Tag Archives: DACA

Mass Deportation Bill?

Posted on by

Mass Deportation Measures?

While the DAPA and Expanded DACA programs are undergoing litigation between the Justice Department and federal court system, the House of Representatives is working on removal legislation. The Michael Davis, Jr., and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act would be the most severe form of immigration enforcement Congress has passed recently (if it did pass). The proposed legislation contains four parts:

  • Being in the United States without authorization is a civil offense. The bill seeks to make unauthorized presence a crime.
  • It would grant state and local law enforcement the power to enforce immigration law. Immigration law is firmly settled as federal law and non federal law enforcement would be enabled to detain anyone with probable cause of being present in the country without authorization.
  • Any immigrant apprehended by local law enforcement would be taken to federal custody for deportation. The federal government currently has discretion in that choice.
  • The bill would alter the priority system created by the November 20, 2014 executive action memos and announcement and make deportation nearly mandatory.

The point is to reduce chances of prosecutorial discretion and deferred action, means for unauthorized immigrants to remain in the country. HR 1148 would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. U.S., which affirmed that states and localities should not be enacting and enforcing their own immigration laws. The House attempted to criminalize unlawful presence in 2005, but that measure did not succeed after massive nonviolent protests throughout the country.

The American Immigrant Lawyers Association has strongly condemned the bill, which is a second attempt of the previously failed “SAFE Act” from 2005. Aside from harmful to American families, businesses, and the economy, it is “fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of due process and fairness grounded in the Constitution.”

 

Motion of Stay for DAPA, DACA

Posted on by

The United States Department of Justice filed an emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction against a series of executive orders issued by President Obama in November. Fourteen states plus the District of Colombia filed an amicus curiae to support the Justice Department’s stay. The stay is filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

We have closely been following the developments of Texas v. United States, in which Texas and other states are suing against President Obama’s Expanded DACA and DAPA programs. Expanded DACA would grant deferred action status for three years to individuals who have been here since 2010 without status and are low priority for removal (plus other criteria). DAPA would grant deferred action to parents of US citizens and permanent residents who have been here since 2010 without status and are low priority for removal (plus other criteria).

DACA & DAPA Ruling

In mid-February, a federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of Texas on the grounds that the executive branch did not follow the normal rules of Notice and Comment in issuing the DACA and DAPA programs. Work authorization for certain H-4 dependents will be allowed starting May 26. That was part of the executive order program in November, but it had already undergone the Notice and Comment process.

 

Emergency Stay Filed by DOJ

Posted on by

The Department of Justice filed an emergency stay today in the Obama administration’s quest to restart the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) and expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) programs that were enjoined last week. Judge Harlam of a federal court in Texas issued an injunction last week, shutting down the two programs before they could accept applications. Guidelines were issued for both DAPA and DACA. DACA was set to begin on February 18 and DAPA was tentatively scheduled for May.

 

Deferred action is a type of prosecutorial discretion that the executive branch exercises to allow migrants who lack immigrant or non-immigrant status to remain in the United States. Neither of the deferred actions would grant actual status. They would allow qualifying applicants to acquire an employment authorization card, so that they could work legally, along with a three-year grant to stay in the United States without the threat of removal or deportation. The criteria for the programs can be found here and here.

 

The overriding policy of US immigration law is family reunification and the programs were designed with that mind. Immigration action has come in the form of executive action, a result of congressional inaction on passing immigration reform or the DREAM Act. The programs are supposed to be temporary measures while meaningful reform can occur through the legislative process.

 

26 states, led by Texas, petitioned to shut down the expanded DACA and DAPA programs, citing economic harm and executive overreach. The Department of Justice has announced its intention to appeal the federal decision.

 

Other aspects of the executive actions from November are unaffected. In addition, DACA as originally implemented on June 15, 2012 remains in effect for recipients and future applicants.

Judge Stops DAPA and New DACA

Posted on by

A federal judge in Texas temporarily stopped the expanded DACA and DAPA programs. Today, February 18, 2015, USCIS was supposed to begin accepting applications for expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a press release acknowledging the decision to shut down the two programs temporarily before they even began accepting applications.

 

The lawsuit involved 26 states that argued the Obama Administration had exercised substantive and legislative powers that only belong to the legislative branch. Executive actions pertaining to immigration have been issued by every president since Eisenhower. The government noted that deferral actions have been taken since the 1960s in their brief. The judge agreed with the 26 states, finding unconstitutionality in his order. DHS vows that it will appeal the decision. The Office of Legal Counsel, which serves an advisory role for the executive branch, issued an opinion on November 19, 2014 (the day before the executive actions were announced by President Obama). The opinion advised that DAPA and an expanded DACA program would be legal and within the constitutional powers of the president.

 

The older version of DACA remains in effect and the recipients of DACA are not affected by this decision.

That first version of DACA was not at issue in the lawsuit, though it was tangentially mentioned and criticized. Seeing as over half of the states participated in bringing this lawsuit and the Obama Administration and DHS are planning to appeal, more court battles are expected over the separation of powers, adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act, and DAPA and DACA. The president issued his series of executive orders in November 2014 as a result of congressional inability to pass comprehensive or incremental immigration reform that has been clamored for years. The Senate passed immigration reform in 2013, providing a pathway to citizenship, but that bill did not become law because the House voted against it.

DACA – February 18

Posted on by

The DACA Process

 

USCIS Will Start Accepting Expanded DACA Applications on February 18

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was established as a temporary relief measure for individuals who were brought to the United States as children and grew up in the US. President Barack Obama created the program through an executive order for the purpose because legislative efforts to create a DREAM Act had been stifled in Congress. A DREAM Act would allow for a path to citizenship for “dreamers,” individuals who had come to the United States as children and had continuous residence in America. Essentially, they were raised in the United States and had their entire lives in the country. DACA is only limited relief, as it provides for two years of deferred action against deportation and work authorization upon proving the seven criteria and prosecutorial discretion. This blog has covered DACA and the president’s executive actions with great interest, while hoping that meaningful immigration reform will be enacted.

Neither the DREAM Act nor comprehensive immigration reform have become bills and the president has responded with a series of executive orders that can offer temporary relief until congressional action is taken. The executive orders range from minor improvements in employment immigration to relief for millions of parents of US citizens and lawful permanent residents with the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) program. Part of the executive order is the expansion of DACA, making it available for more individuals. The requirements have changed, so that the age restriction is removed and the date for continuous residence is January 1, 2010. Instead of two years of deferred action, like DAPA, it will grant three years for successful applicants.

Expanded DACA goes into effect on February 18. It requires a filing fee for the application and biometrics (fingerprints) and extensive proof to document continuous residence. USCIS and immigration groups have been warning potential applicants not to be fooled by impostors or fraudulent individuals who pose as legitimate attorneys. Notarios, as they are deemed, can harm immigrant applications immediately and also saddle applicants with negative future consequences.

DACA nor DAPA grants a Green Card, US citizenship, or even a pathway to either. The programs merely allow for individuals who are low-enforcement priorities (according to recent memos pursuant to the executive orders) to obtain temporary relief while permanent legislation is enacted for actual relief. Until the political process generates a meaningful result, the executive orders will have to make do.