Non-cash benefits (other than institutionalization for long-term care) are generally not taken into account for purposes of a public charge determination.
Special-purpose cash assistance is also generally not taken into account for purposes of public charge determination.
Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination. Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:
State and local programs that are similar to the federal programs listed above are also generally not considered for public charge purposes. Please be aware that states may adopt different names for the same or similar publicly funded programs. It is the underlying nature of the program, not the name adopted in a particular state, which determines whether or not it should be considered for public charge purposes. In California, for example, Medicaid is called "Medi-Cal" and CHIP is called "Healthy Families." These benefits are not considered for public charge purposes.
In addition, and consistent with existing practice, cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans' benefits, among other forms of earned benefits, do not support a public charge determination. Unemployment compensation is also not considered for public charge purposes.
You can follow this links:
Apsan Law Offices, LLC
Many thousands of people entered the US through a border, either Mexico or Canada, and many others entered with a visa but the entry permit (I-94) has expired. Now If any of these people are either married to a US citizen or Lawful permanent resident or is a son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or resident, he or she cannot adjust their status in the US. In other words, they must travel to the US consulate in their home country to make a proper entrance. Here’s where it all falls apart.
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) created a three-year, ten year, and permanent bars on admission to the U.S. for an assortment of immigration status violations.
The three-year bar to re-entry into the U.S. applies to persons who have been unlawfully present in the United States for a continuous period of more than 180 days (6 months), but no more than one year, and who voluntarily depart the U.S. Departing the U.S. activates the bar, even if the trip is to a consular process to obtain an immigrant visa.
The ten-year bar to re-entry into the U.S. applies to individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. for a cumulative period of one year or more who depart voluntarily Unlawful presence begins to accumulate when the period of authorized stay elapses or after entry to the U.S. without inspection. In other words, you will not be permitted to return to the US for either 3 or 10 years.
Now, if you entered the United States illegally through the borders such as by sneaking in through Mexico or Canada, in almost every case, will not be allowed to receive your Green Card in the U.S. If you entered with a visa but overstayed your visa (except for immediate relatives), you will also not be allowed to receive your green card in the United States (adjustment of status).
In these cases, you will go through the process called Consular Processing. This process begins with the completion of form I-130 and filing it with the Immigration Service. After some months, if all the paperwork is correct you will receive a NOTICE OF APPROVAL. A copy of the NOTICE OF APPROVAL will also be sent to the National Visa Center. They will send you a package to complete the forms. It consists of a set of forms that sets forth the steps that you are to follow and a notice that you must establish that you will not rely on public assistance once you are in the U.S. and a form to be completed by the sponsor which is a biographical data form. You will complete the forms immediately and send to the consulate. You will then gather all the documents required and have them available when you are called for an interview.
There are limited Exception to this bar
1. If you or your parents (while you were under 21 years of age) filed a permanent visa application with the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Labor Department before April 30, 2001, you are protected from this law and will be allowed to receive your Green Card in the United States by paying a fine of $1,000. This is called Section 245(i) adjustment.
2. Children under 18 years of age;
3. Spouse children (under 21 years of age) and parents who entered with a visa;
4. Most people who filed a case with the Labor Department or the Immigration and Naturalization Service for Permanent Residency before April 30, 2001.
Understand this clearly. There is no waiver for a parent of US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
For those that fall into this category, there are limited waivers available for those that want to return in less time.
The 601 waivers are required to be submitted in order to overcome an inadmissibility bar for a prior visa overstay, misrepresentation, fraud, or certain crimes.
An immigrant visa applicant who is ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(9)(B) “Unlawful Presence” may not apply for a waiver unless he or she is the spouse or son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR). A waiver under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v) will be granted in such a case only if the applicant can establish that denial of his or her admission would result in extreme hardship for the U.S. citizen or LPR.
Extreme Hardship is a vague concept and at times, difficult to prove.
The factors considered relevant in determining extreme hardship to a qualifying relative include, but are not limited to, the following: the presence of United States citizen or lawful permanent resident family ties to this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and, finally, significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Matter of Cervantes, 22 I. & N. Dec. 560, 565-566 (BIA 1999).
To establish extreme hardship, it is required to demonstrate that the qualifying relative is suffering more than the usual or typical hardship that a family member would experience if their relative cannot return to the U.S. Establishing financial hardship alone is not enough. The U.S. citizen/permanent resident relative and not the non-citizen applicant must experience the hardship. It must go beyond that normally expected in cases of family separation. Successful applicants will have to demonstrate unusual hardships to the U.S. citizen/permanent resident relative, such as a major medical conditions (physical and/or mental); Relative is caring for an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled relative who needs constant care; Relative is the primary caregiver for his/her child(ren) from a prior relationship and the child(ren)'s other parent will not allow the children to be taken out of the country and the child(ren) have formed an emotional attachment to Alien lack of the U.S. citizen/permanent resident’s family ties to the applicant’s country of origin; ability to speak the applicant’s native language; financial considerations; loss of opportunity in applicant’s country of origin, etc
1. I-601 Waiver is used when the beneficiary is living abroad. Learn more.
2. I-601A Waiver is used when the beneficiary is living in the United States. Learn more.
Many people, when confronted with having to file a waiver of inadmissibility, try to do it on his or her own, rather than seeking the advice or guidance of an attorney. While hiring an attorney does not “assure” approval, it certainly goes a long way in obtaining an approval; especially if the attorney has great experience in this area of the law. The determination and evaluation of extreme hardship can be a complex and complicated task. Putting together a successful presentation is also extremely important. The rewards are so high when applying for a 601-waiver applying for them because if a person is denied a fraud waiver, it could result in a lifetime ban. If the 3/10-year bar waiver is not approved, the relative may not be able to apply for a visa to enter the US for at least 10 years.
That is why when you have something as difficult as a waiver of inadmissibility, you should seek the advice and support of an immigration attorney, instead of doing it on your own. Trying to figure out how to prove “extreme hardship” by attempting to prepare the waiver on your own could have lifetime problems for your relative.
Congress created the U non-immigrant in 2000 to protect non-citizen victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. The requirements for granting a U visa encourages them to cooperate with law enforcement officials. Regrettably, there is a limit of 10,000 U visas available per fiscal year.
USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, recently published statistics on it U Visa programs. These statistic crystalizes the enormous delays in resolving these cases and the increasing back log.
These statistics show that in the year 2009, the USCIS received a total of 10,937 petitions and approved 8,663, Statistically 79% was approved. In the year 2017, they received 61,686 and approved 17, 726. A 28.7 % approval rate. Along with this decrease in approval rates, there are currently 208, 813 pending cases as of the end of the 2nd Quarter of 2018. Extrapolating from the most recent yearly approval numbers (2017) of 17,726, it appears that it would take some 11 to 12 years for the USCIS to catch up on its work load. It’s no wonder that its taking years for U visa applicants to obtain their first work permit
QUALIFYING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
*Includes any similar activity where the elements of the crime are substantially similar.
†Also includes attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above and other related crimes.
While an applicant is approved for a U visa and is in line for a visa, s/he is eligible to apply for a work permit. Under the new guidance, USCIS advises that applicants submit two Applications for Employment Authorization (I-765) with any U visa petition. The first application would give the U visa petitioner work authorization for two years under the deferred action status. The second application would give work authorization to the U visa petitioner for the duration of the U visa, once a U visa becomes available.
A work permit application based on an application for U-Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918) cannot be approved until the application has been reviewed and the individual has been granted deferred action. This has been taking roughly 3.5 years recently.
According to the USCIS, from the date of receipt of the U visa application, it can take about 46 months to process the case.
It’s important to appreciate that this type of application is different from other work permit applications. This is so, because of the U Visa cap of 10,000 per fiscal year, has created a large back log as noted above. But even if there is not a visa available for a case to be approved, USCIS can grant that person “deferred action” which is similar to permission to remain in the United States. It also makes that person eligible for a work permit. It is at this juncture, that a work permit application will be approved. A work permit application should be submitted simultaneously with the original I-918 application.
The U visa category is truly a life save for undocumented aliens that were victims of a crime and cooperated with the authorities to imprison the perpetrator(s), albeit the process takes a long time.
A most important part of the U visa program is that those granted the U visa may be eligible to apply for a Green Card (adjustment of status/permanent residence) if you meet certain requirements, including:
Juan Rodriguez (name changed for privacy) entered the U.S. in 2013 from Guatemala. He applied for protection though Political Asylum. After more than 3 years of fighting in Immigration Court, the Judge denied his application and ordered him deported to Guatemala. But as life would have it, by the end of his case he was engaged and soon married an American citizen. Shortly after he became the father of twin boys,
Believing that since he married a U.S. citizen, he went to a lawyer and discovered, to his dismay, that since he entered illegally and was actually ordered deported , he cannot be granted legal residency in the U.S. unless he leaves and remains out of the country for 10 years. A nightmare of a thought. At that time there was no solution for this family.
Everything changed in 2016, when President Obama expanded the 601A waiver law.
Now undocumented immigratns in removal(deportation) proceedings are allowed to participate in this new provisional unlawful presence waiver process if their removal proceedings are administratively closed and have not been re-calendared at the time of filing the Form I-601A. Aliens whose removal proceedings are terminated or dismissed are covered in the general population of aliens who are eligible to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. Note that if you failed to appear and received an in absentia order of removal, then you will need to make a motion to reopen your case, before you can apply for the 601A waiver.
However, undocumented immigrants, who have already been ordered deported or removed. May also qualify. However in these cases the immigrant needs to apply for 2 different waivers, one for being ordered deported (I-212) and the other for having remained in the U.S. illegally. (I-601A)
Under the final expansion of the I-601A Waiver executive order, those subject to final orders of removal, deportation, or exclusion may now apply for the provisional waiver (601A) , provided, of course, that certain eligibility requirements are met..
What is a I-212 Waiver?
The I-212 is the application that requests permission to reapply for admission into the US after Deportation or Removal. If the person is in the U,S, he is applying for a conditional approval of the application. The person still must the depart the US in order for the approved I-212 to take effect. This waiver is specifically used to permit a person to return to the U.S. after a deportation or removal.
Understand that when you are deported the following punishment applies :
So, once a person departs the US, the deportation or removal order goes into effect. If a person leaves the U.S. without an approved I-212 waiver, he or she will not be allowed to return to the U.S. for the specified time.
How does the I-601A waiver interact with the 212 waiver?
After the I-212 waiver is approved, the individual still needs to get an I-601A waiver approved to avoid the 10 year punishment for his overstay.
Once the immigrant can establish extreme hardship to a USC/LPR spouse or parent, an approved I-601A waiver would remove the 3 or 10-year unlawful presence bar. This conditional approval removes a major part of the pressure in returning to the home country for the immigration interview.
Simply stated, the I-212 speak to the removal (deportation) order and the I-601A speaks to the unlawful presence bar. These two waivers remove major impediments that would normally prevent a person from immigrating for at least 10 years.
It is important to remember that even if you were ordered deported and never left you have a way to resolve the problem.
In Absentia Deportation/ Removal Orders
If the person failed to show up at an immigration court hearing, then there is another significant problem. Under the current law, anyone who fails to appear for any court date is deported in absentia. What this means is that , the person must remain outside the U..S. for a period of 5 years BEFORE he can make use of the 601A waiver. This problem requires additional legal work.
FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: 601WaiverLawyers.com
Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain police procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws. These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning.
However, anti-immigrant groups are constantly rallying around Sanctuary Cities, claiming that they breed a host of problems caused by undocumented immigrants. Donald Trump, spearheads this anti-immigrant sentiments and Attorney General Jeff Sessions supports it. Donald Trump signed the executive order that proclaimed that cities and states would only be eligible for certain grants from the Department of Justice if they obeyed federal immigration laws.
