God's Mercy, Moves, + Other Stories.

Written July 19th, 2024. Sorry i'm late. 

 It’s the middle of the year. I’ve been doing a lot of praying/fasting with my aunt in the UK (big shout aunty Vivian) and God’s mercy has been a recurring theme throughout the different prayer sessions I’ve tuned into this month. So much so that I’d hear it one place and hear about it in a totally different time, place, experience. If that’s not confirmation of His Word, I don't know what else is. 

Psalm 26:3 

Psalm 25:6

Isaiah 30:18

Lamentations 3:22

I remember writing in 2015 about the grace of God. It’s cool how almost 10 years later, His mercy is the topic du jure. Very much a full circle thing given the all-too-common rhetoric of his grace and mercy following us all the days of our lives. 

God’s grace grants me favor; God’s mercy keeps me grounded. It keeps me grateful for everything I have and don’t have. 

In the words of the great K.W., 

Everything I’m not, makes me everything I am. 

This is the perfect segue to discuss my recent move. I’m moving to Chicago, Illinois. I haven’t quite worked out the kinks (whether just a seasonal move, permanent move, etc) but given that I'm writing this while out here, I took the first step, which is to come and get a feel of the city/ look at some apartments. While I’m not a stranger to moving, this is a move that was definitely not planned. I honestly thought I’d love Dallas (or somehow find my niche and permanent footing there), but 18 months and a few trial and errors later, I really had to admit to myself that I wasn’t happy nor was I on the way to achieving a lifestyle I was satisfied with using the resources available to me in Dallas.  I firmly believe that there’s only so much internal happiness can do if externally (i.e. day to day) you feel like you're living a life you're only tolerating. And that’s how I felt by my 13th month in Dallas. 

See this tweet for reference 

https://x.com/ikhide/status/1712593278648926503

Upon considering this move, I had to really think about exactly where I wanted to be. What is my ideal lifestyle? In which instances, even from childhood was I extremely satisfied with my day-to-day life? I thought about my 2013 internship in Berlin, Germany when I was commuting to work daily (albeit in the freezing cold). It felt cool being able to people watch on my commute home on the S-Bahn to Pankow. I was satisfied. I thought about my simple walks to the nail salon up the street the years I was carless as a young adult in Atlanta and living with my parents. I was satisfied. I thought about when I did my masters in Birmingham, UK and commuting to the city center or to class and going to the bull Ring shops thereafter (and tbh same goes for London and other places I visited while there). I was satisfied. 

I think about my day to day in Dallas and how it's very much opposite to these experiences. At the time I moved to Texas, there were tradeoffs that made the move worth it (needing stability, and the job opportunity namely). Fast forward to present day, and those tradeoffs are no more there (I now have my investment home and can use it to rent out to others and a remote job). 

Given that I no longer have anything tying me down to Dallas, I am very much willing to figure out the city that works for me.

The rest of this was written September 30, 2024. Happy to be here. 

It’s the end of the third quarter, I’ve officially moved to Chicago + I think I’m going to like it here.

Whatever didn't work out moves me one step closer to what does. Everything I'm not, makes me everything I am. 

watch this space. 

Funmi Oke

The Cronin Memo: Clarification on Advanced Parole and Pending Green Card Applications

This is the eighth entry of my blog's summer series where I deep dive into key immigration policies in U.S. history; policies that have (directly or indirectly) impacted U.S. Immigration as we know it today

Introduction

Navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law can be daunting, especially for individuals on H-1 or L-1 visas with pending I-485 applications (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status). One key piece of guidance that has significantly impacted travel rules for these visa holders is the Cronin Memo. This post will look into the origin and impact of the Cronin Memo, its provisions for re-entry without advance parole, and its implications for pending I-485 applications.

The Origin of the Cronin Memo

The Cronin Memo, officially known as the "Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson," was issued by Michael Cronin, then-Acting Executive Associate Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), on June 10, 1999. This memo was designed to provide clarification on travel and re-entry rules for H-1 and L-1 visa holders who have filed I-485 applications and whose applications are pending.

 Impact of the Cronin Memo

The Cronin Memo has had a profound impact on how H-1 and L-1 visa holders manage their travel plans while their I-485 applications are pending. Before the memo, there was considerable confusion and concern among visa holders about whether they could re-enter the U.S. without advance parole—a travel document that permits re-entry while an adjustment of status application is pending.

Re-Entry Without Advance Parole

One of the most significant provisions of the Cronin Memo is that it allows H-1 and L-1 visa holders to re-enter the United States without obtaining advance parole, provided they meet certain conditions. Specifically, the memo states that H-1 and L-1 visa holders who travel abroad and return to the U.S. using their valid H-1 or L-1 visa and a valid passport are not required to present an advance parole document, even if they have a pending I-485 application.

This provision is particularly important because it reduces the administrative burden and potential delays for visa holders who need to travel internationally. It also provides peace of mind, as individuals do not need to worry about the potential complications of obtaining advance parole.

Impact on Pending I-485 Applications

The Cronin Memo also clarifies that travel on H-1 or L-1 visas does not automatically abandon a pending I-485 application. This is a crucial point for visa holders who are in the process of adjusting their status to permanent residency. Prior to this memo, there was ambiguity about whether traveling without advance parole would result in the abandonment of the adjustment of status application, potentially jeopardizing the individual's path to a green card.

By affirming that H-1 and L-1 visa holders can travel without abandoning their I-485 applications, the memo provides stability and clarity, enabling individuals to maintain their professional and personal travel commitments without risking their immigration status.

 Understanding Travel Parameters with a Pending Green Card Application

While the Cronin Memo offers significant relief for H-1 and L-1 visa holders, it is still essential for individuals with pending I-485 applications to understand the parameters and potential risks associated with international travel. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Validity of Visa and Passport: Ensure that your H-1 or L-1 visa and passport are valid for the duration of your travel. Re-entry into the U.S. requires both documents to be current and valid.

2. Employment Continuity: Maintain your employment status with the same employer and under the same conditions as when your I-485 was filed. Any significant changes in employment could affect your immigration status and pending application.

3. Documentation: Always carry proper documentation, including a copy of your I-485 receipt notice, during international travel. This can help in case of any questions or issues upon re-entry.

4. Consultation with an Attorney: Before making travel plans, consult with an immigration attorney to ensure that you understand any recent changes in immigration policies or procedures that could impact your travel.

Conclusion

The Cronin Memo remains a pivotal document in U.S. immigration law, providing essential guidance and clarity for H-1 and L-1 visa holders with pending I-485 applications. By allowing re-entry without advance parole and clarifying the non-abandonment of adjustment of status applications, the memo offers significant benefits and peace of mind. However, it is crucial to stay informed and consult with legal professionals to navigate the complex landscape of immigration law effectively.

References

1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (1999). Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson: Advanced Parole and Travel for H-1 and L-1 Visa Holders. Retrieved from [USCIS Archives](https://www.uscis.gov/archive/1999-memo-michael-a-pearson-travel-reentry-h-1b-and-l-1-visa-holders).

2. Murthy Law Firm. (2019). Cronin Memo and Travel on H1B or L1 While I-485 is Pending. Retrieved from [Murthy Law](https://www.murthy.com/2019/06/12/cronin-memo-and-travel-on-h1b-or-l1-while-i-485-is-pending/).

3. American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). (1999). Impact of the Cronin Memo on Travel for H and L Nonimmigrants. Retrieved from [AILA](https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-practice-pointers-and-alerts/1999/impact-of-the-cronin-memo-on-travel-for-h-and-l-nonimmigrants).

Combatting Fraud and Abuse in the H-1B Visa Program: Judicial Decisions and the Use of Artificial Intelligence

This is the sixth entry of my blog's summer series where I deep dive into key immigration policies in U.S. history; policies that have (directly or indirectly) impacted U.S. Immigration as we know it today

Introduction

The H-1B visa program, designed to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations, has long been a critical component of the U.S. labor market. However, the program is not without its vulnerabilities, with various forms of fraud and abuse threatening its integrity. To combat this, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has turned to advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and tools like Senzing Entity Resolution, to detect and prevent fraudulent activities. This blog explores how the H-1B system is susceptible to fraud and how USCIS leverages AI to safeguard the program. Additionally, it delves into relevant judicial decisions that have shaped the legal landscape around H-1B fraud.

Vulnerabilities in the H-1B System

The H-1B visa program, while beneficial, has several areas susceptible to fraud:

1. Misrepresentation of Job Positions: Employers may misrepresent job positions to fit the "specialty occupation" requirement, often inflating the job description to meet criteria.

2. Wage Fraud: Employers might report paying higher wages than they actually do to meet the prevailing wage requirements, exploiting foreign workers in the process.

3. Shell Companies: Some entities create shell companies to file multiple H-1B petitions, increasing their chances in the lottery system and selling approvals to the highest bidder.

4. Documentation Fraud: Fraudulent educational and employment documents are submitted to meet the qualification requirements for the visa.

The Role of AI in Combating H-1B Fraud

To address these issues, USCIS employs AI technologies, including Senzing Entity Resolution, to enhance the detection and prevention of fraudulent activities. Here’s how:

 1. Senzing Entity Resolution

Senzing's Entity Resolution software is an AI tool used to identify and link related entities across      various data sets. It helps USCIS to:

• Detect Duplicate Applications: By resolving entities, Senzing can identify multiple H-1B applications filed by the same individual or company, even if the information is slightly altered.
• Identify Shell Companies: The software can cross-reference company data to detect patterns indicative of shell companies created solely to file H-1B petitions.
• Uncover Complex Networks: It can reveal connections between individuals and organizations, highlighting potential fraud networks.

 2.  Machine Learning Algorithms

USCIS also employs machine learning algorithms to analyze patterns and anomalies in H-1B applications. These algorithms:

• Analyze Historical Data: By learning from historical cases of fraud, the AI can predict and flag suspicious applications based on similar patterns.
• Monitor Employer Behavior: The AI continuously monitors employer behavior for inconsistencies, such as sudden changes in the number of applications filed or discrepancies in wage reports.
• Evaluate Documentation: AI tools can verify the authenticity of submitted documents, cross-referencing educational and employment records with trusted databases.

 3. Natural Language Processing (NLP)

Natural Language Processing is utilized to:

• Review Job Descriptions: NLP algorithms can analyze job descriptions to ensure they align with the actual duties and qualifications required, detecting inflated or fraudulent claims.
• Assess Application Consistency: NLP helps in evaluating the consistency and coherence of information provided across different sections of the application, highlighting potential discrepancies.

 Judicial Decisions on H-1B Fraud

Judicial decisions have played a crucial role in shaping the enforcement and interpretation of laws related to H-1B fraud. Some notable cases include:

1. United States v. Vision Systems Group, Inc. (2009)

In this case, Vision Systems Group was charged with visa fraud and harboring illegal aliens. The company submitted fraudulent documents to obtain H-1B visas for foreign workers, misrepresenting job positions and wages. The court's decision emphasized the severity of fraudulent activities and the need for stringent enforcement of H-1B regulations.

2. United States v. Infosys Limited (2013)

Infosys Limited, a global consulting and IT services company, faced allegations of systemic visa fraud and abuse of the H-1B program. The company settled the case by paying a substantial fine and agreeing to enhanced compliance measures. The judicial decision in this case highlighted the widespread nature of H-1B fraud and the need for corporate accountability.

The Impact of AI on H-1B Fraud Prevention

The integration of AI technologies like Senzing Entity Resolution into USCIS operations has significantly enhanced the agency's ability to detect and prevent H-1B fraud. The benefits include:

• Increased Detection Rates: AI tools have substantially increased the detection rates of fraudulent activities, making it harder for fraudulent applications to slip through the cracks.
• Efficiency and Speed: Automation of fraud detection processes has made the review of H-1B applications faster and more efficient, reducing the backlog and improving processing times.
• Resource Optimization: By automating routine checks, USCIS can allocate human resources to more complex cases, improving overall operational efficiency.

 Conclusion

The H-1B visa program is crucial for the U.S. economy, but its susceptibility to fraud necessitates robust preventative measures. USCIS's adoption of AI technologies, including Senzing Entity Resolution, represents a significant step forward in safeguarding the program. These technologies not only enhance the detection and prevention of fraud but also ensure that the H-1B visa program continues to function effectively and fairly, benefiting both U.S. employers and foreign workers.

Judicial decisions have reinforced the need for stringent enforcement and compliance, highlighting the consequences of fraudulent activities. As AI continues to evolve, its role in combating H-1B fraud is likely to expand, offering even more sophisticated tools to protect the integrity of the program.

