By: Denise Simon | Political Vanguard
He admitted it.
Obama said he was not a king when it came to the failed immigration reform legislation coming out of the Senate. He signed the Executive Order anyway.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is now accepting requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Under this process, USCIS will consider requests on a case-by-case basis.
While this process does not provide lawful status or a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship, individuals whose cases are deferred will not be removed from the United States for a two-year period, subject to renewal, and may also receive employment authorization.
To be considered for this process, you must show that:
- You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday
- You have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time
- You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012
- You entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.html
- You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained your certificate of completion from high school, have obtained your general educational development certification, or you are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States
- You have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat
- You were present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
The operate phrase above is: to be considered. That does not translate to all would be accepted, yet the legal standoff on the matter has not been legally challenged. Why it has not is the big question.
President Obama also signed an Executive Order for DAPA. That covers the issue of the parents. That was legally challenged at the Supreme Court level. However, the Supreme Court split on the issue 4 – 4. As a result, the lower court prevailed and DAPA was stopped. So, is there a difference in the spirit of the two Executive Orders? No.
The new crossroad facing the Trump administration is what to do with the 800,000 DACA status people and risk shutting down the government as well as funding the requested $18 billion to build the wall.
The Trump administration has many cards to play in this debate and it should begin with the DACA Executive Order being challenged in court, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court, such that DACA for the time being is removed from the whole debate.
Chain migration is also a major immigration issue. And rightly so. The U.S. accepts about a million legal immigrants every year. According to a recent study, of the 33 million legal immigrants admitted over the last 35 years, about 61 percent were chain migration immigrants.
The average immigrant has sponsored 3.45 additional immigrants, but for DACA beneficiaries, that number is likely to be much higher. That is because, according to an analysis by the Department of Homeland Security, 76 percent of the DACA beneficiaries were from Mexico. Mexican immigrants sponsor an average of 6.38 additional legal immigrants—the highest rate of any nationality for chain migration.
Providing a form of amnesty would simply attract even more illegal immigration and would not solve the myriad of enforcement problems we have along our borders and in the interior of the country. Congress should concentrate on giving the federal government (with the assistance and help of state and local governments) the resources to enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S. and stem entry into the country.
Until those goals are accomplished, it is premature to even consider any DACA-type bill.
So, who is advising President Trump and why are the Democrats not being challenged when it comes to legalities of it all?
A Stanford Law professor that supports DACA and DAPA supports the argument presented here. In part:
President Obama’s lawyers defended his actions as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Why was that not correct, or was it?
The DACA and DAPA orders went well beyond the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. They purported to give their beneficiaries a form of lawful presence, entitling them to work permits and a variety of government benefits. Prosecutorial discretion means the executive will not take legal action against a law breaker in a particular case; it does not make the conduct lawful. So the answer: No.
President Trump should completely eliminate DACA from the whole process and add in a few other items that will spin the heads of the Schumers and Pelosis. They include defunding Planned Parenthood, The Consumer Financial Protection Board, The National Labor Relations Board and the Export Import Bank for starters. They too are unconstitutional and without oversight.
If Obama had the power of the pen and the phone, so does Donald Trump.