Rico'sWorld Times

I feel pressed to write a story in a news article format since this report is one that would not currently make headlines but must be told.  That's because this is a story about inaction and how inaction from supposed leaders has caused pain to immigrant students locally.

MISSOURI STUDENTS STILL UNNECESSARILY BANNED FROM IN-STATE TUITION DESPITE DACA APPROVAL AND LAW ON THEIR SIDE

   Three plus years into DACA and Missouri has gone backwards as immigrant students pay the price

In the fall of 2013, Missouri Public Colleges and Universities joined many other states in offering in-state tuition rates to students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  DACA has afforded hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth protection from deportation and lawful presence in the United States.  Nationwide, DACA has been a win for students as the program has been successful since its inception in July of 2012 by expanding economic and educational opportunities for young immigrants.  

Missouri, however, went backwards this school year by notifying DACA students, days before the semester was set to begin, that they would be charged international rates.  At the University of Missouri-Kansas City, for example, the difference between in-state and international rates is $438.70 per credit hour, which could add up to nearly a $14,000 per year increase for a full time student.  This sudden financial bomb, plus the fact that DACA students are ineligible for financial aid, caused Missouri DACA students to seek alternative educational choices in Kansas, enroll at Missouri community colleges, or drop out.  But the key question is whether Missouri public colleges and universities were required to charge international rates?   The answer is "no."  

Beginning in August, the University of Missouri System Curators and the four MU Chancellors (UMKC, UM, UMSL, MO S&T) that comprise the UM System started billing its DACA students at international rates due to the passage of HB 3, which was signed into law by Governor Jay Nixon on May 8, 2015.  The key language causing the tuition increase is located in the preamble of HB 3: 

"...no funds shall be expended at public institutions of higher education that offer a tuition rate to any student with an unlawful immigration status in the United States that is less than the tuition rate charged to international students, and further provided that no scholarship funds shall be expended on behalf of students with an unlawful immigration status in the United States."

Game over, right?  Language in the title or preamble is in the bill, and since bills are enforceable...if the UM institutions don't enforce the bill they can lose their funding right?

 Yep, its in there in between the solid bars within the preamble!

If it is as the UM System interprets, then they are flying in the face of the Missouri Governor, the Missouri Department of Higher Education, the Missouri Constitution, and the Missouri courts.  

Missouri's Governor Jay Nixon has proclaimed, since his signage of HB 3, that the language is not enforceable. In July, Governor Nixon's press secretary stated: "The governor has been quite clear - the language in House Bill 3 is not legally binding nor is it enforceable.  Denying [DACA students] the opportunity to receive an affordable college education is not fair, nor is it consistent with current state law."  On July 23rd, the Missouri Department of Higher Education Commissioner David Russel also weighed in, stating that language in the title or preamble of an appropriations bill "does not appear as legally binding language in the body of HB 3 or elsewhere in statute...and does not have the effect of law."

Furthermore, since at least 1899, the Missouri courts have ruled time and time again that preambles are not binding statutory authority unless the statute is ambiguous.  (See Lett v. City of St. Louis if you are a legal nerd (like me)).  Lastly, the Missouri Constitution has been clear that legislative language within an appropriations bill is also not enforceable.  This means that if you want to be punitive towards immigrants by making their educational attainment increasingly difficult, you need a completely separate legislative bill aside from an appropriations bill that simply allocates funds. Missouri did no such thing in 2015 and failed in previous years when it tried to do it through the correct legislative process.  Since "[t]he legislature may not create new and different mandates or amend current legal requirements through the appropriations process," HB 3 violates the Missouri Constitution as well. 

Thus, HB 3 is not enforceable for a multitude of legal reasons and the Chancellors or UM System Curators can point to no legally binding statutory language mandating the punitive change.  In fact, the statute that controls Missouri's public benefits still allows postsecondary education public benefits to students with lawful presence (ie. DACA students).  This statute was updated on August 28, 2015, and one would think a ban on in-state tuition for DACA students would be codified within this statute.  However, statutes "cannot be altered, amended, or affected by a phrase inserted into an appropriations bill," ie. HB 3. But no need...

