Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Even Though There Are Legal Threats to DACA, There Is Reason to Be Hopeful

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy NILC staff
August 4, 2017

Several legal threats to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program have its beneficiaries and prospective applicants understandably worried, but it’s important to remember that there haven’t been any major changes to the program and that, because there’s broad bipartisan support for keeping it, there’s also reason to be hopeful.

The bad news first: There are some legal threats against DACA. One is a threat by ten state attorneys general and one governor, sent in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to amend the U.S. v. Texas lawsuit that challenged the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) and expanded DACA (DACA+) programs to also legally challenge the original DACA program. (The Obama administration created DACA in 2012 and announced DAPA and DACA+ in 2014.) The letter says that this threat will be carried out if the federal government doesn’t agree by Sept. 5, 2017, to do away with the 2012 DACA program. Below are some potential scenarios related to this threat.

The federal government decides by September 5, 2017, to rescind the June 15, 2012, DACA memorandum

If the federal government decides to end the DACA program, it would likely be on the terms laid out in the letter to Sessions from the state attorneys general. In that case, after the program is ended, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would issue no new grants or renewals of DACA, and existing grants of DACA and accompanying work permits would expire on their current expiration dates.

The federal government does not rescind the June 15, 2012, DACA memorandum

In their letter to Sessions, the ten state attorneys general said that if the federal government does not agree by Sept. 5, 2017, to rescind the June 15, 2012, memorandum that initiated the DACA program, they will seek to amend their complaint in U.S. v. Texas to add a legal challenge to DACA. It’s possible that they may also seek to have the DACA program preliminarily enjoined (halted) while their case makes its way through the courts.

Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen previously granted Texas’s requested preliminary injunction against the DAPA and DACA+ programs, so he may be willing to do so again with respect to the 2012 DACA program.

We don’t know how long it would take for the court to hear and rule on such a request. It also isn’t certain that Judge Hanen would issue an injunction against DACA as he did with DAPA and DACA+

The U.S. v. Texas court rules on MALDEF’s request that the case be dismissed

On July 28, 2017, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) asked Judge Hanen to dismiss the U.S. v. Texas case. MALDEF argues that, because former Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly issued, on June 15 of this year, a memo that largely rescinds the 2014 memos that created the DAPA and DACA+ programs, there are no issues left to litigate in U.S. v. Texas. If the court were to dismiss the case, that would of course affect any attempt by the ten state attorneys general to carry out their threat against DACA.

Briefing on MALDEF’s request continues. There’s no way to know when the court will rule on MALDEF’s motion or whether the court will deny the motion and allow Texas and its partner states to add to U.S. v. Texas a legal challenge to the original DACA program.

* * *

Developments in another case—Arizona Dream Act Coalition (ADAC) v. Brewer—may pose another legal threat to DACA.

This case was filed just after the DACA program was announced, when the then governor of Arizona issued an order whose effect was to make DACA recipients ineligible for driver’s licenses. In January 2015, a federal district court in Arizona permanently blocked Arizona’s policy, and that decision was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Thus, DACA recipients can get drivers licenses in Arizona.

Arizona has now appealed the case to the Supreme Court and is arguing that DACA is unconstitutional. On June 26, 2017, the Court issued an order calling for the views of the U.S. solicitor general as to whether the Court should hear the case. The Court didn’t set a deadline for the solicitor general’s brief, but on average it takes around four months for the solicitor general to file such a brief. Here are some possible scenarios.

The solicitor general recommends that the Supreme Court not take the case

Although DACA was created by the Obama administration, the current solicitor general may choose to continue with the federal government’s previous opinions and tell the Court there’s no need to disturb the Ninth District’s ruling.

However, the solicitor general could recommend, a few months from now, that the Court not take the case because the government has ended the DACA program voluntarily or because the solicitor general knows that the program will soon be terminated.

The solicitor general recommends that the Supreme Court take the case

The solicitor general may recommend that the Supreme Court take the case to resolve once and for all the legal issues about DACA’s constitutionality. Last year the Court was unable to reach a majority decision on whether the DAPA and DACA+ programs were constitutional, and it’s impossible to know now how it might rule if asked to decide about the original DACA program. Last year when it was considering the DAPA and DACA+ case, the Court had only eight justices, but since then Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined the Court. So it’s much more likely that there would be a majority decision in ADAC, if the court decides to hear it.

Even if the Court does decide to hear ADAC, it may reach a decision without ruling on DACA’s constitutionality, since it could base its decision on other legal principles.

While these legal threats to DACA raise concerns, there is also plenty of reason to be hopeful. For one thing, several bipartisan bills have recently been introduced to provide a permanent legislative solution for DACA recipients. In truth, they aren’t likely to pass and, if they did, they would probably come with unwanted changes to immigration enforcement policy. However, they do show that there’s broad bipartisan support for DACA recipients, which means that any decision to end DACA would be very politically unpopular.

Stay tuned for updates on DACA and DACA-related legislation. We’ll also be celebrating DACA’s five-year anniversary on Aug. 15 and will continue to highlight all the positive effects DACA has in people’s lives and communities.

Groups File Federal Lawsuit Over Diversity Visa Denials

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2017

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, NILC, 202-384-1279, [email protected]
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU National, 212-284-7347, [email protected]
Yusuf Barzinji, ADC, 202-244-2990, [email protected]

Groups File Federal Lawsuit Over Diversity Visa Denials

WASHINGTON — Groups filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the U.S. State Department’s refusal to process visa applications for winners of the U.S. Diversity Visa Program lottery who hail from the six countries covered by President Trump’s Muslim ban.

The lawsuit was brought by Jenner & Block LLP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the National Immigration Law Center. It was filed on behalf of lottery winners from Iran and Yemen, and charges the federal government with running afoul of federal law and regulations by refusing to issue visas to eligible winners.

The lottery program provides an opportunity to a limited number of immigrants from countries with historically low immigration rates to come to the United States. The randomly selected winners receive a visa, provided that they satisfy the eligibility requirements and qualify under the government’s general rules for visas. Only 50,000 diversity visas are awarded each year. Over the last 10 years, 16 million people on average have applied each year for the annual lottery.

The program requires consulates to issue visas to lottery winners no later than September 30, or the winners lose their chance to immigrate to the United States. The case filed today asks that the government process lottery winners’ visa applications by that date, as required by federal law and regulations.

Trump’s Muslim ban currently prohibits the entry of individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who do not have bona fide connections to the United States (or who fall within another exception). The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider the ban’s constitutionality later in the fall in separate litigation.

The following statements are from:

Esther Sung, National Immigration Law Center. “The federal government made a promise to our plaintiffs and hundreds of others like them, and they put their faith in that promise. Now, thanks to President Trump’s discriminatory Muslim ban, the State Department is unlawfully backing away from that promise. This isn’t right, fair, or lawful, and we are willing to do what it takes — including going to court — to fight for the rights of our clients.”

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “A winning lottery spot is a rare and precious thing. If our clients do not receive their visas by September 30, they lose what may be their only chance at becoming Americans. By refusing to issue their visas during the ban, the State Department is violating the law and threatening to run out the clock. While we look forward to demonstrating, in separate litigation, that the ban is unconstitutional and should be struck down, the government’s freeze on diversity visa applicants is unlawful and unjustifiable no matter how that case turns out.”

Samer Khalaf, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. “ADC’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State seeks to prohibit the discriminatory delay of diversity visa issuance to Yemeni nationals. The denial of diversity visas and lengthy processing is targeting Yemenis based on their national origin and religion. Administrative processing should not be used to wait people out and keep them from an opportunity for a visa they qualify for. This vile attempt by the Trump administration to refuse admission to those who have sacrificed everything for a better opportunity is uncalled for, and unacceptable. ADC stands with the Yemenis and all those who are affected. We will do everything in our power to see that justice is served.”

Dr. Debbie Almontaser, Yemeni American Merchant Association of New York. “After connecting with many of the diversity visa lottery winners in the last couple of weeks, their voices and stories remain etched in our minds. We are grateful that today the world will learn of their broken promise to the American dream. We will tirelessly stand with them until they get the judicial relief they deserve.”

Plaintiff Radad Furooz. “I sold everything I had to get the chance to travel to the USA. I have nothing and nowhere to go now. The executive order travel ban has destroyed my dreams.”

Scott Michelman, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “The State Department’s discriminatory visa denial policy goes beyond even the terms of Trump’s unconstitutional entry ban. The courts must uphold the rule of law and preserve visa lottery winners’ only realistic chance at someday becoming Americans — an opportunity that the federal government promised them and now is unjustifiably withholding.”

The case, P.K. v. Tillerson, was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC.

The complaint is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/pk-v-tillerson-complaint-2017-08-03.pdf.

# # #

The RAISE Act Is Cruel and Un-American

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 28, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

The RAISE Act Is Cruel and Un-American

WASHINGTON — Senators David Perdue (R-GA) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) presented legislation to President Trump today that proposes radically reducing legal immigration to the United States, reversing decades of well-established policy that prioritizes family-based legal immigration.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The Republican Party continues to double down on the execution of President Trump’s white nationalist blueprint for America. The RAISE Act is their latest extremist proposal that would cut legal immigration levels by half. This is a radical and alarming departure from America’s longstanding history of welcoming and embracing the diversity and family reunification values that give us our moral and economic advantage in the world.

“The bill would devastate families, eliminating the traditional and long-accepted means by which family members such as grandparents, mothers, fathers, and siblings are able to reunite with their families who have emigrated to the United States. An emphasis on so-called ‘merit-based’ immigration is a manipulative and misleading ploy that inaccurately suggests less legal immigration means more jobs for American workers. Economists from both sides of the political spectrum clearly and consistently reject this. The economic consequences and impact on American families would be devastating.

“The truth is that this is just another one of the Republican Party’s sinister attacks on immigrants. It is yet another move made to dismantle our national identity.”

# # #

Senate Should Focus on Solutions That Move the Country Forward, Not Backward

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 28, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Senate Should Focus on Solutions That Move the Country Forward, Not Backward

WASHINGTON — After the U.S. Senate rejected several Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal proposals on a bipartisan basis last night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) closed debate, ending for now the Republican-led Congress’s ACA repeal efforts.

The Congressional Budget Office determined that the various repeal and, in some cases, replacement proposals considered by Congress in recent weeks would take health coverage away from between 16 and 32 million people. In addition to repealing the ACA, those bills included provisions making deep cuts to Medicaid, dramatically increasing out-of-pocket costs and premiums, undermining employer-sponsored insurance, and eliminating critical patient protection reforms.

The GOP legislation included proposals that would particularly harm immigrant families by excluding lawfully present immigrants from assistance for and even enrollment in the ACA marketplaces. Several senators who have supported responsible immigration reform proposals in the past, including Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Dean Heller (R-NV), nevertheless voted this week to deny immigrants health care.

Reacting to the Senate vote, the National Immigration Law Center released the following statement from its director of policy and advocacy, Kamal Essaheb:

“Last night’s vote was the latest in a series of failed attempts to pass bad legislation that would have caused millions of people to suffer, and it sends a pretty clear signal. Dismantling solutions isn’t legislating, and denying people—any people—health care and other basic needs isn’t a solution.

“This isn’t a loss for congressional Republicans, it’s an opportunity for lawmakers of both parties to recommit to finding real paths forward for our country. Leaders from both parties should know that if and when they return to health policy or the funding of health programs, the people they represent will hold them accountable for last night’s vote and for any votes in the future that harm the health of their communities.”

# # #

New House Bills Signal Growing Bipartisan Support for Protecting Immigrant Youth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 28, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

New House Bills Signal Growing Bipartisan Support for Protecting Immigrant Youth

LOS ANGELES — Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives today introduced a new bill, the American Hope Act, that would provide undocumented immigrant youth who have been in the U.S. from a young age with a pathway to U.S. citizenship. The bill, which was crafted with the input of undocumented young immigrants themselves and introduced with 112 cosponsors, would provide permanent protections to immigrant youth regardless of education level, military service, or work history. It follows the bipartisan, bicameral introduction of the Dream Act, which would similarly provide permanent protections under more limited criteria.

The introduction of legislative proposals to protect immigrant youth in both chambers of Congress comes in the midst of uncertainty about the Trump administration’s plans for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which has authorized nearly 800,000 young immigrants to live and work in the U.S. temporarily since 2012. President Trump has said that immigrant youth can “rest easy,” but his administration has targeted DACA recipients and made conflicting statements about the future of the program.

Ignacia Rodriguez, an immigration policy advocate with the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The American Hope Act underscores that the starting point for any conversation about policies that have broad impact on people’s lives should be a recognition of value in every person. It embodies the principle—dignity—that should be at the core of any proposal to protect undocumented immigrant youth.

“We are encouraged by the bill’s introduction, as well as that of other legislative proposals that demonstrate broad, bipartisan support for immigrant youth who have fought for the opportunity to stay in their communities and pursue their full potential.

“However, these bills and the lives of the people they would directly impact should not be held ransom for more border militarization. And, crucially, we must continue to uphold DACA, which has been a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants and benefitted our country as a whole.”

# # #

From Japanese-American Internment Camps to the Muslim Ban: The Terrible Consequences of Discriminatory Executive Orders

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy John Yuasa
JULY 27, 2017

“An Executive Order put my family in a Concentration Camp.” That was the sign I carried as I joined thousands of other people at Los Angeles International Airport to protest the executive order of Jan. 27, 2017, that initiated the Trump administration’s Muslim ban.

Let me explain. In February 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the removal and incarceration of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast. People had just a few days to prepare and were permitted to bring only what they could carry. Many families suffered crushing economic losses as they hurriedly sold their farms, homes, and businesses.

At that time, my California-born U.S. citizen parents were expecting their first child—me. My parents, who lived in Oakland, were sent to the Tanforan Assembly Center, a converted racetrack that had about 180 barracks, located just south of San Francisco. Twenty-six of the buildings were converted horse stalls, with cardboard installed in the upper portion of the walls between the stalls. There was no privacy between the families that were living in each stall. The barracks were filthy and fetid—filled with horse flies, fleas, and dried manure and urine smells. Tanforan was surrounded by a barbed wire fence, with armed military police on guard.

Once I was born and able to travel, we were taken by train to the Topaz “Relocation Center,” more accurately described as a prison camp. Topaz held more than 8,000 people in approximately one square mile of land. It was located about 100 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, in an arid desert that varied from over 100 degrees in the summer to below zero in the winter. Strong winds blew sand everywhere, including into the living quarters and everyone’s food. The crudely constructed barracks provided little protection against the extreme weather. The camp was patrolled by 85 to 150 soldiers and was also surrounded by a barbed wire fence. Manned watchtowers with searchlights were placed every quarter mile around the perimeter of the camp.

I had never been back to that site of my infant incarceration, but the recent grand opening of the Topaz Museum, in Delta, Utah, offered me a reason to return. The ceremonies that took place reminded all of us what it is to be free and how hatred, prejudice, and discrimination can enable a government to incarcerate people who have committed no crimes, without any opportunity for legal due process.

In 1942, the government’s position was that national security required this policy on internment. However, in 1982, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians issued its report, which documented a far different reason. In its specific findings and recommendations, it states that the broad historical causes were “race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership.”

Now, for no other reasons than prejudice, national security hysteria, and a failure of political leadership, the president has decided that people attempting to escape persecution by coming to the United States present a national security risk—solely for being Muslim. We cannot allow this unconstitutional order to stand. Please join me in being an active participant in our democratic process to ensure that our laws and regulations against discrimination are enforced and, where necessary, strengthened.

John Yuasa is a former Peace Corps volunteer, deputy director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor, and nonprofit executive.

Irresponsible Vote on Senate “Repeal and Disgrace” Health Care Bill Opposed by Immigrant Advocates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Irresponsible Vote on Senate “Repeal and Disgrace” Health Care Bill Opposed by Immigrant Advocates

WASHINGTON — After two prior failures, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled another attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—this time without even knowing what form of the deeply unpopular bill the Senate will be considering.

Today’s anticipated vote on a “motion to proceed” will determine whether the Senate can consider GOP plans to repeal the ACA, which the Congressional Budget Office has determined will take health coverage away from between 22 to 32 million people, depending on which plan the Senate takes up. In addition to repealing the ACA, the bills put forth so far would make deep cuts to Medicaid, dramatically increase out-of-pocket costs and raise premiums, undermine employer-sponsored insurance, and eliminate critical patient protection reforms.

