i worked at uscis. the uscis adjudicators are not a core of open borders advocates who are looking for ways to disobey the secretary's explicit instructions. they take their job seriously and they do exercise the discretion the secretary has told them to. >> i appreciate that clarification. i would invite any of the other panel members to disagree if they wish to do so but i would just like to clarify a point that was made earlier by my colleague and friend, senator sessions. loretta lynch i think yesterday clarified that she does not believe there is a federal right to work for immigrants who are not in a lawful status. i believe the record will show that she did clarify that point. with that, if any of the other panelists want to comment on the question i raised earlier, i would invite you to do so. >> the proof will be in the pudding. people have looked at the structure of the proposed policy. it appears that the case-by-case discretion as built into this policy may well prove to be largely illusory.

the uscis is funded, not by the taxpayers, it's funded by the fees of the applicants. and so the amendment seems to assume that the -- if you are out of status somehow somebody else is paying for you, the taxpayers or some other applicant. that's not the case. each applicant pays the money of processing their own fees. it does not delay others. what this amendment would do would not just deal with daca applicants. it wyoming pact people who i don't think want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. for example, people who are victims of torture can come to the united states and make a case, plea for political asylum. they file a petition to do that. this amendment would say their petitions can't be heard. people who are victims of domestic violence, we created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. that would -- those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a visa, that's something we created in law. according to this amendmen

the uscis is funded, not by the taxpayers, it's funded by the fees of the applicants. and so the amendment seems to assume that the -- if you are out of status somehow somebody else is paying for you, the taxpayers or some other applicant. that's not the case. each applicant pays the money of processing their own fees. it does not delay others. what this amendment would do would not just deal with daca applicants. it wyoming pact people who i don't think want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. for example, people who are victims of torture can come to the united states and make a case, plea for political asylum. they file a petition to do that. this amendment would say their petitions can't be heard. people who are victims of domestic violence, we created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. that would -- those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a visa, that's something we created in law. according to this amendmen

i know you served with the uscis. this part is mandatory the point of racing. nothing congress passes apparently, has the ability to be effectuated in reality. that is a problem. congress will pass things, and they don't happened. we mandated a fence 700 miles. it did not happen. he said there should be annexed to -- be an exit-entry visa. it still hasn't been completed. are you aware that the group that you work with, the federation of government employees who represent ucsis has opposed this bill vigorously and say it will not work, and is not helpful? >> this is the very same group whom some people are suggesting will refuse to obey the secretary's instruction to exercise discretion and will instead rubberstamp these cases. >> professor eastman in his testimony before the house on discretion says there is nothing in the memo to suggest that immigration officials can do anything other than grant deferred action to those meeting the defined eligibility criteria. indeed, the overpowering tone of the memo is one of woe to align immigration officers who do not ac

the uscis is funded, not by the taxpayers, it's funded by the fees of the applicants. and so the amendment seems to assume that the -- if you are out of status somehow somebody else is paying for you, the taxpayers or some other applicant. that's not the case. each applicant pays the money of processing their own fees. it does not delay others. what this amendment would do would not just deal with daca applicants. it wyoming pact people who i don't think want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. for example, people who are victims of torture can come to the united states and make a case, plea for political asylum. they file a petition to do that. this amendment would say their petitions can't be heard. people who are victims of domestic violence, we created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. that would -- those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a visa, that's something we created in law. according to this amendmen

, or maybe get a dhs attorney to drop the deportation proceeding, or maybe try to make sure, go to uscis to prevent a removal proceeding from being instituted in the first place. this actually worked. lawyers were able to do this for their clients in case after case and time after time where government trial attorneys agreed to exercise discretion consenting to the closure of an immigration case of the deportation case, u.s. benefits administrators within citizenship and immigration services agreed to defer action. and cases in which the foreign national partner of a u.s. citizen or an lpr wasn't even in removal proceedings yet but was afraid they would fall out of status and potential be subject to removal proceedings. immigration judges within the eoir are willing to do the same thing. one case at a time, still going. while the larger lawsuits against the administration just the constitutionality of section three of doma were still in a briefing, we were beginning to see a kind of culture, a kind of time after time almost administrative common-law type decision-making among these agenc

memorandum for the director of uscis and some other folks from the secretary of homeland security. that is all it is but what exactly is this? what exactly is this piece of paper? it's an agency guidance document and agency guidance documents are not legislative rules that are used heavily throughout administrative law. in administrative allow the term world is used broadly to include both legislative and nonlegislative rules. legislative rules are uniquely binding. you might think regulations while non- legislative rules like the memoranda are not. the legislative role must follow either the formal or informal were making provisions of the administration -- of ministry procedure act and rulemaking much more common. informal were making the general path is that the agency publishes a notice of proposed rule in the federal register and then allows the public an opportunity to comment on the rule and then a publication of the final rule follows. the administrative procedure act allows an exception to informal rulemaking for guidance documents like policy memoranda. policy memoranda f

the executive action is that if enough unauthorized immigrants don't sign up for it quickly, then uscis the agency that will implement it, will run out of money. it's a fee-driven agency which shields it for the most part from congressional -- from congress taking away the money but it is dependent on people signing up. if people are worried about it, or trust it won't stay in place, then that could prevent ucis from doing it. we can talk more about that if people are interested. the last point i want to make is what's the impact of this recent announcement on sort of the broader u.s. political system? one answer is that it's, i believe, a good thing for democrats for 2016. by restoring waning enthusiasm among hispanic voters, executive action really helps democratic candidates in 2016 because it's a big deal if it plays out. and republicans really have their hands tied about how to respond. they can either satisfy their base by pulling out all the stops, but that alienates swing hispanic voters and maybe some moderates they could try to pick up. it helps individual republicans in the s

had an activity in providence rhode island with congressman sicilini it was amazing to see heads of uscisomeland security come before the audience and say, we want to help you fill out those applications. we didn't come here to ask you questions. we came here to answer your questions, and tell you how to facilitate your legalization. i think it's great to see a government that is replacing fear in a community with hope. >> congressman gutierrez, a pleasure. thanks. >>> an update on the measles scare across the country. arizona now the sixth state to report a measles case linked to disney theme parks in california. five other states and mexico have cases connected to that same outbreak. this morning disney is monitoring about 100 colleagues of the five workers who were infected with measles. also offering free vacations and immunity tests to all park employees. california health officials say if you or your children have not been immunized, you might want to stay away from the disneyland area for now. after the break, the co-host of this weekend's miss universe pageant join me. even here o

yeah, so all of uscis, the immigration benefits agency, everything they do is fee-funded. in some cases there are waivers. like refugees don't have to pay for their processing but every other time of immigrant has to pay for their services. some are eligible for waivers but there's very limited waivers for the daca and dapa groups. >> thank you. >> doll ton white, university of pikeville. my question has to do with the flow coming from central america. through mexico. what diplomatic steps have we taken to kind of have the mexicans help us ease the flow a little and what steps do you think should be taken in that process? >> so, what has been done in mexico is that mexico has really cracked down on those -- you know, those transmigrants and the smugglers and the routes they use the trains they ride on. mexico has really stepped up its enforcement efforts at several choke points within mexico. that's definitely come in response to u.s. requests. and for domestic reasons in mexico. but it's been a diplomatic priority for us. that, i think arguably is the most important reaso

the final amendment filed last friday by representative shock says it is the sense of congress that uscis should adjudicate petitions of individuals in lawful status before adjudicating petitions of individuals in unlawful status. i believe what the amendment is trying to get at is this: when daca was initially implemented there ended up being wait times for other petitioners and that was unacceptable. however, the amendment ignores the fact that usces is much better positioned to avoid delays than it was in 2012. the amendment also sweeps far too broadly. uscia handles many petitions filed by people in unlawful status that we would never want to put at the back of the line; asylum applications adjustment of substitute applications people married to american citizens, requests for t visas for people who are victims of sex trafficking or crime, these are all people who would be harmed by the amendment. i can't believe that was the intention, but that would be the impact. i believe congress needs to have a discussion about immigration policy. i'm always open to that discussion. and as you k

, or maybe get a dhs attorney to drop the deportation proceeding, or maybe try to make sure, go to uscis to prevent a removal proceeding from being instituted in the first place. this actually worked. lawyers were able to do this for their clients in case after case and time after time where government trial attorneys agreed to exercise discretion consenting to the closure of an immigration case of the deportation case, u.s. benefits administrators within citizenship and immigration services agreed to defer action. and cases in which the foreign national partner of a u.s. citizen or an lpr wasn't even in removal proceedings yet but was afraid they would fall out of status and potential be subject to removal proceedings. immigration judges within the cio are willing to do the same thing. one case at a time, still going. while the larger lawsuits against the administration just the constitutionality of section three of doma were still in a briefing, we were beginning to see a kind of culture, a kind of time after time almost administrative common-law type decision-making among these agency

wasn't willing to grant a farable exercise of discretion, the immigration judge would agree to it, or uscis wod agree to defer action. another example has to do with th is a kind of treaty investor visa whh the department of state and the legacy ins both shared jurisdiction over interpreting the actual requirements or retained the visa, developing competing interpretations until evtually one interpretation won out over another but another example has to do with mandatory detention programs that were piloted der the george w. bush administration in which line level officers refused to comply with the idea that you should mandatorily detain someby after the issuance of a final order of removal. so these two features, line officer discretion on the one hand, and positive redundancy, jurisdictional overlap within the agency i think helps us to see the change can come not just onfrom the top but from the bottom as well. it also helps conttualize and provide normative support for some of the kinds of a broader prospects will discretion programs that we are talking about today. from this perspecti

they say that dedicated immigration service officers and adjudicators and uscis are in desperate need of help. the president's executive amnesty order for five million illegal immigrants places the mission of uscis in grave peril. close quote. has anybody been listening to them or do they just listen to big business? do they just listen to activist groups? they just listen to lobbyists politicians with their political schemes to win elections? is that what they're listening to. they're not listening to the officers who carry out the duties. last fall the same group represents the theers government workers. ken palinkas, a very able leader said this -- quote -- "making matters more dangerous. the obama administration's executive amnesty like s. 744 that he unsuccessfully lobbied for would legalize visa overstays and cause millions additionally to overstay, raising the threat level to america even higher." it goes on with many other points. madam president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to speak. i'm very, very worried that our democratic colleagues are making a mistake. i think