NY Times: DACA Puts Some Employers in Tough Situation

I'm quoted in the Times reminding employers that if they gain actual knowledge that an employee has applied for DACA the employer could be violating the law if they continue employing during the period preceding the actual grant of the work card. Applicants are reminded that they can present documents other than employment records and if they need to get them from an employer they don't need to explain why. 

Comments

[Another Voice]

UNRELATED

Deportation Guidelines To Officially Define Same-Sex Couples As Families

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/deportation-same-sex-couples_n_1923094.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[JoeF]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/justice/california-immigration-ruling/index.html
Seems there may be relief coming for children who may age out.

[Another Voice]

"go by THE LAW?"

Yeah tell that to speeders, pot smokers, drunk drivers, shop lifters common criminals. They all get proprietorial discretion in the courts, they all break "THE LAW". It's society laws are in the books some people will break them and society take a practical approach as to how to deal with some of these folks can't lock up everyone for ever in every single case.....specially when 'the law" is a BIG contributing factor because is outdated. Can't fix it by adopting the ostrich strategy.....

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Jack, you are right - stupid laws result in a string of lawbreaking. How surprising.

[Another Voice]

NY reports DACA numbers nationwide, only 29 approvals out of 100,000 applications. The bottlenecks have started on this thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/us/a-flood-of-applications-with-a-trickle-of-approvals.html?ref=us

[Jack]

Qualify for immunity from one law by proving that another was broken. You can't make this stuff up. All you have is an administrator's comment or a line in an instruction--no firm legal authority. This is the slippery slope you create when playing games with the law and abandon doing things by the book. It's all being done on the fly and it appears not every potential implication was thought of. Shocking, I know, but Rubio was trying to blunt our wedge, my last election was looming, and a huge bureaucratic endeavor needed to get to 60 from zero in record time. What could go wrong? Then you have the factor that the entire DACA "program" is based on one person's whim and is subject to change in an instant based on his perceived political needs--or if he is no longer in power. It's similar to the "prosecutorial discretion" memo word game--don't enforce the law but don't take this as a right to violate the law. Everybody is confused--from the enforcers to the violators. Isn't it easier to just, you know, go by THE LAW?