Archives

Dream Act: One more time

Accredited Legal Representative Gail Martinson (left) helped Islam and Carolina apply for DACA status. Since receiving DACA, they have both graduated from school as certified nurse assistants, and have been able to get driver’s licenses, buy their first house, and begin payment for their son’s heart surgery.

They grew up here, went to school here, work here, pay taxes here, raise their own children here – let them become citizens. That’s the gist of the latest Dream Act, unveiled Tuesday (July 20) by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). According to their one-page summary:

The Dream Act would allow these young people to earn lawful permanent residence and eventually American citizenship if they:

  • Are longtime residents who came to the U.S. as children;
  • Graduate from high school or obtain a GED;
  • Pursue higher education, work lawfully for at least 3 years, or serve in the military;
  • Pass security and law enforcement background checks and pay a reasonable application fee;
  • Demonstrate proficiency in the English language and a knowledge of United States history; and
  • Have not committed a felony or other serious crimes and do not pose a threat to our country.

This Dream Act is a successor to about a dozen earlier Dream Acts. Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the first one in 2001. A 2010 version passed the House of Representatives, which then had a Democratic majority, but couldn’t pass the Senate.

Continuing failure to get  a Dream Act passed led to President Obama’s 2012 action establishing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, more often known as DACA. Only Congress can establish a path to legal permanent residence and citizenship, so DACA works only as an order to defer deportation and allow a two-year work permit. DACA allowed two-year renewals of status in 2014 and 2016. Currently, about 800,000 young people have DACA protection.

DACA is under threat from a group of states led by Texas, who say they will mount a legal challenge to end DACA unless the president stops all renewals and new applications by September 5. It’s not clear whether the Trump administration will instruct the attorney general to defend DACA against such a lawsuit.

Despite Trump saying last week that Congress should solve the problem of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients through legislation, his aides said yesterday that he would oppose the Dream Act legislation.

For more information:

Here is the draft of a new ‘DREAM Act’ that Trump is already rejecting (McClatchey, 7/20/17)

“These kids are running out of asphalt. They’re running out of runway,” Graham of South Carolina said Thursday when announcing the legislation. “They came out of the shadows at the invitation of their government. They’ve identified themselves and their legal standing is now in question. It becomes an almost moral decision.”

Trump’s Sympathy For Dreamers Doesn’t Extend To Actual Legislation To Help Them (Huffington Post, 7/20/17)

“Graham said he thinks many Republicans would be in favor of allowing Dreamers to stay, especially if Kelly presented them with a plan to secure the border and deport criminals and other bad actors. If Trump assured the public the border was secure, Graham said, Republicans would believe him and be more willing to move forward.”

Valdez: Does this new, bipartisan Dream Act stand a chance? (Arizona Central, 7/19/17)

“Bipartisan compassion. Believe it or not.

“Can this thin vapor survive in an atmosphere thick with the venomous smoke of far-right wrath?

“The future of hundreds of thousands of young people depend on its survival. So does the soul of a great country.”

Graham tells Republicans “moment of reckoning” is coming on Dream Act (CBS, 7/20/17)

“The question for the Republican Party is, what do we tell these people? How do we treat them? Here’s my answer. We treat them fairly. We do not pull the rug out from under them,” Graham said, adding those immigrants, “are no more connected with a foreign country than I am.”

“So to President Trump, you’re going to have to make a decision,” Graham said. “The campaign is over. To the Republican Party, who are we? What do we believe? The moment of reckoning is coming. When they write the history of these times, I’m going to be with these kids.”

Durbin, Graham file Dream Act, hoping to ward off legal challenge to DACA (Washington Post, 7/20/17)

“Durbin said he is actively engaged with the White House on the issue. He first filed “dreamer” legislation 16 years ago; other versions passed the House in 2010 and in the Senate, as part of a larger immigration bill, in 2013. But no bill has ever been passed by both chambers.”

 

 

Getting to know new Minnesotans — Part Five: Mixed-status Minnesota families

Image by Ludovic Bertron, used under Creative Commons license

Fifty years ago in Minnesota, a “mixed marriage” meant a Lutheran marrying a Catholic and that meant trouble ahead. What church would they go to on Sunday morning? How would the children be raised? When the couple grew old and died, could they even be buried in the same cemetery? Today, those questions seem less momentous, just part of the negotiation of family life.

Immigrants made up 13.5 percent of the national population but only 8.3 percent of Minnesota’s population in 2015. The “Getting to know new Minnesotans” series explores some of Minnesota’s immigration picture. Click to read:

When immigration is the issue, however, mixed-status families still face tough issues. A mixed-status family is one in which family members have different immigration statuses. Immigration status comes in many varieties, including:

  • U.S. citizens
  • Immigrants with legal permanent residence (green cards)
  • Non-immigrants with temporary status, such as students or temporary workers
  • DACA permit holders
  • People with Temporary Protected Status
  • Unauthorized immigrants
  • Refugees and asylees

A mixed-status family might include parents and children with different statuses, siblings with different statuses, partners with different statuses, and differing configurations.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that 44,000 Minnesota children, including 32,000 U.S. citizen children, have parents who are unauthorized immigrants. Across the country, millions of people live in mixed-status families with at least one unauthorized immigrant member. And they live in fear.

Pepe and Lupita came from Mexico to the United States more than 20 years ago. They have two daughters, ages 10 and 14. They have worked hard, paid taxes, volunteer at their daughters’ schools, help out at soccer league games. A March 2017 Los Angeles Times article told their family’s story:

“Lupita and Pepe’s daughters are frightened. The children were born in the U.S., and so, unlike their parents, who overstayed their visitor visas, have all the rights of American citizens and are not subject to deportation. The 10-year-old is less aware of the threat than her 14-year-old sister. The teenager is given to crying bouts. ‘She doesn’t want to talk about it,’ explained Lupita. ‘I’ve told her that we have to be prepared. We’ve given her the option to stay or not, but she doesn’t know what to do.’”

Lupita and Pepe have prepared for the possibility of deportation, a possibility that looms larger and scarier than ever under the Trump administration. They have filled out power of attorney forms giving custody of the girls to Pepe’s parents, who are legal residents.

“’This is their country,’ [Lupita] said. ‘This is all they know. It will be devastating for them to go to a place they don’t know.’”

In Atlanta, a therapist described the impact on children in mixed-status families:

“We see a lot of anxiety. For every therapist, there are two or three cases of children whose families are dealing with some sort of immigration issue, whether that be that a parent is in jail, is free but awaiting deportation or they have witnessed a raid,” explained Juliao.

“Some children aren’t sleeping. They lose their appetite; they have nightmares. They don’t want to go to school, because they don’t want to leave mom or dad alone. Or they’re constantly crying, they’re more irritable and acting impulsively or angrily,” she added.

The Intercept reported on U.S. citizen children trying to adjust to life in Mexico, talking to Adrián Flores Ledesma, who works with education in Tijuana:

“’Generally these kids left everything behind, because from one day to the next it was an emergency situation,’ he said, ‘They left their clothes, their personal things, everything, and the next day they arrive in Tijuana. They get to a relative’s house, where they don’t fit, they don’t have a room, maybe they’re in the living room, no private bathroom. And all these things make them feel resentful of their parents, and think, why are they in Mexico, if they are Americans? So we also work with the parents, so they don’t feel that sense of guilt.’”

For mixed-status families, current U.S. immigration policy promotes family separation through deportation. Every day’s news brings more stories of families torn apart by deportation.

Every separated family, every fearful child is one more reason to work for comprehensive immigration reform, including a key goal of family reunification.

Hennepin sheriff’s cooperation with ICE raises outcry

Hennepin County Sheriff Richard Stanek is under fire from county officials and advocates who argue his office does too much to help immigration authorities — even as the Trump administration called him out recently for not cooperating enough.

Immigration cases in the 2017 term of the Supreme Court

The article discusses three key cases for the 2017 term: travel ban, immigrant detention and bond hearings, aggravated felonies.

  1. The travel ban cases, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Projectand Trump v. Hawaii,consolidated for hearing in this term.
  2. Jennings v. Rodriguez,a class action challenge to immigrant detention that was heard in the 2016 term, but is scheduled for rehearing in 2017, probably signaling a close division of the court in 2016.
  3. Sessions v. Dimaya ,also set for rehearing, involves a void-for-vagueness challenge to the “aggravated felony” and “crime of violence” provisions of immigration law. Dimaya was ordered deported because of two residential burglaries, which did not involve violence.

Texas launches new threat to DACA

Attorneys general from Texas and nine other states threatened DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on June 29. In a three-page letter, they denounced DACA and asked that the administration rescind the original DACA memorandum and phase out the DACA program by not renewing any DACA permits and not issuing any new ones. The letter says:

“If, by September 5, 2017, the Executive Branch agrees to rescind the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum and not to renew or issue any new DACA or Expanded DACA permits in the future, then the plaintiffs that successfully challenged DAPA and Expanded DACA will voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit currently pending in the Southern District of Texas. Otherwise, the complaint in that case will be amended to challenge both the DACA program and the remaining Expanded DACA permits.”

On June 15, the fifth anniversary of DACA, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum saying that it would no longer defend DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Permanent Residents) and DACA+ in federal district court, effectively killing both measures. (DACA+ would have removed the requirement that DACA applicants be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. DACA+ also allowed a three-year work permit extension, rather than the two-year extension allowed by the first DACA memorandum.)

In that memorandum, the Department of Homeland Security said that DACA would remain in effect. A DHS spokesperson then said in a New York Times interview that there had been “no final determination made about the DACA program.”

DACA recipients still have no path to legal residence or citizenship. Their temporary and limited protection remains dependent on the continuing acquiescence of the Trump administration, which could terminate DACA by executive action at any time. President Trump has said different things at different times, sometimes threatening to end DACA entirely and sometimes saying DACA recipients “shouldn’t be worried.

The Texas attorney general and his nine colleagues are pushing for the administration to reverse course and end DACA. The administration has several options available:

  • It could do nothing and allow DACA to continue for now, but make no provision for further renewals of DACA status and work authorizations after 2018.
  • It could terminate DACA but leave authorizations in effect for people who are already covered, as the Texas attorney general requests.
  • It could stop accepting first-time applications, but continue to allow people with DACA to renew it.

The BRIDGE Act, introduced in both the House and Senate this year, would be a legislative extension of DACA, but still without any path to legal residence or citizenship.

At this point, it’s hard to predict whether the Trump administration will keep DACA in effect or not.

For more information: