Mediaboss Marketing

More than 780,000 DREAMers have been allowed to stay in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created under President Obama. Many worry about their future under President Trump. USA TODAY

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.(Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

WASHINGTON President Trump's Department of Homeland Security has rescinded former President Barack Obama's order shielding millions of migrants from deportation, but is letting stand a policy that grants reprieves to people who arrived in the United States as children.

Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly announced late Thursday that, after consulting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he is rescinding an Obama memorandum from 2014 that allowed immigrants to remain in the United States under certain conditions.

The rescinded memo created a program that protected undocumented immigrants from deportation if they have a child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful resident.

The program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA was never implemented because it was challenged in court by 26 states and was put on hold by federal courts.

The DHS decision to rescind the memo came ahead of a court-ordered deadline to resolve the case.

Kelly said in a news release that he decided to rescind the memo because there is no credible path forward to litigate the policy.

The decision fulfills part of a campaign promise by Trump, who vowed to overturn two of Obamas memos on illegal immigration.

However, Kelly said the decision would not impact an Obama program created in 2012 that granted reprieves from deportation to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.

The terms of that program, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, will not change, Kelly said.

The rescinded program provided expanded work authorization for recipients under DACA.

But so-called Dreamers who were issued three-year extensions before the district courts injunction will not be affected and will be eligible to seek a two-year extension upon their expiration," the news release said. "No work permits will be terminated prior to their current expiration dates."

Read more:

DREAMers on edge over Trump on fifth anniversary of protected status

Undocumented Texas students fight anti-sanctuary law

Fed's Kaplan: Immigration crackdown hurting economy

Advocates for undocumented immigrants warned that while Kelly left the DACA program in place for now, theres nothing to keep the Trump administration from reversing it in the future.

This memo and the response from the White House is not a permanent promise to protect the program, said Greisa Martinez Rosas, advocacy director forUnited We Dream, which identifies itself as the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the nation.

The DACA program still stands," she said, "but its vulnerable.

Advocacy groups also were incensed that the Trump administration rescinded the parental program on the fifth anniversary of DACA.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., praised Kelly's decision to rescind the DAPA program, calling it a deeply irresponsible policy from the start.

It essentially said to illegal immigrants that we wouldnt enforce our laws and encouraged them to risk their lives in coming to the United States, Cotton said. It was also a blatant attempt by the president to circumvent Congress that the courts swiftly shut down. Im glad to see Secretary Kelly take it off the books. Such a high-handed fiat deserves nothing less than to be rescinded in full.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., blasted Kellys decision, noting that it came as Democrats and Republicans had put aside partisanship and gathered for the Congressional Baseball Game following theshooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., during a practice session early Wednesday.

Before the game had even finished, the Trump administration shattered this spirit of good feelings by announcing the rescission of the DAPA program, Beyer said.

Beyer took some confront in noting that the DACA program would remain in place, but said that the need for comprehensive immigration reform giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship has never been more urgent.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sx0io6

Go here to see the original:
Trump keeps policy on Dreamers, eliminates protection for older immigrants - USA TODAY

For the second time this year, an influential group of Chicago-area business leaders is openly challenging the Trump administration's tough anti-immigration policies.

But this time around, the more than 170 corporate CEOs, midsized-business owners, neighborhood entrepreneurs and investors are pressing Gov. Bruce Rauner to join their crusade.

This week, the Illinois Business Immigration Coalition sent a letter to Rauner urging him to sign the Illinois Trust Act, which recently was passed by the General Assembly. The bipartisan measure seeks to provide increased legal protections to immigrants.

Rauner should sign this bill into law, despite the possibility of political blowback or maybe a nasty tweet from President Donald Trump. It will boost the state's economic fortunes, while enabling Illinois to chart a realistic approach to dealing with the complex issue of immigration, particularly its impact on labor and business.

"Rauner has a very interesting decision to make," says Scott Grams, executive director of the Illinois Landscape Contractors Association, which has 800 members statewide. "Illinois has an opportunity to become a real beacon on immigration."

The governor's office says the Illinois Trust Act legislation is "under review" and Rauner is a believer in "comprehensive immigration reform."

By approving the bill, Rauner would make progress on the immigration front by providing more clarity and security to most everyone in this state touched by the issue.

Monique Garcia and Haley BeMiller

At its core, the legislative measure sensibly prohibits local or state police from cooperating with federal authorities investigating immigrants unless they possess a court-issued criminal warrant, a basic constitutional right.

It also forbids local law enforcement from stopping, searching and arresting anyone based only on immigration or citizenship status. Federal agents still could catch and deport criminals in the country illegally, which is the appropriate course of action.

As important, the act would provide the majority of immigrants in the country illegally, and their families, the assurance of living and working in Illinois without having to continually look over their shoulders in dread.

Landscapers are among a host of local employers favoring the proposed Illinois Trust Act. Representatives of the area's retail, hospitality, restaurants, health care, and agriculture businesses lined up to sign the letter to Rauner.

All are justifiably concerned about the repercussions of Trump's pledge to mass-deport people who are living here illegally and tighten entry across U.S. borders.

That's not a big surprise.

Anyone who buys, sells or uses the society's most basic goods and services soon realizes how highly dependent our economy has become on immigrant labor.

Unfortunately, it's getting increasingly difficult to recruit and retain immigrant workers amid a highly charged anti-immigrant environment. The "fear generated by increased immigration enforcement over the past five months has a negative impact," the coalition letter asserts.

This anxiety isn't restricted to people who are not legally authorized to be here, but also affects people who are here legally, including children and young adults who are concerned about being profiled or picked up at random by law enforcement.

This week, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement reasserted the administration's vow to track down people who are living here illegally, while asking Congress for more tax money to do the job.

"What's going on now is making people afraid to go to work," says Carole Segal, co-founder of retailer Crate and Barrel and co-chair of the immigration coalition.

Among the other local business and civic leaders supporting the Illinois Trust Act: Susan Crown, founder of a namesake investment firm and member of the wealthy Crown family; Mike Englehart, CEO of Presence Health; Morton Schapiro, president of Northwestern University; Mark Gordon, CEO of the Illinois Hotel and Lodging Association; and William Kunkler, executive vice president of private equity firm CC Industries.

John Rowe, chairman emeritus for Exelon and co-chair of the coalition, and Glenn Tilton, ex-chairman of United Airlines, are also on board.

But some marquee employers haven't pitched in, including McDonald's. A coalition spokeswoman says the group continues to recruit corporate names and is reaching out to the fast-food giant and others.

Earlier this year, the coalition sent a letter to Trump urging him not to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Trump kept the plan, which basically allows nearly 750,000 young people who are children of immigrants in the country illegally to obtain work permits and remain in the country.

Yes, illegal immigration is a vexing, multidimensional dilemma. But it can't simply be solved by mass deportation and disruption.

In backing the Illinois Trust Act, business leaders are calling for a rational, humane course of action toward immigration enforcement, even though it's at odds with the president's approach.

Illinois' CEO should follow their lead and approve this plan.

roreed@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @reedtribbiz

See the original post:
Business pushes Rauner to sign bill to protect immigrants - Chicago Tribune

A day after a temporary group addressing recent threats to immigration concluded its work, Catholic bishops voted on Thursday to create a new permanent committee aimed at addressing religious freedom issues in the United States.

The contrast of the two movesending a temporary task force on immigration policy as the global refugee crisis continues while creating a permanent religious liberty committee when the goals of the ad hoc committee appear within reachgenerated a vigorous debate among bishops gathered for their spring meeting in Indianapolis.

Some bishops expressed concern that allowing the immigration group to dissolve would send a signal that bishops had retreated from the issue. Later in the day, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops appeared to agree, releasing a statement announcing that the immigration working group would continue, citing the the continued urgency for comprehensive immigration reform, a humane refugee policy and a safe border."

Meeting in Indianapolis for their spring meeting, the bishops voted 132 to 53 to make permanent an ad hoc committee formed in 2011 by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who was then president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The vote was not without controversy, however, as evidenced by floor comments from close to 20 bishops, including four cardinals.

On June 14, bishops heard a report about an ad hoc working group on immigration issues. That group began its work in November, after the election of Donald J. Trump, who during the presidential campaign promised to crack down on migration. It wrapped up its work this month. Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego took to the floor during that discussion, arguing that letting the working group dissolve could send a signal that bishops were retreating on immigration.

During Thursdays debate on the religious liberty committee, a member of the ad hoc group, Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington, Vt., said he was concerned letting the immigration working group come to a close while establishing a permanent committee on religious freedom sent a bad message.

Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark agreed, calling the timing very unfortunate and saying the vote to create the permanent committee would send a message that the conference is actually disengaging on migration issues, calling it a crisis that is growing stronger each day.

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore disagreed, noting that the bishops have permanent committees that address migration issues.

The religious liberty committee was created during a clash with the Obama administration, during which some Catholic universities, hospitals and dioceses argued that provisions of the Affordable Care Act violated their religious freedom.

The committee has been chaired by Archbishop Lori since its inception. During a presentation on Thursday, the archbishop said religious liberty remains under challenge, and its likely these challenges will intensify in the years ahead.

Archbishop Lori said that while the churchs opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services contraception mandate appears to be headed toward a resolution, he believed other issues, including newly gained rights for transgender individuals and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, required a standing religious freedom committee ready to address new challenges as they arise.

Other bishops were concerned about how the new permanent committee would be funded.

Archbishop Lori told the bishops that the new committee would be budget neutral, but Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago took to the floor to note that the committee has received more than $500,000 in outside funding since its inception. He asked if those donations would continue.

Archbishop Lori said he was quite confident that outside funding would continue to support the committee in the years ahead.

Bishop Coyne said he was concerned that establishing the permanent committee could put bishops on the hook for funding should donations dry up.

The funding is not permanent. It can go away, he said. Money and funding can disappear for all kinds of reasons.

Two prominent cardinals, however, spoke in favor of creating the permanent structure.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington said he supported the proposal because the challenge to religious liberty is a growing one.

Cardinal Dolan also supported the proposal, saying U.S. bishops serve as leaders to bishops in other countries.

In my contact with brother bishops throughout the world, they look to us in the United States to be real quarterbacks when it comes to the defense of religious freedom, he said.

After the vote, Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento asked if the migration working group might continue its work. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, head of the U.S.C.C.B., said he believed the group would continue to meet informally and that he would consider creating another ad hoc working group. On Thursday, he announced in a press release that the groups work would continue.

This story includes updates.

Read this article:
Bishops extend work of immigration group after vigorous floor debate - America Magazine

Click here for ongoing updatesfrom the bishops' meeting in Indianapolis.

Taking stock of their efforts over the past six months to combat some Trump administration attempts to crack down on undocumented people living in the United States, Catholic bishops meeting in Indianapolis today pledged to be more proactive in laying out a vision for comprehensive immigration reform.

Bishop Joe Vasquez, head of the bishops migration committee, said in a report to fellow bishops that church leaders now seek to move beyond simple reaction to the various negative proposals we have seen lately.

Following Mr. Trumps surprise victory in November, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops convened a special working group to coordinate the churchs response to immigration proposals from the new administration. That group concluded its work this month.

Archbishop Jos Gomez of Los Angeles, who chaired the group, recounted the flurry of statements condemning many of Mr. Trumps proposals, such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and banning refugees from several predominantly Muslim nations. Archbishop Gomez said the bishops efforts helped to make a positive impact on the public conversation regarding the [executive] orders.

In recent months, some Christian groups have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented residents, promising to house them in churches if they fear deportations. Catholic leaders have largely shied away from such declarations, insisting that they have no legal basis for such moves and that doing so could ultimately offer false hope to undocumented immigrants.

Instead, Catholic organizations have continued to work with undocumented individuals to pursue legal avenues that could grant them temporary relief.

Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe took to the floor to express concern that these avenues were increasingly being blocked by the Trump administration. He wondered if U.S. bishops might take a more serious look at the sanctuary movement.

We know that for many people who would be deported, they would be going back, I think, very realistically, to a possible death and other kinds of realities, the archbishop said.

But Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento urged caution.

Offering sanctuary, he said, will not provide what the immigrant community needs long term, and that is to be incorporated as fellow citizens, brothers and sisters of one society.

That is not a sustainable, long-term solution, he continued.

Other bishops suggested that the United States should do a better job in encouraging stability, prosperity and peace around the world so that individuals feel safe living in their home countries and, at the same time, should pay attention to economic concerns of Americans who feel threatened by immigration.

How do we express our support or those that are immigrants and new to our country and stand with them, but also understandthe economic hardships that others are experiencing in our country and have a solidarity with them? Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., asked. The chaos of illegal immigration is bad for everybody.

Turning to the politics of immigration, Archbishop Gomez suggested that if the Trump administration is serious about renegotiating Nafta, then maybe they need to include a treaty on the movements of people, because when you move capital, people move, too.

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, meanwhile, suggested that U.S. bishops look to the failed 2013 bipartisan immigration reform effort in the U.S. Senate for inspiration. By telling people what was in that bill...you can simplify the issues, he said.

As the working group winded down, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego urged fellow bishops not to become complacent on immigration. He questioned whether the temporary working group should disband at all, worrying that it sends a signal that the church is moving from a level of heightened alert on this to a level of lower alert.

Our people are more fearful because of what has gone in the past months, he said. I think we need to be very leery of normalizing the heightened level of fear which is there.

Link:
Bishops renew pledge to fight Trump-backed immigration proposals - America Magazine

Mayor Mitch Landrieu CREDIT: Esther Yu Hsi Lee, ThinkProgress

WASHINGTON, D.C.What are mayors to do with their immigrant constituents when they want to strike a balance being both a welcoming city to everyone and a city of law and order pressured to follow federal policies as harsh as the ones that President Donald Trump has put forth in his executive orders on immigration?

Thats the burning question for New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieuthe incoming president of the United States Conference of Mayorswho met with Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April with other U.S. mayors to discuss policies aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants.

The meeting came in response after the Trump administration publicly shamed New Orleans and eight other jurisdictions for being sanctuary cities to undocumented residents, allowing officials the ability to ignore a federal request to detain some immigrants beyond the length of their prison sentence for potential deportation proceedings. Speaking with Sessions in that private session, Landrieu said his city has complied with federal immigration law. But he also emphasized that it violates an immigrants constitutional rights to be held without probable cause or without a warrant for longer than his or her prison term.

In an interview with reporters after speaking at the Center for American Progress Race in America: A Conversation with Mayor Landrieu, the New Orleans mayor covered a few wide-ranging topics such as the removal of Confederate statues in his city and racial issues including the insidiousness of people who believe African Americans cant have the same level of humanity as other people because you have black blood.

On the topic of immigration, Landrieu was emphatic about the need for comprehensive immigration reform so that mayors like himself wouldnt need to have big fights right now about whether localities comply with federal policies.

I would make the simple point that if Congress would do its job and actually have comprehensive immigration reform, we wouldnt have to have these patchwork guesses on whos doing what, whos not doing what, whats a sanctuary city, whats not, what all of that looks like, Landrieu told ThinkProgress.

Currently, the Trump administration has named and shamed many localities for ignoring federal requests to turn over all suspected undocumented immigrants under custodial arrest. But such an undertaking, particularly authorizing local police to take on federal immigration enforcement policies, could actually make these cities less safe for immigrants. A 2012 study found that trust in police fell among community members when law enforcement authorities were involved in immigration enforcement.

Its easy to see why immigrants wouldnt place their trust in law enforcement. Under Trump, immigrants who report crimes against their abusers, reach out to the police after being hit by trucks, and come into everyday exchanges with transit police have found themselves become caught up in the deportation dragnet.

As the incoming president of United States Conference of Mayors, Landrieu will likely have some power over how cities could implement federal immigration policies.

In the midst of this, weve left local officials to try and figure out a pathway that works and always wondering whether or not were within bounds of the Constitution and whats not, Landrieu said.

The mayor pointed out that both Democratic and Republican mayors have some common ground in what immigration reform looks like including: having a secure border; that undocumented immigrants brought as children should be left alone; that mass deportation of millions of immigrants is impossible; and that immigrants who conduct violent, criminal behavior should be arrested and deported.

In the world I live in as a legislator, once you have those broad parameters, it seems almost nonsensical that you cant get to some resolution sooner rather than than later, Landrieu said. If they do that, you wouldnt have these hodgepodge attempts on the local level to do or not to do certain things whether youre in a blue city or a red city or in a blue state or red state.

Landrieu pushed back against the idea New Orleans was violating the law when it comes to protecting its immigrant residents. Thats because the definition of a sanctuary city has been too vague since the phrase means different things to many people.

And the law, in order for you to be able to prosecute someone constitutionally from criminal law to civil law, the laws got to be clear, it cant be vague, Landrieu pointed out. If the Attorney General [Sessions] and Congress want to go back and redraft something that makes sense, well be happy to work with them so we can follow the law.

That doesnt mean well be a closed city, Landrieu added. New Orleans is an open and welcoming city. But as Ive said my friends in the advocacy community, when the law is written we will follow the law, whatever it is And we will follow whatever is constitutional, and whatever the law requires us to do while we fight for what we think is right.

Disclosure: ThinkProgress is an editorially independent site housed at the Center for American Progress.

See the original post:
How New Orleans' mayor balances welcoming immigrants with following federal policies - ThinkProgress