Dream Act

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares169 Views

    US federal judge rules revised Daca policy illegal and halts new applications

    by

    A federal judge on Wednesday declared illegal a revised version of a federal policy that prevents the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children.US district judge Andrew Hanen agreed with Texas and eight other states suing to stop the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program. The judge’s ruling was ultimately expected to be appealed to the US supreme court, sending the program’s fate before the high court for a third time.“While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time,” Hanen wrote in his 40-page ruling. “The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation … The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution – even to fill a void.”Hanen barred the government from approving any new applications, but left the program intact for existing recipients during the expected appeals process. Hanen said his order does not require the federal government to take any actions against Daca recipients.Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing Daca recipients in the lawsuit, said it will ultimately be up to higher courts, including the supreme court, to rule on Daca’s legality and whether Texas proved it had been harmed by the program.“Judge Hanen has consistently erred in resolving both of these issues, and today’s ruling is more of the same flawed analysis. We look forward to continuing to defend the lawful and much-needed Daca program on review in higher courts,” Saenz said.The Texas attorney general’s office, which represented the states in the lawsuit, and the US Department of Justice, which represented the federal government, didn’t immediately return emails or calls seeking comment.The states have argued the Obama administration didn’t have the authority to first create the program in 2012 because it circumvented Congress.In 2021, Hanen had declared the program illegal, ruling it had not been subject to public notice and comment periods required under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.The Biden administration tried to satisfy Hanen’s concerns with a new version of Daca that took effect in October 2022 and was subject to public comments as part of a formal rule-making process.But Hanen, who was appointed by then-President George W Bush in 2002, ruled the updated version of Daca was still illegal. He had previously said Daca was unconstitutional and it would be up to Congress to enact legislation shielding people under the program, often known as “Dreamers”.Hanen also had previously ruled the states had standing to file their lawsuit because they had been harmed by the program.The states have claimed they incur hundreds of millions of dollars in health care, education and other costs when immigrants are allowed to remain in the country illegally. The states that sued are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.Those defending the program – the federal government, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the state of New Jersey – had argued the states failed to present evidence that any of the costs they allege they have incurred have been tied to Daca recipients. They also argued Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security the legal authority to set immigration enforcement policies.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDespite previously declaring the Daca program illegal, Hanen had left the Obama-era program intact for those already benefiting from it. But he had ruled there could be no new applicants while appeals were pending.There were 578,680 people enrolled in Daca at the end of March, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.The program has faced a roller coaster of court challenges over the years.In 2016, the supreme court deadlocked 4-4 over an expanded Daca and a version of the program for parents of Daca recipients. In 2020, the high court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration improperly ended Daca, allowing it to stay in place.In 2022, the 5th US circuit court of appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen’s earlier ruling declaring Daca illegal, but sent the case back to him to review changes made to the program by the Biden administration.President Joe Biden and advocacy groups have called on Congress to pass permanent protections for “dreamers”. Congress has failed multiple times to pass proposals called the Dream Act to protect Daca recipients. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I can’t plan ahead’: Dreamers speak out as US program faces new threat

