President Obama's Thursday evening speech was short on details of the executive action being taken to defer deportation for up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. Below are some summaries and links to the pertinent details:
A summary from the Law Firm of Karen Crawford:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ACTION
November 21, 2014
1)EXPANSION OF DACA –
a.Age cap lifted – if you fulfill all other
requirements, it does not matter how old you are now [this will impact journalist and activist Jose Antonio Vargas]
a.He changed the date of entry– if you entered before
your 16th birthday before January 1, 2010, you are now eligible (it was
6/15/07)
b.They will give permits for three years instead of two
c.Rules will be released within 90 days
2)DEFERRED ACTION FOR PARENTS – DAP
a.Three year work permits for parents of US citizens and
permanent residents
b.You must have arrived before January 1, 2010
c.The child must have been born by 11/20/14, but the age
of the child doesn’t matter
d.You must have been present in the US without lawful
status on 11/20/14
e.We do not know yet what documents are required nor the
criminal eligibility, but the Immigration fee will be $465
f.Rules will be
released within 180 days
g.In the meantime,
gather evidence of identity (Passport or national ID), birth certificates of
children and their resident cards if applicable, and evidence of your residence
since 2010
3)EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL WAIVER PROGRAM
a.You can request
your waiver before you depart the US
b.Extended to anyone
with a currently available visa – specifically spouses of residents and
sons/daughters of citizens and residents
c.It may be easier to prove extreme hardship
The Department of Homeland Security has a website with a summary of the executive action and series of memos detailing policy changes and implementation
Despite threats from GOP leaders, President Obama took a major step today to provide relief from deportation for approximately 4 million undocumented immigrants. After nearly two years of inaction by Congress, the President had been pressured by immigrant activists to take the action he had promised during his re-election campaign. He had originally planned to take action before the midterm election but was convinced by congressional democrats to wait. Some had urged him to wait until the new Congress was in place, to see if they would take action - the consequences of this executive action, including implementation, the response from conservatives and other issues remain to be seen:
Would grant more visas to victims of crimes or human trafficking
Would emphasize deporting criminals and persons suspected of involvement in terrorism or gang activity.
Would allow about 4 million immigrants to take a background check and apply for limited permission to stay in the country.
Would expand a deferred action program to cover more of the Dreamers — children of illegal immigrants brought to this country as children.
It's important to note that Obama's action does not extend to the parents of Dreamers (undocumented immigrants currently getting relief from deportation via Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA)
Frustrated Hispanic-American voters might strike out on their own. Then what?
In the late 1800s, disgruntled farmers in the Midwest and South
decided they could no longer support the Democratic or Republican
Parties. Neither of the major parties was responsive to their concerns
amid crop failures and falling prices during a recession, so the farmers
decided to throw their weight behind an upstart, the Populist or People’s Party.
White and black farmers joined together, even in the South, to support
candidates who called for the federal government to provide credit and
financial support during a time of low crop yields and economic
downturn. They succeeded in electing governors,
congressmen and hundreds of minor officials and legislators, primarily
throughout the Midwest. The party was geographically concentrated, which
allowed them to focus their efforts to elect congressional candidates.
The Populists lasted only a few years as an independent
entity, but their success clearly got the attention of the mainstream
parties. Most important, it had a lasting impact on policy, even beyond
the issues pushed by the farmers. Many of the Populists’ demands
became law by the 1920s—including the direct election of U. S.
senators, the development of a progressive federal income tax and the
availability of short-term credit in rural areas.
Latinos in the United States are now confronting a dilemma similar to the one faced by the farmers. A recent Gallup poll
indicates that the number of Latinos ranking immigration as a top issue
doubled since the first half of this year. Yet Latinos have been forced
to endure bitter disappointment from a Democratic president who has
broken many immigration promises, in no small measure because the
Republican-led House of Representatives refuses to act on immigration
reform in Congress. The president’s decision to defer deportation of
newly arrived children—a decision announced just five months before the
2012 presidential election—increased enthusiasm for Obama among Latinos;
71 percent of the record 11.2 million Latinos who turned out to vote
cast their ballot for Obama.
Many of them are now deeply disappointed. The president—who had
campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to reform the immigration system—again
promised to make the issue an early and top priority during his second
term. Congress stymied those efforts, so Obama pledged to take executive
action—only to delay it until after the midterms. No wonder a new Pew Research Center poll
shows that a majority of Latino voters think the Democratic Party is
doing a poor job on immigration, and a different recent survey indicates
substantially dampened enthusiasm
for Obama and the Democrats among Latino voters because of inaction on
immigration reform. Even as the president tried to smooth over
differences this week at an appearance before the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus annual gala, some frustrated Latino activists are contemplating deliberately sitting out the midterm election to make Democrats pay a price at the polls.
Many of them are now deeply disappointed. The president—who had
campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to reform the immigration system—again
promised to make the issue an early and top priority during his second
term. Congress stymied those efforts, so Obama pledged to take executive
action—only to delay it until after the midterms. Now wonder a new Pew Research Center poll
shows that a majority of Latino voters think the Democratic Party is
doing a poor job on immigration, and a different recent survey indicates
substantially dampened enthusiasm
for Obama and the Democrats among Latino voters because of inaction on
immigration reform. Because of their profound disappointment with the
Democrats’ inaction, some frustrated Latino activists are even contemplating deliberately sitting out the midterm election to make Democrats pay a price at the polls.
But
are these the only alternatives—stay home and sulk, or accept the
better of two bad options? Could it be time for Latinos to follow the
path forged by the disgruntled farmers? Or follow the model in Europe,
where third parties are fairly common?
In Europe, minorities and
special interests often form their own parties when they feel their
issues are not being championed by larger parties. This is most easily
done in countries with proportional representation,
which allows more than one representative for each district and—unlike
winner-take-all systems like most of the United States—allocate seats
based on the percentage of votes garnered by each contender. In such a
system, minor parties are often able to gain enough support to win seats
in legislatures. Examples include Basque nationalists in Spain, as well
as Green and far-right parties across Europe. In places like Britain
that have majoritarian systems with single-member districts,
geographically concentrated parties like the Scottish National Party are
able to win seats in Parliament. Even here in the United States, the
occasional small party or independent can win a seat, including in the
U.S. Senate. (One example: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent
who caucuses with Democrats.)
As relative newcomers, immigrants
often don’t have the money or other resources needed to start a new
party. Far-right party leaders, on the other hand, tend to come from
existing parties and have a built-in support network.
Indeed, in Europe’s multi-party system, it has been anti-immigrant far right parties that have taken hold. We have an analogue in the Tea Party in
the United States. Yet the Tea Party is not truly a separate party—at
least for now, it is a faction within the Republican Party that has
managed to set the agenda on issues like immigration.
By and
large, majoritarian electoral rules like ours produce two-party systems.
There is no hope in the foreseeable future that those rules will change
and that means that small parties, like the Populist Party, inevitably
disappear or, like the Libertarian and Green Parties, remain on the fringes of a system dominated by the two major parties.
Still,
there are some reasons—42 million of them, to start with—to think that a
Latino party could be different. Various ethnic groups have
historically wielded a great deal of influence within political parties,
particularly at the local and state levels. The German-American
Alliance, the Ancient Order of Hibernians (“the oldest and largest Irish Catholic organization in the United States”) and the Immigrant’s Protection League all mobilized against the restriction of immigration in
the early 20th century. Latinos also have an important advantage which
supports the idea of starting a separate party: They still tend to be
geographically concentrated in such states as California, Florida and
Texas which allows them to focus their efforts, like the Populist party
did in the 1890s.
Another relevant historical example is the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). Fifty
years ago Fannie Lou Hamer appealed to the conscience of the Democratic
Party, asking for the Democratic National Committee’s credential
committee to recognize their delegation in place of the all-white
Democratic delegation from the state. The leadership came to a
compromise and agreed to seat two members of the delegation, but the
white delegation walked off and wouldn’t accept the compromise.
Nevertheless, the example set by the MFDP would have a clear impact on
the Democratic Party in the South going forward. Despite the prospect of
losing white support in the South, the Democratic Party supported civil
rights legislation and gained the support of a majority of black
voters.
An ethnic party did arise in the United States in the
late 1960s as the Chicano Movement organized and called for a third
party to focus on self-determination for Mexican-Americans. The main
focus of organizers was in Texas, where La Raza Unida party
won seats on city councils, school boards, and even ran a candidate for
governor in 1972 and 1978. However, the party’s support declined as
party activism slowed in the late 1970s.
Hispanic Americans are
in a better political position today than either the MFDP was five
decades ago or even La Raza Unida was in the ‘70s. In terms of
representation, there is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the
113th Congress has a record number of Latino elected officials,
with 35 representatives and three senators. Most of these
representatives are Democrats, and the immigration issue has been a high
priority, as evidenced by the scathing criticism recently lobbed at the
president by Representatives Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) and Luis Gutierrez (Ill.). Organizations like the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund and a variety of pro-immigration organizations have
lobbied for immigration reform and deportation relief. How long will it
be before such groups grow exasperated with the Democrats’ failure to
move these issues forward?
A Latino party might even help solve
the biggest obstacle to greater political clout—boosting turnout. At the
time of the last midterm election, data from the Pew Research Center shows,
Latinos chalked up a sharp increase in the number of eligible voters,
while the number of actual voters is increasing more slowly. Also, as
Pew notes, “even among eligible voters, Latino participation rates have
lagged behind that of other groups in recent elections.” For example,
31.2 percent of Latino eligible voters said they voted in 2010, compared
with nearly half of white eligible voters and 44 percent of black
eligible voters. An independent Latino Party or a cohesive Latino bloc
within an existing party that focused on the issues most important to
Latinos could spur increased participation—and thus more political
clout.
The smartest approach in the short run might be for
Latinos to work within the existing party system, even as they continue
to organize and swell their ranks within the electorate. In the
long-term—especially if Democrats and Republicans continue to
disappoint—they will need to assess their potential for working together
as a voting bloc and whether this could lead to support for a party. Is
this a long shot? Yes, but it’s better than sitting on the sidelines or
waiting for others to act. How long will it be before
Hispanic-Americans’ patience runs out?
The Washington Post's Monkey Cage blog is hosting series of blogs this week on Muslim integration in Europe, starting with a post by Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty of the University of Texas at Austin:
The big news for this weeks is President Obama's decision to delay taking action on immigration/deportations, despite pressure from immigrant advocates. Here's a range of coverage from the media beginning with an analysis from BuzzFeed:
From the New York Times: “Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the
president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the
long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce
administrative action before the elections,” a White House official
said. “Because he wants to do this in a way that’s sustainable, the
president will take action on immigration before the end of the year.”
Protesters outside the White
House last month. President Obama had promised to issue broad directives
to overhaul the immigration system by summer’s end. More in-depth analysis from the New York Times:Political Shift Stalls Efforts to Overhaul Immigration NBC news had an exclusive interview with President Obama on today's Meet the Press:
Lots of analysis this week about the House GOP's actions on immigration, the first a bill that focused on deportations and a funding bill that doesn't come close to the President's request. The GOP is clearly concerned about taking action on immigration before the midterm elections, but the bills passed are of concern to those who want to reach out to Latino voters.
Republican Rep. Steve King was confronted Monday night at his own fundraiser by an undocumented immigrant and activist.
Meanwhile the focus remains on the border, particularly here in Texas where legislators this week questioned Governor Perry's calling up of the National Guard and how that will be paid for, in the absence of federal funds.
The numbers of children crossing the border has dropped but concerns over housing remain, although plans to house families at military bases have been dropped and some shelters were closed.
Texas Governor Rick Perry announced this week that he would deploy 1000 National Guard troops to deal with the crisis at the Texas border. This raised a variety of issues (including the impact on Perry's potential run for president), particularly what kind of coordination there might be with the Border Patrol, if the Guard troops would have the authority to arrest people caught crossing the border, the impact on children crossing the border, etc...Fusion news raised a set of questions as well:
Major General Nichols of the Texas National Guard held a press briefing on Tuesday hoping to clarify the role of the Guard and raising the hope that many of the troops would volunteer for the duty:
In Washington, DC, the Wilson Center's Latin American Program is doing a series of reports and panels on the issue of migrants from Central America. This included a panel with the foreign ministers from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras discussing issues of violence, transnational criminal organizations, and what can be done to deal with the underlying factors that are driving migrants to the U.S. [panel starts at 10 minute point]
The Department of Homeland Security has a website with a summary of the executive action and series of memos detailing policy changes and implementation 