The different GOP proposals all include proposals that would particularly harm immigrant families. The Senate GOP bill—the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)—goes further than a radical proposal passed earlier this year by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill backed by McConnell cuts off all access to health insurance for some lawfully present immigrants, by barring them from accessing the ACA’s health insurance marketplaces and eliminating their access to the financial assistance that 84 percent of participants on the marketplace rely on. However, by denying tax credits to many lawfully present immigrants, the House bill would effectively achieve a similar unacceptable outcome.

In anticipation of today’s vote, the National Immigration Law Center released the following statement by its health policy attorney, Matthew Lopas:

“Congressional Republicans promised repeal and replace, but this is repeal and disgrace. Decisions about the health of millions of families, immigrant and citizen alike, should not be made on the fly on the floor of the Senate. I rarely agree with President Trump, but he was right when he called the House bill ‘mean.’ The Senate Republican bill is downright cruel, and that’s why responsible Republicans like Senators Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito, Lisa Murkowski, and Dean Heller have all publicly opposed it. They must keep their word and reject this unpopular, anti–health care scheme.”

# # #

While We’re Watching the Trumpcare Train Wreck, Let’s Not Allow Our Dollars to Fund Trump’s Wall and Deportation Machine

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Jackie Vimo, economic justice policy analyst
July 21, 2017

It has been another eventful week in Washington, DC, under the Trump administration. Congress continues to dominate headlines with its failing efforts to repeal Obamacare and leave millions without health care; threats to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) may put 800,000 youth at risk of deportation; and yesterday the bipartisan Durban-Graham DREAM Act was introduced.

Meanwhile, the battle over the federal budget continues behind the scenes, and it looks like we are about to be hit by a “minibus” next week that would fund President Trump’s $1.6 billion wall and mass deportation machine. Trump needs our tax dollars to pay for his anti-immigrant agenda, and Congress must approve the federal budget. Now it is up to taxpayers to get the word out to their representatives in Congress that they refuse to fund hate and fear at the expense of vital social programs.

Remember when Mexico was going to pay for the border wall? Now Trump wants you as a taxpayer to foot the bill by trading jobs, health care, the environment, and education for his divisive monument to xenophobia at the southern border.

Back in May, Trump released his Fiscal Year 2018 budget, asking Congress to pour $23 billion of your tax dollars into the boots, walls, and detention facilities that make up his out-of-control deportation machine. Trump’s budget pays for this “deportation force” by giving tax cuts to the rich and slashing crucial programs such as Medicaid, Social Security, and education. The House of Representatives has responded with a proposed budget that gives Trump almost all of what he asked for. Last Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee, chaired by Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11), marked up and approved an appropriation bill that funds key elements of President Trump’s proposed immigration budget. Some of the “lowlights” include:

full funding of $1.6 billion for Trump’s “border wall”
$185 million to hire additional U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol officers
$4.4 billion for detention and removal programs, including funding to expand by more than 4,600 the capacity of detention camps that house children and families

Congress has until the end of September to pass its budget; but with Trump saying that Congress shouldn’t leave for its August recess unless it makes progress on his administration’s agenda, the budget presents an opportunity to sneak in a victory for the white nationalists among his base amidst the ashes of efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare.

However, with Congress sharply divided and dissent rankling the GOP from within, passing a twelve-bill omnibus budget is no simple task.

Enter the “minibus.” It’s a package of spending bills that Congress wants to push through next week (the last week of July). It includes four bills to fund the Defense Department, military construction and Veterans Affairs, energy and water programs, and the federal government’s legislative branch. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has also stated that the minibus will include $1.6 billion for Trump’s border wall. McCarthy and other members of Congress are hoping that they can drive this minibus through a vote quietly. It’s up to us to block its path.

The proposed Trump budget, the House’s Trump copycat budget, and the “minibus” are all examples of out-of-control spending for unnecessary immigration enforcement that does nothing but tear families apart at the expense of urgently needed programs. With the price of the $185.6 million Trump and Congress are seeking to hire 1,000 additional ICE officers and 606 support staff, we could replace 37,000 lead water pipes, like the ones that poisoned families in Flint, Michigan. Instead of spending $100 million to hire 500 new Border Patrol agents, we could give 12,000 toddlers access to quality early education through Head Start. And $1.6 billion for the construction of Trump’s border wall could provide health care coverage for 1 million uninsured children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). We should be funding bridges, not walls.

The time is now to get the word out to our representatives that the minibus must not pass, and neither must any spending bill that cuts social programs and writes more blank checks to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. It is our taxpayer dollars that would fuel the minibus or any increases to funding for immigration enforcement in the federal budget. We have an obligation to let our representatives know that we refuse to fund hate and fear and to foot the bill for Trump’s deportation force.

Congress can try to sneak through the “minibus,” but we can stop them if we keep watching and cut off their supply of taxpayer dollars. Our taxpayer dollars should reflect our priorities and values by funding stronger families and communities, not fear. We need to send a strong message to Congress: #DefundHate by rejecting the Trump budget, so we can #FundFamiliesNotFear.

To get involved in the campaign to #DefundHate and stand up against Trump’s attack on immigrants, sign up at http://standup.indivisibleguide.com/.

Bipartisan Dream Act Highlights Broad Support for Existing Immigrant Youth Protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 20, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Bipartisan Dream Act Highlights Broad Support for Existing Immigrant Youth Protections

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today introduced a new Dream Act, bipartisan legislation that would provide a pathway to legal status for some undocumented immigrant youth. The bill would provide a path to legal status for immigrant youth who arrived in the U.S. as children and who either attend college or perform military service.

The introduction comes amidst news media reports that Trump administration officials are pushing to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, despite the president’s previous comments that he would “work something out” for immigrant youth and that they can “rest easy.” DACA, which has been in place since 2012, authorizes some young immigrants to live and work in the U.S. temporarily.

Kamal Essaheb, policy and advocacy director at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“It is encouraging to see members of Congress from both parties willing to work together to bring forward the Dream Act, which has always enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. The legislation would provide a necessary, longer-term solution for immigrant youth who have fought for the ability to work, go to school, and live without fear of deportation.

“However, politicians who would try to hold the lives of immigrant youth hostage to get more immigration enforcement should be ashamed.

“Nor should any bill introduction serve to diminish the critical importance of DACA, which has fundamentally enhanced the lives of nearly 800,000 people, including my own.

“Thanks to DACA, our country has seen what people can accomplish when given an opportunity to contribute more fully to their communities. DACA works, and it should be kept in place regardless of any potential legislation. President Trump needs to end the uncertainty his administration has imposed on immigrant youth and unequivocally support DACA.”

# # #

SCOTUS Decision to Limit What Qualifies as a “Bona Fide” Relationship for Refugees Affected by Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 19, 2017

CONTACT
Marcos Rodríguez Maciel, 559-920-0534, [email protected]

NILC Disappointed by Today’s Supreme Court Decision to Limit What Qualifies as a “Bona Fide” Relationship for Refugees Affected by Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban

WASHINGTON — Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that partially stays the Hawaii federal district court’s order clarifying that refugees with a relationship with resettlement agencies in the United States remain protected by the preliminary injunction of President Trump’s Muslim-ban executive order. In response to today’s decision, Justin Cox, a National Immigration Law Center staff attorney, issued the following statement:

“The Trump administration has been clear about its intention to slam the door on Muslims and refugees however it can. The opening provided last month by the Supreme Court was abused by the administration, and we will continue to fight alongside our immigrant and refugee communities and in courtrooms to prevent our plaintiffs’ clients from being shut out of the country they already consider their home.

“Whether aimed at nationals of Muslim-majority countries or refugees, the intent behind the ban is clear: to keep people out based on how they pray. This action isn’t just unconstitutional, it betrays our nation’s deepest values for inclusivity and religious freedom.

“Family unity won today, but clarity and security for refugees remains at risk. We will continue the fight in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to ensure that refugees can find the shelter they were offered by settlement agencies in the United States. We hope the court of appeals will take up this case as soon as possible.”

# # #