Los Momentos Claves De La Acción Diferida Para Los Llegados En la Infancia DACA

Inmigracionyvisas hace un recuento de los principales hechos por lo que ha pasado el programa Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) desde su creación en el año 2012 hasta el mes de Julio de 2020...

Junio 2012

En junio del año 2012, el presidente Barack Obama a través de una orden ejecutiva creo el programa de Acción Diferida conocido como DACA, cuyo objetivo era beneficiar a ciertos inmigrantes indocumentados que llegaron a Estados Unidos cuando eran niños.

La acción diferida se creó como una solución temporal y no ofrece un camino al estatus de residente legal permanente o a ciudadanía de los Estados Unidos, su validez estaba dada por dos años y podía ser renovada por un período adicional del mismo tiempo.

Continúe leyendo en https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4894-momentos-claves-del-programa-DACA.html

The Supreme Court Heard A Major Case On DACA. Here’s What You Need To Know

By Jorge Loweree

The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 12 in three cases challenging President Trump’s attempted rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. The Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences for DACA recipients and the limits of executive authority when it comes to immigration law and policy.

President Obama created the DACA initiative in June 2012 to provide young unauthorized immigrants with protection from deportation and the ability to work lawfully in the United States in two-year renewable increments. All applicants were required to meet specific criteria related to age, education, and criminal history. Government data indicates that approximately 661,000 people are currently enrolled. President Trump terminated the program September 5, 2017.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court focused on one primary question: did the Trump administration provide an adequate explanation for why it ended DACA?

Anytime the Executive Branch makes a major policy decision such as ending DACA, it must explain why and ensure that the reasoning is not “arbitrary and capricious.” The Trump administration needed to provide a reason why it was ending an initiative that hundreds of thousands of people had benefited from and relied upon.

In two memos announcing the rescission, administration officials claimed DACA was an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority, and thus “illegal” from the start. Both memos failed to offer any policy justifications for the termination of the program. They instead pointed to a decision by the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas barring a similar program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) as proof that DACA was illegal.

In response to several lawsuits, lower courts across the country issued injunctions against the rescission. This forced the government to continue accepting and adjudicating DACA requests from people who have DACA or those who participated in the past. These lawsuits then made their way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court focused on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it discussed whether the president’s decision to eliminate DACA is one that can be reviewed by federal courts and, if so, if it was lawful as implemented. The APA sets forth the standards governing the judicial review of decisions by executive branch agencies.

The APA permits a federal court to review whether government action is “arbitrary or capricious,” or otherwise not in accord with the law. It thus provides a check on government decisions that do not have lawful, rational justifications.

This review is particularly important when major policy decisions would significantly impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across the United States, like the attempted rescission of DACA. The APA contains an exception, however, for actions considered to be within an agency’s discretion.

The administration argued that its decision falls within this exception and is therefore not reviewable by the courts. This is a curious position given its exclusive focus on the DAPA case in Texas as its justification for rescinding DACA.

The respondents—the parties that initially challenged the DACA rescission—argued that the original memo rescinding the policy contained factual and legal errors, and that the reasoning provided for the decision was insufficient.

Initial reports indicate that a majority of the justices appear ready to allow the administration to move forward with the rescission of the program.

The consequences of simply revoking a program like DACA that people have come to rely on for many years are dire. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people who participated in the program over the last seven years would be thrown into disarray.

It would then be up to Congress and the president to negotiate a permanent solution allowing DACA recipients to live and work in the United States without the constant threat of deportation. The House passed such a measure in June of this year.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4615-DACA-Here-What-You-Need-to-Know.html

Tengo DACA. No Importa Lo Que Decida La Corte Suprema, Continuaré Construyendo Comunidades Estadounidenses

Por: Marco Dorado http://immigrationimpact.com/

Marco Dorado es un estudiante graduado en la Universidad de Washington que cursa una Maestría en Administración Pública con enfoque en Política Social, esta es su historia y su apreciación sobre la decisión de DACA

El 12 de noviembre, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos escuchará argumentos orales sobre la legalidad de la rescisión del presidente Trump en 2017 de la iniciativa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA). La decisión de la corte afectará a casi 700,000 beneficiarios de DACA en todo el país y determinará si pueden continuar viviendo y trabajando en los Estados Unidos sin temor a ser deportados.

La audiencia de la Corte Suprema y la decisión final sobre DACA tendrán graves consecuencias para personas como yo, quienes, desde una edad muy temprana, se consideraron estadounidenses, capaces y llamados a contribuir a este país. Más allá de una decisión final sobre la legalidad del intento de rescisión de DACA, este fallo también servirá como un juicio sobre quiénes somos fundamentalmente estadounidenses. Una decisión adversa significaría darle la espalda a cientos de miles de jóvenes que persiguen sus sueños estadounidenses.

En cuanto a mí, independientemente de la decisión del tribunal sobre DACA, seguiré comprometido con el servicio público y la mejora de las comunidades.

En 1995, mi familia se mudó a Estados Unidos desde Jerez, Zacatecas, en busca de una vida mejor y oportunidades económicas.

Después de haber vivido en los Estados Unidos desde que tenía tres años, he hecho lo que la mayoría de los estadounidenses consideraría "lo correcto". Me preparé para una exitosa trayectoria personal y profesional mientras superaba las barreras significativas asociadas con el crecimiento en un hogar pobre de clase trabajadora. Al igual que mis amigos, compañeros de clase y compañeros de trabajo, he perseguido lo que muchos estadounidenses buscan: una oportunidad de trabajar, un futuro prometedor y satisfactorio para mi familia y para mí; mi sueño americano.

Uno de mis recuerdos de la infancia fue creer que vivía en la misma calle que el presidente de los Estados Unidos. Crecer en la calle Pennsylvania en el vecindario Globeville de Denver me conectó con Pennsylvania Avenue en Washington, DC la emoción de un niño de seis años de tener algo en común con una oficina que simboliza, entre otras cosas, la dedicación al deber cívico transformada en pasión y carrera y en servicio público.

Desde servir como presidente del cuerpo de Gobierno Estudiantil de la Universidad de Colorado, hasta apoyar la redistribución de distritos legislativos para maximizar la representación de las comunidades desatendidas de Colorado en el Congreso, el servicio público es un hilo constante a lo largo de mi vida. Es uno anterior a la creación de DACA. Mi motivación se ha basado en mi deseo de aprender formas de tener un impacto significativo para la comunidad en la que crecí.

Como muchos en este país, he superado la adversidad en la búsqueda de una oportunidad justa de alcanzar mis metas, ambiciones y sueños. A través de esta adversidad, me di cuenta de que, como estadounidenses, los desafíos que enfrentamos y las aspiraciones que tenemos no son muy diferentes entre sí. Todos solo queremos una oportunidad justa de buenos trabajos y la capacidad de ayudar a las personas que más nos importan. Esta realización alimenta mi dedicación a trabajar para identificar estrategias, políticas e iniciativas para fortalecer y mejorar las comunidades estadounidenses.

Hoy, soy un estudiante graduado que cursa una maestría con un enfoque en Política Social. Estoy trabajando para apoyar la implementación del programa Opportunity Zone en comunidades tribales y rurales en todo el estado de Washington. Estos programas ayudan a incentivar la inversión en comunidades con dificultades económicas, y estoy trabajando para apoyar a las comunidades en Washington a medida que desarrollan proyectos específicos para la inversión.

He llegado a creer en el poder del desarrollo económico de la comunidad para transformar y desbloquear oportunidades para varias comunidades en todo nuestro país, y DACA me ha ayudado a llegar a este punto en mi carrera. Una decisión adversa de la Corte Suprema inhibiría mi capacidad de aprovechar mi pasión y experiencia en servir a mi comunidad.

Me niego a dejar que mi pasión por el servicio público, el compromiso con la responsabilidad cívica y la dedicación a trabajar para mejorar las vidas de las personas que me rodean se definan por mi condición de beneficiario de DACA.

Pero en este asunto, que afectará mi propia vida y trayectoria, así como muchas otras, solo puedo esperar que la corte decida a favor de DACA por mi bien y el de nuestro país.

 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/ 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4605-Marco-Dorado-beneficiario-de-DACA.html

What Happens To Dreamers Now That The Supreme Court Is Hearing The DACA Case?

By Brenda Solorzano

After months of speculation, the Supreme Court agreed to review three cases challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Court is expected to issue its decision by June 2020, coming in the midst of the presidential race. In the meantime, current DACA recipients remain eligible to submit their renewal applications. 

Even if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, a long-term solution for Dreamers would not be provided. It would only restore the situation to the status quo before the Trump administration ended DACA, leaving many young people with lapsed or no protections. 

The cases reached the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice filed a special request for “certiorari before judgement,” which skips waiting on a federal appeals courts decision and requests to be heard by the Court. In total, four appeals courts have heard arguments on whether President Trump went through the proper procedure before ending DACA. Both the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit held that Trump’s decision to end DACA was improper. Decisions are still pending in the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit. 

Currently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to continue accepting and processing DACA renewal applications. Those who are currently granted renewals will continue to receive protection from deportation and work permits, unless the Supreme Court issues a decision otherwise. 

What does the Court’s future decision mean for DACA recipients? For most, continued and distressing uncertainty. 

If the Court rules in the Trump administration’s favor, nearly 700,000 DACA recipients would be left without permits to work legally and will be at risk of deportation. As a result, DACA recipients are left to wonder what their status will be in the future. 

DACA recipients are not the only ones that hope for an opportunity to stay in the country that they call home. In June, the House of Representatives took the opportunity to put forward definitive answers for the future of DACA by passing the American Dream and Promise Act. This bill provides a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, as well as those with Temporary Protected Status and protections under Deferred Enforced Departure. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the DACA cases emphasizes that Dreamers can no longer wait for more court decisions granting temporary relief of deportation. For them, hopes for a permanent solution currently lie in the hands of Congress. As polls show, the vast majority of Americans support Dreamers and want to give them an opportunity to continue to positively impact the country. That is why a long-term solution for Dreamers and others who live in insecurity is way past due.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4303-Now-the-Supreme-Court-Is-Hearing-the-DACA-Case.html

Dream Act And DACA Policies Designed To Protect Dreamers

With the rescission of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) initiative, there has been renewed pressure on Congress to pass federal legislation known as the Dream Act to protect young immigrants who are vulnerable to deportation. This fact sheet provides an overview of the Dream Act and other similar legislative proposals, explains changes made to DACA on March 13, 2019, and provides information about policies at the state level that support Dreamers. 


History of the Dream Act

The first version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001. As a result, young undocumented immigrants have since been called Dreamers. Over the last 18 years, at least ten versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress. While the various versions of the Dream Act have contained some key differences , they all would have provided a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth who came to this country as children. Some versions have garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House. 

Despite bipartisan support for each bill, none has become law. The bill came closest to full passage in 2010 when it passed the House of Representatives but fell just five votes short of the 60 necessary to proceed in the Senate. 

In July 2017, versions of the Dream Act were introduced in the Senate by Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) and in the House by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). That year, members of the House of Representatives introduced several other legislative proposals to address undocumented youth, most of which were variants on the Dream Act. Although some of these bills drew significant support, none became law. 


Current Federal Legislative Proposals

The most recent version of the Dream Act, H.R. 2820, was introduced in May 2019 in the House by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA). H.R. 2820 was passed by the House Judiciary Committee on May 22, 2019, and the bill was subsequently combined with H.R. 2821, the American Promise Act of 2019, to form H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. H.R.6 would provide permanent legal status for “Dreamers” as well as beneficiaries of two humanitarian programs: Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure. 


What Does the Dream Act do? 

The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 allows current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a three-step pathway to U.S. citizenship through college, work, or the armed services. 


STEP 1: CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

An individual is eligible to obtain conditional permanent resident (CPR) status for up to 10 years, which includes work authorization, if the person: 

• Entered the United States under the age of 18;
• Entered four years prior to enactment and has since been continuously present;
• Has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has graduated high school or obtained a GED, or is currently enrolled in secondary school or a program assisting students to obtain a high school diploma or GED.
• Has not been convicted of any "crime involving moral turpitude" or controlled substance offense, any crime punishable by more than one year in prison, or three or more offenses under state or federal law where the individual was imprisoned for 90 days or more. There is an exception for offenses which are essential to a person’s immigration status;
• Has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence unless the individual can prove the crime was related to being the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse, neglect in later life, human trafficking, battery, or extreme cruelty.

Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security can issue waivers for humanitarian purposes, for family unity, or when the waiver is otherwise in the public interest. In addition, anyone who has DACA would be granted a swift path to CPR status. 


STEP 2: LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Anyone who maintains CPR status can obtain lawful permanent residence (LPR status or a “green card”) by satisfying one of the following requirements: 

• Higher education: Has completed at least two years, in good standing, of higher education or of a program leading to a certificate/credential from an area career and technical education school;
• Military service: Has completed at least two years of military service with an honorable discharge;
• Work: Can demonstrate employment over a total period of three years.

Individuals who cannot meet one of these requirements can apply for a “hardship waiver” if the applicant is a person with disabilities, a full-time caregiver of a minor child, or for whom removal would cause extreme hardship to a spouse, parent, or child who is a national or lawful permanent resident of the United States. 


STEP 3: NATURALIZATION

After maintaining LPR status for five years, an individual can generally apply to become a U.S. citizen through the normal process. 

According to the Migration Policy Institute, as many as 2.31 million individuals would qualify for conditional permanent resident status under the 2019 version of the Dream Act, putting them on a path to citizenship. The bill would also provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 429,000 people who are current or former beneficiaries of TPS or DED. 


Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, providing temporary relief from deportation (deferred action) and work authorization to certain young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. DACA has enabled almost 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, attend school, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation, usually to an unfamiliar country. nlike federal legislation, however, DACA does not provide permanent legal status to individuals and must be renewed every two years. 

On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded the 2012 DACA memorandum and announced a “wind down” of DACA. Effective immediately, no new applications for DACA would be accepted. DACA beneficiaries whose status was due to expire before March 5, 2018 were permitted to renew their status for an additional two years if they applied by October 5, 2017. Any person for whom DACA would have expired as of March 6, 2018, would no longer have deferred action or employment authorization. 

On January 9, 2018, a federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration’s termination of DACA and continued to allow renewal requests. Similarly, on February 13, 2018, a federal judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from abruptly ending the DACA program. As of June 2019, individuals with DACA or those who have had DACA in the past can continue to renew their benefits on a two-year basis. However, first-time applications are no longer being accepted. 


State Policies that Protect Dreamers

States cannot legalize the status of undocumented immigrants, but they may address collateral issues that stem from being undocumented. Most notably, numerous states have enacted legislation that helps overcome barriers to higher education faced by many undocumented youth. Pursuant to some state laws and policies, undocumented students may be able to attend state universities and qualify for in-state tuition. 

Colleges and universities each have their own policies about admitting undocumented students; some deny them admission while others allow them to attend. Even when undocumented students are allowed to attend college, however, the tuition is often prohibitively expensive. If students cannot prove legal residency in a state, they must pay the much higher out-of-state or international-student tuition rates. Further, undocumented students do not qualify for federal student loans, work study, or other financial assistance. As a result, it is extremely difficult for undocumented students to afford to attend public universities. 

To help undocumented students afford college, at least 19 states have passed laws that provide them with the opportunity to receive in-state tuition. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington permit undocumented students who have attended and graduated from the state’s primary and secondary schools to pay the same college tuition as other state residents. The laws generally require undocumented students to attend a school in the state for a certain number of years and graduate from high school in the state. 

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4234-Dream-Act-and-DACA-in-United-States.html

Tuition Equity Policies for Immigrant Students Continue to Advance at the State Level

Written by Tory Johnson

Attending a four-year public college or university is out of reach for many students without U.S. citizenship. But thanks to a growing number of new state laws—which make certain students eligible for in-state tuition rates—many more college hopefuls may be able to pursue higher education.

There is a notable trend among the many immigration-related bills making their way through state legislatures in 2018 and 2019. More states are trying to ensure that students who reside in-state can access higher education.

It’s important to note that these laws and policies, and the rationale behind them, vary among states. In some states, the policies mean in-state tuition rates apply to all students regardless of immigration status. Others apply only to certain groups of students (like those with DACA), while some states like New York offer both in-state tuition and access to certain forms of state or institutional financial aid to eligible undocumented students.

Arkansas is the latest state to pass such a law. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 1684 into law earlier this month, making in-state tuition accessible to certain students. It will apply to DACA recipients, children of people with federally issued I-766 work permits, and immigrants from the Marshall Islands. Students who have lived in Arkansas for at least 3 years and hold an Arkansas high school diploma or GED are eligible.

Leaders across the political spectrum recognize these important benefits. Rep. Dan Douglas, a republican state legislator in Arkansas who sponsored the bill, said:

“[The bill is about] giving these kids that grew up here, that are here legally or they’ve attained legal status through the DACA program, the ability to get in-state tuition… this is their home as much as it’s my grandchildren’s home, because this is where they’ve grown up. But our system doesn’t provide a pathway for them to be able to obtain citizenship.”

It’s also good for the state. Research shows Arkansas’ new law could boost the state’s economy. Estimates project an annual increase of $1.2 million in federal, state, and local taxes and over $3.9 million in spending power held by these graduates.

New York passed legislation that goes further. The Jose Peralta New York State Dream Act allows certain undocumented students to apply for state financial assistance programs. Since 2001, undocumented students in New York have been able to access in-state tuition rates but not state financial aid.

Arkansas and New York are in good company. More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have some degree of tuition equity laws or policies. These policies enable certain or all undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state rates. The other states span the country from Utah to Rhode Island and Kentucky to Hawaii.

Several state universities and university systems provide in-state tuition to undocumented students as well. This includes the University of Maine Board of Trustees, University of Michigan Board of Regents, and two Delaware universities.

Despite the differences, many state leaders and experts agree that tuition equity policies are in the best interest of the state and all of its residents. Prior research shows that states benefit when they ensure that all students can access higher education.

For example, tuition equity policies help reduce drop-out rates in high school and encourage students to stay in the state. They expand the local talent pool, increase income and tax contributions, and provide other economic and social benefits.

These recent state-level developments are an important and encouraging step. All policymakers should continue to support and address the needs of their communities and residents, both now and in the future. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4139-Tuition-Equity-Policies-for-Immigrant-Students.html