Tag: H-1B

2019 Labor & Employment Predictions Reviewed

Published by Brett Holubeck on January 2, 2020

Image stating "Happy New Year" to demonstrate the review of the 2019 labor and employment predictions. — Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

If you recall this article from last year, then you remember that I made some labor and employment predictions for 2019. Some of them came true, but some of them were delayed, likely until 2020. Here is an overview of each of the labor and employment predictions and where the law or issue stands right now.

1. Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Increased

In 2018, the last fiscal year that data is available for sexual harassment lawsuits, the data from the EEOC showed that these lawsuits increased:

The agency also received 7,609 sexual harassment charges – a 13.6 percent increase from FY 2017 – and obtained $56.6 million in monetary benefits for victims of sexual harassment.

The final figures for 2019 are not available yet. However, increasing sexual harassment litigation and charges at the EEOC is a trend that will likely continue. Sexual harassment is not being tolerated in the workplace. Moreover, companies are holding their executives, managers and others to a higher standard than they used to. For example, the CEO of McDonalds stepped down last year for having a consensual relationship with an employee. Again, that is a consensual relationship without any sexual harassment. Many companies prohibit their C-suite from dating anyone at the company. Every company needs to consider how they can prevent sexual harassment. Training for employees, training for managers, and having an appropriate complaint procedure is absolutely necessary, or it will most certainly cost you in the long run. You can read more of how companies can prevent sexual harassment here and in this recent Chicago Tribune article where I discussed office romance in the workplace.

2. The Supreme Court Has Taken Cases to Determine Whether Sexual Orientation is Protected.

The Supreme Court has consolidated 2 cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda) to determine whether discrimination against an employee due to their sexual orientation is prohibited employment discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII. The Supreme Court also took a case (R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) to determine “[w]hether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.”

Essentially, the first cases will determine if sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the law (whether it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation). The second case will determine whether it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are transgender.

The arguments were in early October; most people expect this to be one of the final decisions that the court issues in June. It is anyone’s guess how these cases will be decided. Most people expect that these cases will be highly divided.

3. The Department of Labor is Increasing the Salary Threshold (but I’m Off by 1 Day).

The Department of Labor did increase the salary threshold to be exempt from overtime (employees must still meet the duties test of one of the exemptions), but I missed my prediction by 1 day (it went into effect on January 1, 2020).

I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. Here is what the DOL did:

The new overtime salary threshold will be $684 per week (which equals $35,568 per year). The new rule also raises the threshold for the highly compensated category from the current threshold of $100,000 to $107,432 per year. The new rule will also permit employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and commissions that are paid on at least an annual basis within this count towards meeting the overtime salary threshold (but only up to 10%) of the salary level.

4. Paid Family Leave is Still Coming. It was not Implemented Nationally Last Year, but There Have Been Some States that Have Expanded Paid Leave.

Currently only D.C. and 8 states have passed Paid family leave laws. While no paid family leave proposals were enacted last year at the federal level, several states (and the federal government for its employees) have begun implementing paid family leave or increased paid sick leave.

The House of Representatives has approved a bill to give 12 weeks of paid parental leave to federal workers and President Trump has shown support for the bill.
The state of Washington passed SB 5975 in July 2017 to commence a paid leave program at the start of 2020.
Connecticut passed legislation in 2019 that establishes a paid family leave program. Employers must begin withholding and remitting contributions by January 1, 2021, and employees can begin using the leave on January 1, 2022.
Oregon also passed a law that will take effect in 2023 and will provide 12 weeks of paid time off for parental leave, leave for domestic violence issues, and if the person is ill or caring for a family member that is ill.
Nevada passed a paid leave law that went into effect on January 1 and will apply to employers with 50 or more employees. These employees will generally get 40 hours of leave per year.
Washington D.C. residents will be eligible for paid leave beginning on July 1, 2020. Employees will be able to use “8 weeks to bond with a new child, 6 weeks to care for a family member that has a serious health condition, and 2 weeks to care for their own serious health condition.”
Maine passed a law that will go into effect in January 2021 that will require employers with 10 or more employees to provide up to 40 hours of paid leave every year. It is the first state to allow the leave to be used for any reason rather than merely sick leave.
California passed SB 83 which increased paid family leave from 6 weeks to 8 weeks beginning on July 1, 2020 and increases the wage replacement rate.

