Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Program providing protection for young immigrants launched (CNN)

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like

    Program providing protection for young immigrants launched (CNN)

    Program providing protection for young (ILLEGAL - added by fish) immigrants launched

    (CNN) -- Hundreds of thousands of people who entered the United States as children but without documentation can apply -- beginning Wednesday -- to remain in and work in the country without fear of deportation for at least two years.

    "I've found the form!" screamed Maria, a young Chilean at a Latino community center in New York, as she leaped from her seat.

    She was with a number of other undocumented immigrants meeting here to get legal advice in anticipation of the release of the form, which authorities surprisingly posted a day before they had said they would.

    The form, titled "Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals," was dated August 15, 2012, and bore the expiration date of February 28, 2013.

    Maria started filling it out immediately, telling a reporter she was too afraid to divulge her last name or details of her childhood trek to the United States, but would feel differently once the form had been processed and her status ensured.

    The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said Tuesday that applicants who have not committed major crimes can apply without fear of deportation.

    "This afternoon, USCIS makes available online the forms and instructions for individuals who will request deferred action for childhood arrivals," Director Alejandro Mayorkas said in a conference call.

    The announcement comes two months after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that people who arrived in the United States as children may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years subject to renewal, and would then be eligible for work authorization.

    The program, dubbed Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was created in June under an executive order signed by President Barack Obama.

    When he signed the order, Obama said the changes will make immigration policy "more fair, more efficient and more just."

    Undocumented students in their own words

    The shift on the politically volatile issue of immigration policy elicited praise from Latino leaders, while Republicans reacted with outrage, saying the move amounts to amnesty -- a negative buzzword among conservatives -- and usurps congressional authority.

    "This is not amnesty," Obama said. "This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure."

    Mayorkas reiterated Tuesday that deferred action does not provide lawful status or a shortcut to permanent residency or citizenship.

    The $465 application fee will fund the administrative costs of the program, including a biometric check and the issuance of a secure work-authorization document, he said.

    Each request will be examined for possible fraud, he added.

    The forms and instructions are posted at www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals.

    In a suburb north of Atlanta, David and Daniel Hernandez listened carefully as their lawyer detailed the program.

    They arrived in the United States on tourist visas some 15 years ago, when David was 3 years old and Daniel was 1.

    Their mother, Salima Hernandez, said they wanted a better future and education for her kids. She said she didn't worry about their legal status until she learned that they would not be able to continue their education without a government ID or Social Security number.

    David, now a senior in high school, and Daniel, a freshman, say they were not aware of their status until a couple of years ago, when they began to make plans for college.

    "I felt that after high school I didn't have anywhere to go," Davis told CNN. "I felt that if it was not something coming up soon I would end up back in Mexico."

    He said he remains concerned about revealing his status to federal authorities by filling out the application, but says it's worth any risk. "Whatever comes in the future is better than three months ago," he said.

    "None of these kids are cutting in the line," said their lawyer, Charles Kuck. "They are getting two things out of this program: one, a promise they wont be deported for two years and, two, a work permit. In exchange, the federal government is getting a million or more kids coming forward, give their biographical information and that of their whole family and give their pictures."

    He urged anyone applying to do so with the help of a lawyer. "The government has said quite clearly: there will be no appeals, there will be no motions to re-open. You get one bite at this apple."

    As many as 1.7 million youths may qualify for the program, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

    In announcing the program, Obama noted that children of illegal immigrants "study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag. It makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans."

    The president declared that the policy change is "the right thing to do."

    Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who arrived in the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military, can get a two-year deferral from deportation and apply for work permits.

    Participants must prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.

    The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.

    The move addresses a concern of the Latino community and includes some of the provisions of a Democratic proposal called the DREAM Act that failed to win enough Republican support to gain congressional approval.

    Obama has been criticized by Latino leaders for an overall increase in deportations of undocumented immigrants in recent years. Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,906 illegal immigrants, the largest number in the agency's history.

    Obama and Napolitano have called for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would put into law similar steps for children of illegal immigrants to continue living and working in the country.

    Republicans who blocked Democratic efforts to change immigration laws have condemned the move, with some calling it an improper maneuver to skirt congressional opposition.

    Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a GOP foe of Democratic proposals on immigration, threatened in June to sue to stop Obama "from implementing his unconstitutional and unlawful policy."

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has called the decision "a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership," while House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, has called the change a "decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants."

    Others predicted the move will tighten an already poor job market for young Americans.

    However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sponsored the DREAM Act, said it "will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they've ever called home."

