Transcript of the above video: 

This is pretty darn big news folks. Unfortunately, this last couple of weeks, frankly these last few months, it's been pretty demoralizing to say the least to be somebody who believes in the rule of law and that our Administration is trying to be in line with the rule of law - and I just did another video contemporaneously with this one talking about new surveillance associated with Social Security recipients - that's surveillance oftentimes of US citizens. I think that's important to point out.

That said, this pertains to Green Cards and apparently, DHS has just thrown up their hands, Department Homeland Security has just thrown up their hands and said, "oh, we're not going to issue Green Cards anymore”, effectively. I watched a video from Jim Hacking over in the United States. He's talking about putting together a lawsuit to go against this; his analysis on his pretty darn good. That said, I'm going to dive into it here I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Cato Institute, that is cato.org, the article is titled: DHS Quits Granting Green Cards --  Almost Entirely. Yeah, the almost entirely is almost a joke; it's almost like rubbing salt on a wound on this in a sense. Quoting directly: "The Department of Homeland Security announced last Friday that it will cease granting Green Card applications except in extraordinary circumstances." So as Mr. Hacking points out, I have looked over the memo, there's nothing in the law that has ever said that there needs to be "extraordinary circumstances" to be able to process, adjust your status to Green Card status in the United States. It's simply not there. This Administration is just making this stuff up. That said, quoting further: "In short, DHS grants Green Cards when a qualified immigrant who is inside the United States applies to adjust their status to Legal Permanent Residence. Now, every legal immigrant must leave the country -- that is, self-deport -- even if they are qualified for a Green Card and even if leaving would disqualify them." And they go on, Mr. Hacking points this out too, again tip of the hat to him, and there's this notion that the whole process of adjustment of status needs to only occur if it's unusually important, or if there are outstanding equities. When you start hearing the law jargon, and it doesn't make any sense, it's because they are trying to do something they really shouldn't be doing. As I'll get to further in the analysis - and I may do a specific video on K-1 Visas - the K-1 is actually designed specifically to adjust status; that’s its whole purpose. You go to the United States, you stay there, you're in for 90 days, you have 90 days of lawful status, during which time you file for adjustment, you remain in the United States pending the adjustment, that's how the K-1 was designed to exist. 

So again, I think there are going to be legal challenges on this, and with regard to the K-1 specifically, Congress and again it was a long time ago, but Congress specifically spoke to the issue of K-1's and they specifically designed the K-1 to operate like it does for a reason. So I would think the Courts would look at that and say wait a minute there's none of this language you are using in the actual law itself, and meanwhile okay you are now trying to change rules, but again there is a procedure for that. We are supposed to have Notice and Comment. There's a period of notice where they, say, "hey we're going to change the rules, there's an attempt for the public to comment on things like "hey the K-1 exists and it presumes adjustment of status, legally presumes it; that's the purpose of the visa is to travel there, get married and then apply for Green Card status. That's how they designed the K-1 to operate. No Notice and Comment to change the rules, and then they're just making up words that aren't in the actual law; they are making up phrases. That said, quoting further: "The policy is a radical expansion of DHS's "quiet quitting" on legal immigration that has been going on for months." I'm really tired of calling this stuff 'policy'. This is just contravention of underlying law; that's not policy. Again, if it was policy why not put it through Notice and Comment? That's how we make policies have legal effect through the regulatory structure. Quoting further: "As I previously detailed, DHS -- or more precisely, it's component known as US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has slashed Green Card approvals in half over the last year. The drop came primarily from not processing applications. Now USCIS's new memorandum details a plan for mass denials. USCIS has gone from the "quiet- quit" to walking out on 1.2 million Green Card applicants." Now as Mr. Hacking pointed out in his video, I'll reiterate here, if you're processing an I-485, if you are processing your adjustment of status and you had it on file especially before this "policy" came down the pike, probably a good idea to contact your own legal professional because it may not be in your interest to leave. The self-deportation may not even be necessary especially if the Courts get involved and say, "whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This is in clear contravention" and look, I'll be the first one to admit. I was in favour of stricter enforcement especially at the border with regard to border security, but look we have rule of law in the United States. There's an Immigration and Nationality Act. It speaks to all this. It was promulgated by Congress. Every President, including Trump himself, the first time up to this iteration of Trump, has always processed these cases this way. So, this type of departure is not only a massive policy departure, it's also in my opinion, questionably legal but there are a lot of things this Administration is doing that is questionably legal. And moreover, it actually kind of flies in the face of the actual written law itself. That said, quoting further: quote: "From now on, an alien who is in the US temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances." Well again, that's not written in the law, and you didn't do Notice and Comment on a rule change to that effect. So, what are we talking about? 

Again, the thumbnail in this is sort of "what would you say it is you do here?" from Office Space, because at this point what is the point of USCIS now? Why are all those employees being paid, if we're not going to process cases, if we're not going to follow the law and facilitate folks who want to use the lawful immigration process to become lawful permanent residents in the United States? Now I understand there are many Americans that are very upset. They are upset that effectively the country has been invaded and they want to see illegal aliens deported. I get that. I agree with those sentiments. We're not talking about those people. These are the people coming over there legally. Now there is some room for interpretation. I can understand the argument that somebody comes in on a Tourist Visa or a Visa waiver, or the ESTA system and hangs out there for 90 days and then engages in a sham marriage or something. That doesn't happen. No, it does happen; that happens. Law enforcement should deal with that stuff. I can understand rule changes that made it more difficult for folks that didn't have visas that are designed for adjustment, but for example like the K-1 where does that leave them? It's a dual intent Visa; you are allowed to have immigrant intent. The whole purpose of it is to be there for 90 days to get married and adjust status. So, this whole rule flies in the face of the actual written law that creates the K-1 Visa itself. That said, quoting further: "It calls adjustment of status inside the United States an "extraordinary form of relief". No, it is not an extraordinary form of relief. It is the legally mandated process for seeing people through the process of becoming lawful permanent residents in the United States. -  "The idea that this is an extraordinary form of relief is entirely baseless." - I tend to agree - "This language and framing are not in the statute, Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has existed for decades. The law grants the authority to do it, which every Administration has faithfully done according to the intent of Congress, until this one."  Yeah, it's not just now that Trump ignores Congress, it is that he's just completely flouting, especially again in the specific case of the K-1, people have brought up the L-1 and the H-1B, I'm not going to get into that analysis, those are employment based, they are a little different - but the K-1's specific purpose is to travel with or in meeting a fiancé(e) in the United States and then getting married and then adjusting status; that's how it's designed to work legally. So if somebody is doing it properly - unless there's some kind of ground of an admissibility or some kind of fraud at play - there isn't any legal justification for completely contravening the letter and spirit of the law. 

Quoting further: "How USCIS (mis)interprets the law. The USCIS claims that it is contrary to Congressional intent to have so many temporary residents applying to adjust to permanent residence." - except for the fact that it is literally written by Congress in the opposite. Now you could say, let's keep going - "This is wrong. In 1952, Congress created the adjustment of status provision because it was causing so much hardship to Americans and their families to have to leave the United States for the sole purpose of getting a visa to come right back. It was an illogical, complicated, and expensive process with no upside. Since then, Congress has repeatedly attempted to expand the use of adjustment of status." Now, you can argue that. One thing I would point out here, is that as of right now and under Trump's Visa Pause, let's say somebody enters with a K-1 Visa, they file for their adjustment and then they are told, "okay, you have got to self-deport." Well the problem with that is you have to get Advanced Parole in order to leave and keep the status of the underlying adjustment alive, so it creates an affirmative duty that does not exist in the law, that's imposed upon the person who has followed the law, and then on top of it, at least when it comes to Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos - and I still don't understand why it pertains to Thailand, again the oldest Ally of the United States in East Asia - but again we're still under this Visa Pause by Trump where you can't get an Immigrant Spouse Visa; you can't go through Consular Processing and get a Visa that grants lawful permanent status upon entry because of Trump's current Visa Pause. So forestalling the K-1's through one mechanism - albeit one that I don't think is in any way overtly or otherwise legal - and then sort of disingenuously saying well you have to self-deport, you can wait to come back in except for the fact that when it comes to Thailand specifically for the purposes of this video, that's not possible under the current Visa Pause regime. That said, quoting further: "USCIS states, "Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come into the United States for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over." - I tend to agree with that analysis. Let me go further here: quote, and this is from this author:  "But this ignores the realities of life. People come as students, and then they get a permanent job offer. People come to visit friends, and then they get a marriage proposal. People come for whatever reason, and their country is taken over by someone who will persecute them." Yeah, I don't find a lot of weight in those arguments. The old 30, 60, 90 rule where they said look, "if came in, within 30 days, you are trying to adjust status, we presumptively think that you are trying to commit immigration fraud." There has been significant abuse of the other Non-immigrant categories, so on one hand, I can understand some of this. On another hand though, quoting further: "The law explicitly envisions these things happening." No, it doesn't explicitly envision true Non-immigrant Visa holders, somebody that goes in on a Tourist Visa, using that as a back door way of trying to get residence in the United States. It doesn't. That's why immigration fraud exists as a criminal penalty, because it doesn't envision that. Quoting further: "The K-1 Visa was designed for fiancé(e)s of US citizens to come temporarily for the purpose of getting married." Yeah, its whole raison d'être, the K-1, is to go to the United States, be there for 90 days during which you get married and then you file for adjustment. That is the purpose of it. It's designed with the idea in mind that you are going to file for adjustment of status. Quoting further: "The upshot of USCIS's bizarre new policy is that the vast majority of the 1.2 million backlogged legal immigrants with pending Green Card applications for legal permanent residence will have to self-deport. This includes spouses of US citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as their minor children." Yeah, and on top of that, if you're coming from Thailand and you self-deport back to Thailand, we are still under the Immigrant Visa Pause for spouses. So if you went in the right way on a K-1 and what? They are going to kick you back out and make you do an Immigrant Spouse Visa that they are not currently granting?

What is this? I mean again as Mr. Hacking points out, I tend to agree with them. If you are already in the process of dealing with your Green Card status in the United States, you are probably going to want to sit tight. Again you should probably talk to a legal professional to gain some insight and guidance into how best to proceed. Again, folks that are in the United States, lawyers that are in the US dealing with internal USCIS on a day-to-day basis, probably are going to have a better idea at least than I do. I have got a good grasp on Consular processing but again, I'm not based in the United States. So, this is a really odd thing. I have to imagine the Courts are going to chime in, most likely on the whole policy as a whole, but with regard to the K-1 specifically, where the law is designed to allow for adjustment, I have to imagine this isn't going to pass legal scrutiny. That being said, it remains to be seen so we'll certainly be keeping folks updated on this channel as the situation evolves.