The UM System and the Chancellors have met numerous times and yet come back with the same answer - that they must continue to charge DACA students at international rates per HB 3.  As UM System spokesman John Fougere stated: "We intend to follow the will of the legislature."  The decision and pain inflicted on immigrant students, at the end of the day, is a choice, not a mandate imposed by the passage of HB 3.  If the legislature sought to establish HB 3 as having the effect of law,  (beyond its intention), it needed to follow the Missouri Constitution and attempt to change the statutes through legislation.  Sadly, they employed a tactic that has proven much easier - to scare the UM System and Chancellors into enforcing unenforceable language within an appropriations bill.  

A silver lining here is that various UM institutions have offered to cover the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for its DACA students, and UM institutions are beginning to chatter about continuing to cover the difference come spring semester.  However, the underlying actions taken unnecessarily to impose the tuition increase in the first place are still in effect and have left the UM System and UM institutions legally and morally exposed.  The UM System and UM Chancellors still, however, have the potential to be much more courageous than they have been to this point.  It is simple really: Don't enforce the non-enforceable provisions of an appropriations bill.  If your plan is to wait until the courts make you do the right thing, then a champion of your immigrant students you are not.

Since July, Governor Nixon has promised students and advocates he would work on HB 3, but we have not heard from him since his August assurances that his staff would follow up.  Apparently, either the Governor feels he has no power to weigh in or he lacks, since at least the Missouri veto-session, the will to do so.  We have a new MU chancellor and an incoming process to select a new UM System President.  It is our obligation to see to it that this issue is a priority among the many discussions that will be had.  Lastly, all appropriations bills must be passed on a yearly basis.  Thus, the Missouri legislature must try to include this (non-enforceable) language again in next year's budget during the legislative session beginning in January and then again try the up-til-now-not-so-difficult-task of convincing the UM System to enforce it.

If you want to be part of the solution, hit me up at raymondcrico@gmail.com 

Kansas In-State Tuition Repeal Hearing 3.20.2013

Here are the remarks I would have delivered today had I been granted the full 7 minutes.  I condensed it to 2 minutes and mainly went after Kris Kobach's flawed arguments on the constitution and his losing court cases.

Raymond Rico

Federal and State Affairs Committee

Hearing on HB 2192

March 20, 2013

  

            My name is Raymond Rico; I was born and raised in Kansas City, KS to an immigrant father, and both of my grandparents immigrated to the U.S. on my mother's side.  I practice immigration law at the Garcia Immigration Law Firm where I work with many undocumented students have overcome many barriers you and I have never faced - yet have done everything right and wish to pursue higher education in Kansas, the only place many have ever known.  The legal process can take a long while.  I meet and work with many students who are in currently in that line for legal residency. 

             Most students have become fluent in English if they weren't already, have assimilated into the American culture, and consider themselves Kansans. 

             Sadly, we are debating repeal at a time when the federal government seems primed to consider comprehensive immigration reform.  The U.S. Senate and House have a bipartisan effort underway for comprehensive immigration reform, and even this week, the Republican National Committee recommended comprehensive immigration reform as consistent with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.  

             Immigration reform will address the legal status for those students not currently in a line for legal residency because all signs seem to point to inclusion of the DREAM Act within any reform bill.   

            The DREAM Act is federal legislation that would allow a path to legalization for youth who arrived as minors, have been in the US for over five years, and complete two years of college or two years in the military.  Basically, the same students we're talking about today.  To be clear, a path to legalization is something Kansas' instate tuition bill does not have the power to do.  Only the DREAM Act can provide such a path.  Many leaders in Washington of both political parties have specifically stated their support of the DREAM Act recently.  

             Obviously we're talking about young people here, who are present in Kansas, have grown up here, and will remain here.  Kansas has already invested much in their K-12 education.  As our population ages, we should prepare all young talented students who want to remain in Kansas to fill the positions that will be most in need.  Our young immigrants have been and will continue to sustain Kansas' rural communities, start businesses here, and contribute their talents here.  All of us know that people with a college degree on average will earn more in income than those without, and with more income means more contribution in taxes.

            As undocumented students cannot receive financial aid, many are already taking only a few classes per semester, but a repeal of in-state tuition will cause students to drop out, decreasing school revenues, and allowing our students to remain uneducated, in a permanent underclass, while remaining in Kansas.  

             Kansas' in-state tuition law has been challenged in court in large part by Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach and FAIR.  Mr. Kobach also challenged California's in-state tuition law, which is nearly identical to Kansas' law.  On both occasions, the lawsuits failed.  In-state tuition has been upheld as constitutional.  It complies with federal law.

 
            The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the California law did not improperly make in-state tuition available to undocumented students based on “residence.”

             In a Kansas federal court, the case Day v. Sebelius was dismissed, in part, because the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas law.  The student plaintiffs were not injured by the passage of the in-state tuition law, nor would they benefit from its repeal.  

            In 1996, Congress enacted Section 1623 of Title 8, or what is commonly referred to as IIRAIRA.  Congress could have worded this section to unequivocally ban in-state tuition.  However, section 1623 only requires that states extend benefits US citizens to the same extent that they are available to undocumented immigrants.  Kansas need not "give" in-state tuition to all U.S. citizens from other states; it satisfies section 505 if the eligibility criteria are based on factors beyond state residency and if Kansas offers U.S. citizens the same opportunity to qualify for in-state tuition under the same criteria.  The Kansas law makes any individual – including US citizens who wish to return to Kansas - eligible for in-state tuition if they meet the requirements of K.S.A. § 76-729: three years of high school and graduation from a high school in Kansas.  Thus Kansas' law complies with federal law and the constitution, and that's why the courts have rejected legal challenges to the law.  

 
           This is no “loophole,” it is a recognition from Congress that states may choose to enact tuition equity policies as Kansas and a growing number of states have done, including Colorado which passed in-state tuition this month. 

             Congress gave states the option to create postsecondary education benefits for undocumented immigrants on par with those of their citizen residents.  Thus, it is absolutely not true to say that in-state tuition is something states may not do.  Kansas acted in full compliance with federal law when it enacted in-state tuition.  To suggest otherwise misreads federal law and ignores legal precedent.  It is worth noting that the fiscal note in Colorado's bill states that Colorado stands to gain over 2 million dollars in new state revenue based on tuition paid by students. 

            It is also important to note that there is another provision of the Kansas' 2004 in-state tuition law that students seek to legalize their immigration status and file an application to begin the process for United States citizenship as soon as such person is eligible to do so.  I have helped many students legalize their status and know students who paid in-state tuition in Kansas, who are now legal residents and citizens, now work in Kansas, purchased homes in Kansas, and have remained in Kansas. 
 
            Today you would never know the difference that at one time they were in a tough situation on their long journey to become American, but Kansas' in-state tuition law helped them achieve their American dream.  Students want to legalize their status, want become citizens, take that oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States.  It is happening.  I wish you could see as often as I do the joy when someone becomes a citizen! 
 
            With congress debating immigration reform, and the DREAM Act primed for passage, this is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition.  But now I'd like to turn to another reason that now is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition. I have helped many students apply for DACA, which stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals." 

             Individuals may now request protection from deportation through deferred action if they:

·        Came to the United States before their 16^th birthday;

·        Were between the ages of 15 and 30 and had no valid immigration status on June 15, 2012;

·        Have continuously resided in the United States between June 15, 2007 and the present;

·        Are currently in school, graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or were honorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

·        Have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

 

              Deferred Action is not a new concept, it has been around for ages, and it is an extension of prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutorial discretion is affirmed on page one of the Arizona SB 1070 Supreme Court ruling which states: "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all." 

 
            With DACA, the federal government is using its discretion to determine that youth who fit the above criteria are not high priority individuals and that limited resources are best used elsewhere, not to deport valedictorians.

 

             This federal program provides a system for young people who are fundamentally the same as other American students to now pursue their dream of earning a college degree.

 

             Because eligible DACA students may request a work permit the federal program enables these students to pursue opportunities for work in their fields of study and gives the states the choice of whether the state will treat the students as equal to all other students.  Kansas made the right decision when it enacted a law to ensure tuition equity among all Kansas students.  The law enables young people to start on the path of pursuing a career and making a meaningful contribution to our state.   