With this year being an election year, one should expect that more states will begin to pass paid family leave.

5. NLRB Joint Employer Standard Will be Issued Soon

Again, this one was close. Originally, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was set to issue the final rule in December 2019, but it has not yet issued the final rule. It has, however, ruled that McDonald’s should not be held responsible for any labor violations of its franchisees (i.e. it is not a joint employer). The final rule was not published in 2019, so employers should expect that it will be published sometime this year.

Moreover, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) are set to issue joint employer rules of their own in 2020.

6. Independent Contractor Issues Did Arise in Many States

This prediction is a big yes. 2019 may be remembered as a tipping point for issues related to independent contractors. However, it is not due to the actions of the federal government.

The change occurred because of state regulations and new legislation. The biggest impact on independent contractors last year came out of California and New Jersey (which may spread to other states in 2020). California passed AB 5 in September of last year and the legislation took effect on January 1, 2020. To be an independent contractor all 3 of the following elements must now be met:

(A) The hiring entity does not control or direct the worker in performing the work in fact or under the terms of a contract;
(B) The work performed is outside the “usual course” of the hiring entity’s business; [and]
(C) The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

It is very difficult for many workers to meet the second prong (outside the usual course of a company’s business). This prong (and specifics in the bill) is why the new test has come under a lot of controversy from independent truckers and freelance writers (who are now limited to 35 articles per publication before the company must hire them as employees, and as a result being hurt by this new law). These individuals are losing their flexibility due to the law as they can no longer be independent contractors.

Of course, the law will have an impact on the major companies in the gig economy (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, etc.), but many of these companies do not plan on transitioning their independent contractors to employees right away as they plan to argue that these workers are not a part of their core business. For example, Uber will argue that they are a technology platform for several different digital marketplaces (Uber, Uber Eats, etc.) that match providers (drivers) and customers (riders) and their drivers are thus independent contractors.

New Jersey was also a major player in changing the landscape of independent contractors this past year. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development issued a $649 million fine to Uber for unpaid unemployment and disability insurance taxes, which Uber is challenging. Essentially, the ruling was for Uber failing to pay taxes for these workers because they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees.

7. Medical Marijuana Protections Update

Marijuana laws have continued to change all across the country. The Health Employment and Labor blog from Epstein Becker Green does a nice job explaining the past year of marijuana changes.

Illinois became the 11^th state to legalize the use of recreational marijuana and the law took effect on January 1, 2020. Under the law, employers in Illinois may still take action against employees or applicants that fail a drug test provided that it is in the employer’s reasonable policy.

Epstein Becker Green’s blog also notes that:

New Mexico and Oklahoma each passed legislation that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their status as registered medical marijuana users; however, the Oklahoma law does provide an exception for safety-sensitive jobs and for situations which the employee possesses, consumes or is under the influence of marijuana at work.

In Nevada, a new law taking effect on January 1, 2020, prevents employers from failing or refusing to hire an applicant because the applicant tests positive for marijuana. Perhaps not surprisingly, New York City went one step further when it passed an Int. 1445-A, barring most employers from conducting any pre-employment testing for marijuana or THC.

Similarly, New Jersey now prohibits employers from disciplining or terminating an employee solely based on that individual’s status as a registered medical marijuana user. While the law does not prevent employers from prohibiting or disciplining employees from using marijuana during work hours or on workplace premises, Garden State employers with a drug testing policy are required to offer employees and applicants who test positive the opportunity to explain the positive result.

Companies should expect more changes in marijuana law in 2020.

8. ICE and Notice of Inspection Statistics

We are still waiting to see the exact numbers for 2019, however, Miriam Jordan’s New York Times article, More Than 2,000 Migrants Were Targeted in Raids. 35 Were Arrested, confirms that 3,282 Notices of Inspection were issued as of July 22, 2019. The article also provides key statistics from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It appears that notices of inspection are at least on pace to be at an increased level from the Obama administration.

9. DACA’s Constitutionality to be Determined in 2020

The Supreme Court has consolidated three cases that concern DACA (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. NAACP, McAleenan v. Vidal)

As I said in a prior post:

These cases basically deal with whether the Department of Homeland has the authority to end the program which 700,000 people rely on. Trump has expressed support for DACA, but wants Congress to act on a more permanent solution (likely as part of a wider deal on immigration).

I thought that the Supreme Court would have accepted the case a bit earlier than they did (in first half of 2019), but the case was ultimately not on the 2018-2019 docket. It is instead on the 2019-2020 docket, so we will get an answer on the constitutionality of the DACA program this year. Everyone expects this to be one of the most contentious cases this term with a decision in late June 2020.

10. Work Authorization for the spouses of H-1B Visa Holders with an Approved I-140 (Essentially their Employer Sponsored Green Card Petition) Will Likely be Determined in 2020.

I thought that the government would have reached a decision on the Employment Authorization Documents for spouses of H-1B visa holders with an approved I-140 (there are some immigrants that are waiting 10 or more years from the approval of their employer sponsored petition for them to become green card holders to them finally becoming permanent residents) in 2019. Fortunately, there has been a delay, which is great for H-1B visa holders as their spouses can continue to renew their work authorization until a decision is issued.

Big Law Business from Bloomberg law explains the current state of the law:

The fate of H-4 employment authorization hangs in the balance as 2019 [came] to a close. It’s been nearly a year since the Department of Homeland Security sent the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule that would rescind a 2015 regulation extending certain H-4 visa holders—the spouses of H-1B professional workers—the opportunity to seek U.S. employment.

The DHS has offered little explanation as to why the rule remains unpublished, but recently affirmed its commitment to proceed with rescission as early as spring 2020, albeit referring to that timeframe as “aspirational.”

In the meantime, H-4 employment authorization faces a second, more pressing threat. On Nov. 8, in Save Jobs USA v. DHS, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a group of American IT workers has standing to challenge the H-4 regulation.

The court remanded the case to the district court to address the merits of Save Jobs’ claim—that the DHS lacks authority to extend employment authorization to H-4 spouses absent explicit congressional direction.

Essentially, there is now a court case that will be decided over the next year or two (through a decision and appeals) and a regulation that may be released in 2020 (however, that is what the agency said in 2019 so we will see if that holds true) that will provide clarity on the issue. Of course, if a Democratic candidate is elected in 2020, then these individuals will likely keep their work authorization (or will regain it in 2021).

Conclusion

2019 was a huge year for labor and employment law. 2020 will be another big year as the current administration tries to put out more regulations and decisions before the 2020 presidential election. I will follow along with these pending cases this year, and address them here as decisions are made. I also be making some more labor and employment predictions for 2020, so stay tuned.

Wishing everyone a happy and healthy 2020- and for those of you who have already broken your resolution (did you already eat that piece of pie you swore off of? I know I did.), remember every single day is a day for progress. Cheers to that!

The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

2019 Labor and Employment Law Predictions

Published by Brett Holubeck on January 4, 2019

2018 was a whirlwind year for labor and employment. There were 3 major Supreme Court decisions. One decision concerned overtime exemptions to the Fair Labor Standard Act where the court found that the exemptions should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly. The Janus decision held that public sector employees could not be forced to pay an agency fee (public sector employees do not need to pay anything to a union that represents them). Finally, the Court found in the Epic Systems case that employers can require employees to settle employment disputes through arbitration agreements without violating the National Labor Relations Act.

While not as many changes will occur this year in labor and employment, there are still a number of exciting changes that could occur. Here are 10 labor and employment law predictions that I believe will happen next year.

Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Will Increase

The #Metoo movement is not going away in 2018. The preliminary data from the EEOC showed that charges alleging sexual harassment increased by more than 12% from 2017 into 2018. Unfortunately, this is an issue that is not going away. My prediction is that there will be more of these charges and lawsuits going into this year.

There will also be several states that will enact new laws to combat sexual harassment this year. California already has new requirements that just went into effect.

Starting in 2019, employers with five or more employees must provide two hours of training to supervisors and one hour to all other employees within six months of their hire (or promotion to supervisor) and every two years thereafter. Temporary and seasonal employees must be trained within their first 30 days or 100 hours, whichever comes first.

No company wants to be thought of as the company that allowed sexual harassment. Just look at what happened to Mike Isabella, a former Top Chef star, and his restaurants:

But in a Chapter 7 filing on Tuesday, which seeks to operate six restaurants through Dec. 27 before closing them permanently, Isabella argues that the local and national media relentlessly threw shade on his business operations even after he agreed to a confidential settlement in May with former Isabella Eatery manager, Chloe Caras, who sued for “extraordinary sexual harassment.” Isabella, documents note, apologized publicly to a local TV reporter and implemented new “zero tolerance” sexual harassment policies at all of his restaurants. He was ready to “restore confidence in Mike Isabella and his restaurants.”

Isabella lost his restaurants after he was accused of sexual harassment. Now, the accusations against him were very serious and he was the owner of the restaurant and was the one accused of sexual harassment. However, this can happen to any business and can be caused by employees at any level of the business. The issue of sexual harassment in the workplace is not going away. There will be more lawsuits, and charges regarding sexual harassment in 2019 than there were in 2018.

The Supreme Court Will Take a Case to Decide Whether Sexual Orientation is Protected under Title VII

The Supreme Court is considering taking a case to determine whether Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The issue hinges on whether “Because of … sex” includes sexual orientation or is limited to a person’s sex.

Currently there is a split among the Circuit Courts. The 2nd and 7th Circuit have found that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation-based discrimination and the 11th Circuit has found that sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII.

The Supreme Court will grant the writ of certiorari and they will review the case. If the Supreme Court decides to review the issue, then it will be one of the most important cases that the Court considers next term.

The Department of Labor Will Increase the Salary Threshold for the Overtime Rule

The Department of Labor is still undergoing rulemaking to raise the salary threshold that is required to meet the overtime exemption, which allows companies to pay workers a salary and not have to pay employees overtime regardless of the number of hours that they work in a week. Currently, an employee must be paid at least $455 per week (which equals $23,660 annually) to meet the salary threshold. In 2016, the Obama administration raised the salary threshold to $913 a week (or $47,476 a year). A federal district judge eventually blocked that rule and questioned the DOL’s ability to set any salary requirement to be exempt from overtime.

The DOL will attempt to raise the threshold to around $33,000 this year probably in March. The new salary threshold will be challenged again to determine whether the DOL even has the authority to set a salary threshold.

Paid Family Leave is Coming

As I said in a prior post, paid family leave is coming. This is a question of when and not if. I believe that it will be implemented either this year or next year. Here is what I said in my earlier post.

Various politicians have expressed their support for paid family leave. Ivanka Trump and The White House have discussed their support for family leave. Marco Rubio introduced a plan to allow new parents to delay taking their Social Security benefits in exchange for two months of paid parental benefits. The Democratic Party Platform also called for paid family leave.

One poll showed that 54% of Americans think the government should require all employers to provide 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. Only 29% of the respondents disagreed and 17% were undecided. With as much support as there is for paid family leave, it seems certain that Congress and the President will eventually enact a paid family leave law.

The National Labor Relations Board Will Issue a Joint Employer Standard

In September, the NLRB had issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the joint employer standard. The joint employer standard is important to determine whether companies are liable for violations of the law that are committed by staffing companies or franchises. For example, McDonalds has been combating a charge that it is a joint employer with its franchisees and is responsible for these small business owners firing employees that wanted higher wages.

Here is the release from the NLRB with the proposed rule:

Under the proposed rule, an employer may be found to be a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.

Unfortunately for the NLRB, the DC Circuit Court recently found that:

the question of whether there is a joint employment relationship under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) must be answered by applying the common law test for whether there exists an “agency” relationship. The Board has no special expertise relevant to defining the common law of agency. Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, the Board is awarded no deference in this area. In other words, the Board does not have the right to define or redefine joint employment in a way that would be inconsistent with the common law meaning of “agency.”’

My prediction is that the NLRB moves forward with its rulemaking and ignores the decision of the DC Circuit. This will have a big impact on employers that use staffing companies because they will not (generally) be liable for violations that the staffing company commits against its employees unless the company exercises direct control over the employees rather than merely having the ability to direct the staffing company employees.

To clarify, it is basically the difference between a supervisor of a hotel telling the landscaping crew (that is employed by a staffing company) how to perform their jobs and exactly what needs to be done (direct control) versus the staffing company supervising, disciplining, and directing the employees with the supervisor or owner of the hotel merely having the authority to direct these landscaping employees (indirect control).

I know it is a bit convoluted, but it is incredibly important. Depending on how this decision turns out it could have a big impact on any company that franchises businesses. Yes, that means that it will impact every McDonalds and Chick-Fil-A owner.

Independent Contractor Issues Will Arise in Many States

Independent contractors are everywhere and the law concerning them is far from settled. My prediction is that more states will seek to limit the abilities of companies to use independent contractors especially when these contractors form a part of the company’s core business (think UBER drivers).

The California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision last year and the effects are still being felt. Below is the new test (called the ABC test) that the court implemented. For a worker to be an independent contractor the company must show:

1) that the company does not direct the worker in the performance of her job, 2) that the worker performs work outside the scope of the company’s typical business (such as a freelance artist who designs fliers for a moving company), and 3) that the worker has made the affirmative decision to go into business for herself, perhaps by incorporating or starting an LLC.

New Jersey and Massachusetts also use the ABC test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor. Many of the companies that use independent contractors have a bad reputation and it is likely that more state supreme courts and possibly legislatures will adopt the ABC test. Regardless, it will get harder (at the state level) for companies to employ independent contractors.

More States will Protect Medical Marijuana Users from Discrimination

More states will change their stance on medical marijuana and whether employees that use it are protected from discrimination. Currently Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island protect employee use of medical marijuana and prohibit employers from firing those employees for off duty medical marijuana use. In December, a Delaware judge allowed a case involving a medical marijuana user that was fired after failing a drug test to move forward.

We may not get a decision on this case this year, but it is likely that Delaware will join Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in protecting off duty medical marijuana use, and more states will follow suit.

Unfortunately for employers, there is not a good test that can measure impairment for marijuana, which is why more states protecting off-duty marijuana use will cause problems for employers. Until there is a test that can measure impairment, increased training will be critical so that supervisors can observe employees that appear to be impaired.

You can see my earlier post regarding addressing marijuana in the workplace here.

Notices of Inspection (I-9 Audits) Will Increase

There will be more Notices of Inspection (I-9 Audits) against businesses this year. As I said in a prior post about Notices of Inspection:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has increased the number of I-9 audits that it has conducted to around four times as many I-9 inspections (Notices of Inspection) in the first seven months of 2018 as it did in the prior fiscal year. ICE conducted 5,278 Notices of Inspection since January 2018.

Immigration enforcement is a priority for the Trump Administration.

The Supreme Court Will Issue a Decision About DACA. A Deal Will be Reached to Allow DACA Recipients to Remain in the US.

Either the Supreme Court will issue a decision about DACA or there will be new legislation that will solve the DACA issue. DACA holders will achieve some form of permanent or semi-permanent status that will allow them to remain in the US.

As I said in a prior post about DACA:

DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protects certain people that were brought to the US as children from deportation and allows them to get a job or attend school. They cannot obtain permanent residency through the program but may obtain work authorization and continue to reside in the country. There are currently nearly 700,000 people that are in the DACA program. The program was slated to end before a judge ruled that the government must reinstate the program and accept applications again in August. Earlier today [(November 8)] the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump Administration cannot end the DACA program immediately. They found that California and the others challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end the program would succeed in their case against the administration.

The Trump Administration has already appealed the decision of the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court. This is an issue that will likely be decided within the next year or so through a bipartisan deal.

The Spouses of H-1B Visa Holders Will Lose their Work Authorization While They Wait for a Green Card

H-1B spouses will lose their lawsuit to retain their work authorization while waiting for their green card.

