Trump's View the DACA
Program: “Put it on Ice”
Note: A very long, yet very timely post - enjoy:
BACK TO THE
FUTURE STARRING DONALD J. TRUMP PRODUCED BY TRUMP, INC.
Trump
continues his “erase everything Obama racist rant” with this latest his
immigration “movement” against everyone here in America except pure white
Christian Trump supporters this way:
First watch this short video on “undocumented doctors in the U.S. under DACA”
potential impact of Trump’s “Back to the
Future” war to erase everything Obama:
While the Trump Administration announced the official end of an Obama
Administration effort to grant deportation reprieve to the parents of legal
residents and American citizens, it left the future of another program that
gave similar relief to immigrants brought to the country as children hanging in
the balance.
The end of the Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans and Legal
Permanent residents came after the Obama order faced a beating in the federal
courts. Though it was signed in 2014, it was quickly blocked from taking affect
and awaiting further litigation. But because President Trump disagreed with the
policy, the Department of Homeland Security opted to formally rescind it.
The
Department of Homeland Security indicated that the program protecting young
migrants, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, would remain in effect in
the initial announcement, but a spokesman told the New York
Times its ultimate fate remained unclear saying: “There has been no final
determination made about the DACA program, which the president has stressed
needs to be handled with compassion and with heart,” a spokesman told the
Times, adding that the Congress is the only body that can make a final decision
on what to do with DACA recipients.
I Note: Ready for really big yuk at this point about Trump has compassion and heart?
The
back-and-forth did not instill confidence in advocates, most of whom are
already skeptical of the Trump administration’s approach to the undocumented.
“The only certainty in Trump’s America is uncertainty – and no memorandum
changes that,” said Lorella Praeli, the director of immigration policy and
campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union.
As a candidate, Trump had
promised end DACA, which he referred to as amnesty. After taking office, the
president’s rhetoric shifted and he began to say he wanted to approach the
issue facing dreamers, what young migrants are called, with “heart.”
Between January and March
2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reports about 125,000 DACA cases,
both first-time applicants and those renewing the two-year deferrals, have been
approved. Immigration hardliners have taken the administration’s inaction as a
sign of betrayal. The Trump administration has indicated it wants to handle
DACA recipients with care, there have been sporadic reports of dreamers facing
arrest or having their protections revoked, feeding the widespread fear that
has consumed immigrant communities in recent months.
Ignacia Rodriguez of the NILC
said in a statement that through the arrests of some Dreamers, the
Administration had already broken its “promise to allow our undocumented youth
to live and work without fear in the country they call home.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND ON ALL THIS:
The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education
for Alien Minors) is legislative proposal first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001 by Sen. Durbin
and Hatch.
BACKGROUND ON THAT AND ANOTHER
HISTORICAL SOURCE.
But, First this Legislative Historical Reflection: The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act included
sanctions for employers who knowingly hired persons who did not have proper
immigration documents. That law quickly became known for the provision that
transformed the lives of millions: It was amnesty. Between 3 million and 5 million undocumented
persons at the time were estimated to be living in the U.S. the law was passed.
It outlined two
classes of recipients: (1) those who had lived in the U.S. before 1982, and (2)
those who worked in seasonal agricultural jobs, then some 3 million applied
with about 2.7 million being accepted. That ascended them on to the
first step toward citizenship as they gained temporary legal status (over an
18-month period). All under Reagan.
I Note: The Obama’s plan
is much tougher than that. The
foundation is the so-called Morton memo (ICE director’s memo): More recently this has become a topic of great discussion in the illegal
immigration debate in the United States, fueled by the Morton Memo (ICE Director John
Morton issued it in June 2011).
“The memo was intended to channel limited resources into prioritized
pursuit of cases involving criminals and felons. The memo has been broadly (and
incorrectly) touted by the pro-immigration lobby as the suspension or waiver of
active prosecution of non-criminal illegal aliens and the exclusive focus on
criminal illegal aliens. However the
memo clearly refutes the popularly held view that the memo gives ICE a mandate
to selectively enforce immigration law – the twist in the law is that ICE and Local Laws Conflict, i.e.,
sanctuary laws/ordinances in San Francisco that grabbed headlines and in many
other cities.”