    Presumed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in June that the issue needs more substantive action than an executive order, which can be replaced by a subsequent president.

    As president, Romney said, he would seek to provide "certainty and clarity for people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the actions of their parents."

    Latinos make up the fastest-growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election.

    A spokeswoman for a major Latino group, the National Council of La Raza, hailed the administration's move.

    "In light of the congressional inaction on immigration reform, this is the right step for the administration to take at this time," NCLR spokeswoman Laura Vazquez said in June.
    Keeping up on the changes (amnesty) to our Immigration Law being done by executive rule.

  2. #2
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    714
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Keeping up on the changes (amnesty) to our Immigration Law being done by executive rule.
    Is the way Obama did this the wrong way? Absolutely

    Did he do this because he is desperate and is pandering for votes? Not a shread of doubt there, and he should be villified for that.

    However, this is hardly an amnesty, and using that term indicates you dont understand what "amnesty" means, and how it relates to immigration law. This is not a path to citizenship, and it confers these dreamers no status except for the right to work. Even if they marry a US citizen, they cannot be sponsored for anything beyond what this act entitles them to. What their parents did was inforgiveable, but it's wrong to punish the children who have no lives outside the US - and where this is their only home. The implications of them not being given the right to work gives them very few options for personal growth, which means they will continue to be a drain on the economy.
    Last edited by mallamalla; 08-15-2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason: typo

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mallamalla View Post
    However, this is hardly an amnesty, and using that term indicates you dont understand what "amnesty" means, and how it relates to immigration law. This is not a path to citizenship, and it confers these dreamers no status except for the right to work. Even if they marry a US citizen, they cannot be sponsored for anything beyond what this act entitles them to. What their parents did was inforgiveable, but it's wrong to punish the children who have no lives outside the US - and where this is their only home. The implications of them not being given the right to work gives them very few options for personal growth, which means they will continue to be a drain on the economy.
    They broke the law. They are not suffering the penalty of breaking the law because our Executive has chosen to single-handed ignore the law.

    Thats amnesty, defined as:

    A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.
    The pardon of their illegal immigration, to the class of people of illegal immigrants, for the political offense of illegal immigration, for those not yet convicted and punished/deported for that crime.

    There is no requirement under teh definition fo amnesty to offer additional benefits (such as Citizenship or a "path" to Citizenship, which this clearly will become in real world policy) for it to be amnesty. As long as the crime is pardoned/non-enforced, it IS, is fact, amnesty for that crime. Equally, there is no requirement that the pardon not include alternative provisions (like the so-called "path") and still be defined as amnesty.

    The only purpose in avoiding the word "amnesty" is the same as using the word "choice" when meaning "abortion", or saying that this is "prosecutorial discretion" when in fact it effects an entire class of individuals, not individual cases.

    Politics as usual.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    They broke the law. They are not suffering the penalty of breaking the law because our Executive has chosen to single-handed ignore the law.
    Breaking the law typically requires intent. Saying that a 1 year old "broke the law" by entering the country illegally is like saying that a 1 year old breaks the law against drug possession by holding a baggie of pot given to it by a bad parent. You wouldn't say that the kid in that situation "broke the law" and advocate that the kid be treated as a law-breaker - you'd say that the parent broke the law, using their kid as the instrumentality for doing so, and the punishment should fall on the parent, not the kid.

    Why is immigration different? I'm not talking about outcomes - if you want to say the kid should be deported as a deterrent to future law-breaking parents, that's a legitimate viewpoint worthy of serious discussion. But the label "law breaker" is no more appropriate for the 1 year old illegal immigrant than it is for the 1 year old pot-possessor.

    And yes, I'm aware that "1 year old" is an extreme case and there are plenty of kids who came when they were older and will be covered. But at the point you make that argument, you've turned it into a line drawing exercise and not a debate of principles.
    Last edited by doggin94it; 08-15-2012 at 03:16 PM. Reason: to add the n't :)

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Breaking the law typically requires intent. Saying that a 1 year old "broke the law" by entering the country illegally is like saying that a 1 year old breaks the law against drug possession by holding a baggie of pot given to it by a bad parent. You would say that the kid in that situation "broke the law" and advocate that the kid be treated as a law-breaker - you'd say that the parent broke the law, using their kid as the instrumentality for doing so, and the punishment should fall on the parent, not the kid.

    Why is immigration different? I'm not talking about outcomes - if you want to say the kid should be deported as a deterrent to future law-breaking parents, that's a legitimate viewpoint worthy of serious discussion. But the label "law breaker" is no more appropriate for the 1 year old illegal immigrant than it is for the 1 year old pot-possessor.

    And yes, I'm aware that "1 year old" is an extreme case and there are plenty of kids who came when they were older and will be covered. But at the point you make that argument, you've turned it into a line drawing exercise and not a debate of principles.

    And just like the one year old in your example should not be punished, nor should the illegal immigrant minor. Just deported back to his/her country of origin.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by brady's a catcher View Post
    Just deported back to his/her country of origin.
    Well....there goes all the Yankees new pitching prospects

  7. #7
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    714
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    They broke the law. They are not suffering the penalty of breaking the law because our Executive has chosen to single-handed ignore the law.

    Thats amnesty, defined as:



    The pardon of their illegal immigration, to the class of people of illegal immigrants, for the political offense of illegal immigration, for those not yet convicted and punished/deported for that crime.

    There is no requirement under teh definition fo amnesty to offer additional benefits (such as Citizenship or a "path" to Citizenship, which this clearly will become in real world policy) for it to be amnesty. As long as the crime is pardoned/non-enforced, it IS, is fact, amnesty for that crime. Equally, there is no requirement that the pardon not include alternative provisions (like the so-called "path") and still be defined as amnesty.

    The only purpose in avoiding the word "amnesty" is the same as using the word "choice" when meaning "abortion", or saying that this is "prosecutorial discretion" when in fact it effects an entire class of individuals, not individual cases.

    Politics as usual.
    I am not necessarily disagreeing with any of your points, except that this "amnesty" is much less than the ones passed in 1986 and 1996, where those beneficiaries are now citizens. There is no path to citizenship for these folks. I also don't believe that someone who was a mere child when they came with their parents is a criminal - as they lacked the intent to committ a crime.

    There are a lot of things unfair and wrong. An Indian with a masters degree in the US in engineering, for example, has to wait several years and spend tens of thousands in legal bills to do things the legal way. The US has a shortage in engineers, and these are the types that will create jobs. Yet congress panders to the illegals first.

    But what is the alternative here? We arent deporting these people, so let them join the work force and pay taxes, which is a better path than joining gangs with no hope to land a job on the books.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mallamalla View Post
    I am not necessarily disagreeing with any of your points, except that this "amnesty" is much less than the ones passed in 1986 and 1996, where those beneficiaries are now citizens.
    Agreed.

    I also don't believe that someone who was a mere child when they came with their parents is a criminal - as they lacked the intent to committ a crime.
    Aye, I've heard the Doggin Legal Theory on that.

    Or as I like to call it, The "My Mom Stole $100,000 when I was 8 and gave it to me, so I get to keep it now that I'm 18, right?" Defense.

    But what is the alternative here? We arent deporting these people, so let them join the work force and pay taxes, which is a better path than joining gangs with no hope to land a job on the books.
    I reject that there is no other option besides capitulation on the issue.

    And for each that joins the role of taxpayers (a shrinking group even amongst our own existign citizens), more than half will become tax-recipients, not tax payers. Just like our own citizens.

    As long as eveyone says "enforcing immigration law is impossible", then it will remain impossible.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Agreed.



    Aye, I've heard the Doggin Legal Theory on that.

    Or as I like to call it, The "My Mom Stole $100,000 when I was 8 and gave it to me, so I get to keep it now that I'm 18, right?" Defense.
    Fish, my point is there's a difference between saying "you entered illegally, with intent or without, so for policy reasons we are deporting you"

    and

    "We are deporting you because you are a criminal."

    The policy reasons point is a valid one - but its also a debatable one. Any policy decision involves the weighing of pros and cons (issues like the impact on the deportee, the needs of the society, whether a kid like that should be viewed more as an asylum case than as a standard illegal entry case, etc.).

    The "he's a criminal, deport him" point is not a debatable one; it's axiomatic that criminal immigrants should be deported. If valid, it's uncontradictable; criminals ought to be deported, and you won't find anyone (well, most people) arguing the contrary point. The problem is, it's not valid.

    All I'm saying is, make the valid policy argument rather than the invalid axiomatic one

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Breaking the law typically requires intent.
    Really?

    Ignorance of the law has now become an excuse?

    Manslaughter - does that require intent to kill?

    Reckless endangerment?

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Fish, my point is there's a difference between saying "you entered illegally, with intent or without, so for policy reasons we are deporting you"

    and

    "We are deporting you because you are a criminal."
    Whatever makes one feel fluffy, kind and full of kitty-kitten smiles.

    End of the day:

    "...we are deporting you" = ""We are deporting you..."

    Both of which are better than "We are giving you free welfare rights, conrgats!"

    All I'm saying is, make the valid policy argument rather than the invalid axiomatic one
    I have to admit, I have no idea what axiomatic means. Sorry.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    I dunno.

    Seems pretty harsh to deport a high school kid whose parents moved him here when he was 2. At that point, the kid would be pretty Americanized and shipping them back to 3rd world Mexico would be pretty f*cked up IMO.

    The program mentioned in the article gives them 2 years...should be enough time to apply for naturalization, right?

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    I dunno.

    Seems pretty harsh to deport a high school kid whose parents moved him here when he was 2. At that point, the kid would be pretty Americanized and shipping them back to 3rd world Mexico would be pretty f*cked up IMO.

    The program mentioned in the article gives them 2 years...should be enough time to apply for naturalization, right?
    I don't care how it seems or feels. I care about the Law and whats right. The Law I followed, I should mention, when I came here.

    And yes, it should be plenty of time to apply for Naturalization, and get in line ahead of those who have followed teh system right and legally.

    Or they can just ignore it, since they won't be deported at the end of teh 2 years anyway in the real world.

    Win/win for them.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I don't care how it seems or feels. I care about the Law and whats right. The Law I followed, I should mention, when I came here.

    And yes, it should be plenty of time to apply for Naturalization, and get in line ahead of those who have followed teh system right and legally.

    Or they can just ignore it, since they won't be deported at the end of teh 2 years anyway in the real world.

    Win/win for them.
    I wonder if the disconnect is simply because (if I am picking this up correctly) you are an immigrant, or were, i guess if you're a citizen now you are no longer an immigrant.

    Most of us here did not have to become citizens through any other means then exiting a vagina and may not have the same viewpoint as you simply because we didn't have to earn it, so to speak, so our outrage is tempered compared to yours over doing it the right way.

    Just spitballing here anyway.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by piney View Post
    I wonder if the disconnect is simply because (if I am picking this up correctly) you are an immigrant, or were, i guess if you're a citizen now you are no longer an immigrant.

    Most of us here did not have to become citizens through any other means then exiting a vagina and may not have the same viewpoint as you simply because we didn't have to earn it, so to speak, so our outrage is tempered compared to yours over doing it the right way.

    Just spitballing here anyway.
    I was born in the UK.

    I came here legally, with my family, when I was very young.

    Some of my family had to wait to come. They waited.

    We are all now a Citizens, yes (of both Nations actually).

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Well....there goes all the Yankees new pitching prospects
    Before they were able to get the Pirates to take him, I would have contributed to a "deport AJ Burnett" fund.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    I dunno.

    Seems pretty harsh to deport a high school kid whose parents moved him here when he was 2. At that point, the kid would be pretty Americanized and shipping them back to 3rd world Mexico would be pretty f*cked up IMO.

    The program mentioned in the article gives them 2 years...should be enough time to apply for naturalization, right?
    How can you be so sure it'd be Mexico, you racist. It could be Romania.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I was born in the UK.

    I came here legally, with my family, when I was very young.

    Some of my family had to wait to come. They waited.

    We are all now a Citizens, yes (of both Nations actually).
    I am just thinking that you may (sadly) have a bit more reverence for the process than most natural born citizens. (sadly, because we all should, but in reality probably don't)

    So where some of us may think that this policy is a good compromise you obviously do not, perhaps because of your personal experience. (Of course there are plenty of people who also agree with you who do not have your life experience.)

    Unless you are this tough on every infraction of the law regardless, then my theory is off base.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Whatever makes one feel fluffy, kind and full of kitty-kitten smiles.

    End of the day:

    "...we are deporting you" = ""We are deporting you..."

    Both of which are better than "We are giving you free welfare rights, conrgats!"
    It's not about kittens and fluffiness. It's about allowing for an actual debate over the policy merits, which can't happen when one side is saying "we deport criminals"


    I have to admit, I have no idea what axiomatic means. Sorry.


    Taken as true, a given, a foundational assumption.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Really?

    Ignorance of the law has now become an excuse?

    Manslaughter - does that require intent to kill?

    Reckless endangerment?
    Even if neither require an intent to kill, both require an intent to act. An epileptic who has his first ever seizure in a car and kills somebody is not guilty of anything (assuming it's his first since then there's no question of negligence in getting in the car in the first place).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us