New Relief for Kids Announced June 15, 2012

BigJoe5

Registered Users (C)
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/2...deferred-action-process-for-young-people.shtm

Secretary Napolitano Announces Deferred Action Process for Young People Who Are Low Enforcement Priorities

Release Date: June 15, 2012

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

An excerpt:

DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources 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. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis:

Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

Are not above the age of thirty.

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.
 
this is a nice step, but just that. it is not relief from deportation, and does not insure that if you come forward you will not be deported at some later time under this administration, say if they decide to use undocumented persons as poker chips in a bargain with republicans or if a new administration comes in that decides to change or rollback the order. you are taking a leap of faith by adding yourself to the rolls.
 
Then, there is also a question of whether the President overstepped his authority by granting de-facto an amnesty (albeit "temporarily" indefinite) to a specific group of undocumented aliens. As usual, the answer lies along partisan lines, but what I would not recommend these kids is to step out of the shadow before they make sure the current administration will stay in place for the next 4 years.
 
It's not amnesty. It's only temporary reprieve for 2 years, and there's no path to citizenship. It's a nudge that will hopefully lead to more substantive options for these people, which they really do deserve. The age cap at 30 is also a bit arbitrary, and it needs to be reconsidered.
 
Then, there is also a question of whether the President overstepped his authority by granting de-facto an amnesty (albeit "temporarily" indefinite) to a specific group of undocumented aliens. As usual, the answer lies along partisan lines, but what I would not recommend these kids is to step out of the shadow before they make sure the current administration will stay in place for the next 4 years.

While the President is reaping all the political glory he can out of this thing, it was actually a memo issued by Secretary Napolitano.

See that memo here: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/...on-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf
 
It's not amnesty. It's only temporary reprieve for 2 years, and there's no path to citizenship. It's a nudge that will hopefully lead to more substantive options for these people, which they really do deserve. The age cap at 30 is also a bit arbitrary, and it needs to be reconsidered.

Yes, it is not obvious why there should be an age cap, although many Dream Act proposals seem to have some kind of upper bound. The age cap in particular causes me to be quite skeptical of these proposals, making me think that their real purpose is to provide a pool of relatively inexpensive labor for American employers, rather than the stated purpose of being an act of compassion.

We are often asked to have compassion for these "Dream Act" people because in many cases they speak on only English and do not even speak the language of their original country. Yet it is well known that the older someone gets, the harder it is to pick up a new language--so if this were about compassion, shouldn't the OLDER people be a more sympathetic group to get "Dream Act" consideration? Sending a 50 year old who speaks only English back to their original country is a far more cruel act than doing the same to a 20 year old.
 
Yes, it is not obvious why there should be an age cap, although many Dream Act proposals seem to have some kind of upper bound. The age cap in particular causes me to be quite skeptical of these proposals, making me think that their real purpose is to provide a pool of relatively inexpensive labor for American employers, rather than the stated purpose of being an act of compassion.

We are often asked to have compassion for these "Dream Act" people because in many cases they speak on only English and do not even speak the language of their original country. Yet it is well known that the older someone gets, the harder it is to pick up a new language--so if this were about compassion, shouldn't the OLDER people be a more sympathetic group to get "Dream Act" consideration? Sending a 50 year old who speaks only English back to their original country is a far more cruel act than doing the same to a 20 year old.

The targeted group were brought here in waves. Following the legalization programs of the mid-1980s and early 1990s, waves of illegal entrants came with babies and toddlers in tow or smuggled them in afterwards. Those children are being disconnected from the unlawful acts of their parents. Their parents are the ones who are 40 to 60 years old and have been here for 2 or 3 decades and probably can't speak enough English to get by in regular society and stay in enclaves taking crappy jobs nobody else wants. The people who match that demographic but entered LEGALLY will eventually meet the section 312 exception and still be able to naturalize some day.

No politician wants to reward the blatant law breakers but those same politicians might show compassion for the kids who were dragged along for the ride into American poverty.
 
The targeted group were brought here in waves. Following the legalization programs of the mid-1980s and early 1990s, waves of illegal entrants came with babies and toddlers in tow or smuggled them in afterwards. Those children are being disconnected from the unlawful acts of their parents. Their parents are the ones who are 40 to 60 years old and have been here for 2 or 3 decades and probably can't speak enough English to get by in regular society and stay in enclaves taking crappy jobs nobody else wants. The people who match that demographic but entered LEGALLY will eventually meet the section 312 exception and still be able to naturalize some day.

True that "wave" of children probably won't include anyone who is 40-60 today. But someone brought here as a child in 1990 could well be over 30 today so it is not clear why they should be excluded.
 
True that "wave" of children probably won't include anyone who is 40-60 today. But someone brought here as a child in 1990 could well be over 30 today so it is not clear why they should be excluded.

Also the 1986 amnesty required immigrants to have come here before 1982 (about 30 years ago now). So presumably some people have been here (unlawfully) for about 30 years now and just missed qualifying for the 1986 amnesty. If they were brought here as a child (up to age 16) they could be as old as 46 now.

So yes there probably aren't a lot of 50 year olds in the targeted group. But, were it not for the upper bound, it would seem the targeted group might include people as old as about 46.

And I'm contending that the OLDER someone--within that demographic--is, the more sympathetic their case is--and that the common view--to tend to favor the YOUNGER members of the demographic--is the wrong approach to the "Dream Act".
 
