¿Qué dice la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos sobre la constitucionalidad de la Orden Ejecutiva del Presidente?

El presidente Obama anunció una orden ejecutiva el jueves pasado para considerar la Acción Diferida para millones de inmigrantes indocumentados. A raíz del anuncio he estado siguiendo las diferentes redes sociales con respecto a las reacciones de diferentes sectores con respecto a esta medida. Algunas personas apoyan la medida fuertemente. Otros se oponen fuertemente. Este artículo está dirigido a un tercer grupo que ha caracterizado con vehemencia la Orden Ejecutiva como inconstitucional, e incluso han caracterizado al presidente como un rey o monarca que está abusando de los poderes que se le dan.

Contrariamente a lo que afirman muchos, órdenes ejecutivas que otorgan acción diferida o beneficios de inmigración similares son muy antiguos. En la década de 1960 a más de 600 000 cubanos y 300 mil del sudeste asiático se le concedieron el “parole” por el Presidente. En el 1970 el presidente Reagan concedió el aplazamiento de las deportaciones a 200,000 nicaragüenses. En 1987 el presidente Reagan concedió el aplazamiento de las deportaciones a los niños menores de 18 años que vivía con los padres que se estaban legalizando bajo la amnistía de 1986. En 1990 el presidente George H. W. Bush amplió el aplazamiento de la deportación para cubrir también a los cónyuges de las personas que fueron legalizadas bajo la amnistía de 1986. Esta medida protegida cerca de 1.5 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, más del 40% del total en ese momento. Más recientemente el presidente Clinton concedió salida forzada diferida a los haitianos presentes en Estados Unidos antes de 1995, y el presidente George W. Bush concedió acción diferida para los estudiantes académicos extranjeros afectados por el huracán Katrina, y aplazó la salida cumplimiento para los liberianos cuyos TPS había expirado. Estos son sólo algunos ejemplos, pero la lista es larga.

Como una república constitucional, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos tiene la última palabra sobre la constitucionalidad de la Orden Ejecutiva anunciada por el Presidente. Por lo tanto, en vez de discutir inútilmente en las redes sociales acerca de la constitucionalidad de la Orden Ejecutiva del Presidente, decidí a encontrar lo que los tribunales federales, especialmente la Corte Suprema, han dicho acerca de esto en el pasado.

Los tribunales federales han sostenido reiteradamente que el ejecutivo tiene la discreción fiscal para hacer cumplir las leyes. En Romeiro de Silva v. Smith, la Corte de Apelaciones del 9º Circuito sostuvo que "la categoría de la acción diferida reconoce que el servicio tiene recursos limitados de aplicación y que todo se debe intentar administrativamente a utilizar estos recursos de manera que conseguirá el mayor impacto en virtud de las leyes de inmigración”. 773 F. 2d 1021, 1024 (noveno. Cir 1985).

En Pasquini v. Morris, la Corte de Apelaciones del 11º Circuito sostuvo que la concesión o negación de acción diferida "es firmemente dentro de la discreción del INS" y por lo tanto puede otorgarse o denegarse "como [el funcionario competente] considere oportuno, de acuerdo con el abuso de la regla de discreción cuando cualquiera de los [entonces] cinco condiciones que determinan está presente". 700 F. 2d 658, 662 (11^th Cir 1983).

Lo más importante, en Arizona v. Estados Unidos, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos sostuvo que "[la] característica principal del sistema de deportación es el amplio margen de discrecionalidad ejercida por los funcionarios de inmigración. ... Las autoridades federales, como cuestión inicial, debe decidir si tiene sentido de perseguir la deportación del todo. La discreción en la aplicación de la ley de inmigración abarca preocupaciones humanas inmediatas. Trabajadores no autorizados tratando de mantener a sus familias, por ejemplo, es probable que plantean menos peligro que los traficantes de extranjeros o extranjeros que cometan un delito grave. Los méritos de un caso individual pueden definirse por muchos factores, incluyendo si el extranjero tiene niños nacidos en los Estados Unidos, lazos fuertes con la comunidad, o un historial de servicio militar distinguido". 132 S. Ct 2492, en 2499 (2012).

Por lo tanto, si usted apoya o se opone a la Orden Ejecutiva anunciada por el presidente, yo respeto su opinión. Pero por favor, deje de decir que tenemos un "rey", "monarca",  o que la medida es "inconstitucional", porque, a menos que el tema  se presente de nuevo a la Corte Suprema y que la corte decida revertirse a sí misma, las medidas adoptadas por el presidente la semana pasada son constitucionales.

What does the U.S. Supreme Court Say About the Constitutionality of the President's Executive Order?

President Obama announced an Executive Order last Thursday to consider Deferred Action for millions of undocumented immigrants. On the aftermath of the announcement I have been following the different social networks with respect to the reactions from different sectors regarding this measure. Some people strongly support it. Others strongly oppose it. This post is directed to a third group that has vehemently characterized the Executive Order as unconstitutional, and have even demonized the President as a king or monarch who is abusing the powers given to him.

Contrary to what many people claim, executive orders granting deferred action or similar immigration benefits are very old. In the 1960's over 600,000 Cubans and 300,000 Southeast Asians were granted parole by the President. In the 1970's President Reagan granted deferral of deportations to 200,000 Nicaraguans. In 1987 President Reagan granted deferral of deportations to children under the age of 18 who lived with parents that were legalizing under the 1986 amnesty. In 1990 president George H.W. Bush expanded the deferral of deportation to cover also spouses of persons who were legalizing under the 1986 amnesty. This measure protected close to 1,500,000 undocumented immigrants, over 40% of the total number at that time. More recently President Clinton granted Deferred Enforced Departure for Haitians present in the United States before 1995, and President George W. Bush granted deferred action for foreign academic students affected by Hurricane Katrina, and deferred enforcement departure for Liberians whose TPS had expired. These are just some examples, but the list is longer.

As a constitutional republic, the United States Supreme Court has the last word on the constitutionality of the Executive Order announced by the President. Therefore, instead of arguing back and forward on social networks with respect to the constitutionality of the President's Executive Order, I decided to find what the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, have said about this in the past.

The federal courts have consistently held that the executive has prosecutorial discretion to enforce the laws. In Romeiro de Silva v. Smith, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "the deferred action category recognizes that the service has limited enforcement resources and that every attempt should be made administratively to utilize these resources in a manner which will achieve the greatest impact under the immigration laws". 773 F.2d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 1985).

In Pasquini v. Morris, the Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit held that granting or withholding deferred action “is firmly within the discretion of the INS” and therefore can be granted or withheld “as [the relevant official] sees fit, in accord with the abuse of discretion rule when any of the [then] five determining conditions is present”. 700 F.2d 658, 662 (11th Cir. 1983).

Most important, in Arizona v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that "[a] principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. … Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service". 132 S.Ct. 2492, at 2499 (2012).

Therefore, whether you support or oppose the Executive Order announced by the president, that's your own business and I respect your opinion. But please stop raising the "king", "monarch", or "unconstitutional" card because, unless the issue is presented again to the Supreme Court and they reverse themselves, the measures adopted by the president last week are constitutional.

Informacion Acerca de la Accion Diferida Anunciada por el Presidente Obama

Que es Exactamente la Accion Ejecutiva Anunciada por el Presidente?

 

El Presidente ha anunciado que va a parar las deportaciones de personas que llevan viviendo en los Estados Unidos mas de 5 años, tienen hijos que son ciudadanos o residentes legales de los Estados Unidos, y no tienen antecedentes criminales.  Igualmente personas que llegaron a los Estados Unidos antes de cumplir los 16 años, tienen un diploma de secundaria o de educacion general, llegaron a los Estados Unidos antes del primero de Enero del 2010, y no tienen antecedentes criminales podran aplicar para este programa.

Las personas que han estado en los Estados Unidos ilegalmente por mas de 180 dias, y son hijas o esposas de un ciudadano Americano o un residente legal podran aplicar por un perdon provisional del castigo de presencia ilegal en los Estados Unidos.

Personas que tienen una peticion laboral aprobada, pero para la cual todavia no hay un numero de visa disponible podran obtener los beneficios en conexion con una aplicacion para ajuste de estatus.

Estos son solo algunos de los cambios anunciados por la oficina de inmigracion.  Es muy importante tener en cuenta que la implementacion de estos cambios va a tomar entre 90 y 180 dias.  No se puede mandar ninguna aplicacion hasta que la oficina de inmigracion de las directivas de como se va a implementar el cambio.

Igualmente, las personas tienen que estar muy precavidas ya que siempre que se presenta un cambio en las leyes de inmigracion hay organizaciones e individuos sin escrupulos que buscan aprovecharse de las personas mas indefensas.  Busque siempre la asesoria de un abogado licensiado, o de una organizacion aprobada por la Corte de Inmigracion.

 

Si necesita mas informacion acerca de esta medida visite nuestra pagina www.carlosesadoval.com o escribanos a csandoval@carlosesandoval.com.

Immigration Relief May be on the Horizon for Millions of Undocumented Immigrants.

During his term in office, president Obama has indicated that one of his priorities is to fix the outdated immigration system of the United States. While waiting for Congress to work on a comprehensive immigration reform, he has used his executive powers to focus federal efforts and resources on the deportation of aliens with criminal backgrounds who pose a risk to the National Security of the United States.

Recently the president reported that he is working with the main agencies in charge of administering the immigration laws to work on a strategy to improve the immigration system.  Said strategy most likely will include some kind of relief to millions of illegal immigrants.  The exact amount of possible immigrant that will be able to benefit from these measures, or the requirements necessary to participate in the program, have not been disclosed yet. 

The White House has informed that the President should announce the details before the end of the year.  It is very likely that some of the requirements to apply under the program is to have resided in the United States for certain amount of time, probably between 5 and 10 years, to have United States Citizen or Resident spouse or children, and to haver a clean criminal record, with no convictions for serious crimes, or multiple misdemeanors.

Prospective applicants may start compiling proof of their time of residence in the United States, such as pay-stubs, income tax returns, etc., civil documents of any relatives they have in the United States, especially spouses and children, and if there are any arrests obtain police reports and final court dispositions of the arrests to be able to determine whether the arrest disqualifies the person from participating in the program.

Secretary Johnson Announces Process for DACA Renewal

USCIS to Publish New Form to Allow Individuals to Renew Their Deferred Action

Release Date: June 05, 2014

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson today announced the process for individuals to renew enrollment in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted to the Federal Register an updated form to allow individuals previously enrolled in DACA, to renew their deferral for a period of two years. At the direction of the Secretary, effective immediately, USCIS will begin accepting renewal requests. USCIS will also continue to accept requests for DACA from individuals who have not previously sought to access the program.  As of April 2014, more than 560,000 individuals have received DACA.

“Despite the acrimony and partisanship that now exists in Washington, almost all of us agree that a child who crossed our border illegally with a parent, or in search of a parent or a better life, was not making an adult choice to break our laws, and should be treated differently than adult law-breakers,” said Secretary Johnson. “By the renewal of DACA, we act in accord with our values and the code of this great Nation. But, the larger task of comprehensive immigration reform still lies ahead.”

The first DACA approvals will begin to expire in September 2014. To avoid a lapse in the period of deferral and employment authorization, individuals must file renewal requests before the expiration of their current period of DACA. USCIS encourages requestors to submit their renewal request approximately 120 days (four months) before their current period of deferred action expires.

DACA is a discretionary determination to defer removal action against an individual. Individuals in DACA will be able to remain in the United States and apply for employment authorization for a period of two years. Individuals who have not requested DACA previously, but meet the criteria established, may also request deferral for the first time. It is important to note that individuals who have not continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, are ineligible for DACA.

Individuals may request DACA renewal if they continue to meet the initial criteria and these additional guidelines:

• Did not depart the United States on or after Aug. 15, 2012, without advance parole;
• Have continuously resided in the United States since they submitted their most recent DACA request that was approved; and
• Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The renewal process begins by filing the new version of Form I-821D “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” Form I-765 “Application for Employment Authorization,” and the I-765 Worksheet. There is a filing and biometrics (fingerprints and photo) fee associated with Form I-765 totaling $465. As with an initial request, USCIS will conduct a background check when processing DACA renewals.

To know more about the process, or for a consultation please contact our office at 954-306-6921 or go to our webpage at www.carlosesandoval.com.