Switching Employers in a Working World: American Immigrants and the Revocation Notice Problem

J. Aust
{"title":"Switching Employers in a Working World: American Immigrants and the Revocation Notice Problem","authors":"J. Aust","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.2.switching","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A current tension in U.S. employment immigration law involves the notice requirements for prospective permanent residency—”green card”—applicants. Foreign workers oftentimes do not receive their green cards for more than ten years after beginning the permanent residency process. For almost four decades after the first major employment immigration legislation was passed in 1965, green card applicants were unable to change employers during this extremely long process without abandoning their applications. In 2000, Congress sought to remedy the problem by passing legislation allowing foreign workers to change employers without sacrificing progress on their green cards. This legislation, however, created a massive gap in the process which remains to this day: currently, if a foreign worker changes employers after beginning her green card application, neither the worker nor her new employer is legally entitled to notice if anything goes wrong with the underlying petition. More specifically, if the government finds error in the green card petition and seeks to revoke it, the government is not obligated to provide revocation notice to the foreign national or to her new employer. Revoking a green card petition does not merely jeopardize a worker’s permanent residency application; it could also jeopardize her entire underlying status and could force her to abruptly leave the country. The immigration agency issued a policy memo in 2017 partially addressing the problem by granting the worker temporary standing during her proceedings. The memo is an insufficient solution to the problem, however, because it may be withdrawn or superseded at any time. Because the revocation notice problem presents an immediate and dire threat to the immigration status of potentially every foreign worker who switches jobs during her green card process, this Note advocates for both immediate administrative—as well as long-term congressional—permanent reforms to the relevant statutes and regulations governing this system.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"118 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.2.switching","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A current tension in U.S. employment immigration law involves the notice requirements for prospective permanent residency—”green card”—applicants. Foreign workers oftentimes do not receive their green cards for more than ten years after beginning the permanent residency process. For almost four decades after the first major employment immigration legislation was passed in 1965, green card applicants were unable to change employers during this extremely long process without abandoning their applications. In 2000, Congress sought to remedy the problem by passing legislation allowing foreign workers to change employers without sacrificing progress on their green cards. This legislation, however, created a massive gap in the process which remains to this day: currently, if a foreign worker changes employers after beginning her green card application, neither the worker nor her new employer is legally entitled to notice if anything goes wrong with the underlying petition. More specifically, if the government finds error in the green card petition and seeks to revoke it, the government is not obligated to provide revocation notice to the foreign national or to her new employer. Revoking a green card petition does not merely jeopardize a worker’s permanent residency application; it could also jeopardize her entire underlying status and could force her to abruptly leave the country. The immigration agency issued a policy memo in 2017 partially addressing the problem by granting the worker temporary standing during her proceedings. The memo is an insufficient solution to the problem, however, because it may be withdrawn or superseded at any time. Because the revocation notice problem presents an immediate and dire threat to the immigration status of potentially every foreign worker who switches jobs during her green card process, this Note advocates for both immediate administrative—as well as long-term congressional—permanent reforms to the relevant statutes and regulations governing this system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在工作世界中更换雇主:美国移民和解雇通知问题
美国就业移民法目前的一个紧张局势涉及到对未来永久居留权——“绿卡”申请人的通知要求。外国工人通常在开始永久居留程序后的十多年内都没有收到绿卡。自1965年第一个主要的就业移民立法通过以来的近40年里,绿卡申请人在这个极其漫长的过程中无法在不放弃申请的情况下更换雇主。2000年,国会试图解决这个问题,通过了一项立法,允许外国工人在不牺牲绿卡进程的情况下更换雇主。然而,这项立法在这个过程中造成了一个巨大的漏洞,直到今天仍然存在:目前,如果一个外国工人在开始绿卡申请后改变雇主,工人和她的新雇主在法律上都没有权利通知潜在的请愿书是否有任何问题。更具体地说,如果政府发现绿卡申请中的错误并试图撤销它,政府没有义务向外国人或其新雇主提供撤销通知。撤销绿卡申请不仅会危及工人的永久居留申请;这也可能危及她的整个潜在地位,并可能迫使她突然离开这个国家。移民局在2017年发布了一份政策备忘录,部分解决了这个问题,在她的诉讼过程中给予了她临时地位。然而,备忘录不足以解决问题,因为它可能在任何时候被撤回或取代。由于撤销通知问题对每一个在绿卡过程中换工作的外国工人的移民身份都构成了直接而可怕的威胁,本报告主张立即对管理这一制度的相关法规进行行政和长期的国会永久改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A System Out of Balance: A Critical Analysis of Philosophical Justifications for Copyright Law Through the Lenz of Users' Rights Giving the Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating an Adversarial Warrant Proceeding to Protect From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Private Caregiver Presumption For Elder Caregivers The Short Unhappy Life of the Negotiation Class Former Whistleblowers: Why the False Claims Act's Anti-Retaliation Provision Should Protect Former Employees
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1