The law of the land when it comes to all things immigration is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).The last major immigration overhaul to the INA enacted by congress was 21 years ago (under President Clinton), as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). Since IIRAIRA, the INA has been amended a few times using Public Laws, which allow the adding or changing of words within a section of law without having to re-write the entire law. Using the Public Law hook to amend the INA is one way we can come to a way to address the DACA/Dreamer issue.
But first, I'd ask the left, "What is it exactly that you seek with DACA and similar programs?" This is important because, here on the Southwest border, all over the news, the DACA people constantly cry that it's not fair to these kids who were brought here, some as infants, without them having had a say in the matter. So let's establish that the driving force behind DACA proponents is for these young people to remain in the only country they've likely ever known.
Next, let's look at the criteria that needs to be met for a DACA recipient (mind you, this comes from a DHS memo dated September 14, 2012, under Obama):
For consideration of deferred action (BTW, deferred action, by it's very definition, means action that should legally and lawfully take place, but won't for certain [humanitarian] reasons and will be DEFERRED until a future date).
So here are the requirements:
* Under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012
* Came to the U.S. before reaching their 16th birthday
* Have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, up to the present time
* Were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their DACA request
* Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expires as of that date
* Currently in school, graduated or obtained a GED, certificate of completion, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the U.S., and
* Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
So, if these are the criteria for DACA consideration, I think we can assume most if not all applicants who were eligible applied during 2012-2017. Meaning, there aren't many new candidates out there; meaning the window for eligibility is narrow and/or has closed.
So here's what I propose: Add a new LPR (Legal Permanent Resident) Classification Code to the INA for these DACA youth. (There are currently LPR Classification Codes for "Spouses of US Citizens IR1'; "Child of Alien Resident FX2', and dozens other codes).
LPRs, commonly known as green card holders, or permanent/legal residents, have legal status in the U.S., and have every right that a U.S. citizen has except the right to vote in federal elections, hold a federal job, etc. LPRs have Social Security numbers, can travel across the U.S. with their LPR card, no restrictions whatsoever. LPRs, however, are amenable to deportation should they be convicted of certain criminal offenses, are inadmissible at a port of entry due to status violations, or are engaged in certain activities that are security-related (espionage, activity to overthrow the USG by force, genocide, etc.)
LPRs can currently petition for family members to immigrate lawfully to the U.S. (this is known as family chain migration). Many, if not most, LPRs came to the U.S. this way. Other LPR classifications are employment based ("Skilled Worker E31"; "Minister of Religion SD1"; Foreign Medical Graduates "SJ1", etc)
A LPR can apply for naturalization to become a U.S. citizen after 5 years, or after 3 if married to a U.S. citizen (assuming they commit no deportable offense). Other than some military service that could expedite one's application for naturalization, THIS IS THE ONLY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP that exists within our laws.
So, I propose a new LPR classification for DACAs. They must first have a new DACA application adjudicated, using the same criteria set forth in the 2012 DHS memo. Suddenly don't meet the criteria? Sorry, you're out.
But this particular LPR Classification will have certain caveats/limits that no other LPR Classification has; Specifically:
* DACA LPRs cannot petition for family members, except spouses and children (they especially CANNOT, ever, petition for mom/dad who are the ones who brought them here illegally in the first place). This limit remains in effect forever, until they desire to naturalize to become a U.S. citizen. Now, here's where the importance of establishing what the desire for DACA is from the left, because with this limit of family-petitioning, you could hear the outcry already... "but you're breaking up families! Again!". To which I'd respond, "I thought this was solely something for the kids... seems like you wanted family amnesty all along".
* If the DACA LPR recipient is a minor, he/she MUST have another established LPR or US citizen sponsor (grandparent, aunt, uncle).
There could be other limitations, but with these 2, and with the already-established criteria for DACA being used as well, I think you do two things (give & take, if you will):
You rule out the criminal element (something you don't hear in news reports is the number of DACA applicants/recipients who have been arrested/convicted for crimes), and you also establish a baseline for the rule of law in that the law-breaking parents who brought these kids here are not rewarded in any way, shape, or form.
And you also provide a means for law-abiding youth to continue with their education, military service, community service, etc., while having legal status.
Give & take. The left gets their DACA kids legal status. The right gets the whole debate out of the way and some pretty good, decent young people who, presumably, will strive for a better future for themselves now that they'd be out of the shadows. The right can then tell the left to STFU, and to get ready to have ALL INA laws enforced, to include doing away with the sanctuary cities bullcrap.
