here you go. Section (c)(14).
Cool. Now - can you point me to any portion of US Code that allows the President to set “deferred action” on anyone he likes. Because the only place I can find is this and it has very specific criteria and no leeway (just do a search on “deferred”).
Sure, in my copious spare time at the moment I will redo everyone else’s legal research for you.
This is one of the issues that probably has the best chance of bipartisan compromise IMO. There’s lot’s of room in the middle before either throws in the towel and decides that the compromise is worse than their best alternative to a negotiated agreement. I still think in the current environment there will be a lot of metaphorical genital measuring and scapegoating before either side comes to the table.
That’s how it worked the last time, anyway. All regular petition and application processing at USCIS kept on going as normal. The only thing that got shut down was immigration court (most of it, anyway - they kept a few essential employees there to deal with people being detained, etc.) Anyone who tried to shut down the government to stop deferred action and other new relief from taking effect would be shooting themselves in the foot.
You’re using the wrong search terms. Deferred action is not an immigrant visa, nor does it lead to an immigrant visa or permanent residence in any other form. Deferred action is just one form of prosecutorial discretion. I will see what I can find that makes it clearer.
Let’s try 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12 as the authority. This statute lays out classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
Depending upon the exact classification, some aliens may accept employment automatically and some must first apply for permission to work.
It appears Obama is acting under the color of 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) which requires such aliens to first apply for permission to work.
Sorry, a wall of legalese is not a cite.
Notice, your cite says: “An alien who has been granted deferred action”. Where in the law is that “deferred action” defined and where is it defined who is authorized to grant it?
I don’t know that there is a single citation to the CFR that describes the legal framework that creates the authority for deferred action. It’s too complicated for that. Don’t like it? Sorry, that’s the law for you.
And, since IANAL and am slow on these things, I also now see this section of the previously referenced statute…
This would seem to be more directly on point showing the President has authority to grant a status leading to the right to take up employment. This section provides that aliens granted such status have permission to work but “must apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a document evidencing such employment authorization.”
So the Secretary (of DHS, I presume) gets to establish the conditions under which such persons can work, pursuant to the Presidential directive.
Conservatives in the U.S. Senate got a powerful weapon on Wednesday in the battle over whether they can pull the rug out from under President Barack Obama’s plan to mainstream millions of illegal immigrants into American life.
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican’ top budget hawk, has unveiled a Nov. 21 memo from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explaining that Congress can legally strip funding from America’s immigration enforcement agency – including funds the agency raises on its own through fees it charges Americans and foreigners.
…
Citing ‘Congress’s constitutional power over the purse,’ the CRS – Capitol Hill’s official nonpartisan research arm – instructed Sessions that lawmakers can pick and choose what executive branch agencies can spend money on.
‘An agency is not free simply to disregard’ those orders, the memo read.
Some government agencies are funded by congressional ‘appropriations’ and others are ‘self-funded’ by fees, but the CRS memo indicates that Congress is in the driver’s seat no matter what.
Any way possible to fuck people over. That’s Republicans, for ya…
Do you still honestly think they actually want to stop this?
Yes.
Politically speaking, the Democrats want the Republicans to do anything they can to stop this – such action would just move the Republican party closer and closer to as anathema for Latino voters as it currently is for black voters.
Yet the Dem embrace of illegals is making blacks much more friendly to Reps.
Cite?
Wow. When you folks self-delude, you self-delude BIG. Republicans aren’t getting African-Americans back electorally for a LONG time, barring some colossal, unfathomable fuck-up on the Democratic Party’s part. African-Americans have memories, you know. There’s been more than enough animus proven and pushed by the right-wing toward black people in the last 40 or 50 years, despite Republican denialism about it.