The Obama bill would provide
conditional permanent residency to certain immigrants of good
moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United
States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years
prior to the bill's enactment. If they were to complete two years in the
military or two years at a four-year institution of higher learning, they
would obtain temporary residency for a six-year period.
Within the six-year period,
they may qualify for permanent residency if they have “acquired a degree from
an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at
least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher
degree in the United States or have “served in the armed services for at least
2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge.”
Military enlistment contracts
require an eight-year commitment, with active duty commitments typically
between four and six years, but as low as two years. However, the military does
not allow illegal aliens to enlist, and those that have enlisted have done
so under a false identity, or used fraudulent documents. “Any alien
whose permanent resident status is terminated... shall return to the
immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional
permanent resident status under this Act.” This bill would have included
illegal aliens as old as 35 years of age.
As of November 2013, 15 states have their own versions of the DREAM Act, which deal with
tuition prices and financial aid for state universities. These states are
Texas, California, Illinois, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey,
New York, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, and
Oregon.
The Maryland DREAM Act was
approved by state-wide ballot, winning 59% of the vote on November 6, 2012. Supporters argue that the Act would not create an
"amnesty program" and would produce a variety of social and economic
benefits, while critics contend that it would reward illegal immigration and encourage
more of it, inviting fraud and shielding gang members from deportation.
Members of Congress have
introduced several forms of this bill in both the House of Representatives and
the Senate. Members in the House passed one such bill on December 8, 2010 by a
vote of 216-198; Senators debated a version of the DREAM Act on September
21, 2010. A previous version of the bill, S. 2205, which required 60 votes
to gain cloture, failed on a 52-44 vote in 2007, 8 votes short of overcoming
a filibuster by senators opposed to the bill.
The United States military
faced challenges in enlistment, which in 2005 were described as a “crisis,” though
the economic downturn of 2007-2010 did away with many of the
enlistment challenges. Immigrants without a United States Permanent
Resident Card (also known as a green card) are not allowed to enlist.
In 2007, several senior officials
at DOD have spoken in favor of promising resident status to members of the
military as a means of boosting recruitment.
DREAM Act beneficiaries must:
1. Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant
Visa.
2. Have proof of having arrived in the United States
before age 16.
3. Have proof of residence in the United States for at
least five consecutive years since their date of arrival.
4. If male, have registered with the Selective
Service.
5. Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill
enactment.
6. Have graduated from an American high school, obtained
a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education.
7. Be of good moral character.
During the first six years,
qualifying people would be granted "conditional" status and would be
required to (a) graduate from a two-year community college or (b) complete at
least two years towards a four-year degree or (c) serve two years in the US
military. After this six-year period, those who meet at least one of these
three conditions would be eligible to apply for permanent resident status.
During this six-year conditional period, they would not be eligible for federal
higher education grants such as Pell grants.
They would be able to apply
for student loans and work study. If they have met all of the conditions at the
end of the 6-year conditional period, they would be granted permanent
residency, which would eventually allow them to become U.S. citizens. It is not
known how many of those eligible would go on to complete the further
requirements. One organization estimated that only 7,000 – 13,000 college
students nationally can fulfill the further obligations. A different analysis
found that over 2 million individuals could benefit under the Act.
The bill also restores the
option for states to determine residency for purposes of higher education
benefits by repealing Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, from Cornell cite: U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 14 › Subchapter II › § 1623. The
majority of states interpret
this
provision as disqualifying illegal alien students from certain higher education
benefits such as in-state tuition rates. Some states have enacted laws aimed at
making unauthorized state residents eligible for in-state tuition rates without
violating this IIRIRA provision. However, some students paying out-of-state
tuition have filed lawsuits in these states, claiming state education officials
violated this federal law.
Legislative history:
A similar version of the
DREAM Act was introduced on April 25, 2001 by Rep. Gutierrez as the “Immigrant
Children's Educational Advancement and Dropout Prevention Act of 2001” during
the 107th Congress. This bill received 34 cosponsors, and would
have allowed illegal immigrant students to first apply to be protected from
deportation and then apply for and receive lawful permanent residency if
they met the following criteria:
1. good moral character;
2. enrollment in a secondary or post-secondary education
program or current application to a college or junior college;
3. entered the United States by age 16 and were no older
than 25;
4. resided continuously in the United States for a
minimum of five years.
The text of the bill was
placed in various other immigration-related bills. With the failure of these
comprehensive reform bills, Richard Durbin, the chief proponent of the
DREAM Act in the Senate, made its passage a top priority for 2007. In September 2007, Durbin filed to place the
DREAM Act as an amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization
Bill (S. 2919).
However, there was a
misconception that the bill required states to give in-state tuition to the
beneficiaries of the DREAM Act when it allowed but did not require states to
offer in-state to certain illegal immigrant students. Also, the legislation did not include an age
cap. In light of the criticism, Durbin tabled the amendment in favor of a
rewritten DREAM Act amendment to the Defense Bill.
In consideration of their
opponents, all language regarding in-state tuition was removed from the
amendment and an age cap of 30 was put in place for potential beneficiaries. Military
leaders embraced the bill, which included the promise of resident status to
members of the military, as a means of boosting recruitment. Nevertheless, the amendment was not brought
up for a vote.
On October 18, 2007, Durbin, along with Republican co-sponsors Chuck
Hagel and Richard Lugar, introduced the DREAM Act as S. 2205. Though nearly identical to the revised amendment to the
Defense Bill, opponents continued to cite previous arguments. To bring the
DREAM Act up for debate, a vote was scheduled on October 24 that would require
a filibuster-proof count of 60 yes votes, but that failed.
Senate opponents cited a
variety of reasons for their opposition. Some labeled the DREAM Act as amnesty that
would encourage chain migration and further unauthorized immigration
in anticipation of new versions of the DREAM Act. Others stated that the DREAM
Act, though worthy legislation, should be enacted only as part of a
comprehensive immigration reform. In light of the Senate's failure to
successfully pass a single appropriations bill, some Senators stated that the
DREAM Act was a distraction to more pressing matters and should rather be
considered in January 2008.
Finally, debate emerged as to
the amendment process for the DREAM Act, specifically, how willing the
Democratic leadership would be in allowing debate of Republican amendments. Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison, who had previously stated that she would oppose consideration
of the DREAM Act, announced on the Senate floor that she had expressed
reservations to Durbin and he had made a verbal commitment to work with her to
make changes that she saw necessary to garner greater Republican support.
In response, Durbin announced
that the first amendment that would be considered, should debate of the DREAM
Act begin, would completely re-write the bill in favor of the language that
Hutchison suggested. According to her suggestions, illegal immigrant students
should be allowed to hold a temporary student visa with a renewable work permit
instead of conditional permanent residency. Although 52 Senators voted in favor
of considering the DREAM Act, this fell eight votes short of breaking
filibuster and the legislation was not considered.
2009 re-introduction:
The act was re-introduced in
both chambers of Congress on Thursday, March 26, 2009, during the 111th
Congress. To date, 128 representatives and 39 senators (not including former
Senator Edward Kennedy) co-sponsored the bill. Under this version of the DREAM
Act, immigrants could qualify in part, by meeting the following requirements:
1. Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time the Law
is enacted
2. Arrived in the United States before the age of 16
3. Resided continuously in the United States for at least
5 consecutive years since the date of their arrival
4. Graduated from a US high school or obtained a GED.
5. Good moral character
In addition to the temporary
Residency, illegal immigrant students who qualified would also be entitled to
apply for student loans and work study but would not be eligible for Pell
grants. In certain circumstances, the person could lose temporary immigration
residency if he or she did not meet the educational or military service
requirement within the six-year time period. Also, if they committed any crimes
(other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors) regardless of
whether or not they had already been approved for permanent status at the end
of their six years. If an individual were convicted of a major crime or
drug-related infraction, (except for a single offense of possession of 30 g or
less of marijuana) they would automatically lose the six-year temporary
residence status and be immediately subject to deportation.
In 2010:
The 111th Congress continued
to consider the DREAM Act bill throughout 2010. S. 3827, a new version of the DREAM Act, includes numerous changes
to address concerns raised about the bill. It does not repeal the ban on
in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not force states to
charge in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not
allow illegal immigrants to gain access to Federal Pell Grants and other
financial aid. It lowers the age cap for eligibility for the DREAM Act to 29 on
the date of enactment.
Additionally, to be eligible,
individuals still must have come to the US as children (15 or under), graduated
from a U.S. High School (or received a GED from a US institution), and be
long-term residents (at least five years). An earlier version of the DREAM Act
(S. 1545 in the 108th
Congress), authored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and cosponsored by
Senator John McCain, did not include any age cap. This bill was approved by the
Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee on a 16–3 vote.
It does not grant resident
status to anyone for at least two years. Previous versions of the DREAM Act
would have immediately granted resident status to individuals who met the
bill's requirements. Under S. 3992,
an individual could obtain “conditional nonimmigrant” status if they prove that
they meet the age (currently 29 or under and arrived in the U.S. at 15 or
under) and residency requirements (five years or more) and have done the
following:
1. Graduated from an American high school or obtained a
GED;
2. Been a person of “good moral character”, as determined
by the Department of Homeland Security, from the date the individual initially
entered the U.S. (previous versions of the DREAM Act only required an
individual to be a person of good moral character from the date of the bill's
enactment);
3. Submitted biometric information;
4. Underwent security and law-enforcement background
checks;
5. Underwent a medical examination; and
6. Registers for the Selective Service.
Further limits eligibility
for conditional non-immigrant status by specifically excluding anyone who has
done the following:
1. Has committed one felony or three misdemeanors;
2. Is likely to become a public charge;
3. Has engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting;
4. Has committed marriage fraud;
5. Has abused a student visa;
6. Has engaged in persecution; or
7. Poses a public health risk.
Gave a conditional non-immigrant
the chance to earn resident status only after two years and only if he meets
the DREAM Act's college or military service requirements, and other
requirements: pays back taxes and demonstrates the ability to read, write, and
speak English and demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals
of the history, principles, and form of government of the United States.
1. Further limited “chain migration.” DREAM Act individuals would have very limited
ability to sponsor family members for U.S. citizenship.
2. They could never sponsor extended family members and
could not begin sponsoring parents or siblings for at least 12 years.
3. Parents and siblings who entered the U.S. illegally
would have to leave the country for ten years before they could gain resident
status and the visa backlog for siblings is decades long.
4. Specifically excluded non-immigrants from the health insurance exchanges created
by the Affordable Care Act. Conditional non-immigrants also would be ineligible
for Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlement programs.
5. Established a one-year application deadline. An
individual would be required to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status
within one year of obtaining a high school degree or GED, being admitted to
college, or the bill's date of enactment.
6. Required people applying for the DREAM Act to show
that they are likely to qualify in order to receive a stay of deportation while
his application is pending. The DREAM Act is not a safe harbor from
deportation.
7. Required the DHS to provide information from
an individual's DREAM Act application to any federal, state, tribal, or local
law enforcement agency, or intelligence or national security agency in any
criminal investigation or prosecution or for homeland security or national
security purposes.
8. Placed the burden of proof on a DREAM Act applicant.
An individual would be required to demonstrate eligibility for the DREAM Act by
a preponderance of the evidence.
9. (Additionally, individuals would continue to be
excluded if they have received a final order of deportation, have engaged in
criminal activity (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act), or
present a national security or terrorist threat.)
The DREAM Act,
along with a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for the
Fiscal Year 2011.
On September 21, 2010,
the Senate filibuster of the bill was maintained in a 56–43 vote; it
would have taken 60 votes to stop the filibuster and continue the
progress of the bill. The following day, Durbin introduced the bill once again
along with Richard Lugar. Only two senators co-sponsored the bill and it was
defeated again. Less than a month later, on November 16, President Barack
Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House
by November 29, 2010.
The House of Representatives
passed the DREAM Act on December 8, 2010, but the bill failed to reach the
60-vote threshold necessary to end debate on the Senate floor (55-41—Motion to
invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281).
In 2011:
On May 11, 2011 Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid reintroduced the DREAM Act in the Senate.
Some Republicans who had supported the bill in the past, including Sen. John
Cornyn of Texas, Jon Kyl of Arizona, John McCain of
Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, withheld their votes,
objecting that such a bill should not be granted without increasing immigration
enforcement.
Reid indicated that he would
consider adding a workplace enforcement measure in the DREAM Act that would
require every employer to use E-Verify, the government's Internet-based work
eligibility verification system. President Obama supported the bill as one of
his efforts to reform the US immigration system.
In July 2011,
the state of California enacted the California DREAM Act, giving illegal immigrant
students access to private college scholarships for state schools. In August,
the state of Illinois authorized a privately funded scholarship plan for
children of immigrants both legal and illegal.
In 2012:
On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced that his administration would
stop deporting young illegal aliens who match certain criteria previously
proposed under the DREAM ACT.
On August 15, 2012, the same day that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
began accepting applications under the Obama administration’s new DACA program,
AZ Gov. Jan Brewer issued an
EO. It prevented Arizona from issuing driver’s licenses and public benefits to
young illegal aliens who receive deferred status and work authorization under
the new program. In addition to driving privileges, Governor Brewer’s order
bars illegal aliens who qualify for deferred action from receiving
state-subsidized child care, health insurance, unemployment benefits, business
and professional licenses, and government contracts. Thousands of individuals
submitted applications for the new program.
In late August 2012, ten U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents
sued Janet Napolitano, saying the directive forces them to break the law
and ignore their duties.
Projections of economic impact:
In a December 2010 report, the federal CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the November 30,
2010 version of the DREAM Act would reduce (federal) direct deficits by about
$1.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period and increase federal government revenues
by $2.3 billion over the next 10 years. Indirect federal costs (about 80% of
the federal budget) and state and local tax impacts were not considered. However,
the same report also notes that the Act "would increase projected
deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year
periods starting in 2021" (emphasis added).
A study conducted by the Center for American Progress, a liberal
"progressive" think tank, estimates that if passed, the DREAM Act
would create 1.4 million jobs by 2030. How this was to be done was not
specified.
Luis Miranda, W/H Director of
Hispanic Media, has spoken in support of the 2010 version of the DREAM
Act. He argues that passage of the Act would make the U.S. more
competitive in the global economy by allowing illegal immigrants “to live up to
their fullest potential and contribute to the economic growth of our country.” Miranda
argues that the DREAM Act would not create an amnesty program because
it requires a "lengthy and rigorous process" to be eligible for
benefits, requiring, for example, a criminal background check and proof that
the applicant has not committed any crimes that would make him ineligible for residency. Miranda
also argues the Act would not encourage more students to immigrate because it
only applies to illegal immigrants who are already in the country.
Furthermore, the Act would
create a waiting period before DREAM Act applicants could sponsor green card applications
for their relatives and it also notes that Def.Sec
Robert Gates has stated that the DREAM Act would provide an expanded pool of
military recruits.
A 2010 study by UCLA's North
American Integration and Development Center, an advocacy and research group
that focuses on "trans nationalism and globalization through action
research", conducting "interdisciplinary research concerning the
economic integration process between the United States, Mexico and
Canada", produced two estimates of the income that would be earned by
illegal immigrants who would be potentially eligible for the proposed DREAM Act
benefits.
The first estimate is based
on analysis from a study by the Migration Policy Institute's National Center on
Immigrant Integration Policy, an organization seeking to "advance the
economic mobility and social inclusion of immigrants in the United
States", which estimated that 38% of those eligible for the DREAM
Act's benefits would actually obtain legal permanent resident status.
In that scenario, the NAIDC
estimates that DREAM Act beneficiaries would earn $1.4 trillion over a 40-year
period. On the other hand, NAIDC estimates that if all illegal
immigrants eligible for DREAM Act benefits successfully met the education or
military service requirements and obtained legal resident status, they would
earn $3.6 trillion over the same 40-year period.
How many dollars they would
use of available federal, state and local resources over the 40-year period
were not estimated?
Two Major Criticisms:
1. Opponents of the DREAM Act argue that it encourages
and rewards illegal
immigration, acting as a magnet attracting more
illegal immigrants and creating a
chain migration by family members.
2. The Center
for Immigration Studies, nonpartisan, politically conservative
think
tank, has raised concerns that it would admit individuals who have already
formed their identities overseas (i.e. people who arrived up to age 16), that
illegal
would result in massive fraud similar to
the 1986 amnesty, that it will
encourage
additional illegal immigration, and that it will shield gang members
from
deportation.
Thanks for stopping by and
now watch the tap-dancing at the White House – not even counting the “illegals”
who work for high-ranking DC officials, exception:
at and at Mar-a-Lago… ouch.
No comments:
Post a Comment