Parsons and Hennessey report: "Effective immediately, young immigrants who arrived in the US illegally before they turned 16 will be allowed to apply for work permits as long as they have no criminal history and meet other criteria, officials said."
Students will hold a 'right to dream' news conference and rally to call for an end to deportations and urge 'administrative relief' for those in deportation proceedings. (photo: Al Seib/LA Times)
Obama to Stop Deportations of Undocumented Youth
15 June 12
he Obama administration will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and who do not pose a security threat, senior administration officials said this morning, a move that could prove important in a presidential campaign that will turn in part on who wins over Latino voters.
Effective immediately, young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before they turned 16 will be allowed to apply for work permits as long as they have no criminal history and meet other criteria, officials said.
Obama has called for a broad overhaul of immigration policy and embraces the concept of Dream Act legislation, which would create a path for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to legally remain in the country.
The legislation has repeatedly stalled in Congress.
Republican leaders, including presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, have argued for greater efforts to identify and deport anyone living in the U.S. illegally, including those who have lived and worked here for years, not just those found guilty of committing crimes.
The change the White House announced Friday would allow illegal immigrants under the age of 30 to stay and work in the country if they don’t pose a national security or public safety risk.
Those who meet the criteria will be eligible to apply for deferred action on deportation for a period of two years, and that status will be renewable, one official said. They also will be able to apply for authorization to work.
Individuals have to meet numerous requirements to be eligible to apply. They must have come to the U.S. before they turned 16 and must have resided in the U.S. continuously for at least five years. They must be present in the U.S. now, be enrolled in school, and hold a high school diploma or GED or serve in the U.S. military. Veterans who have been discharged honorably also will be eligible.
Disqualified from application would be felons, immigrants convicted of violent crimes, and repeat offenders of immigration law. Also ineligible would be those convicted of a significant misdemeanor offense or more than one misdemeanor, or those who for some other reason pose a security or safety threat.
The change does not grant permanent lawful status, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters Friday morning.
“It is not immunity. It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion to ensure these people are not in the removal process and ensure that we are not clogging the immigration system with low-priority cases involving productive young people,” she said.
“We don’t consider this a permanent solution for anyone,” a senior administration official said. “Some future administration can make its own decision on how to treat this decision."
Obama plans to discuss the changes in the Rose Garden on Friday.
Faced with a gridlocked Congress, Obama has used deportation policy to send messages to Latino voters about his views on immigration. But sometimes those messages are conflicting: His administration has boasted of a stepped-up focus on tracking down illegal immigrants with criminal records, and the U.S. has set records for deportations under Obama.
Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced it would increase by nearly 25% the number of agents charged with finding and deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, pulling 150 officers from desks and backroom jobs to add extra fugitive search teams around the country.
Yet ICE also has told prosecutors to use their discretion on whether to push deportation cases against people with strong family ties in the U.S., including college students and members of the military.
Since Romney became the presumptive nominee, some strategists have urged Romney to take a softer approach. But the former Massachusetts governor has not yet taken a stance on more lenient proposals aimed at accommodating concerns of young people.
Brian Bennett contributed to this report from Washington.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Then I understand, it is a way to kill a few birds with a single stone: on the one hand the leftists like me react positively to what can be constriued as a leniency gesture towards illegal immigrants; on the other hand business owners will be happy to learn that their cheap labor force will neither be deported nor will it gain a status that will allow it to bargain for better wages.
The cherry on the cake, of course, seems to be more people in boot camp to revive the sagging enrollment for our empire wars.
Nice shot, Barry!
executive orders are allowed whenever the order deals with powers that the constitution gives to the executive branch. An executive order is not constitutional when the executive order deals with anything that belongs to the other 2 co-equal branches of the federal government. Ex, Pres Truman, as "Commander in Chief" was well within his right to order the desegregation of the military. As the chief law enforcement officer, the president can decide what priority to place on enforcement of laws. However, he can not change or creat a law or declare a law either constitutional or unconstitutiona l. That is not a power given to the executive.
So do you understand that now?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2009/01/ten_to_toss.single.html
Here's a quote:
"The public part ofNSPD-51 grants broad authority to the president in a time of emergency, explicitly stating, "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." The rest of the order is fairly bureaucratic, appointing a national continuity coordinator and directing agency heads to develop their own plans.
But that's not all. Not only has the White House classified most of the annexes to the directive, it has refused to show them to the members of Congress on relevant committees. As the Oregonian reported, the White House stonewalled efforts by Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat and member of the homeland-securi ty committee, to gain access to the classified parts of the directive."
NOTICE the reference to "the public part". Many of bush's orders were substantially secret. You're not even allowed to know what parts of the order were. Yet here you are, defending him.
Re NSPD-51. All presidents have had continuity of operation plans (COP)since FDR. None of those have been made public. Bush did make part of his public. Are these plans unconstitutiona l? I don't know because none of them have ever been used. Can a president declare martial law? I would argue, yes and cite Lincoln and the civil war. Can we detain people indef, I would cite FDR and the internment camps as precedent. Finally, does Obama have a COP and has it been released?
Second. There is a law that states it is illegal for people in thsi country to work. Obama is overturning that law by stating these "Dream Act" people will be allowed to work. ANY president can not overturn a law approved by congress and signed by another president.
IF Bush had done this then I would be just as upset.
In other words, as much as you hate Obama and all he stands for, he's just another American politician and only guilty of the same "crimes" as whatever repug that would be in his place.
Unless you think King Ro-Money would issue FEWER of them!!!
LOL!!!
I'D LOVE to argue the "Constitutional ity" of BUSH JR.'s executive orders with you!!!
PLEASE CHALLENGE ME!!!
SO I AM ACCEPTING YOUR CHALLENGE!!!
Your turn.
2. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive gives the President power to unilaterally bypass Congress during any emergency determined by the president himself.
3. 13397 grants special privileges to religious groups from the Department of Homeland Security
4. 13228 established the DHS in the first place. ‘nuff said.
5. 13438 used intentionally vague language to possibly define anyone disagreeing with bush’s foreign policy as a terrorist
6. While these things aren’t “executive orders” per se, what about bush’s ideas on “EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION”, or his idea of a “UNITARY EXECUTIVE”, or HIS DEFINITIONS OF TORTURE?!?!?!?
I’m having a tough time taking you seriously!
2 and 4. Are you saying that the entire DHS is unconstituitona l? On what grounds? Is not DHS a cabinet position that has congressional oversight and requires the senate to approve the sec DHS?
3. What is wrong with coordinating groups both faith based and community to help society? coordinating is not establishing, in case you think this violates the "establishment clause".
5. vague language is not unconstituitona l. Some could argue that the constitution is vague so is the constitution unconstitutiona l. BTW, in May 2009, I believe Obama continued this EO. So I guess both are wrong then?
6. Again, if ER is unconstitutiona l then Obama is just as guilty in that it is still done. Re UE, this is an ongoing debate over how much power a president has over the entire executive branch. Nothing unconstitutiona l here. Finally, re torture, that definition is subject to change. As I stated earlier, I think water boarding goes too far but that is just my opinion. Since no real damage is done to a person, I can see why some think it is not torture. Some may think playing loud music is torture others don't. Now what we have is a disagreement over definitions. Kind of like what is porn?
WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THEM?
ARE YOU A HYPOCRITE?
There should be something like a "de facto" citizenship. If you live in a country for a certain period of time, say 10 years, there's no throwing you out. You are a citizen because of ten years of contributions to the society. None of this should turn on any "papers" someone may have or not have.
I don't trust the Obama regime anymore. He's promised to stand beside lots of people and he's betrayed most of them. The only people he never betrays are the CIA, Pentagon, and bankers. He does not betray Netanyahoo or Israeli fascists, even though they constantly complain that he does. But he sure as hell betrays the american people.
No wonder this country is fucked.
Fellow left-wingers. Grow up and start paying attention.
Afterall, some libs here on RSN consider Obama to be progressive while others think he is not.
As far as bush jr. being a "lib", I think the onus is on you to give me some examples of that.
"no child left behind" is a way of taking money away from public schools. AGAIN CONSERVATIVE TO THE CORE.
Nice try.
You failed.
If "NO child left behind" is conservative then why did Ted Kennedy co-author it? Are you saying the Kennedy is a conservative? Would be news to most lib dems. Or maybe Kennedy was too stupid and was fooled by Bush. In that case, Kennedy must have been the stoopidest person in the world because libs are ALWAYS saying how stupid Bush is.
Sorry, I did not fail. Neither of those examples are conservative. But you failed to mention Medicare Part D. So that would mean you agree that it is not conservative so that means I did mention something. Seems to me that you failed.
But that does not suprise me because this entire tread has been a case of you "putting words" into my mouth and saying things that I clearly have not.
RSS feed for comments to this post