Source Article from http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27745279/2015/01/01/immigration-showdown-in-2015-green-card-applications-to-be-processed-soon
Immigration showdown in 2015: Green card applications to be processed soon
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27745279/2015/01/01/immigration-showdown-in-2015-green-card-applications-to-be-processed-soon
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
カテゴリーアーカイブ: Immigration
Immigration changes to watch for in 2015
For good or bad, the nature of immigration in Canada has changed under the Conservatives.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed that when he spoke about the changes to immigration brought in under his watch during a candid response in New York earlier this year.
“We have been quite systematically re-orienting our immigration over the last several years to make it more focused on economic needs and focused on more long-term labour market needs,” Harper told Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker on Sept. 24.
While many changes were initiated by Employment and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney during his five years as immigration minister, his successor, Chris Alexander, has overseen the most recent and oftentimes controversial changes to immigration policies.
Here are five immigration changes to watch for in 2015:
1. Express Entry
Starting Jan. 1, Canada will launch a new system that will fast-track permanent residency under six months for young, highly skilled immigrants who are able to fill the country’s labour needs. The bulk of immigrants will no longer come to Canada on a first-come, first-served basis as they have for the past generation.
Under express entry, the federal government will act as “a matchmaker” between high-skilled immigrants and employers, holding a draw every two to three weeks where the “highest-ranking” winners will be invited to apply for permanent residency.There is no minimum points level to qualify, but a permanent job offer from an employer or a province will boost prospective immigrants to the top of the pool.
While businesses have been supportive of a system that will act as a job bank tailored to their needs, some are feeling uncertain about the “job-matching” feature, which will not be fully operational until spring.
Others have been more critical saying Canada’s immigration policies have shifted in favour of ”expediency and naked pragmatism” and that it lacks ”transparency, oversight or accountability.”
The government has promised to publish information about each draw, including the lowest-ranking score of those candidates who have been offered permanent residency. The government will also continue to insist that employers prove they made every effort to hire a Canadian first before offering a permanent job to a foreigner.
Quebec will not participate in express entry.
2. Syrian refugees
Alexander came under fire from various immigration groups and opposition parties which criticized the government for falling behind on its commitment to take in 1,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014.
The government tells CBC News that 1,063 Syrian refugees have landed in Canada as of Dec. 29 — that’s 606 more than the 457 who had arrived here as of Nov. 13. It is unclear how many have come here sponsored by private groups and how many the government has sponsored.
“We have approved more than 1,200 refugees under the 1,300 commitment, and 1,063 are already here in Canada. The rest will travel in the coming weeks,” said Kevin Ménard, a spokesman for the immigration minister, in an email to CBC News on Wednesday.
“We continue to work expeditiously to fulfil this commitment and will have more to say about this in the coming weeks,” Ménard said.
For months, Alexander repeatedly said more than 1,150 Syrians had “received Canada’s protection.” It wasn’t until October when NDP MP Paul Dewar tabled a question in the House of Commons that the government was forced to say, in a response issued Dec. 3, how many Syrian refugees were actually in the country.
Canada has been urged to take in 10,000 more Syrian refugees over the next two years after the UN put out a global call to help resettle 100,000 refugees fleeing escalating violence in Syria.
All eyes will be on Alexander in January to see how Canada responds to the UN’s plea for help.
3. Refugee health care
The government has temporarily restored health-care coverage to refugee claimants after a Federal Court found that changes made to refugee health-care funding in 2012 were unconstitutional. The effect of the cuts were deemed ”cruel and unusual.”
“We are doing this because the court has ordered us to do it. We respect that decision, while not agreeing with it,” Alexander said on Nov. 4.
The immigration minister said restoring health-care coverage would benefit less than 1,000 refugee claimants, but cost the government $4 million to implement.
Three groups took the government to court over the 2012 cuts: Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and Justice for Children and Youth.
“We are arguing that the government has failed to comply with the order,” said Lorne Waldman, an immigration lawyer who represents Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, in an email to CBC News this week.
The Federal Court is set to hear their motion on Jan. 27.
There is no date set for the government’s appeal.
4. Citizenship Act changes
Starting Jan. 1, the fee to apply for citizenship will increase for the second time in less than a year to $530 per adult. Based on the government’s immigration projections for 2015, the fee hike could inject an additional $60 million into federal coffers.
Alexander said faster processing times for citizenship applications in recent months were the result of some of the changes made to the Citizenship Act in 2014.
Those changes came despite warnings from the Canadian Bar Association about some of the more controversial measures which they said were likely unconstitutional.
Some of the more contentious changes, which have yet to come into effect, include:
- Under the new rules, the minister of immigration can revoke citizenship in “routine cases.” Where security, human or international rights are concerned, the government will leave it to the courts to decide.
- Dual citizens and permanent residents can have their citizenship revoked if found to have taken up arms with groups engaged in armed conflict against Canada or if they are convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences. The RCMP has said it is monitoring some 93 “high-risk” individuals as potentially violent radicals.
- Canadian citizenship can be denied to anyone with domestic or foreign criminal charges against them.
5. Caregivers program
Faced with a backlog of 60,000 applications for permanent residence, the government also overhauled the foreign caregiver program making it optional for caregivers to live with their employers and putting a cap on the number of caregivers it will accept under two new categories.
While most of the changes were well received, groups representing caregivers in the Filipino-Canadian community are upset the government did not give foreign caregivers permanent residency from the moment they arrive in Canada. Under the new program, caregivers still have to wait two years before being eligible for permanent residency.
Groups representing foreign nannies and caregivers would also like to see the government allow family members of caregivers to come to Canada right away.
Alexander said the government was on track to eliminate 17,500 applications by the end of 2014 and would eliminate the backlog further by processing 30,000 applications in 2015. He said the government will achieve these goals using current resources.
Source Article from http://ca.news.yahoo.com/immigration-changes-watch-2015-100000547.html
Immigration changes to watch for in 2015
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/immigration-changes-watch-2015-100000547.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
Israel hails highest immigration figures in a decade
Jerusalem (AFP) – The number of Jews moving to Israel leapt in 2014 to its highest figure in a decade, with western Europe leading the way, the immigration ministry said Wednesday.
Immigration hit a 10-year high, with the arrival of some 26,500 new residents, according to a joint statement with the Jewish Agency, a quasi-governmental organisation tasked with encouraging Jews to move to Israel.
This marks a significant 32 percent increase over last year’s approximately 20,000 immigrants, the statement said.
This “was a year of record-breaking aliyah,” Jewish Agency chairman Natan Sharansky said, using the Hebrew word for immigration to Israel.
It “also saw a historic shift: for the first time in Israel’s history, the number of immigrants who came to Israel from the free world is greater than that of immigrants fleeing countries in distress.”
For the first time ever, France provided the biggest number, as more than 6,600 Jews moved to Israel. That was nearly twice the 3,400 who arrived in 2013.
Overall, immigration from Western Europe increased 88 percent, with the arrival of some 8,640 people, compared with 4,600 a year earlier.
Some 620 arrived from Britain, compared with 520 a year earlier, and the number from Italy doubled to 340. Around 240 arrived from Belgium, a slight decrease, and the number from Germany remained stable, at approximately 120. Immigration from former Soviet Union countries saw a 50 percent increase, with the arrival of some 11,430 people, compared with 7,610 in 2013.
That was largely driven by an exodus from conflict-wracked Ukraine, where the number surged 190 percent to 5,840.
More than half of all people moving to Israel in 2014 were under 35, among them 5,300 children and some 8,200 adults aged between 18-34.
Tel Aviv was the city which received the highest number of immigrants, at around 3,000. It was followed by the northern coastal city of Netanya and then Jerusalem.
More than three million Jews have immigrated to Israel since its creation in 1948 — including one million from former Soviet states since 1990 — under the Law of Return, which offers citizenship and benefits to Jews from anywhere in the world.
- Immigration Issues
- Politics & Government
- Israel
- immigration
Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/israel-hails-highest-immigration-figures-decade-185109476.html
Israel hails highest immigration figures in a decade
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-hails-highest-immigration-figures-decade-185109476.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
Constitution Check: Is Obama’s new immigration policy constitutional, or not?
Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, looks at two totally different outcomes to challenges to new Obama immigration initiatives.
THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE:
“For almost twenty years, the use of deferred action programs has been a staple of immigration enforcement. The executive branch has previously implemented deferred action programs for certain limited categories of aliens, including certain victims of domestic abuse…, victims of human trafficking and certain other crimes, students affected by Hurricane Katrina, widows and widowers of U.S. citizens, and certain aliens brought to the United States as children. Programs similar to deferred action have been used extensively by the executive branch for an even longer period of time….Although the [new Obama] deferred action programs reflect a large class-based program, such breadth does not push the programs over the line from faithful execution of the law to the unconstitutional rewriting of the law.”
– Excerpt from a decision on December 23 by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., District Judge Beryl A. Howell, the first to reject a constitutional challenge to the new policies of the Obama Administration delaying deportation for more than four million undocumented immigrants living illegally in the U.S. Judge Howell’s comments in that decision conflict directly with a ruling a week earlier by a federal judge in Pittsburgh, who found the new policies to be unconstitutional.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
It is a habit deeply embedded in the minds of most federal judges to avoid deciding constitutional issues before it is necessary to do so. It goes by the name “Ashwander doctrine,” after a famous opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1936 (Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority). That hesitancy is even greater when a federal court is asked to referee a constitutional dispute between the other two branches of the national government – Congress and the presidency.
