Monday, August 29, 2011

The B-2 Immigrant Visa

The U.S. Department of State, and, by implication, the Obama Regime, has decided to overturn more laws of the United States and add to its contempt for Acts of Congress. It has decided to grant an immigration status to tens of thousands of aliens who would not qualify for a long-term non-immigrant visa or for an immigrant visa. In this case it continues to expand the B-2 Visitors Visa to include those seeking to live in the U.S. permanently. The Congressional intent and purpose of the B-2 non-immigrant visa was for temporary visitors for tourism or visits of a non-business purpose. The emphasis being on the temporary.


However, it is the new immigrant visa for homosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, and other who do not qualify for dependant non-immigrant visas, such as dependants or spouses of: F-1 students, F-2, J-1 students, J-2, H-1B skilled employees, H-4, L-1 managers, L-2, etc. It is also the substitute of chose for immigrant visas for homosexual consanguineous partners, all, of course, in violation of the law. Another part of the Obama Regime Administrative Repeal of Acts of Congress, specifically DOMA.



SUBJECT: Changes to B-2 Status and Extensions of B-2 Status for Cohabitating Partners and Other Nonimmigrant Household Members; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM)


Chapters 30.2 and 30.3; AFM Update AD11-27


Purpose


This Policy Memorandum (PM) ensures that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) uniformly and consistently processes Form I-539 for changes to and extensions of B-2 status for cohabitating nonimmigrant partners and other household members of principal nonimmigrants.


Scope


Unless specifically exempted herein, this PM applies to all USCIS employees.


Authority


Sections 214(a)(1) and 248(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1184(a)(1) and 1258(a); 8 CFR 214.2(b)(1) and 248.1(a)


Background


In some circumstances, elderly parents, cohabitating nonimmigrant partners, and other household members of principal nonimmigrants may be ineligible for derivative status. For purposes of this memorandum, a “household member” of a principal nonimmigrant is an alien who regularly resides in the same dwelling as the principal nonimmigrant and with whom the principal nonimmigrant maintains the type of relationship and care as one normally would expect between nuclear family members. There are also circumstances when it may be inconvenient or impossible for spouses or children of principal nonimmigrant aliens to apply for the proper derivative status. These aliens may seek B-2 visas, or change their status to B-2, to allow them to reside with the principal nonimmigrant visa holder who is in the United States in another status (H-1B, F-1, etc.). Department of State (DOS) guidance provides for issuance of B-2 visas to these household members. See 9 FAM 41.31 N14.4. DOS guidance directs consular officers to notate the B-2 visa with the principal nonimmigrant’s visa type and duration, and to advise the B-2 visa holder to seek admission for one year at the point of entry if the B-2 visa holder plans to stay in the United States more than 6 months. Applicants may also seek extensions in six month increments from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the duration of the principal alien’s nonimmigrant status.


See 8 CFR 214.2. USCIS guidance relating to B-2 visa extensions


PM-602-0045: Changes to B-2 Status and Extensions of B-2 Status for Cohabitating Partners and Other Nonimmigrant Household Members;


Revisions to AFM Chapters 30.2 and 30.3;


AFM is silent on this type of extension. This guidance is intended to ensure USCIS adjudicates these applications uniformly and consistently with the manner in which DOS issues the visas.


Policy


This policy does not change eligibility requirements for change of status to B-2, or extension of B-2 status. Rather, it clarifies that such a change and/or one or more extensions are appropriate in the exercise of discretion for household members, including the cohabitating partner of a principal nonimmigrant visa holder, when other eligibility requirements are met. When evaluating an application for change to or extension of B-2 status based on cohabitation, the cohabitating partner’s relationship to the nonimmigrant principal alien in another status will be considered a favorable factor in allowing the household member to obtain or remain eligible for B-2 classification. When considering a change of status and/or multiple extensions for the cohabitating partner or other household member, the finite nature of the stay, rather than the duration of the stay or number of extensions sought, is controlling with respect to nonimmigrant intent. For example, the visit should be considered temporary even if the status may be extended several times over several years in order to match an extended course of study undertaken by the principal alien. However, while the I-539 (B-2) application must be adjudicated on its own merits, a finding that the principal nonimmigrant lacks nonimmigrant intent is a negative factor in the exercise of discretion.


Implementation



The AFM is revised as follows:


1. Chapter 30.2 is amended to read:


Chapter 30.2
(c) Use of Form I-539 for Extension of Stay .
(3) Adjudication
(C) Decide If a Favorable Exercise of Discretion Is Warranted .


whether the applicant is likely to attempt to stay indefinitely. USCIS may terminate a nonimmigrant’s authorized period of stay when it becomes aware the alien intends to remain indefinitely in the U.S. [See Matter of Safadi, 11 I&N Dec 446 (BIA 1965)]. assuming other eligibility requirements are met, favorable consideration should be given to the cohabitating partner or other household member of a principal nonimmigrant visa holder in the United States pursuant to another status (H-1B, F-1, etc.) when the cohabitating partner or other household member is applying for B-2 extension(s) for the duration of the principal nonimmigrant’s stay. A “household member” of a principal nonimmigrant is an alien who regularly resides in the same dwelling as the principal nonimmigrant and with whom the principal nonimmigrant maintains the type of relationship and care as one normally would expect between nuclear family members.


2. Chapter 30.3 is amended to read:


Chapter 30.3


(c) Use of Form I-539 for Extension of Stay .
(3) Adjudication .
(D) Determine if a Favorable Exercise of Discretion Is Warranted .


Note 2:


A series of precedent decisions and court cases uphold USCIS’s decision to deny a change of status in such a situation. Matter of Hsu, 14 I&N Dec. 344 (R.C. 1973), denied a change of status to an applicant who obtained a visa under the pretext of a visit for business when the actual purpose was to seek acceptance at a school. In Matter of Le Floch, 13 I&N Dec. 251 (BIA 1969), the Board ruled that even the applicant’s claim that she was misinformed by a consular officer regarding the need for a student visa was insufficient to justify entry as a visitor. In Seihoon v. Levy, 408 F. Supp. 1208 (D. La. 1976), the court upheld the decision to deny an application to change status based on a finding that a rapid sequence of events leading to enrollment in a school is sufficient for a finding that the applicant had a preconceived intent to change nonimmigrant status and circumvent the normal visa issuance process. Assuming other eligibility requirements are met, favorable consideration should be given to the cohabitating partner or other household member of a principal nonimmigrant visa holder when the cohabitating partner or other household member is applying for change to B-2 status for the duration of the principal nonimmigrant’s stay. A “household member” of a principal nonimmigrant is an alien who regularly resides in the same dwelling as the principal nonimmigrant and with whom the principal nonimmigrant maintains the type of relationship and care as one normally would expect between nuclear family members.


3. The AFM Transmittal Memorandum button is revised by adding, in numerical order, the following entry:


AD11-278/17/2011Chapter 30.2Chapter 30.3


Ensures that USCIS uniformly and consistently processes Form I-539 for changes to and extensions of B-2 status for cohabitating nonimmigrant partners and other household members of principal nonimmigrants.


Use


This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.


Stripped of the bureaucrateze, the B-2 non-immigrant visa is now the defacto visa for any relative of any person in the United States, whether immigrant, non-immigrant, or U.S. citizen. Part, of course, is defining deviancy down. Now a "nuclear family" means any two people having sex. Or if one's parents want to live here, but don't want to get an immigrant visa. What is the point of temporary non-immigrant visitors visas if temporary non-immigrant is defined as someone who will stay in the U.S. indefinitely? If an alien does not qualify for a dependant visa, then the alien is inadmissible. Just giving an unqualified alien a B-2 non-immigrant visa does not satisfy the law either. Unqualified for an F-2, then you aren't qualified for a B-2 visa in lieu of a F-2 non-immigrant visa. Obviously there is no point as the Obama Regime is on a jihad against the rule of law. Obama truly wants to rule by decree. And he is.


Furthermore, like the amnesty for those in deportation proceedings, the "favorable exercise of discretion" is not a review, but a mandatory instruction to the field. It means approve all claims regardless of facts or the law.

The Price Of The Obama Administrative Amnesty

Four dead Americans. Again, four dead Americans. (h/t Council of Conservative Citizens) As I predicted, the Obama Administrative Amnesty is not just for cute DREAM Act students pining to join the Army and serve. It is not just for nursing mothers. It is for drunk drivers and future mass killers.




Monday, August 22, 2011 Brenham Banner Press


A man charged with four counts of intoxication manslaughter is an illegal alien who only a few weeks ago was arrested on another alcohol-related charge, officials say.Roberto Castillo, 19, remained in the Washington County jail this morning under $2 million bond after authorities say he slammed into another vehicle at the intersection of Highway 36 South and FM 109 about 1:30 a.m. Sunday.


Authorities said Castillo’s pickup truck struck a 1998 Mustang carrying four people, who all died from injuries they suffered in the crash. Their identities had not yet been released this morning.Authorities were carefully piecing together information, including reconstruction of the accident.


“There’s a lot of questions we need answers to,” said District Attorney Bill Parham. “This will be done thoroughly.”Police Chief Rex Phelps called the accident a tragedy.“It’s always tough to deal with this type of accident,” Phelps said. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families.”According to reports, Castillo was arrested July 30 after an off-duty Washington County deputy reported he was driving erratically.


Castillo was subsequently arrested by a Brenham police officer and charged with driving under the influence by a minor, a Class C misdemeanor.


He was released after posting bail.


Chief Deputy Mike Herzog said it’s doubtful that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were contacted about Castillo’s arrest and illegal alien status. “At that time, ICE was only taking Class B and above (offenders),” Herzog said. “This was a Class C misdemeanor.”


The impact of the collision pushed the Mustang — which was struck broadside by Castillo’s pickup truck — more than 30 yards down the highway, witnesses said.The Brenham Fire Department was called to the scene to remove the victims.


Castillo was unhurt and briefly fled into a nearby mobile home park before being found and taken into custody.


The victims were pronounced dead at the scene by Justice of the Peace Roy May.

So, ICE has made it clear to local law enforcement that they don't want to hear about illegal aliens who are a danger to the public, if they have yet to kill someone.


Give ICE Special Agent In Charge Robert Rutt a call regarding his "priorities" and the dead Americans that are the problematic consquences of those "priorities."


4141 N. Sam Houston Parkway East

#300

Houston, TX 77032

Main 281-985-0500

Fax 281-985-0505


Or call the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Field Office Director:


Kenneth Landgrebe

Field Office Director

Enforcement and Removal Operations

126 Northpoint

Drive Houston, TX 77060

Phone: (281) 774-4816

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Ignorant Dufus

That is the professional Mexican Ruben "The Sandwich" Navarrette. He is defending, with appropriate triangulating, the Obama Administrative Amnesty. Or attacking it as inadequate. He is just all over, like Billy Jeff Bentpecker, always trying to maintain his political viability. You see Navarrette's stick is the Mexican Republican.

San Diego (CNN) -- How cruel can the Obama administration be to illegal immigrants, as well as to their families and supporters?

This cruel: For the sake of politics, it offers false hope to the desperate. It takes a meager offering and a minor tweaking of immigration policy, dresses it up with bows and ribbons and bills it as part of a grand "21st century immigration system." But because the administration can't be pinned down on specifics as to how the new policy will work, no one can tell whether this is one step forward -- or two steps back.

And how desperate are many illegal immigrants in the United States to get a simple work permit -- not citizenship mind you, just a slip of paper allowing them to pick avocados, milk cows, clean horse stalls, clean windows atop skyscrapers, slaughter cattle or do any other dirty and dangerous job that most Americans won't do for any amount of money?

This desperate: Having heard that the Obama administration would suspend deportations and issue work permits for some facing deportation, some illegal immigrants are reportedly thinking of turning themselves in to immigration officials so they can work legally in the United States.

The bizarre revelation comes courtesy of Univision anchor Jorge Ramos who -- along with producers of the network's Sunday morning talk show "Al Punto" -- did a phenomenal job of separating myth from reality in discussing the new changes in the administration's immigration policy. Ramos told viewers that he had received, via Twitter, many inquiries asking whether the undocumented should allow themselves to get arrested so they could have a shot at getting a work permit.

Look, I'm the son of a retired cop who spent 37 years on the job and someone who supports deporting illegal immigrants as long as we don't outsource immigration enforcement to local police and handle the process according to the rules. So I could make the argument that illegal immigrants should turn themselves in to law enforcement, or for that matter go home on their own, because it's the right thing to do.

But they shouldn't do it because they expect to get something in return from the Obama administration. In trying to be both tough and compassionate, Team Obama has made complete hash of its immigration policy.

One minute, Obama is insisting that he supports comprehensive immigration reform; the next, he is doubling down on the failed strategy of "enforcement only."

Last week, it was announced that the Department of Homeland Security would review about 300,000 deportation cases in the pipeline to see whether any of those individuals should stay here and be given a work permit. It'll be done on a case-by-case basis, and the administration hasn't provided any details on how it will work.

Officials will say that the groups most likely to benefit are military veterans, their spouses and so-called "DREAMers" -- college students who might have been eligible for legal status under the DREAM Act if five Senate Democrats hadn't scuttled the bill in December. The administration claims to be exercising "prosecutorial discretion" and focusing resources on the removal of criminals who -- after committing the civil infraction of violating immigration laws -- graduated to committing actual crimes such as robbery, rape, assault or other serious offenses.

And yet, in March, during a town hall meeting for the Spanish-language television network Univision, Obama insisted that deportations of "noncriminals" were down and that he wanted young people who are undocumented but "doing all the right things" to succeed. He also said that despite calls for him to use his executive power to exempt certain groups from deportation, including college students, he could do no such thing because it "would not conform with my appropriate role as president."

So basically, the Obama administration is doing what the president claimed that branch of government didn't have the power to do and stopping the deportation of people who he implied were never really in much danger of being deported in the first place.

Then the extremists in both camps get hold of an issue like this, and they twist the facts even more to advance their agendas. The left hopes for the best and assume that the administration was ending all deportations and handing out millions of reprieves. The right fears the worst and jumps to the conclusion that the administration was handing out "mass deportation waivers" and pushing through a "silent amnesty."

Calm down, folks. Neither scenario is true. Some people are likely to benefit from the new rules. In fact, some already have. But, the number of beneficiaries isn't going to be very big.

Two reasons: First, at least for now, the only people who are eligible for this special dispensation are the 300,000 people in federal custody; the changes don't apply to anyone who might be apprehended in the future. Second, if you're in custody but you're not a member of one of three groups -- a DREAMer, a military veteran or the spouse of a veteran -- chances are you're not going anywhere. Except to your country of origin.

Nothing wrong with that. These people are here illegally, and deportation is often the appropriate punishment. However, there is something wrong with an administration that by refusing to give details on its new policy raises false hopes and plays with people's lives.


Only 300,000 are eligible, as if that is not a significant number, but the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty is not just dropping charges against the 300,000; relatives of people in the military, the young, the old, those with children, or DREAMers, but it is also the rest of the 11-20 million illegals already here, working, receiving welfare, living here, who are beneficiaries of the Morton Memorandum, and are also part of the amnesty. The Regime is not just "reviewing" cases of those in deportation proceedings, it has a bias to dropping charges, but are also not arresting those millions already here but not already in the deportation system. Those millions are the primary beneficiaries of the amnesty. And it is typical of Navarrette to mislead his readers, all to the benefit of his companeros from south of the border. That is the deliberate misdirection that the RINOs use in public discourse. Misdirect, deceive, equivocate, and lie.

The Next Asylum Fraud Scam

One of the biggest asylum fraud scams is Chinese women and men who claim they are victims of China's one child policy and forced abortions. Of course this is a scam since basically every resident of China qualifies. The fraud is so obvious that even Congress realizes the extent of the fraud and sets a quota on the number of Chinese who can file that particular claim each year.

Not to be outdone, the next asylum fraud scheme has been devised by the treason bar: Women who can't obtain abortions.

In Nicaragua, abortions are illegal under all circumstances. That includes cases of rape and incest, and when the life or health of the pregnant woman is at risk. Women and girls who have abortions are subject to long terms of imprisonment. Health professionals who perform abortions also face stiff criminal penalties. Of course, with abortion (as with any remotely political subject these days), there are strong opinions on all sides of the issue, and little agreement on the facts.

Amnesty International issued a report documenting the opposition to the law from Nicaraguan health care professionals, and documenting some unintended consequences of the law–certain treatments are now less available to pregnant women because the treatment might put the fetus at risk. Amnesty also cites the case of a pregnant woman with cancer who could not get treatment because of the law. On the other hand, a pro-life website called Life Site News claims that the maternal mortality rate in Nicaragua has dropped by almost 30% since the law went into effect (though I have not seen any evidence that the law actually caused the drop in mortality rates).


Apparently, Nicaragua is not in the running this year.

While I personally think this law is a bad idea, the morality or efficacy of the law is not my concern here. Rather, I wonder whether women who are prevented from terminating their pregnancies, or health care professionals who perform abortions, might be eligible for asylum in the United States.

Nicaraguan Women

To obtain asylum, a woman would need to show a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground. The protected ground that might apply here is “particular social group.” I can think of two possible “particular social groups:” (1) women who have had an abortion, and who now face jail time, and (2) women who are pregnant and face risks to their life or health (physical or mental health) because they are not permitted to abort their pregnancies.

While the first category seems to me a cognizable social group, such women would have a hard time demonstrating that the prison time they face rises to the level of “persecution,” as that term is defined by case law. I’ve actually spent some time in a Nicaraguan prison (long story), and what I saw would likely not qualify as persecution. Of course, I am no expert, and if prison conditions are bad enough, they may be considered persecution. See, e.g., Phommasoukha v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 2005).

The second category–pregnant women who face health problems because they are unable to obtain abortions–is more interesting. Again, this is probably a cognizable particular social group. The harm, which includes physical and mental harm, and even the possibility of death, could, I think, qualify as persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that severe economic deprivation, including deprivation of liberty, food, housing, and other essentials of life may constitute persecution. See Matter of T-Z-, 24 I&N Dec. 163 (BIA 2007). Health care is certainly an “essential of life,” and if a woman is denied the care she needs, she can demonstrate a possibility of persecution.

So it seems to me that women in the second category–and perhaps also in the first–would qualify for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Nicaraguan Health Care Workers

The law also provides for incarceration of health care workers who perform abortions, even so-called therapeutic abortions, which are done to protect the life or health of the mother. As I discussed above, I doubt that prison time in Nicaragua would be considered “persecution,” so the health care workers would have difficulty establishing this element of an asylum claim. Even assuming they could demonstrate persecution, I think they would have a hard time showing that the persecution is based on a protected ground.

One possible protected ground is political opinion, i.e., that women should be allowed to have abortions. However, the Nicaraguan government does not arrest health care workers (or anyone else) on account of their opinion that women should be permitted to obtain abortions; the government arrests people who actually perform abortions.

The other possible protected ground is particular social group–health care workers who have performed abortions. The problem here is that the health care workers are seeking classification as a particular social group based on the criminal act that causes them to fear persecution. In Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.3d 1129 (7th Cir. 1992), the Seventh Circuit held:

Whatever its precise scope, the term “particular social groups” surely was not intended for the protection of members of the criminal class… merely upon a showing that a foreign country deals with them even more harshly than we do. A contrary conclusion would collapse the fundamental distinction between persecution on the one hand and the prosecution of nonpolitical crimes on the other…. We suppose there might be an exception for some class of minor or technical offenders… who were singled out for savage punishment in their native land.

Bastanipour does not completely close the door on the Nicaraguan health care workers, but it certainly presents a hurdle for them to demonstrate that they constitute a “particular social group.”

So far, I do not know of any United States asylum cases arising from Nicaragua’s abortion law (or similar abortion laws in other countries), but I would not be surprised if we see some soon. If you are interested to learn more about this topic, check out Rights Undone, a blog about the “struggle to repeal the ban on life-saving abortions in Nicaragua.”

So, there we have it, forced abortions, no abortions, no health care, punishment for performing abortions, there is no limit on asylum claims in the U.S. Of course, the only common thread is increasing third world immigration to the U.S. That is the goal of the treason bar.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

It Begins

The Official Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty has its first official beneficiaries and they are not the Buxom Beauties From Bulgaria. (h/t Michelle Malkin) Predicatably they have a homosexual flair, so to speak.




The call came in the morning to the lawyer representing Manuel Guerra, an illegal immigrant from Mexico living in Florida who had been caught in a tortuous and seemingly failing five-year court fight against deportation.


With the news early Thursday that federal immigration authorities had canceled his deportation, Mr. Guerra became one of the first illegal immigrants in the country to see results from a policy the Obama administration unveiled in Washington that day. It could lead to the suspension in coming months of deportation proceedings against tens of thousands of immigrants.


Administration officials and immigrant advocates said Monday that the plan offered the first real possibility since President Obama took office — promising immigrants and Latinos he would overhaul the law to bring illegal immigrants into the system — for large numbers of those immigrants to be spared from detention and deportation.


For Mr. Guerra, who said he wants to remain in the United States to study to become a Roman Catholic priest, the news “was like something from above, from heaven. I don’t want to go back to Mexico,” he said, “and I’ve been fighting this for five years.”


A working group from the Homeland Security and Justice Departments met Friday to initiate a review of about 300,000 deportation cases currently before the immigration courts. Under the policy, immigration authorities will use powers of prosecutorial discretion in existing law to suspend the deportations of most immigrants who, although they have committed immigration violations (which generally are civil offenses), have not been convicted of crimes.


In particular, officials will look to halt deportations of longtime residents with clean police records who came here illegally when they were children, or are close family of military service members, or are parents or spouses of American citizens.


“This is a great first step,” said Hector E. Sanchez, a Hispanic labor leader who oversees immigration policy for the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of the country’s major Latino groups. “We really need to see action on a common-sense approach to immigration and not just promises.”


Mr. Obama had been facing increasingly vocal protests from disappointed Latino and immigrant groups after he made no progress in Congress on his immigration overhaul agenda, and enforcement authorities set a modern record for deportations, with nearly 800,000 foreigners removed in the past two years.


Homeland Security officials said Monday that their goal is to quickly identify noncriminals on swollen immigration court dockets and close those cases, clearing the way for speedier removals of gang members, drug traffickers or foreigners who repeatedly return after being deported. Wait times for a hearing in immigration courts can now be as long as 18 months.


A senior Homeland Security official said that deportations would be canceled case by case. While many immigrants in those cases will be eligible for work permits, he said, employment authorization will come only after a separate process.


The immigrants will remain in a sort of legal limbo, not vulnerable to deportation but with no positive immigration status, which can be conferred only by Congress.


But White House officials and Congressional Democrats said they expected the measures would lead to relief during the coming year for virtually all young illegal immigrants facing deportation who might have won legal status under a bill called the Dream Act. A proposal to benefit illegal immigrant high school graduates who came to the country before they were 16, it failed in the Senate last year.


Mr. Guerra, now 27 and living in Indiantown, Fla., is one of those immigrants. He said he came to this country to escape a violent gang in Mexico. His lawyer, Richard A. Hujber, said Mr. Guerra’s efforts to straighten out his legal status went wrong because they were originally mishandled by an accountant claiming falsely to be a lawyer.


In recent years, even though he was undocumented, Mr. Guerra has been a Florida leader of the illegal immigrant student movement, helping to organize a protest walk by four students to Washington and a mock university held by students wearing mortarboards on Capitol Hill.


“That was so big to me, all these students organizing a school so we could go without our papers,” Mr. Guerra said. If he can obtain a work permit, he and Mr. Hujber said, he could be legally eligible for the first time to apply for financial aid that would allow him to continue his religious studies.


The administration’s announcement also had an immediate impact on a case in Denver, where an immigration judge on Friday postponed the deportation of Sujey Pando, a lesbian from Mexico legally married in Iowa to an American from Colorado, Violeta Pando. Although federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages, administration officials said they would consider same-sex spouses as “family” in their review of deportation cases.


The judge, Mimi Tsankov, cited the flux in laws and policies affecting same-sex cases in delaying a decision on Sujey Pando’s deportation at least until January, said Lavi Soloway, a lawyer for the couple.


Some Latino Democrats who have been deeply critical of Mr. Obama on immigration issues praised the policy shift.


“This is the Barack Obama I have been waiting for, that Latino and immigrant voters helped put in office to fight for sensible immigration policies,” said Representative Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois, a Latino leader on immigration issues who has been arrested twice in protests in front of the White House.


However, the announcement appeared to signal an end to efforts by the White House to court some of its Republican opponents, with administration officials acknowledging those efforts have failed and there is little chance for broad immigration legislation to pass before elections next year.


Republican leaders reacted to Mr. Obama’s new policy by stepping up their rejection of his approach. Representative Peter T. King of New York, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House, said the president was making “a blatant attempt to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal aliens in this country,” which he called “totally unacceptable.”
As was predicted.

3 Years And 40,000 Hits

Well, it has been a great three years. Up to 40,000 hits, though alot appear to be from numerous strange sites, but I think I have had some impact. Thank you readers! I am looking forward to 50,000 views and a few more years. I think the immigration topic will only be more in the news. Remember, I broke the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty story over two years ago when it was only a glint in the eyes of the treason bar.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Meet The Latest Beneficiaries Of The Obama Amnesty

Two hotties from Bulgaria came to the U.S. and got the business from a perv, presumably their landlord. (h/t The Thug Report) The issue for this blog being not their hotness, but their illegal alienness.






Hillsborough County deputies are investigating a complaint from two young women who found hidden surveillance cameras in their northwest Hillsborough County apartment.



The victims, 23-year-old Ralitsa Dzhambazova and 22-year-old Vanya Samkovareva are students who moved to Westchase from Bulgaria for the summer to work on heir English. They told deputies that a former roommate alerted them to the cameras.



The cameras resembled smoke detectors or alarm motion detectors and were in a bathroom, as well as the living room and bedrooms, the women said. After finding the cameras the women taped paper over the lenses and contacted deputies.



"We are not in the porno industry or something like this," Dzhambazova said. "I want the police in the United States to do something for a person like this – to protect us. This is terrible."



The women said they moved in late May to the subleased apartment at the Tuscany Bay apartment complex off Countryway Boulevard, but weren't aware of any cameras until this week.



Dzhambazova and Samokovareva are upset their naked images may have been captured without their knowledge.



"The bathroom is your room, it's a private space …," Samokovareva said.



The women said they initially used an agency in Bulgaria to find housing and get jobs at a restaurant, but instead found work as models. After losing those jobs, they found work at the Wing House on Hillsborough Avenue.



Sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon said detectives will work to determine whether the camera equipment is operational. Deputies also will try to track the owner through the manufacturer's model and serial numbers.



"Right now," McKinnon said, "there is no suspect."



The person who set up the cameras could be charged with misdemeanor video voyeurism. If the videos recorded sound, the person could face a felony charge.





Mlles Dzhambazova and Samkovareva are, unfortunately, apparently here as illegal aliens. We are told that they first came to a pre-arranged employment and study program; from the fact apparently on J-1 Exchange Visitors. But they appear to have ditched the plebian employment for something more in tune with their hotness, modeling. Which, in the end, did not work out. And are now at Wing Stop, but with their hotness why aren't they at Hooters? Perhaps Hooters uses E-Verify, because apparently Wing House does not, as the young hotties cannot change employers as they did under the J-1 program and their employment authorization does not cover working at Wing House of Tampa. It certainly does not cover "modeling."







I wonder if they are covered by the Obama Administrative Amnesty. Give ICE a call:

SAC Tampa
2203 North Lois Avenue
Suite 600
Tampa, FL 33607
(813) 357-7000
(813) 348-1877 (fax)

Welfare Cheats In The News

The much abused Supplement Security Income program is in the news again. It, like the rest of the Social Security Program, is bankrupt. All because of overgenerous benefits, scheming lawyers dedicated to gaming the system, cheats, and large numbers of immigrants who never pay into the system.




WASHINGTON (AP) — Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.


Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.


The stampede for benefits is adding to a growing backlog of applicants — many wait two years or more before their cases are resolved — and worsening the financial problems of a program that's been running in the red for years.


New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry, too, leaving it unable to pay full benefits as well.


Much of the focus in Washington has been on fixing Social Security's retirement system. Proposals range from raising the retirement age to means-testing benefits for wealthy retirees. But the disability system is in much worse shape and its problems defy easy solutions.


The trustees who oversee Social Security are urging Congress to shore up the disability system by reallocating money from the retirement program, just as lawmakers did in 1994. If Congress does not act, the disability program will collect only enough payroll taxes to pay about 85 percent of benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2017.


Even if Congress does act, the combined retirement and disability trust funds are projected to run out of money in 2036, the trustees say. The new congressional report estimates the combined fund would run out of money in 2038. At that point, the combined programs would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay about three-fourths of benefits.


Claims for disability benefits typically increase in a bad economy because many disabled people get laid off and can't find a new job. This year, about 3.3 million people are expected to apply for federal disability benefits. That's 700,000 more than in 2008 and 1 million more than a decade ago.


"It's primarily economic desperation," Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said in an interview. "People on the margins who get bad news in terms of a layoff and have no other place to go and they take a shot at disability,"


The disability program is also being hit by an aging population — disability rates rise as people get older — as well as a system that encourages people to apply for more generous disability benefits rather than waiting until they qualify for retirement.


Retirees can get full Social Security benefits at age 66, a threshold gradually rising to 67. Early retirees can get reduced benefits at 62. However, if you qualify for disability, you can get full benefits, based on your work history, even before 62.


Also, people who qualify for Social Security disability automatically get Medicare after two years, even if they are younger than 65, the age when other retirees qualify for the government-run health insurance program.


Congress tried to rein in the disability program in the late 1970s by making it tougher to qualify. The number of people receiving benefits declined for a few years, even during a recession in the early 1980s. Congress, however, reversed course and loosened the criteria, and the rolls were growing again by 1984.


The disability program "got into trouble first because of liberalization of eligibility standards in the 1980s," said Charles Blahous, one of the public trustees who oversee Social Security. "Then it got another shove into bigger trouble during the recent recession."


Today, about 13.6 million people receive disability benefits through Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. Social Security is for people with substantial work histories, and monthly disability payments average $927. Supplemental Security Income does not require a work history but it has strict limits on income and assets. Monthly SSI payments average $500.


As policymakers work to improve the disability system, they are faced with two major issues: Legitimate applicants often have to wait years to get benefits while many others get payments they don't deserve.


Last year, Social Security detected $1.4 billion in overpayments to disability beneficiaries, mostly to people who got jobs and no longer qualified, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.


Congress is targeting overpayments.


The deficit reduction package enacted this month would allow Congress to boost Social Security's budget by about $4 billion over the next decade to invest in programs that identify people who no longer qualify for disability benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increased enforcement would save nearly $12 billion over the next decade.


At the same time, the application process can be a nightmare for legitimate applicants. About two-thirds of initial applications are rejected. Most of these people drop their claims, but for those willing go through an appeals process that can take two years or more, chances are good they eventually will get benefits.


Astrue has pledged to reduce processing times for applicants' appeals, and he has had some success, even as the number of claims skyrockets. The number of people waiting for decisions has increased, but their wait times are going down.


"It's ludicrous to say that the backlog problem is getting worse," Astrue said. "The backlog problem has gotten dramatically better."


Patricia L. Foster said she was working as a nurse in a hospital in Columbia, S.C., in 2005 when she was attacked by a patient who was suffering from a mental illness. Foster, 64, said she injured her neck so bad she had a plate inserted. She said she also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.


Foster was turned down twice for Social Security disability benefits before finally getting them in 2009, after hiring an Illinois-based company, Allsup, to represent her. She said she was awarded retroactive benefits, though the process was demeaning.


"I have to tell you, when you're told you cannot return to nursing because of your disability, you don't know how long I cried about that," Foster said. "And then Social Security says, 'Oh no, you don't qualify.' You don't know what that does to you emotionally. You have no idea."


A good part of the problem was solved in 1996, but quickly in 1997, the welfare cheat lobby reversed the removal of immigrants from SSI.







The FY97 budget bill approved in July maintains Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits for legal immigrants who were in the US on August 22, 1996, as well as legal immigrants present on August 22, 1996, and not getting SSI benefits, who become poor and disabled in the US. The bill also lengthens from five to seven years the eligibility of refugees for SSI and Medicaid benefits.



Under the 1996 welfare law, SSI benefits for legal immigrants were to end on August 23, 1997, with exceptions for veterans and those with at least 40 quarters of US work. Under the compromise, the only legal immigrants ineligible for SSI are the non-disabled not in the US on August 22, 1996.



SSI makes monthly payments of $484 to poor people who are 65 and older, and to those who are blind or disabled; many states supplement the federal payment. The cost of maintaining SSI eligibility is estimated to be $11.4 billion over five years, eliminating about half of the projected $24 billion savings expected from restricting immigrant access to federal welfare benefits.



Maintaining SSI benefits for legal immigrants fulfills a promise made by President Clinton when he signed the welfare bill in 1996. Congress rejected the Clinton's proposal to pay benefits to legal immigrants who arrived after August 22, 1996 and later become disabled.



In the San Francisco Bay area, agencies that help immigrants naturalize reported that naturalization applications began to drop "dramatically" when "elderly legal immigrants realized they no longer needed to become citizens to retain their eligibility for public benefits." Some agencies reported that immigrants began canceling appointments for INS assistance and dropping out of English classes and citizenship classes in May.



The drop began May 2, when President Clinton vowed to maintain SSI benefits for most legal immigrants; some agencies reported that the Spanish-speaking media treated continued SSI benefits as a "done deal." In San Jose, naturalization applications fell from 3,900 per month to 2,000 in June 1997; in San Francisco, from 6,000 per month to 3,800 in June.



About one million non-US citizens who currently receive Food Stamp benefits will be removed from the rolls by September 1, 1997. A USDA study estimated that about 16 percent of the immigrants receiving Food Stamps are children and another 16 percent are elderly. Many of the remaining immigrant recipients of Food Stamps are working poor.



A New York federal judge in July upheld the constitutionality of the denial of benefits to legal immigrants under the new welfare law, rejecting claims that Section 402 of the new law improperly discriminates between citizens and permanent resident aliens in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. New York City, which brought the suit, plans to appeal.



The first academic studies of welfare usage among immigrants based on the March 1996 Current Population Survey are appearing. The March 1996 CPS reported 25 million foreign-born persons, including 6.6 million who entered since 1990 and 8.4 million who entered in the 1980s--60 percent of all immigrants entered since 1980. The 6.7 million Mexican-born immigrants outnumber the 1.2 million Filipino immigrants almost 6 to 1.



David E. Hayes-Bautista of UCLA noted that 5.8 percent of all immigrants received cash welfare benefits in 1996, compared to 4.5 percent of US-born residents. Like other US residents, immigrants must satisfy income, asset and other tests to obtain welfare benefits, and they must also satisfy legal status requirements. Thus, poor Mexican and Central American immigrants are less likely to obtain cash assistance than US natives or poor Filipinos, Vietnamese and Cubans, but it is not clear whether a higher proportion of Mexicans and Central Americans are eligible on income grounds and do not apply, or whether they are not eligible because more of them are unauthorized.



States. The states are required by the new welfare law to revise their welfare laws. About a third of the nation's 11 million welfare cases are in California (2.4 million) or New York (one million). In July, these states had neither state budgets nor new welfare laws in place, although a compromise seemed at hand in California at the end of July.



As the Democratic-controlled California State Legislature negotiated with Governor Wilson after the July 1, 1997 deadline for a new $68 billion state budget for 1997-98, continued state aid for legal immigrants became a major issue separating the parties. Democrats ran ads in English and Spanish that attacked Wilson for not maintaining welfare benefits for legal immigrants with state funds.



Democrats wanted $124 million to continue SSI and Food Stamp benefits for legal immigrants; Food Stamps are worth an average of $193 per month, and SSI $659 a month in California. According to Democrats, six states have enacted state-funded programs to provide Food Stamps to needy legal immigrants, although most states have not developed substitute state-run Food Stamp programs. Republicans opposed state-funded programs for poor legal immigrants.



About 287,000 of the one million SSI recipients in California are legal immigrants and 77,000 are expected to qualify for one of the exemptions in federal law. Another 170,000 legal immigrants receiving SSI in California are expected to become naturalized US citizens. Finally, 30,000 of the remaining 40,000 are expected to qualify for continued SSI payments as disabled, leaving 10,000 current SSI recipients who will be removed from federal rolls, according to Republicans, or 30,000, according to Democrats.



Some 365,000 legal immigrants in California receive Food Stamps. Governor Wilson expects 300,000 to qualify for continued Food Stamps because they naturalized or qualify for an exemption; the Democrats expect 250,000 to qualify for continued benefits.



The August 1996 welfare law gives states the option of denying legal non-US citizens Medi-Cal health assistance and cash payments under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, or successor programs. Both Democrats and Republicans in California plan to continue these health care and cash assistance benefits if the recipient was in the US before August 22, 1996.



In February 1997, about $1 billion was spent providing AFDC, SSI and General Relief to 3.7 million recipients in California; including $488 million for 2.5 million AFDC recipients, $459 million for one million SSI recipients and $30 million for 142,000 General Relief recipients.



In New York, state legislators on July 29 reportedly reached agreement to provide state-funded food stamp benefits to some of the state's 150,000 legal immigrants who will lose them on September 1, 1997. The $50 million to $110 million annual cost would be shared by the state and counties, with counties having the option of not participating. New York was supposed to adopt its $68 billion budget for 1997-98 by April 1.



Maryland has 412,000 foreign-born residents, 25 percent from Europe. The state has agreed to provide Temporary Cash Assistance to otherwise eligible legal immigrants who have lived in Maryland one year or more, or moved to Maryland from a state that provides cash assistance to legal immigrants. Maryland also agreed to provide Food Stamp benefits to poor immigrant children under 18 and medical care to poor pregnant immigrant women and poor immigrant children.



General. Despite the July 1997 amendments, the basic elements of the August 1996 welfare law remain intact. Poor residents are no longer entitled to assistance. States will design and operate their own welfare systems. Welfare recipients are limited to five years of benefits and most adult recipients must be engaged in work or work-related activity within two years of obtaining benefits.



Restoring SSI eligibility for legal immigrants and a $24 billion program over five years that extend Medicaid health assistance to half the nation's 10 million children who lack health-care coverage, were considered major steps to soften the 1996 welfare law.



The number of welfare recipients throughout the US fell in 48 of 50 states, by 1.2 million, between August 1996 and June 1997.


Add up the early retirement age and you have an endless stream of the welfare dependent and they never stop complaining, even in rich cities like San Francisco.





S.F. food banks struggle with major funding cuts



Saturday, August 20, 2011


Hundreds of people form a line snaking down the side of the building, many having arrived hours before. They're assigned numbers to ensure there's some semblance of order after fights began breaking out in line many months ago.


Once it's finally their turn, the mostly elderly people eagerly claim their prize: a bag of bread and some fruit and vegetables. It's the weekly, sometimes desperate handout at Hosanna Celebration Center, a Castro district church that disburses food from the San Francisco Food Bank each Tuesday at noon.


But under new criteria set by the national Emergency Food and Shelter Program, scenes like this, which play out daily in San Francisco, aren't enough to merit federal financial help. The city simply doesn't have enough poor or unemployed people to qualify, and it has just learned it will lose out on $592,000 in federal money that helps fund the food bank and other social service programs.


Funding for the national program was cut 40 percent by Congress in this year's budget - from $200 million to $120 million. For the first time in the program's 28-year existence, San Francisco won't get any of that money.


This year, a county qualifies for assistance if it or a city within it has at least a 14.4 percent poverty rate or an 11.5 percent unemployment rate. San Francisco's rates are 11.3 and 9 percent respectively. While neighborhoods within the city would qualify, San Francisco doesn't get any money - though wealthier counties with one poor city inside them do.


Questioning fairness


The San Francisco Food Bank is losing $161,000, enough to pay for 483,000 meals this year. To Paul Ash, executive director of the food bank, it's simply not fair.


"Not only was the high cost of living in San Francisco not taken into consideration, but San Francisco is being penalized for being a city and county while other counties like San Mateo with lower poverty and unemployment rates will receive their full amount of funding," he said.


The Emergency Food and Shelter Program was created in 1983 and has handed out $3.7 billion since its inception. It is governed by a national board with members from social service agencies including the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and the United Way. It is chaired by a representative from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversees it.


This year, the program will fund food and shelter programs in 1,600 cities and counties, but 500 that received money last year are entirely out of luck.


Laura Escobar is the director of safety net programs for United Way Bay Area, which administers the national money and gives it to local agencies. She said San Francisco is now doing too well economically compared with other communities to qualify. It has been on the cusp of not qualifying for years, she said.


Escobar said the cuts as a whole are "terrible" and come as food prices and operational costs are increasing.


"We're dialing back so much in supporting all the shelters and food banks Bay Area-wide," she said. "It's death by a thousand cuts."


But she said she has little hope for the money being restored by Congress next year, considering the clamor to rein in national spending.


Increased demand


The cuts come as the San Francisco Food Bank is already seeing increased demand because of lingering economic problems. It fed 225,000 people in the fiscal year 2010-11, up from 132,000 in 2007-08. Its food pantry lines are expected to grow even longer because of the state's cuts to CalWORKS, which provides cash assistance to low-income families, and a host of other social service programs on the chopping block at the state and federal levels.


"The food bank is left to pick up the pieces," said Sean Brooks, director of programs for the food bank.


Dan Selman, pastor of Hosanna Celebration Center, said that five years ago, its food pantry served 85 people. Now, the line often has 350 people. Most of them are elderly people living on fixed incomes, and their dollars just don't stretch very far. Selman goes to the food bank's headquarters every Monday to get food for the Tuesday pantry but has already found the shelves with less stock.


"It's been increasingly hard," he said. "Cereal and bread are harder to come by. They're saying 'Get ready, because it's not going to bounce right back.' "


Many people implored Selman to let them inside right away where tables of bread and bins of tomatoes, nectarines, squash and carrots awaited. But he tried to keep the line in order.


Carmelita Fang, 64, was eager to get inside. The retiree began coming to the food pantry a year ago after her grocery bill kept spiraling up.


"I use it every week," she said. "We get two loaves of bread every week, but that's not good enough for my family. But it's better to come here than Safeway.


"It's a big help."


E-mail Heather Knight at hknight@sfchronicle.com





Retire early, then be shocked, shocked I say, when you welfare check does not go very far in Obama's inflationary world. And just what sort of family does a 64 year old have? Why did she retire early? Didn't she realize that when she stopped working, she would be poorer? Are her children too lazy to work? Why didn't Heather Knight ask that question? And more importantly why is FEMA, an agency that was created to deal with emergencies, administering a program that is more suited for a welfare agency? Don't we have food stamps and free government cheese? Why do taxpayer's have to pay for other's poor decisions?








Thursday, August 18, 2011

Update On The Amnesty

Its not just for DREAM Act illegal aliens. In fact the amnesty for illegal aliens announced recently is for all illegal aliens currently in removal proceedings.



















[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - Today, in a letter to Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and 21 other Senators, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the Administration has established a new process for handling the deportation cases of DREAM Act students and other sympathetic individuals. If fully implemented, the new process should stop virtually all DREAM Act deportations.

“The Obama Administration has made the right decision in changing the way they handle deportations of DREAM Act students,” Durbin said. “These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, Senators, who will make America stronger. We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember. The Administration’s new process is a fair and just way to deal with an important group of immigrant students and I will closely monitor DHS to ensure it is fully implemented.”

On April 21, 2010, Senator Durbin and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to suspend the deportations of DREAM Act students.

On April 13, 2011, Senator Durbin, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and 20 other Senators followed up, asking President Obama to suspend DREAM Act deportations.

In June, John Morton, the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
issued a memo (“the Morton Memo”) advising ICE officials to consider certain factors when deciding whether to proceed with a deportation. One of these factors is whether an individual has been in the United States since childhood, like those who are eligible for the DREAM Act. During a Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing on the DREAM Act, Senator Durbin asked Secretary Napolitano what is being done to implement the Morton Memo and ensure Dream Act students are not deported. Secretary Napolitano responded, “One of the things we’re working on now, is to design a process that would allow us as early as possible, to identify people who are caught up in the removal system, who in the end really don’t fit our priorities.”

There is a long history of the government exercising prosecutorial discretion in this manner. The government has always decided who to prosecute – and who not to prosecute – based on law enforcement priorities and available resources. The Supreme Court has held, “an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”

How the New Process will Work:









Under the new process, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) working group will develop specific criteria to identify low-priority removal cases that should be considered for prosecutorial discretion. These criteria will be based on “positive factors” from the Morton Memo, which include individuals present in the U.S. since childhood (like DREAM Act students), minors, the elderly, pregnant and nursing women, victims of serious crimes, veterans and members of the armed services, and individuals with serious disabilities or health problems. The working group will develop a process for reviewing cases pending before immigration and federal courts that meet these specific criteria.








This applies to all aliens in removal proceedings. Not just, as Dick Durban implies, young people. It applies to all and the main and only criteria will be that the alien has not been convicted of a crime. That will include those with extensive arrest records, but no convictions. It will apply to gangbangers with no convictions. Just as Edwin Ramos was a beneficiary of the administrative amnesty, other criminals will benefit.




















And here is how it will work.

On a regular basis, ICE attorneys will individually review every case scheduled for a hearing within the next 1-2 months to identify those cases that meet these specific criteria. These cases will be closed except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case the reviewing attorney must receive the approval of a supervisor to move forward. DHS will also begin reviewing all 300,000 pending cases to identify those that meet these specific criteria. These cases will be closed except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case the reviewing attorney must receive the approval of a supervisor to move forward. Individuals whose cases are closed will be able to apply for certain immigration benefits, including work authorization. All applications for benefits will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.








As one can see, it is not a case by case review. It is attorneys for DOJ and DHS in Washington, DC, determining the criteria and ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor implementing those criteria. More importantly, the line attorney must receive approval from a supervisor to not close removal proceedings. The line attorney does not need approval to close the removal proceedings. There is a built in bias for line attorneys in the field offices to grant the benefit and a built in bias to discourage keeping the alien in removal proceedings. So the end result will be not a case-by-case review, but wholesale end of removal proceedings for 300,000 plus illegal aliens. And not to mention the future arrests that will not happen. Expect FY 2012 deportation numbers to collapse.


















About The DREAM Act:







The DREAM Act would allow a select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute more fully to America. These young people were brought to the U.S. as children and should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes. The DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn legal status if they:




Came to the U.S. as children (15 or under)



Are long-term U.S. residents (continuous physical presence for at least five years)



Have good moral character



Graduate from high school or obtain a GED






Complete two years of college or military service in good standing













It is clear that the Regime will sell this as just for children, but it is a general amnesty for those other than convicted criminals, and, as the Edwin Ramos or Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Sandoval cases show, alot of them will slip throught as well, as this article in the NY Times states:











Deportation Halted for Younger Immigrants



By ROBERT PEAR



Published: August 18, 2011



WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced on Thursday that it would generally not deport or expel illegal immigrants who had come to the United States as young children and graduated from high school or served in the armed forces.



White House and immigration officials said they would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” to allow these people to stay in the country while the government focused its enforcement efforts on higher-priority cases involving criminals and people who had flagrantly violated immigration laws.




President Obama is, in effect, doing administratively what he could not persuade Congress to do — allowing the secretary of homeland security to provide relief to a select group of students who are here illegally but show great promise.




Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, has argued for a decade that “these young people should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes.”




White House officials emphasized that they were not granting relief to a whole class of people, but would review cases one by one, using new standards meant to distinguish between low- and high-priority cases.




“The president has said on numerous occasions that it makes no sense to expend our enforcement resources on low-priority cases, such as individuals” who were brought to this country as young children and know no other home, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, said in a letter to Mr. Durbin.




Ms. Napolitano said that low-priority cases were “clogging immigration court dockets and diverting enforcement resources away from individuals who pose a threat to public safety.”



Mr. Durbin said he believed the new policy would halt the deportation of most people who would qualify for relief under a bill, known as the Dream Act, that he has repeatedly introduced in the last 10 years.




Under the new policy, the government will review 300,000 cases of people in deportation proceedings to identify those who might qualify for relief and those who should be expelled as soon as possible.




White House officials said the new policy would help illegal immigrants with family members in the United States. The White House is interpreting “family” to include partners of gay and bisexual people.




Those aren't just children, but long time illegals who came here as adults like this case from San Francisco which is already being touted as an end to DOMA:











Gay and lesbian married bi-national couples like San Francisco's Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk may get some relief from the threat of deportation under the Defense of Marriage Act, thanks to action by the Obama administration today.



In a letter to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said a new working group will be established to identify low-priority cases for immigrant deportation. The administration will exercise prosecutorial discretion, widely practiced by all law enforcement officers, to identify which low-priority deportation cases to ignore. The policy is also posted on the White House website.



Napolitano cited a memorandum issued last June by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, which contains a long list of mitigating factors to weigh in deciding whether to pursue deportation. These include whether the immigrant is married to a U.S. citizen, as Makk is, as well as whether the immigrant is the primary caregiver of a citizen, which Makk also is. Other factors include such things as length of lawful stay in the United States, criminal record and the like.



Sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned, but Mary Kenney, a senior staff attorney with the Legal Action Center arm of the Immigration Policy Center said the administration has indicated that same-sex marriages are included in the definition of family for the purposes of the enforcement memo. She called the move "very encouraging."



Napolitano said President Obama asked her to respond on his behalf, having said that "it makes no sense to expend our enforcement resources on low-priority cases." She said the June memo is now "being implemented."




Wells and Makk have gotten huge media attention, including a spot on CNN, since the Chronicle's second story on their case this month. You read about their case first in the Chronicle last June.



Most of the attention on today's action is focused on DREAM students, the illegal children of immigrants who know no other home but the United States. Durbin's DREAM Act, repeatedly defeated in Congress, would allow such immigrants to earn legal status by completing two years of college or military service. They would get additional latitude under the new guidance.



But Kenney said the memo covers much more than children and definitely will apply to same-sex married couples who want to pursue permanent resident status for an immigrant spouse. Before the Napolitano letter, the June guidance was left to the discretion of agents on the ground. Now it's policy.



Using prosecutorial discretion allows the administration in effect to choose when to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act for immigration purposes. DOMA bars all federal benefits, including immigration benefits, to same-sex couples. The immigration cases would likely be deferred until challenges to DOMA's constitutionality are decided by the Supreme Court, which is expected as early as next year or by 2013.



The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which opposes widening immigration, slammed the decision as "administrative amnesty" and "a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration policy without approval by Congress."






Nothing less than a widespread amnesty for all implenting the DREAM Act, a general amnesty and overturning DOMA. All quite a Constitutional stretch for an executive order; stroke of the pen, law of the land.

The Formal Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty

As I predicted, Associated Press has obtained a letter from Janet Reno Napolitano in a response to Demoncrat Senators demanding an administrative amnesty, announcing a formal amnesty for illegal aliens, but apparently only those already in removal proceedings. (h/t Weasel Zippers)




WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Thursday it will indefinitely delay deporting many illegal immigrants who don't have criminal records and will offer them a chance to apply for a work permit. The government will focus on sending back convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.



The policy change will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.



Advocates for an immigration overhaul contend the administration has failed to live up to its promise to only deport the "worst of the worst," as President Barack Obama has said.



"From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities," Napolitano wrote a group of senators involved in supporting immigration legislation. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.



"Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission - clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from the individuals who pose a threat to public safety."



In June, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent a memo to agents outlining when and how they could use discretion in immigration cases. That guidance also covered those potentially subject to a legislative proposal, known as the DREAM Act, intended to give young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military a chance at legal status.



The memo from John Morton also suggested that agents consider how long someone has been in the United State, whether that person's spouse or children are U.S. citizens and whether or not that person has a criminal record.



A senior administration official said delaying deportation decisions in cases for some noncriminals would allow the quicker deportation of serious criminals. The indefinite stay will not give illegal immigrants a path to legal permanent residency, but will let them apply for a work permit.



"As a matter of law, they are eligible for a work authorization card, basically a tax payer ID card, but that decision is made separately and on a case-by-case basis," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the policy change before it was announced.


Actually, that is incorrect. It is routine to give those in removal proceedings employment authorization, but it is not required. In fact, there is no legal basis to give them employment authorization, but the legacy INS and currently DHS does it regularly.







The official said the change will give authorities the chance to keep some cases from even reaching the court system. The message to agents in the field, the official said, would be "you do not need to put everyone you come across in the system."



Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a longtime supporter of immigration overhaul and the DREAM Act, applauded the policy change.



"These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, senators, who will make America stronger," Durbin said in an emailed statement. "We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember."



Republicans have criticized the DREAM Act and other immigration legislation that would provide a path to legal status as amnesty. Following Morton's June memo, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, introduced a bill to block the administration's use of prosecutorial discretion and called the use of that discretion "backdoor amnesty."


So, it is crunch time. Impeachment is required as a result of this unlawful and unconstitutional amnesty.