Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE





The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: President Trump’s Immigration Proposal Holds DACA Recipients Hostage to Extreme Right’s “Wish List” of Immigration Restrictions By Kevin R. Johnson

    President Trump’s Immigration Proposal Holds DACA Recipients Hostage to Extreme Right’s “Wish List” of Immigration Restrictions

    by


    220px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump

    Last week, in the latest in a year of immigration bombshells, President Trump floated an immigration reform proposal that would provide relief to the recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) but would also appropriate billions of dollars to build the wall along the U.S./Mexico border, increase detention and immigration enforcement, reduce family-based immigration in order to end “extended-family chain migration,” and otherwise limit the available immigrant visas. If nothing else, the proposal makes it clear that President Trump, unlike any other president in modern American history, is dedicated to increased immigration enforcement and reducing the overall level of legal immigration.

    Congress has debated immigration reform for more than a decade. President Trump’s announcement of the end of DACA created the latest impetus for congressional action. Due to a court order, DACA recipients currently are eligible for renewals but no new applications are being accepted. The President’s proposal would provide a path to legalization for DACA recipients.

    However, critics from both the left and the right quickly balked at the President’s proposal. Immigration hawks have decried the “amnesty” for “illegals.” Immigrant advocates claim that the border wall, increased enforcement, and reductions in legal immigration are too steep a cost to pay for a path to legalization for a subset of undocumented immigrants.

    In many respects, the nation is back to where it was in 2013 when the Senate passed an immigration reform package with a path to legalization, more enforcement, and tinkering with legal immigration. Like the Trump proposal, the Senate Bill, which the Republican House leadership prevented from coming to a vote, also generated criticism from the left and the right.

    We return to the recurring question: how do we as a nation move forward on immigration? Congress could consider a “clean DACA” bill that deals only with the legal status of the DACA recipients and address immigration reform more generally in the future. Or, as President Trump has proposed, Congress could approach more comprehensive immigration reform at this time with legal status for the current DACA recipients coming at the cost of more enforcement and reduced immigration for generations.

    While providing relief to some DACA recipients, the President’s proposal would increase immigration enforcement and decrease the numbers of legal immigrants. The doubling down on enforcement would likely increase the fear and trepidation experienced by immigrants across the United States, which has hit high levels as the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement efforts, including most recently through workplace raids with promises of more raids.

    In essence, in seeking to reduce legal migration, President Trump’s proposal holds the DACA recipients hostage to fundamental restriction of the U.S. immigration laws and the abandoning of one of its central goals of promoting family reunification. The proposal’s restriction of family-based immigration to the nuclear family would not allow for the admission mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and other relatives of immigrants.

    Many observers see reducing family immigration as an effort to turn back the clock and reduce immigration from the three biggest immigrant sending countries – Mexico, China, and India, all populated by people of color. Indeed, unlike any modern President, President Trump’s entire approach to immigration focuses on race, national origin, and religion, from his derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants in the presidential campaign, repeated efforts to restrict admission of noncitizens from predominantly Muslim nations, elimination of temporary protected status for 200,000 Salvadorans, to his recent crass statements about restricting immigration from Africa, Haiti, and other developing nations.

    In sum, the nation sorely needs immigration reform. However, in seeking to forge a necessary compromise, Congress and the nation must take care to ensure that the compromises are both fair and make policy sense for regulating immigration in the global economy of the 21st century. One-sided compromises that punish immigrants and run counter to national values and ideals simply cannot stand.

    KJ

    This post originally appeared on Law Professor Blogs © 2014-2018 by Law Professor Blogs, LLC. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.


    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.

    Comments 3 Comments
    1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
      ImmigrationLawBlogs -
      As I point out in my article, which is in this issue of ILW.com, the Democrats could have passed a DREAM Act during Barack Obama’s administration. From January 2009 to January 2011, they had a large majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, they had a supermajority in the Senate. They passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) without a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate.

      Why didn't they?

      Nolan Rappapor
      t
    1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
      ImmigrationLawBlogs -
      Kevin says, "In many respects, the nation is back to where it was in 2013 when the Senate passed an immigration reform package with a path to legalization, more enforcement, and tinkering with legal immigration. Like the Trump proposal, the Senate Bill, which the Republican House leadership prevented from coming to a vote, also generated criticism from the left and the right."

      You are referring to Schumer's bill, S.744. He called it a bipartisan bill but it was opposed by 70% of the Senate Republicans, and he knew that it would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House. It was a cruel political maneuver that gave false hope to desperate immigrants. And he has done the same thing with his recent proposal as part of the Gang of Six.

      And the Republican Leaders in the House didn't prevent it from coming to a vote. They followed regular order. They sent it to the Judiciary Committee, which was the committee that had subject matter jurisdiction. And Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte didn't ignore it. He held a hearing on it and explained during the hearing why the bill was unacceptable to the Republicans. That was the end of the legislative process for that bill. Goodlattte had no reason to move it forward. The Democrats could have revised the bill to make it more acceptable to the Republicans, but they chose not to do it.

      Nolan Rappaport
    1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
      ImmigrationLawBlogs -
      Professor Johnson's comment above that Trump's immigration agenda is focused most of all on race - keeping people of color out of the United States more than anything else, is irrefutable for anyone who has not been spending the past nearly three years since June 2015, when Trump began his presidential campaign with an attack on Mexican immigrants, on Mars or some other planet instead of planet Earth.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: