Executive Orders and their differences
By Elizabeth Ricci, Esq
April 18. That’s the day that over 4 million people, about half of them come from Mexico, will learn whether President Obama’s 2014 executive order will take its intended effect with regard to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for so-called “Dreamers”.
In the meantime, only those who qualified under the President’s 2012 immigration executive order may apply or renew work authorizations and receive a deferral from deportation. (The program does not do much more than that. It is not an amnesty which is a blanket forgiveness that does not take into consideration crimes or fees and it is not a permanent status like a Green Card or citizenship.)
There are important differences between the two executive orders which courts and legal scholars across the country agree the President has constitutional authority to issue.
Specifically, the 2010 order required that a candidate have entered the US by June 15, 2007 and have been under 31 years old that day. The 2014 order, however, changed the entry date to January 1, 2010 and removed the age limit. Those changes make many more applicants eligible.
Both orders have the same remaining requirements. Specifically, that the applicant entered the US before turning 16, that the applicant have no serious criminal history and be enrolled in high school or a GED program or have graduated from high school or have a GED certificate.
The 2014 order has three prongs. The first called for increased enforcement at the border and the second included expanding deferred action to include the two changes mentioned above and allow for a provision for those parents of US citizen or permanent resident children who entered by January 1, 2010 and do not have serious criminal histories to also received a temporary work authorization and deportation deferment. The third called for changes in business and family-based immigration that will take place at some point in the future. The deferred action provision granting work authorizations would have gone into effect on February 18 but for a federal judge’s injunction. In the meantime, an eligible candidate cannot file for the work authorization but would not be put under deportation.
Those who believe they qualify should consult an experienced immigration attorney and begin collecting evidence of physical presence and education or their children’s birth certificates or residency cards.
*Elizabeth Ricci is an attorney with more than 13 years of experience. She speaks Spanish fluently and can be reached at 850-224-4529. (This column does not constitute legal advice.)
