DACA in the Supreme Court and Beyond

November 12, 2019 – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legality of the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals’ (DACA) program. Lower courts have uniformly concluded that the termination of DACA was unlawful. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by the end of its term in June 2020.

Whatever decision the Supreme Court makes, DACA recipients need a secure path to permanent residence and citizenship. Congress must act to create that path.

At today’s oral argument, the government contended that the decision to end DACA was not subject to judicial review. They also argued that the administration’s reasons for ending DACA were sound. The plaintiffs—who included DACA recipients, several states, and social justice organizations—responded that the Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction to review the termination of a program upon which hundreds of thousands of young Dreamers had relied. The plaintiffs also pointed out that the administration’s stated reason for ending DACA—that the program is illegal—was incorrect and inadequate.

The Court’s decision could take a number of paths. The Court could conclude that it lacks authority to review the termination of DACA or determine that the decision to do so was permissible, both of which would result in the end of DACA. On the other hand, the Court could decide that the decision to end DACA was unlawful, which would result in DACA continuing for current recipients—and possibly even being available to new recipients—if and until the administration provides a proper justification for rescinding the program.

“ILCM worked hard to see DACA take effect, and we continue to defend the Dreamers of today and tomorrow, by conducting outreach, assisting current DACA recipients with renewals, and signing on to a friend-of-court brief submitted in the Supreme Court case,” said Veena Iyer, executive director of ILCM. “As of August 2018, 5,670 Minnesotans had received DACA status. They are our family, friends, neighbors, classmates, colleagues, classmates, teachers, doctors, and lawyers. The administration should not be permitted to evict these Dreamers from the only home they have ever known. Congress must act to give them permanent protection. Their home is here.”

New applications for DACA are no longer being accepted, but renewal applications are still being processed. ILCM urges individuals who have been granted DACA to renew their DACA status. Persons living anywhere in Minnesota can call ILCM at 651-641-1011 or 1-800-223-1368 to schedule an appointment.

Highlighting Immigrant Stories in Austin, Minnesota

More than 10% of Austin, Minnesota residents are immigrants. Recently, we talked to three ILCM clients in Austin about their experiences of immigration and the United States.

Layiet is a student at Riverland Community College. Her family is from Gambela, Ethiopia, though she was born in South Sudan. She and her family came to the United States as refugees when she was around five years old, and she grew up with a good understanding of both American and African cultures.

(Layiet by Sara Karki for ILCM)

At home, Layiet speaks her native language and is immersed in Ethiopian culture. But “[w]hen I leave my house,” she says “it’s like I’m a different person than I am at home.”  Layiet explains, “everything American culture, I have to be immersed in it.”

Once she has finishes her studies, Layiet hopes to go back to Ethiopia. “I went to America for opportunity, to learn how to do things and then take [those skills] back home,” she said. “America doesn’t need me because it’s already a first world country. If I don’t go back and help, who will?”

“The life I’m living right now,” Layiet says, “I’m living for me and my mom because she didn’t have this opportunity. I’m blessed to be in this position because most people don’t get this opportunity and I want to use it to help others.”

Originally from Burma (Myanmar), Thatcher spent time in a refugee camp in Thailand before coming to the United States. Speaking of her time as a refugee, Thatcher says she didn’t have freedom or a place to call home. While in the camp, she applied several times to go to Finland, where her sister lived, but it never worked out. “I guess God wanted to bring me here,” she said.

She heard about the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) from her husband. Thatcher had known her now-husband in the refugee camp, though they didn’t talk to each other. “He was my crush,” she said with a laugh.

When Thatcher wished to become a citizen, her husband introduced her to ILCM. ILCM Staff Attorney Sara Karki remembers having to inform an eager Thatcher that she had to live in the United States for a few more years to be eligible for citizenship. Once that time had elapsed, Thatcher returned with her husband and child, and Sara assisted the family to become citizens.

(Thatcher by Sara Karki for ILCM)

“After I became a U.S. citizen, I felt so great,” Thatcher said, “I’m so happy it’s my home and my country!” She registered to vote at her naturalization ceremony and is excited to vote in the future. She is also looking forward to being able to travel abroad now that she is a citizen. “I am more than blessed to be an American citizen,” she said. “I know I am free and I am in a place where everybody is being treated fairly with equal rights. I thank God for not just putting me in a safe place, but for putting me in a place where I can call home.”

Ninn came to the United States after living in a refugee camp in Thailand. “We didn’t have a future there,” Ninn said of the camp. “[We could only] do work today, and spend money today—we were poor, and had no opportunity, nothing to dream for.” Coming to the United States gave Ninn “a new perspective” on life.

Since arriving in the United States six years ago, Ninn has graduated from Riverland Community College.  She now works as a success coach for Austin Public Schools. “I’m doing the job that I love,” she said. “It’s just the most amazing thing when you’re doing the thing you love and helping people.”

Ninn also recently became a citizen, which she considers the best moment of her life. She said that at her naturalization ceremony, “[e]veryone had a big smile on their face—including me!” In the future, Ninn is interested in being a nurse or a teacher. “I want to do a job that makes me happy and also lets me help others, especially anyone who is in need,” she said.

Public Charge Blocked Nationwide

Photo by Mary Turck

October 11, 2019 – Today, two injunctions were issued blocking the Trump administration from implementing a new public charge rule. The nationwide preliminary injunctions issued in State of New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security and State of Washington v. United States Department of Homeland Security (in which the State of Minnesota is a plaintiff) prevent application of the rule to refuse admission to immigrants who use certain public benefits such as Medicaid, SNAP, and affordable housing. These lawsuits were two of nine legal challenges filed across the country.

The Immigrant law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) is part of one of the nine legal challenges. Along with the City of Baltimore and five other plaintiffs, ILCM challenged the constitutionality and legality of the changes to public charge in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Baltimore earlier this month. The complaint argued that “the Public Charge Rule makes dramatic changes to immigration policy that are designed to reduce legal immigration levels and to disfavor poorer immigrants and immigrants of color.” The consequences of immigrants and their families giving up needed health care, food, and affordable housing would be felt not just by immigrants and their families, but also by all members of our communities.

“ILCM celebrates the blocking of the public charge rule,” said Veena Iyer, executive director of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. “The rule would harm residents, communities, and economies all across Minnesota and the country. While we celebrate, we also recognize that there is still work to do. This injunction does not block public charge permanently. We hope this decision can serve as a positive indication for our own legal challenge. We want to see this public charge rule blocked nationally and for good.”

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota Files Brief Supporting DACA in U.S. Supreme Court

October 7, 2019 – On October 4, the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) joined other legal services organizations in filing a brief before the Supreme Court in the cases challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in these cases on November 12, with a decision expected by June 2020.

“DACA recipients are our fellow Minnesotans, our co-workers, our friends.” said ILCM Executive Director Veena Iyer. “Most came to the United States as young children. They have lived here for an average of 20 years. This is their home, and they belong here.”

Most DACA recipients are part of mixed-immigration status families, and DACA recipients are parents of 256,000 U.S. citizen children. The U.S. public overwhelmingly supports keeping these families together and giving DACA recipients a path to permanent status in the United States.

DACA recipients go to school and work and contribute to the U.S. economy. Nationally, DACA recipients and their households pay $5.7 billion in federal taxes and $3.1 billion in state taxes annually.

The three cases consolidated for oral argument on November 12 are Regents of the University of California, et al. v. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS), Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and NAACP v. Trump. Because of existing court orders, individuals who currently have or previously had DACA can continue to apply for renewal of their DACA status during the pendency of this litigation. ILCM regularly assists individuals with DACA with renewing their status.

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota Files Legal Challenge to Public Charge Regulation

October 1, 2019—In a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Baltimore, the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota challenged the constitutionality and legality of recent changes to the public charge rule applied to immigrants. ILCM joined the City of Baltimore and five other plaintiffs in this challenge, which is one of at least nine legal challenges filed across the country.

The new rule sets an unprecedented high bar for demonstrating that applicants for legal permanent residence (green cards) and family-based visas are not now and never will be dependent on public assistance. In addition to marking receipt of certain public benefits as evidence of “public charge,” the rule applies to millions of immigrants holding down full-time but low-paying jobs. In short, says the complaint, “The Public Charge Rule makes dramatic changes to immigration policy that are designed to reduce legal immigration levels and to disfavor poorer immigrants and immigrants of color.”

“The public charge rule is one more example of the heartless anti-immigrant policies promulgated by this administration,” said Lenore Millibergity, senior attorney at the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. “Immigrants are not a burden on our public benefits. They are less likely to use public benefit programs, using fewer welfare and entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans.”

During the public comment period, the Department of Human Services received more than a quarter of a million comments on the rule, and the overwhelming majority of these comments opposed the rule.