 
             I do not have data to show you what profession these students are most likely to enter into, but I have worked on around 300 cases supporting students seeking the opportunity to get an education and pursue a career.  And one thing I always ask them is "what do you want to be?"  Among males, the most common answer is a wish to be an engineer.  Among females, the most common answer is a wish to be a nurse.  A need we have across the country is the need for more bilingual nurses and science, technology, engineering, and math students. 

 

             With needs in these areas, it does not make sense to stop the education short of any of our talented students, especially when the federal system allows students to use their degrees and work authorization to work in fields that we most need. 

 
             If given a chance, our undocumented youth wish to contribute their talents here, pursue higher education here, pay taxes and contribute to the Kansas economy.  The choice is yours as to whether we have our youth educated, or not. 

 
             In the interests of Kansas taxpayers and future generations of Kansans, I urge your opposition to this bill and respectfully request the Committee allow current Kansas law to remain intact. 

                                         

Testimony at Topeka Capitol: Briefing on Immigration - Feb. 13, 2013 (House Federal and State Affairs Committee)

So, due to popular demand, I'm sharing the remarks portion of my testimony yesterday. 

I have no illusions that my testimony yesterday will defeat in-state tuition repeal.  I look at yesterday as doing our best, launching our first salvo of many to spread truth, reason, and love to our representatives as they decide whether to deny the dreams of undocumented Kansans.  I hope and believe we're just getting started.  Our legislature has not yet heard from the students.  They will. 

I channeled my NILC days lobbying in DC, and it brought back many memories to my time at the Kansas Hispanic Affairs Commission as this was my first time fighting the fight in the Topeka capitol since in-state tuition's passage in 2004.  I was incredibly inspired by the DREAMers I spent last weekend with as they are the reason 2012 was a success nationally, and the KSMODA resurrection being in full force doing damage here in the region meant only that I could not let them down.  They move mountains for the undocumented student movement, and if I can do any damage with them, count me in.    

I felt really comfortable yesterday in our state's house of power...like I was in some Matrix type zone seeing green digits scrolling down knowing how to respond.  Hmm. 

But yesterday was very little about me and my story, although I did share a little of it with the legislators.  It was about battling back against the other side, against the supposed expert Kris Kobach's flawed arguments.  Most importantly, to me it is not a policy issue, for it is never about policy when you're fighting for people you care about.  

My remarks were only 25% of the fun.  The real fun came from the question and answer period with the legislators.  They got to pick who they addressed their question to, so when most of the questions were heralded towards "Mr.Rico," you have that moment of anxiety thinking "Is this the vato that's going to stump me, make me look dumb, or worse: out to be a liar?"  I was called to answer more than 10 questions out of the 20 or so questions, and I'm proud to say I had ready responses plus added another layer of arguments where I could. 

The most thrilling part was when I was able to see conservative Republican heads nodding with me as I explained a particular area of law.  Most of the head nodding was during my analysis when I pointed out the flaws in Kobach's arguments.  So, to me it signified that they heard and understood my position, and perhaps, just perhaps, agreed with my position.  That is with one exception, Rep. Brett Hildabrand who wrote the in-state tuition repeal bill.  He remained silent for all 1 hour and 30 minutes.  He checked his computer most of the time, and blinked a lot. 

Lastly, I wanted to respond to the legislator who went on a rant about "they came in illegally, why are we not talking about that?  The first act they did in the U.S. was an illegal act...[etc.]" I believe it was Rep. Allan Rothlisberg.  Sir, I don't think we view immigration, immigrants, and all humans through the same lens.  In fact, I don't believe we see the same things as problems when viewing the same landscape. 

Is it the person who landed on an airplane, the person who arrived on a ship, the person who crossed a border, the person who overstayed a visa, or the person who sought the American dream as all of our ancestors once did that's the problem?  Or could it be something else?  Could it be that undocumented immigration is merely an effect of a larger cause?  If you keep thinking the symptom is the problem, we will never get to addressing the true cause of undocumented immigration. 

