.k.a. true holiday spirit.

Not to be outdone, the US Embassy in Prague posted a video showing US Embassy employees singing one of the best-loved Czech Christmas carols “Půjdem spolu do Betléma” (“We will go to Bethlehem Together”). The video starts with Cultural Attaché Erin Kotheimer and Ray Castillo, Counselor for Public Affairs, breaking into the song. As they walk around the US ambassador’s residence, other employees join them. Finally, Ambassador Andrew Schapiro shows up to wish Czechs a Merry Christmas on behalf of the staff.  

We hope to see more creative videos from Embassy staff worldwide in the future (and, who knows, perhaps one from Daryanani Law Group). Happy Holidays!

The Guardian: “Registry used to track Arabs and Muslims dismantled by Obama administration”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last week that it is dismantling the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), the outdated and discriminatory registration program that required certain immigrants from twenty-five Muslim-majority, Arab, and South Asian countries to register their presence in the US. The final publication of this DHS rule to fully terminate the NSEERS program is the latest move from the Obama administration to place roadblocks in the way of President-Elect Trump, who has threatened to prevent non-citizen Muslims from entering the US and keep them under surveillance inside the US.

As the Guardian explains, the NSEERS program was “one of the most contentious—and widely hated—elements of the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies in the wake of 9/11. More than 80,000 people from 25 listed countries, 24 of which had majority Muslim or Arab populations, were forced onto the scheme in which they were required to provide fingerprints and a photograph and periodically present themselves for in-person interviews with DHS officers.”

Although about 14,000 of those registered individuals were placed into removal deportation proceedings, none were prosecuted for any terrorist activities. Mohammad Jafar Alam, a member of the South Asian social justice group Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM) which actively campaigned to dismantle NSEEERS, says he knows from personal experience how it affected individuals and families. “The extreme mental, emotional distress, the financial problems, the pressures on a family and the isolation that happens is a punishment not just for one person, but everyone involved,” he tells the Guardian.

Joanne Lin, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which also strongly opposed NSEERS, says it was a “completely failed counterterrorism program. Out of 80,000 men who registered for it, there was not a single terrorism prosecution, yet it alienated Muslim and South Asian communities across the country.”

After DHS and FBI officials concluded it was discriminatory and ineffective, NSEERS was discontinued in 2011. But since the framework for the registry remained in place, the incoming Trump administration could have easily re-instated the program by putting majority-Muslim countries back onto the list. President-Elect Trump has called for a ban on all non-citizen Muslims entering the US, and he has also said he would enact “extreme vetting” for migrants and immigrants from countries deemed to be a terrorism threat. Kris Kobach, the secretary of state for Kansas and one of the original architects of NSEERS, who has been advising the Trump transition team on immigration and anti-terrorism issues, proposed last month that his priority for the DHS would be to “update and reimplement” the NSEERS program. By fully terminating the NSEERS program, the Obama administration is attempting to force Trump to undergo the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process to implement a similar program; however, “there are certainly ways the Trump administration could impose this rule or a similar one without going through notice and comment,” American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) President William Stock tells Bloomberg BNA. “I think there will be parts of the Republican Party who will want to overcome this action by the administration,” he says.

In a statement, AILA says the NSEERS program “led to notorious ethnic profiling and civil rights violations.” Additionally, AILA’s members represented thousands of individuals required to register and witnessed how unjust the program was and how it brought shame to law-abiding individuals. Clients who tried to comply and voluntarily appeared for registration were treated like criminals and subjected to aggressive practices, including being handcuffed, denied access to attorneys, and put in detention. AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson says:

It is hard to quantify the immense negative impact NSEERS had on the fabric of our nation. It upended the lives of tens of thousands of business owners, scientists, and family members who were lawfully present in the United States, and all the while it failed miserably as a counterterrorism tool…Rescinding the regulation is a recognition that a dark chapter in our country's history can and should be closed, once and for all.

Royce Murray, Policy Director at the American Immigration Council agrees: “While we can all agree that national security must be a priority, the NSEERS registration program was widely regarded as an ineffective and obsolete counterterrorism tool. The next administration should not repeat the mistakes of the past and institute any discriminatory registry.”

Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights clinic at Pennsylvania State University, believes that rescinding the NSEERS structure will make Trump’s plans more difficult. “At the very least it is going to take time,” she tells the Guardian. “At most it will take a whole lot of time, as it will force the Trump administration to introduce a rule change that could be open to public comment and legal challenge.” Wadhia adds: “This is the best Christmas present I could have asked for."

USCIS Releases New Form Versions, Effective Immediately, With No Advance Notice

Last Friday, December 23, 2016, a day when many law offices were closed and people were traveling home for the holidays, US Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) posted numerous new form versions. The forms all have an effective date of December 23, 2016, and the USCIS website indicates that no other versions of the forms are acceptable, apart from the Form I-129. No prior notice or alert of these changes were provided in advance, and many lawyers and practitioners are understandably quite upset.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) contacted USCIS and “made it clear that it should have given notice to stakeholders and to demand a grace period during which prior form versions could be submitted.” AILA also noted that vendors who provide immigration forms programs need time to reprogram and update their case management software systems. USCIS responded that while it “strongly encourages” applicants to use the new version of the forms, they are “aware that there may be older editions of the forms that have already been completed and are in the queue to be mailed and/or filed. USCIS said that it will be flexible and will apply discretion when receipting forms, rather than rejecting them outright.”

Affected forms include: I-90, I-102, I-129, I-129CW, I-129F, I-130, I-131, I-131A, I-140, I-191, I-192, I-212, I-290B, I-360, I-485, I-485 Supplement A, I-525, I-539, I-600, I-600A, I-601, I-601A, I-612, I-690, I-694, I-698, I-751, I-765, I-800, I-800A, I-817, I-824, I-910, I-924, I-924A, I-929, I-942, I-942P, N-300, N-336, N-400, N-470, N-600, and N-600K.

We will provide updates as we receive them.

UPDATE DECEMBER 29, 2016:

USCIS released a statement today regarding the new versions of the forms. The release of the new forms, USCIS says, coincided with the date—December 23, 2016—that the updated fee schedule went into effect. While they “strongly encourage” customers to submit these new form versions—which include the new fees and have an edition date of 12/23/16—USCIS indicates that they will accept prior versions of the forms (with the exception of Form N-400) until February 21, 2017. It’s very important to note that all filings postmarked December 23, 2016 or later must include the new fees or USCIS will reject them.

As for the N-400, Application for Naturalization, they will only accept the 12/23/16 edition. The updated forms are currently available only at uscis.gov/forms, where they can be downloaded for free.

Happy Holidays!

I am home briefly for the holidays and walking along Regent Street I came across some celestial visitors. Enjoy your holidays, everyone!

Huffington Post: “Supreme Court Foreshadows Big Constitutional Ruling In Immigration Case”

Last week the Supreme Court issued an unusual order in a pending immigration case that could foreshadow a key constitutional ruling and in doing so limit President-Elect Trump’s powers to detain certain noncitizens who may be eligible to be removed from the country. The ruling is in regards to a class-action challenge (Jennings v. Rodriguez) brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of thousands of immigrants, many of whom are in the US legally but who have been detained without an opportunity for a bond hearing in front of a judge to possibly obtain release. US federal law grants immigration authorities broad discretion to detain foreign-born individuals if they are apprehended at the border or have criminal backgrounds. The Supreme Court’s task in this case is to “determine what limits, if any, exist for that grant of authority.”  

The justices appeared divided over how to rule, and the new order requests that lawyers for the federal government and the ACLU file a new round of legal briefs addressing whether the Constitution would require a “hearing in front of a judge―or even a release, if the government fails to present strong enough evidence that the person shouldn’t be released―if a detention lasted six months.” The lead plaintiff in the case is Alejandro Rodriguez who was detained for three years without a hearing even though he was a lawful permanent resident. He was facing removal over two minor offenses, a drug charge and joyriding as a teenager.

The ACLU explains the consequences of long-term detainment for noncitizens:

Without a bond hearing, people…may spend years behind bars in a prison jumpsuit, shackled for visits with loved ones, subjected to strip searches and solitary confinement, and referred to by guards as a number. They may suffer separation from family members, often across state lines; see their children placed in foster care; and lose jobs, savings, homes, and businesses. About 73 percent of immigration detainees are held in private prisons, which have a grisly track record of deaths due to medical neglect, suicides, and sexual abuse.

At the case’s oral arguments in November, the Supreme Court’s more conservative members appeared to be opting for a narrower ruling based on current immigration law and a prior appeals ruling in favor of the detainees. “We do not have the constitutional issue before us,” Justice Anthony Kennedy told Ahilan Arulanantham, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case. Justice Kennedy authored a concurring opinion in an earlier immigration case that upheld only brief detentions without due process.

With the additional request, the Huffington Post notes, the “justices may be signaling a desire to not split 4-to-4 in a case that could directly implicate the authority of the incoming Trump administration in an area that was a linchpin in the president-elect’s campaign.”  

“I think it’s really hard to read the tea leaves here,” Arulanantham tells the Huffington Post. He adds that the justices’ request last Thursday indicates “the court wasn’t yet satisfied with either party’s position.”

May Your Holidays Be Filled with Delicious Food and Good Company!

We held our holiday party once again at the Institute of Culinary Education in downtown Manhattan. At this annual event, we cook our own meal—okay, the chefs help out a little bit and a few glasses of delicious brut rosé don't hurt either. On the menu this year was hand-cut beet pappardelle with goat cheese and toasted walnuts, a maple chipotle-glazed duck breast, and for dessert a pumpkin and dulce de leche tart. While some food stations worked harder than others—pasta station and duck grilling station clearly outworked the "chopping the cauliflower" station—everyone had a great time (especially dessert station) and we maybe even learned something. Great work, everyone!