American Families United Act

— 567 — Department of Justice Ensuring Proper Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws. Although its role has changed over the years, most notably following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,93 the Department of Justice plays a crucial role in the enforcement and adjudication of our immigration laws.94 Its leadership and energy, however, have not always reflected the importance placed by Congress on the execution of that crucial mission. With a few notable exceptions, successful fulfillment of the department’s responsibilities with respect to immi- gration was largely neglected until the Trump Administration. The Department of Homeland Security may be the largest federal department with immigration responsibilities, but successful fulfillment of the responsibilities prescribed by the immigration laws is not possible without bold and dedicated action by the Department of Justice. The DOJ and its leadership must intentionally prioritize fulfillment of the department’s immigration-related responsibilities in the next conservative Admin- istration. This will be no small task, as these responsibilities play out across nearly every DOJ office and component. If they hope to fulfill their responsibilities as assigned by Congress and deliver results for the American people, the department and the Attorney General should: l Issue guidance to all U.S. Attorneys emphasizing the importance of prosecuting immigration offenses,95 and immigration-related offenses. The brunt of these offenses is born by districts along the southwestern border with Mexico, but the simple fact remains that immigration and immigration-related offenses are present in every district across the country. Successfully pursuing the priorities outlined in this chapter will require creative use of the various immigration and immigration-related authorities in close partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and other appropriate federal entities depending on the situation. l Pursue appropriate steps to assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining information about criminal aliens in jurisdictions across the United States, particularly those inside “sanctuary” jurisdictions. l Examine and consider the appropriateness of withdrawing or overturning every immigration decision rendered by Attorney General Garland (and any successor Attorney General during President Biden’s term). The Attorney General should pick up where the Attorneys General under President Trump left off and exercise his or her authority to adjudicate cases and provide guidance in appropriate cases to — 568 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise correct erroneous decisions, provide clarity, and align Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) decisions with the law. l At a minimum, pursue through rulemaking—and in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security where appropriate—the promulgation of every rule related to immigration that was issued during the Trump Administration. Such rulemakings include guidance on continuances in immigration court cases, eligibility for asylum, and other related matters. However, the DOJ should not stop there: It should continually evaluate its authorities and operational reality within the immigration court system and promulgate regulations accordingly. l Commit sufficient resources to the adjudication of cases in the immigration court system in different environments (for example, in the context of the Migrant Protection Protocols). l Pursue proactive litigation to advance the federal government’s interests in areas where erroneous precedent curtails authorities provided by Congress (for example, by pursuing the overturning of the Flores Settlement Agreement). l Pursue aggressive enforcement of the immigration laws within the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division to ensure that no American citizen is discriminated against in the employment context in favor of a temporary or foreign worker.96 l Ensure the deployment and use of appointees throughout the department who are committed to successful achievement of the department’s immigration-related missions. This includes personnel in or overseeing not only the EOIR, but also the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, and nearly every other component/ office throughout the department. l Pursue a more vigorous anti-fraud program within the EOIR. In perhaps no other area of law are there more attorneys who commit acts of fraud against their clients—advancing completely meritless arguments in exchange for exorbitant fees—than there are in the area of immigration. Fraud and unethical behavior are rampant in the immigration system and must be addressed—not only to ensure that the federal government is operating in a proper manner, but also for the sake of the aliens involved in

— xxvii — Contributors Joseph Edlow, The Heritage Foundation Jen Ehlinger, Booz Allen Hamilton John Ehrett, Office of Senator Josh Hawley Kristen Eichamer, The Heritage Foundation Robert S. Eitel, Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies Will Estrada, Parents Rights Foundation Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation Travis Fisher, The Heritage Foundation George Fishman, Center for Immigration Studies Leslie Ford, The Heritage Foundation Aharon Friedman, Federal Policy Group Bruce Frohnen, Ohio Northern University College of Law Joel Frushone Finch Fulton Diana Furchtgott-Roth, The Heritage Foundation Caleigh Gabel, American Cornerstone Institute Christopher Gacek, Family Research Council Alexandra Gaiser, River Financial Inc. Mario Garza Patty-Jane Geller, The Heritage Foundation Andrew Gillen, Texas Public Policy Foundation James S. Gilmore III, Gilmore Global Group LLC Vance Ginn, Economic Consulting, LLC Alma Golden, The Institute for Women’s Health Mike Gonzalez, The Heritage Foundation Chadwick R. Gore, Defense Forum Foundation David Gortler, Ethics and Public Policy Center Brian Gottstein, The Heritage Foundation Dan Greenberg, Competitive Enterprise Institute Rob Greenway, Hudson Institute Rachel Greszler, The Heritage Foundation DJ Gribbin, Madrus Consulting Garrison Grisedale, American Cornerstone Institute Joseph Grogan, USC Schaeffer School for Health Policy and Economics Andrew Guernsey Jeffrey Gunter, Republican Jewish Coalition Joe Guy, Club for Growth Joseph Guzman Amalia Halikias, The Heritage Foundation Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Foundation Richard Hanania, Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology — xxviii — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Simon Hankinson, The Heritage Foundation David Harlow Derek Harvey, Office of Congressman Devin Nunes Jason Hayes, Mackinac Center for Public Policy Jennifer Hazelton Lou Heinzer Edie Heipel Troup Hemenway, Personnel Policy Operations Nathan Hitchen, Equal Rights Institute Pete Hoekstra Gabriella Hoffman, Independent Women’s Forum Tom Homan, The Heritage Foundation Chris Horner Mike Howell, The Heritage Foundation Valerie Huber, The Institute for Women’s Health Andrew Hughes, American Cornerstone Institute Joseph Humire, Center for a Secure Free Society Christopher Iacovella, American Securities Association Melanie Israel, The Heritage Foundation Ken Ivory, Utah House of Representatives Roman Jankowski, The Heritage Foundation Abby Jones Emilie Kao, Alliance Defending Freedom Jared M. Kelson, Boyden Gray & Associates Aaron Kheriaty, Ethics and Public Policy Center Ali Kilmartin, Alliance Defending Freedom Julie Kirchner, Federation for American Immigration Reform Dan Kish, Institute for Energy Research Kenneth A. Klukowski Adam Korzeniewski, American Principles Project Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, Sagitta Solutions, LLC Bethany Kozma, Keystone Policy Matthew Kozma Julius Krein, American Affairs Stanley Kurtz, Ethics and Public Policy Center David LaCerte, Baker Botts, LLP Paul J. Larkin, The Heritage Foundation Kent Lassman, Competitive Enterprise Institute James R. Lawrence III, Envisage Law Paul Lawrence, Lawrence Consulting Nathan Leamer, Targeted Victory David Legates, University of Delaware (Ret.)

— 178 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise interior immigration enforcement. This Administration’s humanitarian crisis—which is arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis in the modern era, one which has harmed Americans and foreign nationals alike—will take many years and billions of dollars to fully address. One casualty of the Biden Administration’s behavior will be the current form of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program (USRAP). The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which administers USRAP, must shift its resources to challenges stemming from the current immigration situation until the crisis can be contained and refugee-focused screening and vetting capacity can reasonably be restored. l Strengthening bilateral and multilateral immigration-focused agreements. Restoration of both domestic security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system should start with rapid reactivation of several key initiatives in effect at the conclusion of the Trump Administration. Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements, and other measures to address the influx of non-Mexican asylum applicants at the United States–Mexico border must be Day One priorities. Although the State Department must rein in the C-175 authorities of other agencies, the Department of Homeland Security should retain (or regain) C-175 authorities for negotiating bilateral and multilateral security agreements. l Evaluation of national security–vulnerable visa programs. To protect the American people, the State Department, in coordination with the White House and other security-focused agencies, should evaluate several key security-sensitive visa programs that it manages. Key programs include, but should not be limited to, the Diversity Visa program, the F (student) visa program, and J (exchange visitor) visa program. The State Department’s evaluation must ensure that these programs are not only consistent with White House immigration policy, but also align with its national security obligations and resource limitations. PIVOTING ABROAD Personnel and management adjustments are crucial preludes to refocus the State Department’s mission, which is implementing the President’s foreign policy agenda and, in so doing, ensuring that the interests of American citizens are given — 179 — Department of State priority. That said, the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. govern- ment’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorien- tation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War. Although not every country or issue area can be discussed in this chapter, below are examples of several areas in which a shift in U. S. foreign policy is not only import- ant, but arguably existential. The point is not to assert that everyone in the evolving conservative movement, or, in some cases, the growing bipartisan consensus, will agree with the details of this assessment. Rather, what is presented below demon- strates the urgency of these issues and provides a general roadmap for analysis. In a world on fire, a handful of nations require heightened attention. Some rep- resent existential threats to the safety and security of the American people; others threaten to hurt the U.S. economy; and others are wild cards, whose full threat scope is unknown but nevertheless unsettling. The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea. The People’s Republic of China The designs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Com- munist Party, which runs the PRC, are serious and dangerous.9 This tyrannical country with a population of more than 1 billion people has the vision, resources, and patience to achieve its objectives. Protecting the United States from the PRC’s designs requires an unambiguous offensive-defensive mix, including protecting American citizens and their interests, as well as U.S. allies, from PRC attacks and abuse that undermine U.S. competitiveness, security, and prosperity. The United States must have a cost-imposing strategic response to make Bei- jing’s aggression unaffordable, even as the American economy and U.S. power grow. This stance will require real, sustained, near-unprecedented U.S. growth; stronger partnerships; synchronized economic and security policies; and American energy independence—but above all, it will require a very honest perspective about the nature and designs of the PRC as more of a threat than a competitor.10 The next President should use the State Department and its array of resources to reassess and lead this effort, just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. government needs an Article X for China,11 and it should be a presidential mandate. Along with the National Security Council, the State Department should draft an Article X, which should be a deeply philosophical look at the China challenge. Many foreign policy professionals and national leaders, both in government and the private sector, are reluctant to take decisive action regarding China. Many are vested in an unshakable faith in the international system and global norms. They are so enamored with them they cannot brook any criticisms or reforms, let alone