What is the problem? Take your pick: Whether it be push or pull factors caused by the global economic economy, the lack of visas available to reunify families, the 10 year bar that many parents face, the decades long wait in the "line" which hopefully even exists, the broken system that does not match jobs needed in the US (Southwest Kansas too) with an adequate number of legal mechanisms to come to the United States, with labor protections, and a path to remain here if so desired.  I could go on.

The southern border has a "stay out" sign.  But there are realities that welcome the immigrant here (faith principles as well), dare I say need the immigrant here as more and more stores are opened by immigrants, as more U.S. citizens gain jobs through immigrant owned businesses than immigrants "take," as more US citizens have jobs due in part to relying on the economic output of the arriving immigrant, as more homes are being purchased by undocumented immigrants,  as crime numbers go down as immigrants move in, as social security gets a windfall from the taxes paid by immigrants, as immigrants put in more to the economy than take out, and as communities rely on the infusion of new immigrants to keep their populations stable and keep their cities on the map. If you pull the plug on the immigrant, what will happen?  Is it truly us that's the problem? 
Oh yeah, and Happy Valentine's Day to you!

Raymond Rico

Federal and State Affairs Committee

Briefing on Immigration

February 13, 2013

 

 

            My name is Raymond Rico; I was born and raised in Kansas City, KS to an immigrant father, and both of my grandparents immigrated to the U.S. on my mother's side.  I practice immigration law at the Garcia Immigration Law Firm.  My work allows me the chance to see how immigration laws impact the daily lives of immigrants from all over the world.  Every day I get to help immigrants navigate the immigration system and if able, adjust their immigration status. 

            Thus, immigration status is not static, it can change.  If this weren't the case, I would not have a job.  Granted, at times, there is no line to enter.  However, in other instances the line may be decades long.  Many immigrants in Kansas are at various stages of the legalization process, many will be able to have their status changed. Perhaps even this year as congress will likely address fixing our federal immigration system in 2013. 

            In the meantime, many states have introduced bills which attempt to mirror the core provisions of Arizona's SB 1070.  Most states have failed in their attempts, but those that have passed such laws have faced litigation costing their states large sums of money defending them, states have suffered huge implementation costs, have had their provisions halted by the courts, and eventually ruled unconstitutional. 

            According to the Government Accountability Office, six states who passed laws to deny public benefits to undocumented immigrants spent over $8.3 million dollars to eventually find eight out of 3.6 million Medicaid enrollees receiving benefits without being eligible for them due to their status.  These six states saved a combined total of $11,048 dollars.

            The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's SB 1070 struck down three of the four main provisions on preemption grounds.  Meaning that:

• A state cannot impose criminal penalties on unauthorized immigrants who unlawfully seek employment.
• A state cannot make it a state crime to not carry proof of status.
• A state cannot arrest immigrants without a warrant where “probable cause” existed that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States (preempted because it would have given Arizona police more power to arrest immigrants than is possessed by federal immigration officers, who must generally obtain a warrant before making an arrest).

            These provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's SB 1070.

            On the fourth provision, which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the United States unlawfully; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was too early to tell if this provision is unconstitutional as well.  Thus, although it was upheld for the moment, it was no resounding legal victory as some proclaim. 

            The Court said it depends on how the Arizona courts interpret the language in the law and how state law enforcement actually implements it.

            If state officers hold someone for possible unlawful presence without federal direction, then it would be unconstitutional.

            If "Reasonable Suspicion" will require the delay of a detained individual for no other reason than to verify their immigration status, then the law would raise constitutional concerns under the Fourth Amendment.  For example:

“A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2509.

            There are also multiple pending cases challenging this provision as in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  By the way, Sheriff Joe Arpaio gave sworn testimony stating that in Arizona, extended detentions were already the norm.  

            My career is my vocation, and in my career I have gotten to personally know many undocumented youth.  Education is the gateway to the "American Dream" and a college degree is now a virtual requirement for financial security.  That is why I am saddened that a bill has once again come up to possibly repeal in-state tuition via HB 2192. 

            Many undocumented students have overcome many barriers you and I have never faced - yet have done everything right and wish to pursue higher education in Kansas, the only place many have ever known. As noted above, the legal process can take a long while, and many students are currently in line waiting for legal residency. Most students have become fluent in English if they weren't already, have assimilated into the American culture, and consider themselves Kansans.

            Obviously we're talking about young people here, who are present in Kansas, have grown up here, and will remain here.  Kansas has already invested much in their K-12 education.  As our population ages, we should prepare all young talented students who want to remain in Kansas to fill the positions that will be most in need.  Our young immigrants have been and will continue to sustain Kansas' rural communities, start businesses here, and contribute their talents here.  All of us know that people with a college degree on average will earn more in income than those without, and with more income means more contribution in taxes.

            As undocumented students cannot receive financial aid, many are already taking only a few classes per semester, but a repeal of in-state tuition will cause students to drop out, decreasing school revenues, and allowing our students to remain uneducated, remain in a permanent underclass, while remaining in Kansas. 

            Will we really debate repeal at a time when the federal government seems primed to consider comprehensive immigration reform?  (Which all signs seem to point to inclusion of the DREAM Act within any reform bill). The DREAM Act is federal legislation that would allow a path to legalization for youth who arrived as minors, have been in the US for over five years, and complete two years of college or two years in the military.  Basically, the same students I'm talking about today.  To be clear, a path to legalization is something Kansas' instate tuition bill does not have the power to do.  Only the DREAM Act can provide such a path.  Many leaders in Washington of both political parties have stated their support of the DREAM Act recently.

            Kansas' in-state tuition law has been challenged in court in large part by Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach.  He also fought California's in-state tuition law, which is nearly identical to Kansas' law.  On both occasions, the lawsuits failed.  In-state tuition has been upheld as constitutional. 

            The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the California law did not improperly make in-state tuition available to undocumented students based on “residence.”

            In Kansas, the court case Day v. Sebelius was dismissed in the 10th circuit. The court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas law and lack a private right of action to enforce preemption under federal law.  The student plaintiffs were not injured by the passage of the in-state tuition law, nor would they benefit from its repeal. 

            Thus, it is absolutely not true to say that in-state tuition is something states may not do.  In-state tuition complies with Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623,  section 505 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Reconciliation Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA)).  

            The federal government could have banned in-state tuition in 1996, they did not do so. Although the wording says you cannot allow an undocumented immigrant "any postsecondary benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit," a proper interpretation of the statute is also that a state may allow in-state tuition rates to undocumented students if all citizens or nationals are also eligible for the same benefit. 

            Kansas need not "give" in-state tuition to all U.S. citizens from other states, it satisfies section 505 if it makes all U.S. citizens eligible for the same benefit.  The Kansas law makes all U.S. citizens eligible for in-state tuition if they meet the requirements of K.S.A. § 76-729: three years of high school and graduation from a high school in Kansas.  Thus Kansas' law is in compliance with federal law.  In-state tuition is constitutional, and that's why the courts have ruled as they have. 

            With the congress debating immigration reform, with the DREAM Act primed for passage, this is the wrong time to repeal in-state tuition.  But there is even another disincentive to repeal in-state tuition.  On August 15th many students have begun applying for DACA, which stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."

            Individuals may request deferred action if they:

• Came to the United States before their 16^th birthday;
• Were between the ages of 15 and 30 and had no valid immigration status on June 15, 2012;
• Have continuously resided in the United States between June 15, 2007 and the present;
• Are currently in school, graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or were honorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
• Have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

 

            Deferred Action is not a new concept, it has been around for ages, and it is an extension of prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutorial discretion is affirmed on page one of the Arizona SB 1070 Supreme Court ruling which states: "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all."  With DACA, the federal government is using its discretion to determine that youth who fit the above criteria are not high priority individuals and that limited resources are best used elsewhere, not to deport valedictorians. 

            DACA does not create a path to a green card or citizenship, it does not extend to family members or make a student eligible for financial aid.  With DACA, youth can apply for a work permit, allowing not only work eligibility, but the chance to put degrees earned in Kansas to good use.  Now, once a DACA eligible student graduates, he or she can work in their fields of study.

            I do not have data to show you what DACA eligible students will be across the board, but I have worked on around 300 DACA cases.  And one thing I always ask a DACA student is "what do you want to be?"  Among males, the most common answer is a wish to be an engineer.  Among females, the most common answer is a wish to be a nurse.  A need we have across the country is the need for more bilingual nurses and STEM students.  With needs in these areas, it does not make sense to stop the education short of any of our talented students, especially now that one can use their degrees and work authorization to work in fields that we most need.  If given a chance, our undocumented youth wish to contribute their talents here, pursue higher education here, pay taxes and contribute to the Kansas economy.  The choice is yours as to whether we have our youth educated, or not. 

One year since the car wreck that I still have no idea how I walked away from.  Why my head did not go into the side of the trailer (or worse) I'll never know.  It should have ended it all.  I thank God each morning for each new day, try as much as possible to make decisions that most make me happy, and live every day like I were dying.   Oh, and I've been an immigration lawyer for one year! Labor of love.

http://ricosworldandeverythinginit.blogspot.com/2011/09/two-big-sighs-of-relief.html

Dear Barack Obama,

In the weeks leading up to the November 4, 2008 presidential election, I remember knocking on doors in areas mama told me to aviod.  I canvassed with an Asian one day, a young African-American girl the next day, a young progressive White man the next, and a retired woman the next.  I remember visiting the local Obama phone banking sight and seeing long-time Latino friends running the show (one of which was an immigrant student).  I drove a 15 passenger van over 150 miles on election day to north Kansas City, through midtown, and then to Harrisonville dropping off and picking up volunteers who were hitting the streets one last time. 

As a first semester law student who swore in writting not to work, I was driven to sacrifice multiple nights of studying to contribute my infinitely small part to elect you president of the United States.  I believed in your message of hope and change, you inspired me, and you sealed the deal with me that you were a champion of immigrant rights when you promised to push an immigration bill through congress in your first year.  Let me refresh your memory: 

"I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I'm promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible." - Jorge Ramos interview with you on May 28, 2008. 

But oh boy...after that first year, despite the excuses by some (especially by democratic Senator Charles Schumer who was tasked with writing the bill) that health care, jobs, Iraq, and Afghanistan kept immigration reform off of the agenda, not a single bill was introduced or even written to address immigration reform.  I certainly hope Schumer took "Multi-tasking" off of his resume as a result.  PROMISE, along with the hearts of many immigrants, BROKEN...

I hope you didn't think that we weren't watching, would overlook it, or would somehow forget?  It is true that lately Republican presidential candidates are doing a great job of alienating their hopes of splitting the Latino vote in 2012 every time they open their mouths thumping their chests as to who hates immigrants more.  But, is that how you wish to approach the Latino electorate?  Would you rather be known as the better alternative as opposed to a champion for immigrant rights? Do you think your defensiveness and blaming of Republicans will inspire us?  Do you believe criticism of your record of on immigration is a "disservice to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration reform passed?" Do you believe this messaging strategy is going to excite Latinos, drive us to the polls, and gear us into action for your re-election efforts? 

Once upon a time your message was one of hope and change; that you could even lower the oceans:



Just so you know, as president you have the power to issue executive orders.  Presidents have issued them since the inception of the republic.  Hey look here, you are no exception. Here are listings of the executive orders you have issued: 2009, 2010, 2011.

Despite the 95 executive orders you've signed to date, an executive order providing immigration relief to undocumented kids seems to be your kryptonite I guess.  See, this was you a few weeks ago basically telling us that your executive powers are useless and that you can not go to bat for DREAM kids.  Maybe I'm wrong, but its seems the very fact that we are even challenging you on this point irks you a bit.  (from minute 25:30-28:00)


Isn't it a bit disrespectful to presume we don't know the law well enough to understand your mistatements of what you can and can not do as president? 

I urge you to go down the street and  ask US Senators, many of whom are lawyers,  if they believe you can and should use such powers you claim you don't have. 

Sadly, I also get the sense you know what powers you have, given that you are a constiutional law professor, but you'd just rather not confront it.  Confronting reality even seems tough for your team to face. As Harry S Truman would say, "I never give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell!" 



Bottom line is, its seems you will continue to spread the falsity that you don't believe your administation can priortize resources on criminals and not deport DREAM Act kids.  My message to you is simple: "Yes we can!"

We are not seeing in you a champion for immigrant rights.  In fact, what many Latinos see are record deportations (over 1 million! and on pace to out-deport George W. Bush in one term what took him two to accomplish!), and not just of criminals, but non-criminals are still being deported in the largest numbers than any other administration.  Even your "prosecutorial descretion" anouncement in August has no teeth, and eligible immigrants (Including DREAM kids) who were supposed to have their "low priority" cases administratively closed are still being deported.  We see inaction on pushing for the DREAM Act/CIR.  Most disheartening is that you generally portray the criticism you've received from Latinos as: 1) wrongly placed on you and should be placed on congressional Republicans, 2) not an issue you can address administratively without legislation, 3) and that such criticism does a disservice to the efforts of getting DREAM/CIR passed. 

You could only blame the Republicans if you yourself dedicated capital towards passage of immigration reform.  You can't blame the long muddy path as the reason why you did not make it up the hill if you never got in the driver's seat and turned on the ignition.  During the one-year window of time you promised CIR, you had 60 democratic votes and a Republican who committed to bring other Republicans on board.  You did not get on your bully pulpit for us when it mattered; or as of yet. 

This defensiveness of your record does not energize me or any Latino I've spoken with.  In fact, it is depressing us.  Addressing that you have shortcomings with regard to the Latino vote should be a priority.  The stakes could not be higher and a revamped messaging strategy will be critical in the key swing states with rapidly expanding Latino demographic shifts. 

I've been asked recently by a person affiliated with your 2012 re-election campaign: "Where are my Latinos at?"  The only answer I can think to give is that if only you had done what you promised, this question would never have arisen and we would already be in the trenches fighting for our champion.   

I wish I were politically savvy enough to show you exactly how to get us back on the wagon.  I can tell you that any effort to pass DREAM or Comprehensive immigration reform prior to the election without  placement of significant political capital will fail.  Any attempt at DREAM or CIR without your complete buy-in might allow you to deliver smooth talking points on the campaign trail and it might help you bash Republicans on their one way ticket to political suicide by alienating the Latino vote.  But forgive me for believing your pre-election hype of our issues will be anything but an sad attempt to court the Latino vote.  I will be watching with great focus. 

But first things first.  Mr. Obama, the first step to addressing a problem is to admit you have one.  Mr Obama, you have a Latino problem on your hands.  67% of Latinos supported you in your 2008 election, today only 47% of Latinos approve of the job you are doing.  Nationwide, 50,000 Latinos turn 18 every month.  In 2008, there were 18 million eligible Latino Voters, in 2012, that number will be 22 million.  With these kinds of numbers, in swing states like Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, if 67% of Latinos vote for you again...you will win, it's that simple.  Even in Missouri, registered Latino voters have risen 24% just from 2008-2010.  As states such as Nevada and Colorado may prove decisive battleground states for your re-election, I implore you to ask Harry Reid of Nevada how important the Latino vote was there (Won 94% of Latino Vote, won election by 5%), or Michael Bennet in Colorado if the Latino vote was important there (Won 81% of the Latino Vote, won by .5%) in 2010. 

I want you to know that Latinos are not single-issue voters.  Immigration, in fact, is not even a top five issue.  We are members of the general public and all other issues are important.  However, when the word "immigration" comes out of the mouth of a politician, Latinos listen with razor sharp focus.  So as you travel to swing states with large Latino populations, and when you begin your efforts to re-connect with the Latino vote, I'd advise you to reexamine your messaging. 

Mr. Obama, you have overpromised and underdelivered, and the bad news is you will suffer the inescapable political consequences. Will I advocate that Latinos sit this one out on election day?  Never.  But many Latinos are jaded along with me. When the time comes, those who do vote will likely vote for you as the better alternative, but not as our champion.  If your approach does not change, and we are not inspired or energized, perhaps many Latino voters might favor sitting out this election at the local Taco Tuesday special as seeming more tasty and less salty than a vote for you on that day.

Sincerely,

Raymond Rico