PHOENIX - It's been a year since President Obama ordered creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which grants legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Some 15,000 Arizona young people have been approved for work permits and protection from deportation since then.

However, according to volunteer Kat Sinclair with Keep Tucson Together, thousands more are choosing to remain in the shadows, out of fear.

"And for other people, they feel like it is a risk that they have to take because they have children," she said. "They have to support their family. I mean, what else are they going to do?"

Sinclair works with a legal clinic that has helped more than 500 so-called "DREAMers" apply for Deferred Action. She said the biggest frustrations among those approved involve their continuing denial of access to driver's licenses and in-state tuition.

DREAMers still get no break on tuition at Arizona state universities, and Attorney General Tom Horne is suing the Maricopa Community Colleges for granting DREAMers in-state tuition. Then there's the denial of driver's licenses, which Governor Jan Brewer is defending in court. Sinclair said it makes no sense to block DREAMers from registering their cars or buying insurance.

"I don't understand it at all," she declared. "It just seems mean-spirited to me, and, like, not in the interest of public safety."

Arizona is one of only two states that deny licenses to Deferred-Action recipients. Sinclair said the inability to legally drive forces tough decisions on what kinds of jobs DREAMers can accept with their work permits.

"Is there a bus line near my job? Can I take a job without a bus line near it? Am I going to risk getting pulled over and having to pay a huge ticket for driving without a license?"

Sinclair said the number-one reason most DREAMers seek Deferred Action status is to further their education.

"That's what most of them talk about when they talk about why they want a work permit on their worksheets that are being sent to the government," she said. "They all talk about wanting, like, 'I want to go to school. And I want to be able to save money to go to college.' So, that's the DREAMer dream."

Nationwide, the Migration Policy Institute estimates there are 1.9 million immigrants who are potentially eligible for the Deferred Action program.

More information is at MigrationPolicy.org.




get more stories like this via email

The future of Senate Bill 4 is still tangled in court challenges. It's the Texas law that would allow police to arrest people for illegally crossing the border. But groups are speaking out about the impact of "Operation Lone Star" on the youngest migrants. Governor Greg Abbott continues to bus migrant families to other states, many with young children - more than 100,000 families so far.

Robert Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, works to improve the quality of life for boys and girls in Texas, and contends the policy has put trauma on top of trauma.

"We never want children to be political pawns. We don't want maximum chaos on the backs of children. We want children to grow up and be assets for our community," he contended.

Sanborn points out that 2.2 million children in Texas are immigrants, and said it would be less stressful for kids if families were not bused in the middle of the night, and if they were allowed to pick their destination.

When immigrants arrive at the border, they are evaluated to determine if they're eligible for asylum.

Beatriz Zavala, clinical coordinator at El Paso-based Humanitarian Outreach for Migrant Emotional Health, or "HOME," said the children in this situation are at higher risk for mental health disorders.

"What is particularly troubling is the profound disregard for the stability and protection these families need. The impact on their mental health is undeniable. These are not just statistics. These are children, real children," she said.

As part of Operation Lone Star, families have been bused to Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. The governor has said the practice is needed to keep the Texas-Mexico border safe.


get more stories like this via email

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email

Story has been updated to reflect late-night 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.(8:01 a.m. MST, Mar. 20, 2024)


The U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a big but temporary win Tuesday in his battle to stop the flow of migrants crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

Late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals put the law known as Senate Bill 4 on hold again. It would give state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants as they cross into the U-S.

The Biden administration argued that the law would interfere with federal immigration law and is unconstitutional.

David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas, said if the state gets the authority to make arrests, he thinks it will move with caution.

"I think that Texas will want to make some very high-profile moves under this statute," Coale predicted. "But they also don't want to potentially expose themselves to massive civil rights liability if it turns out they're wrong."

Under SB-4, crossing the border illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The appeals court hears oral arguments in the case today. Meanwhile, a Mexican government official said his country won't accept migrants deported under SB-4.

The Supreme Court justices did not issue a reason for allowing the law to go into effect and there's been no clear timetable for how or when Texas will start enforcing it. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a similar law in Arizona, saying an impasse in Congress over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

Coale noted if the law is ultimately upheld, it would give each state the right to make its own immigration laws.

"If you give Texas a pass, you know, New York will have a different policy and California will have a policy and Montana will have a policy," Coale pointed out. "And they will not be consistent."

All six of the court's conservative justices agreed with the decision to allow the law to take effect - a ruling that, at least for now, was in effect for only a few hours.


get more stories like this via email