More Immigration Executive Actions

FAIR's Spencer Raley, Matthew Tragesser, and Preston Huennekens give another update on more executive actions that President Biden is using to undo even the most practical immigration policies of the previous administration.

Show Notes

★ Support this podcast ★

What is FAIR Immigration | Understanding Immigration?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform's podcast bringing you the most important updates about U.S. immigration. Featuring special guests including members of Congress, journalists, and experts in the field.

Intro:
Today on Understanding Immigration: more immigration executive actions.

Spencer:
All right, welcome back to another episode of FAIR's Understanding Immigration podcast. This is Spencer Raley, FAIR's director of research and I’m joined as always by Matthew Tragesser from our media team and Preston Huennekens from our lobbying department. So far, the Biden administration has issued more than 40 total executive orders and memorandums. He's also already sent a number of proposals to Congress in addition to just using his pen to legislate. And even though we just did an episode on Biden's executive actions and everything that he did in his first week, there have been quite a few new developments on this front. So today we want to continue that discussion and take a look at the additional immigration related moves made by the Biden administration and Congress over the past couple of weeks. And of course, the biggest news on this front over the past week or so is probably the legislative action surrounding the latest proposed stimulus bill. So, Preston I want to direct this first question to you what the heck is a vote-a-rama and what immigration-related measures did it contain?

Preston:
Right so pretty much a vote-a-rama is exactly what it sounds like particularly for the Senate. The Senate decided that for various COVID legislation they were going to pass it in an entirely partisan way meaning that they were, the Democrats were going to go full steam ahead without consulting any of the Republicans in there, in the Senate so to do this they had to pass this legislation through the budget reconciliation process and that that's a very in the weeds legislative tool that the Senate can use to pass things on a majority basis rather than getting to the necessary 60 vote threshold that the Senate uses to pass most legislation. So that's really all, for our listeners out there, don't confuse yourself too much with this. It's just kind of a legislative gimmick that they're able to use in the first few weeks of the new Congress. But importantly, like you brought up, there were a few immigration related amendments that the Republicans added to this process and just for some quick background, under most legislation there are limits on how many amendments or what kinds of amendments you can add on the floor. Under the budget reconciliation process which is how this vote-a-rama came through the opposing part the minority party can introduce as many amendments as they want about any number of things. And so a lot of times the minority party will use this to force the majority to vote on politically thorny or kind of sticky subjects. And I’m just going to highlight for our listeners out there just two of these votes: the first one was a vote that it was an amendment that would ban stimulus checks from going to illegal aliens and believe it or not there were a number of Democrats who voted in favor of this who voted with the Republicans to ban illegal aliens from getting stimulus checks which really shows a division in their caucus on this issue, but it's something that most Americans already think is common sense. Outside of Washington, there's really no one that seriously thinks illegal aliens should get stimulus checks and then unfortunately there was another vote introduced by Senator Ted Cruz which would have prevented the United States from lifting bans on some of our guest worker visa programs that were put in place to protect American workers during the pandemic and like I said earlier unfortunately, 10 Republicans voted against this and so this was a super majority of the Senate voted in favor of giant corporations and in favor of guest workers over the American worker. And this was again though there's a lot to be done on this on this bill still it's still moving through the House on the way to the president. But it goes to show you that immigration is still a very important dividing line in the Senate and it was refreshing to see some senators have to vote on some of these issues, particularly since there was no immigration related vote in the Senate in the past Congress.

Spencer:
Yeah and I really like that maybe a silver lining in this is that yeah it made senators put their vote on the record on some of these important issues even if that didn't ultimately turn into anything productive. And like you mentioned, no one no one outside of Washington really wants to see illegal aliens getting stimulus checks, I think it's a pretty widely accepted belief that right now as much money as we can be using to help offset the effects of COVID-19, should be going to small businesses or to Americans directly.

Preston:
Right, and then even on that point too, the argument that some of the Democrats were making on this was very disingenuous and that they were saying, “Well if you vote against this amendment then you might prevent citizen children of illegal aliens from getting their checks or spouses of illegal aliens,” which is nonsense, that that hasn't happened that was corrected in the last round of stimulus funding by the Democrats. So, it's a really disingenuous argument and like we said earlier, we're glad to see that on the initial vote there were a few Democrats who stood with common sense and actually voted to prevent this from happening.

