Don’t Panic, #DACA Is Alive And Well, But Congress Needs To Pass #Immigration Reform Now

April 24, 2013 Leave a comment

Originally posted on Huffington Post

Yesterday afternoon a federal judge in Texas indicated he was likely to block President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process. The order, written by Judge Reed O’Connor, came in a lawsuit challenging DACA and prosecutorial discretion filed by nativist lawyer and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach on behalf of ICE Union Boss Christopher Crane. The judge found that the DACA process, which gives eligible DREAMERs a temporary reprieve from deportation, likely, violates the law.

So what does this mean for DREAMERs and others granted deferred action? In the end probably very little.

Here’s why:

First, nothing has happened yet. The judge has not issued an injunction blocking DACA. In fact, he is still considering the Department of Justice’s argument that Crane’s lawsuit is really a federal employment dispute that should be dealt with administratively. For now all the judge has done is order the lawyers to file legal briefs on the jurisdictional issue by May 6, 2013.

Second, regardless of what the judge decides, there is no question that prosecutorial discretion, the legal tradition that is the basis for DACA, is enshrined in the law. As the U.S. Supreme Court said recently inArizona v. United States – the case challenging the Arizona immigration law — “a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”

Third, even if this judge rules in Crane’s favor — which appears likely — and even if his ruling is later sustained all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, at most the Department of Homeland Security will have to add another unnecessary bureaucratic process — at taxpayer expense — to the DACA process and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. As the judge wrote, “However, DHS’s ability to exercise its discretion at later stages in the removal process by, for example, cancelling the Notice to Appear or moving to dismiss the removal proceedings is not at issue in the present case, and nothing in this Order limits DHS’s discretion at later stages of the removal process.”

In other words, the question is not whether ICE can exercise discretion, but when.

Fourth, the impact will be limited to geographic location. In fact, it’s worth asking Kobach and Crane why they chose to file their lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas. Certainly, the federal court in Washington, D.C., which routinely considers many difficult administrative law questions, might have provided the best venue to handle the plaintiffs’ claims.

So rest assured, DACA is alive and well. The administration has unquestionable authority to set policy and enforcement priorities. And, however many lawsuits these anti-immigration restrictionists file, prosecutorial discretion is enshrined in law, and it’s obvious their real motive is to undermine any vaguely pro-discretion, pro-migrant policies.

This case unmasks the ugly side of the immigration debate, including the antics of restrictionist immigration attorney Kris Kobach and ICE Union Boss Chris Crane. Kobach’s claim to fame is that he authored the draconian Arizona immigration law, the guts of which were thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. Crane, the union boss, has been a vocal opponent of DACA and prosecutorial discretion in general. As I’ve said before, maybe someone should remind him that he is president of the ICE Union, not President of the United States. Both Crane and Kobach testified in opposition to immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the lawsuit filed by Kobach and Crane underscores the need for Congress to enact immigration reform. What kind of America do they and others in the dark corner of the restrictionist fringe envision? Kobach didn’t even have the decency answer Senator Durbin directly when he asked him at the Senate Judiciary hearing whether he thought DREAMERs should be deported. How many more promising high school graduates will be denied a chance to dream and relegated to immigration limbo — not accepted in the country they have struggled against all odds to enrich — and forced to fear being handcuffed and jailed boarding a train or a plane without proper papers?

The system is badly broken and it won’t be fixed through litigation or administrative policy alone. What’s needed is congressional action.

The time to act is NOW.

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Immigration Reform, Uncategorized

BREAKING: Federal Judge Indicates He’s Likely To Block #DACA

April 24, 2013 Leave a comment

The case is Crane v. Napolitano, 3:12-cv-03247, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

From Bloomberg BusinessWeek

A court challenge by federal immigration agents seeking to block President Barack Obama’s deferred-deportation initiative will probably succeed, a judge said.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Dallas today put off his own decision on whether to grant the request for a preliminary injunction by 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs agents. He asked both sides to file additional arguments no later than May 6.

Announced by Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last year, the directive gives agents the ability to defer action on people unlawfully in the U.S. if they came to the country under the age of 16, are in school or have obtained a high school diploma, haven’t been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors, and aren’t a threat to public safety or national security.

“The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings” when the requirements for deportation under a federal statute are met, O’Connor said today in a 38-page decision, referring to the Department of Homeland Security.

Still, the judge said he can’t decide the case based on the arguments he’s heard so far.

“Accordingly, the court hereby defers ruling on the plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction until the parties have submitted additional briefing,” O’Connor said.

Border Security

The administration’s “Deferred Action” initiative, announced in June, was created with the intent of shifting immigration agency focus toward border security and the removal of dangerous people.

“This is not amnesty, this is not immunity,” Obama said at the time. “This is not a path to citizenship, it’s not a permanent fix.” Deferral, if conferred, is valid for two years, during which the person may obtain authorization for employment, and can be renewed, according to the ICE website.

The case was filed by attorney Kris Kobach, who also serves as Kansas Secretary of State and is a national Republican Party adviser. Lead plaintiff Christopher L. Crane is president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a 7,600- member federal immigration agents’ union.

“Officers are applying the directive to people detained in jails, not kids in school,” Crane testified at the April 8 hearing. “It is now the story in the jails for aliens to use to avoid arrest and deportation.”

Adam Kirschner, a lawyer for the Justice Department, told O’Connor at the hearing the case was, in reality, an employment dispute and that the agents can’t demonstrate they’ve been harmed. “These agents do not like the way the agency has prioritized the use of its resources,” he said.

“The executive cannot remove 11 million people,” Kirchner said of the branch of the U.S. government led by Obama. “The executive has authority to exercise its discretion.”

The case is Crane v. Napolitano, 3:12-cv-03247, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at

aharris16@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Enforcement

472,004 #DACA Applications Filed Since August 2012 and 268,361 Approved So Far

April 15, 2013 Leave a comment

Newly-released USCIS statistics on DACA cases from 8/15/12 to 3/31/13 show a total of 472,004 DACA applications accepted for processing, 456,843 biometric services appointments scheduled, and 268,361 requests approved.

See the DACA Stats

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Immigration Reform

There Is No Such Thing As An ‘Illegal Alien’

April 3, 2013 Leave a comment

Originally posted on Huffington Post

Yes, you read it correctly. There really is no such thing.

And not because the Associated Press announced a long overdue change to its Stylebook yesterday and will no longer use “illegal alien”, “illegal” or “illegals” to describe noncitizens unlawfully present in the U.S.

It’s because no human being should ever be described as “illegal.”

Period.

These insensitive terms are also legally incorrect. They erroneously imply that a noncitizen unlawfully in the U.S. is, by virtue of his or her very presence, committing a criminal offense, rather than a civil immigration violation. Is it surprising then that many Americans buy the false restrictionist line that all unlawfully present foreign nationals are criminals? In fact, there is only a discrete group of non-citizens whose very presence in the U.S. is a crime, including those who illegally reentered the country after deportation.

But the argument against the use of these words to describe people is not merely technical. Words really matter in the age of Twitter where 140 character tweets can fly around the world in nanoseconds. Reference to a human being as “illegal” overly simplifies and unfairly characterizes the complexities of the national immigration reform debate. The dysfunctional immigration law which plagues American families and business is a convoluted web of nonsensical rules and regulations that can easily trap any foreign national into an unfixable civil immigration violation.

After years and years of video loops running on the cable television networks, for many Americans the term “illegal alien” conjures up images of people illegally jumping over the Southern border. Most people would be surprised to learn that nearly half the undocumented population entered the U.S. legally. Some came as visitors, others as students, and others as temporary workers. Some fell out of status because they took ill and were forced to drop out of school, others because they fell victim to domestic violence or other crimes, and others because their sponsoring employer mistreated them. Even those foreign nationals that entered the country surreptitiously in direct violation of the immigration law are not “illegal”. Some, like victims of human trafficking, are eligible for protection, not prosecution, under our immigration law.

Over the past two decades the restrictionists — those who seek to cut off virtually all immigration and hang a “Closed for Business” sign around the neck of the Statue of Liberty — have cynically promoted terms like “illegal alien”, “illegal” and “illegals” to dehumanize noncitizens who are in the U.S. with or without lawful immigration status. The effort is designed to scare the American public and appeal to peoples’ darkest, most base instincts.

And for many years it was an effective, albeit nefarious, strategy. In 2007, the last time Congress considered immigration reform legislation, a small cadre of nativist groups virtually overloaded the telephone lines to the U.S. Capitol with bitter attacks on “amnesty for illegals”.

Thankfully, with the increasing political clout of Latino voters — as demonstrated by the last election — politicians and the media are taking a hard look at the words they use to talk about immigration. It would be unimaginable today for a presidential candidate — Republican or Democrat — to again run a national campaign using the terms “illegal alien,” “illegal” or “illegals.” These obnoxious words have been revealed for what they are — racially charged slurs which have no place in America’s national immigration conversation or in the media that reports about it.

The Associated Press did the right thing by finally dropping these ugly descriptors from its Stylebook because such words have no place in objective reporting. Hopefully, other major media outlets will follow the AP’s lead.

Follow David Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidLeopold

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Enforcement, Immigration Reform, Politics

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Gathers Unstoppable Momentum

April 1, 2013 Leave a comment

Originally posted on Huffington Post Politics
The question now is not whether, but when.

I’m talking about a major overhaul of America’s dysfunctional immigration system. With Friday’s agreement between the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the terms of a guest worker program it’s clear that immigration reform is going to be a reality this time around. The momentum is unstoppable.

The agreement, which bridged a gap that potentially threatened a broader immigration overhaul, provides for an immigrant guest worker program which includes a pathway to permanent residence. According to press reports, a new temporary immigrant “W Visa” will be created for “low skilled” workers in shortage occupations, including immigrants in hospitality, janitorial, retail, and construction jobs; you know, the folks that clean hotel rooms, wash dishes in stuffy restaurant kitchens, pick fruit in the blazing sun, and toil in the construction industry — occupations which, in fact, require a lot of focus, dedication and, yes, skill.

The agreement protects American workers by regulating guest worker wage levels and tying the number of available visas to the strength of the U.S. economy, including the unemployment rate. According to BloombergBusinessweek, the program “would start with 20,000 visas in the first year, 35,000 in the second, 55,000 in the third and 75,000 in the fourth. On year five the number would grow or shrink based on a formula that takes into account the unemployment rate, the number of job openings and other factors.”

As we’d expect with any major policy proposal there will be plenty of analysis, criticism, and second guessing over the next several days as Congress gets set to reconvene after the Easter/Passover break. But what’s crystal clear is that two traditionally adverse interest groups have hammered out an agreement which trumpets — indeed screams — that America needs comprehensive immigration reform.

The fact that business and labor could come together on a well-designed guest worker program — perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the immigration reform debate — means the energy is there, the desire is there, and the need is there for immigration reform. And if the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce can find common ground when an agreement seemed all but impossible a few days ago, then Democrats and Republicans in Washington can too.

Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidLeopold

Filed under Business Immigration, DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Immigration Reform, Politics

READ: #Ohio #BMV Announcement Granting Driver’s License Eligiblity to #DACA Grantees. #immigration

March 29, 2013 Leave a comment

Download the Ohio BMV Announcement here —> 03-29-13_DACAv2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 29, 2013
OHIO BMV TO BEGIN ISSUING TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSES TO
QUALIFIED DACA GRANTEES

COLUMBUS – Today the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) instructed the
state’s Deputy Registrars to begin issuing temporary driver licenses to qualified
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) grantees, but only after first
confirming applicants’ immigration documents via the U.S. Citizen and Immigration
Services (USCIS) database. The extra security steps are designed to combat fraud
or the use of counterfeit documents. BMV’s decision was established after reviewing
guidance expressed by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine that DACA grantees are
eligible for temporary driver licenses under Ohio law.
The BMV’s instructions to Deputy Registrars will ensure consistent procedures are
followed statewide when issuing the temporary licenses. Confirmation of applicants’
immigrant documents will be made via the federal government’s immigration
database to verify their authenticity. Upon verification of applicants’ documents they
will be issued a non-renewable/temporary license valid for the time period of their
work authorization issued by USCIS, not to exceed two years.
The federal government allows DACA grantees to work in the U.S. during the twoyear length of their DACA status. Individuals are eligible for DACA status if: they
arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16; have no criminal history; are currently in
school; have graduated from high school or received a general education
development (GED) certificate; have been honorably discharged from the Coast
Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and are under the age of 31.
Currently 37 other states also issue temporary drivers licenses to DACA grantees.
Ohio is one of the few states to take the extra step of also confirming applicants’
immigration documents through the federal government’s database.

To view a summary of the Deputy Registrar directive, click here

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Immigration Reform, Politics, Prosecutorial Discretion, State and Local Immigration Laws

#Ohio BMV has to let #DREAMERs be drivers; #immigration #DACA

March 25, 2013 Leave a comment

Originally published by the Cleveland Plain Dealer

Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you suddenly learned you were not an American citizen; that in fact you had no lawful status in the United States and faced deportation to a country you never even knew. Would you pack your bags and leave Northeast Ohio where you grew up, went to school, rooted for the Browns and Indians, and watched fireworks on the Fourth of July? Or would your identity as an American — the core of who you are culturally and personally — compel you to fight for a way to remain legally in your own country?

It sounds incredible, but for thousands of teenagers and young adults in Ohio, this nightmare is a terrible reality. Some learned about their undocumented status while still very young. Others found out when they applied for a Social Security number or to take a college entrance exam.

Referred to as DREAMERs — because they dream that one day Congress will pass a law that gives them a chance to earn citizenship — these young “undocumented Americans” are not merely abstract Washington, D.C., debating points. They are our neighbors, classmates and co-workers. Some, like Manuel Bartsch of Findlay and Bernard Pastor of Cincinnati, have landed on the front pages of Ohio newspapers when their undocumented status led to their arrest, detention, and near-deportation through no fault of their own. Countless other Ohio DREAMERs have been forced to hide their lack of immigration status, living in fear of arrest and deportation every time they leave their homes to go to school, work, or church. Many have had to put their lives on hold, unable to afford college, volunteer for the U.S. armed forces or build a career because of the lack of a simple document.

Last year President Barack Obama offered eligible DREAMERs a temporary reprieve from this limbo in the hopes that soon Congress would overhaul America’s broken immigration system completely. The administrative process, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, gives qualified DREAMERs an opportunity to temporarily step out of the shadows and live without facing deportation. The Department of Homeland Security, which administers DACA, has clearly and unequivocally affirmed that individuals who have been granted DACA are authorized to be in the United States, receive work permits and other documents, and live as normal of a life as possible.

But the bureaucrats who run the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles have different ideas. Inexplicably, they have taken it upon themselves to second-guess the federal government, questioning whether DREAMERs granted DACA are really eligible for driver’s licenses. The result is that many BMV offices across Ohio now refuse to allow DREAMERs to apply for driver’s licenses — even though U.S. immigration authorities clearly have authorized them to live and work in the United States under this program.

Maybe the BMV bureaucrats should read the DACA regulations — they’re available online at uscis.gov. They plainly state that “an individual who has received deferred action is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect.”

They’re allowed to be here, they have Social Security numbers, they’re paying taxes — but the BMV says they can’t drive? Or maybe the BMV should take the advice of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine who, in a recent letter to the Ohio Commission on Latino Affairs, wrote that “it appears that the BMV would have to accept driver’s license applications from individuals that fall under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative because they can provide all of the information necessary,” including proof that they are authorized to be in the United States.

The eligibility of DACA grantees to apply for driver’s licenses couldn’t be any clearer. It’s astonishing that the BMV, which has no expertise or authority in U.S. immigration law, would take it upon itself to second-guess DHS and DeWine. Maybe the officials at the BMV need a call from their boss, Gov. John Kasich. Surely he’d agree that the citizens of Ohio would be much better served if the BMV bureaucrats focused on their actual jobs — allowing people who qualify for driver’s licenses to obtain them — rather than implementing their own immigration policy that goes against common sense and the rule of the law.

Leopold, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney, is the general counsel and former national president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Immigration Reform, Prosecutorial Discretion, State and Local Immigration Laws

USCIS Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver of 3/10 Year Bars In Effect Today

March 4, 2013 Leave a comment

Notice from USCIS

Beginning March 4, certain immigrant visa applicants who are the spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives), and have been unlawfully present in the United States, can start applying for provisional unlawful presence waivers through a new process.

The new provisional unlawful presence waiver process is for certain individuals who seek a waiver of inadmissibility only for unlawful presence. They can now apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while in the United States and before departing for their immigrant visa interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad. Under the current process, which continues to remain in effect, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States have to travel abroad and be found inadmissible at their immigrant visa interview before they can apply for an inadmissibility waiver.

The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives while those family members go through the process of becoming lawful permanent residents of the United States. For eligibility details and information on the process, please visit:
http://www.uscis.gov/provisionalwaiver

Please do not reply to this message.  See our Contact Us page for phone numbers 

Filed under Deferred Action, Immigration Reform

Obama Takes Action on Guns and Immigration: Now It’s Congress’ Turn

January 22, 2013 Leave a comment

Originally posted on Huffington Post

It feels like déjà vu all over again.

The Congress — in particular the Republican-controlled House of Representatives — is unwilling or incapable to act decisively to solve an urgent issue of national importance. The president, understanding that inaction is simply not an option, uses his executive authority to put the law to work for the American people. The “just say no” crowd recoils, accusing the president of a brazen power grab that offends the Constitution.

I’m referring to what happened a little more than six months ago when President Obama used hisexecutive authority to grant DREAM Act eligible youth a temporary reprieve from deportation. The reprieve, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was derived from the legal tradition of prosecutorial discretion, and implemented to give deserving undocumented youth a chance to temporarily step out of the shadows without fear of arrest and removal from the U.S. Since June the Administration has granted deferred action to more than 150,000 undocumented immigrants.

You could be forgiven for thinking I was referencing what happened last week when President Obama issued a series of executive orders designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental health issues. Among other things, the orders use laws already on the books to improve information sharing among state and federal agencies so that deadly weapons, including military-style assault weapons, are not sold to people who will massacre Americans while they’re in a classroom, enjoying a movie, or otherwise living their lives.

Importantly, these stop-gap measures on gun control and immigration give Congress the space and opportunity to enact permanent legislative solutions, which will, hopefully, make America safer and fix its dysfunctional immigration system.

Moreover, by decisively using his executive authority, the president is following through, pushing forward the “will of the people” instead of doing nothing. National polls continue to show that Americans — including many members of the NRA — overwhelmingly favor common sense restrictions on guns. Through rigorous enforcement of the laws already on the books President Obama is doing what the American people demand but what Congress is scared to do. He is taking bold action to save lives and show the American people that he listens and cares about their safety.

