DOCSLIB.ORG

President Trump's Request H.R. 4760- Securing America's Future Act (Goodlatte) Senate “Gang of 6” Proposal H.R. 4796- Un

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
President Trump's Request H.R. 4760- Securing America's Future Act (Goodlatte) Senate “Gang of 6” Proposal H.R. 4796- Un President Trump’s H.R. 4760- Securing Senate “Gang of 6” H.R. 4796- Uniting and Request America’s Future Act Proposal Securing America Act (Goodlatte) (Hurd) Amnesty Current DACA Holders Current DACA Holders: DREAMers (entered prior to DREAMers (entered at ​ ​ ● 3-year renewable legal June 15th, 2012): under 18 and present since ​ Potentially eligible status with work and ● Conditional permanent December 31, 2013): population: 694,000 travel authorization. resident status. ● 8-year renewable ​ ● No special path to ● 12-year special path to conditional permanent citizenship. citizenship (as little as 10 resident status or ​ years for DACA immediate lawful Potentially eligible recipients). permanent residence (if population: 694,000 they meet certain ​ Parents of DREAMers: education, employment, ● 3-year indefinitely or military requirements). renewable legal status ● 5-year path to citizenship with work authorization. (recipients may have the ● No special path to condition on their citizenship permanent resident status removed Potentially eligible immediately upon population: 9,735,000 meeting certain ​ (3,245,000* DREAMers plus education, employment, 6,490,000 parents) or military requirements, *Based on DREAM Act estimates- and the time period ​ Migration Policy Institute under conditional permanent resident status counts toward the existing 5-year naturalization path for legal permanent residents). Potentially eligible population: More than ​ 3,245,000, because of the ​ later present-since date than the Gang of 6 proposal (12/31/13 vs 6/15/12)* *Based on DREAM Act estimates ​ Migration Policy Institute Chain End chain migration ● Ends chain migration ● Maintains chain Not addressed Migration (limit family-based (limits family-based migration; and immigration to spouses and immigration to spouses ● Reallocates the 26,000 minor children of citizens and minor children of visas reserved for adult and legal permanent citizens and legal children of legal residents) permanent residents); permanent residents to and the category for spouses ● Establishes a renewable and minor children of nonimmigrant visa for legal permanent parents of U.S. citizens. residents (upon receiving citizenship, immigrants will still be able to sponsor their adult children). Visa Lottery End the visa lottery Ends the visa lottery but ● Maintains the visa lottery Not addressed distributes the 55,000 lottery with new individual visas to the skilled selection preferences- employment-based visa ○ 27,500 visas for categories. “underrepresented countries” (i.e., lottery countries) and ○ 27,500 visas for granting green cards to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients- ■ Once all TPS recipients have received a green card, all 55,000 visas will be used for the lottery. Enforcement ● Mandate E-Verify for all; ● Mandates E-Verify for all ● Appropriates ● Calls for additional ● End visa overstays; employers with a 2-year $1,591,000,000 for wall border security ● Strengthen interior phase-in; planning, building, and technology, but no ​ immigration ● Criminalizes visa construction, limited to fencing/wall. ​ ​ enforcement- overstays; existing fencing; and ● Adds additional ​ ○ Enforce existing ● Strengthens interior ● Appropriates immigration judges and immigration laws; immigration $1,123,000,000 for other BIA staff attorneys. ○ Protect innocent enforcement- non-wall border people in sanctuary ○ Fully authorizes the measures, including drug cities; Department of screening, border access ○ Authorize and Justice to withhold roads, and oversight of incentivize States grants to sanctuary CBP. and localities to help jurisdictions; enforce Federal ○ Establishes a private immigration laws; right of action against ○ Hire 10,000 more sanctuary ICE officers and 300 jurisdictions for Federal prosecutors; victims of criminal ○ Stop aliens who were catch-and-release released as a result and expand the of sanctuary policies; criteria for expedited ○ Grants immunity to removal; state and local law ○ Prevent gang enforcement for members from honoring ICE receiving immigration detainers; benefits; and ○ Requires DHS to ○ Improve visa enter into 287(g) security. agreements with ● Improve border security- localities that request ○ Fund the wall; an agreement; ○ Authorize the DHS to ○ Allows for the raise and collect fees continued detention from visa services of criminal aliens and border-crossings whose home to fund border countries refuse or security and unreasonably delay repatriation; enforcement ○ Increases penalties activities; for illegal reentry ○ Ensure the safe and (Kate’s Law); expeditious return of ○ Tightens the Unaccompanied “credible fear” Alien Children (UAC) standard to reduce and family units; asylum fraud; ○ End asylum abuse by ○ Addresses loopholes tightening standards, in the handling of imposing penalties unaccompanied alien for fraud, and children (UACs), ensuring detention allowing for their while claims are expeditious return verified; and requiring the ○ Hire an additional initiation of removal 370 Immigration proceedings against Judges and 1,000 their parents if ICE attorneys; illegally present in ○ Enhance penalties the U.S.; and for reentry and ○ Makes gang expanding categories members and of inadmissibility; individuals with ○ Improve expedited multiple DUIs removal; and inadmissible and ○ Increase northern deportable. border security. ● Improves border security- ○ Allows for Border Patrol access to all Federal lands; ○ Requires the completion of the biometric entry/exit system; ○ Adds additional Border Patrol and CBP officers and authorizes the National Guard to assist border patrol; ○ Authorizes $10,300,000,000 each year, from 2018-2022, of which- ■ $9,300,000,000 is for the construction of physical barriers; and ■ $1,000,000,000 is for improving tactical infrastructure. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridging the Gap Between DACA and the DREAM: the BRIDGE Act, What It Means, and Why It Matters
    Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs Volume 7 Issue 1 February 2019 Bridging the Gap Between DACA and the DREAM: The BRIDGE Act, What It Means, and Why It Matters Ellen E. Findley Follow this and additional works at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons ISSN: 2168-7951 Recommended Citation Ellen E. Findley, Bridging the Gap Between DACA and the DREAM: The BRIDGE Act, What It Means, and Why It Matters, 7 PENN. ST. J.L. & INT'L AFF. 304 (2019). Available at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol7/iss1/24 The Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs is a joint publication of Penn State’s School of Law and School of International Affairs. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2019 VOLUME 7 NO. 1 BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN DACA AND THE DREAM: THE BRIDGE ACT, WHAT IT MEANS, AND WHY IT MATTERS Ellen E. Findley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 305 II. WHAT IS THE BRIDGE ACT? .......................................................... 307 A. A Brief History of the DREAM Act ................................... 308 B. The Rise and Fall of DACA ................................................. 311 C. A Possible Revival of DACA ............................................... 317 III. BENEFITS OF THE BRIDGE ACT .................................................. 320 A. Efficiency Concerns .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Driver's Licenses, State ID, and Michigan Immigrants
    Driver’s Licenses, State ID, and Michigan Immigrants DRAFT Introduction Since 2008, Michigan has required applicants for driver’s licenses and state identification to provide proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status. This change was part of a series of post-9/11 changes, and has had significant consequences for all Michiganders who use the roads. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have already changed their laws to permit some form of legal driving without proof of immigration status.1 States have chosen to restore access to driver’s licenses irrespective of immigration status to address significant economic and public safety-related challenges posed by greatly-increased numbers of unlicensed drivers, including reductions the agricultural workforce, exclusion from the insurance market, This report highlights the economic and safety benefits to all Michigan residents of expanding access to driver’s licenses for all otherwise-eligible Michigan drivers. Section One describes the legal background, the federal REAL ID Act and states’ relationship to it; Section Two explores potential benefits to the State of Michigan by allowing more individuals to be eligible for state driver’s licenses and identification cards; and Section Three states specific recommended changes to Michigan law. Section 1: Background A. Background of Michigan Driver’s Licenses & REAL ID Act Compliance Prior to 2008, Michigan law contained no requirement that an applicant for a driver’s license or state ID card needed a specific immigration or citizenship status in order to be eligible. Applicants did have to submit documents that were sufficient to prove identity and establish state residency.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J
    Marquette Law Review Volume 100 Article 8 Issue 2 Winter 2016 A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J. Pita Loor Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Immigration Law Commons Repository Citation Karen J. Pita Loor, A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience, 100 Marq. L. Rev. 565 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol100/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized editor of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 38800-mqt_100-2 Sheet No. 140 Side A 02/22/2017 09:25:38 LOOR-P.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/16/17 12:32 PM A STUDY ON IMMIGRANT ACTIVISM, SECURE COMMUNITIES, AND RAWLSIAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE KAREN J. PITA LOOR ABSTRACT This Article explores the immigrant acts of protest during the Obama presidency in opposition to the Secure Communities (SCOMM) immigration enforcement program through the lens of philosopher John Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience and posits that this immigrant resistance contributed to that administration’s dismantling the federal program by progressively moving localities, and eventually whole states, to cease cooperation with SCOMM. The controversial SCOMM program is one of the most powerful tools of immigration enforcement in the new millennium because it transforms any contact with state and local law enforcement into a potential immigration investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Parents and Students CA Dream Act Background and Eligibility
    CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for parents and students CA Dream Act Background and Eligibility Q. What is the California Dream Act? Q. Who Can Apply for the California Dream Act? The California Dream Act allows undocumented and nonresident Students who live in California and meet the eligibility requirements documented students who meet certain provisions to apply for and of Assembly Bill (AB) 540 or AB 2000, as well as students who have receive private scholarships funded through public universities, state a U Visa or TPS status, can use the California Dream Act application administered financial aid, University grants, community college fee (CADAA). waivers, and Cal Grants. Q. What is the difference between the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the California Dream Act application? The eligibility requirements based on citizenship are completely different for each of these. See below for more details: 1) You are eligible to complete the FAFSA at https://fafsa.ed.gov/ if 2) You are eligible to complete the Dream Act Application (CADAA) at you are a: www.caldreamact.org if you are a: Person who has a Social Security number who is either: Student who is not eligible to file the FAFSA and you: • A U.S. Citizen • Meet the requirements of AB 540 or AB 2000 and/or • An eligible non-citizen, per the FAFSA definition, or • Reside in California with a U-Visa or • The holder of a T-visa • Reside in California with a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) • A U.S. Citizen, eligible non-citizen or the holder of a T - Visa whose parent is undocumented Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Discourse Used by Supporters and Opponents of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (Dream Act)
    ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE USED BY SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, RELIEF AND EDUCATION FOR ALIEN MINORS ACT (DREAM ACT) By: Javier Barba Vazquez A Discourse Analysis Presented to the Department of Public Policy and Administration School of Business and Public Administration CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Spring 2014 ~ .L, U)\4 Dr. Chandrasekhar Commuri, Ph. D. Date Approved~ 1<. /J1aif) Dr. Thomas Martinez, Ph. D. Date Copyright By Javier Barba Vazquez DEDICATION I would like to dedicate my biggest accomplishment to my parents Jesus and Margarita and my siblings Miguel Angel, Antonio, Jaime, Rene and Jose Guadalupe†. I would have not made it this far in life without your unconditional support. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First I would like to thank God for guiding hand in my life throughout my graduate studies. I wish to thank my readers Dr. Commuri and Dr. Martinez for the direction and assistance while completing this thesis. In addition, I would thank Dr. Stanley Clark for supporting me during my entire graduate program and challenging me to perform at my best in each of my courses. Without these generous professors, it would have been extremely difficult to achieve this goal. Furthermore, I would like to recognize my colleague Rogelio “Roy” Alvarado for working alongside with me during these past two years, especially at the times we wanted to give up. Finally, I whole-heartedly appreciate the support everyone else offered me during
    [Show full text]
  • The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers
    The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers With the unsuccessful rescission of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) initiative in September 2017, 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 DACA initiative following the Supreme Court's decision blocking the program's rescission, the Dream Act1 and similar legislative proposals, and provides information about policies at the state level that support Dreamers. 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.2 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.3 Unlike 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.4 As of that date, no new applications for DACA were 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, 2017.5 Any person for whom DACA would have expired as of March 6, 2018, would no longer have deferred action or employment authorization.6 The attempted rescission was challenged by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigrants and Michigan Driver's Licenses
    Immigrants and Michigan Driver’s Licenses: Past, Present, and Future Updated: December 2018 Looking back: Michigan licenses issued regardless of immigration status Prior to 2008, Michigan law contained no requirement that an applicant for a driver’s license or state ID card needed a specific immigration or citizenship status in order to be eligible. Applicants did have to submit documents that were sufficient to prove their identity, and they had to show that they were residents of Michigan. A 1995 Michigan Attorney General Opinion stated that because the law had no immigration status requirement, an “illegal alien” could not be denied a driver’s license on that basis.1 The opinion also stated that there was no legal reason why an “illegal alien” could not be considered a resident of a state. In December of 2007, Attorney General Mike Cox issued a new opinion that reversed that finding.2 The 2007 opinion stated that an unauthorized immigrant cannot be considered a Michigan resident and, in fact, only a Lawful Permanent Resident, sometimes known as a “green card” holder, could be considered a Michigan resident under the law. Where we are: “legal presence” requirements and use of foreign licenses The Michigan Secretary of State implemented the 2007 AG opinion in early 2008. It had the immediate effect of denying licenses to all people who are undocumented. In addition, it excluded dozens of categories of legally present noncitizens who live and work in Michigan who have not been granted Lawful Permanent Resident status. To clarify who was
    [Show full text]
  • Labor, Farms, and Immigration
    LABOR, FARMS, AND IMMIGRATION: ALIEN LIFE ON THE FARM BY: RACHEL ALLEN APRIL 2009 PREPARED AS AN ACADEMIC REQUIREMENT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LAW COURSE AT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY’S DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW SPRING SEMESTER 2009 The work product contained in this paper is entirely that of the student author. I. INTRODUCTION Americans are bombarded with statistics about illegal immigration and undocumented workers. We are told of the horrific deaths of those trying to cross the border to have their chance at a better life, their chance to realize the American dream. On the other side we are told that the millions of illegal immigrants are drawing from the public and giving nothing back. What should the American public believe? It is hard to determine what to believe, or which side to choose, and yet it is impossible to ignore the impact undocumented workers have on our society and in particular our agricultural system. It is impossible to deny that our fruits and vegetables, grown in the United States, were undoubtedly picked by alien hands. The Department of Labor has estimated that of the 1.6 million workers in agriculture more then half of them are undocumented workers.1 Other groups estimate that the numbers may be higher, around seventy-five percent.2 The Pew Hispanic Center approximates that there were twelve million illegal immigrants in the United States in March 2006.3 The Department of Homeland Security approximates that in 2005 there were 10.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States.4 Each year the number of illegal immigrants rises by about 500,000.5 Further “it remains almost impossible to accurately track the population of illegals using data from the census, which doesn’t ask people their legal status.”6 Most undocumented workers are transient 1 Linda Levnie, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service, January 30, 2009 at Summary.
    [Show full text]
  • HR 6 – American Dream and Promise Act of 2019
    H.R. 6 – American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 March 21, 2019 Prepared by NCSL Emerson Fellow The American Dream and Promise Act H.R. 6 is the latest effort by Congressional Democrats to enact major immigration reform to establish a pathway to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of individuals with or who have had deferred deportation status. The bill is divided into three major sections. The Dream Act focuses on providing undocumented children and individuals attending higher education such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) participants with the opportunity to apply for permanent resident status. The American Promise Act focuses on providing similar opportunities to foreign nationals in the United States protected or recently protected by Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). The last section, General Provisions, provides an outline of definitions, exceptions, and additional information that applies to individuals benefitting from the Dream Act portion and the American Promise Act portion. The legislation was introduced in March and has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the Education & Labor Committee. Currently, there are 214 Democrat co-sponsors and no Republican co-sponsors. Title I – Dream Act of 2019 Section 101. Short Title. Section 101 names the first portion of the act “Dream Act of 2019.” Section 102. Permanent Resident Status on a Conditional Basis for Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the United States as Children. Section 102 (a) and (b) list out the requirements for undocumented immigrants to become lawfully admitted for permanent residence (PR). An applicant must prove that they meet all the following: • Continuously physically present in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • DREAM Act White Paper
    The DREAM Act: A Win-Win Situation A White Paper Prepared for LULAC National by Edward T. Rincón, Ph.D. Rincón & Associates Dallas, Texas April 6, 2006 6500 Greenville Avenue ● Suite 510 ● Dallas TX 75206 ● 214-750-0102 ● Fax 214-750-1015 Website: http://www.rinconassoc.com ● E-mail: [email protected] Executive Summary The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) was conceived as a way of helping the estimated 65,000 children of undocumented parents achieve citizenship through college education or military service, coupled with a record of good moral character. The proposed legislation faces an uncertain future with a Congress that is deeply divided on immigration reform and an American public that is ambivalent about the impact of increasing numbers of undocumented immigrants on their quality of life. A number of barriers were identified as shaping the public’s acceptance of The DREAM Act and proposed legislation to control illegal immigration. • The DREAM Act remains in relative obscurity. The mass media has done little to educate the general public about the proposed legislation while limited information is provided by advocacy organizations. • National pollsters confirm that the American public remains sharply divided about the economic and social impact of immigrants on their quality of life. While many believe that immigration is good for the U.S. economy, nearly half feel that immigrants hurt the job market and cost taxpayers too much. Moreover, many Americans also believe that illegal immigrants contribute to crime, increase the danger of terrorism, and threaten traditional American values. The more negative views of immigrants were held by Americans who were less educated, struggling financially, and lived in neighborhoods with the least exposure to immigrants.
    [Show full text]
  • In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students and the DREAM Act
    In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students and the DREAM Act A report by Voices for Utah Children October 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 Background 5 Opposition to In-State Tuition 9 Critics and Supporters of Utah’s Law 10 Conclusion 12 Appendix 1. DREAM Act Chronology 14 Appendix 2. Student Enrollment 15 Appendix 3. HB 144 Exemption From Nonresident Tuition 17 Endnotes ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report was made possible by the generous support of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. We thank them for their support but acknowledge that the findings and conclusions presented in this report are those of Voices for Utah Children alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Foundation. 2 Voices for Utah Children INTRODUCTION Meeting the demands of today’s knowledge-based, technology-driven economy will require that greater numbers of today’s young people go on to higher education. It is in Utah’s economic self-interest to encourage and support all of its ambitious, academically strong students by providing every possible incentive to complete university training. On March 26, 2009 Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the DREAM Act.1 Under this bill, illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children, defined as age 15 and under, and have lived here for five years could apply to the Homeland Security Department for conditional legal status after graduating from high school. Such legal status would make the immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition rates and some forms of federal financial aid. Then, if they attend college or participate in military service for at least two years, the immigrants would qualify for permanent legal residency and ultimately citizenship.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security
    phelps et al 00 fmtautoF2 1/6/14 9:10 AM Page iii Border Security James R. Phelps Jeffrey Dailey Monica Koenigsberg Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina phelps et al 00 fmtautoF2 1/6/14 9:10 AM Page iv Copyright © 2014 Carolina Academic Press All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Phelps, James R. Border security / James R. Phelps, Jeffrey Dailey, Monica Koenigsberg. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61163-171-5 (alk. paper) 1. Border security. 2. Border security--United States. 3. United States--Emigration and immigration--Government policy. 4. Smuggling--United States--Prevention. 5. Human trafficking--United States--Prevention. I. Title. JV6035.P44 2013 363.28'50973--dc23 2013033434 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America phelps et al 00 fmtautoF2 1/6/14 9:10 AM Page v Contents Preface xiii Acknowledgments xvii Author Biographies xix Part One Defining Borders Chapter 1 · Barriers, Boundaries, and Borders 3 Introduction 3 East and West Germany 4 Geographic Barriers, Boundaries, and Borders 6 The Rio Grande River 9 Political Boundaries, Barriers, and Borders 12 The Law of the Sea 16 Economic Boundaries, Borders, and Barriers 17 Ultimate in Borderless Regions 20 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 20 Resolving Boundary and Border
    [Show full text]