Skip to content

The Audacity of President Obama’s Deportation Duplicity

President Obama’s speech on immigration reform on January 29, 2013 described undocumented immigrants in a favorable light:

 …And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble.  They’re contributing members of the community.  They’re looking out for their families.  They’re looking out for their neighbors.  They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

However, just yesterday Obama implied that he had no compunction in ripping undocumented immigrants out of the fabric of our lives.

In an interview with Telemundo Obama said:  ”I make no apologies for us enforcing the law as well as the work that we’ve done to strengthen border security.”

Obama was also asked if deportations would continue. His answer was duplicitous in the extreme:

That may be a moot question, because I anticipate us being able to get comprehensive immigration reform done.

May be moot. As in not currently moot because undocumented immigrants are still being deported in record numbers.

When asked the same question in a separate interview with Univision, Obama responded:

I’m not a king. There are still going to be stories that are heartbreaking with respect to deportations until we get comprehensive immigration reform.

What about Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)? DACA is a blanket refusal to enforce the immigration laws of the United States. DACA is an unprecedented use of Deferred Action. In other words, Obama is only willing to be bold if he stands to gain politically. DACA only happened because President Obama wanted a boost in the elections for 2012.

Now that there is no election, Obama is unabashedly expressing his indifference  at the destruction of immigrant families. Obama has the power to implement a moratorium on deportations. 

At the very least, Obama should  create a similar administrative program to DACA that stops deportations that would result in the separation of immigrant families.

What makes my blood reach a boiling point is not the anti-immigrant actions of the President. Rather, it is his cunning duplicity in pretending he has no power to act otherwise.

Obama refuses to be accountable for the concrete harm that ICE has caused to the families of the deported. He refuses to look at us in the eye and say: “My administration has destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who have done nothing wrong.”  He hides behind the obviously false assertion that he has no choice.

President Obama: If you are bold enough to break international law by unilaterally assassinating suspected terrorists, you can institute a legal moratorium on deportations of immigrants with families in the United States.

Let our President know you want a halt to deportations by signing this petition. 

Obama administration crafts new DACA rule to exclude more dreamers

The Obama administration is ostensibly gearing up for comprehensive immigration reform while at the same time acting directly against the interests of immigrants.

On January 18, 2013, USCIS updated its “FAQs” on DACA.

The FAQs are put into quotes because there is at least one rule change dressed up as an FAQ.

USCIS’s update is by now widely known for its affirmation that DACA recipients are considered by DHS to be lawfully present in the United States. This was obviously spurred on by the fact that several states were denying DACA beneficiaries drivers licenses because they did not consider them to be lawfully present in the United States.

At first glance, USCIS’s updates seem to support DACA recipients against boogeyman anti-immigrant states like Iowa or Arizona.  But on closer examination, there is a rule change that was designed to exclude the number of young immigrants eligible for DACA. Question and answer 1 under the heading Miscellaneous states:

New - Q1: I first came to the United States before I turned 16 years old and have been continuously residing in the United States since at least June 15, 2007. Before I turned 16 years old, however, I left the United States for some period of time before returning and beginning my current period of continuous residence. May I be considered for deferred action under this process?
A1: Yes, but only if you established residence in the United States during the period before you turned 16 years old, as evidenced, for example, by records showing you attended school or worked in the United States during that time, or that you lived in the United States for multiple years during that time. In addition to establishing that you initially resided in the United States before you turned 16 years old, you must also have maintained continuous residence in the United States from June 15, 2007, until the present time to be considered for deferred action under this process.

This caught my attention because one of our clients would not be eligible under this new rule change.

When the DACA requirements were first published, one only needed to show that one came to the United States before one’s 16th birthday.

In fact, question 13 on Form I-821D asks: Date of Initial entry into the United States. The form emphasizes the importance of the initial entry, not whether the applicant established residence after that initial entry.

Our client did not establish residence in the U.S. until after reaching her 16th birthday. 

Under the rules at the time that our client applied, she qualified and received DACA. Under the new rules, she would not qualify for DACA.

Why did the Obama administration craft a new rule that restricts the amount of young immigrants eligible for DACA? Does Obama want to penalize young immigrants for having been lucky enough to have entered the U.S. for a vacation prior to their 16th birthday?

This new rule makes no sense and is anti-immigrant.

Snippet after snippet after snippet of evidence (De Osorio) reveals the Obama administration acting concretely against the same immigrants that he concurrently purports to want to include in a comprehensive reform package.

When all of the facts point one way, hope is useless. It is time to turn the other way–to abandon Obama–and find a new avenue for reform.

Obama Administration to DACA Recipients: You Are Second-Class Kids

Obama double speak

Truth you can only believe in if you dig through my dizzying maze of doublespeak.

On January 18, 2013,  USCIS supposedly came out with “new” information regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.(“DACA”)  Of note is the purported clarification of whether or not whether DACA recipients are considered “lawfully present” by DHS.

USCIS’s full answer is as follows:

For purposes of future inadmissibility based upon unlawful presence, an individual whose case has been deferred is not considered to be unlawfully present during the period in which deferred action is in effect. An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect.(emphasis added) 

We knew all along that those who received DACA would not be considered unlawfully present for purposes of future inadmissibility. There is no controlling legal definition of what “lawful presence” actually means. However, for purposes of benefits such as eligibility for driver licenses or government-subsidized health care, most states look to the federal government’s definition of lawful presence, which relies heavily upon who is not unlawfully present under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii).

Once one looks at the specific definition, this seemingly complicated issue becomes quite simple:

“An alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.”

DHS has authorized the stay of DACA recipients in the United States. As such, DACA recipients are lawfully present. So why did USCIS feel the need to clarify this already-established fact just yesterday?

Because the Obama administration intentionally muddied the waters of what lawfully present means for DACA recipients in order to exclude them from medicaid and other health care benefits.

Shortly after USCIS started accepting DACA applications, the Obama administration made it clear that DACA recipients would be second-class deferred action recipients.

To be eligible for medicaid and other health insurance benefits under Obama’s new health law, one must be considered “lawfully present.” Prior the announcement of DACA, 45 CFR 152.2(1)-(7) defined what immigrants were “lawfully present.” Pay particular attention to the classes highlighted below:

Lawfully present means

(1) A qualified alien as defined in section 431 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) (8 U.S.C. 1641);

(2) An alien in nonimmigrant status who has not violated the terms of the status under which he or she was admitted or to which he or she has changed after admission;

(3) An alien who has been paroled into the United States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) for less than 1 year, except for an alien paroled for prosecution, for deferred inspection or pending removal proceedings;

(4) An alien who belongs to one of the following classes:

(i) Aliens currently in temporary resident status pursuant to section 210 or 245A of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1160 or 1255a, respectively);

(ii) Aliens currently under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) pursuant to section 244 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1254a), and pending applicants for TPS who have been granted employment authorization;

(iii) Aliens who have been granted employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9), (10), (16), (18), (20), (22), or (24);

(iv) Family Unity beneficiaries pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 101-649 as amended;

(v) Aliens currently under Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) pursuant to a decision made by the President;

(vi) Aliens currently in deferred action status;

(vii) Aliens whose visa petitions have been approved and who have a pending application for adjustment of status;

(5) A pending applicant for asylum under section 208(a) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158) or for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1231) or under the Convention Against Torture who has been granted employment authorization, and such an applicant under the age of 14 who has had an application pending for at least 180 days;

(6) An alien who has been granted withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture; or

(7) A child who has a pending application for Special Immigrant Juvenile status as described in section 101(a)(27)(J) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)).

Immigrants in category (C)(10) have cancellation of removal applications pending in immigration court. Immigrants in category (c)(18)  have outstanding orders  of removal and report on an order of supervision. Immigrants granted deferred action outside of the DACA program are also “lawfully present.” Their EAD category is (c)(14).

The Obama administration made a new category for DACA recipients–(C)(33)–so that it could add paragraph 8 to 45 CFR 152.2 to exclude them from medicaid eligibility:

(8) Exception. An individual with deferred action under the Department of Homeland Security’s deferred action for childhood arrivals process, as described in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s June 15, 2012, memorandum, shall not be considered to be lawfully present with respect to any of the above categories in paragraphs (1) through (7) of this definition.

Put differently, if the Obama administration treated DACA recipients as the recipients of Deferred Action of yore, they would have had to include them in the definition of “lawfully present” for purposes of medicaid eligibility.

As one can see from the list above, the federal government already includes many recipients of prosecutorial discretion in the definition of lawfully present.

The reasoning is that if the government is consenting to one’s presence in the country and one is working and contributing to society, one should be afforded the same privileges of society’s most important safety net: medical care.

By intentionally excluding DACA recipients from medicaid, the Obama administration has yet again revealed its cold, disingenuous heart.

On the abstract level, the exclusion of DACA recipients may not seem like a big deal. However, many of these young immigrants are just starting out in the workforce and will not be able to afford health insurance. What happens if a young immigrant gets into a bad car accident, or is diagnosed with cancer? They will have work authorization but will only be able to use it to pay off the mountain of debt left by medical bills.

As per his routine, Barack Obama announced the DACA program with bubblingly  flowery words, noting that children of illegal immigrants “study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag,” and also that:, “it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.”

What Obama did not say is that the poorest of these children are not for all intents and purposes Americans when it comes to medical care.  He left that dirty work to the bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services, which provided an objectively farcical explanation.

Obama should have some integrity and consider DACA recipients lawfully present for purposes of medicaid eligibility. Lawfully present means lawfully present. It does mean lawfully present depending on the politics du jour.

New Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Is Arbitrary and Lacks Due Process

The new provisional waiver for unlawful presence has traipsed across the newsreels for several days now since its announcement on January 2, 2013.

Overall, this new rule is positive. However, USCIS has crafted the new regulation in such a way that precludes a significant number of well-deserving immigrants from even applying.

Normally, an arrest or conviction alone do not bar an applicant from qualifying for adjustment of status.

If an immigrant is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), the immigrant is ineligible to apply for adjustment of status, or their “green card.” Similarly, if an immigrant has been present in the United States for more than one year unlawfully, and then leave the U.S., the immigrant is barred from the United States for 10 years.

Both of these grounds of inadmissibility can be overcome if the immigrant applies for and qualifies for a waiver. However, Congress specifically carved the “petty offense exception” into INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) for certain immigrants convicted of a CIMT.

If an immigrant qualifies for this exception–having only been convicted of one CIMT that was not punishable for more than one year and for which the conviction was not in excess of 6 months–the immigrant is not inadmissible and therefore does not need to apply for a waiver in order to adjust status to that of permanent resident.

USCIS’s new regulation, however, was made with the intent to discourage any immigrant who has been arrested–whether convicted or not–from applying for the provisional waiver. Given that Congress specifically intended for certain immigrants to be eligible for adjustment notwithstanding their arrest or criminal history, USCIS is acting against Congress’ intent in an attempt to look tough on crime.

In the real world, USCIS does not achieve the tough-on-crime look. Rather, it is simply defeating the purpose of the provisional waiver in the first place–to maintain family unity. The key word is family. The U.S. citizen spouses and children of immigrants should not be deprived of their family because USCIS wants to “punish” the immigrant for being arrested or convicted of a petty crime.

An Arbitrary Rule

Section 4(i) of the new regulation 8 CFR 212.7(e) states that

An alien is ineligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver under paragraph (e) of this section if:

(i) USCIS has reason to believe that the alien may be subject to grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II) of the Act at the time of the immigrant visa interview with the Department of State;

This sounds vague because it is. USCIS stated that there will be a 3 step process in their review of the background check, which provides them with infinite latitude to deny an provisional waiver application:

USCIS…will…conduct a limited review of the waiver application to determine if: (1) The individual has self-reported a ground of inadmissibility that would render him or her ineligible for the provisional unlawful presence waiver;(2) the results of the background checks reveal conduct or actions that potentially would make an individual ineligible for an immigrant visa; or (3) the individual has engaged in activities that could impact the discretionary determination regarding whether he or she warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.(emphasis added) 

If USCIS determines that there is reason to believe that the alien may be inadmissible to the United States at the time of his or her immigrant visa interview based on another ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence, USCIS will deny the request for the provisional unlawful presence waiver.

To emphasize USCIS’s authority to abuse the already-intolerably vague standard set out above, the new regulation does not allow appeals if the provisional waiver application is denied.

Lest an applicant with an arrest history is not dissuaded from challenging USCIS’s blanket ban on thousands of otherwise qualifying applicants, USCIS “will continue to follow its existing Notice to Appear (NTA) policies to determine whether the agency will initiate removal proceedings against a particular individual or refer them to ICE.”

We hope that USCIS’s rule will be tested and that some applicants will be able to show that they qualify for the provisional waiver notwithstanding an arrest or conviction in the past.

For example, if an applicant can demonstrate that their conviction of a CIMT falls within the petty offense exception, they can argue that USCIS has no reason to believe that they are subject to a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence.

Put differently, a person who has a CIMT that fits within the exception is not inadmissible. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the person is inadmissible on the basis of the conviction. Furthermore, if properly prepared, an applicant can provide irrefutable evidence that their conviction does not render them inadmissible to a ground other than unlawful presence.

USCIS should amend this rule to allow the provisional waiver to serve its purpose of family reunification. It should leave the targeting of non-criminals and petty offenders to its wasteful sister agencies, ICE and CBP.

New Year, New Immigration Rule

The New Year brings great news, primarily for spouses of U.S. citizens who are residing here in the U.S.

Today, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced the posting of a final rule for the provisional waiver process which would benefit certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.  This rule, which was proposed nearly a year ago on January 6, 2012, will finally be published tomorrow and USCIS will begin receiving applications on March 4, 2013.

As we have written in this blog on numerous occasions, spouses of U.S. citizens who entered the United States without inspection are caught in a conundrum:  they are usually subject to a ten-year  bar for unlawful presence in the U.S., but cannot benefit from their approved relative petition by a U.S. citizen spouse without leaving the country.  Once they try to re-enter, they trigger the unlawful presence bars and cannot come back without a waiver.  Many just decide that it is not worth the risk leaving the U.S. and having their waiver applications denied, and consequently waiting years to be reunited with their loved ones.  So they have been waiting for a change.  Today, that change has finally been announced.

Immediate relatives include spouses of U.S. citizens, unmarried children of U.S. citizens whose parents applied for them before age 21, and parents of U.S. citizens 21 years or older.  This category of people will be able to apply for a provisional waiver of unlawful presence here in the U.S., and if approved, leave with some security that they will be able to re-enter the United States.  To qualify for the waiver, they  have to demonstrate “extreme hardship” to their U.S. citizen spouse or parents.  In effect, then, the only immediate relatives who could benefit from this rule are spouses of U.S. citizens, 18-20 year old children of U.S. citizens, and older children of U.S. citizens who are subject to the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).

More great news follows: immediate relatives who are in removal proceedings and receive an administrative closure of their case can also apply for a provisional waiver here in the U.S.  The provisional waiver will be the same cost, $585, and it may be re-filed based on the same family petition.  DHS will work with the Department of State to coordinate the decision on the I-601 waiver with the consular interview, to prevent delays.

Individuals who want to apply for the provisional waiver should consult with an attorney, especially if they have any criminal issues.  If USCIS deems individuals a public security threat, they will share information received with ICE for enforcement purposes.

Are there Record Deportations Under Obama? No, he is The Liar-in-Chief, not The Deporter-in-Chief.

With every year under the Obama administration, ICE has declared with glee an ever-increasing number of record deportations. ICE’s latest purported record deportation figure for the fiscal year of 2012 is 409,849.

Ever conscious of the need to avoid looking like the family-destroyers that they are, ICE touted ” that about 55 percent overall were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.”

One must ask: How is ICE breaking deportation records while concurrently implementing unprecedented policies for prosecutorial discretion, such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) and the June 15, 2011 “Morton” Memorandum?

Misrepresentation. Or to put it uncouthly, ICE is lying.

The Obama administration is counting border patrol apprehensions of recent arrivals as deportations so that they may subsequently prosecute more individuals for illegal reentry under 8 USC Sec.1326, a federal felony, and thereby create the illusion that more dangerous criminal aliens are being deported.

According to DHS’s 2011 Yearbook of Immigration statistics, and with the further analysis of Professor Sue Long of TRAC, the following chart has been provided:

FY Year Removals Returns  Deportations
2000 188,467 1,675,876 1,864,343
2001 189,026 1,349,371 1,538,397
2002 165,168 1,012,116 1,177,284
2003 211,098 945,294 1,156,392
2004 240,665 1,166,576 1,407,241
2005 246,431 1,096,920 1,343,351
2006 280,974 1,043,381 1,324,355
2007 319,382 891,390 1,210,772
2008 359,795 811,263 1,171,058
2009 395,165 586,164 981,329
2010 387,242 476,405 863,647
2011 391,953 323,542 715,495

From 2008 to 2011, removals have annually increased while returns have annually decreased. Returns are deportations without a formal order. Border Patrol apprehensions have also steadily been decreasing, which may have contributed to the “Returns” dramatic decrease from 811,263 in 2008 to 323,542 in 2011. However, the Obama administration’s ruse is still clear.

According to DHS, “Returns” are confirmed movements of inadmissible or deportable immigrants not based on an order of removal and are mostly Mexican nationals apprehended by Border Patrol and quickly returned to Mexico.

If an immigrant is “returned” to their country, they cannot be charged with illegal reentry under 8 USC Sec.1326 because there is no outstanding order of exclusion, deportation, or removal order. Coincidentally, The amount of Mexicans with criminal convictions has increased dramatically under the Obama administration.

From 2008 to 2005 , The Bush administration removed 77,531; 76,967; 73171; and 70,779 Mexican nationals with a prior criminal conviction. From 2009 until 2011, the Obama administration has removed 99,616; 128,296; and 144,745 Mexicans with a prior criminal conviction.

In its yearbook for 2012, DHS admits that  most “Returns” are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.

What explains this surge of convicted Mexicans removed from the United States? The only reasonable answer is that the supposed increase in deportation of convicted immigrants is a farce.

The increase in number of overall removals and removals of immigrants convicted of a crime are correlated with an unexplained increase in the removal of Mexican nationals convicted of a crime. DHS shows  border removals for fiscal years 2009 to 2012 but curiously does not include the number of border removals for FY 2008. If they did, it would show a substantial increase in border removals under the Obama administration, exposing a rather significant layer of lies.  Look at the chart below, for example:

Picture of ICE

ICE includes the 2008 numbers of Convicted Criminals and Other Removable Aliens yet does not include the 2008 numbers for Border Removals. This chart was made with deliberate intent to mislead the public because it omits  data that could show that an increase in border removals accounts for both the increase in overall removals and removals of immigrants convicted of a crime.

Padding The Numbers

In 2011, TRAC released an intriguing report titled “Illegal Reentry Becomes Top Criminal Charge.”  In 2008, the last year of the Bush administration, the Justice Department charged illegal reentry 21,320 times. From 2009 until 2011, the Justice Department has charged illegal re-entry 30,126; 35,836; and 37,104, respectively.

As of 2011, the Obama administration has almost doubled the amount of annual prosecutions for illegal re-entry.

From 2009 to 2011, the Obama administration has also criminally charged illegal entry, a misdemeanor, 54,175; 43,688; and 34,540 times, respectively. In just three years the Obama administration charged illegal entry 132,403 times, which is more than the Bush administration did in eight years at 122, 392.

In its 2012 press release, ICE bragged that  ”approximately 55 percent, or 225,390 of the people removed, were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors – almost double the removal of criminals in FY 2008.” (emphasis added)

Lest the public question what horrible felonies or misdemeanors that these aliens where convicted of, ICE selectively cites to “1,215 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,557 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 40,448 aliens convicted for crimes involving drugs; and 36,166 aliens convicted for driving under the influence.”

These “bad” crimes amount to 83,386, which is not even half of the total of 225,390 people removed who were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.

Guess what else has nearly doubled since FY 2008? Criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry; illegal entry;  and removals of Mexican nationals who were convicted of a crime.

Guess what has not nearly doubled since FY 2008? The number of immigrants removed convicted of homicide; sexual offenses; crimes involving drugs; and driving under the influence.”

Given the above, it is clear that the Obama administration has weaved, at a minimum, two layers of lies to the public on numbers of immigrants removed from the United States.

First, the Obama administration is lying about how many immigrants are being removed overall by formally issuing orders of removal to Mexican nationals who have historically been “returned” to Mexico without an order of removal.

Second, the Obama administration is lying about the increase of immigrants convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.

The Obama administration is  issuing more removal orders to Mexican nationals so that they can then subsequently charge more immigrants with the felony offense of illegal reentry.  The vast majority of immigrants convicted of illegal reentry must have been subsequently removed. ICE then used the double in increase of convictions for illegal reentry and entry included in ICE’s press releases to create the appearance of a material increase in the amount of “criminals” being removed.

Internal Document shows United We Dream to be Controlled by Lobbyists Closely Affiliated With The Democratic Party

UWD internal document

What is disturbing is how many powerful and Democrat-laden groups on RI4A’s Management Table are purposely trying to exclude the many dissenting voices among the immigrant population. Too many close ties to the deporter-in-chief.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.