The Dillingham Commission: From Objective Findings to Xenophobic Rhetoric and Its Modern Parallel with Project 2025

This is the sixth entry of my blog's summer series where I deep dive into key immigration policies in U.S. history; policies that have (directly or indirectly) impacted U.S. Immigration as we know it today

 In the early 20th century, the United States faced an unprecedented wave of immigration, prompting both concern and curiosity about the impact of this influx on American society. To address these issues, Congress established the Dillingham Commission in 1907, officially known as the United States Immigration Commission. While the commission's findings were initially presented as objective, they quickly evolved into a tool for xenophobic rhetoric, profoundly influencing immigration policy. This historical trajectory finds a modern parallel in the immigration pillar of Project 2025, an initiative aimed at reshaping contemporary U.S. immigration policy.

The Dillingham Commission: An Objective Beginning

The Dillingham Commission, chaired by Senator William P. Dillingham of Vermont, consisted of members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, along with three experts appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt. Between 1907 and 1911, the commission embarked on an extensive investigation into the effects of immigration on the United States. The resulting 41-volume report provided a comprehensive analysis of immigration patterns, the socioeconomic status of immigrants, and their impact on American society.

 The Commission’s Key Findings

The commission's report highlighted several key findings:

1. Demographic Shifts: It documented a significant shift in immigrant demographics, noting that newer arrivals were predominantly from Southern and Eastern Europe, as opposed to the earlier waves from Northern and Western Europe.

2. Economic Impact: The commission examined the economic effects of immigration, noting that many new immigrants were unskilled laborers, which could lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially lower wages.

3. Social Integration: It also explored the social integration of immigrants, expressing concerns about the assimilation of those from different cultural backgrounds.

Transition to Xenophobic Rhetoric

While the commission's findings were rooted in extensive data collection and analysis, they were soon co-opted to support xenophobic and nativist agendas. Politicians and interest groups used the report to argue that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were inherently inferior and posed a threat to American society. This rhetoric paved the way for restrictive immigration policies such as the National Origins Act of 1924 that aimed to preserve the nation's ethnic composition.

The National Origins Act of 1924

The Dillingham Commission's recommendations significantly influenced the National Origins Act of 1924. This legislation sought to restrict immigration by establishing quotas that favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe while severely limiting those from Southern and Eastern Europe. The act's key provisions included:

National Origins Quota: Quotas were based on the national origins of the U.S. population as recorded in the 1890 census, favoring older immigrant groups from Northern and Western Europe.

Exclusion of Asian Immigrants: Reflecting widespread racial prejudices, the act included provisions to exclude immigrants from Asia.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

The discriminatory policies of the National Origins Act remained in place until the civil rights movement and changing social attitudes led to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This act abolished the national origins quotas, replacing them with a system prioritizing family reunification and skilled immigrants. The 1965 act marked a significant shift towards a more equitable immigration policy, reflecting the evolving values of American society.

Project 2025: A Modern Parallel

Today, the immigration pillar of Project 2025 echoes the Dillingham Commission's trajectory from objective analysis to a foundation for restrictive policies. Project 2025, an initiative aimed at reshaping U.S. immigration policy, similarly uses data and analysis to advocate for significant changes. Its proponents argue for stricter immigration controls, emphasizing economic and security concerns.

However, critics of Project 2025 argue that, like the Dillingham Commission's findings, the initiative's proposals are often grounded in xenophobic rhetoric. They warn that policies advocated by Project 2025 could lead to discrimination and exclusion, like the impacts of the National Origins Act of 1924. 

 Conclusion

The Dillingham Commission's legacy is a complex one, illustrating how objective findings can be twisted to support xenophobic rhetoric and restrictive policies. Its influence on the National Origins Act of 1924 and its eventual repudiation by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 highlight the evolving nature of American immigration policy.

As we consider contemporary initiatives like Project 2025, it is crucial to recognize the lessons of history. Objective analysis must remain free from xenophobic manipulation, ensuring that immigration policies reflect the nation's core values of equity, diversity, and inclusion. The story of the Dillingham Commission serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance in safeguarding these principles in the face of changing political landscapes.

 

 

 References

 

1. Daniels, Roger. *Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants since 1882*. Hill and Wang, 2004.

2. Tichenor, Daniel J. *Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America*. Princeton University Press, 2002.

3. Higham, John. *Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925*. Rutgers University Press, 1955.

4. Ngai, Mae M. *Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America*. Princeton University Press, 2004.

5. *The National Origins Act of 1924*. History.com Editors, History, 2018. [Link](https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/national-origins-act-of-1924).

6. Reimers, David M. *Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn Against Immigration*. Columbia University Press, 1998.

7. *The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965*. History.com Editors, History, 2019. [Link](https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/immigration-and-nationality-act).

8. Fuchs, Lawrence H. *The American Kaleidoscope: Race, Ethnicity, and the Civic Culture*. Wesleyan University Press, 1990.

9. Project 2025, *The Heritage Foundation*. [Link](https://www.heritage.org/project-2025/).

10. *Critics on Project 2025’s Immigration Pillar*. The New York Times, 2023. [Link](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/us/politics/project-2025-immigrat

The Mariel Boatlift of 1980: The Mass Migration of Cubans to South Florida

This is the fifth entry of my blog's summer series where I deep dive into key immigration policies in U.S. history; policies that have (directly or indirectly) impacted U.S. Immigration as we know it today

In the records of U.S. immigration history, few events have had as profound an impact as the Mariel Boatlift of 1980. This massive exodus of Cubans to the shores of Florida not only reshaped demographics but also ignited debates and policy changes that continue to influence immigration discourse today.

 Background and Context

The Mariel Boatlift was triggered by a series of events rooted in the complex relationship between the United States and Cuba. Fidel Castro, then the leader of Cuba, opened the port of Mariel to anyone wishing to leave the country. In response, thousands of Cubans took to the sea in makeshift boats and rafts, seeking asylum in the United States. Over the course of several months in 1980, an estimated 125,000 refugees arrived in South Florida.

Immediate Impact

The sudden influx overwhelmed U.S. immigration authorities and strained local resources in Florida. The new arrivals faced immediate challenges, including housing shortages and employment barriers. The Marielitos, as they came to be known, were met with mixed reactions from the American public. While many welcomed them as refugees fleeing oppression, others voiced concerns about the strain on social services and potential criminal elements among the newcomers.

Political and Social Responses

The Mariel Boatlift became a significant political issue, particularly during the U.S. presidential election of 1980. President Jimmy Carter's handling of the crisis was scrutinized, and his administration faced criticism for perceived mismanagement. The influx also contributed to a hardening of attitudes towards immigration in some quarters and influenced subsequent U.S. immigration policy.

Lasting Legacy

The Mariel Boatlift had enduring consequences for U.S. immigration policy. It prompted legislative changes, including the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1980, which provided a pathway to legal residency for many Mariel refugees. The episode also underscored the challenges and complexities of managing large-scale migrations and shaped discussions on refugee resettlement and asylum policy in the United States.

Reflections

Looking back, the Mariel Boatlift stands as a testament to the human desire for freedom and opportunity. It highlighted both the compassion and the anxieties that immigration can evoke in host societies. The legacy of the Marielitos continues to resonate in the Cuban-American community, where their experiences have contributed to a rich cultural tapestry and a shared history of resilience.

In conclusion, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980 was not just a chapter in U.S. immigration history but a pivotal moment that reverberates in policy debates and societal attitudes towards immigration to this day. It serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in migration and the enduring quest for a better life.

References

1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). “Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 and Cuban Adjustment Act of 1996.” Available online: [USCIS - Cuban Adjustment Act](https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/cuban-and-haitian-entrant-program).

2. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. “Cuban Migration to the United States: Policy and Trends.” Available online: [Library of Congress - Cuban Migration](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33819.pdf).

3. Miami Herald. “The Mariel Boatlift: 25 Years Later.” Available online: [Miami Herald - Mariel Boatlift](https://www.miamiherald.com/283/story/1352.html).

l

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: A Retrospective

This is the fourth entry of my blog's summer series where I deep dive into key immigration policies in U.S. history; policies that have (directly or indirectly) impacted U.S. Immigration as we know it today.

 In the annals of U.S. immigration history, few legislative acts have had as significant an impact as the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, IRCA sought to address both the growing issue of unauthorized immigration and the need for comprehensive reform of the immigration system. Let's delve into the successes and pitfalls of this landmark legislation.

Successes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act

1. Amnesty Provision: One of the cornerstones of IRCA was its provision for granting amnesty to certain undocumented immigrants who had been continuously present in the United States since before January 1, 1982. This provision provided a path to legalization for approximately 2.7 million people, allowing them to come out of the shadows and participate more fully in American society.

2. Employer Sanctions: IRCA introduced penalties for employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers. This was aimed at reducing the incentive for unauthorized immigration by targeting the job market, thereby encouraging employers to hire legal workers and reducing the exploitation of undocumented labor.

3. Increased Border Security: The act also allocated resources to enhance border security and enforcement, with provisions for increased funding and personnel for the U.S. Border Patrol. This was intended to deter future illegal immigration and improve control over the nation's borders.

4. Family Unity and Diversity Visa Program: IRCA expanded legal immigration avenues through the creation of the Family Unity Program, allowing families of legalized immigrants to reunite, and the Diversity Visa Program, which provided a lottery for immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

Pitfalls of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act

1. Incomplete Enforcement: While IRCA introduced employer sanctions and increased border security measures, enforcement of these provisions was inconsistent and often ineffective. Many employers continued to hire undocumented workers without facing significant consequences, undermining the law's deterrent effect.

2. Insufficient Resources: The implementation of IRCA was hampered by inadequate funding and resources allocated to processing applications for legalization and enforcing employer sanctions. This led to backlogs and delays in the adjudication of cases, limiting the law's effectiveness in managing unauthorized immigration.

3. Unintended Consequences: Despite its intention to control unauthorized immigration, IRCA did not prevent future waves of undocumented migration. In fact, some argue that the amnesty provision may have incentivized further illegal immigration in anticipation of future legalization opportunities.

4. Failure to Address Root Causes: IRCA focused primarily on enforcement and legalization without addressing broader issues such as labor market demands, economic disparities, and the push factors driving immigration from countries like Mexico and Central America. This limited its ability to achieve lasting solutions to the complex issue of unauthorized migration.

Conclusion

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 represented a significant attempt to address the challenges of unauthorized immigration in the United States. While it achieved some notable successes, such as granting amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants and introducing employer sanctions, it also faced substantial pitfalls, including incomplete enforcement, insufficient resources, and unintended consequences. The lessons learned from IRCA continue to inform current debates on immigration reform, highlighting the importance of comprehensive, well-executed policies that address both enforcement and broader socio-economic factors. As the nation grapples with ongoing immigration issues, understanding the legacy of IRCA provides valuable insights into the complexities of immigration policy and the quest for effective reform.

References

1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). "The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)." Available online: [USCIS IRCA Overview](https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/history-and-genealogy-of-exclusions/the-immigration-reform-and-control-act-of-1986-irca)

2. Massey, D. S., Durand, J., & Malone, N. J. (2002). "Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration." Russell Sage Foundation.

3. Center for Immigration Studies. "The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA): Legalization of Undocumented Immigrants." Available online: [CIS IRCA Report](https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Reform-and-Control-Act-IRCA-1986)

4. Cornelius, W. A., & Rosenblum, M. R. (2005). "Immigration and Politics: The New Face of North America." University of California Press.

Finding My Flow (State)

I was talking to a friend earlier today, and he described his recent football practice with his guys as his “flow state therapy”. 

Intrigued by the term, I began a rabbit hole research into this idea. 

Popularized by positive psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Jeanne Nakamur, a flow state describes a feeling where, under the right conditions you become immersed in whatever you’re doing. Learn more in Mihaly’s Ted Talk, here. 

In layman’s terms, you look up from that thing you’re really engaged in and 6 hours have gone by without you realizing it because it felt like minutes. You’re “in the zone”. 

Don’t get it confused with passive activities like watching TV or listening to music; it’s a very active moving meditation. 

Playing sports such as the aforementioned football can bring about a flow state. Riding a bicycle, running, yoga, playing chess, putting a puzzle together, and gardening are other flow state activities. 

As summer is in full swing, I am constantly looking for ways to achieve this flow state. I love feeling immersed in activities that bring about this flow state: an activity whose challenge level is just enough to keep me engaged yet not too high to bring about anxiety. 

I am excited to explore what that looks like for me. Activities on my radar include swimming, guitar, and gardening.

I believe biking, yoga, writing, and reading get me in a flow state (albeit that yoga is for a short time). Video editing used to be a flow state activity for me. So was itinerary/trip planning. It’s funny how I think of both now and it only induces anxiety. 

I could also explore building things/carpentry. 

By the end of this exploration I want to zero in on two activities that I feel immersed in; activities where its mastery has different levels of challenge that keep me engaged in and six hours could go by but it feels like 6 minutes. 

What are your flow state interests? Share below.