On Wednesday, August8, 2017, the 9th Circuit ruled against a provision of the executive order that limited funding to jurisdictions that don’t collaborate with federal immigration enforcement. This executive order was aimed directly at sanctuary cities.
The Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing federal funding to “sanctuary cities” was unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that federal funding could be suppressed through congressional authorization. The appeals court also noticed that the U.S. District Court went too far by obstructing the policy nationwide, and sent back the case for “reconsideration and further findings.”
“We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization,” a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit held in its 2-to-1 ruling.
A current list of Sanctuary Cities obtained from The Center for Immigration Studies dated July 27, 2017 follows:
Sanctuary Cities List
Cities and Counties
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
San Miguel County
Iowa City, Johnson County
Prince George's County
New Mexico County Jails
New York City
St. Lawrence County
Hood River County
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
San Juan County
Walla Walla County
A Brazilian Immigrant, living and working on Martha's Vineyard for 16 years, received a nearly undisputed victory from the U.S. Supreme Court this past Thursday. In the case of Pereira v. Session ,which involves a Brazilian native that did not receive a specific time and date to show up for a deportation proceeding.
This decision has the potential to affect thousands of other immigrants living in the country without authorization and for those that have an order of deportation.
In the 8-1 decision, overwhelming in favor of Wescley Fonseca Pereira against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the court decided that if an unauthorized immigrant's "notice to appear" (this is the original charging document, something like a Summons) in immigration court fails to clearly state the specific date, time and place that the non-citizen must appear in court, , then it's not a valid "notice to appear" and it doesn't stop the clock on the non-citizen's "continuous physical presence" in the U.S. In other word the original notice is defective and the court loses its jurisdiction over the case.
Here's why this is important: If you're an immigrant residing in the U.S. without permission. a clock starts ticking the second you enter the U.S. If your clock reaches 10 years, then under various circumstances, you could be eligible to apply for what's called a 10-year cancellation of removal (the 10 year law). The government, however, has always said that once a "notice to appear" is issued, it activates what’s called a "stop-time" rule and this clock no longer accrues more time. On Pereira’s case, when he went to court, even though he had been here for more than 10 years he was unable to accumulated the required 10 years because the NTA was issued many years earlier and could not apply for Cancellation of Removal (the 10 year law) because of the "stop-time" rule. The Supreme court decision changed everything.
The Court in Pereira said that if the original charging document (The NTA) is not properly prepared, by including the date and time of the first hearing, it failed to give the immigration court jurisdiction over the case. And if the NTA is invalid, all notices that follow are also invalid.
What his means is that if anyone has an order of deportation or removal, he or she should contact an immigration lawyer immediately, in order to reopen you case and help you too obtain your legal status in the U.S.
This we could call a “once in a lifetime “ opportunity.
WASHINGTON — In the midst of a passionate political struggle about DACA, the program that protects from deportation young immigrants who, as children, were brought illegally to the United States, a federal judge in California, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction this Tuesday directing the Trump administration to recommence the DACA program.
Not something that the President desires. President Trump has made attacking illegal immigration a top priority in his agenda.
A fundamental part of Trump’s modus operandi is his decision to terminate the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which the president and his followers call an obvious instance of executive overreach.
Trump’s determination to eliminate DACA was toppled late Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said that the nearly 690,000 DACA recipients must retain their work permits and protection from deportation while a lawsuit challenging the move to terminate the program goes forward.
Judge Alsup held that the government must resume renewal of DACA and work authorizations for all immigrants who had been granted DACA status the status prior to Sept. 5, however, he also opined that the federal government could deny them the right to return to the United States if they travel abroad, even with the governments permission. Additionally, the judge said the government did not have to accept new applicants.
Judge Alsup said that the plaintiffs had established that they were likely to succeed on their claims that the Trump administration’s cancellation of the nearly six-year-old program was “capricious,” and that the states, employers and tech companies including the immigrants themselves, had much to lose if the administration was wrong.
The Department of Homeland Security has been silent on whether it would begin renewing work permits, notwithstanding Alsup’s order to do so. To date, no guidance regarding renewal of DACA has been issued on its website.
As expected Democrats and Republicans met again Wednesday to try and sort out the details of an agreement that would decide the fate of young people protected by DACA.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) at the meeting in his office attempted to follow up on the reunion with Trump. This group has been in deliberations for many months in anticipation of coming up with an agreement that could garner the 60 votes required to overcome procedural hurdles in the narrowly divided Senate.
The fate of dreamers is “hanging out there with great uncertainty,” Durbin told reporters. “Whether it’s by the president’s announcement or a court decision, it’s time for us to meet the president’s challenge and to create a law that solves this problem.”
Immigration lawyers also differed on whether dreamers should renew their status now. Some suggested that immigrants file an application to get their foot in the door while the judge’s ruling is pending. But others said they risked losing the hefty application fee and worried that some immigrants would fall prey to fraud.
The end is near. On March 6, 2018, nearly 1,000 young people daily could begin to lose their protected status as their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) work permits begin to elapse (within 2 years).
When President Donald Trump ended this program, he placed the entire burden of resolving the crises for the nearly 1 million people affected directly on the shoulders of Congress
There are several DACA substitution bills whirling around Congress. If Congress can pass a bill before the March 5 deadline, many DACA recipients will be able to continue in the US legally.
Some of the proposed bills have similar requirements as DACA, but a few provide something extra that DACA does not: a pathway to citizenship.
The following are four DACA substitute bills you ought to know about.
1. RAC Act ("Recognizing America's Children Act")
2. Bridge Act ("Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy Act")
Succeed Act ("Solution for Undocumented Children through Careers, Education, Defending our nation Act")
Dream Act ("Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act")
Last week Homeland Security published a new rule in the Federal Register , describing how it plans to increase the information it collects when investigating a person’s immigration status. It will include social media fictitious names and maybe even search histories.
The DHS also plans to find data from "publicly available information obtained from the internet, public records, public institutions, interviewees, commercial data providers, and information obtained and disclosed pursuant to information sharing agreements." According to BuzzFeed, this surveillance custom could also eventually pick up data on anyone who corresponds with a US immigrant.
The policy applies to not only to immigration applicants, but also to naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
The new requirement, was first reported by BuzzFeed News , and is scheduled to take effect on October 18, 2017.
President Trump, through his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, formally proclaimed the end of the Obama-era DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program), which protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation. His announcement places a six month period for the sunset of the program. Trump’s logic is that its Congresses place and power to create a law to protect these individuals.
President Trump stated that "I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws."
But Sessions sees the plight of these young people from a different perspective. He opines that DACA is a "unilateral executive amnesty" and that the Obama administration "deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch." He went further and added that DACA "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs."
The effect of terminating DACA is that almost 800,000 young immigrants could be on the threshold of losing the only US government program that has been shielding them from deportation since 2007.
The termination of the Obama-era “Dreamers” immigration program, Silicon Valley companies have begun to voice their opinion.
Throughout the campaign Trump swore close DACA on the first day of his presidency, but soon after he began to waver. February, In a press conference, Trump said, “We are gonna deal with DACA with heart. The DACA situation is a very difficult thing for me, as I love these kids, I love kids. I have kids and grandkids, and I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the law is rough.”
On Thursday Silicon Valley swiftly moved on the offense. Hundreds of tech leaders co-signed a letter entitled “Leaders of American Industry on DACA.” Signatories included Nadella, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Box CEO Aaron Levie, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Hewlett CEO Meg Whitman, Lyft co-founders John Zimmer and Logan Green, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Sam Altman of Y Combinator. The letter reads:
Since the country’s birth, America has been the land of opportunity – welcoming newcomers and giving them the chance to build families, careers, and businesses. In turn, our nation has been strengthened and fueled by the energy, drive, and passion of immigrants. As entrepreneurs and business leaders, we are concerned about new developments in immigration policy that threaten the future of Dreamers, young undocumented immigrants brought to America as children.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows nearly 800,000 Dreamers the basic opportunity to work and study without the threat of deportation, is in jeopardy. All DACA recipients grew up in America, registered with our government, submitted to extensive background checks, and are diligently giving back to our communities and paying income taxes. More than 97 percent are in school or in the workforce, 5 percent started their own business, 65 percent have purchased a vehicle, and 16 percent have purchased their first home. At least 72 percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies count Dreamers among their employees.
Unless we act now to preserve the DACA program, all 780,000 hardworking young people will lose their ability to work legally in this country, and every one of them will be at immediate risk of deportation. Our economy would lose $460.3 billion from the national GDP and $24.6 billion in Social Security and Medicare tax contributions.
Dreamers are vital to the future of our companies and our economy. With them, we grow and create jobs. They are part of why we will continue to have a global competitive advantage.
We call on President Trump to preserve the DACA program. We call on Congress to pass the bipartisan DREAM Act.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, wrote a post on his personal Facebook page.
“I stand with the Dreamers -- the young people brought to our country by their parents. Many have lived here as long as they can remember. Dreamers have a special love for this country because they can't take living here for granted. They understand all the opportunities they have and want nothing more than the chance to serve their country and their community. And Dreamers deserve that chance.
We need a government that protects Dreamers. Today I join business leaders across the country in calling on our President to keep the DACA program in place and protect Dreamers from fear of deportation. We're also calling on Congress to finally pass the Dream Act or another permanent, legislative solution that Dreamers deserve.
These young people represent the future of our country and our economy. They are our friends and family, students and young leaders in our communities. I hope you will join us in speaking out. “
Uber’s CTO, Thuan Pham, also signed the letter, and an Uber spokesperson provided this statement by email:
"Dreamers grew up here, live here, and are contributing to our communities and our economy. Their contributions make America more competitive and they deserve the opportunity to work, study, and pursue the American dream."
Brad Smith, CEO of Microsoft made his statement about the importance of the DACA recipients
“As a CEO, I see each day the direct contributions that talented employees from around the world bring to our company, our customers and to the broader economy. We care deeply about the DREAMers who work at Microsoft and fully support them. We will always stand for diversity and economic opportunity for everyone. It is core to who we are at Microsoft and I believe it is core to what America is.
This is the America that I know and of which I am a proud citizen. This is the America that I love and that my family and I call home. And this is the America that I will always advocate for.”
Mozilla offered the following sentiment: “We want DREAMers to continue contributing to this country’s future and we do not want people to live in fear. We urge the Administration to keep the DACA program intact. At the same time, we urge leaders in government to enact a bipartisan permanent solution, one that will allow these bright minds to prosper in the country we know and love.”
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple tweeted “ 250 of my Apple coworkers are #Dreamers. I stand with them. They deserve our respect as equals and a solution rooted in American values.”
Even Verizon voiced it’s opinion though , Craig Silliman, Verizon executive vice president of public policy and general counsel wrote:
“Diversity isn't just some politically correct concept, a liberal agenda item, the right thing to do. Diversity is important because it strengthens our companies, our organizations, our society. This is particularly important to remember as the nation debates the right policies to move our country forward. One of those important debates involves the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA program. There currently are nearly 800,000 individuals in the United States who arrived in the country as undocumented immigrants when they were children. They are referred to as the "Dreamers." They grew up in this country and they are now investing in it and contributing to it. Almost all of them are now in school or in the workforce, and many have started their own businesses. At Verizon we have benefited immeasurably from the diverse experiences, talents and work ethic of our many immigrant employees, as have most other large companies and our country as a whole. The Dreamers are a truly valuable resource for our economy and our society. The DACA program has ensured that they could continue to be a part of our schools and companies and communities, but now there is a risk that this program will end. At a time when we are fighting to ensure that the US economy remains strong on the global stage, it is vital that we not lose the advantage of the Dreamers with their energy, diverse experience and backgrounds. This is exactly the type of diverse talent that has made the United States successful to date and on which our success will depend in the future.”
Now it will truly be Congress’ move. Will it save DACA and allow them these young people to remain and work in the U.S.,, or will they be relegated to the shadows of society, always struggling to be one step ahead of the “MIGRA”?