When was Obama wrote his executive order on DACA, his action was in many ways unlawful. He bypassed the rule of law and unilaterally decided to assist undocumented children of illegal aliens. Perhaps it was in frustration because his own party along with Republican counterparts chose to ignore a glaring problem that should have been addressed–a new Immigration Policy. Perhaps, he simply chose this as a way to force the issue and have congress finally get off their duffs and act.
The problem was that the executive order was only a temporary fix with a sunset clause. It threw immigration into disarray along with other things he chose to do to help open our borders. DACA was seen as a “win” and a lot of illegal immigrants saw it as a “permanent fix” that gave them exclusive rights to permanent residence. The problem came up even more when those same dependent children covered in the executive order did not all follow through and actually become citizens during the four years of Obama’s second term covered by the executive order.
President Trump basically did the same in reverse when he chose to rescind the executive order and force congress to finally do something about the issue.
DACA specified in its summary – The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today begins accepting requests for consideration of deferred action, which could enable people who arrived in this country as children to receive employment authorization for two years. It was written in August 2012 so that sunset was to have been August 2014.
Yet the administration and especially DHS chose to ignore the sunset and allow the end to simply fade away. Nor did they have most of those who did qualify shuffled into and out of the DACA sign up and make sure they received permanent status.
According to a Lifezette article updated in November 2017: The judiciary panels in the Senate and House of Representatives, which requested the data, put out a joint news release highlighting the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services statistics. As of August 21, 45,447 DACA recipients obtained permanent residency, and 1,056 already had become citizens.
“DACA is not supposed to provide a path to citizenship, but tens of thousands discovered they can get around that by exploiting an Obama-era loophole known as “advance parole,” a mechanism by which people who are not legal residents can leave the United States and then return legally. According to experts, it typically had been granted to people with pending green card applications who had compelling reasons for wanting to return home, such as to care for a critically ill relative.”
The year-to-date stats report of 2016 by the USCIS proves that one of three possibilities exists: either recipients themselves chose not to follow through to become legal residents; there were too many immigration law roadblocks which negated the premise of the executive order; or, DHS did not follow through to make sure approved applicants were given legal status in order to comply with the executive order before the end of Obama’s second term. In any case none of those issues can be laid at the door of the current administration. When presidents issue executive orders, those orders are only applicable until a sunset, the new president decides otherwise, or preferably Congress actually acts to fulfill the information lawfully.
In total according to the information: between 2012 and 2016 a total of 1,451,195 applications were received including renewal numbers. However, the actual figure should have been a total of 844,931 to be considered. A total of 90,765 were rejected for differing reasons. Because the Obama administration ignored the sunset year, 1,267,834 were approved by 2016. After further review of the denials, only 64,972 remained as rejected. Mexico accounted for 1,123,631 by the end of 2016 and only 988,339 actually were approved. There were 24 countries represented. As expected, California has approved just over a third of all DACA applications up until the end of 2016.
To qualify for the DACA program, applicants needed to meet these qualifications:
- Have arrived in the United States prior to age 16
- Have continuously resided in the United States without legal status since June 15, 2007
- Be less than age 31 as of June 15, 2012 and at least age 15 at application (unauthorized immigrants under 15 but in removal proceedings are also eligible to apply)
- Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or obtained a general development certificate (GED), or be an honorably discharged veteran
- Have not been convicted of a felony or multiple or serious misdemeanors and not pose a threat to national security or public safety
In both cases the result was and is an immigration nightmare. Democrats have frankly chosen to push DACA as a means of denigrating the Trump administration. They have encouraged and pushed the meme that all children of illegal immigrants should be admitted which is NOT what was in the executive order nor should have Obama and his administration deliberately ignored the sunset clause on his own executive order.
Not even a few days have gone by since the Trump bipartisan meeting at the White House and already Trump is making noise that he is not satisfied with the bipartisan DACA bill. It is confusing but here is a look at the bill as proposed.
Feel free to call me out if you see a different meaning. It could be I am biased enough that I see shadows where there are none.
Senator Graham introduced on July 20, 2017, what is referred to currently as a “bi-partisan” DACA bill in the Senate — S1615-The Dream Act of 2017 and an identical bill was introduced into the House — HR3440 The Dream Act 2017.
Here is a major sticking point. Both bills lean more toward the Democrat side of the issue of DACA and appear to give too much weight to DACA rather than the dictates of the American citizens.
To authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain individuals who are long-term United States residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other purposes.
Sec. 3 (a) Conditional Basis For Status.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under this section, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions under this Act. (first and foremost there is not one word here that suggests that just DACA within the confines of the DACA Obama executive order including the sunset clause can achieve this status (that being only the 1 million plus already signed up and being considered). I could foresee in a worst case scenario that Dems/libs would exploit this phrase for opening the borders in an unrestricted manner for any age group so long as the people arrived in the country as children including future illegal children arriving across the borders each day.)
(A) the alien has been continuously physically present in the United States since the date that is 4 years before the date of the enactment of this Act (so now instead of 2007 it is saying prior to 2014 which was when DACA was supposed to have expired. To me this is adding 7 years of illegal immigrant children to the fold and it has no clear understanding of the maximum age to be reviewed for approval unless I am completely misunderstanding)
(B) the alien was younger than 18 years of age on the date on which the alien initially entered the United States; (hello, the original executive order was at 16 so now we are tacking on a bunch more illegals)
(C) subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the alien—
(i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E), (6)(G), (8), (10)(A), (10)(C), or (10)(D) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)); (well if they are changing to provide a comprehensive Immigration Bill, how can this be applicable without spelling out those little bits and pieces?)
(ii) has not ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and (and how will we know this? especially since Dem congress members have encouraged, incited, and at times taken part in demonstrations on capital steps or in town hall areas that illegals have participated in. We have congress members who are members of such–shouldn’t they also not be acceptable as congress members and citizens?)
(iii) has not been convicted of—
(I) any offense under Federal or State law, other than a State offense for which an essential element is the alien’s immigration status, that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year; or (we have already seen where being sentenced, deported, and any number of lesser convictions have been ignored by illegals or reduced at times in deference to status by all levels of court)
(II) 3 or more offenses under Federal or State law, other than State offenses for which an essential element is the alien’s immigration status, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the 3 offenses and imprisoned for an aggregate of 90 days or more; and (why three or more? shouldn’t illegals especially those receiving preferential treatment through DACA walk a much more narrow line to demonstrate their sincerity?)
(D) the alien—
(i) has been admitted to an institution of higher education; (since when has just being “admitted” proven a darn thing? Aren’t we more interested in “achieving” a better successful career path? where is the incentive to “complete” and graduate in order to improve themselves and our workforce?)
(ii) has earned a high school diploma or a commensurate alternative award from a public or private high school, or has obtained a general education development certificate recognized under State law or a high school equivalency diploma in the United States; or (considering that many high schools are failing to provide more than bare necessity training other than college prep then this isn’t really acceptable. the “no student left behind program” and others like it are themselves enablers for poor performance. where is the incentive to continue in a trade school or some local two year degree)
(2) WAIVER.—With respect to any benefit under this Act, the Secretary may waive the grounds of inadmissibility under paragraph (2), (6)(E), (6)(G), or (10)(D) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) for humanitarian purposes or family unity or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest. (now this one really takes the cake for PC, chain migration, and Dem stupidity. the door isn’t just propped open, it is friggin wide open to interpretation and political agenda)
(4) DACA RECIPIENTS.—The Secretary shall cancel the removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis, an alien who was granted DACA unless the alien has engaged in conduct since the alien was granted DACA that would make the alien ineligible for DACA. (where the heck is the accountability? where does it say anywhere in this that DACA approved applicants have xx days to submit their application for permanent status or the status will be revoked)
There is more but the above is the most significant at the moment. It is interesting to note that only 3 of the 10 co-sponsors for the senate bill are Republicans even though sponsored by RINO Graham–Flake, Murkowski, and Gardner. Enough said on those names. The House bill has 200 co-sponsors but before you get excited, a Democrat introduced the bill and it is mostly sponsored along party lines. Only 5 Republicans signed on to it. These two bills were presented in June 2017 and do not reflect any of the past months of information or considerations since that time.
Bi-Partisan – r-i-g-h-t, sure, umhmm.
The Trump administration rejected a bipartisan Senate DACA proposal saying it needed more work. “We’re pleased that bipartisan members are talking,” President Donald Trump’s congressional liaison Marc Short said Thursday, but added, “I think there’s still a ways to go.”
Senator John Cornyn said he spoke with Trump and the president told him the negotiators need to get wider approval of the plan before moving ahead.
Senator Tom Cotton called the proposal “a joke” saying it didn’t go far enough in particular to end immigration family preferences.