Notes from 6/18/12 DHS conference call on Secretary's illegal alien prosecutorial discretion memo
(Obama’s DREAM Act amnesty announced on June 15, 2012)
by DA_King
 Blogging While DA King
June 22, 2012 11:00 AM | 2082 views | 30 30 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

You read it here first…

Notes from 6/18/12 DHS conference call on Secretary's illegal alien prosecutorial discretion memo (Obama’s DREAM Act amnesty announced on June 15, 2012)

Below are notes taken from a Department of Homeland Security conference call this week between administration officials and what the Obama administration regards as “stakeholders” (the people who demand amnesty, or else...) in his implementation of his amnesty for illegal aliens – “prosecutorial discretion”  for an entire group of illegals. Note that there doesn’t seem to have been much thought or planning put into his decree.

Much of this is rather technical for people who don’t study the issue every day, but worth reading, using and saving in the interest of education. And, no, I won’t say how I obtained these notes, except that they are taken directly from the conference call. Please make particular note of the points I have in bold below. Update: Also, HERE is a link to a letter to Obama from a group of U.S. Senators, including Senator Johnny Isakson and Senator Saxby Chambliss HERE is a link to a letter sent by members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee dak

The call featured USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas, ICE Director John Morton and Acting CBP Commissioner David Aguilar.

Notes:

AM: USCIS hasn't determined: how to collect eligibility information, who will adjudicate the requests and how quickly they will be handled.

Not accepting requests now for deferred action (DA). Will start 60 days from June 15th, the day of the Secretary's announcement.

Discussed eligibility criteria for DA. Will accept whatever documents an applicant provides but anticipate documents related to school, employment records, financial records and items proving physical presence.

Have to separately apply for a work authorization.

If given DA, a person will not accrue unlawful presence time during the two-year period.

Will take action if people misrepresent information. If someone is denied DA, won't automatically place in removal proceedings but can do so consistent with the Notice To Appear process. No appeal process for denials.

Dependents and immediate relatives do not automatically get DA - have to apply independently.

Haven't decided if DA recipient can travel outside of US

JM: ICE with work with CBP to ensure qualifying people are not removed, or placed in removal proceedings, if they meet case-by-case criteria. If someone is already in the removal process, they will be taken out of that process on a case-by-case basis and referred to USCIS. Have already started a review of persons in Executive Office of Immigration Review proceedings. They have been granted administrative closure and will now be granted DA.

DA: Mostly have contact with applicable individuals at ports of entry or on the border. Will interview people who may qualify and detain to determine eligibility with regard to biometrics. They'll run a biographic and biometric background check against federal/state/local databases. Upon establishing prima facie eligibility, the person will released and the DA processing will follow.

Encountered 11 individuals over the weekend. Reviewed their eligibility, released them and directed them to report to USCIS. Issue raised whether people eligible for removal proceeding should place themselves in the hands of ICE or CBP. They do not recommend this. Wait and apply through the USCIS.

Q: If someone is denied DA and just overstayed a visa, will the person not be placed in the removal proceedings?

A (AM): Answer governed by the Notice To Appear process. Under these circumstances, the removal referral would not be made.

Q: When program over, will the names be used for removal proceedings?

A (AM): There is no intention at this point of dismantling the prosecutorial discretion architecture that was built over the last year. ( Note from D.A. for info on this. Obama did something similar last year, but the GOP had very little to say about it)

Q: If someone applies for DA, would family members be at greater risk for a Notice To Appear?

A (AM): No, the others would have to qualify for a Notice To Appear under our prosecutorial discretion policy based on their own conduct.

Q: What kinds of convictions would cause a denial?

A (JM): Assaults, drug trafficking, DUI.

Q: How many hours in college must a person have?

A (AM): The criteria just speak about being in school. We'll provide more clarification later.

Q: As an immigration attorney. I appreciate the way you're doing this. It's kind of like Temporary Protected Status or a cross between a class review and a case-by-case review. There's nothing to stop one of the agencies from granting DA and work authorization to someone who is 31 1/4. You're saying don't apply if you don't fit, even though you could all along.

A (AM): This is not like TPS, it's an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that's based on the information that individuals present.

Q: Will there be a form and a fee?

A (AM): We don't know yet.

Q: Different states have different definitions of misdemeanor. In California, it's only a misdemeanor to be caught driving without a license. What definitions will you use?

A (JM): We'll use federal and state definitions of misdemeanors.

 

Comments
(30)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Lib in Cobb
|
June 29, 2012
Snake: There was no necessity for the Supreme Court to look at the entire bill, HB 1070. Invalidating its key parts was more than adequate. The one section of the bill, which was upheld is suspect and could be reviewed by the court if necessary. Not a direct quote.

I will say that as soon as the any cop makes the wrong stop in AZ, this will be back in front of the court. The ACLU is waiting, it will happen.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 28, 2012
Snake: Yes, I vote. In fact I voted three times in 2008, thank you ACORN. I need to repeat myself because I just don't understand why there are so many thick headed, shallow thinkers in Cobb who just don't get it and the pick of the litter are all here on these blogs.

Have a nice day.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 28, 2012
Serti: Don't put words in my mouth. You know very little about me. I now know enough about you, thank you very much!
Serti
|
June 28, 2012
I note that Lib seems to be ok with brown beret
Snake eater
|
June 28, 2012
Libincobb four parts of the Az law went to court not all of it. The court upheld one of the four which was the one the illegal alien lobby hated most and is similar to Ga's. Now try hard here: that does not mean that 25 percent of the entire sb1070 was left standing. Each time you post here you show us that you are unable to think. At all ,which is why you are a Liberal

Also likely why you would believe the AJC when you don't know that most laws are improved over time. I enjoy seeing you show us who you are. I gues a middle aged woman who has been told to attack this blog and always have your response on top but you lack the ability to type more than 3 thoughts so you just do them over and over. It scares me that you are allowed to vote
Lib in Cobb
|
June 27, 2012
Dick: E Verify is such a roaring success that a significant percentage of the GA municipalities are not complying with that requirement. In fact new legislation is current being drafted to require compliance. There is no way for E verify to track the compliance of the public or private sector. Perhaps since you are so astute you could develop a better system.

HB 87 will be reviewed in its entirety, the ACLU is currently engaged in that process.

When I hear anyone use the term "nappy" , yes I call that person a racist. It is the truth. I would not call someone a racist if they didn't deserve it. I do consider where I live and there are many here who I have called "racist", the truth will set you free.

Have a nice day.
Lib in cobb
|
June 27, 2012
Johnson: The Supremes just eviscerated HB 1070. 25% was left standing, which will be examined by SCOTUS again when appropriate. That time is coming, it will take one bad arrest by a rogue cop in AZ, then back to The Supremes. The ACLU is waiting for the next racial profiling case.

Yes, I know what SCOTUS is. Why do you think I used the term?

Allen West is a nut job, much like Joe Mc Carthy. If West believes that there are 80 communists in congress, prove it or shut up. West was so good in the military he was encouraged to retire. I will bet that the remaining 25% of HB 1070 will be back in front of The Supremes within two years. It wasn't pretty a few days ago and it won't be pretty the next go around.

Have a nice day.

BTW, DA King may know what he is talking about but he still is a hateful idiot.
Brown Beret
|
June 27, 2012
From here in SoCal we're here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we're here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children, we clean their offices, we pick the food, we do the manufacturing in the factories of L.A., we are the majority here and we are not going to be pushed around. We're here in Westwood, this is the fourth time we've been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it's always been ours, and we're still here, and none of the talk about deporting.

If anyone's going to be deported it's going to be you! Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! To back to the Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you, leave like beaten rats. You old white people!
Robert Johnson
|
June 27, 2012
The left can't see that the part of Arizona law most hated by the La Raza gang was affirmed by SCOTUS. Oh, Lib-You should pay attention to D.A. King as he actually knows what he is talking about and had miuch to do with writing all of Georgia immigration laws since 2005.

(Lib, Kevin:, SCOTUS means SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES) ( Kevin: Allen West is still a proud black American....)
Dick Meyer
|
June 27, 2012
Lib in Cobb - you may want to consider ending your "fact" gathering by listening to Rich " the mind" Pellegrino and Kevin "the facts are what I say they are" Foley. Whoever he is.
Dick Meyer
|
June 27, 2012
Lib, please just stick to calling people names OK? You are not up to even realizing that only 2 of the 23 sections of HB 87 are in court and the entire rest of the law, including its most important feature (E-Verify) are not going to be "reviewed.

More astue than you indeed.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 26, 2012
Dick: You are right, I made an error regarding HB 87 in "becoming law", I appreciate your correction. At the time of my error I was celebrating the Supreme Court ruling and President Obama's decision involving the lack of federal support for AZ. HB 87 is very likely to be reviewed as previous stated.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 26, 2012
Dick: HB 87 will be reviewed and it doesn't matter if it is already in effect. GA and HB 87 has been mentioned in many articles written by people more astute than you. Other states and their associated immigration laws which have been mentioned are Utah, SC and Alabama.

Because a law is already in effect does not automatically make it immune from review by SCOTUS.

Have a nice day.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 26, 2012
To DA King: I presume by now you have heard the latest very wise decision made by our president, to not enforce the Arizona laws with federal support.

Jan Brewer's finger in the president's face has not turned out very well.

Now Brewer is getting poked with a stick.

Have a nice day.
Dick Meyer
|
June 26, 2012
Lib in Cobb, you genius you.

HB 87 went into effect already.

It was 23 sections long. TWO of those sections were held up by the federal liberal judge. Only one of those had anything similar in thwe Arizona law, and it was upheld. Again, and try to stay with me here Lib: HB 87 IS in effect and the most powerful part of it is the section that requires use of E-Verify to keep illegal aliens from being hired. In case you ever read news from planet Earth that is not Huffington Post rants, the illegal employers King writes about so often are frantic, angry and desperate to kill E-Verify and HB 87. Which is already in effect. But guess what you little rocket scientist...the Supreme Court upheld required use of E-Verify LAST MAY. ( Last May was 2011 here on Earth).

You are the one being poked, but are too dim to realize it. Geez you people are hilariously slow.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 25, 2012
This morning's ruling by The Supreme Court on Arizona SB 1070 does not bode well for Georgia's HB 87. In other words, HB 87 will not get a chance in becoming law. The other states such as Utah and SC with similar legislation will also see their version of HB 87 not take effect.

You are being poked with a stick again DA.

Lib in Cobb
|
June 25, 2012
To Devlin: What "truth" are you referring to?
Lib in Cobb
|
June 25, 2012
To Marie in Cobb: No Democrat I know would admit to being your neighbor or friend. So your claim about Democrats being embarrassed lacks validity.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 25, 2012
To Viva: You used the term "nappy". You would not use that term in referring to a white president, would you? Now I know the true basis of you feelings regarding President Obama and most likely all people of color.

That's right, I am calling you "racist", I am being very polite. I am certain you will deny it. Yeah, I know, some of your best friends are black.
Devlin Adams
|
June 25, 2012
At Foley and "lib in Cobb". Are you two daft? Do think for one minute that the fact that you are not willing to admit the truth is, in any way, going to give credence to your blather?

Most thinking people recognize you for blowhard know-nothings.

Get a life!
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides