RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

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)
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

By Christi Parsons and Kathleen Hennessey, Los Angeles Times

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.

 

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

 
-3 # randyjet 2012-06-15 20:55
I wonder if they will demand that all male applicants show their draft cards sinc they MUST register with Selective Service when they turn 18. If they do NOT register, they have committed a FELONY which will make them ineligible for this amnesty. I would hope that the administration will enforce that law, otherwise it will give a pass to people who spit on our laws and have NO respect for us or the sacrifices US citizens are obligated to make.
 
 
-2 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-16 16:16
Wait a minute, they have to enlist in some draft?
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!
 
 
-6 # phantomww 2012-06-15 21:18
So the King decided since Congress would not do what he wants, then he will just issue a dictate. Too bad the US Constitution states that laws are supposed to be passed by Congress and not the King. Why did Obama say last year that he could not do what he is now doing since he is bound by laws. Apparently, he is not bound when he needs to buy votes for his re-election.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-06-16 07:51
Are you new here? Do you remember bush jr. at ALL?
 
 
-4 # phantomww 2012-06-16 13:19
Actually I do, so if Bush did something unconstitutiona l then your position is that it is ok for Obama to also? Then why even have a constitution? Whether one supports the Dream Act or not, the fact of the matter is that Congress has voted it down everytime (including when the Dems had control of both houses), in fact, Obama voted against it when he was a senator. Since laws according to the constitution have to start in Congress, it is unconstitutiona l for a President to just change current law. If you can't figure that out then that is your issue. The current law is that people who are here illegally should be deported.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-06-16 17:08
Executive order. Did bush jr. ever use any of those or did President Obama invent them? Let me know when you find out.
 
 
-5 # phantomww 2012-06-17 07:14
Executive orders have been around a lot longer than Bush. Maybe you should get over your anti-bush trip and think. Even an executive order has to be CONSTITUTIONAL! What part of this do you not understand? A presidient is one third of the federal government. He is not a king. He can not just "executive order" away a law he does not agree with, even if it is the "right thing" to do.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 09:09
Please explain for the rest of the class when executive orders are permitted.
 
 
-4 # phantomww 2012-06-17 17:35
OK class,
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?
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 19:20
Did bush have the executive power to torture people? To kidnap them? To write an executive order giving him (just maybe) the right to declare martial law and bypass Congress altogether? What about warrentless wiretapping?
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 19:26
Check out:

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.
 
 
-3 # phantomww 2012-06-18 08:08
In answer to your 2 posts. It is unconstitutiona l to torture people. But the difficult issue is defining torture. I think waterboarding goes too far but sleep depravation and stress positions do not. Hmmm, looks like I am not defending Bush here,like you keep saying. As for kidnapping, again it depends on the definition. Is it kidnapping to pick up an enemy and move him to another location? I don't think so. But now we get into the entire combantant, non-combantant issue which is way too involved to go into here right now. Can a president (Bush or Obama) order US forces to go into a country and capture an "enemy" and take him to a detention center? I say yes. If the SEALS had captured OBL instead of killing him and taken him somewhere is that kidnapping? I would say no, he is an enemy.
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?
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-06-20 05:49
It looks like you're going out of your way to find narrow openings for defending bush. I'm traveling right now, you'll get short answers from me because of that. I don't feel too guilty because you're obviously not arguing in good faith anyway.
 
 
-2 # phantomww 2012-06-21 07:20
You seem to have trouble understanding me. Let me make this as clear as I can. I am NOT defending Bush. I am saying that what Obama did regarding illegal aliens is unconstitutiona l. I am NOT saying ALL of his EO's are unconstitutiona l. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. If you can't understand that, it is your problem.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 09:16
In other words, maybe YOU should get over YOUR anti-OBAMA trip and think. Why are his executive orders not as good as bush's?
 
 
-4 # phantomww 2012-06-17 17:41
I have not said that his executive orders are not as good as bush's. You keep saying that. so please stop putting words in my mouth. What I have said is that THIS order is unconstitutiona l. So once again let me explain to you why it is unconstitutiona l. One: the dream act was never passed by any congress (including the one when Obama was a senator and voted against it). The constitution is quite clear in how a bill becomes a law. A bill is proposed by congress and IF passed by BOTH houses then it is sent to the President who can either sign, veto or just let it become law by not signing or vetoing within the assigned timeframe.
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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 19:18
I gave you a list of 6 of bush's 60 some executive orders. All of them violate the Constitution in one way or another. Of course, by your definition ANY executive order does.
 
 
-3 # phantomww 2012-06-18 08:12
Did you read my definition? Clearly I do not believe that any EO is unconstitutiona l.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-06-20 05:52
So if NO "eo" is Constitutional, why SO much emphasis on Obama? Why not focus more of your complaints on the president who issued more than any other president in U.S. history - BUSH JR.? Doesn't that fit your agenda?

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!!!
 
 
-2 # phantomww 2012-06-21 07:25
Why do you continue to say that I think that "NO "eo" is Constitutional, " when I have clearly NOT said that? Do you have trouble understanding English? Please go bakc and read my my post on 6-17 at 1735 where you asked me when are EO's permitted. I quite clearly stated that Truman's EO to desegrate the military was constitutional. Thus when I put in an example of a constituitonal EO, I clearly (at least to people able to understand English) am stating that all EO's are NOT unconstituitona l. Yet you persist in saying that I think they are. So it is you who are not arguing in good faith.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 09:21
PLEASE CHALLENGE ME ABOUT THIS!

I'D LOVE to argue the "Constitutional ity" of BUSH JR.'s executive orders with you!!!

PLEASE CHALLENGE ME!!!
 
 
-4 # phantomww 2012-06-17 17:43
OK, give me an example of an unconstituitona l Bush EO and I will either agree with you or disagree. Or am I supposed to come up with one?

SO I AM ACCEPTING YOUR CHALLENGE!!!

Your turn.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 19:15
1. Executive Order 13224 defined “enemy combatant”. That definition is broadly defined as anyone the president viewed as an enemy combatant. It violates the 5th and 6th Amendment.

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!
 
 
-3 # phantomww 2012-06-18 08:59
1.Clearly EO 13224 is not unconstitutiona l since Obama has continued it. If you look at it you will see that names have been added to the list since Obama took over. So if Bush was wrong then Obama is even more so because we all know that Bush is stupid and Obama is smart.
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?
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-06-20 05:54
ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENT here is moot. The entire concept of executive orders is ALWAYS unconstitutiona l in your opinion. Therefore ALL of bush's executive orders were unconstitutiona l.

WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THEM?

ARE YOU A HYPOCRITE?
 
 
-2 # phantomww 2012-06-21 07:26
See my reply above. Clearly I have not stated that the entire concept of EO's is always unconstitutiona l.
 
 
0 # RMDC 2012-06-16 04:22
The Obama regime has deported, arrested, detained more immigrants than Bush and Clinton combined. This is too little and too late. It stinks of a campaign ploy. Obama can talk all he wants in the Rose Garden, but the Homeland Security Nazis will still be out there all over the country rounding up people whom they suspect do not have the right papers and sending them to detention camps.

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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-16 07:53
So, because Obama wants to do something to help his campaign that just so happens to the be the right thing to do, it's not good enough? Apparently you'll only vote for a politician who makes controversial decisions out of the kindness of his heart. Personally, I don't care what motivates him. A campaign ploy would motivate Mittens RoMoney to do just the opposite.
 
 
+4 # dick 2012-06-16 05:44
FINALLY, a little backbone. Keep growing.
 
 
-3 # RLF 2012-06-16 06:21
Ridiculous election year crap. Only educated aliens so as not to alienate unions...plus it allows lots of software third worlders so the high tech money will follow. This policy isn't about gardeners...its about cheap programers.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-06-16 07:54
Wait until President RoMoney is up for re-election in 4 years. Do you think he'll do what YOU want during THAT election year. This is politics.
 
 
-5 # phantomww 2012-06-16 07:21
Dick, who cares about the rule of law and the US Constitution, just so long as he does what he (and apparently you) wants. So now he can stop all the gridlock and just go anhead and disband Congress and just be a petty dictator. All hail King Obama the first.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-16 07:56
This is the problem with the left. Obama finally does the right thing about something. The right has a frothing looney attack about him "being a king" and all. The left, refuses to vote for him anyway because he didn't do it for the right reasons.

No wonder this country is fucked.

Fellow left-wingers. Grow up and start paying attention.
 
 
-5 # phantomww 2012-06-16 13:21
YOur right, I should not have written "king", I should have written dictator. Happy now?
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-16 17:07
I'm glad that he's making you angry. You're a right-winger. Maybe someone on the left will notice. The angrier you get and the more vocal about it, the more you'll encourage the left to vote for him.
 
 
-5 # phantomww 2012-06-17 07:17
What I am is a person who believes in the US CONSTITUTION. So that makes me a right winger? In that case, I guess it would make left wingers people who don't believe in the Constitution. So if you want to vote for someone who violates the constitution, go ahead. Just makes you a left wing lemming.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 09:09
Tell me, was bush a right-winger? A left-winger? Or a "moderate"? This should be interesting...
 
 
-4 # phantomww 2012-06-17 17:44
Depends on the subject. On somethings I think he was right wing, on others he was left wing and on others a moderate. So, give me an example and I will be more specific.

Afterall, some libs here on RSN consider Obama to be progressive while others think he is not.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-06-17 19:16
Few of us "libs" consider Obama "progressive" about anything. We can use straightforward definitions on an issue by issue basis.

As far as bush jr. being a "lib", I think the onus is on you to give me some examples of that.
 
 
-2 # phantomww 2012-06-18 13:58
ok, the No child left behind act co-authored with Kennedy and the new entitlement program with Medicare. Also, his support of "comprehensive" immigration reform is not a conservative position in giving those here illegally amnesty.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-06-20 05:55
He gave amnesty to appease his buddies in big business who rely on illegal immigrant labor.

"no child left behind" is a way of taking money away from public schools. AGAIN CONSERVATIVE TO THE CORE.

Nice try.

You failed.
 
 
-2 # phantomww 2012-06-21 07:34
It was the conservative movement that defeated Bush when he tried to pass the comprehensive immigration bill. Conservatives (most, can't speak for all)want all employers to use E-varify and believe that employers who knowlingly hire illegals should be fined (and maybe even jailed).

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.
 
 
+3 # Susan1989 2012-06-16 08:12
I agree that this is an election year tactic, but am more concerned about how this will affect the job market for young people who are citzens. I also ask the question as to why only college students? Are less educated people of less value? Frankly I am tired tired tired of the value system that we as Americans are so willing to accept without question. Tired also of the "American Dream" which for many except a few "golden few" has become a nightmare. I no longer know what to believe.
 

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.

RSNRSN