Spencer:
Yeah absolutely. Now Matthew now that this whole vote-a-rama process has taken place and we have a first draft of the proposal, is this round of stimulus likely to include any payments for illegal aliens or even other foreign residents? What can the House do to change this up and are they likely to do so?

Matthew:
Right so this really remains unclear. There's a lot of drama here. What happened last week in the Senate was Senators Tom Cotton and Todd Young from Indiana tried to block illegal immigrants from receiving stimulus checks in this vote-a-rama bill and this was very promising, in fact eight Democrats voted in favor of it as Preston mentioned including the party's campaign arm chair Gary Peters and I remember when this news came out during this night we were extremely happy, this was a great move to block illegal aliens from receiving the limited financial relief that our government has. But then later that evening during this vote, AOC and her radical wing of House Democrats basically said, if you block illegal aliens from receiving stimulus payments then this bill is going to be dead on arrival in our chamber. And so, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer forced a vote in the really early hours of Friday morning and they stripped this amendment away and so as Preston mentioned this is going through the House right now. But there is a lot of tension here it's you have two kind of blocks in the House right now among amongst House Democrats you got one block who's like the very progressive, AOC block who basically says no person is illegal and they think that stimulus payments should be going to legal aliens, but then you have this other block of House Democrats who are kind of siding with Republicans saying, hey look we're in an unprecedented economic crisis, we have limited financial money to be giving to Americans and the limited money that we have should be going to Americans not people who are here illegally and probably are also working here illegally. So, we'll be monitoring this but it's really unclear what's going to happen like I said at first glance during this vote in the early hours of the night it was anticipated that illegal aliens wouldn't be receiving stimulus checks now or in any future payments but then this got quickly removed at like four in the morning and then now that amendment got ripped out. So who knows what's really going to happen with this we'll be monitoring it but we can only hope that illegal aliens won't be receiving stimulus payments I mean it's just unacceptable with this economic crisis that our country is facing.

Preston:
And Matthew I’ll point out too, as well that fortunately this could change obviously today or tomorrow, but Speaker Pelosi has indicated that she does not think that it's appropriate to put an amendment in giving illegal aliens stimulus checks, so her especially in a very in a very tight House, if she keeps that promise then it's likely that these checks will not be included but as you brought up who knows her, she might get pressure from the left to add that in later.

Spencer:
I think what's really interesting to me in all this is the whole speech by the Biden administration, the Biden campaign was “unity” and now you're seeing what is supposed to be the more moderate leadership of the Democratic party completely falling captive to the most radical portion of the Democratic party and letting their demands completely change the course of what they put in this in this stimulus bill and that's concerning to me because, who knows what that means for the future they got their way once, what's to say they're not going to take this a step further and say hey we refuse to pass either this bill or any future bill unless you include benefits for illegal aliens or even just access to stimulus funds for illegal aliens or at the very least access of course to family members of illegal aliens or their children that were born in the us or whatever the case may be. And so, I think that's something where if you're in the leadership of the Democratic party you really have to get that under control because this is the thing that this is something that Americans don't want to see happen and at least to some degree it's occurring right before our eyes right now. So, I want to move on to another executive order by the Biden administration Preston I’ll address this one to the buy administration said they want to establish a quote, “comprehensive strategy for addressing the causes of migration in Central America” end quote. What does this mean and what would it include and will it be effective?

Preston:
So this is of course one of these ideas that's been bounced around for as long as this issue has existed. this idea that obviously the conditions in the home countries of illegal aliens are not great and that's what's driving them to come to the United States and I don't think anyone's arguing with that. Obviously, the United States has more earning potential, there's more jobs everything you could probably ask for is clearly probably better in the United States than it is in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras to an extent Mexico but what this idea kind of misses the point of is they never lay out how they're going to address these root causes which, there's obviously more than one reason why these countries have the systems that they have. They have political strife, they have economic issues, that's not something that we can just send an aid package to and it's going to magically cure it all. If that was the case then we would have been out of Afghanistan 15 years ago. It's very clear that the United States cannot just spend money to solve long-standing problems within another country and that's essentially all this is going to turn into. If the Biden administration is serious about this proposal, it's going to amount to a giant stimulus for other countries and most of that money is more than likely going to be used by already corrupt politicians, there is no amount of money the United States can spend to root out corruption to fix the criminal justice system and to address these root cause issues in these countries. There's just nothing that we would be able to do successfully in that regard and instead of spending that money where we know it can be effective in the United States, we would be giving it to governments that in many cases are riddled with corruption or they don't even necessarily know how they would spend the money to begin with, so to answer your question this would not be effective, it would do nothing to stop illegal immigration, and this is just a really poor suggestion by the Biden administration.

Spencer:
Absolutely, and I think it's important just to drive home the fact that these sorts of things have been attempted in the past and they never worked it's not just an analysis that we're pulling out of our backside here. We've tried to fix immigration issues in the past by offering more foreign aid and like you mentioned, typically the reason so many people are leaving these countries is because their governments are broken, because their governments are corrupt, so when you offer more foreign aid, that money just ends up being used for to further those corrupt agendas which likely is going to encourage more people to leave the country because the situation seems even more hopeless and more out of control.

Preston:
Right, and we have no track… it would be one it would be one thing if we could point to an example where this has been successful, but there are none and if it was true that we can give large foreign aid packages to improve the outcomes of foreign countries, then I would invite people to look at the great job that our country has done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two countries that we have given tens of billions of dollars to, largely just to solve the issue that we toppled their governments, but still, I mean it bears repeating, this has never worked. We have poured money into foreign aid packages that go nowhere and so to think that we're going to repeat this same process in Central America is really just asinine and it it's not grounded in any sense of reality.

Matthew:
Right and like my question is, why is our country penalized by the ineptitude and corruptness of these, especially the northern triangle countries? I mean we're basically required or pressured to donate hundreds of millions and dollars of foreign aid to these countries, there's no improvement, migration levels have really not fallen since we've started these large kind of foreign assistance programs and it's like, why is our government being held hostage by these governments essentially with their poor decision making their poor ways of spending the money in their own countries? And like you said too, it's just there's no clear example of where this has actually worked. I can't think of a single one. It's just an ineffective strategy, it sounds good on paper, sounds good in the media, but you look at the effectiveness of it and it's just not much there.

Spencer:
Yeah absolutely and I think it's also we could look at trade deals that we put in place such as NAFTA that are really sweet for Mexico and the rest of other Central American countries that just hasn't really made any difference in the state of these countries, in fact we've seen illegal immigration the United States get worse after these were implemented. So, there's a deeper root cause that would have to be addressed before we move forward with giving funding to these countries and like you mentioned Matthew, we have a lot of issues at home that need to be taken care of first, I don't think we can emphasize that enough, that we really need to be paying attention to our own recovery before we look to helping other countries start their recoveries as well. Matthew, I want to I want to touch on another executive order as well where the Biden administration claimed that they're going to restore trust in our legal immigration system. I think we all know that's code for something else so, what are they trying to say here?

Matthew:
Yeah, I mean this basically means that they're gonna be placing Americans last amidst a very difficult economic situation, in a public health crisis. Two specific executive orders that President Biden has signed deal with the Migrant Protection Protocols and the public charge rule. I’ll touch on both of these quickly. So, the Migrant Protection Protocol program was a very key program implemented under the Trump administration in 2019 and this helped curb asylum abuse, it helped end the catch release loophole that was basically really encouraging illegal immigration to our southern border. What would happen is, if you were a migrant applying for asylum in our country, you'd be apprehended then released into the interior of our country and be told, “Hey show up for your asylum court hearing day in six months to a year,” because we had such a we still have a huge backlog of these asylum cases, and then many migrants would never show up for the court hearing and just disappear into the interior of the country and so this was a very easy way to get into our country and the Trump administration tried to put an end to this. And under the Migrant Protection Protocols, if you were a migrant applying for asylum in our country, you would have to wait in northern Mexico until your court hearing date occurred in the U.S. And this was a very successful program under the Trump administration and the Biden administration has said, we're going to suspend all new entries into this program and they're also going to review, to basically rescind the program permanently and they just want to ensure, the word review in their executive order on the MPP means that they're basically looking to find ways to adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act, the APA very closely. So, it avoids any lawsuits or federal judges striking it down, but this is a great mistake, if they remove this program it's gonna restart the catch and release problem that we saw under the Trump administration and years prior to that. It's going to encourage more illegal migration to our southern border and it just comes at the worst time with this public health crisis and also our very difficult economic situation. And then the second order that kind of addresses this restoring trust in our legal immigration system deals with the public charge rule and this has been a cornerstone feature of our immigration policy since the late 1800s. And this was implemented by the Trump administration and it basically said, if you were a new immigrant coming to our country and you are likely to be dependent on government welfare or public benefits, then you could be deemed as inadmissible. And this was basically to ensure that people that were coming to our country were coming on merit reasons, that they could speak English well, that they could have high education levels, have a job already lined up in the U.S., come from a healthy financial background, and now we have many Americans, more than 10 million unemployed, using government assistance programs, our welfare state, our limited welfare state and to be having more than a million immigrants immigrant to our country without having this public charge rule in place, I mean I think it's very easy to say that you're gonna have a lot of these people accessing our limited welfare system at higher rates and there's just not enough room for that right now with the millions of Americans who are unemployed and needing that assistance. So, it comes at a really bad time, I’m not sure why they would remove it or look to remove it, but both of these changes, the MPP and public charge rule don't really benefit Americans and it just exacerbates the economic crisis that we're facing and also potentially the public health crisis as well.
Preston:
Yeah, I think particularly MPP was also very successful and it's not like this was a failing program that needed to be reformed or anything MPP was working. And further, it was keeping, in addition to our use of Title 42, MPP was keeping a number of people out of the United States particularly during this global health pandemic, and so I’m not necessarily sure why the Biden administration would willingly get rid of this program. Without at least investigating it longer than a few weeks. And I think we all kind of understand why that is, it's more than likely that they made promises on the campaign trail to get rid of all of President Trump's immigration actions and unfortunately that's getting rid of some of the good ones too, that were working, and that I think the Biden administration maybe could have at least held on to for a little bit longer, until the pandemic was a little bit further behind us. It's like you said Matthew, it's not really clear how getting rid of MPP helps the United States at all.

Matthew:
I mean my question is what what's the alternative? I mean if you remove this and we know that catch-and-release was a huge problem for a country under Obama, under Trump, like what is the alternative? And I don't think that there's anything there that they're willing to offer. I think they're okay with having catch and release start again. It's a huge magnet for illegal immigration, it's a huge magnet for asylum abuse. Yeah, there's really no positive from rescinding the MPPs.
Spencer:
Yeah I mean catch and release has started again and it just seems like the Biden administration is okay with, “all right we're just going to go back to what the status quo was under the Obama administration when we just had record illegal immigration growth in the United States,” and they're again like Preston mentioned they're doing this during a time of a global pandemic and what I find really hypocritical about the Biden administration's move on this, is that they just reversed the changes that the Trump administration made a lot, removing some of the restrictions on the travel ban, saying that was reckless and dangerous and they put in some more restrictions. But then they're making it harder for people to come to the United States legally or for people to visit the United States legally and now they're making it easier for illegal aliens to enter the United States. It's really a hypocritical and a nonsensical move. And if you look at some of the biggest caravans we've had come to the United States where, people who would come to the United States and what the assistance of legal teams and organizations the United States would file bogus asylum claims because they know they would be released in the U.S. They're coming here in these big caravans, essentially none of them have been vaccinated against COVID-19, very few of them are wearing masks and they're going to come to the border, they're going to make their claims whether it be potentially a valid claim or as we know, the vast majority will be bogus claims, it's going to be some paperwork filed, then they're going to be released into the interior of the country where it's very likely that they're going to be spreading COVID into the United States because most of these caravans are coming from areas that are major hot spots for COVID-19 right now. We're finally starting to get this issue under control in the United States, at least for now, who knows about the future, but many of these countries don't have it under control. So, we're going to create a significant health hazard just because we're not being careful with how we're securing the southern border or removing some of the security we had on the southern border and I don't… I think the consequences of that could be pretty dire.

Matthew:
Right actually Spencer that's a great point. I was reading the other day that in San Diego and in McAllen, migrants are being released into the interior of the country there, but the problem is there are legitimate concerns over coronavirus spread, so now they're being quarantined in taxpayer-funded hotels in the area, for I think like 10 days or so given COVID testing and I guess that's good to mitigate the spread but the question is, like who's paying for all that? Do we have enough resources, enough testing for Americans who generally need it? I mean it's crazy and this is just a start I mean the MPPs aren't fully rescinded, yet there are going to be other catch and release type of loopholes I’m sure under the Biden administration so like, I just imagine that this is going to be a huge problem with the number of tests required, the subsidized hotels and quarantine facilities. I mean I just it seems like a big mess that's about to happen.

Spencer:
Absolutely yeah finally I want to change gears here again and look at the executive order Biden made regarding refugees coming into the United States. And as a part of that order, he states again that his administration will seek opportunities to enhance access to the refugee program for people who are more vulnerable to persecution. And again, this is not a not so subtle code for drastically increasing the number of refugees that we admit into the country on a yearly basis, and we've seen in his refugee plans that his administration has put out, is that he wants to increase the refugee cap from 15,000 which is the final cap that President Trump put in place, all the way up to at least a 110,000. That's a massive, massive increase. And the kind of half-hearted weak claim that the administration gave for this change was that, “Well climate change is causing a refugee crisis and we have to address it,” which is really ridiculous because the science isn't there to prove or even suggest that. But what the science has shown, is that once migrants enter the United States, their carbon footprint typically increases pretty drastically. What science has also shown is that since this increase was not planned out more than several months at the most, and with cities and states now not being allowed to offer input or even opt out of this program, they don't have time to plan for these changes. And as we see across the country, when cities don't have time to appropriately plan for population growth it leads to urban sprawl which destroys sensitive ecological areas and we see that happening in states like Florida in the Everglades, Arizona, Nevada. In Las Vegas right now, they grew so quickly and you're seeing the same in some of the Phoenix suburbs, they grew so quickly that the state and city governments are offering people subsidies, tax subsidies if they don't plant grass in their yards because they don't have enough water because they didn't plan this out appropriately so you want to talk about following the science, fueling immigrant growth is one way without especially without appropriately planning for it over a significant period of time is a surefire way to damage the environment in the United States. And I think as we've also seen this is this is highly unpopular and I’ll leave it to one of y'all maybe to talk about some of the economic impacts this is going to have on U.S. citizens and other lawful migrants, but a Morning Consult poll just came out showing that only 39 of Americans approve of this measure which makes it President Biden's least popular executive order overall. So, let's dive into this a little more, why is it so unpopular?

Matthew:
Well I think the primary reason is the unemployment situation like I said we have more than 10 million Americans who are unemployed right now, really struggling to find jobs, really struggling to find a paycheck. And to have to basically increase our refugee ceiling by 730 percent from the Trump administration's last ceiling, I mean it just doesn't come at a good time there's… we shouldn't be importing, if you will, people that’ll be directly competing with jobs, with unemployed Americans and I think people are concerned about that it's we want to prioritize this unemployed American workforce first and I think it's concerning at least economically in that way.

Preston:
Yeah and I again this obviously has to do with the economic crisis, but there's bigger issues that the United States is facing right now than refugees. We need to get our own House in order, combating the pandemic reopening our cities, getting our kids back in school, and so I don't think that the American public necessarily sees increasing our refugee admissions by nearly a hundred thousand as a good use of the administration's time and effort. And then I want to just quickly Spencer, jump on the points you were making about, the impacts that these climate refugees, this idea would have on our environment. I know this is something that New Zealand and some other countries have said they're open to and things of that nature, but it's just sad because the same people that support environmental issues kind of fail to see the impacts that population growth has on the environment and that's I mean that's a fact that's not really like up for debate in any real sense, and so when immigration is the number one driver of population growth in the United States, naturally there is a relationship between increased immigration and environmental degradation, that again that's not anything we can debate, that's a true fact. And I think the idea that we would take in refugees because of climate change and then bring them in and further degrade our own local environment is just is really sad and really silly.

Matthew:
I'd also like to add too I think a lot of Americans are starting to realize that it's actually more cost effective for our government to resettle refugees closer to their country of origin. So, I’d like to bring an interesting figure here: the U.S. Committee for Refugees has estimated that a day's worth of funding needed to resettle a single refugee into the U.S. would cover the needs of at least 12 refugees abroad. So, I think people are realizing it's pretty expensive to relocate a refugee let's say from the Middle East or Africa, wherever, all the way to the U.S. and said our efforts could be better utilized our resources our funding if we could relocate them to a neighboring country, any other country of origin. And it's just like I said, our government funding is finite, it's not unlimited it's just not like we'll just click send a check and that's it, like it's limited, it's finite. So, I think that they think, okay well if we're gonna do refugee resettlement there are more effective ways to do it than just having everyone come to our country.

