136 Leading Experts on Immigration Law Agree: President Has Legal Authority to Expand Relief to Immigrants



For Immediate Release

136 Leading Experts on Immigration Law Agree:
President Has Legal Authority to Expand Relief to Immigrants

September 3, 2014 

Washington D.C. —U.S. law professors sent a letter today to the White House stating that President Obama has wide legal authority to make needed changes to immigration enforcement policy. The president is considering how to use his authority to mitigate the damage caused by our dysfunctional immigration system and protect certain individuals from deportation.

The letter was written by Stephen H. Legomsky, John S. Lehmann University Professor at Washington University School of Law and former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Chief Counsel; Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Westerberg Prager Professor at UCLA School of Law; and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar at Penn State Law. It was signed by professors from 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

“As part of the administration’s legal team that ironed out the details of DACA, I can personally attest that we took pains to make sure the program meticulously satisfied every conceivable legal requirement,” said Legomsky. “In this letter, 136 law professors who specialize in immigration reach the same conclusion and explain why similar programs would be equally lawful.” (DACA is the acronym for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program the president initiated in June 2012.)

In their letter, the law professors point out that “The administration has the legal authority to use prosecutorial discretion as a tool for managing resources and protecting individuals residing in and contributing to the United States in meaningful ways.” The letter goes on to explain that presidents from both parties have used prosecutorial discretion to prevent specific, and often large, groups of immigrants from being deported.

“Our letter confirms that the administration has specific legal authority to use prosecutorial discretion as a tool for protecting an individual or group from deportation,” said Wadhia. “This legal authority served as foundation for prosecutorial discretion policy across several administrations. Historically, this policy has been premised on the twin policy goals of managing limited resources and shielding people with compelling situations from removal.”  


This is the second major letter about prosecutorial discretion that law professors have sent to President Obama. The first letter, sent in 2012, outlined the legal argument for expanded administrative relief, which later became the blueprint for the president’s DACA program. That program allows qualifying noncitizens who came to the United States as children to apply for relief from deportation and work authorization.

“This letter reflects a clear, broad, and informed consensus on two key points,” said Motomura. “First, the president has the legal authority, exercising his discretion as the nation’s top immigration prosecutor, to establish enforcement priorities. Second, the president’s lawful discretion includes the authority to set up an orderly system, modeled on DACA, for granting temporary relief from deportation.”

A copy of the letter is available at pennstatelaw.psu.edu/lawprofessorletter.

The National Immigration Law Center and the American Immigration Council  helped to distribute the White House letter. Recently, the American Immigration Council also released a report by Professor Motomura, “The President’s Discretion, Immigration Enforcement, and the Rule of Law,” which provides further legal and historical background on this issue.

To learn more about how President Obama can restore order to our dysfunctional immigration system, visit NILC’s Administrative Relief & Prosecutorial Discretion webpage.

# # #

For more information, contact Wendy Feliz at wfeliz@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524



The American Immigration Council is a 501(c)(3) dedicated to making sure our immigration laws are enacted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental constitutional and human rights. The Council stands up for sensible and humane immigration policies that reflect American values and fights to achieve justice and fairness for immigrants under the law.

Immigration News Clips – August 28, 2014



Daily Immigration News Clips – August 28, 2014

NATIONAL

Fox News Latino:

Associated Press:

Washington Post:

Washington Post:

USA Today:

Boston Herald:

Reuters:

New York Times:
Immigration Clash Could Lead to Shutdown
By Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis

Des Moines Register:

NPR:

Atlantic:

The Hill:

Roll Call:

Politico:

New Republic:

New Republic:

Washington Examiner:

CBS News:

The Hill:

MSNBC:

Wall Street Journal:

Washington Post:

U.S. News & World Report:

Tampa Bay Times:

Associated Press:

Nation:

New York Times:
9 Mexicans Can Return to Contest Deportations
By Jennifer Medina and Julia Preston

NPR:

Associated Press:

NBC News:

National Journal:

Wall Street Journal (Opinion):

New York Magazine (Daily Intelligencer):

Washington Post (Opinion):

Roll Call (Opinion):

Huffington Post (Blog):

Huffington Post (Blog):

La Opinión (Editorial):

LA Times: U.S. to Allow Some Immigrant Deportees to Return Under Settlement



LA Times: U.S. to Allow Some Immigrant Deportees to Return Under Settlement 

The Los Angeles Times reports on a settlement agreement in an ACLU lawsuit alleging that federal agents use intimidation, threats, and misinformation to persuade undocumented immigrants to agree to voluntary departure. In the settlement, federal officials did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed not to use threats and intimidation against immigrants facing possible deportation, and will allow some (perhaps thousands) with ties to Southern California to return.


If you or someone you know departed the United States because of intimidation, threats, or misinformation from federal immigration officials, you may be able to return to the United States and appear before an immigration judge.

If you think this applies to you or someone you know, please contact an immigration attorney for additional information. Our office will provide a brief free consultation for anyone who believes they may have been affected by this settlement.

Arnold S. Jaffe
Kraig W. Rice
Attorneys at Law

330 E. Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 897-0066

arno@arnolaw.com

The President’s Discretion, Immigration Enforcement, and the Rule of Law


 




For Immediate Release

The President’s Discretion, Immigration Enforcement, and the Rule of Law

August 26, 2014

Washington D.C. - Today, the American Immigration Council releases The President’s Discretion, Immigration Enforcement, and the Rule of Law by Hiroshi Motomura, a Professor of Law at UCLA.

Professor Motomura’s paper discusses the President’s broad legal authority to make a significant number of unauthorized migrants eligible for temporary relief from deportation. He makes clear that the President has broad prosecutorial discretion as to setting enforcement priorities, given our current enforcement system in which all 11 million unauthorized immigrants could not practically be deported. Moreover, Motomura shows that providing a system for applying prosecutorial discretion—with formal criteria and a process—is more consistent with the rule of law. Doing so makes discretionary enforcement decisions more uniform and predictable, and forestalls individual agent’s actions based on discrimination or race. The paper rebuts critics that have accused President Obama of overstepping his authority as he considers measures to defer the deportation of millions of families. 

To read the paper in its entirety, see:

###

White House Considers Plans to Expand Deferred Action and Work Authorization for More Immigrants



Exciting News for our clients and their family members!
The White House is considering two options for expanding Deferred Action Status and Work Authorization:

One option would allow immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens to apply for temporary legal status which would let them work legally in the U.S.

A second option would be to allow temporary legal status for the parents of young people already granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) by the Obama administration.


These new programs are NOT available yet, but we hope one or both will be by the end of 2014.

Contact our office for more information or a free consultation on your immigration case.

Arnold S. Jaffe
Kraig W. Rice
Attorneys at Law

330 E. Carrillo
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 897-0066
arno@arnolaw.com

White House pursuing plan to expand immigrant rights


By Christi Parsons, Brian Bennett, Lisa Mascaro
July 25, 2014, 7:30 PM | Reporting from WASHINGTON

Even as President Obama grapples with the crisis of immigrant children arriving at the Southwest border, White House officials are laying the groundwork for a large-scale expansion of immigrant rights that would come by executive action within weeks.

Officials signaled strongly Friday that Obama's move would shield from deportation large numbers of immigrants living in the country illegally, as advocacy groups have demanded.

Roughly 5 million of the estimated 11 million people who entered the country without legal authorization or overstayed their visas could be protected under a leading option the White House is considering, according to officials who discussed the proposals on condition of anonymity.

Obama said last month that because Congress had failed to act on comprehensive immigration reform, he would take executive action to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own."

That move will come by the end of the summer, White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer told reporters Friday. Some officials had advocated waiting until after the November midterm election.

Any such move would prompt a major clash with congressional Republicans, and at least some White House officials appeared to relish the prospect that the GOP might overreach in its response and act in a politically self-destructive manner.

When the decision is announced, it will "increase the angry reactions from Republicans," Pfeiffer said.

"I would not discount the possibility" that Republicans would seek to impeach Obama over his next immigration moves, he said, adding that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) had "opened the door to impeachment" by his plans to sue Obama for allegedly exceeding his executive authority.

Pfeiffer made his comments at a breakfast for reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Boehner repeatedly has ruled out calls for impeachment proceedings, and his lawsuit against Obama has been widely seen as an effort to provide an alternative for Republicans infuriated by what they see as too much unilateral action by the president.

But the open references to impeachment at the White House on Friday suggest that administration officials are trying to shape the political battleground in advance — portraying Republicans as obstructionist before launching a broad-sweeping executive action on a front where conservative sensitivities are particularly keen: immigration policy.

The White House is entertaining a range of possibilities that would speed up deportations in some cases but forestall them in many others.

Obama could use his executive powers to expedite deportations in response to the current border crisis, in an effort to clear the large numbers of unaccompanied minors gathering daily in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas.

At the same time, he seems likely to act to prevent deportations of many of the immigrants already living, working and raising children in the U.S.

One option would allow immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens to apply for temporary legal status which would let them work legally in the U.S. Because children born in the country automatically receive U.S. citizenship, that option could affect about 5 million people, researchers estimate.

A second option would be to allow temporary legal status for the parents of young people already granted deportation deferrals by the Obama administration. That would affect a smaller, but still sizable, number of people.

So far, more than 520,000 people have received permits to stay and work in the U.S. under the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was created in 2012 for young people who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Leading Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, already have called for ending the deferred action program, and any move to expand it by including parents would be certain to draw a furious response from conservatives.

Wary of the president's potential course of action, Republicans were both irritated by Pfeiffer's threat and critical of what they saw as an effort to stir up Democratic voters and financial donors.

The campaign arm of the House Democratic leadership began a fundraising drive featuring Pfeiffer's impeachment forecast within hours of his making it.

"We have a humanitarian crisis at our border, and the White House is making matters worse with inattention and mixed signals," said Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel.

"It is telling, and sad, that a senior White House official is focused on political games, rather than helping these kids and securing the border," he said.

As his aides worked on the longer-term immigration plan, Obama on Friday met at the White House with the presidents of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, hoping to enlist their help in stemming the flow of young migrants.

An estimated 57,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico since last October.

Obama told the presidents that children who don't have "proper claims" to admission to the U.S. will have to go back home.

Aides said the leaders also agreed on the need to address poverty and violence in Central America.

"The American people and my administration have great compassion for these children," Obama told reporters, with the other presidents at his side. "But I also emphasized to my friends that we have to deter a continuing influx of children putting themselves at risk."

How to do that — and how to pay for it — continued to stymie Congress.

Republicans, who balked at the administration's request for $3.7 billion to increase the number of deportation courts, bolster border security and care for the children who have arrived, proposed a scaled-back plan Friday for less than $1 billion. Senate Democrats have proposed $2.7 billion. Neither is expected to win support from both chambers.

With Congress only a few days from its long August break, money is running out to care for the youths and process their immigration cases.

Border Patrol agents have been working overtime, and Customs and Border Protection has racked up large bills to provide food and transportation to handle the influx.

If Congress doesn't approve more spending, agency officials will have to divert money from programs that speed up cross-border trade and cargo, Customs and Border Protection chief Gil Kerlikowske said in a C-SPAN interview.

Money, though, is only part of the problem.

House Republicans have insisted on amending a 2008 law that guarantees hearings before unaccompanied children can be returned to their home countries. Senate Democrats mostly oppose that idea.

The White House has sent mixed messages, initially saying Congress should change the law, then backing down after opposition from Senate Democrats. White House officials now say Congress should approve the additional funds first.

Republicans have also been split on immigration, with many conservatives arguing that Congress should not act because the administration cannot be trusted to enforce the immigration laws.

But a majority of GOP lawmakers appeared prepared to break ranks with the conservatives and move ahead for a vote next week.

"The vast majority of our members want to solve this and do it in a targeted way that actually addresses the problem," Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the incoming GOP whip, said after a closed session Friday of House Republicans.

Under the House Republican proposal, Congress would reimburse states for deploying National Guard troops, as Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has done, and speed up processing of the children's immigration claims. The House proposal would also allow law enforcement personnel to operate on public lands beyond what is now allowed, a long-standing issue in some border states.

"If we do nothing, the president is going to blame us for doing nothing," said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.). "We have to step up and show we're going to do this in an orderly, lawful, compassionate way."

See the original article here or go to:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-immigration-20140726-story.html#page=2

Break the Immigration Impasse: Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on Immigration Reform

Share

By SHELDON G. ADELSON, WARREN E. BUFFETT and BILL GATES

July 10, 2014
AMERICAN citizens are paying 535 people to take care of the legislative needs of the country. We are getting shortchanged. Here’s an example: On June 10, an incumbent congressman in Virginia lost a primary election in which his opponent garnered only 36,105 votes. Immediately, many Washington legislators threw up their hands and declared that this one event would produce paralysis in the United States Congress for at least five months. In particular, they are telling us that immigration reform — long overdue — is now hopeless.

Americans deserve better than this.
The three of us vary in our politics and would differ also in our preferences about the details of an immigration reform bill. But we could without doubt come together to draft a bill acceptable to each of us. We hope that fact holds a lesson: You don’t have to agree on everything in order to cooperate on matters about which you are reasonably close to agreement. It’s time that this brand of thinking finds its way to Washington.
Most Americans believe that our country has a clear and present interest in enacting immigration legislation that is both humane to immigrants living here and a contribution to the well-being of our citizens. Reaching these goals is possible. Our present policy, however, fails badly on both counts.
We believe it borders on insanity to train intelligent and motivated people in our universities — often subsidizing their education — and then to deport them when they graduate. Many of these people, of course, want to return to their home country — and that’s fine. But for those who wish to stay and work in computer science or technology, fields badly in need of their services, let’s roll out the welcome mat.
A “talented graduate” reform was included in a bill that the Senate approved last year by a 68-to-32 vote. It would remove the worldwide cap on the number of visas that could be awarded to legal immigrants who had earned a graduate degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States, provided they had an offer of employment. The bill also included a sensible plan that would have allowed illegal residents to obtain citizenship, though only after they had earned the right to do so.
Americans are a forgiving and generous people, and who among us is not happy that their forebears — whatever their motivation or means of entry — made it to our soil?
For the future, the United States should take all steps to ensure that every prospective immigrant follows all rules and that people breaking these rules, including any facilitators, are severely punished. No one wants a replay of the present mess.
We also believe that America’s self-interest should be reflected in our immigration policy. For example, the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” created by Congress in 1990, was intended to allow a limited number of foreigners with financial resources or unique abilities to move to our country, bringing with them substantial and enduring purchasing power. Reports of fraud have surfaced with this program, and we believe it should be reformed to prevent abuse but also expanded to become more effective. People willing to invest in America and create jobs deserve the opportunity to do so.
Their citizenship could be provisional — dependent, for example, on their making investments of a certain size in new businesses or homes. Expanded investments of that kind would help us jolt the demand side of our economy. These immigrants would impose minimal social costs on the United States, compared with the resources they would contribute. New citizens like these would make hefty deposits in our economy, not withdrawals.
Whatever the precise provisions of a law, it’s time for the House to draft and pass a bill that reflects both our country’s humanity and its self-interest. Differences with the Senate should be hammered out by members of a conference committee, committed to a deal.
A Congress that does nothing about these problems is extending an irrational policy by default; that is, if lawmakers don’t act to change it, it stays the way it is, irrational. The current stalemate — in which greater pride is attached to thwarting the opposition than to advancing the nation’s interests — is depressing to most Americans and virtually all of its business managers. The impasse certainly depresses the three of us.

Signs of a more productive attitude in Washington — which passage of a well-designed immigration bill would provide — might well lift spirits and thereby stimulate the economy. It’s time for 535 of America’s citizens to remember what they owe to the 318 million who employ them.

Sheldon G. Adelson is the chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway. Bill Gates, former chairman and chief executive of Microsoft, is co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 See the full article here.