Presidential Primary Updates: Cruz and Clinton Win the Iowa Caucuses

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY UPDATES: THE IOWA CAUCUSES

After nearly a year of buildup and excessive coverage of every utterance of Donald Trump, the Iowa Caucus on February 1, 2016, marked the beginning of the 2016 Presidential Primaries. In this post, I will review the outcome, offer my thoughts, and look ahead to the New Hampshire Primaries on February 9.

In full disclosure, I am a Republican.

REPUBLICAN IOWA CAUCUS

The following are the results of the Republican Iowa caucuses:

1. Ted Cruz (27.6%) [projected 8 delegates]
2. Donald Trump (24.3%) [projected 7 delegates]
3. Marco Rubio (23.1%) [projected 7 delegates]
4. Ben Carson (9.3%) [projected 3 delegates]
5. Rand Paul (4.5%) [projected 1 delegate]
6. Jeb Bush (2.8%) [projected 1 delegate]
7. Carly Fiorina (1.9%) [projected 1 delegate]
8. John Kasich (1.9%) [projected 1 delegate]
9. Mike Huckabee (1.8%) [projected 1 delegate]
10. Chris Christie (1.8%)
11. Rick Santorum (1.0%)

CRUZ DEFEATS TRUMP, RUBIO FINISHES STRONG THIRD

Although Ted Cruz is not one of my favorite candidates in the Republican field, his victory in Iowa is an infinitely better outcome than Trump's winning would have been. Iowa was a crucial state for the Cruz campaign because the electorate set up favorably for him and because he had invested substantial time and resources into it. In the end, Cruz's investment paid off, as he overcame a deficit in the polls (Real Clear Politics had Trump +4.7% going on election day) to win a relatively convincing victory in the Iowa Caucuses.

Besides Trump's falling to defeat, the highlight of the night for me was the strong performance by Marco Rubio. Rubio dramatically outperformed his average in the polls to come in a very strong third place and nearly overtake Trump for second. While I would have loved to see Rubio win instead of Cruz, his strong performance goes a long way toward cementing his status as the candidate with the broadest appeal to the GOP electorate in the field.

Finally, I suppose we must talk about Trump as well. After all of the media coverage and premature declarations of invincibility, it was highly satisfying to see Trump defeated in the first votes of the year. While there is still much work to do in ending the threat of a Trump nomination, we can only hope that his loss to Cruz in Iowa will show casual political observers that Trump is neither invincible nor inevitable. In fact, to add insult to injury, Trump engaged in attacks of increasing vulgarity and absurdity against Cruz in the lead-up to voting, only to run into realization that not everyone is susceptible to bullying. Subsequent to his defeat, Trump alleged that Cruz “stole” the election based upon statements made by Cruz campaign officials and surrogates indicating incorrectly that Ben Carson was planning to suspend his campaign. However, it was the voters in Iowa who took time out of their lives to turn out in record numbers who “stole” the victory to which Trump was never entitled. Cruz aptly described Trump's infantile behavior as a “Trumpertantrum,” which is as fitting a label as any for his incessant cries for attention.

DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

1. Hillary Clinton (49.85%) [23 projected delegates]
2. Bernie Sanders (49.58%) [21 projected delegates]
3. Martin O'Malley (0.54%)

CLINTON WINS BY NARROWEST OF MARGINS

After the Democratic Caucus, we can conclude that no one seems entirely sure about how the Democratic Caucus actually works. Nevertheless, while the popular vote was not recorded and certain “state delegate equivalents” upon which the above percentages were based may or may not have been decided by coin flips, Hillary Clinton eked out the narrowest of victories over her “Democratic Socialist” opponent. I think that many opinion writers have gone overboard in declaring Iowa a rousing success for Sanders. The polls only had Clinton with a narrow lead (with Sanders ahead in some), and Iowa set up well for the Senator from Vermont with its electorate. Although he will likely win New Hampshire next week, Sanders will have to show that he can compete outside of the northeast and certain states in the Midwest to pose a viable long-term threat (barring her indictment) to Clinton.

CANDIDATE WITHDRAWALS

On the Republican side, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum all withdrew from the race. Huckabee and Santorum, the 2008 and 2012 winners in Iowa respectively, ended up being total non-factors in the 2016 edition. However, Santorum endorsed Marco Rubio after his withdrawal. While I am not sure how much influence Santorum has with Republican voters in 2016, he potentially could be a useful surrogate for Rubio with certain socially conservative voters.

Rand Paul pulled out after a middling performance in Iowa. While he was looked at as a potential contender for the nomination at times over the past few years, his campaign failed to gain traction as the so-called “libertarian moment” never arrived. However, Paul is a unique voice in the Republican Party and has been a terrific Senator in his first term. Paul will now focus on his reelection campaign. I join many other Republicans in hoping that Paul wins a second term. Ted Cruz has made a strong play for Paul supporters throughout the campaign, and he may stand the most to gain from Paul's withdrawal.

On the Democratic side, Martin O'Malley withdrew. On this I have nothing to add.

See my analysis of Lindsey Graham's withdrawal in December.

LOOKING AHEAD: NEW HAMPSHIRE

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is still situated atop the polls in New Hampshire by a comfortable margin. While the percentages that Trump has in most polls are similar to his pre-election numbers in Iowa, the non-Trump vote is split more ways. While Rubio and Cruz are sitting in second and third in the polling averages, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and my favored candidate, Chris Christie, are all factors in New Hampshire after barely registering in the results Iowa. Barring a surprising showing by Christie, I hope that Marco Rubio is able to overtake Trump when the votes are cast on February 9.

I will compose a post recapping the New Hampshire results after the vote.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders looks slated to win a decisive victory over Hillary Clinton, marking the first time in U.S. history where a self-identified socialist wins a primary for one of the two major parties. This is not a milestone I had hoped to see for America, but it will likely (and perhaps, unfortunately) not be the strangest milestone reached before the 2016 elections are done.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

EOIR Announces Investiture of Nine New Immigration Judges

On February 1, 2016, the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) announced the investiture of nine new immigration judges [EOIR news release]. The new immigration judges were appointed by U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.

Acting Chief Immigration Judge Print Maggard, who presided over the investiture during a ceremony held on January 29, 2016, stated that the new immigration judges would help decrease EOIR's pending caseload. Furthermore, she noted that with the nine new immigration judges, the immigration judge corps will now number 254.

The following is the list of new immigration judges:

• Xiomara David-Gumbs (Dallas Immigration Court)
• Jennifer M. Gorland (Detroit Immigration Court)
• Denice C. Hochul (Buffalo Immigration Court)
• Mark J. Jebson (Detroit Immigration Court)
• Margaret M. Kolbe (New York Immigration Court)
• Ramin Rastegar (Newark Immigration Court)
• Shifra Rubin (Newark Immigration Court)
• Meredith B. Tryakoski (San Antonio Immigration Court)
• Daniel H. Weiss (Dallas Immigration Court)

Given the substantial immigration caseload around the country, sitting immigration judges, attorneys, and immigrants all stand to benefit from the appointment of qualified immigration judges. To that effect, Acting Chief Immigration Judge Maggard stated that “we will continue adding to [the number of immigration judges] throughout this year to further enhance EOIR's capacity to meet the tremendous challenges we face.”

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Update on Congressional Efforts to Reform the EB5 Program

On February 2, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned officials from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) on oversight of the EB5 Regional Center Program.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the ranking Democrat is Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). I discussed a legislative proposal by Senators Grassley and Leahy to reform the EB5 program by increasing oversight over it here and here.

In my previous articles on the debate over the future of the EB5 program, I highlighted various proposals being floated in both the U.S. House and Senate. The Hill reports that the plot has thickened now, as competing legislation drafted by Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) and signed on to by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) is set to be proposed.

Like the Grassley-Leahy bill, the bill drafted by Senator Flake would maintain the EB5 Regional Center Program with certain changes, such as increased oversight and raising the minimum investment level. However, the draft legislation proposed by Senator Flake diverges significantly from the Grassley-Leahy legislation in how it defines a “targeted employment area” (TEA) for EB5 immigrant investor purposes. Senators Flake, Schumer, and Cornyn, who played a significant role in keeping the Grassley-Leahy legislation out of the federal omnibus bill, objected to what they perceived as the Grassley-Leahy legislation's design to funnel EB5 investment to rural areas instead of urban areas.

Indeed, on December 17, 2015, after his legislation had been left out of the omnibus legislation, Senator Grassley stated on the Senate floor:

“How many more projects in midtown Manhattan at the expense of rural America need to be highlighted? How many more headlines are needed before the program is going to be fixed?”

Senator Schumer stated in late January after he had signed on to Senator Flake's legislation that:

“Grassley's reform proposals I think most people agree on. It's the distribution between urban and rural that needs to be worked out.”

Senator Cornyn said of the effort to attach the original Grassley-Leahy bill to the omnibus:

“There's a lot of common groud.” and “but rather than try to pass it an omnibus appropriation bill without having much of the way in daylight or transparency involved, we need to have a hearing and then a regular markup.”

The debate is interesting given the players involved. Senator Grassley is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Leahy is the top-ranking Democrat. Senator Cornyn is the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, and Senator Schumer is both the third-ranking Democrat and the presumptive next leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid retires next January. These are Senators with seniority and influential positions in their respective caucuses.

That the EB5 regional center program has attracted interest from such influential members from both parties in the Senate perhaps bodes well for legislation bringing long-term stability to the program being passed in advance of the expiration of its authorization on September 30, 2016. As I noted in previous articles on the EB5 program, most of the proposals being floated seek to continue the program. In the case of the Grassley-Leahy proposal against the Flake proposal, the difference appears to be where EB5 investments should be directed rather than over the fundamentals of the EB5 program itself. While a vote on a final resolution of the EB5 program is not imminent, there seems to be good reason for advocates to believe that Congress is making progress toward providing attorneys and future beneficiaries of the program certainty about its future.

In any case, it does seem likely that changes will be coming in the future. In the hearing before the Judiciary Committee that I referenced at the beginning of the article, Senator Grassley called USCIS's and the SEC's efforts to improve and increase oversight of the program “a bland attempt to fix the program.”

While we cannot be sure exactly what form changes in the EB5 program will take, there is momentum from many sides to tighten the EB5 Regional Center Program rules and increase oversight.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

RESOURCES AND MATERIALS:

Lane, Sylvan, “Battle brewing over foreign investor visas,” The Hill, (Feb. 1, 2016), available at http://thehill.com/policy/finance/267779-battle-brewing-over-foreign-investor-visas

Lane, Sylvan, “Senators struggle to bridge divide on foreign investor visas,” The Hill, (Feb. 2, 2016) available at http://thehill.com/policy/finance/economy/267880-senators-struggle-to-bridge-divide-on-foreign-investor-visas

C-Span, “The Failures and Future of the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Can it be Fixed?” (Feb 2. 2016), [video of the hearing before the judiciary committee], available at http://www.c-span.org/video/?403800-1/failures-future-eb5-regional-center-program-can-fixed

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona Wants State Moved from the Ninth Circuit

The Associated Press reports[1] that Governor Doug Ducey (R) of Arizona is pushing to have Arizona taken out of the appellate jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of the Appeals. In this post, I will explain how the Ninth Circuit fits in the appellate court system and the reasons why the Governor of Arizona is pushing to have his state moved from the Ninth Circuit.

BACKGROUND: THE CIRCUIT COURTS

The United States has thirteen circuit courts. The First through Eleventh circuits and the D.C. Circuit cover geographic regions, while the Federal Circuit Court has subject-matter jurisdiction only. For perspective, New York is part of the Second Circuit while New Jersey is part of the Third Circuit.

Among the circuits, the Ninth Circuit is notable for its size. Based in California, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals arising from Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Due to its scope, the Ninth Circuit has by far the largest caseload (around 12,000 appeals filed per year) and the most judges (29) among the circuits. The Ninth Circuit also sees a significant number of immigration cases given its geography and size.

WHY ARIZONA WANTS OUT

Governor Ducey of Arizona cites multiple reasons for wanting to leave the Ninth Circuit. First, Ducey notes that the Ninth Circuit is overburdened, given its size and the number of appeals it sees. Second, Ducey notes that the Ninth Circuit generally has a disproportionate number of its decisions that reach the Supreme Court reversed. In fact, many Republicans have long complained that the Ninth Circuit has, in general, a liberal tilt in its judicial decision-making.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Governor Ducey offers two options for what he wants to see happen. Ducey suggests that either Congress creates a new Circuit (thereby splitting the Ninth Circuit into two) or that Arizona is absorbed into the Tenth Circuit, a smaller Circuit based in Denver. To this effect, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is proposing legislation for breaking up the Ninth Circuit into two.

CHANCES OF SUCCESS

To put it mildly, we should not expect to see either a Twelfth Circuit or Arizona moved to the Tenth Circuit in the immediate future.

First, regardless of the merits of Arizona's arguments about the size of the Ninth Circuit, both of its proposals will be seen as politically motivated by many liberal groups and elected Democrats. For example, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has long opposed breaking up the Ninth Circuit, and instead advocates for appointing new judges. Dan Pochoda of the American Civil Liberties Union outright accused Governor Ducey of so-called “circuit shopping.”

Second, even if compromise is possible, it will not be possible in the lead-up to the 2016 elections. Although people will rightfully focus on the Presidential election, it is important to remember that about one-third of the sitting U.S. Senators and every U.S. House member will be up for election. Suffice it to say, the closer we get to November, the less likely Congress is to consider, much less pass, large, complicated, and potentially contentious pieces of legislation.

MY THOUGHTS

If the Ninth Circuit consisted only of California, it would be responsible for more people than any of the other Circuits. If you turned the rest of the Ninth Circuit (besides California) into a circuit, it would cover about as many people as both the Second and the Third Circuit.[2] To be sure, there are valid and completely non-ideological arguments in favor of breaking up the Ninth Circuit. Although it is debatable whether it is the most overburdened Circuit given the number of Judges it has, it indisputably stands out among the circuits for both its geographic size and the number of people it covers.

However, I do not think simply moving Arizona to the Tenth Circuit is the answer. Namely, if the main issue with the Ninth Circuit is its size, simply moving Arizona to the much smaller Tenth Circuit would not address the underlying issue in the Ninth. Advocates for restructuring the Ninth Circuit are best served seeking a solution that would bring the scope of the Ninth Circuit more in line with its sister circuits.

An additional concern with simply relocating Arizona is that it would open the door for a flood of other states to seek new Circuits, given that the move would be seen as having a partisan element. However, I do think that simply writing off the “political” considerations of Arizona is shortsighted, regardless of one's political persuasion or opinion of the Ninth Circuit's jurisprudence. People of all political persuasions fervently advocate for or against judges being confirmed to the circuits. For those who have a more complex understanding of law and legal philosophy than checking the party of the sitting President, there are numerous reasons for supporting or opposing a judicial appointment. If the elected officials and representatives of a state believe that their state is not well-served by its appellate court system, then there is no reason why it is inherently illegitimate to seek an appropriate remedy. That does not mean that reassignment in this or any other case should be granted, but rather that simply seeking the remedy itself should not be categorically dismissed as petty politics.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Christe, Bob, “Arizona Governor Wants to Split 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,” ap.org, (Jan. 28, 2016), available at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARIZONA_GOVERNOR_9TH_CIRCUIT
2. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals#Circuit_population

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com