      by

      ‘I can’t plan ahead’: Dreamers speak out as US program faces new threatImmigrants express frustration as nine Republican-led states ask judge to end Obama-era program that gives temporary deportation relief It’s been almost 10 years since Areli Hernandez received her first US government work permit in her mailbox. Hernandez remembers staring at her own photograph and touching the scripted name on the card in disbelief, feeling that a long-sought dream had finally materialized.US court orders review of landmark immigration program for DreamersRead moreBut earlier this week, the program that gives temporary deportation relief to Hernandez and hundreds of thousands of other immigrants known as Dreamers, allowing a chance to live and work legally in the US, came under threat once again in a federal court.Nine Republican-led states asked Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) policy, a request that if successful would stop nearly 600,000 immigrants brought to the US as undocumented children from being able to renew their work permits and continue to be protected from potential deportation.“I can’t plan ahead because my future consists of judges’ decisions,” said Hernandez, who was born in Mexico City and brought to the US at the age of five in the late 1980s. Hernandez was referring to her own Daca status, which is set to expire later this year. “I want to make choices that don’t depend on my card and an expiration date.”The latest filing from the coalition of states led by Texas denounced Daca as “unlawful” and “unconstitutional”. The states urged Hanen to strike down the program, which was fortified by the Biden administration as a federal regulation last year after originally being created by the Obama administration in 2012.Since its implementation, Daca has lifted the threat of deportation for approximately 825,000 individuals lacking legal status who were brought to the US by age 16 and before 15 June 2007, have studied in a US school or served in the military and don’t have a serious criminal record.The name Dreamers originated with a bill first proposed in the 2001-2002 Congress, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act, but which did not pass. Obama referred to these so-called Dreamers as “young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans”.Daca was meant to be a stopgap until Congress passed immigration reform legislation and put Dreamers like Hernandez on a path to US citizenship. That has not happened and instead the program – and Dreamers’ futures – end up batted back and forth by the courts.Last year Kevin McCarthy, now speaker of the House, called “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants a “nonstarter” and the only immigration policy his Republican House majority would support was “securing” the US-Mexico border.Donald Trump had announced as president that he was scrapping Daca. This was blocked by the courts, including the US supreme court in 2020, but still left Dreamers in turmoil.Then-rival presidential candidate Joe Biden pledged that he would change things, saying: “As president, I will immediately work to make Daca permanent by sending a bill to Congress on day one of my administration.”Biden did so, but immigration reform legislation is still stuck in Congress. Then states hostile to Daca persuaded Hanen in July 2021 to ban new applicants.Hernandez was a student in southern California in the early 2000s, before Daca.She told the Guardian this week: “I learned that I couldn’t be a social worker because in order to apply for a license I needed a social security number,” adding that as an undocumented immigrant: “I was also looking at programs that had federal grants that required US citizenship, and again, I couldn’t.”She worked as a janitor before graduating in psychology from California State University, Northridge, then spent years working under weekly or monthly contracts in jobs unrelated to her degree.It wasn’t until Hernandez, 39, became a Daca recipient in 2013 that she landed a full-time position at the non-profit Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (Chirla), where she earned enough to do a master’s in public administration, and is now director of executive affairs.Many of the almost 600,000 current Dreamers are essential workers who have supported the nation’s classrooms and hospitals throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. They are also sports stars, award-winning journalists and academics, or successful in countless other walks of life.Dreamers pump billions into the US economy and, according to the progressive thinktank the Center for American Progress, households with Daca recipients pay almost $10bn in taxes each year.When the Dream Act was introduced on Capitol Hill in 2001, Juliana Macedo do Nascimento coincidentally arrived in Buena Park, Orange county, California, from Brazil at the age of 14.Since 2001 at least 11 versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress but never passed.“We really see the cruelty of what Texas and the other plaintiffs are asking for, it’s just anti-immigrant rhetoric,” said Macedo do Nascimento, who now lives in Baltimore. “It’s all part of this narrative that mostly brown people shouldn’t be in this country.”Her current Daca protections expire in March 2024 and Dreamers once again wait in anxious limbo, first for Hanen’s ruling then, if he agrees to shut down Daca, the likely Biden appeal all the way back up to the now-conservative-controlled supreme court.“Daca recipients are allowed to buy houses, buy cars, and have these long-term debts,” said Macedo do Nascimento, 37, referring to the typical American burdens of student loans, mortgages and vehicle financing. “But we can’t plan a family. We deserve a path to citizenship, it will allow us to have a sense of security.”TopicsDream ActUS immigrationUS politicsTexasMexicofeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US court orders review of landmark immigration program for Dreamers

      by

      US court orders review of landmark immigration program for DreamersDaca is expected to go to the US supreme court for a third time A ruling by a US appeals court has again thrown into question the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program, which prevents the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought into the United States as children.The fifth US circuit court of appeals decided on Wednesday that a federal district judge in Texas who last year declared Daca illegal, should take another look at the program, following revisions the Biden administration adopted in August.The Texas judge, Andrew Hanen, had found that the program had not been subjected to public notice and comment periods required under the federal administrative procedures act. But he left the program temporarily intact for those already benefiting from it, pending the appeal.Wednesday’s ruling by three judges of the New Orleans-based fifth circuit upholds the judge’s initial finding. But it sends the case back to him for a look at a new version of the rule issued by the Biden administration in late August. The new rule takes effect 31 October.“A district court is in the best position to review the administrative record in the rule-making proceeding,” said the opinion by chief fifth circuit judge Priscilla Richman, nominated to the court by President George W Bush. The other panel members were judges Kurt Engelhardt and James Ho, both appointees of President Donald Trump.“It appears that the status quo for Daca remains,” said Veronica Garcia, an attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, an advocacy organization.Daca was adopted by former President Barack Obama’s administration and has had a complicated ride through federal court challenges. The new rules by the Biden administration are largely technical and represent little substantive change from the 2012 memo that created Daca, but it was subject to public comments as part of a formal rule-making process intended to improve its chances of surviving legal muster.In July arguments at the fifth circuit, the US justice department defended the program, allied with the state of New Jersey, immigrant advocacy organizations and a coalition of dozens of powerful corporations, including Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft.They argued that Daca recipients have grown up to become productive drivers of the US economy, holding and creating jobs and spending money.Texas, joined by eight other Republican-leaning states argued that they are harmed financially, incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare, education and other costs, when immigrants are allowed to remain in the country illegally. They also argued that the White House overstepped its authority by granting immigration benefits that are for Congress to decide.Daca is widely expected to go to the supreme court for a third time. In 2016, the supreme court deadlocked 4-4 over an expanded Daca and a version of the program for parents of Daca recipients, keeping in place a lower court decision for the benefits to be blocked. In 2020, the high court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration improperly ended Daca by failing to follow federal procedures, allowing it to stay in place.Daca recipients have become a powerful political force even though they can’t vote, but their efforts to achieve a path to citizenship through Congress have repeatedly fallen short. Any imminent threat to lose work authorization and to expose themselves to deportation could pressure Congress into protecting them, even as a stopgap measure.The Biden administration disappointed some pro-Daca advocates with its conservative legal strategy of keeping age eligibility unchanged. Daca recipients had to have been in the United States in June 2007, an increasingly out-of-reach requirement. The average age of a Daca recipient was 28.2 years at the end of March, compared to 23.8 years in September 2017.There were 611,270 people enrolled in Daca at the end of March, including 494,350, or 81%, from Mexico and large numbers from Guatemala, Honduras, Peru and South Korea. TopicsDream ActUS immigrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      New York City’s noncitizens will soon be allowed to vote in local elections

      by

      New York City’s noncitizens will soon be allowed to vote in local elections A measure approved Thursday makes it the largest city to open the ballot box to its 800,000 green card holders and Dreamers New York City could soon become the largest city in the US to give noncitizens the right to vote in local elections, a historic move that would open the ballot box to 800,000 green card holders and Dreamers.The city council approved the measure on Thursday. Only a potential veto from mayor Bill de Blasio stands in the way of the measure becoming law, but the Democrat has said he would not veto it.The council’s vote was a breakthrough moment for an effort that had long languished. Councilman Francisco Moya, whose family hails from Ecuador, choked up as he spoke in support of the bill.New Yorkers reject expanded voting access in stunning resultRead more“This is for my beautiful mother who will be able to vote for her son,” said Moya, while joining the session by video with his immigrant mother at his side.Legally documented, voting-age noncitizens comprise nearly one in nine of the city’s 7 million voting-age inhabitants. The measure would allow noncitizens who have been lawful permanent residents of the city for at least 30 days, as well as those authorized to work in the US, including Dreamers, the children of undocumented immigrants, to help select the city’s mayor, city council members, borough presidents, comptroller and public advocate.“It is no secret, we are making history today. Fifty years down the line when our children look back at this moment they will see a diverse coalition of advocates who came together to write a new chapter in New York City’s history by giving immigrant New Yorkers the power of the ballot,” said councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez, a main sponsor of the bill, after Thursday’s vote.More than a dozen communities across the United States already allow noncitizens to cast ballots in local elections, including 11 towns in Maryland and two in Vermont. But New York City is the largest place by far to give voting rights to noncitizens.Noncitizens still wouldn’t be able to vote for president or members of Congress in federal races, or in the state elections that pick the governor, judges and legislators. The city’s move is likely to enflame an already contentious debate over voting rights. Last year, Alabama, Colorado and Florida adopted rules that would preempt any attempts to pass laws like the one in New York City. Arizona and North Dakota already had prohibitions on the books.“The bill we’re doing today will have national repercussions,” said the council’s majority leader, Laurie Cumbo, a Democrat who opposed the bill. She expressed concern that the measure could diminish the influence of African American voters.Noncitizens wouldn’t be allowed to vote until elections in 2023.It’s unclear whether the bill might face legal challenges. City councilman Joseph Borelli, the Republican leader, said such a challenge is likely. Opponents say the council lacks the authority on its own to grant voting rights to noncitizens and should have first sought action by state lawmakers.TopicsNew YorkUS voting rightsUS immigrationUS politicsDream ActnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Explainer: what is Daca and who are the Dreamers?

      by

      The federal government program created in 2012 protects more than 650,000 undocumented immigrants in the US Demonstrators rally outside the US Supreme Court in Washington. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters The supreme court has blocked Donald Trump’s bid to end the so-called Daca program that allowed more than 650,000 undocumented immigrants, who were brought to the US […] More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court rejects Trump's bid to end Daca program

      by

      John Roberts wrote in 5-4 majority opinion the administration’s decision to end program was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ Immigration rights activists hold a rally in front of the supreme court on 12 November 2019, as the court hears arguments about Daca. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images The US supreme court has rejected Donald Trump’s bid […] More