Stephen Miller's Demonic Plan to Prevent Permanent Residency for Undocumented Immigrants

Undocumented Immigrant.  Section 245(A).  Advance Parole. Marriage to US Citizen.   Permanent Residency.  Stephen Miller. 

The story begins with a policy under Section 245 (A) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  This policy details the rules under which an individual may adjust his/her current immigration status (whatever that may be) to that of a permanent resident (a green card holder).  For rank-and-file cases with no deportation orders or criminal convictions, the rule states that an undocumented immigrant is able to receive a green card (permanent residency) while remaining in the United States if he/she marries a US citizen, granted he/she entered the United States legally (through a port of entry, checkpoint, airport, etc.).  

Because of this statute, an individual who crossed the border at the age of 2 cradled in the arms of his mother, would not be able to receive permanent residency after marrying a US citizen without leaving the country.  In other words, the undocumented immigrant from our example has to leave US to a country he has no ties with before his/her US spouse can even petition for a green card.  The issue is that any individual with unlawful presence in the United States for more than 180 days triggers an automatic 10 year ban to reentry once he/she leaves the country.

Desperate to circumvent a horrendous situation of being stuck for a decade or more in a new country, undocumented immigrants leverage what many conservatives refer to as a loophole in Section 245 (A) act.  Under this rule, adjustment of status may be approved for an individual who "was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States" [emphasis added on purpose].  An individual, therefore, may still be eligible for adjustment of status if he/she leaves US after obtaining a travel permission document known as "advance parole."   This document, though unavailable for vacation purposes, may be obtained for a vast variety of reasons including business, humanitarian, and educational.  Many undocumented immigrants thus far had been able to adjust status through this clause. 

Then enters Stephen Miller, Trump's trusted adviser on all immigration matters and perhaps the umbilical cord between the President and most anti-immigration portion of his base.  It is well known that no immigration policy or action passes muster in Trump's administration without Miller's signature.  It is Stephen Miller who proposed through Trump massive cuts to legal immigration via limitations on family based immigration clauses, elimination of lottery system for underrepresented countries, refusal to political asylum seekers from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvadore at port of entries, as well as rescission of DACA, to list just a few of many others. 


In September of 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced at a press conference the administration's decision to end the DACA program.  However, because of a nationwide injunction, federal courts prevented DACA's dismemberment.   What the courts could not save was the "advance parole" clause attached with DACA.  Till that point, DACA recipients were able to use this permission to travel abroad for educational purposes, business trips, humanitarian reasons (meeting parents for the first time in decades, etc.), as well as to parole back into the United States so their status could be adjusted while remaining in the US. 

And this didn't sit well with Stephen Miller.  Trump Administration removed advance parole clause from DACA, primarily to prevent a vast majorty of DACA recipients from adjusting status while remaining in the US if they chose to.   There is still a strong minority of DACA recipients who came to US via a non-immigrant visa and overstayed.   Section 245 (A) allows them to adjust their status since they were "admitted and inspected at the port of the entry" (like JFK, etc.). 

The latest proposal offered by the Trump Administration to end the government shutdown included funding for the contentious border wall, in exchange of, as the administration simply puts, "one time 3-year extension of status of DACA and TPS recipients."  Even at first glimpse, the opposing party rejected the plan, however, its underlining "poison-pills" pertaining to DACA were brought to light later by CATO Institute in an article published on January 22, 2019.   In the tail end of the proposed Senate bill, which failed miserably to pass muster on January 24, 2019,  on page 1252 of a 1301-pages tome, Mr. Miller adds the language pertaining to advance parole for DACA and TPS recipients, "trip described... shall not be considered an admission for the purposes of Section 245 (A)."  That one sentence reveals the anti-immigrant sentiment roiling in the administration more than all the vile xenophobic rallies by our President. 

And therein lies the rub. 

Why path towards citizenship for DACA Recipients is a no-brainer!

If you're following mainstream news - then you've probably come across the term DACA.  If you have, then you must have inferred that DACA falls under the umbrella of illegal immigration which, perhaps, is one of the most incendiary political issues out there.  What you may not know is that a good majority of Americans would like to provide some form of path towards citizenship for at least DACA recipients if that measure is coupled with "real" border security.  However, the fringe element who is absolutely against providing any "amnesty", to the best of my knowledge, really hasn't had the chance to look just beneath the surface of what DACA is, and what DACA recipients are going through.   This article's primary audience is them. 

What is DACA? 
DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.   In 2012, President Obama announced that DHS, from this point on, will provide protection from deportation and work permits on a 2 year renewable basis to individuals who came to the US as minors (before turning 16), have been residing here since 2007, are "productive members of society", and show "good moral character".   During this 2 year duration, an individual is considered to be legally present in the US. 

Once the time comes for renewal, a DACA recipient has to reapply, pass background check again, and pay approx. $485 in application fee, to be considered for renewal.  If they have continued their "good behavior", they are granted DACA status for another 2 years.  And the cycle continues. 

What are the demographics of DACA recipients? 
As of today, approx. 700,000 individuals are protected by DACA status, with almost all of them granted work permits on a 2 year basis.   Vast majority of DACA recipients are from Mexico and Latin America, who accompanied their parents coming into the States through illegal channels. Average age of a DACA recipient at the time of entering US is 6, while the oldest DACA recipient can be no older than 15 as per the rules. 

Is DACA an immigration issue?
Technically, yes.   DACA is an immigration issue because we are dealing with a class of individuals who are undocumented immigrants.   However, there is a flip side to this particular issue - and that's why DACA is a unique subset within the larger undocumented immigration narrative. 

A DACA recipient came to this country at an early age with no knowledge of deliberately violating the immigration laws.   Next, it is our immigration system that turned its back onto these undocumented immigrants and let them assimilate into the society by allowing them access to schooling, healthcare, and other facilities within American fabric.  

Their formative years were spent in United States and with a tight relationship with American social structure.   They grew up as Americans. 

Now that they are adults and reaching adulthood, a massive wall stands between them and everything that they need to make a living for themselves in their home.  That wall is the tag of "illegal immigrant".  An entire subclass of individuals now face a major identity crisis where they suddenly find themselves rejected by the very society they grew up in and helpless in finding any solution to move forward. 

DACA is not an immigration issue.  DACA is a humanitarian crisis. 

Why DACA is not an amnesty? 
A strict of definition of amnesty comprises of two components: 1) a presidential AND congressional pardon for immigration violations, and 2) a path towards citizenship. 

DACA doesn't fulfill either.  In fact, DACA was not even a presidential pardon.  It didn't erase past unlawful accrual.  In other words, under current laws, if a DACA recipient who has accrued unlawful presence of more than 180 days in their adult life,  if they were to leave the US, an automatic 10 year ban is imposed upon them.  They cannot even apply for a non-immigrant visa for the next 10 years. 

DACA is a presidential deferral.   It doesn't pardon for any violation so far.  It simply prevents DACA recipient for any further unlawful accrual by placing them in a shielded bucket of deferred action. 

And second, quite obviously, DACA provides no path towards citizenship.

Case for Permanent Residency
Permanent Residency is generally granted on one of the following cases in the United States: 1) through family, 2) employment or some exceptional social standing, 3) investment, 4) other special cases including lottery system in underrepresented countries. 

Second option is perhaps the only path which comes closer to merit-based migration.  US has no point-based immigration system like Canada does.  Canadian immigration system allows individuals to apply for permanent residency independent of employers or any other institution.   Under their system, an individual receives points for certain factors which captures their social, technical, and educational skills.  It tends to bring in individuals who will best assimilate into Canadian society and be productive.  It must be mentioned that a Canadian job offer exponentially increases the chances of approval, but under the point-system, a job offer is not mandatory. 

In US, there is no clause under which an individual can apply for permanent residency independently - unless they happen to be world renowned intellectuals, artists, etc or seriously wealthy.   

Most would agree that a strong case could be made to include an amendment to employment based immigration to expand it to merit based (like Canadian system).  

A typical DACA recipient would handsomely pass a merit-based system.   The fact they've grown up here, they are socially qualified.  The fact that all of them are either studying, graduated, or gainfully employed, they have educational and technical merits.   In fact, most of the adult DACA recipients would handsomely qualify for "Federal-Skilled Worker" point-system program in Canada, and many have already migrated to Canada via this channel after giving up all hopes of any reform within their home country.  Alas, they now face a 10 year ban from US, while being productive tax-payers for Canada! 

On top of that, DACA recipients are the only class of immigrants who go through background checks and security vetting with such frequency (every 2 years!).   They are the most vetted class of young adults in this country. 

Cutting the line or not? 
One of the reasons a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients is resisted by extremists or even right-leaning moderates, is that such a move would allow an "expedited" path for folks for violating our immigration laws. In essence, they would get "green cards" even before those who have applied legally. 

There are two counterarguments. 

1)   It is quite difficult to convince a grand jury that a minor (as young as a 2 year old) violated immigration laws.   Even older, young adults who came to the country through illegal channels with their parents would be easily absolved since even if they knew they were violating the law, they really didn't face any choice but to hold the hands of their parents.  Vast majority of DACA recipients, however, had absolutely no knowledge of the fact they were "undocumented" until they wanted to apply for SSN to work! 

2)  To be a DACA recipient, one must have entered the United States before 2007 as a minor.  In other words, a DACA recipient has been living in the United States for at least 12 years (as of 2019!).  Even if they were a granted a green card today, that's a 12 year path to permanent residency and 17 years to citizenship.  On the other end, a typical example of a 6 year old (average age of  DACA recipient at the time of entry into US) who came in 1993, if granted green card in 2019, had to wait for almost 26 years to get one!  These examples are not one of expedited path to citizenship! 

Last Word
DACA recipients are technically stateless children.  A stateless child differs from an undocumented immigrant in that the latter is an alien residing in a country without authorization, whereas in DACA's case, from a DACA recipient's point of view, their home country has refused to acknowledge them as one of their own. 

In a sane world, DACA recipients, at this juncture, would have been granted permanent residency within 45 minutes.  This tells us the kind of world we are living in today.