President Biden's Executive Action on DACA

President Biden, on his first day holding the land's highest executive office, signed an executive order to "preserve and fortify" DACA. Though it has sent a wave of relief across affected immigrant population, the move is largely a symbolic one. 

The reason is simple. DACA, as it stands today, is fully reinstated by a federal court order from NY after the judge had deemed former Acting Secretary of DHS Wolf's actions unconstitutional in the light of the fact that he had yet to be confirmed by the Senate. On the other hand, DACA's constitutionality is being challenged in a "replay" federal court lawsuit in Texas. Judge Hanen, who happens to be an immigration hawk, had decided against nullifying DACA the last time the subject was brought to his desk. The reason was surprisingly seen to be driven by an entirely humanitarian rationale in that the judge was not willing to put hundreds of thousands of lives in peril because of a lawsuit brought few years too late in front of him. As of today, Judge Hanen is facing the question, this time head on, of DACA's  constitutionality as an executively authorized program.

Moreover, Supreme Court had kept DACA in place not because it had deemed the order to be constitutional (in fact, the court was crystal clear that it wasn't passing judgement on the constitutional merits of the subject), but because it wasn't repealed by Trump administration in an appropriate manner given the significant "reliance interest" of DACA recipients and their families. 

President Biden's latest executive order, if looked upon with a magnifying glass, really isn't going to amount to much. Current administration is going to keep the program in place, hence, the question of repealing it in any manner is irrelevant. If, however, Judge Hanen concludes the program to be unconstitutional and decides to scrap it altogether, there's nothing much Biden administration can do from an executive point of view other than gear up for a legal challenge. And if, by a miracle, Hanen marks it as constitutional, then DACA is free. 

For now, DACA, because of NY court order, is in place in full force. 

What Biden has done by signing this order is project DACA's place in his list of priorities. What really is needed is a legislative relief for the recipients covered by the program. Permanent residency and a life of dignity is all there is left to be given. But with Congress, it's still not inevitable. 

 

Immigration in 2021

 "Extreme demands followed up by small, slow concessions." This is the topmost negotiation tactic according to Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.  And that's what US Citizenship Act of 2021 is. It's an immigration package submitted by President Biden on his tenure's first day to Democratic leaders, which members of both parties would admit, huddled in the corners of Capitol Dining Hall, is bonkers. 

It's a posturing tool for both sides. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has already tagged the idea as "mass amnesty", rightly so. The bill provides a pathway to citizenship for almost all non-criminal undocumented immigrants who were present in the US before January 1, 2021. Even to a democratic-liberal like moi, it just doesn't sound right. It's not respectful to legal immigrants to grant pathway to green cards to those who overstayed their visa last Christmas! 

Democratic Hispanic Caucus, on the other hand, is on its way to handing out fliers and pamphlets on the streets of New York and Chicago hailing the greatness of the bill [metaphorically, although not far fetched!].

Both sides know this isn't going anywhere. 

The greater truth which cannot be ignored is that within four years since former President Trump took office, American people have decided to hand over the reigns of House, Senate, and the White House to Democrats,  including a surprise victory in Georgia for both President Biden and the two Senate seats. This is a clear message for Democrats to get something done on immigration grounds. The key word is "something". 

Or else, their majority won't survive come 2022. 

The one voice of reason and rationale is that of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is the great-grandfather of the Dream Act (having introduced the bill in 2001 for the first time). He understands that where there exists consensus, it must be reached. The one provision in this newly plated package that hands out permanent residency to Dreamers and TPS holders is what's doable. 

Rest is fluff. 

It is a fact that a filibuster proof majority in the Senate exists in support of providing legal status to Dreamers. And it is also a fact that perhaps nothing else can be shoved down Republicans' throats. So, unless Democrats go on a crusade to do away with filibuster and totally derail the immigration negotiations, Congress needs to close this chapter with Dreamers. 

President Biden and Democratic Caucus needs to portray a year from now that the gridlock has been unraveled. That will happen if they take advantage of small crannies through which some legislative water can seep through, instead of trying to axe out a gaping hole. 

Great cause, misplaced approach

 Editorial for Improve the Dream. (https://www.improvethedream.org/)

US immigration policy is a travesty to say the least.  Why a skilled worker / entrepreneur has to wait for decades to obtain residency is beyond me. After all, the mission statement for any immigration system is to attract and retain productive immigrants.

 

For what it's worth, you can count on my support to ImprovetheDream. E2/H4 child dependents should not have to face a situation where they "age-out" at 21 and have two choices - self-deport from a country in which they spent their formative years or go out of status. This is an ugly decision point. 

 

Having said that, I do not agree with your approach. For any cause to find a fruitful conclusion, it must first find its own voice and avenue toward justice. However, the first sentence on your website explaining the cause mentions DACA and Dreamers. This emphasis on a parallel fight by DACA risks reducing your cause to a mere "if undocumented immigrants can get work permits and fight for green cards, why shouldn't we be included in their fight."

 

That is not good enough. That is, sorry to say, piggy-backing.

 

The similarities in your cause and DACA's end at the word "childhood". The two groups have lived and led completely polar opposite journeys.

 

The reason DACA recipients are afforded work permits upon turning 18 and in-state tuition (in some states) is because they grew up in a household with undocumented parents with average annual income of around $36,000. It is driven by "economic necessity" (USCIS term). To request a work permit, a DACA recipient has to submit a worksheet (a balance sheet) with household income, assets, and expenses. USCIS uses this worksheet to adjudicate work permit cases.

 

Average household income of employment based visa holders is well above $100,000. And this number is at best on the lower range. Therefore, annual income, assets (most visa holders have multiple cars, own single family homes, etc.), and expenses will not justify economic necessity. The stress is on the term "necessity".

 

A DACA recipient may not leave the country but for exceptional reasons with no guarantee of being allowed to re-enter. If denied reentry, they face a minimum 10 year ban from a country they've called home (even after that, chances of being granted a temporary visa are slim).

 

Child dependents for visa holders do not face such unreasonable travel restrictions.

 

If not for DACA, these recipient would have two choices: continue to live under the shadows and never be able to pursue a professional career, or, leave the country and not be allowed reentry for at least 10 years .

 

Child dependents of visa holders have a path to transfer to another visa (like student, etc.) and eventually be able to acquire a work visa.  But most importantly, if they choose to leave the country, they are not barred from coming back.  These are not desirable choices, but any objective observer would pick these over the choices granted to an undocumented youth.

 

ImprovetheDream is not asking to be equated to DACA. It is not asking for a work permit until parents are granted green cards.  The ask is to be allowed to join the fight of DACA recipients close to the finish line. The ask it to be put on a path to a green card, when the journey to the finish line for these two groups was completely different. 

 

I would like to reiterate that if it was up to my vote, I would vote to give green cards to both DACA and child dependents of visa holders because it is the right thing to do and beneficial to the US.  But the reason your movement has not gained such traction as that of DACA's and is overtly not included in any immigration reform is precisely because your cause is out of focus. Your movement needs its story independent of DACA. That journey will reveal that the cause for aging-out is absurd wait times involved for residency for parents. That is what needs to be fixed.

 

Unless the movement embraces its story, which will lead to its own path, it won't get the support from the "immigration reform" movement. You will end up with support of only the likes of Senator Rand Paul who have a fairly unsuccessful track record of getting anything passed.

 

Fight for shorter green card waiting times for parents (which I support), and not for inclusion in the DACA population. Yours is not their journey, and theirs is not yours.

 

Best of luck. 

Ending Filibuster: a Distant Reality

 As we head into Georgia runoff, #Endthefilibuster has started trending. This is not to discount the probability that David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are still the favorites going into January 5th extremely consequential election. 

The election can lead to a 50-50 divided Senate if both Democrats claim victories. VP Kamala Harris will break the tie handing the majority control to Chuck Schumer (D-NY). 

Most progressives, and even some moderates (including Joe Biden), are in favor of ending filibuster cloture rule. Today, at the core of legislative gridlock is the rule that requires three-fifth of Senate's approval (60 votes) to close debate and move on to vote. There are great many articles on the web in favor of and against this rule. 

If Democrats want any chance of making true of their campaign promises, they have to get ride of the filibuster rule as it stands today.  Or, else, the increasingly obstreperous opposition (that can be said for both Democrats and Republicans, to be fair) will use cloture rule as a weapon to bury Democratic agenda. 

Immigration, most inflammable agenda, is one that has been slaughtered most frequently on the alter of filibuster.  Recent memory recalls Dream Act of 2010 which failed to become law by 5 votes (including defection of 6 democrats - five voting "No" and one "intentional" abstention). 

However, there is one reliably opposing voice to ending the filibuster. It's not from Republicans. It's from this side of the aisle - that of Joe Manchin III's (D-WV). If recent interviews are any indication, Joe Manchin III is a vehement "No" for any change to existing filibuster rule. 

Therefore, unless a compromise rule that, let's say, allows 55 votes (and not 60 votes) to end filibuster is on the table and acceptable to Manchin III, hope to end filibuster as it stands today is slim to none (assuming Georgia Senators turn blue, of course). 

P.S. one "intentional" abstention from Democratic side during Dream Act vote was that of -- yes, you guessed it correctly - Joe Manchin III's.