Immigration Reform can go either way, by helping immigrants and asylum seekers or placing further restrictions on their lives by ever more punitive laws. One part of the act would make it more difficult for those fleeing persecution to find asylum here. Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernardino, CA chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Committee on Migration wrote on April 25 to the House and Senate conferees on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, emphasizing that the Real ID Act would have “extraordinarily harmful impacts on asylum seekers.” Among other destructive provisions, it would allow judges to deny asylum claims if those seeking protection could not provide documents providing documents proving the persecution-
…show more content…
In other states, pro-immigrant legislation facilities an unprecedented degree of social integration, promising opportunity and bodily safety at the local level. Yet state action tells only half the story behind the current immigration landscape. While states legislated, President Barack Obama muscularly developed executive power to reorient national immigration policy. Frustrated by congressional paralysis, the Administration initiated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which accorded approximately 1.2 million undocumented youth respite from the specter of deportation. In 2014, President Obama significantly expanded DACA’s scope, suspending the initial age cap and relaxing the original date-of-entry requirement. Faced with congressional deadlock and a “[federal [government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws,” states have taken up the reins of immigration regulation. The purpose and tenor of sub federal immigration law vary by locality. Some states, hoping to drive undocumented immigrants out, wield the law as a sword, denying unauthorised non citizens benefits and privileges under state law as a means of deterring newcomers and promoting “self-deportation” these modification go into effect, deferred action will extend to approximately 300,000 additional immigrants youth as well as the roughly four million undocumented parents of America citizens and legal permanent residents, making nearly half of America’s unauthorized population eligible for work authorization and lawful presence. President Obama’s unabashed use of executive power in implementing DACA provoked divided commentary from the start. Supporters emphasize the policy’s socioeconomic benefits and humanitarian appeal. Constitutionally speaking, they consider DACA a permissible-even unremarkable-instantiation of presidential power. In contrast, opponents tend to decry the policy as foisting upon
In other states, pro-immigrant legislation facilities an unprecedented degree of social integration, promising opportunity and bodily safety at the local level. Yet state action tells only half the story behind the current immigration landscape. While states legislated, President Barack Obama muscularly developed executive power to reorient national immigration policy. Frustrated by congressional paralysis, the Administration initiated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which accorded approximately 1.2 million undocumented youth respite from the specter of deportation. In 2014, President Obama significantly expanded DACA’s scope, suspending the initial age cap and relaxing the original date-of-entry requirement. Faced with congressional deadlock and a “[federal [government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws,” states have taken up the reins of immigration regulation. The purpose and tenor of sub federal immigration law vary by locality. Some states, hoping to drive undocumented immigrants out, wield the law as a sword, denying unauthorised non citizens benefits and privileges under state law as a means of deterring newcomers and promoting “self-deportation” these modification go into effect, deferred action will extend to approximately 300,000 additional immigrants youth as well as the roughly four million undocumented parents of America citizens and legal permanent residents, making nearly half of America’s unauthorized population eligible for work authorization and lawful presence. President Obama’s unabashed use of executive power in implementing DACA provoked divided commentary from the start. Supporters emphasize the policy’s socioeconomic benefits and humanitarian appeal. Constitutionally speaking, they consider DACA a permissible-even unremarkable-instantiation of presidential power. In contrast, opponents tend to decry the policy as foisting upon