Tag: DACA

Categories
Global Pinoy

Should undocumented be allowed to enlist in the U.S. Army?

Share this:

An amendment to the annual spending bill that could have prohibited young unauthorized immigrants from joining the military was defeated in the House on June 16, 2016. The House, which is led by majority Republicans, sent a strong message that not all Republicans are in support of anti-immigrant policies.

In 2008, a recruitment program called the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest or MAVNI was established, which enabled non-U.S. citizens to join the U.S. Military. The program has been reauthorized until September 2016.

Under the MAVNI program, non-immigrants in certain categories except visitor visa holders may apply for enlistment with the U.S. Army. The nonimmigrants who are allowed to enlist under MAVNI are those in E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U or V visa categories. It requires the applicant to be legally residing in the United States for a minimum of two years prior to joining the Army without a single absence from the country lasting longer than 90 days. In addition, the applicant must have a high school diploma and a qualifying score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AQFT).

DACA recipients qualified to enlist
Generally, those who are with legal status, even if with nonimmigrant status, are the only individuals allowed to enlist in the U.S. Army. In 2014, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients were allowed to enlist under the MAVNI program. They must have employment authorization document when they apply for enlistment.

Right now the U.S. Army through the MAVNI program allows DACA recipients only with “in demand” skills to apply. Specifically, those who may enlist are individuals who are licensed health care professionals and those who can speak one or more critical language on the MAVNI list. For Filipino DACA recipients, they qualify if they speak Tagalog, Cebuano, and Moro (Tausug Maranao and Maguindanao).

Once DACA recipients enlist, expedited U.S. citizenship processing is afforded to them after they graduate from 10 weeks of Basic Combat Training. Once they are U.S. citizens, they may enjoy additional benefits for their family including the ability to petition their parents who have no legal status. There are only limited numbers of recruits that are allowed under the MAVNI program for each fiscal year and those interested may contact their local Army recruiter.

Since DACA recipients incurred unlawful status prior to being granted deferred action and being issued employment authorization document, their ability to enlist in the military maybe perceived by some as a “backdoor amnesty.”

Perhaps, not all unauthorized immigrants should be given a chance to enlist. But DACA recipients came to the U.S. at a very young age and did not make the decision to remain as unauthorized immigrants. Now, they are able to make their own decision to risk their lives, to serve and defend the country they learned to love and have embraced as their own, they should be supported.

The legislators made the right decision to defeat the bill that would have prevented them from expressing their patriotism.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, tancinco.weareph.com/old, facebook/tancincolaw, or 1-888-930-0808.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Will Obama’s immigration executive actions prevail?

Share this:

More than 4,000 immigrants and advocates gathered outside the highest court of the United States while the justices heard the case of United.States. v. Texas. Among those who were present were immigrant families who are undocumented and who have a stake in the result of the litigation.

Certainly, there were Filipino Americans advocates and families who also joined the rally and were very vocal about their support for the programs. The 4 million individuals who have a stake in this litigation include numerous Filipino families who will benefit from the Obama’s executive actions. The most pressing question after the hearing is, What is the likelihood of a decision in favor of the Obama’s DACA/DAPA executive actions?

United States v. Texas is a lawsuit initiated by 26 States questioning the legality of Obama’s Executive Actions on DAPA and the DACA extension. DAPA refers to Deferred Action for Parental Accountability where deferred action will be granted to undocumented parents of U.S citizens.

The DACA expanded program will allow more undocumented children to apply for deferred action. If deferred action is granted, employment authorizations will be issued to qualified applicants while it does not confer any other immigration benefit such as a pathway to legal resident status.

An estimated 4 million individuals who are currently undocumented are expected to benefit from these DACA and DAPA programs. Implementation of these programs were stalled by court injunction. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court and legal arguments were heard by the justices on April 18, 2016.

The issues on standing and the merits of the executive actions were argued well by the U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. in favor of the DACA/DAPA programs. Verrilli emphasized that the States do not have the standing or legal capacity to bring the lawsuit.

The nature of the controversy was more of a political disagreement with the Federal government rather than a legal dispute. Considering that it is it a political disagreement on federal enforcement, to render a decision in favor of standing will open a floodgate of cases where states may, at anytime, sue the federal government for any political disagreement.

Most of the legal arguments centered on the issue of standing. As to the merits of the DACA/DAPA, the lawyer for the Respondent States, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller wrongly argued that these executive actions confer legal status. This argument was met by the Verrilli’s rebuttal that deferred action does not confer legal status but rather a tolerated presence by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The decision will be rendered sometime in June 2016. With very compelling and convincing arguments raised during the hearing by Verrilli, a favorable outcome in favor the DAPA/DACA Executive Actions, with at least a 5-3 vote, is hoped for by thousands of families who will be affected by the Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, with one vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court, there are only 8 justices. If the justices are divided 4-4, then the injunctions on the executive actions will remain.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Predicament of American daughter: Family separation

Share this:

Sonia was born and raised in San Jose, California. From the outside, Sonia seemed like your typical happy-go-lucky senior in high school getting ready to go college, but at home, Sonia lives a different reality.

