Things are different this time around.

The passion is different, the energy is different and, most of all, America is different.  As Congress gets ready to take on what is arguably the most contentious issue in the country, there is no mistaking it: America is ready to create an immigration process that will protect our borders, keep our families safe and together, give our businesses the tools they need to compete in the global economy, and provide a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million aspiring citizens currently living in the shadows.

And why are things different?  Here’s what’s changed since 2007, the last time an immigration bill was presented to Congress:

1.       The Latino Vote

The 2012 presidential election will be remembered not only for the re-election of the first African-American president, but for the power of the Latino vote.  To be sure, as Americans, Latinos are concerned about issues other than immigration—including health care, the economy, gun violence, and education.  But for them, the broken immigration system is personal.  It doesn’t go away with the flick of a television switch. Many Latino voters have a family member or close friend entangled in the web of arcane rules and confusing regulations known as U.S. immigration law.  Someone in their life–a parent, a brother, a cousin, a friend– is threatened with deportation.

Last year, President Obama, after presiding over record numbers of deportations during his first term, promised Latino voters that if re-elected he would put immigration reform at the top of his “to do” list.  Governor Romney, on the other hand, embraced restrictionists like Kris Kobach and Joe Arpaio, railed against “amnesty” and promised Latinos little more than “self-deportation”.

The lesson of the election: Latinos are a formidable force in American politics and can no longer be ignored.

2.       The DREAMERs Are Now Doers

A funny thing happened since the DREAM Act was first introduced in 2001.  The DREAMERs grew up.  And they grew up as Americans, watching football, going to homecoming dances, eating hotdogs on the 4^th of July and dreaming about giving back to the country they’ve struggled against all odds to enrich. They are no longer the helpless children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents.  Today they are, in effect, undocumented Americans.

Through masterful use of 21^st century tools like Facebook and Twitter, coupled with old fashioned organizing and courage, the DREAMERs have become a key voice in the struggle for immigration reform.  They, more than any other group, deserve the lion’s share of credit for pushing the Administration to grant an administrative deportation reprieve to qualified undocumented youth last year.

And for DREAMERs there is no giving up on their journey toward US citizenship.  They will no longer take no for an answer.

 3.      There Has Been Unprecedented Immigration Enforcement

Unlike in 2007, today the border is secure. A recent report published by the American Immigration Lawyers Association found that the border security benchmarks of the past immigration reform bills have been met or exceeded. These include improvements in border infrastructure and technology, detention facilities, and increased border personnel. In fact illegal crossings are down to their lowest levels in 40 years.

4.       Business and Labor Agree on a Guest Worker Program

The fact that business and labor could come to an agreement on a guest worker program — perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the immigration reform debate — means the energy is there, the desire is there, and the need is there for immigration reform this year. And if the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce can find common ground, then Democrats and Republicans in Washington can too.

5.       The American Public Supports Immigration Reform

According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll 76% of Americans support creating an immigration process that includes a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million new American immigrants if they pay a fine, back taxes and complete a background check.  Most Americans, 54% according to the poll, believe immigration strengthens America—that’s up from 47% a year ago.

So, that’s why we’re here, in this place, at this moment, ready to move forward on immigration reform. The time is now, now is the time.

If you are reading this column, it is probably not written for you.  It is written for your friends, relatives or neighbors that may not fully understand what has happened, what has not happened and what may happen this year with immigration reform.  For those reasons, I write this with only one request of you: please spread the word to people that do not fully understand what is going on.  They could be easy victims for scammers who want to take advantage of this confusing and exciting time.

I have personally received calls the past few weeks about the “new law” or “nueva ley” that is in effect in immigration.  Some reports are that people are already charging for services based on a legalization program or “amnesty.” NO SUCH PROGRAM exists at this time.  So, below I separate out fact from fiction to help make sure people are not taken advantage of.  You should know what has occurred and what has not occurred during the past several months and make sure to share this with others.

What has really happened:

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): This allows some qualified individuals to apply for a work permit based on their physical presence in the United States, age and other factors.  IMPORTANT: There is no deadline for filing for DACA, as some have been hearing.  Also, there is no official processing time being provided by the Department of Homeland Security.  However, many applications are now taking close to six months to process.
• Provisional (Stateside) Waivers: This is not a legalization program but is instead a process that allows some individuals who are immediate relatives (certain spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens) to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while they are waiting in the United States.  Currently the regulation only applies to a narrow group of people and does not go into effect until March 4, 2013.  Therefore, if you may think you or a relative qualifies you should do some research now, before going further with any applications.

What has not happened:

• Comprehensive Immigration Reform: This has not happened yet, and it is going to be months before we have any idea of whether it will happen.  We don’t know what this law, if passed, will look like and who it will help.  No one should pay a deposit for work regarding a law that does not yet and may never exist.  Don’t let someone scam your friends, family, or members of your community.

Whenever there is media interest and talk about some sort of immigration reform there tends to be a lot of confusion about it and the process.  There are also, unfortunately, individuals who are already trying to take advantage of this confusion like scammers, notarios, and others.  So it is very important that you learn more about what is really happening with immigration reform and update your friends, relatives and neighbors who may not fully understand what is going on or have access to a computer.

Make sure to stay updated with any breaking news through websites such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and other organizations that provide up-to-date and accurate information.

Written by Maurice Goldman, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

The holiday season was in full swing in New York when AILA President-Elect Doug Stump and I “invaded” the city last week. No stealth maneuvers here, this was a planned, coordinated campaign – we were there to talk to the press.

Most of the reporters were people AILA Communications has been working with for a good long while. These journalists turn to AILA for expertise on immigration topics ranging from detainers to waivers, from DACA to H-1Bs. So, while juggling the schedule was a challenge, each reporter gave us a generous amount of time to share our views, to answer questions, and to see where we can be of most help in the future.

Did you ever wonder how we have been so successful at getting our members’ voices heard? Look no further than AILA’s crackerjack Communications Department! Kudos to Senior Director of Communications George Tzamaras and Manager of Communications Belle Woods not only for a successful tour, but for making it their mission that people turn to AILA as the reliable resource for immigration expertise.

The tour included meetings with The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, the New York Daily News, CNN, the Associated Press, and the New York Times. Discussions ranged widely but here are some of the topics we covered:

• At every meeting, Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) was the first topic that came up, and always led to a lively discussion about what did we think about the prospects for next year, and what did AILA think real reform might look like.

• We talked about what DACA means to our clients and their families and what we think we’ll see in terms of applications next year. We also highlighted how complicated a “simple” application can be, and how critical it is to have good legal advice in the process.

• We talked about the many ways our current immigration system is broken, and how the current mess is the inevitable result of multiple barriers to legal immigration that are literally written into the law or just part of the adjudications process, as well as illustrated how they affect businesses and families, alike.

• Producers and reporters wanted facts. And boy did we give them facts: facts about how difficult it is to navigate our current system; how unwieldy, unforgiving, and unfair the process can be; how much our nation needs its immigrant communities; and the high cost of letting politics instead of common sense dominate the discussion. And thanks, IPC, for making us look so smart!

• We talked about notario fraud and AILA’s efforts to educate the public about the danger these scammers pose to immigrant communities. We introduced them to resources on UPL, including AILA’s consumer protection website, http://stopnotariofraud.org (now in four languages).

• We also highlighted our Chapters’ and individual members’ extraordinary efforts to educate their communities about the risks and potential rewards of deferred action, the value of working with an immigration lawyer and how for many, getting good legal advice can mean the difference between a bright future and deportation.

While not a media meeting, another highlight of the trip was meeting with the Partnership for a New American Economy (out of Mayor Bloomberg’s Office), which was a great opportunity to talk potential partnerships/collaboration with AILA in the coming year. It was also a chance to learn from each other. For instance, PNAE has been involved in a micro loan program to help qualified DACA applicants borrow enough for government filing fees. The program has been in effect for a few months, and PNAE has promised to let us know how that progresses, as the $465 fee has been a roadblock for many young immigrants.

By the end of the second day of meetings, we felt like we’d definitely made an impact. While not everyone can get to NYC and blitz through meetings as we did, we want to emphasize that working with your local press outlets is something that AILA members around the country can and should do. Take a look at these notes, think about what the various outlets were most interested in, and pitch a story tailored to your local news outlet. Want some help crafting your message? Run a pitch by AILA Communications—George and Belle are more than happy to help.

So, let’s take a well-deserved break over the holidays and then come back in the New Year ready to take on the immense task of restructuring our nation’s broken immigration system.

On the eve of Thanksgiving, I think I’m doing what most Americans do this time of year – I’m counting my blessings.  I have so much to be thankful for – both in my personal life as well as my professional life.  In my professional life, I find myself extremely thankful for several new policies implemented by the Obama Administration the past year and a half in terms of prosecutorial discretion and now with DACA.  I’m thankful for the change in our Administration’s attitude about certain foreign nationals in this country.  I’m so excited that they see things the way I do:  Use the limited resources to target those individuals who would cause harm in our communities.

So, I almost hate writing this blog.  I don’t want to come across as the ungrateful. Sometimes, however, more only makes sense.  So, as I write this blog, please keep in mind that I am indeed thankful for what I have, but at the same time, I think our clients deserve more.

We’ve seen the approval numbers for DACA rising.  The latest update from USCIS shows that over 308,000 requests have been received and over 53,000 have been approved.

USCIS is getting an average of 4,827 requests a day.  They are approving requests from valedictorians, from nursing students, and from potential entrepreneurs.  There are thousands of young people who are already benefiting from DACA and many of them received that work permit because of help AILA members offered: help given through clinics, workshops, outreach, and individual attention.

What we can’t forget is that each of these applicants may have one or more family members that remain afraid and unable to work legally, or worse, are in deportation proceedings.  Many of our DACA clients are minors.  What is DACA worth if their primary caregivers – their undocumented parents – find themselves in deportation proceedings? While DACA is a good step forward, it unfortunately still leaves many out in the cold without recourse.

So why can’t the Obama Administration offer Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) to parents and family members of those granted deferred action under the new policy so that families can remain together? If a more humane immigration system is the goal, and targeted enforcement is the method that DHS is using, then offering PD to family members is a no-brainer.  They’ve already stated that tearing families apart isn’t in our country’s interest.

Think about it.  Current law and regulations already protect family members in other instances like U visas, VAWA cases, and even asylum.  So offering PD to family members of DACA recipients isn’t too far out of line with current policy in keeping families together.

For example, I have a case where USCIS denied adjustment applications for the beneficiary and family of an approved I-140 filed in April 2001.  Unfortunately, they filed their I-485 applications thinking they were 245(i) eligible, but they were not because they were not in the United States in December 2000. USCIS issued NTAs with the denial for the principal applicant, his wife, and a minor child.  ICE filed the NTAs with the Immigration Court in August of this year.  While I know I can protect the minor child under DACA, what am I going to do for his parents?  It should be a no brainer Prosecutorial Discretion case, but ICE statistics show only about 9% of cases have been deemed eligible for administrative closure under PD memos.  I’m stressed for my client because we don’t know what ICE is going to do.

So as I sit here and count my blessings this Thanksgiving, I can’t help but start writing my Christmas list.  Trust me, there are tons of things as far as immigration policy and law I would love to see next year, but if Congress can’t put those things into play, I’m asking for at least some form of PD for those family members of DACA recipients to keep in line with the current policy in keeping family members together.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Originally posted on Huffington Post

American voters chose to renew their contract with a President whose vision of economic vitality involves three distinct pillars — innovation, education and rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. Nearly two years ago, during his 2011 State of the Union address, Mr. Obama, speaking eloquently of this generation’s “Sputnik Moment,” recognized that immigration reform was key to this goal and declared he was “prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.”

By reelecting President Obama and, at the same time, retaining a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the American people — including a whopping 70-plus percent plus of Latino voters — have directed both parties to work together to implement Mr. Obama’s vision. The electorate spoke loud and clear Tuesday, ordering Washington to put aside partisan politics and overhaul America’s broken immigration system so that our families remain safe and together, our businesses regain their competitive edge in the global economy and due process is restored and protected. Amid the incessant post-election punditry and analysis one thing is crystal clear; the American people have demanded positive immigration solutions and an end to the anti-immigrant/Latino extremism that has polluted the immigration debate.

On Wednesday House Speaker John Boehner, sounding a conciliatory tone after the votes were counted, said that his party is “ready to be led.” The President should take him at his word and immediately invite the Republican leadership to sit down with him in an effort to forge a bipartisan overhaul of America’s broken immigration system.

To be sure, there is plenty of common ground to work with. Last spring Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) showed bipartisan leadership by introducing the Startup Act 2.0, legislation designed to boost the American economy by creating incentives for entrepreneurs to start new business. And there is much more both parties can agree on such as green cards for foreign students who’ve graduated from American universities with science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees; raising the arbitrary caps on visas for highly skilled immigrants; making the temporary visa system more business-friendly; building a functional temporary agricultural and seasonal workers program; and getting rid of the red tape that delays visa issuance.

These commonsense solutions will boost America’s economic recovery and, at the same time, attract the best and the brightest to America’s shores. What’s more, these ideas are a win-win for both political parties because they recognize what the credible studies have told us for years — that creating incentives for high skilled immigrants is the key to America’s economic growth, job creation, and long-term economic vitality.

But for immigration reform to be comprehensive and sustainable the Republican party must recognize and respect that the American people have flatly rejected the appalling and divisive positions of the fringe anti-immigrant restrictionists. The voters refused to be swayed by the politics of fear, including the heartless, self-destructive policy of “self-deportation” for the 12 million undocumented mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who toil in America’s shadows. In fact, quite to the contrary, CNN’s exit polling showed that 65 percent of voters want to give undocumented immigrants a pathway to earned citizenship.

