ILNews

Adams: Relief for immigrant 'Dreamers' soon to be a reality

July 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Angela D. Adams

angela adams Adams

Just minutes before attending my first session of the second day of the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in Nashville, Tenn., I began to receive a flood of emails and tweets on my phone about an announcement which would completely change the lives of an estimated 1.4 million immigrant youth, commonly called “Dreamers,” across the country and between 21,000 and 29,000 immigrant youth in Indiana. As I stood in the coffee line, I wondered, “Is this really happening? Is this a joke? Am I dreaming?”

It was not a dream. Tears began to well up as I thought of all of the kids I have worked with in the last 15 years who would possibly benefit from this news. These are kids who were brought to the U.S. at a very young age through no fault of their own and have no other way to fix their status. They are Americans in every way except they are undocumented.

Along with 3,000 other immigration attorneys, I witnessed a live announcement that I and others have been anticipating for so long. The crowd smiled, cried, cheered and stood in disbelief as we listened and watched the president’s speech on three big screens. During commercial breaks we received briefings from AILA national staff. While the previous day had been spent largely criticizing the Obama administration for a lack of action in the area of immigration, Friday morning brought a complete game changer followed by a sudden change of heart. I will forever remember that as one of the top 10 coolest moments in my life.

Within the executive authority of the president, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum dated June 15, 2012, announcing that it would begin exercising prosecutorial discretion by allowing certain immigrant youth to apply for “deferred action.” Deferred action is a discretionary act of administrative convenience to the government which gives some cases lower priority. In an effort to clarify enforcement priorities, the Department of Homeland Security has decided not to initiate removal proceedings against those who meet the following five criteria for deferred action: (1) Entered the U.S. prior to the age of 16; (2) Continuous residence in the U.S. for at least five years immediately preceding and have been physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012; (3) Currently enrolled in school, have graduated from high school or have obtained a GED; (4) Not have a conviction for a felony offense, a substantial misdemeanor offense or multiple misdemeanor offenses; and (5) Not above the age of 30.

Individuals who qualify for deferred action will be eligible to apply for employment authorization for a period of two years, subject to renewal. Employment authorization allows one to also apply for a Social Security number and state identification card and/or driver’s license. In addition, deferred action may open the door for students to be eligible to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. Most importantly, deferred action will serve to protect qualifying individuals from deportation or removal.

Deferred action is not an amnesty or immunity. It does not lead to lawful permanent residency or U.S. citizenship. It does not permit one to apply for family members. Those who qualify are not able to vote and are still subject to removal if they commit certain removable offenses.

The process to apply for deferred action is still unknown and many details are yet to be determined. DHS has been instructed to issue further guidance and clarification on the requirements and details of the application process, form, filing fee, etc., in 60 days. Unfortunately, unscrupulous notarios and immigration consultants are already coming out of the woodwork to sell misinformation to the public. Individuals who believe they may be eligible should be advised to seek legal advice from a competent immigration attorney. In addition, individuals who do not qualify should not apply as this could open them up to serious consequences, including the possibility of being placed in removal proceedings.

One cannot help but appreciate the fascinating politics and ingenious timing of this executive directive. For starters, the announcement was made on the 30th anniversary of the seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in which the court held that undocumented school-age children could not be denied free access to public education. It was also the first anniversary of the president’s memorandum on prosecutorial discretion, which critics suggest did not go over as well as planned. Also not by coincidence, the annual AILA conference provided 3,000 messengers who were perfectly poised to positively spread the word. Republican leaders had already announced their own version and support of the DREAM Act, and this further forced their hand.

Undoubtedly and obviously rallying for the Latino vote, both parties are now forced to take a serious look at immigration reform as the result of this announcement. This memo, followed by a recent and historic U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Arizona law, Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___ (2012), have started the snowball rolling toward comprehensive immigration reform just in time for the next election. In fact, the Supreme Court’s 5-3 decision to strike down major parts of Arizona’s immigration law suggests that the president acted within his executive power. The opinion emphasized the “broad discretion” of the federal government to set priorities in choosing which immigrants to deport. Even Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent said the executive branch has supremacy over immigration.

The battle has only just begun. The polls are showing that the majority of Americans (64 percent) support this policy of deferred action for Dreamers. Sometimes the political thing to do also happens to be the right thing to do. Much more than a political move, it appears that the president’s directive is slowly nudging the immigration conversation back to the middle — where it belongs. The challenge will continue to be getting Congress to face the music, have a rational debate on immigration reform and pass a long-term solution.•

__________

Angela D. Adams is an attorney and director with the law firm of Lewis & Kappes P.C. concentrating on immigration matters. She is board president of the Immigrant Welcome Center and vice chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Indiana Chapter, and she has served as an education consultant for the Indiana Department of Education, division of language, minority and migrant programs. She is co-founder of META: Mapping Education Towards Achievement, a post-secondary awareness seminar for Hispanic students. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT