Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

Last updated

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned United States immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was prevented from going into effect. Deferred action would not be legal status but would come with a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress. [1]

Contents

The program was announced in November 2014 by President Barack Obama, along with a number of immigration reform steps including increased resources for border enforcement, new procedures for high-skilled immigrants, and an expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. [2] [3]

Several U.S. states filed lawsuits against the federal government, arguing that DAPA violates the Constitution and federal statutes. A temporary injunction was issued in February 2015, blocking the program from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeds. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and a U.S. Supreme Court 4–4 split decision in June 2016 effectively left the block in place. [4]

On June 15, 2017, the Trump administration announced the rescission of the DAPA order. [5]

Background

On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate's Gang of Eight passed their comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate. [6] [7] When pressed to take unilateral executive action to limit deportations on Univision in March 2014, President Barack Obama replied "until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do." [8]

On June 9, 2014, House Whip Kevin McCarthy announced that House Republicans had enough votes to pass the bill. [6] [9] However, the next day House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election, so on June 30, Speaker John Boehner announced that he would not bring the bill to a vote. [6] That same day, President Obama delivered remarks in the White House Rose Garden promising to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress." [6] [10]

Over the next eight months the Obama Administration went through sixty iterations of different possible executive actions. [11] Finally, on November 20, 2014, President Obama delivered a primetime televised address to the nation announcing DAPA. [12] [13] The Office of Legal Counsel advised that the program was constitutional, finding it was similar to President George H. W. Bush's 1990 "Family Fairness" program. [14] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson then released two memorandums directing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make undocumented individuals without criminal histories the lowest priority for removal, [15] and to grant deferred action to undocumented immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident. [16]

The President's program, when combined with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, would have delayed deportation of slightly less than half of the 11 million undocumented people in the United States. [17] More than 10 million people in the United States reside in a household with at least one adult who would have been eligible for DAPA, with two thirds of those adults having lived in the United States for 10 years or more. [17] Over half of the undocumented population eligible for the President's delayed deportation live in California, Texas, and New York. [17]

United States v. Texas

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both DAPA and the DACA expansion. [18] [19] [20] On February 16, 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the DAPA program from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeds. [21] [22]

The Obama Administration appealed the order for a preliminary injunction and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal. [23] On May 26, 2015, the administration's motion for a stay was denied by a three member motions panel with one dissent, meaning that the government could not implement DAPA until the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the injunction order itself. [24] [25] That ruling came on November 9, 2015, with a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, with one dissent. [26]

The divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction and ordered the case back to the district court for trial. [27] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to undocumented residents, and that President Obama's order violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. [27] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act "flatly does not permit" deferred action. [28] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been "no justification" for the circuit court's delay in ruling. [28]

On November 10, 2015, the Justice Department announced it would ask the Supreme Court to reverse. [29] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton attempted to prolong consideration of the case until the next October term but the Supreme Court only granted him an eight-day extension to file his opposition brief. [30] The Justice Department further hastened the case by waiving its right to file a reply brief. [31] On January 19, 2016 the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. [32] The Court took the unusual step of asking for briefing on the new constitutional question of whether DAPA violates the Take Care Clause. [33]

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court announced it had deadlocked 4–4 in a decision that read, in its entirety, "The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court." [34] The ruling set no precedent and simply leaves in place the lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the program. [34] Although initially believed that the case could reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial, [34] such hopes were dashed by President Trump's rescission of the DACA memo [5] and the subsequent voluntary dismissal by Plaintiffs in the underlying district court action. [35]

Analysis and studies

In February 2015, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that about 3.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States are potentially eligible for DAPA, around 766,000 in just five counties: Los Angeles and Orange in California, Harris and Dallas in Texas, and Cook in Illinois. [36]

The President's program, when combined with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, would have delayed deportation of slightly less than half of the 11 million people in the United States who are undocumented. [17] More than 10 million people in the United States reside in a household with at least one adult who would have been eligible for DAPA, with two thirds of those adults having lived in the United States for 10 years or more. [17] Over half of undocumented residents eligible for the President's delayed deportation live in California, Texas, and New York. [17]

The program was challenged in federal court by 26 states. Of the 3.6 million undocumented parents eligible for DAPA, 2.2 million reside in states that did not join the lawsuit. [17]

A 2016 study of the impact of DACA on labor market outcomes for immigrants found that if the same effects apply to DAPA as DACA, then DAPA could potentially move over 250,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment. [37]

Eligibility

If DAPA had been implemented, a person would have been eligible if the person: [38]

See also

Related Research Articles

Reforming the immigration policy of the United States is a subject of political discourse and contention. Immigration has played an essential part in American history. Some claim that the United States maintains the world's most liberal immigration policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DREAM Act</span> American legislative proposal on immigration

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act, is a United States legislative proposal to grant temporary conditional residency, with the right to work, to illegal immigrants who entered the United States as minors—and, if they later satisfy further qualifications, they would attain permanent residency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal immigration to the United States</span> Immigration to the United States in violation of US law

Foreign nationals (aliens) can violate US immigration laws by entering the United States unlawfully or lawfully entering but then remaining after the expiration of their visas, parole, TPS, etc. Illegal immigration has been a matter of intense debate in the United States since the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicholas Garaufis</span> US federal judge

Nicholas George Garaufis is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Hanen</span> American judge

Andrew Scott Hanen is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</span> Obama administration immigration policy

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, colloquially referred to as DACA, is a United States immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for an employment authorization document in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients. The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.

Undocumented youth in the United States are young people living in the United States without U.S. citizenship or other legal immigration status. An estimated 1.1 million undocumented minors resided in the U.S. as of 2010, making up 16% of the undocumented population of 11 million. Undocumented students face unique legal uncertainties and limitations within the United States educational system. They are sometimes called the 1.5 generation, as they have spent a majority of their lives in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prerna Lal</span>

Prerna Lal is a United States citizen, born and raised in Fiji Islands with roots in the San Francisco Bay Area. Lal is a founder of DreamActivist, an online advocacy network led by undocumented youth. Through the use of social media, they have been credited for organising an online network to stop the deportations of undocumented youth and they are well known as one of the pivotal figures and leaders of the DREAM Act movement. A clinical law professor, Lal is a frequent writer on immigration, racial justice, sexual orientation, and how these forces intersect. Lal is a graduate of The George Washington University Law School, and works as an immigration attorney.

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.

The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA) is an American federation of Asian American, South Asian, Southeast Asian. and Pacific Islander LGBTQ organizations. NQAPIA was formed in 2007, as an outgrowth of the LGBT APA Roundtable working groups at the 2005 National Gay Lesbian Task Force Creating Change Conference in Oakland, California. NQAPIA seeks to build the capacity of local LGBT AAPI organizations, invigorate grassroots organizing, develop leadership, and challenge homophobia, racism, and anti-immigrant bias. The organization "focuses on grass-roots organizing and leadership development."

Stephen Yale-Loehr, is an American law professor and immigration law attorney. Yale-Loehr earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Cornell University in 1977 and 1981, respectively. He was editor-in-chief of the Cornell International Law Journal during his time at the law school. Upon graduating he clerked for Judge Howard G. Munson of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, nominated by President Gerald Ford. Yale-Loehr has been a member of the Cornell Law faculty since 1991.

The Priority Enforcement Program is a program by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States, under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). PEP was an ICE program that worked with state and local law enforcement to identify illegal aliens who come in contact with state or local law enforcement, and remove those who are removable. PEP was announced by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in a November 20, 2014 memo as a replacement for Secure Communities (S-COMM). It builds on an updated list of immigration enforcement priorities released in another memo by Johnson issued on the same day.

Family Fairness was a program run by the Immigration and Naturalization Services in the United States from late 1987 to late 1990. The initial version was introduced in late 1987 by then INS Commissioner Alan C. Nelson, working under then Attorney General Edwin Meese and then President Ronald Reagan. An expansion of the program was introduced in early 1990 by INS Commissioner Gene McNary working under then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and then United States President George H. W. Bush. The program was created through executive action, in order to meet the problem of "split-eligibility" families created by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, pending legislation that would address the issue. The Immigration Act of 1990 replaced it with a legislatively sanctioned Family Unity Program, that continues to be in force today.

<i>New York v. Trump</i> (DACA) 2017 American federal lawsuit on migrant detention

State of New York, et al. v. Trump et al. is a lawsuit against the rescission implemented by the Trump administration of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. At issue are Fifth Amendment protections of due process, information use, and equal protection.

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration</span>

Joe Biden's immigration policy is primarily based on reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration. During his first day in office, Biden reversed many of Trump's policies on immigration, such as halting the construction of the Mexican border wall, ending Trump's travel ban restricting travel from 14 countries, and an executive order to reaffirm protections for DACA recipients. The Biden administration and Department of Homeland Security, under leadership of Alejandro Mayorkas, dramatically reined in deportation practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), prioritizing national security and violent crime concerns over petty and nonviolent offenses. However, Biden has also faced criticism for extending Title 42, a Trump administration border restriction that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as restarting the use of expediting families in Central America, which can cause families to be sent back in weeks, compared to years for an average immigration case. In the fiscal year 2021, the US Border Patrol confirmed more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the US-Mexico border, more than quadruple the number in the previous fiscal year and the largest annual total on record. In January 2023, Biden announced a program to strengthen the admission of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, while at the same time his administration will crack down on those who fail to use the plan’s legal pathway and strengthen border security. In May 2023, the Biden Administration approved sending 1,500 more troops to the U.S.-Mexico border following Title 42's expiration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCR 1044</span> Arizona Immigration Legislation

The Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 or Arizona In-Sate Tuition for Non-Citizen Resident Measure is a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election in Arizona. SCR 1044 would repeal provisions of Proposition 300 passed in 2006. SCR 1044 would give voters the opportunity to allow all students, including Arizonan Dreamers, to receive in-state college tuition when a student (a) attended a school in Arizona for a minimum of two years and (b) graduated from a public school, private school, or homeschool in Arizona.

References

  1. ↑ "Executive Actions on Immigration". U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 15 April 2015. Retrieved 2017-09-10.
  2. ↑ "Obama immigration plan, the details: border security, deferred action, new programs". San Jose Mercury. 2014-11-20. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  3. ↑ "Obama, Daring Congress, Acts to Overhaul Immigration". The New York Times . 2014-11-20. Retrieved 2015-02-17.
  4. ↑ "Supreme Court Dapa Ruling". Migration Policy Institute. 2016-06-29. Retrieved 2017-09-10.
  5. 1 2 "Kelly revokes Obama order shielding immigrant parents of U.S. citizens". The Washington Post . 2017-06-15. Retrieved 2017-09-10.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Josh Blackman, The Supreme Court, 2015 Term – Comment: Gridlock, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 241 (2016).
  7. ↑ S. 744, 113th Cong. (2013).
  8. ↑ Shear, Michael D.; Preston, Julia (29 November 2016). "Obama Pushed 'Fullest Extent' of His Powers on Immigration Plan". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  9. ↑ "Frontline: Immigration Battle". PBS Television broadcast October 20, 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  10. ↑ "President Obama delivers remarks on border security and immigration reform from the White House Rose Garden (June 30, 2014)". YouTube . The White House. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  11. ↑ Anna Palmer, Seung Min Kim & Carrie Budoff Brown, How Obama Got Here, Politico (Nov. 20, 2014).
  12. ↑ Adam B. Cox & Cristina M. Rodríguez, The President and Immigration Law Redux, 125 Yale L.J. 104, 155 (2015).
  13. ↑ "In an address to the nation, President Obama lays out the executive action he's taking to fix our nation's broken immigration system, November 20, 2014". YouTube . The White House. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  14. ↑ "The Dep't of Homeland Sec.'s Auth. to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the U.S. and to Defer Removal of Others, 38 Op. O.L.C. 14" (PDF). November 9, 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 20, 2014. Retrieved September 8, 2017.
  15. ↑ Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., to Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Dir., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf't, et al., Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (Nov. 20, 2014).
  16. ↑ Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., to León Rodríguez, Dir., U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs. et al., Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents (Nov. 20, 2014).
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Park, Haeyoun; Parlapiano, Alicia (23 June 2016). "Supreme Court's Decision on Immigration Case Affects Millions of Unauthorized Immigrants". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 June 2016.
  18. ↑ Zargham, Mohammad (November 9, 2015). "Obama's immigration action blocked again; Supreme Court only option left". Reuters . Retrieved November 9, 2015.
  19. ↑ David Montgomery and Julia Preston (3 December 2014). "17 states suing on immigration". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2015.
  20. ↑ "Texas et. al. v. United States et. al.: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Office of the Attorney General of Texas. 3 December 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 27 February 2015.
  21. ↑ "After Judge's Ruling Obama Delays Immigration Actions", The New York Times, February 18, 2015.
  22. ↑ Kalhan, Anil (2015). "Deferred Action, Supervised Enforcement Discretion, and the Rule of Law Basis for Executive Action on Immigration". UCLA Law Review Discourse. 63: 58.
  23. ↑ Foley, Elise (February 19, 2015), "House Democrats Encourage Representatives To Keep Holding Events On Obama Immigration Actions", The Huffington Post.
  24. ↑ Nakamura, David. Obama administration won't seek emergency stay from Supreme Court on immigration injunction, Washington Post, May 27, 2015.
  25. ↑ Kalhan, Anil (June 3, 2015). "Executive Action on Immigration and the Judicial Artifice of "Lawful Presence"". Dorf on Law.
  26. ↑ Shear, Michael D. (November 9, 2015). "Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama's Immigration Plans". The New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
  27. 1 2 Lind, Dara (10 November 2015). "Obama's immigration executive actions are up to the Supreme Court". Vox. Retrieved 12 November 2015.
  28. 1 2 Ford, Matt (10 November 2015). "A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration". The Atlantic. Retrieved 12 November 2015.
  29. ↑ Shear, Michael D. (November 10, 2015). "Obama appeals immigration ruling to Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2015.
  30. ↑ Lyle Denniston, States get a bit more time for immigration reply, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 1, 2015, 5:22 PM).
  31. ↑ Lyle Denniston, States want wider immigration review, if Court takes case, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 29, 2015, 6:37 PM).
  32. ↑ Liptak, Adam (19 January 2016). "Justices to Hear State Challenge on Immigration". The New York Times. No. 20 January 2016, section A1. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
  33. ↑ Palazzolo, Joe (19 January 2016). "In Immigration Case, Supreme Court Takes an Interest in 'Take Care' Clause". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
  34. 1 2 3 Liptak, Adam; Shear, Michael D. (24 June 2016). "Split Court Stifles Obama on Immigration: A 9-Word Ruling Erases a Shield for Millions". The New York Times. pp. A1, Column 1. Retrieved 25 June 2016.
  35. ↑ State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-254 [D.E. 469], 2017 WL 5476770 (S.D. Tex.) ("Given these memoranda rescinding the DAPA program and phasing out the DACA and Expanded DACA programs, Plaintiffs file this stipulation of voluntary dismissal.")See Stipulation here
  36. ↑ "MPI Releases Detailed Data Profiles of Unauthorized Immigrants and Estimates of Deferred Action Populations for Top U.S. Counties". Migration Policy Institute. 2015-01-15. Retrieved February 20, 2015.
  37. ↑ Pope, Nolan G. (2016). "The effects of DACAmentation: The impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on unauthorized immigrants". Journal of Public Economics. 143: 98–114. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.014.
  38. ↑ "Executive Actions on Immigration". U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 15 April 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.