There is currently a lawsuit about whether spouses on H-4 visas will be allowed to obtain work authorization while they wait for their green cards after their I-140 is approved. This is especially important to immigrants from India and China as they may wait years (sometimes even more than a decade) until they are able to get a green card after their spouse’s immigrant petition has been approved. Unfortunately, I believe that they will eventually lose their lawsuit. Administrative agencies have a lot of authority to change their positions on regulations.

Conclusion

I do not believe that it will be a year with as many changes in labor and employment law (at the federal level) as last year because Congress is split. However, many states will undoubtedly try to fill in the gap. The Supreme Court could also cause major changes in labor and employment law by reviewing whether sexual orientation is protected under Title VII.

These are my 2019 labor and employment law predictions. I’ll write a post at the end of the year to let you all know whether my labor and employment law predictions came true.

Happy New Year Everyone!

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

Immigration, the Midterm Elections, and DACA

Published by Brett Holubeck on November 8, 2018

Image of the US Capitol Building to show that Congress may decide the fate of DACA — Photo by Louis Velazquez on Unsplash

Immigrants are an important part of the workforce. “In 2017, there were 27.4 million foreign-born persons in the US labor force,” which is 17.1% of the total workforce. In the recent midterm election, according to the exit polls, immigration was the 2nd most important issue in the country with 23% of respondents believing that it was the most important issue in the country. This should come as no surprise given the number of different immigration issues that have happened during the Trump administration.

In recent weeks, two major immigration changes have occurred. On Monday, the Department of Justice petitioned the Supreme Court to determine whether President Trump can end the DACA program. The TN (NAFTA) visa survived unscathed in the new trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada. This visa had previously been on President Trump’s hit list.

The Supreme Court and DACA

DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protects certain people that were brought to the US as children from deportation and allows them to get a job or attend school. They cannot obtain permanent residency through the program but may obtain work authorization and continue to reside in the country. There are currently nearly 700,000 people that are in the DACA program. The program was slated to end before a judge ruled that the government must reinstate the program and accept applications again in August. Earlier today the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump Administration cannot end the DACA program immediately. They found that California and the others challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end the program would succeed in their case against the administration.

The sister program of DACA, DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program) was ended by the Supreme Court in 2016 in a 4-4 decision. It would have allowed the parents of certain US citizens and permanent residents to continue to work and continue to live in the US. Unlike DACA, it was never put into effect. DACA’s fate at the Supreme Court will be determined by the 2 most recent Supreme Court Justices: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

It is unclear what will happen with DACA. Trump has expressed support for continuing the program but wants Congress to act. With the new Democratic Congress this may be something that both parties are willing to work on. If they cannot agree, then eventually Supreme Court will likely review the issue and over 700,000 people will be affected by the decision.

Trump and Immigration Visas

The TN visa was saved in the trade agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada even though Trump and high-ranking senators opposed the visa. The visa allows certain professionals from Canada and Mexico to work in the US. The fact that the visa was not changed is a surprise because the current administration has been aggressive in attempting to reduce the number of visas through its Buy American and Hire American executive order.

This executive order calls for changing the H-1B visa, which is given to workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. Most workers on this visa are in the tech industry or work with technology. Reforming the H-1B program has support on both sides of the aisle with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, Sherrod Brown, and other Democrats supporting a change to the program. Some form of comprehensive immigration reform between the Democratically controlled House, the Republican Senate, and President Trump may address both the H-1B visa and the DACA program. It is an area where there seems to be some agreement on both sides of the political spectrum and the issue is important enough to be addressed.

Conclusion

Immigration issues are constantly changing in this administration and will continue to evolve. Both Democrats and Republicans have called for reforming certain visas and continuing the DACA program. The administration, the new Democratically controlled House, and the Republican Senate will eventually need to resolve DACA and may enact a comprehensive immigration reform that fixes DACA, certain visas, and perhaps the permanent residency process. DACA and other immigration problems are quickly coming to a head and require Congress to act to set some clear parameters around the issues. Surprisingly, there does seem to be some agreement between the Democrats and Republicans on the issue. The only question is whether they can work together to find a solution.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.