Napolitano Offers Hints of How Deferred Action for DREAMers Will Work

Thanks to reader GG for the link to CNN's interview with the DHS Secretary.

Here are the highlights:

On the process for applying -

“There are those who are in removal proceedings now. We will either find them or we're asking them to help us self-identify. There will be hot lines and web sites up over the next couple of days.

And then there are those who haven't been in touch with the immigration system, but they've been living under a cloud. And within 60 days they will be able to go to a CIS office.

And if they meet the criteria -- they're going to have to demonstrate they meet the criteria, they can be given a grant of deferred action.”

***

BLITZER: One final question, is the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, Immigrations Customs Enforcement, are you ready for what is about to happen because presumably you're going to be swamped with phone calls, appearances, these young people want legal status.

NAPOLITANO: You know, we're cautioning people, we need to take it, you know, kind of incrementally. Instructions have gone out to ICE and CBP today that they're not to put these young people into removal proceedings.

We will begin the process over the next weeks of identifying those already in removal or whoever received a final order of removal to consider them for deferred action.

And there will be phone numbers and a public advocate that these individuals can actually call beginning next week if they think they qualify.

And then for those who haven't been in the immigration system yet, they haven't been put into any kind of a proceeding, but they want to come forward, that will have to be to a CIS office.

And that will be within 60 days. And, again, we are posting on dhs.gov, initial information, initial frequently asked questions. But we're going to have to work together with the community, with the country, to do a smooth implementation as possible.

On risking getting parents caught up in immigration proceedings by applying –

“BLITZER: What about the parents of these children? The children come forward now, they identify themselves. Should the parents be concerned that potentially they could be deported? They would now be identified as illegal immigrants.

NAPOLITANO: No. We are not going to do that. We have internally set it up so that the parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the young person comes in for deferred action. However, the parents are not qualified for deferred action. This is for the young people who meet the criteria that we've set forth.”

 

On eligibility for federal benefits and on getting employment authorization:

“BLITZER: What social services would these young people be qualified for? Will they be qualified to receive Medicaid benefits, food stamps, school vouchers, stuff like that?

NAPOLITANO: No. No. They won't be -- again, there's deferred action now given in certain cases. And they don't qualify for those types of benefits. The one thing they may qualify for is a work authorization card if they can demonstrate economic necessity.”

So good news for people worried about putting parents in the cross hairs of immigration by applying for deferred action. Also, the new details on the process are interesting. Monday, there's a call hosted by the DHS entities administering the program where more details are to be announced. I'll be participating and will report.

Comments

[Rusten Hurd]

Its unfortunate though that Napolitano has now indicated that a fee will be charged for the deferred action process. She indicated yesterday that more details on this will be released on 8/1/12. I certainly hope the fee is for biometrics or something along those lines as the fee should be very low

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Here's Jack back, pitting one immigrant group against another with the good ole "not fair".

[Jack]

So the hefty fees paid by waiting legal applicants will be used to fast track the no-fee deferred action applications? That sounds fair. When USCIS is working on deferred action, they aren't working on something else. Why doesn't Obama ask for some special funding?

[Jack]

Why 'illegal immigrant' is a slur

That guy is bent out of shape over "illegal" but used "unlawfully". That's odd considering illegal and unlawful are synonyms and used interchangeably, e.g., illegal presence & unlawful presence. He doesn't even make clear what term he prefers but applauds Justice Kennedy for using "removable alien". That term is from 8 CFR 241.14. So I'm guessing he doesn't like "deportable alien" even though it's also interchangeable and appears in the actual INA and is used by USCIS and DHS.

{When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or just plain "illegal," you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful.}

Wait, I thought that was what they say about "illegal" as a noun. When used as an adjective modifying the noun immigrant or alien, it is clear that the illegality has to do with immigration or alienage.

"The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal."

No, it means their presence is unlawful--which it is if you are still here after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General, were never admitted, etc.

[JoeF]

"California Senate passes Trust Act aka anti SB1070 - overrides secure communities - protect illegal immigrants"

It is interesting that in the SoCal news, this is not very prominent. I haven't found anything about it in the Orange County Register yet, and that despite OC being Republican Party and Tea Party Central (the so-called Minutemen originated here...)
But then, the Repubs here are probably busy explaining away the issue that one of their own, Santa Ana councilman Carlos Bustamante, the only Republican on the city council, got arrested on sexual abuse charges.

[gg]

California Senate passes Trust Act aka anti SB1070 - overrides secure communities - protect illegal immigrants

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml

[Another Voice]

Why 'illegal immigrant' is a slur

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html?hpt=hp_c1