Preston:
Well and what is the goal of refugee resettlement is it to feel better about ourselves by resettling people in the United States? or is it to actually help people? and if it's if it's the former then we should just keep doing what we're doing and why not increase the refugee numbers to 200x… if that's if it's just an exercise to make ourselves feel better about our role in the world that's one thing I think what most people believe our refugee focus should be is on helping people as many people as we can, to the extent that we can and that is much better served helping them in their own regions. Like you said Matthew, we would be helping what was it 10 times 12 times as many people (yeah 12, at least 12). That's I think that's a no-brainer yeah and so I think again really look at what the purpose of helping refugees is. If it is to help as many people as possible then we should be helping them in their region, not bringing them to the United States.

Spencer:
I think it's important to note that especially if we're trying to help those who desperately need it that most the people who come to the United States are as refugees are those that are able to afford it, able to get to a safe zone, apply for refugee status, and then get over here. In some ways that's unfortunate because there are studies out there that show that greater than 95 percent of all refugees have no intention of going back to their home country and oftentimes the people leaving who become refugees are those who are best suited to fix the problems in their country. And of course, accepting a hundred thousand refugees from a total of dozens of different countries, does very little to actually alleviate the larger issues that are going on, it's just a drop in the bucket. It would be a lot more impactful if we would try to create a situation where, yes, some people we need to bring into the United States to protect them from whatever persecution or other issues going on in their home country, but we either need to create some sort of end date for that or we need to couple that with other policies that are aimed to help alleviate the root cause. We talked about this with the issues in Central America earlier in the podcast we need to look more at how do we actually change the overall issues that are facing these countries, what can we do to help alleviate that so that we don't have to keep increasing the refugee cap every year and essentially just exporting people out of a problem country and bringing them into the United States, which of course causes those issues in that country just to exasperate and to get worse. This is something where I think the whole program needs to be just rethought on a fundamental level. What can we do that can actually best help these countries? Or as Preston mentioned, we're just doing this to pat ourselves on the back and say, “yay we helped.”

Matthew:
Right and I’ve never understood this notion that those who are actually being persecuted or really require humanitarian assistance can only get that assistance by the United States. I mean there are plenty of other countries as well, neighboring countries, a lot of western countries, G20 countries. I mean it just seems like this narrative by the media by politicians that the U.S. is solely responsible for the world's problems, that they can only provide the humanitarian assistance to refugees. It’s, I think a lot of other countries have to step up as well.

Preston:
Yeah and Spencer, you might know this off the top of your head I believe that even under the low refugee ceiling under the Trump administration, the United States was still the number one country in terms of resettling refugees, so even like you said Matthew, this narrative that we were shirking our responsibility to resettle every refugee in the world, even during that time period we were still the number one destination of refugees in terms of total number of people settled. That could, we could have been eclipsed later on, but I remember that at least within the second or third year of the Trump administration, we were still the top country for that. Spencer:
You're exactly correct. It's not even close, some countries may have more traffic going through them and they try to claim that that's them helping refugees, but it's not a resettlement program. And honestly most of these countries if you look even places like Greece, or a lot of the countries in the European Union even, they require, or other countries in the European Union, they require that refugees essentially have a game plan or an end date or something along those lines in order to be able to take advantage of a refugee program in their country. At the very least, they require them to meet certain standards and gain certain education levels or something so they can contribute to the country that's resettling them. The United States doesn't have any of that. In fact, the first thing we do when someone comes to the United States and receives their refugee status is, we have a program that helps them get set up on federal government welfare, but what we don't have is a program that helps them find jobs, we don't have a program that helps them determine whether they should stay in the United States long term or return to their home countries. We don't have programs that help them learn the language here essentially what we're doing right now the way the program is currently constructed is we bring refugees in the United States, we give them welfare, and we tell them, “Good luck.” All right well we could talk about this all day honestly but I think this is a good stopping place as any. So, we hope that you've enjoyed today's episode and perhaps gain some clarity regarding this latest flurry of legislation and executive actions from the Biden administration and as a reminder we'll be releasing new episodes every other Monday and our episodes are available on most platforms including Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts you can also visit our website www.FAIRus.org and our twitter page @FAIRImmigration to access episodes. So please keep spreading the word for us. We hope each and every one of you are staying safe and continuing to have a great 2021. Until next time this has been Understanding Immigration presented by FAIR.