Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: The End of DACA and the Need for Congress to Enact Immigration Reform By Kevin Johnson

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: The End of DACA and the Need for Congress to Enact Immigration Reform By Kevin Johnson

    The End of DACA and the Need for Congress to Enact Immigration Reform

    by


    Here is some commentary on the rescission of DACA.

    After months of speculation and rumor that has frightened immigrant communities across the United States, President Trump has announced the end of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Known as DACA, the program since 2012 has provided relief, and work authorization, to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

    The end of DACA has been met with expressions of nothing less than grief and a firestorm of bipartisan criticism. Indeed, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) lobbied the President not to end DACA. In the coming weeks, the nation is likely to see protests and calls for political action.

    It is worth remembering that President Obama created DACA after Congress for years had failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform. As President Obama emphasized, the deferred action program was a limited, and temporary, response to congressional gridlock on immigration. Even though DACA in my estimation was a constitutional and eminently sensible approach to a most sympathetic cohort of immigrants, there may be a silver lining in President Trump’s dismantling of DACA: He is delaying the end of the program for six months. That gives Congress a chance to act to offer enduring protections for the DREAMers and even could spur on more far-reaching immigration reform. Such reform is just what this nation needs in these troubled times.

    In light of the fact that virtually all agree that the current immigration system is broken, Democratic and Republican political leaders should welcome the opportunity to reconsider immigration reform. One of the primary objections to DACA, and the proposed expansion known as DAPA ( Deferred Action for Parents of Americans ) announced by President Obama in 2014 but scuttled by the courts, was that Congress was the appropriate branch of government to provide relief to undocumented immigrants. Whether one buys that argument or not, Congress now must act if DACA recipients are to be protected.

    Indeed, this is a historic opportunity for Congress to act and to enact meaningful, lasting, and fair immigration reform. Such a package, like that passed by the Senate in 2013 but never voted on by the House of Representatives, includes some kind of path to legalization for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, reform of legal immigration provisions to make our immigration laws consistent with 21st century labor needs, and enforcement measures.

    The most recent immigration reform proposal on the table unfortunately would not solve the problems but indeed would make them worse. During the summer, President Trump expressed support for immigration reform in the form of the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, cosponsored by Republican Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Purdue (R-Ga). The Act would drastically reshape American immigration but, in so doing, the RAISE Act will likely increase, not decrease, pressures for undocumented immigration.

    Approximately a 1 million immigrants are granted lawful permanent residence annually. Visas allocated based on family members in the United States comprise about two-thirds of the annual total. The top five countries of birth for new immigrants in 2015 were Mexico, China, India, the Philippines, and Cuba. 1

    The RAISE Act would cut the annual immigrant admissions by one-half. The bill would eliminate all family sponsorship beyond spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and LPRs, and would reduce various family categories from 226,000 green cards to 88,000. The cuts to family-based immigration would affect immigrants from a select few countries.

    The RAISE also would change the system for employment-based lawful immigration. Under the current system, most employment based immigrants are reserved to the highly skilled. Besides dramatically reducing family-based immigration, the RAISE Act would replace the current selection scheme with a points system in which applicants would earn points based on:

    • a relatively high-paying job offer, with more points for a higher salary
    • High English test scores
    • Age, with those closest to age 25 earning the most points
    • Educational attainment, with more points for degrees earned in the United States, and for advanced degrees in a STEM field
    • Investing at least $1.35 million in the United States
    • Extraordinary achievement, such as winning a Nobel Prize or being an Olympic-caliber athlete

    The bill also seeks to eliminate the Diversity Visa program and further caps refugee admissions, cutting back lawful immigration by 100,000 a year.

    In total, the RAISE Act would lead to an overall reduction of legal immigration by 50 percent over the next decade. That would exacerbate the current problem of undocumented immigration. Because of unrealistic restrictions on legal immigration in the current laws, the United States has roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. This is especially the case because the merit-based system will not address the high demand in the United States for low- and medium-skilled workers, which many undocumented immigrants perform today in the agricultural, construction, and service industries.

    President Trump’s elimination of DACA provides Congress with a historic opportunity for immigration reform. And DACA recipients desperately need relief. But, more generally, the nation needs more far-reaching immigration reform that is fair, enforceable, and lives up to the nation’s ideals.

    KJ

    This post originally appeared on Law Professor Blogs © 2014-2017 by Law Professor Blogs, LLC. All rights reserved.


    About The Author

    Kevin Johnson Kevin Johnson is Dean, Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law, and Professor of Chicana/o Studies. He joined the UC Davis law faculty in 1989 and was named Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1998. Johnson became Dean in 2008. He has taught a wide array of classes, including immigration law, civil procedure, complex litigation, Latinos and Latinas and the law, and Critical Race Theory. In 1993, he was the recipient of the law school's Distinguished Teaching Award.Dean Johnson has published extensively on immigration law and civil rights. Published in 1999, his book How Did You Get to Be Mexican? A White/Brown Man's Search for Identity was nominated for the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. Dean Johnson’s latest book, Immigration Law and the US-Mexico Border (2011), received the Latino Literacy Now’s International Latino Book Awards – Best Reference Book. Dean Johnson blogs at ImmigrationProf, and is a regular contributor on immigration on SCOTUSblog. A regular participant in national and international conferences, Dean Johnson has also held leadership positions in the Association of American Law Schools and is the recipient of an array of honors and awards. He is quoted regularly by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other national and international news outlets.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      #1
      Editing a comment
      I am not disputing any of Professor Johnson's points in this article. No person of good will who believes in a just immigration system based on America's Constitutional values of racial and religious equality would do so. But I respectfully suggest that a more appropriate title for this article would have been:

      The End of DACA and the Need to Stop Donald Trump From Taking America Back to the Time of White, European-Only Immigration.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    ImmigrationDaily
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    ImmigrationDaily
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
  • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
    ImmigrationDaily
    PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
    08-13-2018, 02:21 PM
Working...
X