And the same holds true for immigration. As even the newest polls show, the majority of Americans — including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — want the immigration system fixed; they want a safe border and an immigration policy that serves the needs of American families and businesses, and includes a pathway to earned citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the shadows. Yes, the system is broken, but the president is well within his rights to use his executive authority to make sure the law is administered as intelligently and humanely as possible until Congress acts to fix it.

But, as Mr. Obama reminded the nation last Wednesday, when it comes to changing the law he cannot do it alone. Real change can come only when the American people demand it, whether it is to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity clips or enact an overhaul of the immigration “system” we currently deal with, made up of a mismatched patchwork of policies and procedures.

For their part, the Republicans, the NRA leadership, and the anti-immigrant restrictionists need to stop with the sour grapes and recognize that the American people put their trust in President Obama last November. They have every right to oppose him on the issues, but they owe it to the country to do so responsibility, by offering up real policy solutions rather than empty rhetoric and personal attacks.

After all, the entire nation wins when its leaders take bold action to protect the American people.

Follow David Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidLeopold

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Enforcement, Immigration Reform, Politics, Prosecutorial Discretion

Making Sense Of Yesterday’s USCIS DACA Guidance: Lawful Status vs. Lawful Presence

January 19, 2013 Leave a comment

After the USCIS issued its supplemental DACA guidance yesterday, which included FAQs that stated individuals granted DACA are not considered to be “unlawfully present” in the US, I received many messages from DREAMers, reporters, and others wanting to know what it meant.  Has the USCIS declared that deferred action confers legal status?  If so, why does the USCIS guidance also plainly state that “deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an individual, nor does it excuse any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence”?

Can both be true? Yes. And here’s how:

The language of the USCIS guidance is very technical. Since 1997 the law has included the concept of “unlawful presence”.  It refers to noncitizens who remain present in the US after an illegal entry or the expiration of an authorized period of stay in the US, such as a visitor who fails to depart. A noncitizen who remains unlawfully present in the US for more than 6 months can be barred from returning for up to 10 years.

A few years ago USCIS issued consolidated guidance in which it interpreted “unlawful presence” for purposes of applying the bars to readmission.  USCIS said that aliens granted deferred action are considered to be in a period of stay authorized by the government.  It follows then that once a DREAMER is granted DACA his or her stay in the U.S. is authorized by the government, albeit temporarily, and he or she is lawfully present.

Why then does the USCIS say that DACA confers no lawful immigration status?

Because, lawful immigration status refers to an immigration benefit such as lawful permanent residency (green card), temporary visa classification, i.e. H-1B worker, B-1 visitor, or F-1 student, or the parole authority of the Department of Homeland Security.  Deferred action, including DACA, is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion in which the government has decided to temporarily defer removal action against a foreign national.  As the USCIS says on its website:

DHS will exercise prosecutorial discretion as appropriate to ensure that enforcement resources are not expended on low priority cases, such as individuals who came to the United States as children and meet other key guidelines.  Individuals who demonstrate that they meet the guidelines below may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and may be eligible for employment authorization.

Nevertheless, yesterday’s guidance is important; especially to individuals granted DACA who wish to drive.  Many states have a very difficult time understanding immigration law and discerning who is lawfully present and who is not. Some states have refused to issue drivers licenses to DACA grantees incorrectly reasoning that since deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status, individuals granted DACA are not authorized to be in the U.S.

While the federal government cannot force states to issue drivers licenses to individuals granted DACA,yesterday’s guidance makes it crystal clear that DACA is a period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security.  Therefore, DREAMERs granted DACA should not be denied drivers’ benefits on the basis of their immigration status.

One final thought; the confusion over lawful immigration status and unlawful presence underscores the need for immigration reform. America needs a user-friendly immigration system; not a patchwork of rules and regulations so convoluted that it takes an immigration attorney to make sense of them.

Filed under DACA, Deferred Action, Dream Act, Enforcement, Immigration Reform, Politics, Prosecutorial Discretion

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,812 other followers

%d bloggers like this: