Latest news with #DavidBier
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
U.S. deported 50 Venezuelans with legal status to El Salvador: study
At least 50 Venezuelans who were deported and sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador came to the United States legally and never violated immigration law, according to a new analysis from the libertarian Cato Institute. The report compiled family accounts, along with entry documents and witness testimony, to determine how they crossed into the United States and what likely led to their detention. 'The government calls them all 'illegal aliens.' But of the 90 cases where the method of crossing is known, 50 men report that they came legally to the United States, with advanced U.S. government permission, at an official border crossing point,' the report stated. More than 200 Venezuelans were deported to El Salvador in March following a wave of detentions and executive orders on immigration. Since then, they have had no access to lawyers or the ability to communicate with their families. The records reviewed includes a temporary visa holder and four men who were authorized to travel through the U.S. refugee program. At least 45 scheduled appointments using the CBP One app, through which they were permitted to seek entry. Among those with appointments, 24 were given a permit to enter the U.S. and to stay for up to two years, while the other 21 were detained at the port of entry, according to the study. The Venezuelans were held at the Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum security prison that can hold up to 40,000 people. They were construction laborers, pipe installers, cooks, delivery drivers, a soccer coach, a makeup artist, a mechanic, a veterinarian, a musician and an entrepreneur, the study found. David Bier, director of Immigration Studies at Cato and author of the analysis, said the findings underscore a broader goal not simply to target illegal immigration, but to reduce immigration overall. 'It reveals a grave threat to the rights of noncitizens in the United States,' Bier said. 'And it may permanently change how people around the world view the United States: not as the land of freedom and rule of law, but a land of arbitrary detention at the whims of its leader like Russia or North Korea.' The Venezuelans were deported under the authority of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime declaration. The detentions are tied to suspicions of gang affiliation, but how those suspicions are formed raises concerns. Immigration officials flagged them as suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang based on tattoos and a point-based system, according to a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed against the Donald Trump administration. The Cato report found that 42 were labeled as gang members primarily based on their tattoos, 'which Venezuelan gangs do not use to identify members and are not reliable indicators of gang membership.' 'All these legal immigrants denied gang membership, and only two appear to have had a U.S. criminal conviction of any kind, both for minor drug offenses,' Cato wrote in its report. J. Tony Lopez, an immigration attorney in Tampa, said that once a deportation takes place, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement typically refuses to share further details, leaving families without clarity on their relatives' whereabouts or status. Two women in Tampa have been unable to get information about their deported Venezuelan partners. One of them, Liyanara Sánchez, recognized her husband, Frengel Reyes Mota, in a video aired two weeks ago by One America News Network. It's her only proof he's alive. The other woman, Angela Leal, has not received any news about her boyfriend, Luis Carlos Jose Marcano.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
More Than 50 Men Entered The US Legally Only To Later Be Sent To CECOT, Report Finds
More than two months after the Trump administration flew more than 200 people to a detention camp in El Salvador, there's still a lot that remains unclear. We still don't know who, exactly, the government sent there. We don't know how many people were aboard each plane that went from Texas to El Salvador on March 15; we don't know who was removed under the wartime Alien Enemies Act, and who was removed under more standard immigration authorities. The question of whether non-citizens that the U.S. government is paying El Salvador to hold are entitled to habeas corpus protections is also, somewhat ominously, unanswered. It's shocking given the lawlessness of the operation: the Trump administration sought to shield these removals from judicial scrutiny from the start, and, per the finding of one federal judge, sought to delay a court hearing until the airplanes could depart for El Salvador. A report published this week by the Cato Institute adds another egregious fact to this story: many of those sent to El Salvador entered the United States legally. The researchers behind the study attempted to learn as much as they could about a list of 238 men rendered to CECOT, the El Salvador prison, on March 15, obtained and reported by CBS News. They found that at least 50 of the more than 200 men sent to El Salvador complied with U.S. immigration law as they entered the country. Their resulting removal and indefinite confinement in El Salvador has been a betrayal, David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute and the author of the study, told TPM. 'They came to the United States really under the false pretense that they would be welcomed and admitted into the country,' he said. The result was, instead, that having entered legally, they were removed extralegally. The administration branded these people as members of a Venezuelan gang, in many cases — without any evidence — before flying them to El Salvador for indefinite detention. Many of those that Bier identified came as refugees. One entered on a tourist visa before later requesting refugee status. Four were approved as refugees before their arrival. The remaining 45 entered via the CBP One app; around half of those later were paroled. The Trump administration has tried to justify these peoples' indefinite incarceration in CECOT by casting them broadly as criminals. In addition to labeling them as members of Tren de Aragua, a legal necessity under the proclamation Trump issued, they've touted the invocation of the law as a 'promise kept.' Vice President JD Vance called them 'violent criminals and rapists,' border czar Tom Homan has called it an effort to 'remove public safety threats and national security threats.' DHS calls those removed 'illegal aliens.' The report shows that apart from largely lacking criminal records, many of those removed were not, in fact, 'illegal.' In spite of that, the result was that they were removed to CECOT without any trial or opportunity to contest the government's decision-making in any form. 'The fact that you got advance permission to travel here was no protection against potentially being subject to rendition to a foreign prison,' Bier said.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's immigration ‘gold card' could be a huge winner — with these changes
President Trump announced a new immigration program last month under which prospective immigrants will be able to buy a 'gold card' for $5 million to immigrate legally to the U.S. The new visa would replace the current EB-5 visa, known as the 'investor visa,' and provide a path to citizenship. The president wants to use the revenue to pay off the country's deficit. The concept of a 'gold card' is a good idea that could help streamline this country's Kafkaesque immigration system and provide a source of revenue, along with boosting the many widely known benefits of immigration. But to be a true win for America, the price tag needs to change to open up the program to a larger number of productive newcomers. Legal considerations aside — Trump claims he doesn't need Congress to enact this change, which is questionable — a 'gold card' program could potentially remove some of the many bureaucratic barriers to immigration. The current 'investor visa,' which among other things requires a minimum investment in American companies of between $800,000 and $1.05 million, is complex, slow and inefficient. This program grants around 10,000 visas every year to investors and their families. While many aspects of the new 'gold card' program remain unclear, it would likely be much more straightforward, potentially requiring only the initial payment and the thorough background check already conducted on all prospective immigrants. It would also purportedly be uncapped, so theoretically more than 10,000 beneficiaries could use the program each year. The $5 million price tag, however, is unrealistic. Few people are going to be able to afford it, and the cost makes the program less attractive even to wealthy individuals. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explained in an interview that the new program would be 'significantly less attractive to highly wealthy individuals than the [investor visa], under which not only is the amount lower, but investors get back their investment once a green card is approved.' Furthermore, Bier said that the president's expectations that companies would pay $5 million to bring in top talent is also unrealistic. 'No company would pay $5 million for a green card for any worker. They can't make $5 million on many, if any, workers.' He highlighted that green card holders, and likely potential 'gold card' holders, can go to a different company whenever they want, as legal residency is not tied to a specific job offer. With a $5 million cost, it's unlikely that many individuals would take up the offer. Thus, replacing the investor visa with the less affordable 'gold card' may, in turn, have the effect of reducing legal immigration instead of expanding it. The roughly 10,000 yearly beneficiaries of the investor visa may not be able to afford the new price and thus stop coming. The Trump administration should improve on their idea, adjusting the cost of the 'gold card' according to factors such as age and level of education and skill. In a 2019 policy analysis, Cato's Alex Nowrasteh detailed the many options to set the rate of such a program, including considerations like the forgoing of government benefits. Many of those options could be considered when setting a more realistic and reasonable cost that would allow more productive workers to come to America. As conceived right now, the 'gold card' program does not address border security. But it could. If the cost of the visa is adjusted, many of the people who cross the border illegally would stop doing so in favor of purchasing a legal way into the country. Such people already spend a lot of money to come to America — the cartel-controlled immigration black market forces them to pay tens of thousands of dollars to human smugglers and other such characters to cross the border. If immigrants could use that money to pay the U.S. government instead, they would likely opt to enter legally. These people would be thoroughly vetted, just like any other legal immigrant, in the process. This approach would lead to fewer migrants massing at the border, more security vetting of those coming in, more revenue and fewer cartel victims. A streamlined program would also attract highly specialized professionals — such as scientists, engineers and doctors — who currently don't move to the U.S. due to restrictive immigration rules. More specialized workers would boost innovation and fill crucial jobs that keep Americans healthy and safe, while providing new opportunities to the beneficiaries as well. Details of the 'gold card' program remain unclear, and it is yet to be seen if it will actually be implemented. As the concept stands now, David Bier predicts that it will be 'a little used part of the U.S. immigration system.' But the administration has the kernel of a good idea. If modified, the 'gold card' is an easy sell to the American public, as it would allow well-meaning, productive people to pay to come here and work, increase revenue and benefit American employers, all while reducing illegal immigration and undermining the cartels. It would be a win for everybody. Ultimately, America's entire immigration system needs to be reconceived, but a carefully structured gold card program could be a way to improve the current system for Americans and immigrants alike. Agustina Vergara Cid, LL.B. and LL.M, is a Young Voices contributor and an associate fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. Her opinions do not necessarily reflect those of any institution. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
07-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's immigration ‘gold card' could be a huge winner — with these changes
President Trump announced a new immigration program last month under which prospective immigrants will be able to buy a 'gold card' for $5 million to immigrate legally to the U.S. The new visa would replace the current EB-5 visa, known as the 'investor visa,' and provide a path to citizenship. The president wants to use the revenue to pay off the country's deficit. The concept of a 'gold card' is a good idea that could help streamline this country's Kafkaesque immigration system and provide a source of revenue, along with boosting the many widely known benefits of immigration. But to be a true win for America, the price tag needs to change to open up the program to a larger number of productive newcomers. Legal considerations aside — Trump claims he doesn't need Congress to enact this change, which is questionable — a 'gold card' program could potentially remove some of the many bureaucratic barriers to immigration. The current 'investor visa,' which among other things requires a minimum investment in American companies of between $800,000 and $1.05 million, is complex, slow and inefficient. This program grants around 10,000 visas every year to investors and their families. While many aspects of the new 'gold card' program remain unclear, it would likely be much more straightforward, potentially requiring only the initial payment and the thorough background check already conducted on all prospective immigrants. It would also purportedly be uncapped, so theoretically more than 10,000 beneficiaries could use the program each year. The $5 million price tag, however, is unrealistic. Few people are going to be able to afford it, and the cost makes the program less attractive even to wealthy individuals. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explained in an interview that the new program would be 'significantly less attractive to highly wealthy individuals than the [investor visa], under which not only is the amount lower, but investors get back their investment once a green card is approved.' Furthermore, Bier said that the president's expectations that companies would pay $5 million to bring in top talent is also unrealistic. 'No company would pay $5 million for a green card for any worker. They can't make $5 million on many, if any, workers.' He highlighted that green card holders, and likely potential 'gold card' holders, can go to a different company whenever they want, as legal residency is not tied to a specific job offer. With a $5 million cost, it's unlikely that many individuals would take up the offer. Thus, replacing the investor visa with the less affordable 'gold card' may, in turn, have the effect of reducing legal immigration instead of expanding it. The roughly 10,000 yearly beneficiaries of the investor visa may not be able to afford the new price and thus stop coming. The Trump administration should improve on their idea, adjusting the cost of the 'gold card' according to factors such as age and level of education and skill. In a 2019 policy analysis, Cato's Alex Nowrasteh detailed the many options to set the rate of such a program, including considerations like the forgoing of government benefits. Many of those options could be considered when setting a more realistic and reasonable cost that would allow more productive workers to come to America. As conceived right now, the 'gold card' program does not address border security. But it could. If the cost of the visa is adjusted, many of the people who cross the border illegally would stop doing so in favor of purchasing a legal way into the country. Such people already spend a lot of money to come to America — the cartel-controlled immigration black market forces them to pay tens of thousands of dollars to human smugglers and other such characters to cross the border. If immigrants could use that money to pay the U.S. government instead, they would likely opt to enter legally. These people would be thoroughly vetted, just like any other legal immigrant, in the process. This approach would lead to fewer migrants massing at the border, more security vetting of those coming in, more revenue and fewer cartel victims. A streamlined program would also attract highly specialized professionals — such as scientists, engineers and doctors — who currently don't move to the U.S. due to restrictive immigration rules. More specialized workers would boost innovation and fill crucial jobs that keep Americans healthy and safe, while providing new opportunities to the beneficiaries as well. Details of the 'gold card' program remain unclear, and it is yet to be seen if it will actually be implemented. As the concept stands now, David Bier predicts that it will be 'a little used part of the U.S. immigration system.' But the administration has the kernel of a good idea. If modified, the 'gold card' is an easy sell to the American public, as it would allow well-meaning, productive people to pay to come here and work, increase revenue and benefit American employers, all while reducing illegal immigration and undermining the cartels. It would be a win for everybody. Ultimately, America's entire immigration system needs to be reconceived, but a carefully structured gold card program could be a way to improve the current system for Americans and immigrants alike.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Birthright citizenship executive order stirs frustration in the nation
David Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies, states, 'But if you don't have a passport according to this order, you don't have proof of citizenship. Your birth certificate isn't enough.' Colorado District Attorney General Phil Weiser states, 'If you are born here, you are a citizen and you have all the rights of a citizen.' President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week along with a dozen others. One of them sparking controversy about the topic of American citizenship. U.S. Rep. Dale Strong (R-Ala.), states, 'Those that desire to be a United States citizen, must do it legally. You must assimilate, pledge allegiance to America. Follow our laws and speak our language.' U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), states, "This executive order prevents the children of immigrants, both those whose parents have a lawful immigration status like a work visa and those whose parents are undocumented who are born in the United States from being able to obtain documents to demonstrate that they are citizens of the United States." Bier states, 'I talked to a lot of high skilled immigrants in this country, they talked about their family. They talk about the hope they have for their children to be Americans, to grow up in this country and to contribute to this country.' WesternSlopeNow spoke with Colorado immigrant lawyer Fred Hartman about what could happen. He said some of the immigrants are feeling more stress than normal. Hartman states, 'I would say some immigrants more likely; the more recent arrivals probably have a higher level of anxiety because they weren't maybe here for the first Trump administration.' Hartman also mentions since the inauguration, there have been an abundance of calls. Hartman states, 'I do have clients who have maybe been married to a citizen for a year or two and just haven't gotten around to, you know, looking into what the process is to be able to start their immigration case.' Nick Brown, Washington's attorney general, states, 'This amendment to our Constitution was put into effect. In the wake of the most infamous United States Supreme Court decision in, the Dred Scott decision, it was put into effect to reaffirm what it means to be an American.' Strong states, 'Birthright citizenship also undermines the principles of fairness. No one has the right to skip the line and cross our border and go around the legal barriers in our place.'
