Featured

Biden Administration To Propose 8 Years US Citizenship For Immigrants

Published

4 years ago

January 19, 2021

…Expects new wave of Migrants

President-elect Joe Biden plans to immediately begin the rollout of his immigration agenda upon taking office Wednesday, but the new administration will also have to contend with migrants already on the US-Mexico border, as well as those on their way.

Among the first actions, Biden plans to take is proposing legislation that would offer a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigration currently in the United States. The legislation, which has already been drafted, includes an immediate path to citizenship for participants of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and Temporary Protected Status program, among others, border technology, and aid to Central America, according to people briefed on the plan.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris has said the proposal also includes cutting down the amount of time it takes to get citizenship to eight years.

Biden will also sign dozens of executive orders, according to a memo from incoming chief of staff Ron Klain, including rescinding the travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries.

But while Biden has pledged to take a more humane approach to those arriving at the US southern border, incoming officials have been publicly warning migrants that restrictive policies put in place under President Donald Trump will take time to roll back — a point Biden has recognized.

“The last thing we need is to say we’re going to stop immediately the — you know — the access to asylum the way it’s being run now and end up with 2 million people on our border. It’s a matter of setting up the guardrail so we can move in the direction,” Biden said last month.

But behind the scenes, plans have been set in motion to prepare for new arrivals, which have been gradually ticking up since last year and present an immediate challenge to the incoming administration as it sets up its own immigration policies.

The Department of Homeland Security has been putting contingency plans in place, in anticipation of an increase in migrants at the southern border as a result of deteriorating conditions in Latin America and a perceived relaxation of enforcement, and relaying those plans to transition officials, according to a senior DHS official. Plans include, for example, the use of soft-sided facilities that take into account COVID-19 precautions.

Non-governmental organizations and the Biden transition have been engaged in regular planning conversations that have primarily focused on them connecting with direct service providers at ports entry to start to get to a more nuanced perspective on processing and regional differences, according to two sources familiar with discussions.

The long-term plan is to set in motion a regional strategy that addresses root causes and expands pathways for migration.

Migrants from Central America

According to Guatemala’s official immigration agency, an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 US-bound migrants have crossed into Guatemala from Honduras since Friday.

The coronavirus pandemic has taken a dramatic toll on Latin America, where COVID-19 cases and deaths have soared and economies projected to grow have been decimated. The region was also hit with two devastating hurricanes. The decline in economic growth in 2020, according to the Congressional Research Service, is expected to worsen income inequality and poverty in the region.

Caravans, as they’ve largely become known, are intended in part to provide safety in numbers as migrants embark on the dangerous journey north. The Trump administration seized on caravans to back up controversial and restrictive policies that largely sealed off the US, but they’re only one means of migration.

“It gets outsized attention because it’s a lot of people. They do it for safety, they do it for community. … It doesn’t necessarily mean they have a better chance of getting in,” said Theresa Brown, director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

“We knew for awhile there was pent up demand to come to the United States,” Brown added, citing conditions in Latin America.

Reversing Trump administration policies

The Trump administration took an aggressive posture on the US-Mexico border that resulted in thousands of migrants waiting along on the southern border for their US immigration court date and, during the coronavirus pandemic, the swift removal of migrants, including children.

The incoming administration has pledged to undo policies that, immigrant advocates argued, put migrants in harm’s way. Klain underscored Biden’s commitment to restoring “dignity to our immigration system and our border policies, and start the difficult but critical work of reuniting families separated at the border,” out of the gate in a memo to staff over the weekend.

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

2 weeks ago

March 6, 2025

The Gleamer

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Share on Facebook