Mi historia personal con DACA

 

El Tribunal de Apelaciones del Quinto Circuito en Nueva Orleans, Luisiana, escuchó los argumentos orales sobre la iniciativa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) el 10 de octubre. Ahora el tribunal está decidiendo si DACA es ilegal, lo que podría allanar el camino para otra batalla en la Corte Suprema.

Mientras tanto, la decisión tendrá un impacto en las vidas de más de 500,000 jóvenes adultos indocumentados que fueron traídos a los Estados Unidos cuando eran niños.

Actualmente, los beneficiarios de DACA pueden renovar su estatus cada dos años. Aunque el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS) está aceptando solicitudes iniciales y tarifas de presentación, las nuevas solicitudes no pueden ser procesadas ni aprobadas.

Como beneficiario de DACA que puede renovar cada dos años, no puedo evitar pensar en las muchas personas con solicitudes pendientes por primera vez. DACA es un arma de doble filo. Me abrió muchas puertas, lo que me permitió cursar estudios superiores, solicitar una licencia de conducir y obtener un empleo legal. Sin embargo, también sirve como un recordatorio constante de que no hay un camino hacia la ciudadanía para personas como yo, y nuestra protección temporal contra la deportación puede ser revocada en cualquier momento.

Continúe leyendo en https://inmigracionyvisas.com/a6143-historia-personal-con-DACA.html

Which Immigration Cases Will The Supreme Court Rule On This Session?

By Katie Rane www.immigrationimpact.com

The Supreme Court began a new session this October, and in the coming months, the justices will hear several high-profile immigration cases.

These cases involve the attempted termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, the highly-criticized killing of a young boy in Mexico by a Border Patrol agent, and the criminal prosecution of immigrant workers.


The Termination of the DACA Initiative

On November 12, the Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA, an Obama-era initiative that offers legal protection to some immigrants who arrived in the United States as children. Previous decisions from lower courts have temporarily stopped the termination.

The plaintiffs in this case (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California) claim that the attempted rescission of DACA violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA outlines specific procedures that must be followed in implementing large-scale policy changes to prohibit executive decisions that are “arbitrary and capricious.”

The end of DACA would upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and would increase the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States by nearly 700,000. This could have disastrous effects for DACA recipients, their families, and the country at large.


Young Boy in Mexico Killed by Border Patrol Agent

The Supreme Court will also hear a case on November 12 based on the story of a 15-year-old boy who was shot in Mexico by a Border Patrol agent in the United States. The case is Hernandez v Mesa.

Sergio Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, was playing with a friend in the canal between Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, Texas when Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa fired shots from the U.S. side. One bullet hit Hernandez, who was on the Mexican side of the border, killing him.

The Court will determine if Hernandez’s family can sue the Border Patrol agent for damages.

In order to recognize the family’s claim for damages, the Court must determine that the agent violated the U.S. Constitution by using excessive, deadly force against Hernandez. In making this determination, the Court will consider whether Agent Mesa is protected under “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine that protects federal officers from prosecution when they act within the scope of their employment.

Cases involving excessive force and abuse rarely result in serious disciplinary action by the agency. A Bivens remedy in this case would create real consequences for immigration officials who violate noncitizens’ rights.

The Prosecution of Immigrant Workers The immigrant worker case (Kansas v. Garcia) deals with three individuals accused of identity theft—a state crime—based on information they provided in federal employment documents. On October 16, the Supreme Court will address whether federal documents can support state criminal charges and whether federal immigration law prevents states from criminally charging noncitizens for identity theft.

This case highlights a recurring pattern in the prosecution of unauthorized immigrant workers: it is the workers, not the employers, being brought to court.

For example, in the Mississippi ICE raids this summer, a federal investigator testified that there was probable cause to believe that employers hired unauthorized workers “for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Yet none of the employers have been prosecuted.

Each of these cases will have far-reaching policy implications affecting immigrants throughout the United States. Hopefully, the Court will take this opportunity to increase the due process rights of individuals impacted by immigration enforcement in the United States.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4550-Immigration-Cases-Will-the-Supreme-Court-Rule.html

DACA Is Still In Effect As It Heads To The Supreme Court

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stinging rebuke to President Trump’s ongoing efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative last week, unanimously upholding a lower court injunction which had blocked the Trump administration from ending the program. 

Just three days before that hearing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals process and hear the DACA case before the Ninth Circuit issued a decision. Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the Supreme Court could take up the case as early as next spring—with DACA remaining in effect until they rule. 

Back in September 2017, the administration announced that it would be ending DACA, the initiative which allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to receive temporary permission to remain in the country. Multiple lawsuits challenging the termination of DACA soon followed. 

In one of those challenges, a federal court in San Francisco found that the administration’s termination of DACA was “based on a flawed legal premise” and ordered the government to continue processing renewal applications. Courts in New York and the District of Columbia soon followed suit with similar orders, which remain on appeal. 

The Ninth Circuit’s decision concluded the same. Though DOJ had argued the original DACA initiative was illegal and unconstitutional—supposedly giving the agency no legal ability to review or continue the program—the court found differently. The Ninth Circuit determined that it had the authority to review and reject the administration’s conclusions as to whether DACA was legal. 

Noting that many previous presidents (including Eisenhower, Reagan, and H.W. Bush) had provided discretionary immigration benefits to large groups, the Ninth Circuit declared that DACA “was a permissible exercise of executive discretion.” Since the administration had offered essentially no other reason for ending DACA beyond its claim that DACA was illegal, the Ninth Circuit held that the government had improperly ended DACA. 

Importantly, the Ninth Circuit was clear that the administration could have chosen to end DACA as a matter of discretion at any time—but had chosen not to, instead relying on the legal conclusion that it simply had no authority to continue the initiative. It is possible that the administration chose not to use its discretion to end DACA because in doing so it would have been forced to admit it was legal. 

Although judges ruled 3-0 against the government, at least one judge on the Ninth Circuit would have gone even further. In a concurring opinion, Judge Owens declared that the plaintiffs should have been granted an injunction due to the administration’s “unconstitutional racial animus” against DACA holders. Most DACA beneficiaries are Latino, people who have borne the brunt of the president’s attacks on immigrants. 

Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the case is directly on path to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court issues a decision, individuals who have DACA can continue to apply for DACA renewals and the government will continue to process them. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it is likely that a decision would come at the end of the term in June. Until then, the initiative remains in place.

Última Actualización: Noviembre 19 de 2018
Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com 

Los Dreamers Pueden Quedarse, Sus Padres Están Sin Protección

Amigo/a, 

En otra jugada para implementar la fuerza de deportación masiva de Trump, la administración Trump oficialmente retiró la política de inmigración que le habría permitido a padres de niños ciudadanos de EE.UU. y residentes permanentes legales que han estado viviendo, trabajando, educando a sus familias y contribuyendo a la economía de EE.UU. protección de la deportación. 

Como parte de esa declaración sobre el retiro de la Acción Diferida para Padres de estadounidenses y Residentes Permanentes Legales (DAPA, por sus siglas en inglés), también fue una declaración de que la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por sus siglas en inglés) permanecerá de hecho en vigor, por ahora. Solamente una verdadera reforma migratoria la haría permanente. 

El anuncio sobre DAPA no tiene impacto alguno sobre DACA. 

Debido a esto, se nos recuerda que DACA es solamente una solución temporal. También nos recuerda que son las altas voces de los Dreamers y aliados como usted influyeron para que Trump rompiera su promesa de campaña de terminar inmediatamente con el programa. 

Juntos, continuaremos protegiendo a las familias inmigrantes y resistiendo todos los ataques contra nuestra comunidad. 

iAmerica
Copyright © 2017 iAmerica
All rights reserved.

Fuente: http://iamerica.org/es 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3647-Dreamers-Pueden-Quedarse-en-Estados-Unidos.html 

Colleges Rally to the Defense of Undocumented Students

Written by Maurice Belanger

Among the many things President-elect Donald Trump has promised is undo President Obama’s executive action protecting young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, also known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

What happens next is complicated. It’s easy to talk about deporting these young people in the abstract. As Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, California, recently told the New York Times: 

“We do have many undocumented immigrants, but often these are residents who came to our city as toddlers. They have grown up here and gone to our public schools,” Ms. Schaaf said. “These are not illegal aliens, they are friends’ children, people sitting next to us in our church pews and on the bus. Here it feels much more personal.”

It is not surprising that the public, institutions, and even cities and towns are rallying to defend their undocumented neighbors, students, and residents. Among the institutions mobilizing to defend undocumented students are the nation’s colleges and universities.

As of November 30, about 400 colleges and universities have signed on to a “Statement in Support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program and our Undocumented Immigrant Students. ” The statement, addressed to “our country’s leaders,” reads in part:

“…DACA should be upheld, continued, and expanded. … This is both a moral imperative and a national necessity. America needs talent — and these students … are already part of our national community. They represent what is best about America, and as scholars and leaders they are essential to the future. The effort to have education leaders sign-on to this statement is organized by Pomona College in California which includes all of the country’s Ivy League Universities and the largest four-year public university system, the California State Universities. 

Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, now president of the University of California, alongside Timothy White, Chancellor of the California State University system and Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Chancellor-Designate of California Community Colleges, sent a letter to President-elect Trump, urging him to continue the DACA program.

The letter states that thousands of DACA students studying in the colleges and universities in the three systems “should be able to pursue their dream of higher education without fear of being arrested, deported, or rounded up for just trying to learn.”

This extraordinary show of support for DACA comes after students across the country have been organizing to pressure their schools to protect undocumented students. United We Dream, the nation’s largest immigrant youth-led organization, and Voto Latino announced a partnership to organize young people to create “sanctuary college campuses and … a welcoming climate of tolerance.” In the aftermath of the election one thing is clear: President-elect Trump knows how to use the media to send a populist message. But what message would he be sending by throwing roadblocks in front of ambitious, young students who are pursuing their education and using their work authorization to contribute to our economy?

The public does not support punishing these young people nor is it sound economic or immigration policy, President-elect Trump should recognize that.

Photo Courtesy of The LEAF Project. 

Source: ImmigrationImpact.com 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3485-Defense-of-Undocumented-Students.html

Acción Ejecutiva DAPA y DACA En Manos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia

Compartimos el video del canal canalestrellatv programa En la Lucha, donde un republicano y un demócrata dan el punto de vista sobre la Acción Ejecutiva y los alivios migratorios prometidos por el Presidente Obama. El Lunes 18 de abril 2016, iniciaron los argumentos en la Corte Suprema de Justicia de los Estados Unidos.

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3297-accion-ejecutiva-en-estudio.html