Her parents, Edgar and Rowena, are from the Philippines. They came to the United States when Rowena was pregnant with Sonia and decided to overstay their tourist visa.

Refused to leave

When Sonia was very young, her parents were arrested by the Immigration Service and were to be deported. Edgar and Rowena, however, refused to leave the US and decided to stay. For years, they hid their status and tirelessly worked several under-the-table jobs so Sonia could study in the best schools and participate in after-school activities.

Illegal status

It was only recently that Sonia found out about her parents’ illegal status in the United States when she wanted to apply for private student loans for college. Since finding out the truth about her parents’ illegal status, Sonia has been worried that her parents can be taken anytime from her and she’s scared of what will happen when she leaves for college. She relies on her parents for everything, emotional and financial needs. In two weeks, Sonia will be turning 18 years old and instead of the usual birthday debut celebration, she told her parents not to prepare anything special.

Instead, she wanted to take steps to help her parents. Is there anything that Sonia can legally do for her parents?

Deferred action

More than a year ago, US President Barack Obama released two immigration executive actions that will provide immigration relief to undocumented parents of US citizens (called DAPA or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans); and, an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for undocumented young immigrants.

The DAPA and DACA will affect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants.

Instead of the implementation of these reliefs, however, a lawsuit was filed by 26 states. Currently, the implementation of Dapa, the program which was supposed to allow undocumented parents with US citizen children to obtain an employment authorization document and be deferred from removal, is still suspended until the US Supreme Court decides on this case.

It is expected a decision will be reached by June 2016. Until then, parents with US citizen children will have to avail of alternative options.

US citizen children may only petition their parents after they turn 21 years old. Until Sonia reaches this age, there is really nothing much she can do affirmatively to help her parents with their immigration status. Even assuming that she turns 21 years old, there is a bigger hurdle that she has to overcome before she can file a petition for her parents.

The deportation order may be enforced anytime by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) against her parents if they are found to be still present in the United States. Fortunately, there is “prosecutorial discretion” request that may be filed with the DHS to prevent this from happening.

Sonia’s case is very sympathetic and her desperation to help her parents is understandable considering that her parents are her only means of support. She represents many young immigrants who are in the same situation and who were afforded the opportunity to be integrated into the American system just to be threatened with family separation with no relief available.

Hopefully, the DAPA litigation will result in a favorable judgment for the Obama administration and her parents will be given temporary relief.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Fear of deportation arises over court-issued injunction

Share this:

A day before the US Citizenship and Immigration Services was scheduled to receive applications for Obama’s program known as Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) expansion, District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction. This ruling will temporarily put a hold on the implementation of Obama’s immigration programs.

Joseph was looking forward to filing his application for his employment authorization document. Having entered the United States when he was 10 years old, his parents never took necessary steps to legalize his stay.

On Nov. 20, 2014, when President Barack Obama announced his executive actions expanding the Daca, he became hopeful about getting a temporary work permit. Joseph completed his degree in computer science from a state university but could not get a better job because he does not possess a work permit.

When he heard about the temporary injunction on Obama’s executive actions, Joseph was disheartened and is now apprehensive again about his situation.

States’ lawsuit
In the case of Texas v. United States of America, a lawsuit was filed by 26 states against Obama’s executive actions. The plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of the executive actions as it bypassed the US Congress on an immigration matter. This case is pending before Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, Texas.

Judge Hanen was a nominee of George W. Bush, assigned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is a known conservative who has been a critic of Obama’s immigration policies. So when the decision to suspend the implementation of the program that will offer work permits and offer a three-year reprieve from deportation was issued on Nov. 16, 2014, immigrant advocates were not surprised.

The Obama administration has already announced that they are filing an appeal to a higher court on this decision.

In the meantime, thousands of undocumented Filipinos, potentially eligible for the Dapa (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) and Daca programs of the executive actions in question and who are similarly situated as Joseph, are anxious about the effect of this injunction. The excitement about filing for benefits under the executive actions was suddenly cut short by this temporary injunction. It was an affirmation of the uncertainty of the executive actions, which validates the skepticism of many on Obama’s Daca and Dapa programs.

There is always the concern whether coming out of the shadows means risking one’s fate to becoming vulnerable and risk being sent back home to the Philippines after the three-year deportation reprieve is over. There are some who are placed in a situation of accepting any type of odd job just to earn and be able to send money to their families back home.

The fear of the consequences of the unknown may deter many from filing. Yet, there are also many who are hopeful as this may just be a one-time opportunity to obtain work permits. Thus, to some this may be a poisoned apple. To others, this is an apple that is already ripe and should be picked before it rots and falls to the ground.

Many experts agree that the Nov. 16, 2014 district court judge’s injunction is only a temporary hold and that full implementation of Obama’s executive actions will just be a matter of time.