U.S. To Allow Certain Illegal Immigrants To Stay In Country

News_Editor · June 17, 2012

U.S. to allow certain illegal immigrants to stay in country < br />

2012-06-18 05:27:11 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- The United States government on Friday announced a new policy in which certain illegal immigrants will be allowed to remain in the country.

In the announcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano said that, effective immediately, certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children and do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be considered for an exemption from deportation hearings. Those who meet the criteria will be eligible to gain work authorization.

"Our nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner," Napolitano said. "But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here."

To be eligible for the benefits of the new policy, the illegal immigrant must be below the age of 30, have come to the United States before he or she reached the age of 16, they must have permanently resided in the United States for at least five years, they must be in school, have graduated from a school or be in the military, and they must not have been convicted of a felony.

DHS said in a statement that they will continue to focus their energy on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. It went on to say that the policy change enhances the department's ability to focus on this.

Later on Friday, President Barack Obama made the public announcement in a speech from the Rose Garden of the White House.

"These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they're friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag," Obama said. "They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents -- sometimes even as infants -- and often have no idea that they're undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver's license, or a college scholarship."

He added: "Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you've done everything right your entire life -- studied hard, worked hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class -- only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country that you know nothing about, with a language that you may not even speak."

The U.S. government estimates the policy change will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation.

Jingthing · June 17, 2012

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Jingthing

Ulysses G. · June 17, 2012

Yet another blatant political ploy by a president who is desperate to distract from his lousy record and it does nothing but kick the problem into the future. Senator Rubio's plan would pass legislation that would solve the problem permanently.

Jingthing · June 17, 2012

Senator Who? Obama is running for president and he's the leader. Rubio's so called "plan" isn't even baked yet. Yes, it would be great if the full on Dream Act could be passed legislatively, but we all know that isn't ever going to happen. The obstructionist party of Mr. Rubio would never allow it. Whatever Obama is for, they are always against, even if they were for it before Obama was for it.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Jingthing

Colin Yai · June 17, 2012

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Well JT it would appear by reading the link and the remarks underneath it is anything but a winner, and we do not have long to wait now do wehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2895655/posts

Jingthing · June 17, 2012

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Well JT it would appear by reading the link and the remarks underneath it is anything but a winner, and we do not have long to wait now do wehttp://www.freerepub...s/2895655/posts

How very disingenuous. You point us to a right wing anti-immigrant website. Those people are tea party people! They won't vote for Obama. The genius of Obama's move is that he expands the LATINO vote which he was already winning decisively, and which is so very important in some contested states. He also puts Romney in a bind politically because Romney wants/needs to appeal to BOTH the radical right wing anti-immigrant tea partiers AND Latinos. Impossible. Yes Romney may pick Rubio for veep now, but it's insulting to Latinos to think they will fall for that. They will not.

This has become an extremely racialized election. Romney has the white vote wrapped up. That's it. Obama has every other demographic.

Yes it's a political move Duh! And Romney picking Rubio won't be a political move? The difference is on this issue Obama clearly has a strong advantage now with Latinos.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Jingthing

Scott · June 18, 2012

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please discuss the issue of immigration. It is not open to off-topic political discussions.

BEENTHEREDONETHAT · June 18, 2012

JT.... What about the following quote? That one bothers me a lot when so many people are out of work.

And Obama finally produces a jobs program - but for ILLEGAL ALIENS - as a million illegals will be added to a workforce to compete with Americans workers already suffering through a record length of recession unemployment.

Colin Yai · June 18, 2012

http://www.escapefromamerica.com/2009/11/the-impact-of-illegal-immigration-on-the-us/ I have been doing quite a bit of research on the subject and have come to the conclusion that Immigration in the US illegal or other wise is a highly contentious subject with many having strong views on the matter ,to be fair some may be misplaced ,but the fact remains its a volatile situation as the link above amply displays ,the thread is yet young and I've no doubt other Americans will be voicing their opinions over the coming days.

chuckd · June 18, 2012

This will surprise some, but I agree with portions of the so called Dream Act, particularly as it relates to those illegal immigrants who might have enlisted in the military to serve the US.

What I strongly disagree with is the manner in which this was done. There should be no Executive Order that transcends the Constitution by changing law. The Legislative Branch is charged with passing legislation and the Judicial Branch is charged with determining each law's constitutionality. The Executive branch has no authority to stop enforcing a law and changing a law that is on the books and is considered constitutional and enforceable.

One consideration that should be realized is this Executive Order can be cancelled on 21 January 2013 when Romney is inaugurated. It is nothing more than window dressing, very temporary in nature and designed to charge up some of his support block.

Obama has changed it for political reasons only and he has no right to do so.

Colin Yai · June 18, 2012

Surprised Chuck?,nah not really, us on the right are pretty fair minded and level headed people as you are very well aware, and per usual Chuck, well observed!

Edited June 18, 2012 by Colin Yai

simple1 · June 18, 2012

I am not American so I don't understand people's objection regarding the decision by the Obama Administration. It's targeted at illegal immigrant children who went to the USA at no fault of their own. Putting aside the political timing, with the stated criteria I would have thought this would be a positive for American society. Why in your opinion is this not so?

Steely Dan · June 18, 2012

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Well JT it would appear by reading the link and the remarks underneath it is anything but a winner, and we do not have long to wait now do wehttp://www.freerepub...s/2895655/posts

How very disingenuous. You point us to a right wing anti-immigrant website. Those people are tea party people! They won't vote for Obama. The genius of Obama's move is that he expands the LATINO vote which he was already winning decisively, and which is so very important in some contested states. He also puts Romney in a bind politically because Romney wants/needs to appeal to BOTH the radical right wing anti-immigrant tea partiers AND Latinos. Impossible. Yes Romney may pick Rubio for veep now, but it's insulting to Latinos to think they will fall for that. They will not.
This has become an extremely racialized election. Romney has the white vote wrapped up. That's it. Obama has every other demographic.

Yes it's a political move Duh! And Romney picking Rubio won't be a political move? The difference is on this issue Obama clearly has a strong advantage now with Latinos.

Let me get this straight. You are applauding the cynical gerrymandering of the electorate by a president who will stoop to sectarian politics in a desperate attempt to hang onto power.

koheesti · June 18, 2012

While I support this part...

To be eligible for the benefits of the new policy, the illegal immigrant must be below the age of 30, have come to the United States before he or she reached the age of 16, they must have permanently resided in the United States for at least five years, they must be in school, have graduated from a school or be in the military, and they must not have been convicted of a felony.

...This part is total bullsh*t....

DHS said in a statement that they will continue to focus their energy on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. It went on to say that the policy change enhances the department's ability to focus on this.

Besides the fact Obama has no right to circumvent the law by royal presidential decree, it is no secret that DHS has done everything in its power to avoid removing ANY illegal, criminal or otherwise. That makes this latest move by Obama so transparently self-serving it's disgusting. Even clear-thinking Hispanics won't be fooled by this one.

Ulysses G. · June 18, 2012

I am not American so I don't understand people's objection regarding the decision by the Obama Administration. It's targeted at illegal immigrant children who went to the USA at no fault of their own. Putting aside the political timing, with the stated criteria I would have thought this would be a positive for American society. Why in your opinion is this not so?

Many of us (so-called) conservatives agree with giving the illegal kids a break. However we object to why and how Obama did this. It is purely political - Obama has said himself that he does not have the legal right to ignore the legislature, but he has done so anyway because he is desperate to con his way into a second term despite doing nothing to save the American economy during his current term and, in fact, making it worse.

This needs to be permanently fixed by lawmakers, not turned into a short-term trick by someone kicking the can down the road to fleece Latino voters into voting for him.

Scott · June 18, 2012

This will surprise some, but I agree with portions of the so called Dream Act, particularly as it relates to those illegal immigrants who might have enlisted in the military to serve the US.

What I strongly disagree with is the manner in which this was done. There should be no Executive Order that transcends the Constitution by changing law. The Legislative Branch is charged with passing legislation and the Judicial Branch is charged with determining each law's constitutionality. The Executive branch has no authority to stop enforcing a law and changing a law that is on the books and is considered constitutional and enforceable.

One consideration that should be realized is this Executive Order can be cancelled on 21 January 2013 when Romney is inaugurated. It is nothing more than window dressing, very temporary in nature and designed to charge up some of his support block.

Obama has changed it for political reasons only and he has no right to do so.

In a previous incarnation, my work brought me into close contact with the departments dealing with refugee and immigration. If I recall correctly, the Congress sets the number of people who will be permitted to immigrate to the US. The President determines certain categories within that number, but doesn't change the total number. If Congress says, for example, 1 million immigrants this year, and the president allows in 10,000 refugees., the total left for other categories would be 990,000.

In the case of illegals who are being admitted, they will still be listed as immigrants. No law is circumvented.

bunta71 · June 18, 2012

While I support this part...

To be eligible for the benefits of the new policy, the illegal immigrant must be below the age of 30, have come to the United States before he or she reached the age of 16, they must have permanently resided in the United States for at least five years, they must be in school, have graduated from a school or be in the military, and they must not have been convicted of a felony.

...This part is total bullsh*t....

DHS said in a statement that they will continue to focus their energy on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. It went on to say that the policy change enhances the department's ability to focus on this.

Besides the fact Obama has no right to circumvent the law by royal presidential decree, it is no secret that DHS has done everything in its power to avoid removing ANY illegal, criminal or otherwise. That makes this latest move by Obama so transparently self-serving it's disgusting. Even clear-thinking Hispanics won't be fooled by this one.

Yes spending the limited resources on removal of the bad element from America seems just stupid doesn't it? Oh and you may want to check out which president recently has deported more illegal aliens in the last 3 and a half years than George Bush did in two full terms...of course facts have become so unpopular nowdays among the ill informed. By the way this was not an Executive Order. Oh there I go again spouting facts....

Edited June 18, 2012 by bunta71

koheesti · June 18, 2012

While I support this part...

To be eligible for the benefits of the new policy, the illegal immigrant must be below the age of 30, have come to the United States before he or she reached the age of 16, they must have permanently resided in the United States for at least five years, they must be in school, have graduated from a school or be in the military, and they must not have been convicted of a felony.

...This part is total bullsh*t....

DHS said in a statement that they will continue to focus their energy on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. It went on to say that the policy change enhances the department's ability to focus on this.

Besides the fact Obama has no right to circumvent the law by royal presidential decree, it is no secret that DHS has done everything in its power to avoid removing ANY illegal, criminal or otherwise. That makes this latest move by Obama so transparently self-serving it's disgusting. Even clear-thinking Hispanics won't be fooled by this one.

Yes spending the limited resources on removal of the bad element from America seems just stupid doesn't it? Oh and you may want to check out which president recently has deported more illegal aliens in the last 3 and a half years than George Bush did in two full terms...of course facts have become so unpopular nowdays among the ill informed. By the way this was not an Executive Order. Oh there I go again spouting facts....

Can you post a link to those facts so I can inform myself?

chuckd · June 18, 2012

I am not American so I don't understand people's objection regarding the decision by the Obama Administration. It's targeted at illegal immigrant children who went to the USA at no fault of their own. Putting aside the political timing, with the stated criteria I would have thought this would be a positive for American society. Why in your opinion is this not so?

I am assuming your post is directed to me. I have already stated I agree with parts of the Dream Act as shown in his Executive Order.

What I do not agree with is the manner in which this President has decided, for apparent political reasons, which laws currently on the books he will enforce and which laws he will not enforce. The US has well established Immigration Laws that have been passed by our Congressional Branch and signed into law by former Presidents representing the Executive Branch. I am sure some of them have seen litigation and been found to be either Constitutional or Unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch.

This process is the one the current administration could and should use to change the current laws. First there should be Congressional action, followed by Executive action, followed by Judicial action, if required.

Do not change existing laws by executive decree or government regulations.

PS: Bunta71 is correct with one aspect of his post. This was not an Executive Order but was done by official Government Regulations put out by Homeland Security. Perhaps Bunta71 can explain how the end result is different.

chuckd · June 18, 2012

This will surprise some, but I agree with portions of the so called Dream Act, particularly as it relates to those illegal immigrants who might have enlisted in the military to serve the US.

What I strongly disagree with is the manner in which this was done. There should be no Executive Order that transcends the Constitution by changing law. The Legislative Branch is charged with passing legislation and the Judicial Branch is charged with determining each law's constitutionality. The Executive branch has no authority to stop enforcing a law and changing a law that is on the books and is considered constitutional and enforceable.

One consideration that should be realized is this Executive Order can be cancelled on 21 January 2013 when Romney is inaugurated. It is nothing more than window dressing, very temporary in nature and designed to charge up some of his support block.

Obama has changed it for political reasons only and he has no right to do so.

This will surprise some, but I agree with portions of the so called Dream Act, particularly as it relates to those illegal immigrants who might have enlisted in the military to serve the US.

What I strongly disagree with is the manner in which this was done. There should be no Executive Order that transcends the Constitution by changing law. The Legislative Branch is charged with passing legislation and the Judicial Branch is charged with determining each law's constitutionality. The Executive branch has no authority to stop enforcing a law and changing a law that is on the books and is considered constitutional and enforceable.

One consideration that should be realized is this Executive Order can be cancelled on 21 January 2013 when Romney is inaugurated. It is nothing more than window dressing, very temporary in nature and designed to charge up some of his support block.

Obama has changed it for political reasons only and he has no right to do so.

In a previous incarnation, my work brought me into close contact with the departments dealing with refugee and immigration. If I recall correctly, the Congress sets the number of people who will be permitted to immigrate to the US. The President determines certain categories within that number, but doesn't change the total number. If Congress says, for example, 1 million immigrants this year, and the president allows in 10,000 refugees., the total left for other categories would be 990,000.

In the case of illegals who are being admitted, they will still be listed as immigrants. No law is circumvented.

The Congress and the President set the limits for LEGAL immigration.

This directive addresses ILLEGAL immigrants.

Nowhere am I aware of can the President change an ILLEGAL immigrant to a LEGAL immigrant without the use of Executive Pardon.

Am I missing something here?

Scott · June 18, 2012

Again, unless there has been some major change in how immigration is handled, the congress sets the number of people to be admitted to the US. The Executive branch then has the power to determine which categories will get certain numbers.

The majority of the immigrants who will be allowed to stay are already eligible for an immigrant visa. The category under which they fall will vary. For example, if you have a spouse awaiting resettlement, they come before a brother or sister.

koheesti · June 18, 2012

Again, unless there has been some major change in how immigration is handled, the congress sets the number of people to be admitted to the US. The Executive branch then has the power to determine which categories will get certain numbers.

The majority of the immigrants who will be allowed to stay are already eligible for an immigrant visa. The category under which they fall will vary. For example, if you have a spouse awaiting resettlement, they come before a brother or sister.

If these young illegals are figured into the yearly quotas, and the President and just put about 800,000 (the # I read) of them to the head of the line, that means tough luck for 800,000 others who have applied.

Scott · June 18, 2012

It does not mean 800,000 will have tough luck. It means that 800,000 will not be deported. They (or an eligible family member) will have to apply for them under the existing regulations. The application for settlement in the US will have to be approved and they will have to be accepted or rejected.

My take on this is two fold: First, is the cessation of deportation for this group. Second, is the actual paperwork to legalize their stay. The first part, I assume will be handled by the Justice Department and the 2nd part by Immigration & Naturalization.

The Executive Branch can decree anything it wants in this case, but the nuts and bolts will be handled by the bureaucracy under the watchful eye of Homeland Security.

chuckd · June 18, 2012

Again, unless there has been some major change in how immigration is handled, the congress sets the number of people to be admitted to the US. The Executive branch then has the power to determine which categories will get certain numbers.

The majority of the immigrants who will be allowed to stay are already eligible for an immigrant visa. The category under which they fall will vary. For example, if you have a spouse awaiting resettlement, they come before a brother or sister.

Can you explain why the majority of illegal immigrants who "will be allowed to stay are already eligible for an immigrant visa."

My understanding of the immigration law is once a person is found to be in the country illegally, they are to be deported and never allowed to apply for a legal entry visa. I'm too tired to research now so I am hoping you will have the answer.

I lost too much sleep helping Webb Simpson win the US Open last night.

Edited June 18, 2012 by chuckd

BigBikeBKK · June 18, 2012

Well done President Obama (in this important election year)! As with his bold and risky leadership on the gay marriage issue, Obama once again leads to do the right thing for this specific class of valued young immigrants. Obama's got his mojo back, that's for sure. What's next? Coming out for decriminalization of marijuana? There's nothing wrong with mixing good policy with good politics. Yes, politically this immigration move is a huge WINNER.

Well JT it would appear by reading the link and the remarks underneath it is anything but a winner, and we do not have long to wait now do wehttp://www.freerepub...s/2895655/posts

How very disingenuous. You point us to a right wing anti-immigrant website. Those people are tea party people! They won't vote for Obama. The genius of Obama's move is that he expands the LATINO vote which he was already winning decisively, and which is so very important in some contested states. He also puts Romney in a bind politically because Romney wants/needs to appeal to BOTH the radical right wing anti-immigrant tea partiers AND Latinos. Impossible. Yes Romney may pick Rubio for veep now, but it's insulting to Latinos to think they will fall for that. They will not.
This has become an extremely racialized election. Romney has the white vote wrapped up. That's it. Obama has every other demographic.

Yes it's a political move Duh! And Romney picking Rubio won't be a political move? The difference is on this issue Obama clearly has a strong advantage now with Latinos.

Romney sure as hell doesn't have MY white vote! Does he really have the white vote "wrapped up"? I wouldn't be so sure.

Scott · June 18, 2012

Can you explain why the majority of illegal immigrants who "will be allowed to stay are already eligible for an immigrant visa."

My understanding of the immigration law is once a person is found to be in the country illegally, they are to be deported and never allowed to apply for a legal entry visa. I'm too tired to research now so I am hoping you will have the answer.

I lost too much sleep helping Webb Simpson win the US Open last night.

I've been away from the field for a number of years, but have kept a little bit abreast of the laws and regulations. First of all, most of the immigrants would have ties to the US through work or school. Second a large percent most likely have a relative who could sponsor the application under Family Reunification.

For many of the illegals, when they are caught, they are not deported. If they agree to return to Mexico (in most cases), then any existing application for a visa will not be jeopardized. If they do not agree, then they go through the courts and are deported. If they are deported any application for a visa is cancelled and they are not allowed to return.

Essentially, the illegals that are returned, have done so 'voluntarily'. There are no legal sanctions against them.

bunta71 · June 18, 2012

Getting back to a couple posts earlier... google shows many websites that demonstrate Obama's deportation record vs. Bush's. I am not sure where he stands on the count today but these are hard figures not something contrived by any partisan benefactors. He has maintained a pace to deport more illegal immigrants in his first term than Bush did in two.

As far as the differences in a Presidential Order vs. a Presidential Directive in the end product very little change, as a presidential directive substantially has the same legal effect as an executive order. It is the substance of the presidential action that is determinative rather than the form of the document conveying that action.

The differences are how they stay in effect or go away upon inaguaration of a new president. Although many times controversial, presidential orders and directives are granted privledges by the U.S. Constitution under Article 2, sec. 1, clause 1 and under Article 2, sec. 3, clause 4. They have been used since 1789.

Certainly a good step forward for those affected.

Jingthing · June 18, 2012

Romney sure as hell doesn't have MY white vote! Does he really have the white vote "wrapped up"? I wouldn't be so sure.

Oh please, don't be ridiculous. I didn't say all white voters. I'll tell you this: you can safely bet the house that Romney WILL win the majority of the white American demographic. And you can also safely bet he will lose the majority of the Latino demographic.

koheesti · June 18, 2012

Romney sure as hell doesn't have MY white vote! Does he really have the white vote "wrapped up"? I wouldn't be so sure.

Oh please, don't be ridiculous. I didn't say all white voters. I'll tell you this: you can safely bet the house that Romney WILL win the majority of the white American demographic. And you can also safely bet he will lose the majority of the Latino demographic.

While you're at it, bet the house, land, your grandma's jewelry and anything else that isn't nailed down that Romney WILL win the vote of Americans who prefer working over receiving government handouts.

Jingthing · June 18, 2012

Some more background on the demographic politics (and timing) of this Obama move to help Dream Act eligible people, if there was a dream act, which there can't be because it's blocked by the tea party people, etc.:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/25/1086266/-Obama-s-Demographic-Advantage

The 2008 electorate was unlike any in American history. Whites represented just 74% of the electorate and the burgeoning non-white vote offered 81% of its support to Obama. There is no guarantee that non-white voters will turnout and support Obama as they did in 2008, but the best evidence suggests that they will, especially since demographic changes will mitigate or potentially outweigh possible reductions in non-white turnout rates.

Sign In

U.S. To Allow Certain Illegal Immigrants To Stay In Country

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US