This section discusses amnesty for illegal aliens. Read more about the issue below:
The following document is the official directive to enforcement sections of the DHS outlining policies they are to follow. President Obama has not issued an Executive Order, although he has made it clear this directive reflects his position on "individuals [immigrants] who came to the United States as children."
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
June 15, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR:
David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
FROM: Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security
SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children
By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.
The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:
Our Nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.
As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.
1. With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):
2. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:
3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:
For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.
This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.
From FAIR:
Amnesty 2013 resources. http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/s-744-bill-resources
Data Shows Border Security Metric in S.744 Subject to Political Manipulation. By Julie Kirchner, June 19, 2013. http://immigrationreform.com/2013/06/19/data-shows-border-security-metric-in-s-744-subject-to-political-manipulation/
Gang of Eight: Broken Promises & Special Deals; Did the Gang of Eight live up to all of their promises to make this bill tougher on border security than any previous legislation? What special interests benefit from the bill? What opportunities has the Senate rejected to strengthen it? http://www.fairus.org/legislation/amnesty/broken_promises
Amnesty issue briefs. http://www.fairus.org/issues/amnesty-issue-briefs
Legislation in the 113th Congress: H.R. 1417: Border Security Results Act of 2013. Bill comparison – H.R. 1417 and S.744. http://www.fairus.org/_blog/Legislation_in_the_113th_Congress/post/hr-1417-border-security-results-act-of-2013/ [Click on "Download PDF"]
Top 40 reasons to oppose the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill (S.744). June 5, 2013. http://www.fairus.org/_blog/amnesty_updates/post/top-40-reasons-to-oppose-the-gang-of-eight-amnesty-bill---s-744/. [Click on "Click here to view in a new page" and see PDF document.]
Real immigration enforcement; S.744 doesn't do the job. Sept. 2013. http://www.fairus.org/publications/real-immigration-enforcement-and-how-s-744-doesn-t-do-the-job Click on "in PDF format" to see the full report.
From Center for Immigration Studies:
Must-Read Articles on the Schumer-Rubio Bill; Highlighting the Flaws of S.744. By CIS June 2013 http://cis.org/Must-Read-Articles-Schumer-Rubio-s744-Amnesty
Hoeven-Corker Amendment – Long on Amnesty, Short on Everything Else. By Ronald W. Mortensen, June 24, 2013. http://cis.org/mortensen/hoeven-corker-amendment-long-amnesty-short-everything-else
Foreign-Born Share Would Hit Historic High in Seven Years Under S.744; One in Seven U.S. Residents Would Be Immigrants by 2020. By Steven A. Camarota June 2013. http://cis.org/Foreign-born-historic-high-by-2020
Five Myths about Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Senate Bill. By Jon Feere, May 15, 2013. http://cis.org/feere/5-myths-about-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-senate-bill
Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration. By Jon Feere August 2013. http://cis.org/questions-for-lawmakers-on-immigration
Widening Existing Vulnerabilities; National Security Implications of S.744, Part 1. By Janice Kephart, July 8, 2013. http://cis.org/kephart/widening-existing-vulnerabilities-national-security-implications-s744-part-1
From NumbersUSA:
The FACTS on S.744. This webpage includes live links to the following topics, all very useful in learning about the bill. One must scroll far down on the page to see these topics. The links listed below are not active but must be accessed through the NumbersUSA webpage at: https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/stop-amnesty
33 Million Green Cards in First Decade
Heritage: Amnesty will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion
National poll finds little support of Gang of Eight
FAIR: Top Reasons to Oppose S.744
Marco Rubio: "First comes the Legalization"
Gang of Eight opposes Enforcement First
CIS: S.744 doubles guest-worker flows
USCCR Commissioner Peter Kirsanow op-ed: S.744 hurts low-skilled workers
S.744: More than 400 waivers and exemptions
S.744: Gang of Eight's Broken Promises
State-by-state U-6 unemployment rates. For 2013 updates, see http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
Opposition to S.744
Congressional Opposition to the Gang of Eight's bill
Letter to Congress Opposing Gang of Eight Amnesty bill
Law Enforcement Organizations Opposed to Gang of Eight's bill
Conservative Coalition Opposes Gang of Eight's bill
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers statement on Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment
USCISLetter of opposition to Corker-Hoeven amendment
Letter of opposition from Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration
In a letter sent to President Obama on June 19, a group of Senators led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, asked for written responses to a list of detailed questions and a briefing from the administration officials who will be responsible for the program. They described their concerns about President’s circumvention of Congress in issuing the directive and questioned the impact of allowing work authorizations for illegal immigrants at the same time young Americans face record-high unemployment rates.
See text of the letter, with its detailed questions, below.
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510
June 19, 2012
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama:
We are extremely concerned by your announcement last week that the Department of Homeland Security plans to implement a program that grants deferred action to an untold number of illegal immigrants in the United States, and to allow them to receive work authorization during this time of record unemployment. Not only do we question your legal authority to act unilaterally in this regard, we are frustrated that you have intentionally bypassed Congress and the American people.
As President, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and enforce the laws. Your recently announced directive runs contrary to that responsibility. Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, but it is an inappropriate use of Executive power.
Your position on whether you have the legal authority to act unilaterally has changed dramatically. Just last year, you personally disputed the. notion that the Executive Branch could act on its own and grant benefits to a certain class of illegal immigrants. Specifically, you stated,
"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the hooks that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."
• Why has your position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?
• Did you consult with attorneys prior to the announcement about your legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants?
• Did you obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement such a program?
• Please provide copies of any documentation, including any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority you have or do not have to undertake this immigration directive.
We are also concerned that the directive being implemented allows individuals under the age of
30 to obtain a work authorization. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearl y 17% for the last year. According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32% of 18 to 29 year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed. Your directive runs contrary to the premise that American workers must come before foreign nationals. It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment. Your directive will only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy. Moreover, under current law, some foreign students and other legal visa holders are prohibited from obtaining work authorizations, giving illegal immigrants an advantage over those who play by the rules.
The implementation of your directive raises several serious questions.
• What will happen if your directive is challenged in court?
• Will individuals who have applied for deferred action be required to leave the U.S. if such a challenge is upheld?
• How will the administration handle family members, specifically the parents who violated federal immigration law?
• Will individuals who entered the U.S. on their own volition - either by crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa - be eligible for deferred action?
• Why does the directive allow individuals up to age 30 to benefit from deferred action if the directive is aimed at helping young people and students?
• How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate and how will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?
• Will evidence submitted in support of deferred action applications be limited to independently verifiable government-issued docu ments (e.g., school records, W-2s, tax returns)? If not, why not? If affidavits will be accepted, will they be required to be made under penalty of perjury? If not, why not?
• Will illegal immigrants be required to appear in person for an interview by the federal government before deferred action is granted?
• How will the agency implementing the program ensure that fraud and abuse is prevented?
• What will the consequences be for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?
• Which databases will be used and how will background checks be conducted to ensure that individuals do not have a criminal history or pose a threat to public safety?
• What would constitute a "significant" misdemeanor offense, which is one of the criteria for eligibility for deferred status?
• Will individuals with final orders of removal be eligible for deferred action?
• What action will the administration take if an individual is denied deferred action?
• What action will be taken if an individual is granted deferred action, but subsequently abuses that grant, is arrested, is found to be a member of a criminal gang, or does not actually attend school?
• Absent congressional action, what will happen in two years to the individuals who are granted deferred action?
• Will recipients of deferred action be eli gible for receipt of advance parole?
• What criteria will be used to decide who gets work authorizations and who does not?
• Which other departments and agencies will be consulted and will work with the
Department of Homeland Security on the implementation of this directive?
We also believe that taxpayers deserve to know how this program will be funded.
• Can you assure us that the total implementation cost of the program will be paid for by the individuals seeking to benefit, or will U.S. taxpayers subsidize any part of the program?
• How much, if anything, will an illegal immigrant be required to pay in order to obtain deferred action?
• What legal authority does the Executive Branch have to mandate a fee for this service?
We understand that the Department has never previously charged a fee for the processing of a request for deferred action.
• Do you plan to reprogram funds at the Department of Homeland Security or any other
Executive Branch agency to help fund the implementation of the directive?
• If you plan to use funds that already have been appropriated or other funds from the Department, please explain which programs will be reduced in order to cover the costs associated with the directive.
• If USCIS adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, what will be the impact on other USCIS programs?
Given that this directive is effective immediately and that many questions remain unanswered, we ask that you immediately make available Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas to respond to our concerns.
We would appreciate responses to our questions, including any relevant documentation related to this directive, no later than July 3, 2012.
Sincerely,
[Signed by: Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho, James Risch of Idaho, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, John Boozman of Arkansas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Lee of Utah, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.]