Immigration Newsmaker Transcript: A Conversation with USCIS Director Joseph Edlow
- External Source
admin
- 0
- 68 minutes read
Media
Event Summary
Joseph Edlow, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), was featured in an Immigration Newsmaker conversation hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies on Wednesday, August 27, at 9:30 a.m. at the National Press Club.
Edlow leads the agency which administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, which includes handling citizenship and immigration applications, overseeing legal work programs, and operating the E-Verify system that confirms employment eligibility.
The conversation, moderated by Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, covered such topics as asylum abuse, new screening and vetting measures, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), chain migration, and fraud.
Date and Location
September 4, 2025
Washington, DC
MARK KRIKORIAN: Good morning. My name is Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
And today we have a special guest we’re going to be speaking with: Joseph Edlow. Joe Edlow is the director of USCIS; that’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He’s been in the job since July officially. He has extensive experience. He was in private practice. He was on Capitol Hill. And in the first Trump administration he was in the same agency, in USCIS. He was chief counsel, he was deputy director, and then was acting director. So he has extensive knowledge and experience of the – of the agency he’s now heading. So thanks, Joe, for coming in.
The first thing I wanted to ask about is there was a Wall Street Journal story today that – and you all put out a press release as well – that USCIS, which is the part of DHS that does the green cards and citizenship and what have you, is now also going to have actual law enforcement people working for it. Which – and so my question is, why wasn’t that always the case? I mean, why on earth would you be able to go into a USCIS office, you have some kind of interview for a green card or something, but it turns out you were deported 10 years ago and you’re an illegal alien, and there would be nobody there to arrest you? So what’s the – you know, basically my question is, USCIS was always seen as a services-only agency, but was that even sensible to begin with?
JOSEPH EDLOW: Well, I don’t think it was sensible to be considered a service-only agency in that even the services that we provide are, in essence, a law enforcement action.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Sure. Right.
MR. EDLOW: When you’re adjudicating a green card or a naturalization, that’s a law enforcement action.
But you know, I want to clarify something that you’re saying. So we already have a great relationship with ICE where there is someone at any one of our offices who needs to be arrested because there’s an open criminal want or warrant or the person, as you said, has been ordered removed or was removed 10 years ago, came back in illegally, we work with ICE to pick up someone and to have them arrested. That’s not what this is supposed to be.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: This is not a police force, and I can’t make that any more clear than I’m going to – I’m going to say it again: This is not a police force. What we are looking at incorporating into USCIS is an investigative agency. Think more HSI or special agents that we want to use to augment existing special agents already within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to really do a deep dive into immigration fraud – into large, mass-scale fraud, national security issues, and other criminality that is within the jurisdiction of the agency, so in kind of the immigration –
MR. KRIKORIAN: So kind of more detectives, really, than police officers, basically. Right.
MR. EDLOW: A hundred percent. This is not about – ERO’s a great partner. They will continue to be a great partner. This is not about arresting aliens.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: This is about going after fraud and national security cases. There is a ton of cases right now – and I said this during my confirmation hearing – there are a ton of cases that are just kind of sitting at USCIS. There’s a nexus to national security or something else where there hasn’t really been movement in a number of years. Some of these cases gave rise to a fairly significant lawsuit that I was dealing with when I was chief counsel back in 2019 and I’m sad to say is still ongoing now.
My feeling is the backlog, these cases, and any case represents a national security concern, and I want to address these cases. Having agents there who can help do detective work, investigate some of these cases, is going to help us get to the right decision and make these decisions so we can move forward with the integrity of the system.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Not to cast any aspersions on other agencies – I don’t want to do that – but HSI – Homeland Security Investigations, which is part of ICE – has always been tasked with that kind of thing, but they also have to deal with, you know, counterfeit NFL jerseys and everything. So in a sense, was it – the problem is – was it that the fraud and issues that USCIS dealt with were not kind of top of mind of –
MR. EDLOW: They never were.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Yeah.
MR. EDLOW: I’m not going to cast aspersions either. I think HSI now, especially under this administration –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Sure.
MR. EDLOW: – is doing fantastic work and has really been refocused to work on immigration. However, traditionally HSI has spent a good deal of their time trying to make it clear to the public and everyone else that they are not an immigration enforcement agency, that they are not part of ICE. You know, I remember years ago when I was on Capitol Hill and I was touring a CBP facility, and they were talking about their great working relationships with ICE and HSI, and I didn’t understand that concept because HSI is a component office within ICE. So – and you know, there’s been special agents in charge of various offices at HSI who have wanted to divorce themselves officially from ICE and be their own agency. They do have the –
MR. KRIKORIAN: And frankly, under the Biden administration, they just –
MR. EDLOW: And they were able to do that.
MR. KRIKORIAN: I mean, ICE itself, yeah, was able to do that.
MR. EDLOW: The bottom line is HSI, as you said, Mark, has a very broad range of jurisdiction, and they like to focus on other areas that are not immigration. They like to focus on things that there’s a little bit more bang for the buck. Maybe it’s something that they can – if it’s customs, they can maybe seize some money; that’s good for them. Obviously, there’s cyber crimes that they’re working on, child pornography issues, counterfeiting, things that are important. But it doesn’t need to be at the expense of immigration enforcement.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: And so this is meant as a way to augment existing investigators. And I’ve spoken to ICE about this many times. They’re very supportive. They’re looking forward to having the extra help.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So, to talk about the kinds of things that detectives would detect, you had in a(n) interview last month talked about how you were surprised at the kind of nonchalance in the previous administration about fraud. Because we all know that, look, if you’re – if you have something valuable you’re giving away – green cards, citizenship, work permits – there’s going to be people who are going to try to break the rules to get it. So is the point of the – part of the point of this is to try to rein in that fraud that you were surprised at the extent of?
MR. EDLOW: It goes to it, but it’s not really the crux of what I’m trying to get at. So, with regard to the fraud you’re referring to, you know, Mark, you and I have known each other for years, and over the last four years we’ve, obviously, been very interested in what’s been going on in that administration. What you’re referring to in that interview was I was absolutely shocked to learn of the degree of fraud in the sponsorship for parole granting – granted aliens who are coming in. These sponsors, I found out some of them weren’t even alive at the time that they were the sponsors. And, again, I’ve heard anecdotally that people in the administration and in the USCIS at the time were aware of these problems. So, you know, this is a concern. We absolutely do need to really hone in on that type of fraud. But what I’m thinking of – so, yes, sponsorship fraud is something that we could absolutely see our investigators working on.
But taking back to my days as an ICE trial attorney, I remember large-scale patterns of immigration and asylum fraud where it was known to asylum officers. I was in contact as an ICE trial attorney with certain asylum officers who said: Oh, yeah, if you see X, Y, Z fact pattern, flag it, send it back to us; we’re trying to build a case. I, as the good trial attorney trying to do the right thing, did exactly as I was told, as did my colleagues. And to this day, I still can’t tell you whatever happened to those cases. So my guess is either a lawyer filed a mandamus, they moved to the immigration court, and probably got granted because there was not enough evidence to not grant them no matter how much fraud we were seeing because no one at USCIS – and our fraud detection people are great, but they only have so much authority. There is a limit. This takes it to the logical conclusion, so that not only can we start an investigation but now we’re going to have the ability to finish an investigation, present a case for prosecution, and be a real player in the immigration enforcement realm.
MR. KRIKORIAN: One of the areas – this is my last question on the fraud issue –
MR. EDLOW: Yeah, sure.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – is marriage fraud is a big deal. I mean, it’s such a big deal they make movies about it – you know, “Green Card” with Gérard Depardieu years ago. Is there anything – is marriage fraud different in any way from all these other kinds of fraud, or is it just sort of yet one more area of fraud? In other words, is it more prevalent, for instance, or harder to deal with, or easier?
MR. EDLOW: I don’t think any – if fraud is perpetrated at the highest level, I don’t think it’s ever easy to deal with.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: It’s something that we see. It’s something that we’re working to crack down on and we will continue to work to crack down on. You know, I stand by – I know in this article that came out today I stand by my quote that I don’t believe what we’re doing now will have a chilling effect except for those that are trying to perpetuate fraud on the agency and the government, and I want it to have a chilling effect on those individuals.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right. Of course.
Another thing that was in the news – and this was a big deal, obviously, during Christmas week – was this H-1B issue. And it’s – online it’s a very big issue. I’m not – online – it’s mainly for tech workers, and they’re all online, so I’m not sure how much of this is a(n) artifact of the internet or not. But there was a – there was a lot of dispute. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy got into it with a lot of the president’s supporters. Anything you can tell us about are there any plans about what you all are going to be doing with regard to changes to H-1B?
MR. EDLOW: You know, I don’t really want to get ahead of the White House on what we’re thinking on H-1B. Obviously, it’s something that we’re looking into. I’ve said before that I think the H-1B system, if properly monitored and properly scrutinized for integrity, can be a useful tool, especially when employers are bringing people here at the highest wage levels. But my big concern – and it will always be my big concern – is keeping U.S. citizens – the way that it’s keeping U.S. citizens out of the job market, especially those graduating from universities with STEM degrees and their being kept out because employers are able to get higher – more experienced individuals at lower wage rates using the current four-tier wage levels. So, you know, there’s things that we’re going to be looking into, but again, I don’t want to get ahead of the White House. But –
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK, good. Let us know as soon as you can.
MR. EDLOW: You’ll be the first to know.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Thank you. (Laughs.)
Another thing that was in the news was that USCIS is now going to I don’t know if it’s expand vetting, however you describe it, but do vetting somewhat differently. In other words, obviously, if you’re a member of Hamas, you are, you know, excludable, but what if you just like Hamas a lot, or you hate America and you have blog posts about “I hope America burns” or something? Is that the kind of thing that now USCIS is going to be looking for to exclude people?
MR. EDLOW: It’s something that we’re going to be looking for and that we’re already looking for through media – social media vetting to have another factor to consider for discretion as we move forward. I don’t think that finding information of someone saying that – you know, just a single post saying they hate America or that they’re supportive of, you know, certain individuals in Gaza is going to be sufficient as a standalone factor to find someone removable, inadmissible, or ineligible for a benefit. It might, depending on, you know, the gravity of it. But ultimately, we want to know everything about these individuals.
If we are granting a benefit – whether it’s naturalization, whether it’s adjustment of status, whether it’s a change of nonimmigrant status – we want to know what these individuals’ activities have been, whether they are being forthcoming when it comes to what they’re filing on their applications, whether they are telling us the whole truth about their activities, and we’re going to make a – we’re going to make a determination. But certainly, I think the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security have made it clear that anti-American activities at a certain level are not going to be tolerated. The secretary of state has said that it does represent a – that keeping these individuals out is in the foreign policy interest of this country. And we’re going to take our cues from both of those leaders and we’re going to move forward accordingly. But it’s not going to be a single excludable factor.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right. OK.
Another area of vetting, kind of, in a sense, is the citizenship test. It is – I mean, you’re not vetting for, you know, kind of bad activities, but you’re trying to see if a candidate for citizenship sort of clears a certain bar and would qualify. I’ve actually taught the citizenship test to people who are – you know, had appointments. And you all have announced some at least plans to maybe somehow change that, or make it harder, or more questions, or something. What is USCIS planning on doing there?
MR. EDLOW: Simply put, I want to see the naturalization process returned to where I believe it should have been under – you know, based on what the – what the Congress has said, based on what the statute says. You know, we’re looking for attachment to the Constitution. We’re looking for an understanding of the civic responsibility of being a U.S. citizen. We’re looking for actual understanding and ability to read and speak and write the English language. And frankly, this test is just too easy. Six out of 10 questions right now is what people have to get right. They have to –
MR. KRIKORIAN: And all 100 are on the internet anyway, right?
MR. EDLOW: Yeah. Well, yeah. And what – we also expect people to read a sentence on a tablet, and then they’re told to write a sentence on a tablet.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: So, you know, we need to make it a little bit more challenging. We’ve got to make sure that people are actually understanding what it means to be a U.S. citizen, what it means to get that benefit, and that’s what we’re going to do. So we’re going to make the test harder in terms of making the questions a little bit more thought-provoking. I’m looking at other potential ways to move forward. I might even consider, if possible, moving to a standardized test format that –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Like filling in with the number-two pencil and all that?
MR. EDLOW: Applicants would come in a different day and actually have to do that, and write an essay on what does it mean to me to be an American, and let’s see what people actually understand. Because being able to be coached through this process right now is not something that should be allowed and that should be that easy. And I’m seeing it, unfortunately.
You know, I’ve had great conversations with adjudicators in the field in various offices, and I don’t like what I’m hearing. They’re worried, and they’re looking forward to it. They’re thanking me for doing what I’m doing, which pretty much all this comes down to is I am declaring war on fraud. I am declaring war on anyone that is coming to this country and wants to get a benefit but doesn’t want the responsibility of what it means to actually be a U.S. citizen.
MR. KRIKORIAN: To play devil’s advocate on this issue –
MR. EDLOW: Sure.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – you know, do you have to have a master’s degree in American political science in order to be naturalized?
MR. EDLOW: You know, a very smart man once said to me you should be smart and be able to understand what it means – you know, you should be able to study and understand, you know, our basic history, but you shouldn’t need a master’s in American history. That was you.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Oh, it was? OK. (Laughter.)
MR. EDLOW: Yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: I remember. (Laughter.)
MR. EDLOW: And I live by that. You know, I don’t want this test to be so hard that it’s impossible, but I want it to be thought-provoking questions. A question of simply, hey, name two federal holidays and, you know, name one branch of government or name your governor, it’s simply not enough. We need to know more, especially if we’re going to really understand whether someone has a true attachment to the Constitution as required by the statute.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right, right. I remember when I used to teach the citizenship class, it was at Catholic Charities. I got fired once The Washington Post did a profile of me. And anyway, that’s a long story, neither here nor there. But we had a couple of guys who were clearly struggling. Their English was not very good and they kind of weren’t getting it. And then one day I came in and they weren’t there anymore, and I said, hey, where – you know, where did they go? Oh, they already passed their citizenship test.
MR. EDLOW: Yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So I think clearly it does seem to be easier than it should be.
And in a sense the point seems to me – and this is just from my perspective – it’s not so much you turn more people down as you make it clear that this is – this is something that’s worth more than just this piece of paper they give you.
MR. EDLOW: Absolutely.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Yeah.
So another thing that – this was actually, again, just in the news yesterday. Secretary said they’re terminating the TPS grant or the – one of the TPS grants for Venezuelan illegal aliens. So, just generally speaking, what – you know, what’s up with TPS? Are you going to be able to terminate these? What are your plans about renewal of TPS grants? Because it’s always kind of been on autopilot, and it’s almost like – I got the sense in some of these past extensions or renewals of TPS that the decision was made to renew it and then they told the staff come up with some phony-baloney reason to – you know, to justify it. So what are you – what’s the story with TPS?
MR. EDLOW: I’m thrilled that we have a secretary right now who is willing to make the tough decisions on TPS and actually look at the factors that she is required to look at under law to determine whether a TPS grant or – excuse me, a TPS designation should be renewed or should be terminated. And it is very refreshing that I think for the first time in, I don’t know, I’m not going to say ever, but in a very long time that we are not seeing pro-forma renewals. We are looking at all of these cases, we are looking at all of these countries and the reasons for the designations, and making a determination based both on whether those conditions still apply – you know, the fact that we still have a TPS designation for countries based on a hurricane that happened in I don’t know how –
MR. KRIKORIAN: 1997, I think.
MR. EDLOW: Exactly. You know, it says something right there. But you know, looking at the factors, the reasons why it was designated in the first place. And then also, which I think is so critical and I think has been ignored in the past, looking at, again, the foreign policy considerations. What is in the interest of this country? And it is so refreshing to have a secretary of homeland security and a secretary of state who are committed to looking at all of those factors in making these determinations.
