Young Immigrants Pause on ‘Deferred Action’ Offer – WSJ.com.

The flow of applications for a program allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and work legally has been slowed by concerns about what they must disclose and uncertainty about who will be the next president.

During the first three weeks that the government accepted requests for “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” as the program is known, nearly 40,000 individuals submitted applications, according to government officials and others familiar with the situation. The government began accepting requests on August 15.

Chris Bentley, press secretary for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency adjudicating the requests, said the government will release official numbers later this week. He declined to comment further.

The level of activity so far is a fraction of the potential number of eligible immigrants.

As many as 1.7 million immigrants, 30 years old and younger who have lived continuously in the U.S. for five years, could benefit from the program, according to Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

About 1.2 million foreign-born people are eligible to apply immediately, with another 500,000 children reaching the minimum eligibility age of 15 in a few years, the institute estimates. The largest number of potential applicants—460,000—is in California. Florida, New York and Texas also have many undocumented youth.

Successful applicants have been assured they won’t be deported and will receive a Social Security number and work permit. They will not be entitled to a green card, or permanent U.S. residency, and must reapply every two years to remain in the U.S. and work legally.

Administration officials said they had expected a flood of requests, creating in turn a large caseload for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security. But several issues have prevented potential applicants from submitting forms, according to immigration attorneys and advocacy groups.

Immigration attorneys say the outcome of the election is a source of concern for potential applicants, because Republican candidate Mitt Romney has taken a tough stance on illegal immigration.

“Some people have asked if I will let stand the president’s executive action. The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure,” Mr. Romney said in a June speech.

“A lot of people are waiting to see what happens Nov. 6 before deciding whether to take the plunge,” said Maurice Goldman, an immigration attorney in Tucson, Ariz. Mr. Goldman has filed only 20 applications, or only about a third of the prospective applicants who have come to his office seeking consultations.

President Barack Obama announced the immigration policy shift, a significant exercise of executive authority, after failing to convince Congress to pass an overhaul of the immigration system, which risked alienating Hispanic voters who will be crucial to his re-election. His administration has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants.

The government has said application information will not be shared with immigration enforcement. But “many people aren’t applying because they fear their families could be at risk of being deported,” said Tabbata Castillo, a 26-year-old undocumented Venezuelan in Nashville who has helped run information sessions for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

Laura Lichter, an immigration attorney in Colorado, said that the application form is simple, but can pose problems in some cases. To prove recent residence in the U.S., older applicants, in particular, might need to show work rather than school records. The problem is, undocumented immigrants typically use false identification to secure jobs, which could raise red flags.

“We still don’t have answers to issues like, if you borrowed your cousin’s name and Social Security number for a job,” which means the applicant’s real name isn’t the one on the pay stub, says Ms. Lichter.

Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, isn’t surprised the influx of applications has been relatively thin. “It’s not out of lack of interest,” she said.

AILA is seeking clarification from the government on several issues related to the application process. “Nobody has done this before, so we don’t know what works for sure,” she said. Attorneys volunteering at clinics have managed to assist fewer than half of those who need help.

During the first few days that applications were accepted last month, young immigrants jammed nonprofit organizations where individuals could get help completing forms.

The cost is another barrier for families who sometimes have several eligible children. The application costs about $500, before attorney fees, which can surpass $1,000 apiece.

Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on immigration – Comprehensive immigration reform – CSMonitor.com.

Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on immigration

President Obama arrives to deliver remarks on immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas, May 10, 2011. (Jim Young/REUTERS/File)

1. Comprehensive immigration reform

Obama says his support for comprehensive immigration reform has been limited only by Congress’s inability to put a bill on his desk. In 2007, then-Senator Obama voted for the comprehensive immigration bill backed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, and President Bush. The bill never reached the floor for a vote, but it would have provided a path to citizenship for 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants, established a two-year guest-worker program, added 20,000 border patrol agents, built 370 miles of border fencing, and revamped the federal employment-verification system.

In 2010, after Arizona passed its anti-illegal immigration Senate Bill 1070, Obama made halting efforts to put immigration reform atop his agenda, proposing solutions in a July 1 speech that echoed the failed Kennedy-McCain bill. But he was unable to make significant headway.

The lack of immigration reform, he told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) on June 22, “has given rise to a patchwork of state laws that cause more problems than they solve and are often doing more harm than good.”

Former Massachusetts Governor Romney has said he is similarly committed to federal immigration reform. But he has laid more stress on enforcement. “That means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa,” he said in an address to NALEO on June 21. “We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence, and implement an improved exit-verification system.”

Romney has sought to put immigration reform in a economic context, suggesting changes designed to help American business. “I’ll work with states and employers to update our temporary-worker visa program so that it meets our economic needs,” he told NALEO. “And if you get an advanced degree here, we want you to stay here. So I’d staple a green card to the diploma of someone who gets an advanced degree in America.”

He also vows to cut bureaucratic red tape to allow families to stay together. But he does not favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in America.

This puts him at odds with many Latino voters, and Obama sees an opening. “The immigration issue could be pivotal in the presidential race,” says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “A strong Latino turnout is critical to Obama’s victory, and a successful exploitation of the immigration issue by his campaign could ensure a second term in the White House.”

2. DREAM Act

The DREAM Act has been seen as an interim step that Congress could take before is politically able to take up comprehensive immigration reform. First introduced in 2001, it stands for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, and it would provide conditional permanent residency to illegal residents who were brought into the US as minors, are pursuing an education or military service, have lived in the country continuously for at least five years, and who have not run afoul of the law.

The DREAM Act was a part of the 2007 bill that Obama supported, and as president, he has continued to support the DREAM Act on its own. Indeed, with the DREAM Act stalled – most recently, Senate Republicans blocked it in 2010 – Obama took action into his own hands. He issued an executive order on June 15 calling on immigration officials to grant deportation deferrals to the same illegal immigrants who fit the profile laid out by the DREAM Act. While not a path to citizenship, the executive order allows DREAMers to apply for work permits, driver’s licenses, and college tuition help.

Romney has said he would veto the DREAM Act, but his position appears to be evolving. He told NALEO that he would replace Obama’s executive order with his version of comprehensive immigration reform and offered a path to legal residency – though not citizenship – to one slice of the DREAMers: illegal immigrants in the armed forces.

“As president, I will stand for a path to legal status for anyone who is willing to stand up and defend this great nation through military service,” he said at the NALEO annual meeting.

This offering of legal status – instead of citizenship – could be a hallmark of any broader Romney immigration reform, says Robert Gittelson, president and co-founder of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

“A particular distinction between these campaigns might be in terms of a pathway to citizenship versus a pathway to simple legal status,” he says. “I suspect that the governor might be more generous to a larger block of undocumented immigrants than most people think, but it is possible that he would offer the more moderate position of offering simple legal status, arguing that policy would be strict, or resolute in terms of the rule of law, while also embracing a fair or compassionate conservatism.”

3. Deportation

Obama’s “DREAM Act lite” executive order in June was only the latest and most dramatic attempt by the White House to limit deportations. Previously, Obama had directed immigration agents to use discretion in deportation proceedings – focusing only on hardened criminals.

But there is little evidence to suggest that immigration agents have listened. The Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants in its first three years – 1.1 million – than any administration since the 1950s. Moreover, independent analysts combing through federal data have found it impossible to confirm whether the “criminals” the administration says it is deporting actually are actually criminals.

In a Republican presidential debate in January, Romney suggested that “self-deportation” is the ultimate solution. He described that as the point when “people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here. We’re not going to round them up.”

He has since departed from that terminology, but his speech at NALEO spoke of similar principles: tightening oversight of businesses and the border to make illegal immigration in the US a less-appealing option.

Mr. Gittleson sees this as a fundamental tenet of a potential Romney immigration strategy: greater emphasis on border security and the deportation of undocumented individuals, “probably with less discretion in terms of prioritizing criminal aliens.”

4. Border fence

In a speech on immigration reform in El Paso, Texas, in 2011, Obama said the building of a border fence is “now basically complete” – an assertion that Politifact found “barely true,” since only 36 of the 649 miles of fencing was the robust, double-layer type that Congress had initially requested.

Moreover, in January 2011, the Obama administration ended a Bush-era border fence project that cost $1 billion and was supposed to bring high-tech sensors and cameras to the border. The decision ended “a long-troubled program that spent far too much of the taxpayers’ money for the results it delivered,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut at the time, according to CBS News.

Romney is in favor of building a stronger border fence, pointing to a February GAO report that found that that just 44 percent of the 2,000-mile-long border is under operational control, and just 15 percent is totally controlled. His website holds that he will “complete a high-tech fence to enhance border security” and “will ensure that we have the officers on the ground we need to gain control of the border.”

Obama has ridiculed such suggestions about a border fence, saying in El Paso: “Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”

5. Sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants

In another example of how Obama has shifted the executive branch’s policies on illegal immigration, the administration is increasingly targeting employers of illegal immigrants – rather than the illegal-immigrant employees – with tough charges and fines, according to a New York Times report in May. In doing so, the report said, the administration has largely forgone high-publicity factory raids in favor of longer-term investigations.

For his part, Romney lauds Arizona‘s use of the E-Verify federal database. Currently, all federal contractors have to use E-Verify to confirm that an employee is in the country legally. In 2007, Arizona passed a law requiring all companies in the state check their employment rosters through E-Verify. A first offense brings a suspension of a business license; a second brings its revocation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that E-Verify was responsible for 17 percent of Arizona’s working-age illegal immigrants – or, about 92,000 undocumented workers – leaving the workforce in one year.

“I think you see a model here in Arizona,” Romney said in a February Republican presidential debate.

Obama’s take on E-Verify is more nuanced. “E-Verify can be an important enforcement tool,” he said at a press conference in June 2011. But he also said he shares the concerns of civil liberties groups, who contend the database contains too many errors. “I don’t want is a situation in which employers are forced to set up a system that they can’t be certain works,” Obama said. “And we don’t want to expose employers to the risk where they end up rejecting a qualified candidate for a job because the list says that that person is an illegal immigrant, and it turns out that the person isn’t an illegal immigrant.”

A 2011 report for the federal General Accountability Office found that E-Verify correctly confirmed the work eligibility of 97.4 percent of employees checked in fiscal year 2009. But it acknowledged that identity thieves can game the system. E-Verify might be clearing as many as half of illegal immigrants run through the system, because they are using the valid work credentials of someone else.

Program providing protection for young immigrants launched – CNN.com.

(CNN) — Hundreds of thousands of people who entered the United States as children but without documentation can apply — beginning Wednesday — to remain in and work in the country without fear of deportation for at least two years.

“I’ve found the form!” screamed Maria, a young Chilean at a Latino community center in New York, as she leaped from her seat.

She was with a number of other undocumented immigrants meeting there to get legal advice in anticipation of the release of the form, which authorities surprisingly posted a day before they had said they would.

The form, titled “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” was dated August 15, 2012, and bore the expiration date of February 28, 2013.

Maria started filling it out immediately, telling a reporter she was too afraid to divulge her last name or details of her childhood trek to the United States, but would feel differently once the form had been processed and her status ensured.

The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said Tuesday that applicants who have not committed major crimes can apply without fear of deportation.

“This afternoon, USCIS makes available online the forms and instructions for individuals who will request deferred action for childhood arrivals,” Director Alejandro Mayorkas said in a conference call.

The announcement comes two months after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that people who arrived in the United States as children may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years subject to renewal, and would then be eligible for work authorization.

The program, dubbed Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was created in June under an executive order signed by President Barack Obama.

As many as 1.7 million youths may qualify for the program, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

When he signed the order, Obama said the changes will make immigration policy “more fair, more efficient and more just.”

Undocumented students in their own words

The shift on the politically volatile issue of immigration policy elicited praise from Latino leaders, while Republicans reacted with outrage, saying the move amounts to amnesty — a negative buzzword among conservatives — and usurps congressional authority.

“This is not amnesty,” Obama said. “This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.”

Mayorkas reiterated Tuesday that deferred action does not provide lawful status or a shortcut to permanent residency or citizenship.

The $465 application fee will fund the administrative costs of the program, including a biometric check and the issuance of a secure work-authorization document, he said.

Each request will be examined for possible fraud, he added.

In a suburb north of Atlanta, David and Daniel Hernandez listened carefully as their lawyer detailed the program.

They arrived in the United States on tourist visas some 15 years ago, when David was 3 years old and Daniel was 1.

Their mother, Salima Hernandez, said they wanted a better future and education for her kids. She said she didn’t worry about their legal status until she learned that they would not be able to continue their education without a government ID or Social Security number.

David, now a senior in high school, and Daniel, a freshman, say they were not aware of their status until a couple of years ago, when they began to make plans for college.

“I felt that after high school I didn’t have anywhere to go,” David said. “I felt that if it was not something coming up soon I would end up back in Mexico.”

He said he remains concerned about revealing his status to federal authorities by filling out the application, but says it’s worth any risk. “Whatever comes in the future is better than three months ago,” he said.

Ana Ramirez said her parents brought her and her sister Juana to the United States without any documentation many years ago when they were just toddlers.

The two sisters went to school and grew up in the United States. They consider themselves U.S. citizens. Only, they’re not.

They are filling out the paperwork for the deferred action program.

I didn’t have a choice to come here,” Juana Ramirez said.

Added her sister: “I’m scared to get my hopes up.”

Lawyer Charles Kuck said people like the Hernandez brothers and the Ramirez sisters are not cutting in line — they just want a chance at life without fear of deportation.

“They are getting two things out of this program: one, a promise they wont be deported for two years and, two, a work permit,” Kuck said. “In exchange, the federal government is getting a million or more kids coming forward, give their biographical information and that of their whole family and give their pictures.”

He urged anyone applying to do so with the help of a lawyer.

“The government has said quite clearly: there will be no appeals, there will be no motions to reopen,” he said. “You get one bite at this apple.”

In announcing the program, Obama noted that children of illegal immigrants “study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag. It makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.”

The president declared that the policy change is “the right thing to do.”

Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who arrived in the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military, can get a two-year deferral from deportation and apply for work permits.

Participants must prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.

The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.

The move addresses a concern of the Latino community and includes some of the provisions of a Democratic proposal called the DREAM Act that failed to win enough Republican support to gain congressional approval.

Obama has been criticized by Latino leaders for an overall increase in deportations of undocumented immigrants in recent years. Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,906 illegal immigrants, the largest number in the agency’s history.

Obama and Napolitano have called for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would put into law similar steps for children of illegal immigrants to continue living and working in the country.

Republicans who blocked Democratic efforts to change immigration laws have condemned the move, with some calling it an improper maneuver to skirt congressional opposition.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a GOP foe of Democratic proposals on immigration, threatened in June to sue to stop Obama “from implementing his unconstitutional and unlawful policy.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has called the decision “a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership,” while House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, has called the change a “decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.”

Others predicted the move will tighten an already poor job market for young Americans.

However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sponsored the DREAM Act, said it “will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home.”

Presumed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in June that the issue needs more substantive action than an executive order, which can be replaced by a subsequent president.

As president, Romney said, he would seek to provide “certainty and clarity for people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the actions of their parents.”

Latinos make up the fastest-growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election.

A spokeswoman for a major Latino group, the National Council of La Raza, hailed the administration’s move.

“In light of the congressional inaction on immigration reform, this is the right step for the administration to take at this time,” NCLR spokeswoman Laura Vazquez said in June.

Washington (CNN) – Young illegal immigrants can start applying on August 15 for two-year deferrals from deportation, but will have to pay $465 in fees, a top immigration official announced Friday.

The announcement provided the first details of the Obama administration’s policy change announced June 15 that provides some illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children a path to an employment authorization card without fear of getting deported.

Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation as well as an employment authorization card.

Participants must be able to prove they have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007 — five years before the change was announced — and must have entered the country without inspection or had their lawful immigration status expire.

Alejandro Mayorkas, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the application process will include providing biometric information and undergoing a background check.

Applicants who commit fraud in the application process, pose a security threat or have been convicted of serious crimes will be ineligible and subject to prosecution, he said.

In all other cases, according to Mayorkas, information submitted in the application process will not be used for immigration enforcement.

A senior administration official told reporters on background that the goal is to maximize participation by eligible young illegal immigrants, so a strong privacy policy is important.

Other details announced Friday made clear that while successful applicants would avoid deportation for two years, there is no mechanism involved that would speed up or ease their path to full citizenship.

Conservative critics of the new policy said it amounted to a “backdoor” amnesty by the Obama administration to appease Hispanic supporters angered by the lack of comprehensive immigration reform since the president took office.

The policy change was in essence an administrative step to mimic some provisions of the DREAM Act backed by Obama and Democrats that was blocked by Republicans in Congress.

In announcing the change on June 15, Obama said it will make immigration policy “more fair, more efficient and more just.”

Noting children of illegal immigrants “study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said that “it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.”

However, Obama and other administration officials said Congress still needs to pass the DREAM Act and tackle immigration reform because the policy change in June was designed to address an immediate need, rather than be a permanent solution.

The change was part of a Department of Homeland Security effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a serious threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, officials say. By halting deportations of younger immigrants who pose no threat, the department hopes to unclog a backlog of 300,000 immigration cases.

In addition, the election-year move was widely praised by Hispanic-American leaders, many of whom previously criticized Obama for an overall increase in deportations of illegal aliens since he took office. In 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,906 illegal immigrants, the largest number in the agency’s history.

The Hispanic-American vote is vital to Obama’s chances for winning re-election in November.

In the conference call Friday with reporters, the senior administration official said the fees charged for applications are intended to cover the cost of implementing the policy change. No general fee waiver exists, but an exemption may be granted in exceptional cases, such as homelessness or disabilities, the official said.

The official also warned people that applications will only be accepted starting August 15, and warned that anyone who offers to expedite the process or start it earlier would be unauthorized and likely running a scam.

Marcelo Garcia column: Nation needs true immigration reform | Appleton Post-Crescent | postcrescent.com.

By the United States Constitution, anyone born in the USA is automatically a U.S. citizen. Children born abroad to two U.S. citizens are citizens at birth. Children born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent can apply for automatic citizenship if the requirements of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 are met.

Children who are younger than 18 and have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization automatically acquire U.S. citizenship when they emigrate to the U.S. with the parent; children who live abroad acquire citizenship by application.

People born in U.S. territories are U.S. nationals, but not necessarily citizens. Nationals cannot vote or hold elected office. They may reside and work in the U.S. without restrictions and apply for citizenship under the same rules as other legal residents.

It was only in 1924 that Native Americans were granted full citizenship when President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act. This law allowed Native Americans to retain their tribal citizenship. It would be another 20 years before Native Americans were allowed to vote. Remember, Native Americans are the only truly non-immigrants to this country.

A legal resident may apply for U.S. citizenship after legally residing in the U.S. for at least five years, or three years for those married to U.S. citizens. Absence from the U.S. for more than six months or cumulative absences of 30 months or more can jeopardize their eligibility for citizenship. Applicants must also demonstrate basic knowledge of the English language (there are some exceptions) and a basic knowledge of U.S. history and the U.S. political system.

A naturalized U.S. citizen is treated as equal to other U.S. citizens with two exceptions. A naturalized U.S. citizen can have his citizenship revoked if it’s later found to have been obtained through fraud and a naturalized citizen cannot be elected president of the U.S.

Before the Immigration and Nationality Act was created in 1952, a variety of statutes governed immigration law. For example, in 1790, naturalization was under control of the individual states and the residence requirement for naturalization was set at two years. In 1795, the residence requirement was raised to five years, and in 1798, when political tensions were high and there was an increased desire to guard the nation, the residence requirement was 14 years. In 1802, it was reduced to five years.

In 1824, naturalization was made easier for certain immigrants who had entered the U.S. as minors by setting a two-year instead of three-year interval between declaration of intention and admission to citizenship.

In June 2012, President Barack Obama ordered to stop deporting young immigrants who came to the U.S. as young children and who don’t pose a security threat and allowed them to apply for work permits as long as they have no criminal history and meet certain criteria.

But Obama failed to give them the opportunity to become legal residents, denying them a path to citizenship. This act shows how the immigration issue has become a pawn that can be played or sacrificed in the political chess game.

For as long as immigrants can be used as scapegoats for the nation’s troubles and for as long as immigrants are an unlimited source of cheap labor, no politician would have the desire or the courage to genuinely attempt to solve this never-ending situation.

If politicians feel that being anti-immigrants would get them elected, they’re in favor of mass deportations. If politicians feel that pro-immigrants is the flavor of the week, then that’s what they would have.

But you don’t hear politicians talking about penalizing the employers who use and abuse this cheap labor. You don’t hear them talking about how the harsh labor conditions most immigrants have to endure to feed their families. They don’t talk about how immigrants have to deal with profiling.

When people are ready to accept that immigrants are a very important part of the economy of our country, that immigrants are here to work hard in any job offered to them, that immigrants are looking for a way to get out of the shadows and call this country home without fear, only then maybe will there be light at the end of the tunnel.

The number of immigrants without proper documentation in this country has reached a number that is “too big to be deported.” The socioeconomic prize of deporting tens of millions of immigrants is a prize that the U.S. cannot afford at this time or at any time.

Joseph Nevins: Barack Obama’s Immigration Reform for Youth: A Dream Deferred?.

Yannick Grijalba would seem perfectly suited to benefit from the immigration policy reform announced by the Obama Administration last week, one that one will postpone the threat of deportation for many young people living in the United States without government authorization. According to his profile in an Associated Press article, Yannick arrived in northern California from Guatemala 11 years ago, speaks fluent English, and became an honor-roll student at his high school, where he was a member of the wrestling team. Now 18, he dreams of going to university so he can study architecture.

It is the promise of temporary work permits and a right to remain in the United States during that time for youth who qualify that has led to copious praise for Obama’s initiative from many quarters.

Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald, for instance, calls it “a valuable and important (and plainly just) policy change.” Mexican President Felipe Calderón, extending gratitude to Obama on behalf of his country, characterizes it as a “humanitarian action” and “unprecedented.” It is “good news, which gives hope and a future for young immigrants,” says the Reverend Jim Wallis, head of Sojourners, a national Christian social justice organization. Meanwhile, Jose Antonio Vargas at Define American sees it as a “big, bold and necessary step in the road to citizenship,” and calls upon his readers to thank Obama “for this principled and courageous act.”

Such approval — and the profound joy felt by large numbers of unauthorized migrants and their allies and advocates in the United States — is understandable in many ways. Any relief to, and openings for, even a fraction of the millions of individuals who live in constant fear and deep insecurity due to the threat of deportation is to be welcomed. But the happiness should not cloud our collective ability to see the serious limits to Obama’s policy change nor, more importantly, dilute energies pushing for more far-ranging changes of a fundamentally unjust system.

What the policy will do, in brief, is to allow unauthorized migrants to apply for “an exercise of discretion” — specifically a deferral of their would-be deportation for a period of two years — if they meet certain conditions. These include: the individual must have arrived in the United States before the age of 16 and be no more than 30 years old; they have to have been in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the announced policy; and they must be enrolled in school, a high school graduate, or an honorably discharged member of the U.S. military.

Estimates vary as to how many individuals can potentially benefit from the policy — a whittled down version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act — but they hover around 800,000. Regardless, what’s also important is how many young people the policy’s parameters exclude.

Take the age limit, for instance. The DREAM Act (at least in terms of the version voted on by the Senate in 2011) would have allowed individuals who were up to 35 years of age on the day of its enactment to benefit from the legislation. The Obama administration’s policy directive cuts this age by five years — for reasons that are unclear — eliminating what are likely tens of thousands from potential eligibility. Why it did so is unclear.

Then there is the undoubtedly very large number of individuals already sent into exile under Obama’s recording-setting regime of “removal.” Among them is Yannick Grijalba: U.S. officials deported him to Guatemala just two days before the administrations policy shift. There is no mechanism in the announced policy to allow these deportees — who, were they still in the United States, would be eligible for this new “deferred action process” — to apply from abroad and reverse their status.

Like the DREAM Act, Obama’s policy makes ineligible those with criminal convictions — the former, for example, for any state of federal offense punishable by more than one year of incarceration, the latter for any felony conviction. The Obama initiative also bars those with “a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.”

What constitutes a “significant misdemeanor” is anyone’s guess as it is a phrase — one seemingly invented by Obama White House — without legal content. Similarly, who exactly is a threat to public safety is a category with very elastic boundaries, ones determined by whoever happens to be in the position of judgment. Given the huge numbers of youth of color who are arrested for and charged with all sorts of frivolous matters, or effectively labeled as menaces to society, this lack of precision opens the door to a large quantity of denied applications.

This is aggravated, as immigration lawyer David Bennion points out on the website Citizen Orange, by the lack of due process afforded to applicants. While applicants can request a supervisory review of an initially rejected application, there is no right to a formal appeal. We will thus “likely see many of the same due process problems that we have seen with the prosecutorial discretion policy,” the one that was supposed to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to focus on its “enforcement priorities” — those determined to be threats to national security and public safety — and should have meant that Yannick Grijalba was left alone.

Under the new policy, Bennion asserts, “There will be no impartial adjudicator, no right to meaningful review of faulty decisions, and no formalized way to present and evaluate evidence or legal arguments.” This augments the risk involved in even applying for a work permit and deferral, especially for those whose presence DHS does not yet know about.

Even if someone’s application is successful, the resulting right to stay and work is only for two years. Moreover, that temporary right does nothing to protect others in their family — say, their parents — who are unauthorized residents.

What happens to successful applicants at the end of two years is anyone’s guess. What is certain is that the policy does not allow a pathway to legal permanent residency and citizenship. While many observers assert that the new policy opens a door that will be impossible to close, that the temporary semi-regularization of status will eventually lead to more far-reaching changes, the future is unclear.

President Obama suggested in his speech announcing the initiative that, because of the temporary nature of the measure, Congress should pass the DREAM Act this year. Whether the new measure will invigorate efforts to ensure such an outcome or deflate them is yet to be seen. But already there are indications that Obama has reaped significant political benefit. While some in the immigrant rights movement are skeptical of just what the initiative will mean and continue to fight for more transformational polices, many Latino voters who were upset with his administration’s immigration policies and practices now seem willing to embrace his re-election.

This is good news for those who want to see Barack Obama win another four years in the White House. But it provides little solace to the likes of Yannick Grijalba, now living in Guatemala City, jobless and without money, with an aunt, a pair of uncles, and two cousins, far away from his home in California, his dreams deferred and perhaps destroyed.

Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants – CNN.com.

Washington (CNN) — In an election-year policy change, the Obama administration said Friday it will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements.

The shift on the politically volatile issue of immigration policy prompted immediate praise from Latino leaders who have criticized Congress and the White House for inaction, while Republicans reacted with outrage that the move amounts to amnesty — a negative buzz word among conservatives.

What to know on immigration in the U.S.

Those who might benefit from the change expressed joy and relief.

Pedro Ramirez, a student who has campaigned for such a move, said he was “definitely speechless,” then added: “It’s great news.”

President Barack Obama will make a White House statement about the policy change Friday afternoon.

Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

Read the Napolitano memo (PDF)

It also will allow those meeting the requirements to apply for work permits, Napolitano said, adding that participants must be in the United States now and be able to prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.

The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.

It “is not immunity, it is not amnesty,” she told reporters, adding the shift is “well within the framework of existing laws” and “is simply the right thing to do.”

2009 study: 4 million ‘illegal’ immigrant children are native-born citizens

The move addresses a major concern of the Hispanic community and mimics some of the provisions of a Democratic proposal called the DREAM Act that has failed to win enough Republican support to gain congressional approval.

Obama has been criticized by Hispanic-American leaders for an overall increase in deportations of illegal aliens in recent years. Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,906 illegal immigrants, the largest number in the agency’s history.

Immigration lessons for the U.S. from around the world

Friday’s policy change is expected to potentially affect 800,000 people, an administration official told CNN on background.

Napolitano emphasized the move does not provide a pathway to citizenship or permanent residency, and she called for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would put into law similar steps for children of illegal immigrants to continue living and working in the country.

Republicans who have blocked Democratic efforts on immigration reform immediately condemned the move.

In a Twitter post, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the decision “avoids dealing with Congress and the American people instead of fixing a broken immigration system once and for all.”

“This is a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership,” Graham’s tweet said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, called the change a “decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.”

“Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true,” Smith said in a statement. “And once these illegal immigrants are granted deferred action, they can then apply for a work permit, which the administration routinely grants 90% of the time.”

However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sponsored the DREAM Act, welcomed the announcement that he said “will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home.”

Immigration shift sparks reaction from both sides

“These young people did not make the decision to come to this country, and it is not the American way to punish children for their parents’ actions,” Durbin said in a written statement.

Ramirez, the student activist, said the chance to live and work in the United States “gives us a chance to show the American people that we’re not here to use your tax dollars, we’re not here to take your jobs, we’re here to contribute.”

Hispanics make up the fastest growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election.

A spokeswoman for a major Latino group, the National Council of La Raza, hailed the administration’s move.

Joy, skepticism at immigration policy shift

“In light of the congressional inaction on immigration reform, this is the right step for the administration to take at this time,” said NCLR spokeswoman Laura Vazquez.

Immigration lawyers also called the change a major step in the right direction. However, one immigration expert warned that the new policy does not guarantee the result sought by participants.

“I worry that the announcement will be implemented more stingily than the administration would like,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School.

For Jose Luis Zelaya, who came to the United States illegally from Honduras at age 14 to find his mother, also an illegal immigrant, the new policy means that “maybe I will be able to work without being afraid that someone may deport me.”

“There is no fear anymore,” he said.

Students Press for Action on Immigration – NYTimes.com.

Young illegal immigrants, saying President Obama has done little to diminish the threat of deportations they face despite repeated promises, have started a campaign to press him to use executive powers to allow them to remain legally in the country.

The campaign is led by the United We Dream Network, the largest organization of young immigrants here illegally who would be eligible for legal status under a proposal in Congress known as the Dream Act.

The young people are among the most visible activists in a growing immigrant movement. Their push to focus pressure on the White House reflects deep frustration with Congress for its lack of action on the legislation and with the administration for continuing to deport illegal immigrant students, although Mr. Obama says he supports them.

This week student leaders presented White House officials with a letter signed by more than 90 immigration law professors who argued that the president has “clear executive authority” to halt deportations of illegal immigrants who might benefit from the student legislation. The professors, from universities across the country, pointed to several measures the president could take under existing laws to defer deportations and permit young immigrants to stay temporarily.

On May 17 the students held small-scale actions to publicize their demands in 19 locations around the country, including at the Obama re-election campaign offices in Miami. Gaby Pacheco, a leader of the student network, said Wednesday that they were preparing larger protests for mid-June if the White House did not respond.

“They say all the time that Dreamers shouldn’t be deported,” Ms. Pacheco said, referring to the young immigrants. “We’ve heard a lot of talk, but we have not seen action.”

The students’ escalating actions could be a problem for Mr. Obama, who is counting on strong support from Latino voters to win again in several states that supported him in 2008, particularly Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. Polls show very high support among Latinos for some version of the Dream Act,  including  91 percent in the 2011 National Survey of Latinos from the Pew Hispanic Center.

The law professors’ letter, which reads like a legal brief, was intended as a response to administration officials who have said Mr. Obama does not have the authority to issue a reprieve for large groups of illegal immigrants. One measure they cite was used by President Jimmy Carter to admit thousands of Cubans to the United States in 1980, during the mass exodus known as the Mariel boatlift.

“We did not want doubt about the president’s legal authority to muddy the waters of the debate,” said Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was an author of the letter.

Young illegal immigrants say they are impatient because each year more of them graduate from high school and cannot attend college because of high tuition rates and barriers to financial aid they face because of their status. More recently, students who did attend college are graduating and facing larger obstacles because they cannot legally work in the United States.

“It’s not a question of whether the president can or can’t, “ said Lorella Praeli, 23, a student from Peru here illegally who also is a leader of the immigrant student network. “It’s a question of whether he will or he won’t.”

Administration officials said this week that Mr. Obama was not likely to take sweeping action on illegal immigrant students before the election. Officials fear an angry reaction from Republicans in Congress, who have warned the White House against what they see as an amnesty by fiat. The officials fear Republican opposition would ruin any chance for future legislation.

In a speech this month at an immigration forum in Washington, Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, referred to more limited actions Mr. Obama had already taken to avoid deporting students. “It is unreasonable to expect that these tools, no matter how faithfully applied, can fix what is broken about our immigration system,” she said.

A senior administration official added on Wednesday, “The main focus needs to be on Congress, because only legislation they pass can provide Dream students with a permanent solution, which is what they deserve.”

The current proposal of the Dream Act would give legal status to foreign-born high school graduates who came to the United States illegally as children, if they complete two years of college or military service. Mr. Obama pushed Congress to pass the legislation in 2010. It passed the House but was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Opposition to the measure has since grown among Republicans, and the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has said he would veto some versions of it.

Last month Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said he was preparing a new bill that would give temporary status to illegal immigrant students, but might not include a path to citizenship. Details of Mr. Rubio’s proposal remain unclear because he has not yet submitted a written bill.

Immigration officials arrest more than 3,100 – Boston.com.

Mitt Romney in talks over nationwide version of tough state immigration laws | World news | guardian.co.uk.