AOS affected by Obama's Immigration Move??

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340489429[/url]' post='5476734']

My main question is if anyone knows (or thinks) this big immigration thing of Obama's is going to increase our already lengthy waiting period?? .

It is very unlikely, but at the same time, if it were to delay anything chances are you wouldnt be able to tell, for there is no pre-set schedule for AOS. So just as before, all you can do is wait for the notification. On a positive note, if you're only waiting for AOS you can go about your life unhindered by the wait.

[isa30 4]

MOVE!!

couldn't say it better...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I'd like to point out that Obama's decision applies to children under the age of 16. In the US you have to be 16 to work anyway for the most part (granted there are extenuating circumstances, but this isn't the place to get into them). His decision was that while we will not support the children of these illegal immigrants with federal/tax dollars, and we will not give them the rights to attempt to obtain official immigrant status, we will also not deport them. This is on the grounds that they are children and were not able to make the decision to come to the US, but now that their families are here they'd go back to nothing in their home countries. Based on my conversations with immigration attorneys recently, this is less about giving them the right to file for any sort of documentation and more about not separating children from their families before they are able to take care of themselves. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this will really affect those of us who are in the middle of the immigration process.

The executive order supposedly gives them the right to apply for a two year employment authorization card that can then be renewed an unlimited number of times. How do you think it will affect the service centers if they receive 800,000 EAD applications within the next few months? This is the question the OP is asking.

[JohnR! 5,495]

How do you think it will affect the service centers if they receive 800,000 EAD applications within the next few months? This is the question the OP is asking.

It will be a tall order to determine the impact, if any, on the service centers. There are no metrics in place, thence no baseline for comparison.

[SaharaSunset 165]

Its just so frustrating that a president can make a purely political move like this, bypassing the vote and voice of the citizens of this country, and then make no reference to or special provisions for all those of us doing it legally.

I have been frantically looking for any indication that Obama has planned to add additional financial support to USCIS - but no luck. Which just screams backlog at all USCIS offices. And as for not stressing because its not a "done deal" - Its an executive order - which makes it a done deal as it has the full force of law. My husband commented "Its not very democratic if the president has the power to do something like that." I agree.

I remember a history class in college where we debated immigration issues. At the time, I was very soft hearted towards illegal immigrants. But I'll never forget how shocked I was when a Cambodian guy in my class stood in opposition to our illegal immigrant senario. I thought for sure he, being an immigrant, would support all immigrants. But then he explained how for many years they had been unsuccessful in bringing his grandmother legally to the U.S. - and how unfair it is that "certain people" can just walk across a border and expect to have the same treatment for themselves and their families as all those legal arrivals. And meanwhile his grandma still cannot be with her family. It was a chilling comment...and now I feel its full power and fully agree.

My husband is almost at the 5 month mark since our AOS was transfered to the CSC. So my hope is that we'll squeeze in before August when they start accepting illegals applications. But what if we don't...and it takes so long we have to renew his EAD? And seriously, what about all the people doing in the process legally from the start...will they have priority? Grrrrr, this whole thing just makes me way too mad

[grrrrreat 109]

The President has the authority to order an executive branch agency to selectively enforce the law, so the order to halt deportations is legitimate. Presidents sometimes use this authority as a means of kicking Congress in the pants to get them moving on changing the law. However, what the President cannot do by executive order is change the law itself. The classes of aliens who are eligible for an EAD is spelled out pretty clearly in the law, and there is no class of eligibility for kids who entered without inspection. I would very much like to read that executive order to see how the President pulled this off. Unfortunately, the White House hasn't published the executive order yet. It's curious because he announced the executive order in a Rose Garden press briefing on the 15th, and an order he signed on the 14th regarding deployment of broadband internet access on federal property is published on the White House web site. Secretary Napolitano has obviously received a copy of the order because she's said it's going to be implemented immediately. I wonder why they haven't published it yet.

You're right about USCIS authority to selectively institute removal proceedings, but wrong about their authority to issue EADs. Congress gave USCIS the authority to determine who gets an EAD, and one of those classes is people who were granted "deferred action". (For instance, adjustment applicants can get EADs only because the former INS decided to grant them.) Deferred action is already granted to all different kinds of aliens who USCIS doesn't want to remove. The regulation allowing deferred action aliens to get an EAD is Section 274a.12©(14). It's a regulation not a law, so it's DHS, not Congress, that gets to change it. Congress specifically gave DHS the power to do this already.