MR. KRIKORIAN: If foreign policy concerns are part of the issue – and my sense is that’s one of the reasons for these pro-forma renewals all the time. In other words –
MR. EDLOW: Well, I think it was.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – that the – you know, the hurricane’s over, but, eh, we want to be nice to Honduras or something, and so –
MR. EDLOW: That’s great, and I think – and in previous administrations, yeah, the foreign policy consideration was exactly what you’re saying. But for us, we’re looking at a lot of other foreign policy considerations. For example, third-country removals.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: We’re looking at actual partnerships to get rid of recalcitrant country status. And if we have – and to essentially say we’re going to allow for no real reason a significant population to remain in this country in a quasi-lawful status because of something – a natural disaster that happened X number of years ago, I don’t really see how right now, given what we are trying to do as a country, how that really is moving the foreign policy narrative forward.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
One thing I – one thing that USCIS does that I think is really important and doesn’t get discussed or isn’t appreciated enough is issue employment authorization documents, work permits. And there has been – the issuance of these work permits has been profligate over decades to people whose status doesn’t include work authorization. In other words, if you’re – you know, if you’re here on a work visa, well, then you get a work permit because that’s the whole point, but issued to people who may be illegal immigrants, who may be, you know, nonimmigrants of various kinds whose status does not allow work authorization like H-4s. So what is USCIS’s – what is your thoughts about employment authorization documents and their use in my sense – in my perspective their use as kind of almost an amnesty tool, as it were, by previous administrations?
MR. EDLOW: I see it – I don’t disagree. I think it has been used in that regard, and I view it as a magnet, especially in the discretionary EAD categories. And there needs to be work done. We already have two rules that are in process right now. They have not been filed as NPRMs yet – or published, rather – but they’re in process. That would cut down on some of the abuse that we’re seeing in these categories. But just because someone has a work authorization in the discretionary category doesn’t mean that they have some sort of durable status in this country. And we’re going to have to do a better job in this government of making that distinction, that just because you have a work authorization doesn’t mean you have some right to remain in this country forever on that –
MR. KRIKORIAN: But it has been kind of pitched that way, at least politically, you know?
MR. EDLOW: It absolutely has been. It has been, and you know, the discretionary work authorization for parole played right into the hands of the Biden administration when they offered these mass grants of parole to large swaths of foreign populations for the purpose of obfuscating the border numbers. And we are still trying to untangle that mess.
But to the extent that we can shut off work authorization once we terminate these paroles, we’ve done that. To the extent that we’re going to do the same thing with the TPS holders, we’re going to do that. To the extent that we can actually move out and target for either enforcement or just to see what’s going on with these cases people that are sitting there on deferred action programs, we’re going to go after that too. I mean, no one – the way I look at it is, you may be eligible for a work permit but that doesn’t mean anymore that that’s going to result in you being able to remain in this country.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So this just occurred to me now. This is the work permit issue. When you issue a work permit to someone, an employment authorization document, they get a Social Security number too. And if you withdraw the work permit, the Social Security number doesn’t go away. So is this something you all are thinking about?
MR. EDLOW: Social Security numbers have been a real thorn, frankly, in our side for the better part of the – since January, just kind of looking at how it’s been done. I was unaware that in the last couple years they added this part of the – of the employment authorization document application process that allowed – essentially, when USCIS would grant a document, there would be an automatic Social Security number given.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: We have turned that off.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Oh.
MR. EDLOW: We turned that off. And actually, I have to give credit to DOGE for helping us uncover some of those connections. That’s been turned off.
I am still – and I’m no expert in Social Security – I’m still confused as to how many different types of Social Security numbers there are. I understand that there’s at least two or three: one that is for – we all get as U.S. citizens; another that people get that makes it clear that they do have work authorization – maybe they’re permanent residents or some other durable status where they are given, incident to status, employment authorization; and then one type of Social Security number that’s given to individuals as an identifier but can’t be used for employment. I still don’t really have a clear sense as to whether the Social Security Administration is properly making those determinations and putting people into the right buckets, and if there’s a way that you actually can even by looking at the card – or, I think by the card you can, but by the number if you can tell. So certainly it’s something that we need to kind of crack down on, but you know, we’ve done what we can on our end. We just need our partners at Social Security to step up and help us.
And I think there is definitely more – there’s definitely more room for them to join the conversation now that they have signed an agreement with us to allow us to query their – the Social Security numbers into our SAVE system.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Oh, OK.
MR. EDLOW: So we’re able to do that both with the full social and we just turned on the ability to do the last four so that states can use that and locals can use that.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Interesting, OK. I should know this, but is – what’s USCIS’s role, if any, in parole, in the issue? Because is – doesn’t ICE grant parole, or am I confusing that?
MR. EDLOW: It depends on – I think we all have the authority to grant parole.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: It just depends on the circumstance.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: You know, CBP seems to be doing the lion’s share of it.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: If someone’s in the country, yes, ICE can also be involved in it. But when it comes to the way these parole programs worked, my understanding was we were more involved or the former USCIS was more involved in the sponsor verification. Clearly didn’t do a very good job of that. And then that information got sent to CBP, who would make the ultimate determination on parole.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
Is there anything you can – you mentioned deferred action programs. The big one that everybody knows about is DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Any news on that? I mean, it’s been going on forever, and it’s still – the case is still live, as I understand it. So what’s the story with DACA?
MR. EDLOW: The case is still live.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK. Yeah. (Laughter.)
MR. EDLOW: That’s all I can really say.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right, OK.
MR. EDLOW: You know, it’s no secret how I feel about Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It’s, in my opinion, created a real legal problem for this country and for the immigration system. But it’s one that we’re going to need to work through with the courts. Potentially, really, what we could use is some legislative fixes. Obviously, in the first Trump term we did try to take action with DACA, and in the Board of Regents the Supreme Court said, no, just because you were undoing a memo you can’t just undo it with a memo; you need a reg because of the reliance interest. Still have questions about – I agree – as I’ve said repeatedly, I agree very strongly with Justice Thomas’ dissent in that case, and I’m sorry that that was not the majority opinion, but it’s where we are.
MR. KRIKORIAN: One thing on this. This is sort of a pet peeve of mine. The DACA applications included a box or something to say that this had been completed by an interpreter, and that was always relevant to me because the whole narrative behind DACA was these are Americans in all but paperwork, this sort of thing. Well, if you need an interpreter, how much of an American in all but paperwork can you really be? When I asked, OK, well, can we FOIA this data, I was told during the first Trump administration that under Obama they had never compiled it; so that – so that the checkmarks are on the forms, but it was never – that information was never digitized. So you’d have to go through 800,000 forms and add them up with a calculator or something. So there’s nothing you can do about it, I guess, at this point?
MR. EDLOW: Not today, but I wish you had told me about this beforehand. I would have looked into it.
MR. KRIKORIAN: (Laughs.) Yeah.
MR. EDLOW: No, let me – let me take that back and see what we can find out. I don’t know the answer to that. Yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Because my only point is it would be an important – it would put the whole narrative in context if, you know, 10 or 20 percent of the people had used interpreters –
MR. EDLOW: Absolutely.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – to get this program.
So you mentioned legislation. Are there – what kind of – what’s your sort of priority top three things that you would love to see Congress do legislatively that would help you at USCIS?
MR. EDLOW: There’s so many.
MR. KRIKORIAN: (Laughs.) Well, list them all.
MR. EDLOW: (Laughs.)
MR. KRIKORIAN: But I mean, start with the first three.
MR. EDLOW: No, I think the biggest thing for me is I really want to see the diversity visa gone.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: I think that’s not something that –
MR. KRIKORIAN: This is the visa lottery. Yeah. Right.
MR. EDLOW: Exactly.
I also really think there needs to be tightened up of the family-based categories to get rid of some of the ones where the – with the way the visa allocation works it is really not a viable pathway forward, so we shouldn’t be spending our time working on that.
I’d also really like to see something to protect the religious workers.
MR. KRIKORIAN: How so?
MR. EDLOW: I’m very concerned about the way in which during the last administration the Visa Bulletin – and this is more of a State Department issue, but we need to take action on this now. The State Department retooled the Visa Bulletin so that there was a – in the employment-based four, which is all the special immigrant categories – that includes religious workers, special immigrant juveniles, all the other special immigrant visa categories – the special immigrant juveniles were pulled out and placed above. So there’s a carveout for special immigrant juveniles with employment-based.
What that did was twofold. It pushed all other EB-4 – employment-based four, including religious workers – down into the backlog through the Visa Bulletin. It also got rid of what I – I’m fairly confident there was a correlation between that and the employment-based two category not being current anymore. So you’ve got people that are, you know, trying to get green cards in the national interest because they, you know, are exceptional professionals or otherwise have exceptional abilities and potentially have a national – should have a national interest waiver based on what they can bring to this country, and they’re in a backlog right now because we’ve got this SIJ issue that’s in the forefront.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: I would like to see religious workers and others within EB-4, but also the EB-2, be current again so that, you know, we can really right size what’s going on. Ultimately, I’d like to see more merit-based immigration. That’s really what this gets down to. I’m not opposed to family-based immigration at all, especially with the immediate family, but I think we have to be careful when we define what immediate family is and what it’s not. That parent category really does create some issues, I think.
You know, we’ve got to be focused on why we need immigration in this country. No one here, certainly not me – I’m not saying that immigration is not important. But immigration is there to supplement what we already have in the United States, not to supplant it, especially our economy.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So we got some questions here.
MR. EDLOW: Great.
MR. KRIKORIAN: One thing – and this is kind of newsy; you may not be able to tell me anything one way or the other. But is there going to be a Gold Card? And if so, how does – what’s the story with that?
MR. EDLOW: You know, again, I don’t want to get ahead of the White House and the Department of Commerce. There are still conversations, as you are aware. And you know, we at the department will ensure that if a Gold Card does come to fruition that there will be sufficient vetting and screening for any applicant that comes through the process.
MR. KRIKORIAN: There’s another question about fraud. We’re getting back to fraud, but this is an interesting point. Will the investigators –
MR. EDLOW: (Coughs.) Excuse me.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – or are they now – but I mean, now when they have actual, you know, arrest authority or whatever it is they become, you know, law enforcement officers.
MR. EDLOW: Yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Will they be looking back at earlier fraud? And specifically, the question – this is something that occurred to me – marriage fraud. In other words, remember there was the girlfriend of the governor of Oregon, I think, who had when she was younger gotten in a fake marriage, and she, you know, had a press conference or something. Well, I don’t think anybody went and looked for the cabbie in Washington who she had, you know, married fraudulently. So is there any suggestion, any thought of looking backwards too? Or is there just too much there and you might as well just look prospectively?
MR. EDLOW: I’m not saying anything’s off the table here at all. However, I think prospective is going to be more of what we’re looking for, except with the caveat that there are cases – and this is out there already – that we are very interested in looking at denaturalization.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right. OK.
MR. EDLOW: And if there are cases that we now can prove that – you know, during the first Trump term we had an entire unit at USCIS of attorneys and adjudicators dedicated to denaturalization. That was, obviously, shut down, but those cases are still kicking. We’re already working with the Department of Justice to move those cases forward in civil denaturalization proceedings. So there certainly is a way to look backwards. But I think for the investigators and the large-scale fraud and the fraud that is being given to them by our adjudicators and the ones who actually see individuals and these applications in the field, it’s going to be more future.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right, right. And you mentioned the denaturalization unit. Are you standing that up again, or?
MR. EDLOW: No.
MR. KRIKORIAN: No?
MR. EDLOW: I don’t think we need to.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: I think it’s just as useful to have a decentralized denaturalization process where it’s not one unit – it was a great unit, but we don’t need one unit; we need every adjudicator to be looking at these issues. And if they come across something, and based on what they’re sending over to our fraud detection and national security team if that gives rise to the need for a denaturalization, we’re going to move forward. I don’t need it specially sent to an office; I want every office using this as a benchmark of what they should be doing.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Now, with the new administration ICE has no real issues, necessarily, in its rank-and-file people’s views of – support for what’s going on. Have you encountered issues with adjudicators and other USCIS career people but who may look upon the issue very differently from the way you do?
MR. EDLOW: Anecdotally, sure. I’ve heard some stories about some officers and other employees who’ve been a little unhappy about the direction of the agency. But more so – and I expected to be completely just swamped by that type of sentiment. However, what I have really found, officers across the country who are excited to be let out of the box, being told that they no longer have to grant an application.
I am, to be clear, not saying you need to deny an application. That’s not what we’re doing here. I want justice to be done. So if the correct answer is to grant an application, that application better be granted. And if you make the wrong decision, I’m going to take action. But also, we’re not going to sit here and say if you deny an application you’ve made a mistake, and that’s really what the last administration was doing. They were being placed in a situation where there was a degree – a level of scrutiny on officers’ ability to deny a case for very legitimate reasons, and I think that’s what we’re trying to move away from.
I trust our officers. Our officers are incredibly skilled, trained, dedicated federal officers and professionals. They know their business, and we have to let them do their job. And you know, finding – going to them when they were telling me about some of the fraud patterns that they were seeing, and that they were just so frustrated because leadership over the last several years was unwilling to budget on these issues.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So you – they were kind of, basically, being second guessed if they said no, but not second guessed if they said yes.
MR. EDLOW: I think it was very hard to say no.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right. So –
MR. EDLOW: Not impossible, but very hard.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Another question, and this has been in the news, is, what is USCIS’s role in helping states keep their voter rolls clean?
MR. EDLOW: So the SAVE system, that has been one of –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Which is Systematic –
MR. EDLOW: Systematic Alien Verification Enterprise.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: Essentially, that was stood up as a way to help states cull through their public benefit rolls to determine –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right. Welfare, basically.
MR. EDLOW: Right, to determine whether someone was there who was not eligible under PRWORA or one of the other state or federal statutes that govern welfare and other public benefits. But there has been talk about moving that into the voter verification realm, so essentially allowing voters – voter agencies at the state and local level to cull through their voter rolls and be able to determine whether someone was voting illegally or registered to vote illegally.
The big problem at the start of this administration was that the SAVE system required a DHS identifying number, so an alien –
MR. KRIKORIAN: An A-number, alien number.
MR. EDLOW: Alien number, maybe a FIN number, or you know, federal identification number for, you know, law enforcement purposes or DHS purposes. So it was very hard for the state and locals at either the public benefit side or the voter verification side to be able to get something that they could run against because we couldn’t just do it based on biographical information.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK. Or Social Security numbers?
MR. EDLOW: We didn’t – we didn’t have that capability.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Yeah.
MR. EDLOW: What we – and I am so proud of this – we have been able to get not only the agreement signed with Social Security so that we can query that information and that information is accurate, but our team internally has worked so hard to create batch audit capabilities. It’s no longer requiring a state or a local official to run a name individually. You could upload spreadsheets and that information can be run. We have – most of it’s done through electronic means, and then we have some manual processors that if there’s a tough case and we need to look a little bit closer we’ve got people to get back that information. And as I said, we’ve now got the availability, which a lot of states wanted, to be able to do this with the last four of the social.
I’ve spoken to many secretaries of state. They’re very excited to be using it. And I think this is going to be a gamechanger when it comes to making sure that the right people are voting in an election.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Are there blue states that are also willing to do this, or is it only Texas and Florida or whatever you’re hearing from?
MR. EDLOW: There’s a – there’s a lot of states that are – that are interested in participating. I think the real blue ones that you’re talking about have not really gotten onboard yet. I’m really hopeful. Talk about a legislative fix; I’d love Congress to mandate it.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Interesting. Interesting.
MR. EDLOW: I don’t know if it’ll happen, but I’d love that.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right, right.
We talked about citizenship test before, but there’s a question here about dual citizenship. Now, it’s a State Department issue as well, but as I understand it the standard line is we don’t recognize dual citizenship but acknowledge it exists, or something like that. Does –
MR. EDLOW: Couldn’t have said – couldn’t have said it better myself. I mean, that’s it.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So does USCIS have any role in – I don’t know, in policing that or in acknowledging, or anything like that? No?
MR. EDLOW: No. No.
MR. KRIKORIAN: That’s a State Department thing?
MR. EDLOW: I mean, that’s a State Department thing.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: So if someone wants to get citizenship from another country in addition, how that’s handled really is between that individual and the country they’re trying to get citizenship from and the State Department.
MR. KRIKORIAN: But when they – I’ve been – I’ve spoken at a whole bunch of naturalization ceremonies.
MR. EDLOW: I know what you’re going to say.
MR. KRIKORIAN: And they’re raising their hand and they’re saying I, you know –
MR. EDLOW: “Renounce and” – yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – “renounce and abjure…all allegiance,” et cetera.
MR. EDLOW: And that goes –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Is that even really what’s happening?
MR. EDLOW: But that goes to what you just said is our standard line, which is we don’t recognize dual citizenship but it doesn’t mean that other countries don’t. So – and I know a lot of people do still want to have their EU passports.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: Apparently, it’s worth more than gold to have that EU passport. And other people enjoy having, you know, that flexibility. I can’t speak to that. I can just tell you that from our standpoint in our laws we do not have a specific recognition of a designation of dual citizenship.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Another question, and this relates to asylum. And is there – are there plans to have a rule, like a safe-third-country or first-country rule, in other words that if you’ve passed through somewhere you would be ineligible even to apply for asylum so it doesn’t even enter into the –
MR. EDLOW: Yeah, third-country transit rule.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Yeah.
MR. EDLOW: You know, we had that as an IFR during the first administration.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: It got vacated by the courts after it I thought was very effective when it was only enjoined in certain – in certain circuits and we were able to use it in other places. But, you know, certainly it’s something we’re looking into going back to kind of our global asylum rule and what that – what we can kind of glean from the first administration and put back together quickly. Certainly on the table, though I can’t say whether that one’s going to come back.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Good.
So one thing that makes USCIS different from I think maybe not every other agency in the government, but most of them, is that it’s almost all fee-funded. There’s a small amount of appropriations from Congress. And you dealt with some of that. During COVID, it must have been an incredible nightmare because you still had to pay everybody and there was no money coming in.
MR. EDLOW: Yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So what are your thoughts about is that something that’s – can that be administratively sort of reformed? Is it something Congress should deal with? Do you think it’s a good idea for the agency to be funded mainly by the fees paid by applicants?
MR. EDLOW: It’s funny, I have a lot of inconsistent thoughts on this – on this topic.
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK. (Laughs.)
MR. EDLOW: You’re right, we were dealing with a real crisis that was caused, ultimately, by a drop in fees for a couple months due to COVID. There was also a spend down of some of our reserve that we need to carry over at the beginning of the fiscal year since we don’t get appropriations. That had been done before I’d gotten there.
So part of me at that time would have said, yeah, absolutely it would be better to be funded through appropriations, and then we don’t have to think about this – I don’t have to think about a business aspect, I don’t have to worry about what the CFO is saying every day like I do. However, as we all know, the appropriations process has all those policy riders in it, all those prohibitions on where money can be spent and how it can or cannot be spent. And you’ve got agencies that are really stopped from doing the important work that they’re trying to do, or doing some things especially when it’s a – you know, when the opposite party controls the appropriations process, they can really tie your hands. We don’t really have that problem.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: So I like that. I like –
MR. KRIKORIAN: And when – just when there’s a government shutdown, for instance, which may happen, you guys keep working, right.
MR. EDLOW: And when there’s a government shutdown, doesn’t concern me except for the little part of us that is not –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right. Right.
MR. EDLOW: – that is not fee-funded. But for us, I think we are very well-served as being part of this process.
And frankly, so that’s – I like this from, you know, making sure that I have flexibility but also from a policy perspective. I believe that those that are seeking benefits, either as a petitioner or a beneficiary, an applicant, should be the ones to foot the bill for this. This should not be on the American taxpayer. So I don’t think taxpayer money should be used to fund this agency for that reason.
MR. KRIKORIAN: We have a question that’s sort of related to this, and it’s: How do you balance efficiency with vetting? And the reason I say it’s related is because –
MR. EDLOW: That’s right.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – the more work you do, you’re going to have to at some point charge more. So it’s sort of the issue of – yeah.
MR. EDLOW: So we’re always – we’re always looking to charge more. There are fee rules that are done under every administration. Every couple years we do a fee study and then put a new rule out to change the fees to make sure that we actually can get closer or to actual full cost recovery on some of these applications.
Listen, I am not going to sacrifice the safety and security of this country for speed in the immigration process. So I want to see screening and vetting come in first. Right now, that’s going to be a bit of a pain point because – not because we can’t handle it, but because the previous administration has left us with such a mess, with such a huge number of backlogged cases that I really do not know how I could be expected to move these cases through quickly while also doing what I need to do.
So we’re going to get these processes – we’re going to continue to get these screening and vetting processes in place and running as they – as they have been for the last several months, and I believe this is going to work itself out. And as we come – kind of come to the other side of the backlog, you’re going to see kind of the speed pick up because our officers are going to be trained to do exactly what they need to do on the screening and vetting side, we’re going to have additional resources, technology is going to be used to make sure that officers can see certain things right away. You know, alert boxes are going to come up so that, you know, certain NCIC hits will be made known to them right away, other hits from the department. I’d like to see FinCEN information on there too. But I – once we have that up and running, I think speed will increase with the use of technology. But right now, yeah, we’ve got to slow down to make sure we’re doing it right because I am – I am just blown away.
I mean, to give you an example, when I left the agency on January 20th, 2021, we had about 450,000 cases in the asylum – affirmative asylum backlog. To me, that felt like a lot. Now we’re over – almost 1.5 million. Now, why is that? It’s because the administration allowed all of these individuals to come into this country, to say that they could apply for asylum. None of them have actual claims for asylum, mind you. But they’ve all filed so they can get the – so they can get their work permit, rather, the magnet, and that’s something we need to look at. So we do have our – as I said, we have our discretionary EAD rule specifically involving asylum EADs that’s going through process right now.
MR. KRIKORIAN: So related to the speed issue, feel free to dodge the question if you want –
MR. EDLOW: Yeah.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – but do you get a lot of calls from congressional offices, “Hey, this person’s, you know, green card application’s been held up and they’re a big donor; get on it”?
MR. EDLOW: You know, we certainly get calls from congressional offices, as does every administration. I don’t think it matters whether it’s Republican or Democrat, and frankly it doesn’t matter if the member of Congress is a Republican or Democrat. We have a very good working relationship with the Hill. We have a strong congressional office. We routinely get these questions. And if there’s a way that we can help – and frankly, I have found in some of those inquiries and some other inquiries that there are cases that have been held up for absolutely no reason over the last couple years, and I can’t explain it. But we can – we can move things along. So I welcome it. I have no problem with it.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Does the fact that you’re fee-funded give you a little bit more freedom in responding to those since, really, they can’t withhold your budget?
MR. EDLOW: I don’t think so. I might be – you’re right; from an appropriations standpoint, certainly. But I still – as I said the last four years – every time I testified in the private sector, what did I say? Congress needs to be exercising its oversight authority. Congress absolutely still – they might not have appropriations authority over me, but they have oversight authority.
MR. KRIKORIAN: That’s right. Right, right.
MR. EDLOW: And you know, I want to be responsive to them. And you know, when anyone has a question, I’ve spoken to so many members of Congress and members of the Senate in recent months about questions they’ve had, and I’m happy to keep engaging with everyone. I want people to understand this process. It’s a confusing world that we live in in the immigration context, and if I can help demystify that for the Hill I’m always happy to do that.
MR. KRIKORIAN: This is kind of a niche question, but it’s something we actually got a lot of. And our late colleague David North talked to these people all the time, and this is about VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. And there are ways – there’s widespread fraud or possibly fraud of foreign spouses. They claim abuse so that they can convert to a permanent green card and the American citizen, who may never – not even know this is happening and they – it ends up hurting their –
MR. EDLOW: Yes.
MR. KRIKORIAN: What’s USCIS – what can you do in that regard?
MR. EDLOW: So this is another area – you saw that we published a report on special immigrant juveniles. This is another area where we are currently doing a deep dive –
MR. KRIKORIAN: OK.
MR. EDLOW: – to see exactly what we can – what we can determine. But this is – going back to the beginning of our conversation, this may be another area, especially when you have preparers and attorneys that are not acting in a scrupulous manner, where we could have need for investigations.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Oh, OK. Interesting. Good, good. Yeah, exactly. That seems like that would be the case.
MR. EDLOW: Perfect.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Because there may well be perfectly legitimate examples of this, but if someone is falsely claiming abuse that would seem to be –
MR. EDLOW: There are – listen, there are absolutely examples of this, and there is a reason why we have the VAWA protections that we have. I stand behind that. But going back again to my time as an ICE trial attorney, nine times out of 10 what I saw in these 360s that had been approved and that we were trying to do the adjustment of status for an immigration court the allegations were specious at best. And once or twice I even had the U.S. citizen come in who thought they were coming in to support – they were divorced now, but it was amicable and they thought they were coming in to support their former spouse, and had no idea. The look on their face when they realized they had been thrown under the bus based on the statement, it was –
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right, where the alien spouse said they had been abused and – yeah.
MR. EDLOW: Yeah, mmm hmm. Yeah, uh-huh.
MR. KRIKORIAN: This is – this is the last question, because we’re running out of time, but it’s kind of a niche thing that matters to a lot of people, is that under the previous administration the fees for a lot of employer-related applications were jacked up in order to subsidize asylum and other things. So what’s the – in other words, shouldn’t people be paying what their application actually costs?
MR. EDLOW: I totally agree with that. You know, I don’t think we’re ever going to get to full cost recovery on asylum, but asylum right now is free. What I see – you’re absolutely right that the employment-based was jacked up, but it wasn’t just to help the asylum – to subsidize asylum; it was also subsidizing the family-based.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Right.
MR. EDLOW: So it, to me, showed very clearly what the administration – what the Biden administration was focused on, where their – and based on a private practitioner of immigration law, I could tell you firsthand what they cared about and what they didn’t. And it was only certain family-based, and I mean only certain family-based.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Interesting. Right.
MR. EDLOW: You know, I’m excited about doing a new fee rule. I plan on right-sizing some of those. I expect a lot of fees to go up to get to full cost recovery, and I think we certainly will look at implementing some sort of nominal fee on the asylum side. But you know, to the extent that we’re going to get to full cost on that, it might be a little – might be a bridge too far right now.
MR. KRIKORIAN: Good.
Well, thank you –
MR. EDLOW: Thank you.
MR. KRIKORIAN: – Joe Edlow, director of USCIS. Thanks, all of you who are here and tuning in. And good luck and keep up the good work.
MR. EDLOW: Absolutely. Thank you. (Applause.)
(END)
