ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

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

Immigration Daily


中文移民日报




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

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Article: Three Reasons Conservatives Should Support DAPA. By Charles Kuck

  1. #1

    Article: Three Reasons Conservatives Should Support DAPA. By Charles Kuck




    Three Reasons Conservatives Should Support DAPA

    by





    With Donald Trump's wild rantings of the superior negotiating skills of the Mexican government, and his idea that all undocumented immigrants are criminals (neither of which has any basis in fact, but hey, its a presidential campaign, facts are not relevant), there has been a lot of attention paid to the Obama Administration's DACA and DAPA programs.  The DACA program has been an unqualified success for those 50% or so of eligible people who have signed up for it, has created opportunity for those individuals, and has even filled government coffers at the local, state and federal level.  The DAPA program is only hold  because 26 GOP controlled states decided they did not want undocumented parents of U.S. citizens to have work permits and to be safe from deportation for two years (not including, of course, the millions who do not qualify for the program). From a politically conservative point of view, it is an untenable position for at least three reasons.




    The definition of a conservative "is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all."  Well, if that is the definition, then let's look at it in the context of DAPA.  What are "the moral and economic values beneficial to all" that flow from DAPA? 



    First, there is the most obvious reason--economics.  Someone who has been living in the shadows, perhaps working with no papers and paid in cash, or working with fake papers and getting paid and paying taxes and for social security they will never see, is now in the light of day, working without fear of deportation (for at least two years). There is no permanent benefit that comes from DAPA, nor does such a person have "lawful status."   It is quite obvious that such a person will now be more fully engaged in the "daylight' economy; purchasing cars, paying taxes, saving money, and generally becoming a more integrated member of society. Without a doubt, there is great economic value in this.  Remember, the vast majority of these folks are already working in jobs; getting work permits will formalize this, not take jobs from Americans. Basic economics also tells that that more people making more money means more money will be spent, more taxes will be collected, and more jobs will be created.  



    Second, individuals who apply for DAPA will be, in effect, self-reporting to the USCIS (the benefits side of immigration within DHS), and in turn vetted through the systems and background checks of ICE (the enforcement side of immigration). Everyone who applies for DAPA knows it would be for two years, with extensions dependent on a sitting President. The Democratic candidates have all said they would continue or expand DAPA, and the GOP candidates have all said they would eliminate it.  Essentially, DAPA means that 4to 5 million people who are currently deportable, typically for either entering the U.S. illegally, or overstaying a visa (not a crime), will freely give their names, addresses, fingerprints and other personal data to the DHS.  Obviously, that means 4-5 million fewer people for the officer and agents at ICE to look through to find those they actually need to and deport within their allocated budget from Congress.  The program is fiscally sound, self-funded by the participants (as Ted Cruz learned), and should it be cancelled, and should Congress allocate $400-600 billion dollars to remove everyone, it would be mean that 4 to 5 million people would be easier to find.



    Third, the DAPA recipients are all parents of U.S. Citizens or permanent residents. That means that all of them, yes, all of them, are either currently eligible for  permanent residence, or will be when their child is 21 and a U.S. citizen.  The only thing stopping the vast majority of them from applying for permanent residence when their child is eligible to sponsor, is the law created by Congress in 1996 which says that if you entered the US illegally you cannot get a green card here, and must go home for 10 years before returning. By receiving DAPA,  you are keeping families together (morally right), and you ensuring that the parents are able to provide for their US citizen children (economically beneficial). reducing poverty and claims for government services for the children.  If you really want to focus on deportation, then deporting the parents of U.S. citizens who have no criminal record and who's only crime MAY be a misdemeanor illegal entry, then perhaps morally and economically, is not the best place to start.



    There are other conservative reasons for supporting DAPA.  Most of those are biblically related, and I will leave those for another post.  Suffice it to say that DAPA should not have been necessary.  Conservatives in Congress should have argued for a strong enforcement and security based plan that would have also strongly encouraged folks to come out of the shadows.  But the House GOP refused to even consider any immigration reform package, forcing Obama to create DAPA.  Real conservatives would actually create a program that works better for America and for Immigrants, but it appears that there are very few real conservatives in Congress.  And, THAT will cost the GOP and conservatives the next presidential election.  






    This post originally appeared on "Musings on Immigration: An Immigraiton Attorney's Perspective on Life, Liberty and Happiness". Reprinted with permission.






    About The Author















    Charles Kuck is the Managing Partner of Kuck Immigration Partners LLC-The Immigration Law Firm, and oversees its nationwide immigration practice. His practice focuses on U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law and international migration matters. Mr. Kuck assists employers and employees with business and professional visas, labor certifications, immigrant visas, consular representation, and citizenship matters. Mr. Kuck also maintains an active Federal Court practice focusing on immigration issues.







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



  2. #2
    Retired INS
    Guest
    Where were the democrats during President Obama's first two years. They could have done away with the 1996 law or brought back 245(i), which would have also solved the problem. Democrats waited to help immigrants when republicans could be blamed for blocking these efforts.

    We need reform, but DACA & DAPA make a mockery of the deferred action program which originated in the 1950s (called Non-Priority) and was never approved by Congress or submitted for public comments in the Federal Register. It was designed for the most unusual cases that have unusual hardship. As an INS manager I submitted many such cases for approval. When the INS was abolished it was decided that deferred action was an enforcement program and USCIS could not originate such cases. In July of 2010 I was one of the USCIS managers asked to comment on the first DACA proposal. I was flown to Washington to do more research on deferred action. What was instituted in June of 2012 was contrary to the original intent of deferred action. No matter how well intended, the program should have been submitted for public comment.

    Note: If DAPA is approved, I will be eligible to return to work at full pay for two years and collect my full retirement. It is to my financial advantage for this to take effect, but I still believe this deserves a comment period.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2015, 03:16 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-04-2014, 03:50 PM
  3. Article: Why Is My DACA Case Pending So Long? by Charles Kuck
    By ImmigrationDaily in forum Immigration Daily
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2013, 02:28 PM
  4. Article: USCIS and Why You Need an Immigration Attorney by Charles Kuck
    By ImmigrationDaily in forum Immigration Daily
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2013, 01:51 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2012, 03:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
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: