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

[Ulysses G.]

There has been no amnesty given, there has been no change in the law.

Correct. He is ordering the immigration authorities to not enforce the law that is in place and he is doing it for political reasons. That is why the legality of what he is doing has been challenged and as I am not a constitutional lawyer, I can not tell you which side will prevail if it goes to court - actually, even if I was a constitutional lawyer I could not be sure how the Supreme Court would rule.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

I shall anxiously await this getting to the Supreme Court, so you be sure and let me know as soon as it does.

The OP says this: "... 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,"

I have emphasized the word policy because it's not a law. The Court system does not determine who gets brought to court and on what charge. The mundane business of charging people falls on the shoulders of those much lower down on the food chain.

And the point is that the vast majority of these people will never be deported irrespective of which political party controls either the legislative or executive branch. They are on US soil and they have certain rights accorded to them.

Taking them to court will be an exercise in futility and jam up the legal system. They will have attorneys, they will continuances and postponements, ad infinitum. They won't be held in detention simply because we don't have the facilities to hold all the illegals in detention.

They will, in the meantime, get married and have children who will be US citizens and deporting a parent of a minor child is quite difficult.

Between now and the time that they become fully-legally, some will commit crimes and become ineligible for this policy. They will be deported and it becomes a lot easier if you have something as simple as DUI.

What they will have is, according to the OP, authorization to work.

[flying]

Having a wife who went through the whole *legal* process of US Immigration & later citizenship

I wonder how most folks ever afford the legal route.

I am not even talking about a attorney...just all the filing fees ...travel...etc.

Every form has a price attached....& there are many.

Having said that....It is not a great feeling to have paid & gone the legal route to later see

things like this.

I understand they are talking about kids who were brought in illegally by parents & maybe this benefit is only for the kids...

But are the parents deported?

As Scott said above....

They will, in the meantime, get married and have children who will be US citizens and deporting a parent of a minor child is quite difficult

So what kind of snowball are they making?

It sucks to pay because that is the law & see others not need to in any case.

Most of all to see it basically as some campaign ploy/tool sucks twice as bad.

Edited June 24, 2012 by flying

[Scott]

Flying, those who came illegally will also pay. They are not going to line up at some INS window and be handed a 'get-out-of-jail free card'. They will have to prove they meet the regulatory requirements. They are still subject to arrest for being illegal. They will, however, not face deportation if they meet the requirements.

They still have to go through all the hoops to remain in the US. All the i's will be dotted and the t's will be crossed.

Flying asked: But are the parents deported?

No idea, but criteria says those under 30, so the parents would not be eligible for any kind of an exemption under this policy. The parents wouldn't get an exemption because they have a child eligible for the program.

If a 20 something year old is in the US and meets the criteria, once he/she is a citizen, he can can file an immigrant petition on behalf of his parents. They would have to return to their country of origin for the interview.

And they all have to have sufficient funds and pay all the fees.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Scott

[flying]

Flying, those who came illegally will also pay. They are not going to line up at some INS window and be handed a 'get-out-of-jail free card'. They will have to prove they meet the regulatory requirements. They are still subject to arrest for being illegal. They will, however, not face deportation if they meet the requirements.

They still have to go through all the hoops to remain in the US. All the i's will be dotted and the t's will be crossed.

I see & thanks for the clarification Scott.

It does make me wonder again though knowing what it costs as to how they will achieve it.

[chuckd]

Please stay on the topic, which isn't about auto manufacturing in Thailand.

As I stated before, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton did similar things. Congress sets the number of people who will be allowed to immigrate to the US, the Executive branch then has discretion as to how these these numbers will be allocated by category.

After the second Gulf War, I was in Washington when the President authorized approximately 10,000 Iraqi Kurds to be resettled as refugees. The numbers came from the total allotment approved by Congress. First, the countries which had an undersubscribed number of applicants for the Green card lottery were used, second, anyone who had a close family member in the US was admitted under an existing immigrant visa (eligibility had already been established for this group). The remainder came from other categories.

If you have a immediate family member in the US, such as father, mother, sister, brother, spouse or child, you are legally eligible for resettlement in the US. The family, or the applicant, must show sufficient means to support the applicant.

Non-citizens who serve with the US Military are eligible for fast-tracking toward US citizenship. I have a friend who received US citizenship because he served with the US Military during the Vietnam war. (Now we are going back to the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon era). Quite a number of years ago, a large group of Filipinos were granted citizenship retroactively because they had served with the US Military--this was done through the Court, if I recall currectly, however the right to citizenship did not extend to their children, because the US citizen was naturalized and the children were not born or lived in the US. That takes us back to the World War II era.

Most likely, the group being allowed a free pass from deportation would be eligible for an immigrant visa. Most would have an immediate family member in the US. Most would pass the means test of becoming a public charge because they are or would have been employed or educated.

So, why wasn't the constitutionality of previous presidents challenged?

Did the former Presidents you mention actually change the status of illegal immigrants that were in country at the time or did they simply green light action to be taken by Embassies abroad in order to expedite the legal visa processes? While I understand the actual limitations, what I fail to understand is how the quota applies to those that are already in country and are NOT on visas of any type.

Your position on the quota holds true only if these same 800,000 young people actually apply for visas and are approved for visas by the State Department. They would then have to depart the US, return to their home country and have the visas applied to their individual home country passports. They could then return to the US on LEGAL visas and apply for green cards and citizenship at a later date. When they obtain their citizenship they could legally vote for Obama.

There are two points in the Constitution that make his action questionable.

The first is Article !!, Section 3, which states The President..."shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (sic)

The second is Article II, Section 8, which states one of the responsibilities of Congress is..."To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

In the first instance Obama is failing to faithfully execute the immigration laws currently on the books.

In the second instance Obama is, by Departmental regulation, establishing new rules on Naturalization which is the clear duty of Congress only.

What I also fail to understand is why Obama did not push his Dream Act more when he had a super majority in Congress during the first two years of his Presidency. He got three Republicans to vote for it but lost five Democrats voting against it. It would seem he either wasn't really interested in passing the legislation or simply chose not to use his bully pulpit to get the Democrats back on board.

This was just one more political move he could make that will remove the conversation from his economic policies and the fact unemployment is still extremely high. It is simply smoke and mirrors and in the long run will do little to help the 800,000 illegal young people.

[Ulysses G.]

This was just one more political move he could make that will remove the conversation from his economic policies and the fact unemployment is still extremely high. It is simply smoke and mirrors and in the long run will do little to help the 800,000 illegal young people.

Of course. It was a ploy to get the Latino vote and little else. On top of everything else, if Obama loses the election, the illegal immigrants who have applied for this pseudo-amnesty may have a target on their backs as Immigration will have their addresses and know everything about them including the fact that they are in the country illegally.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I shall anxiously await this getting to the Supreme Court, so you be sure and let me know as soon as it does.

Of course, but these things do take time. I am still waiting to see if Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional and that was fast-tracked by the court.

[Scott]

Did the former Presidents you mention actually change the status of illegal immigrants that were in country at the time or did they simply green light action to be taken by Embassies abroad in order to expedite the legal visa processes?

There are two points in the Constitution that make his action questionable.

The first is Article !!, Section 3, which states The President..."shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (sic)

The second is Article II, Section 8, which states one of the responsibilities of Congress is..."To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

In the first instance Obama is failing to faithfully execute the immigration laws currently on the books.

In the second instance Obama is, by Departmental regulation, establishing new rules on Naturalization which is the clear duty of Congress only.

What I also fail to understand is why Obama did not push his Dream Act more when he had a super majority in Congress during the first two years of his Presidency. He got three Republicans to vote for it but lost five Democrats voting against it. It would seem he either wasn't really interested in passing the legislation or simply chose not to use his bully pulpit to get the Democrats back on board.

This was just one more political move he could make that will remove the conversation from his economic policies and the fact unemployment is still extremely high. It is simply smoke and mirrors and in the long run will do little to help the 800,000 illegal young people.

On your first point about green lighting illegal immigrants, I would have to say 'no'. I don't believe any President would/could do that directly. First of all, the Iraqi group were technically Asylum seekers. The difference being they were escorted across the border into Turkey, where the Turkish gov't allowed them to remain for a maximum of 3 days before departing. Since they were not allowed to be screened, they were flown to Guam where the determination about their ability to resettle was determined by the relevant agencies.

The first group flown out were Military informants and locals hired by the CIA. Most were former Saddam loyalists who changed sides. They were a nightmare group with huge numbers being ineligible for resettlement in the US because they had been involved in crimes against humanity.

They could not be returned and they could not be resettled. They were detained and ultimately I don't know what happened to them--but you can rest assured the INS and the FBI would not admit them to the US.

The subsequent groups had to go through an emergency FBI check before they crossed the border. In that group there were no security risks.

These actions were legally questionable, but necessary and expedient. The US gov't took them to Guam, which has a slightly different legal status than say, California. They were screened there and resettled throughout the US.

The numbers came off the total number of immigrants allowed by Congress.

The President is not establishing a new rule. Congress passes laws, but the policies and procedures of enforcement are up to the enforcement agencies. If the speed limit is 65 mph, a police officer usually won't stop you unless you are going over 70. Internally, they decide at what speed you get pulled over. Are they ignoring the law? At 66 mph, you can demand that their radar be checked to make sure it's properly calibrated etc. Not really worth it.

I am not going to enter into a discussion of the politics of this or other Presidents. It's not germane to the topic. My guess is that INS and Homeland Security have indicated they don't want to mess with some of these cases because they have more important problems to deal with.

Whether this President or other Presidents have used their discretionary power over immigration issues for political gain is an entirely different topic.

[chuckd]

Did the former Presidents you mention actually change the status of illegal immigrants that were in country at the time or did they simply green light action to be taken by Embassies abroad in order to expedite the legal visa processes?

There are two points in the Constitution that make his action questionable.

The first is Article !!, Section 3, which states The President..."shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (sic)

The second is Article II, Section 8, which states one of the responsibilities of Congress is..."To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

In the first instance Obama is failing to faithfully execute the immigration laws currently on the books.

In the second instance Obama is, by Departmental regulation, establishing new rules on Naturalization which is the clear duty of Congress only.

What I also fail to understand is why Obama did not push his Dream Act more when he had a super majority in Congress during the first two years of his Presidency. He got three Republicans to vote for it but lost five Democrats voting against it. It would seem he either wasn't really interested in passing the legislation or simply chose not to use his bully pulpit to get the Democrats back on board.

This was just one more political move he could make that will remove the conversation from his economic policies and the fact unemployment is still extremely high. It is simply smoke and mirrors and in the long run will do little to help the 800,000 illegal young people.

On your first point about green lighting illegal immigrants, I would have to say 'no'. I don't believe any President would/could do that directly. First of all, the Iraqi group were technically Asylum seekers. The difference being they were escorted across the border into Turkey, where the Turkish gov't allowed them to remain for a maximum of 3 days before departing. Since they were not allowed to be screened, they were flown to Guam where the determination about their ability to resettle was determined by the relevant agencies.

The first group flown out were Military informants and locals hired by the CIA. Most were former Saddam loyalists who changed sides. They were a nightmare group with huge numbers being ineligible for resettlement in the US because they had been involved in crimes against humanity.

They could not be returned and they could not be resettled. They were detained and ultimately I don't know what happened to them--but you can rest assured the INS and the FBI would not admit them to the US.

The subsequent groups had to go through an emergency FBI check before they crossed the border. In that group there were no security risks.

These actions were legally questionable, but necessary and expedient. The US gov't took them to Guam, which has a slightly different legal status than say, California. They were screened there and resettled throughout the US.

The numbers came off the total number of immigrants allowed by Congress.

The President is not establishing a new rule. Congress passes laws, but the policies and procedures of enforcement are up to the enforcement agencies. If the speed limit is 65 mph, a police officer usually won't stop you unless you are going over 70. Internally, they decide at what speed you get pulled over. Are they ignoring the law? At 66 mph, you can demand that their radar be checked to make sure it's properly calibrated etc. Not really worth it.

I am not going to enter into a discussion of the politics of this or other Presidents. It's not germane to the topic. My guess is that INS and Homeland Security have indicated they don't want to mess with some of these cases because they have more important problems to deal with.

Whether this President or other Presidents have used their discretionary power over immigration issues for political gain is an entirely different topic.

OK, setting politics aside, your examples were not in the US at the time the quota was altered and could be applied against existing quotas for that particular year. These young people are already in the US, thus not subject to any quota requirements.

You further indicate law breakers would not be allowed to enter the country under the quota system but, by already being in the US without valid visas, the 800,000 affected by this action are technically law breakers.

What this decision has done is declare 800,000 illegal aliens to be considered as legal aliens without due process or proper federal court action.

I'll see if I can find anything in the US Code that relates to deportations of illegal immigrants...but not today.

[Scott]

The 800,000 will most likely go against the total number of allotted immigrants. It will take years for those that are eligible to become citizens. They are simply chosing not to persue deportation.

Law breakers are not excluded from resettlement, however, some types of laws are excludable. A visa violation is not generally an excludable offense. The people who are caught in the US and 'volunteer' to return to their home country rather than face deportation will have no negative consequences on an existing petition for immigration.

The very first of the Iraqi's taken out--and the ones that presented a big problem--were in the US (Guam) when the FBI and INS determined they could not be resettled.

[kerryk]

The way I read what is going on is 800,000 will be able to apply for a 2 year work permit and renew that as many times as they want. So the crux of the issue is how 800,000 new workers will effect the economy. That is why the price paid for auto workers all over the world is relevant to the discussion.

[Scott]

To get around the immigration quotas, they would have to declare an amnesty. That's a whole more contentious issue.

I don't have the statistics, but I read somewhere that at this point there are more people returning to Mexico than are entering the country. I can't produce a link, but it was relatively recently that I read or heard it on the news. My guess is that the number of immigrants are relatively low at this point in time.

[rakman]

Again, what law is he circumventing?

Selectively not enforcing current law, laws that the administration is required to enforce.

How about the age, race and nationality equality laws. This "action" only pertains to Hispanics of a certain age range. Clearly another violation of current law.

[Scott]

Immigration law is discriminatory by nature. We set all kinds of discriminatory policies in choosing who we let into the country and who we allow to remain.

The wording of the press briefing only discusses the punishment for illegals in the category. It does not decide that the law won't be enforced. Selective enforcement of all kinds of laws happens all the time.

[chuckd]

Immigration law is discriminatory by nature. We set all kinds of discriminatory policies in choosing who we let into the country and who we allow to remain.

The wording of the press briefing only discusses the punishment for illegals in the category. It does not decide that the law won't be enforced. Selective enforcement of all kinds of laws happens all the time.

Scott:

I have done some research and the only thing I can find relating to changing the status of an illegal immigrant are those that entered on valid visas and overstayed. I can't seem to find any way other than deportation for those that entered the US without a visa or passport and were not interviewed by an Immigration official when they entered the country.

I'll keep looking.

[Scott]

I doubt that you are going to find much because these people are technically 'illegal' and the regulations aren't written to accommodate those that are illegal--except maybe in Thailand!

The nuts and bolts of doing this will have to ironed out by a lot of different departments. At this point, the only thing that has been said is that they will not face deportation and they will be eligible for a work visa.

The whole process will take a lot of time because each persons situation will have to be reviewed. The questions I have are:

1. Will they apply for the program or whatever it is?

2. Which department will have administrative oversight for it?

3. What will the cut off date for the 30th birthday be--they will have to draw a line in the sand and say anybody who was under 30 on this day is eligible.

4. What proof, documentation is necessary for showing they were in the country before they were 16 years of age?

5. Can an application be made on behalf of someone or must they personally apply (i.e. attorney/relative etc.).

6. Will someone who applies but is found not to meet the criteria be reported as illegal and subject to repatriation or deportation?

If the answer to number 6 is 'yes', then you can watch that 800,000 figure drop to about 1,000 rather quickly!

[flying]

6. Will someone who applies but is found not to meet the criteria be reported as illegal and subject to repatriation or deportation?

If the answer to number 6 is 'yes', then you can watch that 800,000 figure drop to about 1,000 rather quickly!

Yes that is also something I wonder...again due to costs.

When applying for my wifes first green card I had to show proof I was X% above a certain income level or above poverty line so the

immigrant would pose no load on the US system.

Who speaks for/sponsors these folks?

Secondly while still in a suspended state how are these folks allowed to work jobs that would otherwise go to legal immigrants & citizens? I mean they are not even at legal green card *temp* status at this point. Yet they can take jobs?

At a time when unemployment is raging in the US?

I just do not see how these folks can meet the criteria as laid out in todays laws.

How far will these laws be bent to allow this?

It all sounds somewhat unfair to those who were made to follow the law & those that sponsored them etc.

Lastly unfair to American citizens & legal immigrants job wise if they are allowed to work.

Edited June 25, 2012 by flying

[kerryk]

The Mexicans apply for a USCIS 2 year work permit. I think.

Edited June 25, 2012 by kerryk

[Ulysses G.]

If the answer to number 6 is 'yes', then you can watch that 800,000 figure drop to about 1,000 rather quickly!

You can be sure that that if the answer to number 6 is 'yes' it will not be answered in the imminent future.

[chuckd]

If the answer to number 6 is 'yes', then you can watch that 800,000 figure drop to about 1,000 rather quickly!

You can be sure that that if the answer to number 6 is 'yes' it will not be answered in the imminent future.

OK, folks.

Now that we have kicked this back and forth a bit, can I have a show of hands of our members that really, honestly and truly believe this action was taken for the benefit of all those young people.

I suppose only time will tell since we must wait for the procedures to be worked out. In the meantime, Janet Napolitano and her cast of thousands in the Homeland Security Department are still hung up on whether 6 year old children and 75 year old grandmothers should be groped or not groped by the TSA.

All of this really is leadership from a far and distant planet.

[Scott]

6. Will someone who applies but is found not to meet the criteria be reported as illegal and subject to repatriation or deportation?

If the answer to number 6 is 'yes', then you can watch that 800,000 figure drop to about 1,000 rather quickly!

Yes that is also something I wonder...again due to costs.

When applying for my wifes first green card I had to show proof I was X% above a certain income level or above poverty line so the

immigrant would pose no load on the US system.

Who speaks for/sponsors these folks?

Secondly while still in a suspended state how are these folks allowed to work jobs that would otherwise go to legal immigrants & citizens? I mean they are not even at legal green card *temp* status at this point. Yet they can take jobs?

At a time when unemployment is raging in the US?

I just do not see how these folks can meet the criteria as laid out in todays laws.

How far will these laws be bent to allow this?

It all sounds somewhat unfair to those who were made to follow the law & those that sponsored them etc.

Lastly unfair to American citizens & legal immigrants job wise if they are allowed to work.

Flying, many of your points are correct, but the immigration laws (of nearly every country) are discriminatory and unfair. First of all, "the policy change will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants" probably means a significant number less will actually be eligible. Second, a lot of illegals are very suspicious of governmental agencies and really aren't adept at dealing with them (NGO's however, are). Finally, the bureaucrats have yet to sink their claws into this and they will no doubt put up some pretty major hurdles--like what burden of proof will they accept.

The economic impact is probably minimal. They talk about kids who were/are attending school. The young adults are most likely all ready employed (they certainly aren't eligible for public benefits). I know you may disagree with the economics, but the economy will turn around eventually and part of overall policy needs to be based on what we will need.

I would guess we are talking about the better group of immigrants. They have been in the US, so they are reasonable well integrated, they have been in school or the military so they are established in the US.

In my experience, I would say the cost-wise, it's probably better for all concerned to keep this group than deal with the legal issues of getting rid of them, which probably wouldn't happen anyway.

Healthy skepticism never hurts any program and neither does a lot of questions and comments for the powers-that-be to answer.

[kerryk]

I know no believes me but it is actually is about work permits. Try google Obama gives 800,000 illegals work permits. Now they can compete for payroll jobs, where they will be competing with more Americans.

How important is that? That is the question. Can America afford to give away 800,000 jobs right now?

[Ulysses G.]

kerryk has a point. They are not going to be competing for those jobs that Americans do not want. They are going to be competing for decent work which is hard to come by.

I am actually for universal health care, but not right now when we are so broke. This might fall into the same category.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

I can't argue with your assessment. The question is how long will it take? If they suspend some of the applicable rules, it could be quite a bit faster--but you are still dealing with bureaucracy.

I wonder how many of them are now employed.

[kerryk]

I can't argue with your assessment. The question is how long will it take? If they suspend some of the applicable rules, it could be quite a bit faster--but you are still dealing with bureaucracy.

I wonder how many of them are now employed.

Since they are now illegal I would imagine if they are employed it is in off the books jobs. So it will be quite an impact when they shift to normal payroll taxed higher paid employment.

[tlansford]

Setting aside the politics for a moment the short term economic arguments for migrant workers are seductive, even to conservatives. Governments, especially left wing ones, tend to spend more than their tax take in providing social benefits etc. Such benefits and minimum wage style legislation mean that you will never find local workers to pick fruit. Businesses also like temporary workers on low wages as the lack of red tape and worker benefits allow them to make a profit.

There are two problems with the above. Firstly companies become dependent on a permanent supply of migrant workers to make a profit instead of lobbying government to cut taxes and red tape to allow them to be profitable without. Now we add to the mix calls to grant citizenship to the children of immigrants. This is all well and good but these children when eligible to full citizen rights and benefits are themselves no longer fruit pickers and as they age they will add to the social welfare costs of the nation leading to a vicious spiral where only by importing ever larger numbers of migrant workers can the economy continue to function.

This is just another aspect of the Ponzi scheme which is in place and will continue until total collapse when the disappearance of benefits will attract an exodus leaving for the door and sunnier climes.

there are a number of points which are not correct in your analysis, but it starts with cutting taxes makes companies profitable.

When was the last time a company paid taxes on losses?

[Scott]

As interesting as a discussion of taxes and the economy would be, it is not relevant to this particular thread.