DREAM Economics

By Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorney

Immigration reform, such as the DREAM Act, may not be the ultimate solution to our economic woes, but it could be a starting point.  Whether it increases our national revenue or we break even, the economic benefit of the DREAM Act and similar legislation far outweigh the alternatives.

 

In January 2012, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deputy Director, Kumar Kibble, informed the House Judiciary Subcommittee that deportation costs the government $12,500 per person.  This includes the arrest, detention, litigation, and removal of an immigrant.  A majority of these costs are paid from tax revenue.  The Department of Homeland Security memo published on June 15, 2012, granting deferred action to individuals who entered without status as children, estimated that 800,000 undocumented aliens could be eligible for the new benefit.  Since June 15, 2012, the government has revised the number of potentially eligible beneficiaries to 1.4 million.  Removing all 1.4 million individuals could, therefore, cost the government as much as $175 million according to Deputy Director Kibble’s report.

 

Legislation such as the DREAM Act requires that the immigrant “pay into the system.”  Even the memo offering deferred action to potential DREAMers would require that the undocumented immigrant pay processing fees at every stage and provide evidence of eligibility for the benefit.  Instead of the US taxpayer supporting an undocumented immigrant through the process, the undocumented immigrant supports herself through the process and contributes to the greater economy.  A recent White House blog cited a report from the Congressional Budget Office that the 2010 version of the DREAM Act could reduce the deficit “by $2.2 billion over ten years because of increased tax revenues.” 

 

DREAMers epitomize our hope for the future of this country.  The DREAM Act as previously written required that the undocumented immigrant enroll in post-secondary school at her expense or enlist in the military.  The new memo requires that the beneficiary be enrolled in school, have graduated at least from high school, or be a veteran of the armed forces.  At present the Census Bureau reports that “only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher” are immigrants, but immigrants account for “33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists,” in the United States, as cited by the White House.  Given the chance, potential DREAMers could increase those numbers substantially, which would increase revenue for both private and public schools nationwide.  At present many undocumented individuals who entered as children and earned their education through US schools are unable to enroll in postsecondary institutions because they lack proof of lawful status or are unable to pay non-resident tuition rates.  Immigrants benefiting from the DREAM Act would not only “pay into the system,” but would be required to positively contribute to the future of our communities and our nation’s welfare.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Contributed by Melanie Corrin

The United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) announced a portion of its procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; commonly known as deferred action for DREAMers.  Through this procedure, as of August 15, 2012 eligible applicants who meet the following criteria can apply for Deferred Action:

1.       Under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012

2.       Came to the US before reaching 16^th birthday

3.       Continuous physical presence June 14, 2007 – June 15, 2012

4.       Present in the US on June 15, 2012

5.       Entered without a visa or their visa expired as of June 15, 2012

6.       Currently enrolled in school/GED program or have obtained high school diploma/GED or be United States Military veteran with honorable discharge

7.       No felony convictions, No significant misdemeanor conviction, Cannot have 3 or more misdemeanor convictions

Portion of this program have very specific definitions and requirements, including what defines a felony, a serious misdemeanor and a misdemeanor.  It is important to speak with an attorney prior to determining eligibility, potential relief and potential pitfalls to ensure you are not putting yourself at risk. 

DACA is temporary, and if granted, is approved in two year increments.  USCIS has not published the form, and will not do so until August 15, 2012; the first day individuals are eligible to apply.  The filing fee will be a total of $465.00 and will include biometrics collection, background checks and the application for employment authorization.   

If you are interested in DACA or think you may be eligible, contact us to discuss your case.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

30 year-olds Don’t Despair, Deferred Action Still Within Reach

Contributed by Aaron Hall

When Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) Napolitano announced the new deferred action program on June 15, 2012, it was announced that one of the requirements for eligibility would be that applicants “are not above the age of thirty” as of June 15, 2012.

 

The initial assumption was that this requirement would disqualify a potential applicant who was 30 years and two months old at the time of the announcement.  Fortunately, DHS has now clarified that potential applicants will meet the age requirement so long as they were under 31 years old on June 15, 2012.  Therefore, many people who were 30 at the time of the announcement will qualify for the new deferred action program.

 

For further information on the eligibility requirements, go to our website dedicated to deferred action at http://www.dreamtoimmigrate.com/. 

 

Further Reading:

6/15/12 DHS Announcement

USCIS on Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Department of Homeland Security Announces Deferred Action for Eligible DREAMers

By Kim Tremblay & Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorneys

On June 15, 2012, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced that the government will offer indefinite relief from deportation for young immigrants brought to the United States as minors.  Young immigrants, between the ages of 15 and 30 years old as of June 15, 2012, not in deportation proceedings will also be eligible to apply for deferred action. 

Although this is not the DREAM legislation (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) that many have been pushing Congress to enact for years, it is a step in the right direction.  It will allow many young immigrants to come out of the shadows, support themselves, and use the skills they acquired in American schools in the workplace.  The DHS initiative will also provide more opportunities for young immigrants to apply and attend college or university, since many US post-secondary institutes require evidence of legal status for admission.  The department estimates that the new policy may benefit as many as 800,000 potential DREAMers.  However, many questions remain unanswered as both USCIS and ICE have 60 days to implement policies and procedures for filing deferred action requests.

Based on the results of DHS’s prior prosecutorial discretion initiative, it also remains to be seen whether this new policy will be any more successful for young immigrants in deportation proceedings.  The August 2011 DHS memo initiated a policy based on priorities to reduce the immigration court’s overbooked docket.  Under the prosecutorial discretion policy , DHS reviewed all 350,000 pending deportation cases nationwide and offered to administratively close about two percent of cases that were not priorities for DHS to pursue.  This was a much lower number than anticipated.  Thus, for young immigrants already in removal proceedings, it remains unclear whether this new policy will bring about much change. 

More positive outcomes are expected for young immigrants who are not in deportation proceedings.  Applications for individuals who are not in deportation proceedings cannot be filed until USCIS implements a filing procedure.  In the meantime, however, potential DREAMers should consult attorneys to determine their eligibility for the program and start gathering documents to show that they meet the requirements. They should beware of individuals or agencies who claim they can help but who are not licensed to represent and assist individuals in this legal process. 

Potential DREAMers physically present in the United States should also get documentation to show they are here from today and until deferred action is granted.  They should also hold on to anything to show they were present on June 15, 2012.   

Individuals must meet the following requirements to be considered for deferred action:

• Entered the United States before age 16 and not be above 30 years of age;
• Have continuously resided in the U.S. for 5 years as of June 15, 2012;
• Were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012;
• Are currently in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
• Have not been convicted of a serious crime or multiple minor crimes that pose a threat to the national security or public safety.

Those who meet the criteria will be qualified to obtain deferred action for two years, subject to renewal for an indefinite period of time, and will be eligible to apply for work authorization if they can show financial need.



Related Articles:
http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/06/15/president-obama-to-halt-removal-of-dreamers/
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=40173
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=40171
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=40168
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20120612-napolitano-announces-deferred-action-process-for-young-people.shtm

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Call for "Humane" Immigration Policy in GOP Presidential Debate

Last night, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination gathered for their eleventh debate (still thirteen to go). This debate focused on national security issues. Late in the debate, the topic turned to immigration policy and specifically on what to do with the 11 million people in the United States without immigration status.

While most of the candidates only spoke about the need to secure the border, Newt Gingrich, who is currently at the top or near the top of national GOP polling, set himself apart from the crowd by actually addressing the 11 million people who are already here and calling for a "humane" solution. Gingrich indicated that deporting someone who has been living, working, paying taxes, and attending church in the United States for 25 years is not practical and not humane.

"I do believe if you've come here recently and you have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you," Gingrich said, but he stated, "I don't see any reason to punish someone who came here at 3 years of age and wants to serve the United States of America," in apparent support of DREAM Act-type legislation.

Gingrich indicated that for those who have been here for a long period of time with deep roots in our community and have not committed crimes, there should be some way to legalize their status without separating families. He added that if Republicans want to be the party of families, they cannot support ripping these types of families apart. Gingrich recognized the potential political problems his stance could make for him in the GOP, saying, "I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, 'Let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so they are not separated from their families.'"

Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House with unquestioned conservative credentials, deserves credit for standing apart from the crowd and trying to shift the conversation toward realistic solutions in the midst of a GOP primary.

Mitt Romney's response to Gingrich during the debate was with unflinching opposition to anything that smelled of amnesty. Romney, though, has in the past taken a very similar position to Gingrich regarding those already in the country. As recently as 2007, Romney was quoted in the Lowell Sun newspaper saying, "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

While it would be an overstatement to suggest that there is broad support for any type of immigration reform in the Republican party, the fact that two top candidates for the nomination are (or recently have been before becoming staunchly anti-amnesty) supportive of a humane and realistic approach to dealing with those already in the country without status is the first hint in a long time that there may be some daylight for future immigration reform.

Read the RealClearPolitics article on the immigration exchange in last night's debate here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Tancredo Either Dishonest or Completely Uninformed in 9News Debate with Julien Ross

On Tuesday, Will Ripley of 9 News hosted a debate on immigration and border-related issues with former U.S. Representative and Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo and Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition Director Julien Ross.

Click here to watch a 9 minute clip of the debate.

For one of the loudest participants in our national dialogue on immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo displayed a surprising naïveté and ignorance on critical issues.

In the face of Mr. Ross’s point that 3/5 of the 11 million undocumented people in this country have been here for over a decade and are deeply rooted to their communities, Mr. Tancredo insisted that implementation of E-verify will cause them all to self-deport. Mr. Ross recommended a more comprehensive approach which would require the undocumented population to come out of the shadows and register, pay taxes, pay a fine, go through a background check, and learn English. This would immediately bring this population out of the shadows and allow immigration enforcement authorities to identify and focus on those who have been convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. In combination with an E-verify-type system, the proposals from Mr. Ross and others could be the backbone of a reform that would both deal with the 11 million undocumented people here now while preventing illegal immigration in the future.

Beyond his naïve belief that E-verify by itself will cause 11 million people to self-deport and resolve our immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo demonstrated startling ignorance of the law on his pet issue. At about minute 5:00 of the clip, the conversation turned to the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). Mr. Ross told the story of a young man named Edgar who was brought to the United States as a seven year old, went to our schools, and then graduated from police academy. Our communities have invested resources in Edgar to educate him and now he is ready to serve his community as a police officer. But Edgar can’t do so because he does not have any documentation. The DREAM Act would allow people like Edgar to obtain a legal status and would allow our society to reap the benefits from these people that we have already invested our resources in.

Mr. Tancredo’s argument against the DREAM Act is that it is a way in which to give amnesty to all of the DREAM Act eligible person’s family members. At minute 6:10, Mr. Tancredo states that the “minute you become a legal resident, you have the ability to apply for that same residency for all of your family.” With Mr. Tancredo’s years of advocacy on immigration issues, he either knows that his statement here is completely untrue but says it anyway to try to advance his agenda or he has been utterly careless in researching an issue on which he holds himself out as an expert. First, DREAM Act students would not immediately become lawful permanent residents but would have to pass through a period of conditional status. Moreover, even when they do eventually become permanent residents, they cannot apply for that same status for all of their families. For instance, a permanent resident from Mexico can file an immigrant petition for his spouse, but under current wait times the spouse would not be able to gain resident status for years. The same would be true for the child of a permanent resident. Under section 1153(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, a permanent resident cannot petition at all for his parents or brothers or sisters. If some day, say in 11 years (six years in conditional status plus five years as lawful permanent resident as required for naturalization), the DREAM Act kid successfully became a naturalized citizen, at that time he could apply for his parents and siblings. Of course, the siblings who were born in Mexico would have to wait for 15-20 more years under current processing times to be able to get their resident status.

The idea that the DREAM Act allows the beneficiary to get amnesty for his entire family “the minute he gets his status” is absurd and can be debunked with a few minutes of research. It’s not immediately clear which would be worse: if Mr. Tancredo knew this and lied about it or if he honestly doesn’t understand and hasn’t researched this issue that he spends so much of his time advocating on.

Kudos to Julien Ross of CIRC for his performance in the debate. As for Tom Tancredo, there are plenty of arguments to be made on different sides of the immigration debate and there is no need for him to make misrepresentations about the facts or the law. If he wants to carry the bullhorn for the anti-immigration reform crowd, he owes it to them research the issues and present the facts honestly.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Obama's Amnesty? Not so Fast

The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will make a case-by-case review of some 300,000 immigrants facing possible deportation in immigration courts around the country. The stated goal of the review is to focus on removing convicted criminals who might pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Thursday announcement follows a June memo from the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, outlining when and how ICE agents could use prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases.

Administration officials, to this point speaking anonymously, have indicated that those whose deportations are put on hold may be eligible for work authorization. Whether this would come in the form of an order of deferred action or some other way is unclear.

In fact, much of how this new policy will play out on the ground remains unclear. We know that it does not give anyone a new path to lawful permanent resident status. As of yet, there is no known way to affirmatively apply to have one's case put on hold or to apply for work authorization based on the new policy.

How this new policy unfolds will depend on how DHS officers and attorneys implement it. Which immigrants actually end up benefiting from this new policy is still far from clear.

Read the Washington Post Article.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

ABC News Journalist Outs Self as Undocumented in Support of Dream Act

In the wake of Congress failing to pass the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) last year, Jose Antonio Vargas decided to reveal his status as an illegal immigrant.

Vargas is an ABC News Journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. He arrived in the United States at the age of twelve from the Philippines and did not learn that he did not have immigration status until years later.

Vargas' story is one of many that should put a human face on the potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act who ended up in the U.S. without immigration status through no fault of their own. Hopefully Congress considers his story and so many others like it and gets DREAM back on the table.

For more, click on the links:

-The short Denver Post article on Vargas speaking out

-Video of Vargas talking about being undocumented

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Senate Fails to Pass DREAM Act

The Senate voted 55-41 against the DREAM Act on December 18, 2010. The unfavorable vote ended the hope of passing the bill this session. The bill fell five votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster on Saturday. Sixty votes were necessary for the bill to succeed.

Senator Richard Durbin, one of the main backers of the DREAM Act, has pledged to continue fighting for the bill. However, with the swearing in of a majority Republican senate in January 2011, the DREAM Act will face a steep uphill battle.

President Barack Obama estimated that the DREAM Act would have “cut the deficit by $2.2 billion over the next 10 years.” The bill offered as many as 11 million undocumented individuals a path to legal status through education or military service. An estimated 65,000 undocumented students will graduate from high school in the next year, who may have benefited from the DREAM Act.

Hundreds of undocumented students, who had risked exposure in support of the DREAM Act, held vigil in the Senate Gallery during the vote on Saturday. When the Senate failed to pass the bill, the students gathered in prayer with hope for a better future.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

House Passes DREAM Act, Senate Vote Likely Today

By a 216-198 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday passed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors ("DREAM") Act, setting the stage for a vote in the Senate today.

The DREAM Act was drafted as a way to create a path to legal status for immigrants who were brought to this country illegally when they were under the age of 16. To qualify, the applicant would have to have lived in the United States for at least five years, obtain a high school or GED diploma, demonstrate that they are a person of good moral character, and attend college or serve in the armed forces for at least two years.

By most accounts, the DREAM Act faces an uphill battle in the Senate where it is likely to require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

To read the CNN article on the House vote, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Senate May Reconsider DREAM Act Next Week

The Senate may reconsider the DREAM Act again as early as next week. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced in his blog posted September 14, 2010, that he intends to add the DREAM Act to the Defense Authorization bill which the Senate will vote on next week. The DREAM Act would not be alone as an added amendment to this upcoming defense bill; also included as an amendment to the defense bill, the equally controversial repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which would allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.

The DREAM Act would allow students who came to the United States under the age of 16, and who have been present in the United States for more than five years, to obtain their permanent residence if they complete college or join the military. In many cases these children have been in the United States since they were too young to remember their home country and have been raised as Americans. Most often they were brought to the United States by their parents and did not have a choice in or even knowledge of their immigration. If the children were removed from the United States, we would be sending them home to a “foreign country.” The DREAM Act gives these children an opportunity to become involved and productive members of the American society.

The Senate last considered the DREAM Act as a stand-alone bill in 2007. In 2007, it was narrowly defeated by 8 votes. If passed by the Senate, the Act would still undergo scrutiny in the conference committee reconciliation and would then be up for a vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Presently the House of Representative’s defense bill does not include the DREAM Act amendment.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The "Down Payment" Plan for Immigration Reform

Some immigrant rights groups are shifting the strategy in their so-far unsuccessful push to overhaul immigration law: They're calling the new tactic the "down payment" approach.
Aware that the clock is running out, and there are no guarantees that a Congress that is supportive of immigration reform will be returned in November Antonio Gonzales, president of the William C. Velásquez Institute, a Latino public policy group, explained "We took a deep breath and said, 'Okay, we need a Plan B.' "
That plan centers on lobbying hard for the passage of two bills: AgJobs and the Dream Act. AgJobs is a compromise between farmworker unions and agriculture business groups, which was negotiated more than five years ago and is intended to provide legal farm labor and protect the rights of immigrant workers. The Dream Act would give some undocumented students the ability to apply for permanent residency. Both bills have had Republican support in the past.

Read more about the "down payment" plan at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704307.html

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The DREAM Act and Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Dick Durbin is the lead sponsor of the DREAM Act.  The DREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that would give a select group of immigrant students a chance to earn legal status.  Senator Durbin is gathering stories of young people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act.

An individual may be eligible for the DREAM Act if he/she: 

·         Came to the United States as a child (15 or under);

·          Is a long-term U.S. resident (five years or more); and

·          Has graduated (or will graduate) from high school or has obtained (or will obtain) a GED;

Senator Durbin is asking for your help as he works to pass the DREAM Act.  Telling the stories of DREAM Act students is the best way to build support for the bill.  If you are a DREAM Act student, send your story to Dreamers@durbin. senate.gov.  Tell Senator Durbin:

·         When did you come to the United States?

·         Where did you come from?

·         Where do you live?

·         Where are you going to school?

·         What are you studying?

·         What are your hobbies?

·         What would you like to do when you graduate?

·         What are your dreams for the future?

·         Have you ever been in deportation proceedings? 

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Dream Act

 Recent poll indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of DREAM Act.  The DREAM (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act would allow certain qualifying undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States when they were young children to become lawful permanent residents. Under the DREAM Act, students who have lived in the United States for at least five years could become lawful permanent residents, so long as they stay out of trouble, earn a high school diploma or G.E.D., and complete at least two years of college or military service. First Focus, a family-advocacy organization, recently conducted a poll that indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of the DREAM Act, despite strong anti-immigrant rhetoric and a strong push for comprehensive immigration reform. First Focus’ president, Bruce Lesley, believes that the poll shows that most Americans are concerned that not allowing undocumented immigrant students to continue their educations beyond high school could spell harmful economic consequences for American society.  For more information on the DREAM Act, please visit: http://dreamact.info/
For more information on the First Focus poll, please visit: http://firstfocus.net/library/polling-and-opinion-research/public-support-for-the-dream-act

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•