Mediaboss Marketing

Ever since Donald Trump was elected, Melody Klingenfuss has known her time in the United States could be limited.

The 23-year-old has temporary immigration relief under President Obamas landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which seemed imperiled amid Trumps vowed crackdown on illegal immigration.

But instead of clear policy, Klingenfuss and thousands of other DACA recipients have faced mixed messages, contradictory leaks and a lack of clarity about their future. Inside the administration, there has been talk of deportations, only to have the president himself sound a less dire tone.

Its been very typical of this administration to give really good news and follow it with really bad news, Klingenfuss said. We really dont know if they are going to change their minds the next day.

The sense of dread began to ramp up again last week when Texas attorney general and nine other Republican-led states threatened to sue the Trump administration over DACA.

Then, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly told lawmakers the federal government might not defend DACA in court.

If the threatened lawsuit goes forward and is successful, Klingenfuss and more than 750,000 other beneficiaries known as Dreamers would be at risk. All were brought to the country at young ages and dont have legal status.

But as he has before, Trump seemed to indicate a softer tone on Thursday, saying he, and not his subordinates, would personally decide the future of the Obama administration program.

"Its a decision that I make, and its a decision thats very very hard to make. I really understand the situation now," Trump said. "I understand the situation very well. What Id like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet.

During his campaign, Trump pledged to immediately end DACA. But in recent months, he has said Dreamers "shouldn't be very worried" and described them as these incredible kids.

The lack of clarity has sparked frustration from Dreamers as well as anti-illegal immigration activists, who are demanding Trump make good on his promised deportations, including an end to DACA.

Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times

Melody Klingenfuss still believes DACA is under threat like never before.

Melody Klingenfuss still believes DACA is under threat like never before. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Despite the presidents softening language, Klingenfuss still believes DACA is under threat like never before.

She came legally to the U.S. from Guatemala at age 9 and fell out of legal status when she overstayed her tourist visa. Klingenfuss, who earned a masters degree from USC, now is an immigrant and youth organizer with Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights Los Angeles.

This is a very scary time for people, said Adrian Reyna, director of membership at United We Dream, an immigrant rights organization that advocates for immigrant youth.

Reyna, who lives in Oakland and is a DACA recipient like his two younger sisters, said he had a serious conversation Thursday morning with his mother about the future of the program.

There is a sense of comfort in knowing that your kids are fine and not going to be a target for deportation, Reyna said. So its not just the lives of Dreamers but lives of their parents that are really impacted at this moment.

Karla Estrada, a DACA recipient who runs two Facebook pages devoted to those in her situation, said: Some are even contemplating going back to their country of origin. There is a lot of sadness but anger, also.

A petition in support of DACA she launched on Wednesday garnered more than 6,000 signatures in less than an hour.

The community is usually pretty apathetic, so this sort of thing is very rare, to be honest, she said. But they now see an actual immediate danger.

Estrada said she and others are concerned that the DACA program will meet a similar fate as that of the expansion of the program that Obama created three years ago, which was blocked by the courts.

Those like Klingenfuss DACA recipients who are given a social security number and work permit are arguably the most politically sympathetic in the often vitriolic immigration debate.

We have young people who have developed American identities and American dreams and gone to American schools and live in American communities and breathed our American dream mythology and have become Americans, said Jerry Kammer, a senior research fellow for Center for Immigration Studies.

Kammer believes DACA should be challenged in the courts and questions the programs legality, but nevertheless can see its benefits for the recipients.

DACA is only a temporary reprieve that addresses a small subset of the 11 million who are here without legal status. While immigrant rights advocates argue it did not go far enough, it has been the biggest immigration policy gain in more than a decade.

Roberto Gonzales, Harvard University sociologist who has been studying DACA and its recipients throughout the nation, believes the Trump administration recognizes that ending the program would pose a political risk.

To cut the program and force these young people back into the shadows seems inhumane and counter to what this country stands for, Gonzales said. It could also have the effect of galvanizing a group of young people who proved to be effective in protesting against elected officials.

Many anti-illegal immigration activists have long condemned the program, questioning its constitutionality. They are now voicing discontent with Trumps unwillingness to phase it out.

For me, DACA is one big problem in the administration. [Trump] is actually reneging on a promise, said Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that is fighting illegal immigration and wants more restrictions on legal immigration.

Luis Serrano-Taha, a DACA recipient who lives in Los Angeles, said DACA was always a double-edged sword.

Serrano-Taha was part of a group of activists that participated in sit-ins and protests that ultimately helped push Obama to pass the executive action that created the program.

After the win, Serrano-Taha said some DACA recipients became complacent and stopped fighting for others left behind by the program, despite the growing numbers of deportations during the Obama administration.

People built their lives and careers and did not think about the fragility of DACA, he said. Others forgot about the larger immigration picture.

It created a sense of entitlement, Serrano-Taha said. DACA has always been in danger, ever since it started. This should be a wake-up call. Its a reality check.

cindy.carcamo@latimes.com

Follow Cindy Carcamo on Twitter @thecindycarcamo

Link:
Mixed message from Trump on DACA sparks frustration from Dreamers as well as critics of illegal immigration - Los Angeles Times

As a candidate and then as president, Donald Trump has shown as troubling propensity to vacillate, flummoxing his critics and supporters alike. But on one issue Trump has stood relatively firm: immigration.

Trump has exhibited that resolve by sustaining his rhetoric to build a wall along Americas southern border and with orders to send back those who entered the country illegally, and by fighting for his proposed moratorium, recently upheld in part by the U.S. Supreme Court, on visitors from six majority-Muslim nations prone to support, condone, or harbor terrorists.

Critics have relentlessly lambasted Trump on these ideas, disparaging him as a racist, a nativist, a xenophobe, and a religious bigot, if not an outright hater of foreigners and Muslims.

But in recent days two immigration-related story lines have emerged to demonstrate that Trumps critics have misjudged his policies even if they will never admit it.

On July 5, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency deported a Boston resident named John Cunningham. Cunningham initially came to America in 1999 on a 90-day visa to work for the summer. He never left. By overstaying his temporary visa, Cunningham became an illegal immigrant, although by all reports he was in all other respects a law-abiding and model Boston resident.

Why is this significant? Cunningham is white, and earlier this month was deported back to his native Ireland.

"People are very, very concerned and lying low," Ronnie Millar, Cunninghams friend and the head of the Boston-based Irish International Immigrant Center, told the Associated Press. "The message is that if it can happen to John, it can happen to anyone." And by anyone he presumably meant any of the 50,000 Irish citizens who the Irish embassy estimates are living illegally in the U.S., mostly concentrated in Boston, New York and Chicago.

The AP referenced the Cunningham case in highlighting the Trump administrations hard line on illegal immigrants from Europe.

Between the beginning of this fiscal year on Oct. 1 through June 24, the AP reported on Tuesday, the government has deported more than 1,300 European illegals the bulk of which came from Romania, Britain, Spain, Poland and Russia. While President Barack Obama remained in office for nearly the first four months of that time, this figure suggests Trump has implemented a get-tough policy because ICE deported just 1,450 illegal immigrants from Europe during all of fiscal year 2016.

Its certainly true that the number of Europeans deported is relatively small compared to the number of Latin Americans, including Mexicans, shipped home during that time. Mexicans, for instance, make up 93,000 of the 167,000 people deported over that same time span, the AP reported. But the Europeans share of the overall illegal immigrant population is much smaller. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that Europeans comprise just 440,000 of the 11 million illegals living in the United States.

The second story surfaced on Wednesday.

A federal judge in Michigan temporarily halted the governments planned deportation of roughly 1,400 Iraqis from around the country who reportedly had criminal records, some dating back three decades.

Why is this significant? Well, at least 114 of them, and possibly dozens more, according to news accounts, are Chaldeans, which is a sect of the Catholic Church in the Middle East. In short, they are Christians. And much like those Irish illegal immigrants in Boston, these pockets of Iraqis are fearful of being exposed, caught and deported.

We call attention to these developments to point out that federal agents on the ground have taken Trump at his word about curtailing illegal immigration, and that the presidents policy is being carried out regardless of race or religious persuasion. As Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant-rights group, told the AP, "It's pretty clear ICE is removing anyone undocumented they come across."

Laws are meaningless unless they are enforced and enforced fairly and across the board without heed to who is being affected by it.

Trumps critics are free to argue that this crackdown is unnecessary, wrongful, or hurtful to individuals and communities. But recent events suggest they should stop promoting the fiction that Trump is out to get one particular race or religion.

Read more:
Our Viewpoint: Get-tough immigration stance applied to all - Gainesville Sun

Activist Dolores Huerta claims that California needs to enact the California Values Act, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), as a counterweight to Texass draconian law banning sanctuary cities in that state and President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFox News host defends Trump Jr.: I'd meet with the Devil for opposition research Officials clash at FEC over confronting Russian influence in 2018 elections Lewandowski: Great Russian spies wouldnt bring 8 people to a meeting MOREs xenophobic agenda to deport millions of people.

I disagree. While I can understand why Huerta dislikes Texass sanctuary city law, it is an exaggeration to call it draconian. And Trump is just enforcing immigration provisions that were written by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents. If those laws are xenophobic, the solution is to lobby Congress to change them.

Making California a sanctuary state will not stop Trumps enforcement efforts. But it would violate federal law and make California ineligible for certain types of federal grants.

Legislative Counsels Digest of SB 54.

SB 54 would repeal existing law which requires the police to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may be an alien.

It would, with some exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to investigate, detain, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.

The law would direct the California Attorney General to publish model policies on limiting assistance with immigration enforcement and designated entities, such as state and local police, would be required to follow them.

It would encourage other entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, to adopt the model policies.

And the bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to notify ICE of the scheduled release of persons confined to state prisons for the conviction of a violent or serious felony.

SB 54 would violate federal law.

In 1996, Congress sought to end immigration related information-sharing restrictions with a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

The provision, 8 U.S.C. 1373,does not require state or local government entities to share immigration-related information with federal immigration authorities.

It just provides that no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a federal, state, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status of any individual:

Effort to ensure that state and local governments comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.

Trumps Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,requires the attorney general and the DHS secretary, to the extent consistent with law, to ensure that jurisdictions which willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 do not receive specified types of federal grants.

Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsImmigration activists fear for future of Dreamers program AT&T, Time Warner hit bumps on way to merger California's 'sanctuary state' bill is illegal, but also ineffective MORE implemented this provision on May 22, 2017, with a memorandum stating that the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain types of department grants to certify their compliance with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. 1373.

SB 54 is not an effective way to help undocumented aliens.

The California bill would just withhold cooperation, and there are so many undocumented aliens living in California that ICE doesnt need help to find them. According to the PEW Research Center, California had 2,350,000 undocumented aliens in 2014. It had more undocumented aliens than any other state, which can be attributed in part to Californias sanctuary policies.

To the extent that sanctuary practices draw undocumented aliens to a city or state, it makes it easier for ICE to find them.

ICE is sure to give priority to California when it implements the expanded expedited removal proceedings Trump authorized in his Executive Order, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.

In expedited removal proceedings, undocumented aliens are deported without a hearing before an immigration judge if they cannot establish that they have been in the United States for two years, unless they can establish a credible fear of persecution.

A better way.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel found a better way to help. He established a Legal Protection Fundfor undocumented aliens living in Chicago.

Once undocumented aliens are in expedited removal proceedings, they are subject to mandatory detention and cannot be represented by an attorney; but they can be helped by attorneys before they are in such proceedings.

When appropriate, attorneys can assist them in putting together the evidence they will need to establish that they have been in the United States for more than two years, or that they have a credible fear of persecution, if they find themselves in expedited removal proceedings.

This would help many undocumented aliens without violating any federal law or making California ineligible for needed federal funds.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the original post:
California's 'sanctuary state' bill is illegal, but also ineffective - The Hill (blog)

The Trump administration is considering expanding the Department of Homeland Security's ability to removal certain illegal immigrants from the country without a court hearing before a judge, according to a report Friday.

The Washington Post says that the agency is weighing expanding the process known as expedited removal to illegal immigrants apprehended anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have lived in the country continuously for more than 90 days.

Under current rules, the Homeland Security Department can only forgo immigration courts for immigrants who have been living in the country illegally for less than two weeks and were arrested within 100 miles of the border.

The Post obtained a 13-page internal agency memo that described this potential plan.

Two administration confirmed to the newspaper that the memo was shared within the White House in May, and DHS is reviewing comments on the document from the Office of Management and Budget.

Joanne Talbot, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said she had not seen the memo, but said that no decisions have been made about it.

"The potential changes would allow DHS to more efficiently use resources to remove persons who have been illegally present for relatively brief periods of time while still observing due-process requirements," Talbot said.

Immigration advocacy groups argue the proposal would restrict more people of due-process rights to seek asylum or other legal status in the country.

In two immigration executive orders signed in January, Trump indicated he wanted to expand the use of expedited removals.

The potential change would be part of a stricter Trump administration approach to illegal immigration. The administration has already rescinded a policy from former President Barack Obama that limited the categories of illegal immigrants targeted for deportation to serious criminals, and recent border-crossers. The number of immigrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has fallen significantly since Trump took office.

Continued here:
Trump administration may be looking to expand process allowing deportations of illegal immigrants without a court ... - Washington Examiner

Just over two years ago, while walking on a pier in San Francisco with her dad, Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant with a criminal past and a record of deportations.

I firmly believe the federal government has limited constitutional responsibilities, but establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility are among the few authorities that were engraved into our founding documents first sentence. In recent decades, however, the federal government has fallen through on these responsibilities when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws, and the loss of Kate is just one example of the consequences for that.

Kates killer had already been deported five times when he opened fire on July 1, 2015. Certainly, more must be done to secure our border, including building a more robust wall and giving border patrol agents the resources and technologies needed to create a more impenetrable barrier. And without question, the laws already on the books need to be better enforced.

But I also believe our laws could be stronger too.

Shortly before the two-year anniversary of Kates murder, I joined the House in passing Kates Law, which would significantly toughen the punishment for illegal immigrants who re-enter the country. While I believe we could go even farther with these punishments, Kates Law is a good first step.

San Francisco, where Kates murder took place, is also one of more than 300 so-called sanctuary cities that openly refuse to turn over criminal illegal immigrants to federal law enforcement.

Kates killer had seven felony convictions at the time of the murder. Less than four months before Kates death, he was turned over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked that he be kept in custody until immigration agents could get there, but because San Francisco is a sanctuary city, he was released. This should never have happened. So, in addition to Kates Law, I helped pass the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which cracks down on sanctuary cities like San Francisco by withholding valuable federal grants from them.

While the Senate will debate the legislation next, President Trump has already announced his support for both bills.

This is just the beginning. Ive also cosponsored the SMART Act, which would authorize additional personnel and new technologies to help secure the border, and Ive backed legislation to help stop the drug trafficking thats contributed to South Dakotas drug abuse and violent crime increases.

Kate should have never lost her life on that pier in 2015. Her killer should have never been in this country let alone, running free within it. We have to be stronger when it comes to enforcing the laws on the books, but we also have a constitutional responsibility to make sure the laws on the books are strong enough to keep our families and communities safe

Follow this link:
Cracking down on illegal immigration - Rapid City Journal