Trump's Narcissistic Desire to Use the Border Wall to Cement his Legacy Has Created a Cruel and Unnecessary Government Crisis

Two and a half weeks into the partial government has given Americans yet another opportunity to assess the leadership skills, or lack thereof, of its current President, Donald Trump.  While I am not a psychologist and don’t claim to be making a clinical diagnosis, Trump’s refusal to sign a budget that doesn’t appropriate $5.7 billion for a wall on the US-Mexico border only further shows his dangerously narcissistic tendencies.

 

Like many narcissists, Trump is manipulative.  He has shown his character for taking advantage of people’s weaknesses for his own benefit.  For example, all during the presidential campaign Trump insisted that not only would he build a wall, but that Mexico would pay for it.  Having Mexico pay for the wall was never even a remote possibility.  But the claim won him cheers ad accolades from his supporters.  Now that it is clear that Mexico will not be paying for the wall, Trump is manipulating the ignorance of trade agreements and how tariffs work among his supporters to make the claim that Mexico really will be paying for the wall.

 

Trump argues that by scrapping NAFTA and concluding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Mexico will be paying for the wall through tariffs paid to the United States.  Let’s breakdown the inaccuracies of this claim.  USMCA did not really scrap NAFTA.  Rather, it built upon NAFTA structures to adjust some of the agreed upon tariff rates.  In fact, trade agreements are not really a vehicle for a country to raise revenue.  Government typical enter into trade agreements to try to open more markets for its exporters by having their counterparts lower their tariffs.  The United States attempted to open more markets for US agricultural goods, for example, by getting Canada and Mexico to lower their tariff rates.

 

At any rate, governments do not pay tariffs.  Importers do.  Importers need to make a profit, so they typically pass the tariffs of to the consumer in the form of higher prices.  Even where US tariffs increase, Mexico will not be footing the bill.  US consumers will.

 

Moreover, USMCA is not yet part of US law.  To become US law, Congress will have to act.  Either 2/3 of the Senate must ratify it as a treaty, or both Houses of Congress must approve implementing legislation, just as they did for NAFTA.  Until Congress acts, the USMCA has no effect on US law.

 

However, many Americans lack the very specific knowledge of how trade agreements and tariffs work.  Trump is manipulating that ignorance to make it appear as though he is living up to his campaign promise.

 

Trump is attempting to  manipulate the racially-based fears of his supporters to support his refusal to sign legislation to fund the Government unless he gets his wall.  In defending his desire for a wall, Trump cherry-picks cases where heinous crimes were committed by undocumented aliens.  In doing so, Trump creates the impression that all undocumented aliens are violent criminals.  This is consistent with his claims during the campaign that Mexicans are rapists and murders.  He and his supporters ignore statistics showing aliens, including undocumented aliens, commit fewer crimes than native born US citizens.

 

Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of empathy for those adversely affected by the shutdown.  Indeed, through some of his public statements, Trump appears to be saying that those suffering because of the shutdown are getting what they deserve because of their lack of support for him.  He has tried to change lexicon of the debate, calling the shutdown a “strike” in closed door sessions with congressional leaders, as if to shift the blame on the governmental employees.  He has noted that most of the workers furloughed or working without pay are Democrats, as if to say that they deserve what they get for supporting the opposition party.  He has shown little concern for the 800,000 who may be going without a paycheck.  Moreover, he has given no attention to the government contractors, who will not only be going without a paycheck, but who, unlike government employees, will not receive back pay.

 

This is another example of Trump’s manipulation of the ignorance of his supporters.  Many of his supporters, who do not understand how government works, have been quick to argue that since only non-essential employees are being furloughed, it shows the government is too big and ought to be cut.

 

The fact is, Trump is using an immoral tactic essentially to extort something he wants, but for which there is little support, for the sake of creating his legacy.  A government shutdown is immoral because it adversely affects people who have no role to play in the debate over the border wall.  Government employees risk falling behind in mortgage payments, utility bills and other bills because of a lack of a paycheck.  Some employees risk losing health insurance for dependents.

 

Yet, it is being viewed as simply just another tactic to get something out of Congress despite fierce resistance.  The last government shutdown, for example, was forced upon the United States by the Tea Party, who demanded the showdown over funding the Affordable Care Act.  Because the Tea Party saw that as a successful demonstration of its power, it has become just another arrow in the Republicans’ quiver.

 

It is particularly egregious where polls have shown that a majority of Americans oppose the border wall.  In fact, Trump clearly made tough immigration enforcement a hallmark of his message in the mid-term elections, which resulted in the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives.  Yet, while Republicans like to point out that elections have consequences, they refuse to accept the consequences of losing the House, which include a lack of political support for the wall.

 

Trump has ignored all of this, just so he can push for the wall to have tangible proof of his legacy in American history.  The shutdown is a very selfish use of an immoral tactic for something that does not have strong public support.

 

Indeed, Trump’s mistake is that he has failed to learn from history.  There is strong and vocal support for the wall among hard core Trump supporters.  Trump has chosen to play to his base by projecting an image of being tough on immigration enforcement.  But, Trump engaged in the same tactic leading up to the mid-terms.  He used news coverage of a large group of Central Americans traveling together through Mexico in an attempt to apply for asylum in the United States to incite fear among his supporters of the caravan.  He labeled Democrats as soft on immigration enforcement and supporters of open borders.  In the end, his party lost the majority in the House, giving Democrats a power base upon which to oppose the President.  There is no reason to believe that playing to his base will be any more successful here.

 

As usual, Trump has made this dispute about him.  While he attempts to avoid responsibility now, claiming Democrats won’t give him what he wants, he can’t escape that the government shut-down has real world adverse consequences on people who have nothing to do with immigration policy.  Because Trump is such a wild card, there is no way of telling whether he will back down and attempt to paint it as a victory, or let the shut-down drag on and continue to cause widespread pain.  One can only hope that Trump can overcome his stubborn streak, agree to legislation to re-open the government, and continue to negotiate immigration reform without holding the welfare of government employees hostage.

 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

The President Cannot Act Inconsistently with the Asylum Law as Written and Passed by Congress

US District Court Judge Jon S. Tiger issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Trump Administration from implementing a Presidential Proclamation wherein the President attempted to bar aliens who enter the United States through Mexico at a point other than an official port of entry from applying for asylum. “Whatever the scope of the President's authority,” the Judge expressed, “he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden." Specifically, through the Proclamation, Trump directly contradicted the plain language of section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states, “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).” (Emphasis added).

In response, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security issued a joint statement, arguing that the Supreme Court had ruled over the summer that the President had the authority to suspend entries of a class of aliens when the President finds that to be in the national interest. Moreover, asylum is a discretionary form of relief, and not an entitlement even if all of the legal requirements are met. 

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are being misleading.  It is true that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban finding that the President has broad discretion outside of the borders of the United States to suspend a class of aliens from entering the United States if the President finds it is in the national interest. This was done in the context of an Executive Order wherein the President found that certain countries did not provide sufficient information about their nationals to permit the United States to vet those individuals properly before allowing admission. Nationals from such countries were thus temporarily banned from entering the United States.  That is, the President took action that applied outside the United States, or at a port of entry before an individual became subject to US jurisdiction, to prevent that individual from physically and legally stepping foot on US soil. 

The situation is different with respect to those who enter the United States by crossing the border surreptitiously between official ports of entry. While theoretically, under the Supreme Court’s precedent, the President could suspend the legal entry of Hondurans or other Central Americans, that only prevents an individual from being admitted through of a port of entry after being inspected by a Customs and Border Patrol agent. For a person who is actually on US soil, whether that happened legally or illegally, the protections of the US Constitution and US law apply. At that point, the President’s power is far more restrained.  He cannot then act in direct contravention of a law passed by Congress. Put simply, outside the territory of the United States the President has broad discretion on immigration matters, but inside the United States he does not. 

With respect to the grant of asylum itself, it is true that section 208(b)(1)(A) does state that the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security “may grant asylum” to an individual meeting the legal requirements. The use of the word “may” does make the grant of asylum discretionary. But what exactly does discretionary mean?  For one, the decision cannot be arbitrary and capricious. There has to be reason behind the decision. Discretion involves evaluating all of the facts and circumstances of a case, and fashioning a reasonable outcome. 

Thus, it is possible for an applicant to be denied asylum for breaking the law. But the fact that a person may have broken the law must be weighed against the level and severity of danger from which the applicant was attempting to escape. 

Discretion does not mean applying a blanket rule to all situations. Applying a rule that no one who enters the United States illegally, without weighing all of the circumstances in that person’s case, is an abuse of discretion. It leaves no choice to the decision-maker to craft a reasonable outcome. 

Moreover, the law provides a list of factors that disqualify a person from receiving asylum. These factors range from a conviction of a particularly serious offense to the individual being a danger to the security of the United States. In addition, the Attorney General may impose further restrictions by regulation. But, those limitations must be consistent with the law. Thus, an argument exists that a regulation cannot impose a limitation that is inconsistent with the statute as written, such as prohibiting a person who has entered the country illegally from applying for asylum. 

The President has been consistently attempting to broaden his authority over immigration matters. This stems from his frustration over members of his own party, who have controlled both houses of Congress since the beginning of his term, to pass immigration reform satisfactory to the President. With the Democrats ready to assume power in the House of Representatives, gridlock over immigration is likely to increase. This will only create more incentive for the President to attempt to grab more power through purely executive action. The courts will therefore remain a key institution to limit the President and uphold the doctrine of Separation of Powers. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Can the Republicans Derail Administrative Action on Immigration?

The rumors are that President Obama will announce some kind of administrative action to address the large numbers of undocumented aliens already living in the United States.  What will that action be?  While at this point we can only speculate, the best educated guess is that it will be some type of expanded deferred action program, like the one the President adopted for undocumented aliens who were brought to the United States as children.  How broadly the program will cover remains to be seen.

Republicans, emboldened by their victories in the November mid-term elections, are warning that any executive action on the issue of immigration will meet with fierce legislative resistance.  The question, however, is just what can congressional Republicans do to derail any administrative action?

The President's safest bet would be to expand his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.  Deferred action is not really a legal immigration status.  It is merely a promise by the Government that it will not deport someone.  Deferred action is already built into the law.  The President can grant deferred action on a case-by-case basis.  Once deferred action has been granted, the law permits the alien to apply for work authorization.  Thus, while it is not a real legal status, and cannot lead to permanent residency or citizenship, it can allow an undocumented alien the ability to work and earn money legally.

There has been a lot of talk of impeachment.  That is, if the President were to act alone and announce such a broad-based deferred action program, some Republicans believe that there would be grounds to impeach the President.  The argument is that the President would be acting contrary to law by failing to enforce it.

Impeachment, however, would be a tough sell for Republican law makers.  First, as stated above, the law gives the President the discretion on a case-by-case basis to grant deferred action.  It has traditionally been a vehicle used for humanitarian purposes.  Nothing in the law says that the President cannot define a set of criteria on which he would grant deferred action.  Thus, on a purely legal basis, impeachment is on shaky grounds to begin with.

At any rate, a Republican-led House of Representatives has already impeached the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton.  While the grounds for Clinton's impeachment may have had sounder legal grounding (perjury by the chief executive officer in a sworn deposition of a pending lawsuit), the fact is that Republicans would have an image problem if they were to impeach two Democratic presidents in a row.  That is, it would leave the Republicans open to the charge of being willing to undermine the democratic process, instead of working together towards a solution to the nation's immigration problem.  (To those who would argue that the President is the one ignoring the democratic process by acting alone, it should be noted that the Republican-led House of Representatives has had numerous chances over the course of the past two years to propose and pass a serious immigration reform package.  They have failed to do so.)

The next strategy that appears to be gaining popularity is simply to de-fund the President's program.  This solution, some argue, would not require a shut-down of the Government, because the Republicans can just pass a continuing resolution that contains all of the funds necessary to have the Government operate, minus the funds needed to operate the President's program.

This strategy has two fatal flaws.  First, it fails to recognize how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), the agency that would be charged with administering any program the President adopts, is funded.  USCIS is not funded as a line item in the budget.  To the contrary, USCIS is funded through user files.  That is, every petition or application for an immigration benefit involves some sort of filing fee.  As it is, those filing fees are pretty high.  To become a permanent resident, for example, involves filings fees of almost $1,500.

All DACA applicants had to pay a filing fee of $465.  That included the cost of processing the DACA application itself, the work authorization application and the background check.  Thus, so long as the Administration sets the filing fee at an appropriate level, what Congress does with the budget will have little impact on the President's program.

The second problem with de-funding the President's program is that it assumes that the President will sit back and let it happen.  In our republic, all legislation, including the budget, has to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.  Bills concerning spending must originate in the House of Representatives.  But, if the House passes a continuing resolution that funds some, but not all, of the Government, the President could veto it.  The House tried this a year ago in an effort to de-fund Obamacare.  In the end, it didn't work.  Worse yet, the Republicans were politically damaged and had to spend the next few months repairing the damage before the November elections.  (It is important to note  that redistricting played a huge role in the Republican electoral victory.  That is, state legislatures redrew congressional districts in such a way as to create a large number of districts with very conservative majorities.  The result was that many very conservative candidates did well in the primaries and rode the redistricting wave to victory in the general election.  In a presidential election, the Republicans will have to face a national electorate, which will not likely be as conservative as the smaller congressional races.)

In the end, there may be very little the Republicans can do to prevent the President from implementing a carefully constructed program to address the presence of undocumented aliens.  The risks to the Republicans are great, considering the national electorate they will face in the 2016 elections.  A better course may be for the Republicans to offer a constructive counter-solution, one that involves more than simply building bigger walls and a push for indiscriminate deportations.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

GOP Proposes Immigration Reform; Now What?

Last week, Republican leaders from the House of Representatives circulated a one page set of principles on immigration reform among rank and file members at a retreat in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  According to Time Magazine, the proposal included a pathway to legalization for undocumented aliens already present in the United States, provided border protection measures are taken and the undocumented meet certain criteria.

Time quotes that GOP leaders proposed that undocumented aliens "could live here legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families."  The Republicans principles did not include a pathway to citizenship, which the Washington Post reports may be an area where immigration reform advocates are willing to compromise.

Despite the support from Republican House leaders, whether immigration reform will even happen is "in doubt," according to Representative Paul Ryan.  Ryan has been the target of the ire of conservative talk show hosts for his support of immigration reform.  Ryan appeared on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, stating, "Security first, no amnesty, then we might be able to get somewhere."  When asked specifically if Congress would pass an immigration reform bill this year, Ryan responded, "I really don't know the answer to that question. That's clearly in doubt."

After Mitt Romney's loss in the 2012 Presidential elections, the conventional wisdom was that the Republicans had to support some degree of immigration reform that included the granting of legal status to the undocumented aliens already present in the country if they were to remain competitive in national elections.  This was due to the overwhelming majorities that Latino and Asian voters gave the President.  What happened since then?

In truth, House Republicans are focused on the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections.  Most House Republicans come from "safe" districts, where the election of a Republican is almost certain.  Support for any immigration reform that can be seen as amnesty would more likely result in a credible challenge in the primaries, and not in the election of a Democrat.

Add to this situation the President's recent troubles with the cornerstone of his Administration: Obamacare.  With the program becoming increasingly unpopular, there is a real possibility that the Republicans may be able to take the Senate in the mid-term elections too.

Last week, talk show host Rush Limbaugh questioned why the Republicans would push for any immigration reform that includes so-called "amnesty."  Citing an article from the Politico, Limbaugh noted that Democrat may even be conceding control of the House to the Republicans in order to concentrate electoral resources on saving the Senate.  Limbaugh speculated that if the Republicans were poised to have such electoral success in 2014, the only way to derail that success now is if the party pushed for immigration reform.  Specifically, Limbaugh claimed that if Republicans supported "amnesty," that would likely cause faithful Republican voters to stay home on election day.

With this political climate, then, the passage of immigration reform, which seemed to be a sure thing in late 2012, early 2013, is not a sure thing.  Those who may have been waiting to see if reform would pass instead of acting on legal possibilities now may be well advised to re-think that strategy.

To discuss what possibilities may be available under the law, call now for an appointment.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Movement on Immigration Reform Expected After Easter

The President predicted that immigration reform could pass by the end of the summer.  The President expected an immigration reform bill to be ready after the Easter break, and New York Senator Chuck Schumer confirmed his belief that a birpartisan group of Senators called the Group of Eight was "90 percent" done with drafting the bill.

The bill is expected to include stronger border security measures, a pathway to citizenship for undocumented aliens already in the country, an expansion of visas available to high-tech workers, and some form of a guest worker program.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated her expectation that any new reforms would be fee-based so that the costs would not be borne by the taxpayers.  Addressing those aliens present in the country without legal status, Napolitano stated, "They need to get right with the law -- they did break the law."

One big issue that could slow the pace of reform was disagreement over the guest worker program.  Despite this issue, the President stated that he saw "enormous progress over the last month and a half" between Republicans and Democrats, adding that both sides "have been very serious about the negotiations."

The Christian Science Monitor has also reported that border security could be an issue that impedes progress on reform.

Regarding the pace of reform, some Republicans Senators have urged Senator Patrick Leahy, Chiar of the Committee on the Judiciary, not to rush reform without proper debate.  Leahy responded that he intended "to proceed to comprehensive immigration reform with all deliberate speed."

Senator John McCain, however, a member of the Group of Eight, would not commit to a timetable, noting that there were still major points of contention.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Political Wrangling Over Immigration Reform Begins

In the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election, some Republicans began pressing to change the party's stance on immigration reform as a way to change the party's image with Latino voters.  Over 70% of Latinos voted for President Obama, and was seen by many as a key reason for the President's victory.

Comprehensive immigration reform will take time and negotiations.  Some Republicans eager to start changing the party's image have introduced smaller proposals in Congress now, during the lame duck session, in an effort to give the GOP some credibility.

One such proposal is the expansion of the number of permanent residency visas available for workers in science, technology, engineering and math, so-called STEM workers.  I have already discussed the arduous process of hiring foreign-born STEM workers and applying for their visas on this blog.

While Republicans may not be completely unified on comprehensive immigration reform, STEM worker visas is one area where the GOP does have a degree of unity.  One Republican proposal on STEM worker visas was brought to a vote in September of this year.  The plan would have increased the number of visas available for STEM workers by 50,000, while eliminating the diversity visa program.  The diversity visa program, also known as the visa lottery, makes 50,000 visas available to people born in areas of the world that have sent the fewest immigrants to the United States in the past five years.

The GOP bill was brought to the floor in September under the suspension calendar, and needed a two-thirds majority to pass in the House of Representatives.  While the proposal failed to gain the required support in September, the bill to expand the number of STEM visas came to the floor on the regular calendar, and passed the House on November 30, 2012.  The bill passed, and was introduced in the Senate.

In the Senate, Republican John Cornyn sought unanimous consent to bring the bill on STEM worker visas to a vote.  Democrat Chuck Schumer objected, noting that while Democrats favored expanding the number of visas available for STEM workers, that Democrats did not believe it had to be done by eliminating the visas available under other immigration programs.

The political wrangling over immigration reform has therefore begun.  There is a question over whether the Democrats will even permit immigration reform to pass.  If immigration reform were to pass, it would rob the Democrats of a political issue where they believe they have an advantage over Republicans. 

This first foray into the issue of immigration reform, therefore, does not bode well for the passage of comprehensive reform.  If political parties cannot agree on the specifics of this one issue, where there is general agreement for the need to expand the visas available for STEM workers, then finding common ground on a host of other immigration topics could prove elusive.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Do Democrats Have an Incentive to Sabotage Immigration Reform?

In the wake of the November presidential election, there has been much discussion of whether it is time for the Republican party to embrace immigration reform.  The conventional wisdom has been that since President Obama won over 70% of the Latino vote, the GOP has to make some changes in its platform and image in order to attract Latino voters.

This conversation, however, is built on the assumption that both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, approach comprehensive immigration reform in good faith.  In this article, Ruben Navarette, Jr. argues that the Democrats have every incentive to sabotage the move to adopt comprehensive immigration reform.

Navarette's argues that the Democrats really do not want to be known as the part of amnesty or open borders in later elections.  In particular, he notes that this would not enhance the party's stance with Caucasians and African Americans.

So long as immigration reform is not passed, the Democrats will continue to have an issue to use against the Republicans.  Thus, there is no incentive to actually settle the issue.  Rather, by sabotaging the issue, the Democrats can continue to make Republicans look like the bad guys to the Latino voters.

One main constituency of the Democrats is the labor movement.  Labor unions do not want the added competition of a guest worker program.  Therefore, passing immigration reform runs the risk of alienating a key constituency.

Having worked in the Federal Government myself, I must admit to a certain degree of cynicism when it comes to national politics.  There is merit, particularly in Navarette's argument that reaching a compromise would rob the Democrats of an issue to use against the Republicans.  Also, it is a mistake to think of the Democrats as a single party joined together by a unified ideology.  Quite the contrary, the modern Democratic Party is more of a collection of minority interests who find it mutually convenient to ally themselves in pursuit of their own agendas.  Thus, there is a precarious balancing act among the party leaders to try to keep such diverse constituencies as labor unions and liberal activists satisfied.  In this regard, if labor unions were to find their members' jobs threatened by a guest worker program, then it would make sense that the party leaders would develop a strategy to make it appear as though they are serious about immigration reform, but never agree to a compromise, instead blaming Republicans as obstructionists, in order to keep some of their constituents happy while having a bad guy to campaign against.

This, and the fact that the Republicans are not themselves unified on the issue of immigration reform, must be taken into consideration in analyzing whether immigration reform will indeed pass the next Congress.  Those expecting fast movement may find themselves disappointed.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Dream to Achieve: Comparison of Proposals to Address Young Undocumented Aliens

In the wake of the presidential elections, many in the Republican Party have shown a greater willingness to consider comprehensive immigration reform. In particular, many have seen a softening of the GOP's stance on immigration reform necessary in light of the overwhelming majority of Latino voters who supported President Obama.

Nonetheless, the Republicans may not be in complete uniformity on what shape comprehensive immigration reform should take.  One issue that may prove to be the most difficult to address could be what to do about the many undocumented aliens already in the country.  The issue of creating a guest worker program, with some pathway to citizenship, may complicate the drive for comprehensive reform.

In the meantime, there appears to be some agreement that young people, brought to this country as children and who have grown up as if they were Americans, deserve some form of relief.  This is on the heals of the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which could grant a promise not to deport such young people who meet certain qualifications.  The program has its roots in the DREAM Act, which failed in 2010 when a Senate filibuster prevented the bill from coming up for a vote.

At least two Republicans have been working on a similar bill over the past year.  Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Jon Kyl, both of whom will retire in January, have been working on the Achieve Act as an alternative to the DREAM Act.  There appears to be a movement to try to bring the Achieve Act up for a vote before January.

The Achieve Act, however, has some major differences in qualifications when compared to the President's deferred action program.  If the Achieve Act were to pass, it could cause a number of people, who have applied for and already received deferred action, out in the cold as far as permanent relief is concerned.

The requirements for relief under the Achieve Act are:  (1) the applicant must have completed high-school and be admitted to college or earned a college degree, or completed high school and be enlisted in or have completed four years of military service; (2) the applicant must have entered the country before the age of 14; (3) the applicant must have lived in the U.S. continuously for five years; (4) the applicant must have not committed a felony, two misdemeanors with a jail term of over 30 days, or a crime of moral turpitude; (5) the applicant must not be subject to a final order of removal; (6) the applicant must pay a $525 fee; and (7) the applicant must be under the age of 28 (or 32 if they have a bachelor's degree from a U.S. university).

The major differences are:  (1) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant be enrolled in a U.S school, have a high school diploma, have a GED or be enrolled in classes to work toward a GED; (2) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant enter the United State before age 16; and (3) the deferred action program only requires that the applicant be under age 31 as of June 15, 2012.

With these key differences, there are several young people who would qualify under the deferred action program,  who would not qualify under the Achieve Act.  People who entered the United States after age 14, but before age 16, for example, would be out of luck under the Achieve Act.  Likewise, people who have a high school diploma, but who chose not to go on to higher education would be left out.  Finally, the cut-off age is lower for the Achieve Act.

It is unclear why the Republican proposal has stricter qualification requirements than the current deferred action program.  It may be explained by the fact that the bill was drafted before the President announced the program.  Nonetheless, equity would argue that the bill be modified to cover all of those covered by the deferred action program.  Whether that will happen, or the Republicans stick to their guns remains to be seen.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/republicans-mull-own-version-dream-act-vote-on-achieve-act-by-january/#ixzz2Cte3l3Wt

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/republicans-mull-own-version-dream-act-vote-on-achieve-act-by-january/#ixzz2Cte3l3Wt

President Promises to Press for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

In his first press conference since the November 6th election, President Obama promised to press for comprehensive immigration reform in early 2013.  According to the President, immigration reform will include strengthening the borders, greater penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens, and a pathway to citizenship for those already present in the United States illegally.

The last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform took place during the Bush Administration.  The Bush proposal also included a pathway to citizenship.  However, the legislative package failed to pass Congress.

In 2010, Congress came close to passing the DREAM Act, which would have given legal status to young people who were brought the United States as children and who have attended school in the United States or were honorably discharged from the U.S. military.  The DREAM Act died in a Senate filibuster.  However, the President announced a program to grant some form of relief to those who would have qualified for benefits under the DREAM Act through his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.  The deferred action program, however, does not lead to permanent residency.

Click here to read more on the President's statements concerning immigration reform.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com