I can't find the order. I was just wondering because I think I read it somewhere, or heard Bill Maher say it.

You heard various political opponents of the President emphatically declare that the President issued an Executive Order for political gain. They were being political themselves. Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and numerous pundits on Fox imitation News have lied so blatantly and frequently with impunity that the public doesn't realize that it is a lie.
 
but what I would not recommend these kids is to step out of the shadow before they make sure the current administration will stay in place for the next 4 years.

i agree, and though i am a registered independent i do support reform. i do not know where you fall as i do not know your affiliation, but i can see you don't support reform as you used the term "amnesty." i do agree people should be very careful about signing up just yet. they will be on record and the executive order does not immunize them from deportation. further even if they stay in power he may change his mind. this very move shows his willingness to use people as poker chips and he may change his mind for political gain at a later time. then those on the list will be deported. remember, he promised to be the man of hope and change including all his talk of immigration reform. he them got elected and deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president in us history. that is fact. that also means he broke up more families than any other president via immigration and created more orphans that way also. he needs to commit and be the man those of us that voted for him believed he would be as he said he would.
 
i agree, and though i am a registered independent i do support reform. i do not know where you fall as i do not know your affiliation, but i can see you don't support reform as you used the term "amnesty." i do agree people should be very careful about signing up just yet. they will be on record and the executive order does not immunize them from deportation. further even if they stay in power he may change his mind. this very move shows his willingness to use people as poker chips and he may change his mind for political gain at a later time. then those on the list will be deported. remember, he promised to be the man of hope and change including all his talk of immigration reform. he them got elected and deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president in us history. that is fact. that also means he broke up more families than any other president via immigration and created more orphans that way also. he needs to commit and be the man those of us that voted for him believed he would be as he said he would.

It is not an Executive Order. It was a policy memo from the Secretary.
 
i do not know where you fall as i do not know your affiliation, but i can see you don't support reform as you used the term "amnesty."
I am registered as an independent because my views are too complex to fall under "democrat" or "republican". I am in the progressive camp when it comes to social policies, economy and ecology. I do believe that as the society is evolving further, a government should generally play a more active role in a society. Universal healthcare, heavy subsidising of clean environmental forms of energy, more anti-monopoly regulations, marriage equality and women choice - is what I believe in. However, when it comes to immigration, I am not in a stereotypical "liberal" camp. I believe that the immigration system should be fair for all - if I followed the rules, then everybody else should as well. That is why I am not in favour of the DREAM Act or any amnesty-like acts in general. Unfortunately, the issue of immigration became a favourite political point for both democrats and republicans, especially during an election season. It is too much of a coincidence that Obama gave reprieve to potential DREAM Act recipient 5 months before the election - I simply do not buy it.

this very move shows his willingness to use people as poker chips and he may change his mind for political gain at a later time.
You go too far in predicting what can happen in the future. I personally do not think he would do that because these pardoned young undocumented aliens are potential Democratic voters some 10-20 years down the road.

he them got elected and deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president in us history. that is fact. that also means he broke up more families than any other president via immigration and created more orphans that way also.
To be fair to the President, it should be mentioned that those deported are mostly the aliens with extensive criminal history. The current administration concentrated their efforts on deporting those undocumented aliens who commit crimes. So, even though the number of deportations indeed increased, I can hardly think it is a bad thing.

he needs to commit and be the man those of us that voted for him believed he would be as he said he would.
He never promised to stop enforcing immigration law or open up borders because as a president, he simply cannot do it. If you want the law to be changed, you have to go through [a very inefficient and partisan] Congress.
 
This message was just sent from USCIS:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
5:29 PM Eastern Time (1 minute ago) July 2, 2012

to me
Dear Stakeholder

On June 15, 2012, Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum directing DHS components to exercise prosecutorial discretion on an individualized basis with respect to certain individuals who came to the United States as children. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), invite any interested individuals to participate in our second joint national engagement to provide further detail regarding the implementation of Secretary Napolitano’s memorandum on Monday, July 9, 2012 from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm (Eastern). Additional information on the announcement can be found here.

Featured speakers will be:
David Aguilar, Acting Commissioner, CBP
Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, USCIS
John Morton, Director, ICE
To Participate in the July 9 Conference Call
Please use the information below to join the session. We recommend calling-in 20 minutes prior to the start of the teleconference.
Call-in Number: 1-888-928-9525
Passcode: DHS

This call is intended for stakeholders only. Members of the media should call (202)282-8010 with inquiries.

Kind Regards,

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security
 
Big Joe, could you please explain who is considered a stakeholder with respect to the DHS?

Lawyers, advocacy groups, community-based organizations, Congressional staffers, members of the public who may want to apply for something. [A benefit or "relief from removal".]

They do NOT want the press to report misinformation so they give the press a direct line of inquiry, hence they tell the press to not tie up the phone lines in these calls.

MOST Stakeholders gather in groups and call-in that way so they don't clog the phone lines. That would be the "whole office" gathering in a conference room to call in.

Some local and state government agencies such as DMV, state universities, community colleges [admissions and financial aid], welfare offices in various counties and/or states, consumer protection agencies, charitable organizations whether BIA Recognized or not and their staffers whether BIA Accredited or not, need to know this stuff so they can warn the general public against fraudsters, especially internet scams and "notarios".
 
Top