The action that was taken was a USCIS directive to grant deferred action to DREAMers who meet the requirements. No further legal or regulatory change was required to make them eligible for EADs. An executive order was not involved. This is the USCIS directive: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD It comes from USCIS/Sec. Napolitano, not the White House.

Edited June 25, 2012 by grrrrreat

[grrrrreat 109]

The executive order supposedly gives them the right to apply for a two year employment authorization card that can then be renewed an unlimited number of times. How do you think it will affect the service centers if they receive 800,000 EAD applications within the next few months? This is the question the OP is asking.

Again, it wasn't an executive order, it was a USCIS policy change.

[SaharaSunset 165]

Again, it wasn't an executive order, it was a USCIS policy change.

What you explained was very interesting. Sure enough on the White House website there is no executive order about immigration. But that just makes me curious why everyone, even reputable news sources and politicians, keep calling it that? And what exactly did Obama have to do with it then? Did he mandate the "policy change"? Did people with "deferred action" technically arrive legally in the first place?

At any rate - it all still makes me mad. And I still feel worried about how it will impact us. What is the point of coming legally, if the only changes we seek in immigration policy, are how to "deal" with illegals. How about we streamline the process, make it managable and without massive fees. Then deport all illegals back to go through the new streamlined process

[ValerieA 350]

The executive order supposedly gives them the right to apply for a two year employment authorization card that can then be renewed an unlimited number of times. How do you think it will affect the service centers if they receive 800,000 EAD applications within the next few months? This is the question the OP is asking.

But Jim, how many do you really think will apply for one? My theory is that they are going to want to stay under the radar, at least until well after the election, to see if there is a Republican president and if so, what he will do regarding this - they could use the EAD information collected against them. I don't think that is likely, but it is a possibility.

[grrrrreat 109]

What you explained was very interesting. Sure enough on the White House website there is no executive order about immigration. But that just makes me curious why everyone, even reputable news sources and politicians, keep calling it that? And what exactly did Obama have to do with it then? Did he mandate the "policy change"? Did people with "deferred action" technically arrive legally in the first place?

At any rate - it all still makes me mad. And I still feel worried about how it will impact us. What is the point of coming legally, if the only changes we seek in immigration policy, are how to "deal" with illegals. How about we streamline the process, make it managable and without massive fees. Then deport all illegals back to go through the new streamlined process

Most of the reputable news sources have corrected their reporting. It's being called a "USCIS directive" or an "executive directive", but it's not an executive order. Secretary Napolitano is a cabinet member and answers to the President. Most likely she and members of DHS, including USCIS, proposed this action and he agreed. Every once in awhile, he will order a cabinet member to do something he wants done, but that didn't happen here at least publicly.

Changing the process as you describe will require an act of Congress--it can't be done by USCIS or the President alone. The President has long advocated comprehensive immigration reform, but has been rejected by Republicans that control Congress. Even President Bush proposed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, but Republicans rejected that too (Democrats mostly voted for it). Even Senator McCain proposed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, but changed his mind when he ran for President and said that he would veto the bill he had proposed!

What the President did was a temporary, humanitarian measure to benefit young immigrants who were brought here by their parents, through no fault of their own. It doesn't grant them permanent resident status nor ensure they will be able to stay, but it provides them temporary relief from the threat of removal and access to employment authorization. This is much different from obtaining permanent resident status.

Lastly, please don't call them "illegals". A human being is not an illegal. Please try to have some empathy in your heart, even though you are frustrated. These are people who often live on the edge of poverty under constant threat of detention and removal, and who often do extremely hard, laborious work that other people in the U.S. are unwilling to do.

Edited June 26, 2012 by grrrrreat

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

You're right about USCIS authority to selectively institute removal proceedings, but wrong about their authority to issue EADs. Congress gave USCIS the authority to determine who gets an EAD, and one of those classes is people who were granted "deferred action". (For instance, adjustment applicants can get EADs only because the former INS decided to grant them.) Deferred action is already granted to all different kinds of aliens who USCIS doesn't want to remove. The regulation allowing deferred action aliens to get an EAD is Section 274a.12©(14). It's a regulation not a law, so it's DHS, not Congress, that gets to change it. Congress specifically gave DHS the power to do this already.

The action that was taken was a USCIS directive to grant deferred action to DREAMers who meet the requirements. No further legal or regulatory change was required to make them eligible for EADs. An executive order was not involved. This is the USCIS directive: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD It comes from USCIS/Sec. Napolitano, not the White House.

Understood. Thanks. As SaharaSunset noted, a lot of the news outlets have been reporting it as an executive order.

If this ever makes it in front of the Supreme Court then I guess we know how Justice Scalia is going to vote:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234571-justice-scalia-blasts-obamas-deportation-directive

[grrrrreat 109]

Understood. Thanks. As SaharaSunset noted, a lot of the news outlets have been reporting it as an executive order.

If this ever makes it in front of the Supreme Court then I guess we know how Justice Scalia is going to vote:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234571-justice-scalia-blasts-obamas-deportation-directive

The decision to grant deferred action isn't reviewable in any court because it's committed to the discretion of the executive branch by Congress. And there isn't anyone who is injured by the policy, which means no one has the right to challenge it in court.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The decision to grant deferred action isn't reviewable in any court because it's committed to the discretion of the executive branch by Congress. And there isn't anyone who is injured by the policy, which means no one has the right to challenge it in court.

Read his dissent. The government cited lack of resources as a reason for not allowing Arizona to participate in immigration enforcement on their own. Justice Scalia smacked down that argument in his dissent saying that DHS has announced they will be accepting over a million applications for deferred action, which flies in the face of their "lack of resources" argument. After the decision was announced by the Supreme Court, DHS announced they were suspending 287(g) programs in Arizona, and they would be refusing to accept most illegal aliens captured by Arizona law enforcement. This is a direct slap in the face to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia came right out and said that the administration was refusing to enforce the law, and circumventing Congress by enforcing the law the way they believe it should have been written.

I fully expect to see Arizona sue DHS over this, and I expect the deferred action policy to be included in that lawsuit. The State of Arizona certainly has grounds to claim this policy harms the state.

[grrrrreat 109]

Read his dissent. The government cited lack of resources as a reason for not allowing Arizona to participate in immigration enforcement on their own. Justice Scalia smacked down that argument in his dissent saying that DHS has announced they will be accepting over a million applications for deferred action, which flies in the face of their "lack of resources" argument. After the decision was announced by the Supreme Court, DHS announced they were suspending 287(g) programs in Arizona, and they would be refusing to accept most illegal aliens captured by Arizona law enforcement. This is a direct slap in the face to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia came right out and said that the administration was refusing to enforce the law, and circumventing Congress by enforcing the law the way they believe it should have been written.

I fully expect to see Arizona sue DHS over this, and I expect the deferred action policy to be included in that lawsuit. The State of Arizona certainly has grounds to claim this policy harms the state.

Justice Scalia's decision is a dissent, not the law of the land. In any case, he wasn't saying that Arizona has the right to sue, just thought he thought what the President did is bad. And the other justices disagreed with him, so why do you think this gives Arizona an opportunity to sue?

Arizona lost yesterday already. The majority of the court said that the federal government has the power to enforce immigration law selectively if they want to. And Arizona can't sue about a federal policy just because they don't like it. There has to be a cause of action and they have to have the legal right to bring a case. Arizona doesn't have either. Arizona has to have a specific injury that the other states don't have--they can't just say they object to illegal immigration generally.

I'm a lawyer and I read the whole case. It sounds like you are interested in these issues but perhaps not aware of the rules about who can sue the government and for what.

Edited June 26, 2012 by grrrrreat

[Harsh_77 716]

Sucks is right! I heard no mention in Obama's little plan about hiring tons of new immigration employees to do the job. And no mention about people doing the process legally in the first place having priority. I bet even Obama doesn't get how this will impact all of us in the process. Its just not fair, and its just not right.

Are you the vote bank, are you going to help him win the next election?

If no than he does not give a ####### about you nor he cares how long you waited out of the country to enter legally and how much you have paid in the fees.