Miller Mayer immigration attorney Steve Yale-Loehr was quoted recently in several media outlets:

  • South China Morning Post, “U.S. Includes Hongkongers Among Refugees Whose Applications Will Be Prioritised.” Significant aspects of the State Department’s recent announcement include the message it sends to Beijing and how much it has lowered the refugee cap, Steve said. He noted that the announcement was “basically a political statement that [the U.S. government] opposes the governments of Hong Kong, Cuba and Venezuela, so we’re identifying those countries specifically in this document. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone who claims persecution in those countries is going to be able to actually enter the United States as a refugee.” Steve also noted that the refugee cap under the Trump administration has fallen every year of his presidency and is just a fraction of the 110,000 limit during 2016, the last year of former President Barack Obama’s administration.
  • Univision, “Government Launches Program to Replace Foreign Professionals With H-1B Visas With U.S. Workers.” Steve said that President Trump has targeted the H-1B visa program “since he was elected” and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “has interpreted existing regulations much more strictly, making it difficult for U.S. employers to bring in temporary foreign professionals needed for their industries.”
  • Telemundo, “Former Undocumented Trump Employee Denounces His ‘Hypocrisy’ for Not Paying Taxes.” Steve pointed out that immigrants must pay taxes, just like U.S. citizens, or face possible deportation. “It is outrageous that the average undocumented immigrant in the United States pays more in federal taxes than what the president paid in 2016,” he said.
  • Law360, “Barrett’s Textualism Could Doom Immigration Challenges.” Steve said, “Judge [Amy Coney] Barrett’s long dissent [in support of the Trump administration’s public charge rule] shows her emphasis on relying on a statute’s text and her deference to an agency’s interpretation of the law, even if that interpretation changes.” The opinion also shows her “flair for writing,” he added. “She is logical and easy to understand, even if you disagree with her outcome.”