The doctrine, however, is not universally applied by federal judges, and from time to time a judge will reach out to make a constitutional declaration when doing so was not absolutely necessary to decide the case directly before the judge. That happened just recently, in the midst of the heated constitutional debate between the Republican leaders of Congress and the White House, over the new immigration initiatives now being implemented by President Obama and his Cabinet.
No doubt inevitably, challenges to the new Obama initiatives are getting into the courts, and that has already produced totally different outcomes – although the outcomes were both shaped by judges who said more about constitutional questions than they actually needed to say.
In one case (discussed in this space recently), a judge in Pittsburgh reached out to grasp the constitutional question in an individual alien’s potential deportation case, and proceeded to declare that President Obama acted beyond his legitimate powers. But the judge then went on to decide that case, strangely, on the premise that the policies may be constitutional, after all. That ruling deeply angered government officials, and, to them, it illustrated the error of deciding constitutional issues prematurely.
In the other new case, a different federal judge found that the federal courts had no authority to rule on an Arizona county sheriff’s claim that the immigration initiatives were invalid. The sheriff, the judge ruled, simply had no right to have his case decided because he could not show that he had been injured in any way by what President Obama had done. The lack of injury, the judge ruled, meant there was no live controversy within the power of a federal court to decide.
That judge could have stopped there, and perhaps should have. Once it is clear that there is no proper party before the court in a real case, it is over. But, yielding to temptation, this jurist went on to opine on why the Obama initiatives were entirely consistent with the way immigration policies have been enforced for a good many years. The judge conceded that those musings were not necessary to the case, but said that they were being offered anyway, to outline the obstacles that would have to be overcome if a proper case were to move ahead on the validity of the Obama approach to deportation policy.
Is there a value in having the occasional judge reach out to make constitutional statements when not truly necessary to decide a case? Or does it give the unfortunate impression that judges are being activists when they shouldn’t be?
The Pittsburgh judge’s remarks about the lack of presidential power, and the Washington, D.C., judge’s volunteered commentary on that subject, could help to clarify the lines or continuing constitutional combat over immigration policy, and thus could have an education function. The Pittsburgh judge did illustrate that the President’s policies may well be vulnerable constitutionally, while the Washington judge, in turn, showed that those policies may not be as novel as the challengers have argued, and thus may be constitutionally sound.
On balance, however, it may be a blow to the reputation of the federal judiciary as a detached tribunal each time a judge writes a constitutional essay, within the confines of an actual lawsuit, when that will have no actual effect on who wins or loses that particular case. The country very likely can wait to read such thoughts until they are vital ingredients of an actual decision that does settle something. Where constitutional judgments are to be made, a measure of judicial modesty is probably a good thing.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Constitution Check: Is Obama’s new immigration policy constitutional, or not?
Top five Constitution Daily podcasts of 2014
Is Andrew Johnson the worst president in American history?
Appeals court ruling could put gun case on Supreme Court track
- Politics & Government
- Obama
Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-constitutional-not-111607551.html
Constitution Check: Is Obama’s new immigration policy constitutional, or not?
http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-constitutional-not-111607551.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
President Obama’s new set of immigration policies could affect as many as 5 million people, including the possibility of a three-year reprieve from the threat of deportation for parents of children with legal status.
The new year will see those policies coming into effect, potentially creating dramatic changes for those who are in the U.S. illegally. Also ahead in 2015 are important shifts in how agents will enforce immigration laws to focus more on deporting people with lengthy or violent criminal records and less on people whose only crimes are immigration offenses.
The new approach will end the dragnet system that enlisted police in blowing the whistle on immigrants. These policies won’t apply to most of the 11.2 million living in the country illegally.
And don’t expect this to roll out without a fight. Republicans in Congress already have vowed to try to undo the new policies.
“This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It’s a serious threat to our system of government,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said as the plan was unveiled. But practically speaking, there is little they can do.
Republican governors in states affected by the new deportation policies have called out the lawyers. At least 24 states have filed suit to block the plan, and that case is expected to play out in the courts throughout 2015.
Here’s a look at the plan and what we can expect:
Whom is the new plan designed to help?
Mostly immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally and who have children who are citizens (nearly all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens) or permanent legal residents. To be eligible, people have to have been living in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and have no record of serious crimes that would make them a priority for removal.
A White House legal memo said this “would serve an important humanitarian interest in keeping parents together with children who are lawfully present in the United States.” Approved applicants will get permission to stay for three years. As many as 4.1 million people could fit the criteria, the administration estimates. The application will cost $465.
What about people who came to the U.S. as children?
The program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program begun in 2012 that has protected 587,000 young people from removal. The new rules do away with an age limit and open the program to anyone here since 2010, instead of the old cutoff of 2007. An estimated 300,000 more young men and women would be eligible.
Does this mean these people will become legal residents?
No. As laid out by Obama and Jeh Johnson, his Homeland Security secretary, the administration is using its discretion to not target these people. Absent other changes, such as a law passed by Congress, the people could again go into illegal status after their temporary reprieves expire.
Where are most of the people from, and where do they live now?
About two-thirds are from Mexico, the source of most immigrants to the U.S. The biggest share of the eligible parents, more than 1.1 million, lives in California, with the next biggest populations in Texas and Illinois.
What about the more than 6 million people who don’t qualify?
Some arrived in the U.S. too recently to qualify, but most are excluded because they didn’t have children born here. According to the Pew Research Center, which studies immigration, about 85% of people who live in the U.S. without authorization have been here for five years or more. That’s because immigration has been down in recent years, said Jeff Passel, Pew’s senior demographer. The biggest share of the people who’ve lived here long enough but don’t qualify is single men, he said. Others are married without children. Some have children who were born elsewhere — for instance, parents of kids born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as toddlers aren’t eligible.
Is the new program open to parents of children who’ve already received a reprieve under DACA?
No. Administration lawyers decided that was a bridge too far and without legal basis, since there would be no family member with legal status in the U.S. — only children with a temporary relief order. That decision disappointed some immigration activists, who point out that those families could be split up.
If someone met these qualifications — in the U.S. for five years, with American-born children — but got deported, could they now apply to get back in?
No. Those cases are considered closed by immigration officials. As many as 250,000 to 300,000 people could fit that category, according to Randy Capps, director of research for the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute. However, the new policy says that people who are subject to deportation actions — even those who have received final removal orders but are still in the U.S. — can apply to stay.
How will enforcement change under the new rules?
The administration says its top priority will be to go after border crossers and people considered dangerous, such as convicted felons and gang members. The second priority is people convicted of three misdemeanor crimes, or who have significant offenses such as domestic violence or drug trafficking.
At the bottom of the list are people who have committed no crimes other than illegally entering the country, particularly if they’ve been in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2014. The administration is doing away with the much-derided Secure Communities program, which enlisted police to hold unauthorized people on detainers for immigration agents. The government will still collect fingerprint data, though.
Who else could benefit from the changes?
Also in the works are changes to rules for granting visas for science and technology students, and to streamline the clunky and inflexible rules on work visas, to make it easier for people to change jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status.
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Source Article from http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
President Obama’s new set of immigration policies could affect as many as 5 million people, including the possibility of a three-year reprieve from the threat of deportation for parents of children with legal status.
The new year will see those policies coming into effect, potentially creating dramatic changes for those who are in the U.S. illegally. Also ahead in 2015 are important shifts in how agents will enforce immigration laws to focus more on deporting people with lengthy or violent criminal records and less on people whose only crimes are immigration offenses.
The new approach will end the dragnet system that enlisted police in blowing the whistle on immigrants. These policies won’t apply to most of the 11.2 million living in the country illegally.
And don’t expect this to roll out without a fight. Republicans in Congress already have vowed to try to undo the new policies.
“This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It’s a serious threat to our system of government,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said as the plan was unveiled. But practically speaking, there is little they can do.
Republican governors in states affected by the new deportation policies have called out the lawyers. At least 24 states have filed suit to block the plan, and that case is expected to play out in the courts throughout 2015.
Here’s a look at the plan and what we can expect:
Whom is the new plan designed to help?
Mostly immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally and who have children who are citizens (nearly all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens) or permanent legal residents. To be eligible, people have to have been living in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and have no record of serious crimes that would make them a priority for removal.
A White House legal memo said this “would serve an important humanitarian interest in keeping parents together with children who are lawfully present in the United States.” Approved applicants will get permission to stay for three years. As many as 4.1 million people could fit the criteria, the administration estimates. The application will cost $465.
What about people who came to the U.S. as children?
The program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program begun in 2012 that has protected 587,000 young people from removal. The new rules do away with an age limit and open the program to anyone here since 2010, instead of the old cutoff of 2007. An estimated 300,000 more young men and women would be eligible.
Does this mean these people will become legal residents?
No. As laid out by Obama and Jeh Johnson, his Homeland Security secretary, the administration is using its discretion to not target these people. Absent other changes, such as a law passed by Congress, the people could again go into illegal status after their temporary reprieves expire.
Where are most of the people from, and where do they live now?
About two-thirds are from Mexico, the source of most immigrants to the U.S. The biggest share of the eligible parents, more than 1.1 million, lives in California, with the next biggest populations in Texas and Illinois.
What about the more than 6 million people who don’t qualify?
Some arrived in the U.S. too recently to qualify, but most are excluded because they didn’t have children born here. According to the Pew Research Center, which studies immigration, about 85% of people who live in the U.S. without authorization have been here for five years or more. That’s because immigration has been down in recent years, said Jeff Passel, Pew’s senior demographer. The biggest share of the people who’ve lived here long enough but don’t qualify is single men, he said. Others are married without children. Some have children who were born elsewhere — for instance, parents of kids born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as toddlers aren’t eligible.
Is the new program open to parents of children who’ve already received a reprieve under DACA?
No. Administration lawyers decided that was a bridge too far and without legal basis, since there would be no family member with legal status in the U.S. — only children with a temporary relief order. That decision disappointed some immigration activists, who point out that those families could be split up.
If someone met these qualifications — in the U.S. for five years, with American-born children — but got deported, could they now apply to get back in?
No. Those cases are considered closed by immigration officials. As many as 250,000 to 300,000 people could fit that category, according to Randy Capps, director of research for the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute. However, the new policy says that people who are subject to deportation actions — even those who have received final removal orders but are still in the U.S. — can apply to stay.
How will enforcement change under the new rules?
The administration says its top priority will be to go after border crossers and people considered dangerous, such as convicted felons and gang members. The second priority is people convicted of three misdemeanor crimes, or who have significant offenses such as domestic violence or drug trafficking.
At the bottom of the list are people who have committed no crimes other than illegally entering the country, particularly if they’ve been in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2014. The administration is doing away with the much-derided Secure Communities program, which enlisted police to hold unauthorized people on detainers for immigration agents. The government will still collect fingerprint data, though.
Who else could benefit from the changes?
Also in the works are changes to rules for granting visas for science and technology students, and to streamline the clunky and inflexible rules on work visas, to make it easier for people to change jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status.
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Source Article from http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
President Obama’s new set of immigration policies could affect as many as 5 million people, including the possibility of a three-year reprieve from the threat of deportation for parents of children with legal status.
The new year will see those policies coming into effect, potentially creating dramatic changes for those who are in the U.S. illegally. Also ahead in 2015 are important shifts in how agents will enforce immigration laws to focus more on deporting people with lengthy or violent criminal records and less on people whose only crimes are immigration offenses.
The new approach will end the dragnet system that enlisted police in blowing the whistle on immigrants. These policies won’t apply to most of the 11.2 million living in the country illegally.
And don’t expect this to roll out without a fight. Republicans in Congress already have vowed to try to undo the new policies.
“This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It’s a serious threat to our system of government,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said as the plan was unveiled. But practically speaking, there is little they can do.
Republican governors in states affected by the new deportation policies have called out the lawyers. At least 24 states have filed suit to block the plan, and that case is expected to play out in the courts throughout 2015.
Here’s a look at the plan and what we can expect:
Whom is the new plan designed to help?
Mostly immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally and who have children who are citizens (nearly all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens) or permanent legal residents. To be eligible, people have to have been living in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and have no record of serious crimes that would make them a priority for removal.
A White House legal memo said this “would serve an important humanitarian interest in keeping parents together with children who are lawfully present in the United States.” Approved applicants will get permission to stay for three years. As many as 4.1 million people could fit the criteria, the administration estimates. The application will cost $465.
What about people who came to the U.S. as children?
The program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program begun in 2012 that has protected 587,000 young people from removal. The new rules do away with an age limit and open the program to anyone here since 2010, instead of the old cutoff of 2007. An estimated 300,000 more young men and women would be eligible.
Does this mean these people will become legal residents?
No. As laid out by Obama and Jeh Johnson, his Homeland Security secretary, the administration is using its discretion to not target these people. Absent other changes, such as a law passed by Congress, the people could again go into illegal status after their temporary reprieves expire.
Where are most of the people from, and where do they live now?
About two-thirds are from Mexico, the source of most immigrants to the U.S. The biggest share of the eligible parents, more than 1.1 million, lives in California, with the next biggest populations in Texas and Illinois.
What about the more than 6 million people who don’t qualify?
Some arrived in the U.S. too recently to qualify, but most are excluded because they didn’t have children born here. According to the Pew Research Center, which studies immigration, about 85% of people who live in the U.S. without authorization have been here for five years or more. That’s because immigration has been down in recent years, said Jeff Passel, Pew’s senior demographer. The biggest share of the people who’ve lived here long enough but don’t qualify is single men, he said. Others are married without children. Some have children who were born elsewhere — for instance, parents of kids born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as toddlers aren’t eligible.
Is the new program open to parents of children who’ve already received a reprieve under DACA?
No. Administration lawyers decided that was a bridge too far and without legal basis, since there would be no family member with legal status in the U.S. — only children with a temporary relief order. That decision disappointed some immigration activists, who point out that those families could be split up.
If someone met these qualifications — in the U.S. for five years, with American-born children — but got deported, could they now apply to get back in?
No. Those cases are considered closed by immigration officials. As many as 250,000 to 300,000 people could fit that category, according to Randy Capps, director of research for the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute. However, the new policy says that people who are subject to deportation actions — even those who have received final removal orders but are still in the U.S. — can apply to stay.
How will enforcement change under the new rules?
The administration says its top priority will be to go after border crossers and people considered dangerous, such as convicted felons and gang members. The second priority is people convicted of three misdemeanor crimes, or who have significant offenses such as domestic violence or drug trafficking.
At the bottom of the list are people who have committed no crimes other than illegally entering the country, particularly if they’ve been in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2014. The administration is doing away with the much-derided Secure Communities program, which enlisted police to hold unauthorized people on detainers for immigration agents. The government will still collect fingerprint data, though.
Who else could benefit from the changes?
Also in the works are changes to rules for granting visas for science and technology students, and to streamline the clunky and inflexible rules on work visas, to make it easier for people to change jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status.
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Source Article from http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
President Obama’s new set of immigration policies could affect as many as 5 million people, including the possibility of a three-year reprieve from the threat of deportation for parents of children with legal status.
The new year will see those policies coming into effect, potentially creating dramatic changes for those who are in the U.S. illegally. Also ahead in 2015 are important shifts in how agents will enforce immigration laws to focus more on deporting people with lengthy or violent criminal records and less on people whose only crimes are immigration offenses.
The new approach will end the dragnet system that enlisted police in blowing the whistle on immigrants. These policies won’t apply to most of the 11.2 million living in the country illegally.
And don’t expect this to roll out without a fight. Republicans in Congress already have vowed to try to undo the new policies.
“This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It’s a serious threat to our system of government,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said as the plan was unveiled. But practically speaking, there is little they can do.
Republican governors in states affected by the new deportation policies have called out the lawyers. At least 24 states have filed suit to block the plan, and that case is expected to play out in the courts throughout 2015.
Here’s a look at the plan and what we can expect:
Whom is the new plan designed to help?
Mostly immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally and who have children who are citizens (nearly all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens) or permanent legal residents. To be eligible, people have to have been living in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and have no record of serious crimes that would make them a priority for removal.
A White House legal memo said this “would serve an important humanitarian interest in keeping parents together with children who are lawfully present in the United States.” Approved applicants will get permission to stay for three years. As many as 4.1 million people could fit the criteria, the administration estimates. The application will cost $465.
What about people who came to the U.S. as children?
The program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program begun in 2012 that has protected 587,000 young people from removal. The new rules do away with an age limit and open the program to anyone here since 2010, instead of the old cutoff of 2007. An estimated 300,000 more young men and women would be eligible.
Does this mean these people will become legal residents?
No. As laid out by Obama and Jeh Johnson, his Homeland Security secretary, the administration is using its discretion to not target these people. Absent other changes, such as a law passed by Congress, the people could again go into illegal status after their temporary reprieves expire.
Where are most of the people from, and where do they live now?
About two-thirds are from Mexico, the source of most immigrants to the U.S. The biggest share of the eligible parents, more than 1.1 million, lives in California, with the next biggest populations in Texas and Illinois.
What about the more than 6 million people who don’t qualify?
Some arrived in the U.S. too recently to qualify, but most are excluded because they didn’t have children born here. According to the Pew Research Center, which studies immigration, about 85% of people who live in the U.S. without authorization have been here for five years or more. That’s because immigration has been down in recent years, said Jeff Passel, Pew’s senior demographer. The biggest share of the people who’ve lived here long enough but don’t qualify is single men, he said. Others are married without children. Some have children who were born elsewhere — for instance, parents of kids born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as toddlers aren’t eligible.
Is the new program open to parents of children who’ve already received a reprieve under DACA?
No. Administration lawyers decided that was a bridge too far and without legal basis, since there would be no family member with legal status in the U.S. — only children with a temporary relief order. That decision disappointed some immigration activists, who point out that those families could be split up.
If someone met these qualifications — in the U.S. for five years, with American-born children — but got deported, could they now apply to get back in?
No. Those cases are considered closed by immigration officials. As many as 250,000 to 300,000 people could fit that category, according to Randy Capps, director of research for the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute. However, the new policy says that people who are subject to deportation actions — even those who have received final removal orders but are still in the U.S. — can apply to stay.
How will enforcement change under the new rules?
The administration says its top priority will be to go after border crossers and people considered dangerous, such as convicted felons and gang members. The second priority is people convicted of three misdemeanor crimes, or who have significant offenses such as domestic violence or drug trafficking.
At the bottom of the list are people who have committed no crimes other than illegally entering the country, particularly if they’ve been in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2014. The administration is doing away with the much-derided Secure Communities program, which enlisted police to hold unauthorized people on detainers for immigration agents. The government will still collect fingerprint data, though.
Who else could benefit from the changes?
Also in the works are changes to rules for granting visas for science and technology students, and to streamline the clunky and inflexible rules on work visas, to make it easier for people to change jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status.
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Source Article from http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
President Obama’s new set of immigration policies could affect as many as 5 million people, including the possibility of a three-year reprieve from the threat of deportation for parents of children with legal status.
The new year will see those policies coming into effect, potentially creating dramatic changes for those who are in the U.S. illegally. Also ahead in 2015 are important shifts in how agents will enforce immigration laws to focus more on deporting people with lengthy or violent criminal records and less on people whose only crimes are immigration offenses.
The new approach will end the dragnet system that enlisted police in blowing the whistle on immigrants. These policies won’t apply to most of the 11.2 million living in the country illegally.
And don’t expect this to roll out without a fight. Republicans in Congress already have vowed to try to undo the new policies.
“This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It’s a serious threat to our system of government,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said as the plan was unveiled. But practically speaking, there is little they can do.
Republican governors in states affected by the new deportation policies have called out the lawyers. At least 24 states have filed suit to block the plan, and that case is expected to play out in the courts throughout 2015.
Here’s a look at the plan and what we can expect:
Whom is the new plan designed to help?
Mostly immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally and who have children who are citizens (nearly all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens) or permanent legal residents. To be eligible, people have to have been living in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and have no record of serious crimes that would make them a priority for removal.
A White House legal memo said this “would serve an important humanitarian interest in keeping parents together with children who are lawfully present in the United States.” Approved applicants will get permission to stay for three years. As many as 4.1 million people could fit the criteria, the administration estimates. The application will cost $465.
What about people who came to the U.S. as children?
The program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program begun in 2012 that has protected 587,000 young people from removal. The new rules do away with an age limit and open the program to anyone here since 2010, instead of the old cutoff of 2007. An estimated 300,000 more young men and women would be eligible.
Does this mean these people will become legal residents?
No. As laid out by Obama and Jeh Johnson, his Homeland Security secretary, the administration is using its discretion to not target these people. Absent other changes, such as a law passed by Congress, the people could again go into illegal status after their temporary reprieves expire.
Where are most of the people from, and where do they live now?
About two-thirds are from Mexico, the source of most immigrants to the U.S. The biggest share of the eligible parents, more than 1.1 million, lives in California, with the next biggest populations in Texas and Illinois.
What about the more than 6 million people who don’t qualify?
Some arrived in the U.S. too recently to qualify, but most are excluded because they didn’t have children born here. According to the Pew Research Center, which studies immigration, about 85% of people who live in the U.S. without authorization have been here for five years or more. That’s because immigration has been down in recent years, said Jeff Passel, Pew’s senior demographer. The biggest share of the people who’ve lived here long enough but don’t qualify is single men, he said. Others are married without children. Some have children who were born elsewhere — for instance, parents of kids born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as toddlers aren’t eligible.
Is the new program open to parents of children who’ve already received a reprieve under DACA?
No. Administration lawyers decided that was a bridge too far and without legal basis, since there would be no family member with legal status in the U.S. — only children with a temporary relief order. That decision disappointed some immigration activists, who point out that those families could be split up.
If someone met these qualifications — in the U.S. for five years, with American-born children — but got deported, could they now apply to get back in?
No. Those cases are considered closed by immigration officials. As many as 250,000 to 300,000 people could fit that category, according to Randy Capps, director of research for the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute. However, the new policy says that people who are subject to deportation actions — even those who have received final removal orders but are still in the U.S. — can apply to stay.
How will enforcement change under the new rules?
The administration says its top priority will be to go after border crossers and people considered dangerous, such as convicted felons and gang members. The second priority is people convicted of three misdemeanor crimes, or who have significant offenses such as domestic violence or drug trafficking.
At the bottom of the list are people who have committed no crimes other than illegally entering the country, particularly if they’ve been in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2014. The administration is doing away with the much-derided Secure Communities program, which enlisted police to hold unauthorized people on detainers for immigration agents. The government will still collect fingerprint data, though.
Who else could benefit from the changes?
Also in the works are changes to rules for granting visas for science and technology students, and to streamline the clunky and inflexible rules on work visas, to make it easier for people to change jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status.
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Source Article from http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
President Obama’s new set of immigration policies could affect as many as 5 million people, including the possibility of a three-year reprieve from the threat of deportation for parents of children with legal status.
The new year will see those policies coming into effect, potentially creating dramatic changes for those who are in the U.S. illegally. Also ahead in 2015 are important shifts in how agents will enforce immigration laws to focus more on deporting people with lengthy or violent criminal records and less on people whose only crimes are immigration offenses.
The new approach will end the dragnet system that enlisted police in blowing the whistle on immigrants. These policies won’t apply to most of the 11.2 million living in the country illegally.
And don’t expect this to roll out without a fight. Republicans in Congress already have vowed to try to undo the new policies.
“This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It’s a serious threat to our system of government,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said as the plan was unveiled. But practically speaking, there is little they can do.
Republican governors in states affected by the new deportation policies have called out the lawyers. At least 24 states have filed suit to block the plan, and that case is expected to play out in the courts throughout 2015.
Here’s a look at the plan and what we can expect:
Whom is the new plan designed to help?
Mostly immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally and who have children who are citizens (nearly all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens) or permanent legal residents. To be eligible, people have to have been living in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and have no record of serious crimes that would make them a priority for removal.
A White House legal memo said this “would serve an important humanitarian interest in keeping parents together with children who are lawfully present in the United States.” Approved applicants will get permission to stay for three years. As many as 4.1 million people could fit the criteria, the administration estimates. The application will cost $465.
What about people who came to the U.S. as children?
The program expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program begun in 2012 that has protected 587,000 young people from removal. The new rules do away with an age limit and open the program to anyone here since 2010, instead of the old cutoff of 2007. An estimated 300,000 more young men and women would be eligible.
Does this mean these people will become legal residents?
No. As laid out by Obama and Jeh Johnson, his Homeland Security secretary, the administration is using its discretion to not target these people. Absent other changes, such as a law passed by Congress, the people could again go into illegal status after their temporary reprieves expire.
Where are most of the people from, and where do they live now?
About two-thirds are from Mexico, the source of most immigrants to the U.S. The biggest share of the eligible parents, more than 1.1 million, lives in California, with the next biggest populations in Texas and Illinois.
What about the more than 6 million people who don’t qualify?
Some arrived in the U.S. too recently to qualify, but most are excluded because they didn’t have children born here. According to the Pew Research Center, which studies immigration, about 85% of people who live in the U.S. without authorization have been here for five years or more. That’s because immigration has been down in recent years, said Jeff Passel, Pew’s senior demographer. The biggest share of the people who’ve lived here long enough but don’t qualify is single men, he said. Others are married without children. Some have children who were born elsewhere — for instance, parents of kids born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as toddlers aren’t eligible.
Is the new program open to parents of children who’ve already received a reprieve under DACA?
No. Administration lawyers decided that was a bridge too far and without legal basis, since there would be no family member with legal status in the U.S. — only children with a temporary relief order. That decision disappointed some immigration activists, who point out that those families could be split up.
If someone met these qualifications — in the U.S. for five years, with American-born children — but got deported, could they now apply to get back in?
No. Those cases are considered closed by immigration officials. As many as 250,000 to 300,000 people could fit that category, according to Randy Capps, director of research for the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute. However, the new policy says that people who are subject to deportation actions — even those who have received final removal orders but are still in the U.S. — can apply to stay.
How will enforcement change under the new rules?
The administration says its top priority will be to go after border crossers and people considered dangerous, such as convicted felons and gang members. The second priority is people convicted of three misdemeanor crimes, or who have significant offenses such as domestic violence or drug trafficking.
At the bottom of the list are people who have committed no crimes other than illegally entering the country, particularly if they’ve been in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2014. The administration is doing away with the much-derided Secure Communities program, which enlisted police to hold unauthorized people on detainers for immigration agents. The government will still collect fingerprint data, though.
Who else could benefit from the changes?
Also in the works are changes to rules for granting visas for science and technology students, and to streamline the clunky and inflexible rules on work visas, to make it easier for people to change jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status.
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Source Article from http://www.latimes.com/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
How Obama's immigration plan is expected to roll out
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-year-ahead-immigration-20141230-story.html?track=rss
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results