And there are hopeful signs that the Republicans may be taking notice — albeit slowly. Wednesday night Republican Senator Lindsay Graham told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the GOP has a “demographic problem,” and it comes down to immigration reform. He lamented that his party is going in the “wrong direction” and said that if Mitt Romney had received 40 percent of the Latino vote the former GOP candidate would now be President-elect. Significantly, Graham appeared to acknowledge that the only way for the GOP to regain its footing with Latino voters is by supporting a humane resolution (i.e. a pathway to lawful immigration status and eventual citizenship) for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

Americans — liberal, moderate, and conservative — overwhelmingly support a commonsense approach to immigration. This is consistent with scores of other studies conducted by pollsters over the years. American voters long for a modernized immigration system that will create jobs for American workers, protect American families and restore due process and fairness.

Thankfully, the 2012 election is history. Now it’s time for President Obama reach across the aisle and get to the difficult task of fixing America’s broken immigration system.

September 26, 2012

The Honorable Janice K. Brewer
Arizona Governor
Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Governor Brewer:

On August 15, 2012, you issued an Executive Order which barred those individuals eligible for Deferred Action (DACA) from obtaining driver’s licenses or other state benefits. After a fiscal analysis, I can only conclude that this decision was based upon your personal vendetta against President Barack Obama. Besides having no basis in federal or state law to issue this executive order, your policy will cost the state and businesses millions of dollars.

Had you or your advisors conducted an unbiased cost-benefit analysis, you would have likely concluded that this program will have a profoundly positive impact on a number of industries in our state, along with making our streets safer and saving Arizona resident’s money. Before I go any further, I must confess that I am no economist and my calculations may be considered rudimentary to some, but it will definitely make logical sense.

Let’s start from the basics: There is an estimated 50,000-80,000 individuals in Arizona who will qualify for DACA. A driver’s license for applicants age 16-39 is $25.00. Using the low-end estimate of individuals, which would mean the state is bound to earn $1.25 million in driver license fees. Let me add that these individuals will only get work permission from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for two years and then have to apply for renewals. That means the state will collect $1.25 million, or more, every two years!

In order to qualify for work permission under DACA, all applicants will have to undergo a strict vetting process by DHS. Candidates who will qualify must undergo background checks, been physically present in the United States for at least five years, and provide clear evidence that they have either completed high school or are currently in school. Many have already taken college courses or completed their post-secondary schooling. Therefore, we are talking about a class of individuals that are educated and will provide a benefit to the lagging Arizona economy. Rather than taking jobs from U.S. citizens, they will help expand the growth of businesses and spend their hard-earned money in the state.

Who else is bound to gain from the issuance of drivers licenses to DACA grantees? Insurances companies, car dealers, gas stations, automotive service stations, car washes, and pretty much any business that is not near a bus stop. Arizona is not exactly known for its excellent public transportation systems. Therefore, getting from point A to point B can be difficult without an automobile. According to the Insurance Research Council (IRC), one in eight Arizona drivers are uninsured. According to IRC, Arizona has the fifth highest percentage of uninsured motorists at 22% of the population. Insurance companies are bound to gain more customers and benefit their businesses when new drivers can either lease or purchase cars. There will be a trickle-down benefit to gas stations, tire and brake repair, and many other related industries.

The economic benefits to DACA are considerable and I have attached a report from the Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, which provides raw data of these benefits. This includes tax benefits, expansion of investments, more spending and an increased incentive to fulfill educational goals. Nobody loses from this program and the state is missing a golden opportunity. This program only helps a narrow group of persons and, contrary to what you believe, will not be a magnet for others to enter the country without documentation.

Assuming you have made it to this point in my letter and your eyes are not completely glazed over, I want to make a final legal point. There is no doubt that the state is bound to lose money in litigation costs, and ultimately will lose in the courts, as your policy conflicts with state law and the federal REAL ID Act. More wasted money on behalf of taxpayers, more image problems and less tourism.

In order to function in society we must compromise, and sometimes make decisions that are against our core beliefs. I believe that your advisors are misleading you on the issue of immigration and particularly in the benefits of this DACA program. The benefits of this program to our state far outweigh the costs that we will incur if your executive order remains in place. Therefore, with the utmost respect, I ask that you lift this executive order and allow the economic boon that this program will bring to our state to become a reality.

Thank you and God bless America.

Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

It is the time of year again when the kids head back to school, the leaves start to turn, and we prepare to hunker down for the long winter. This time of year also marks the fall AILA Board of Governors meeting – so while my family set out to ride the Purple Ride 2012 on a gorgeous fall day, I set out for the board room.

The AILA Board is comprised of the elected National Officers, 21 elected Directors, the 36 Chapter Chairs, a New Members Division representative and Past Presidents. The board meets four times a year for in-person meetings and is charged with determining the policies of the association and with carrying on its business. As a newly Elected Director to the Board, what follows are my insights on what really happens during five non-stop hours inside the boardroom.

We started out by reviewing the recent AILA member needs assessment survey. Overall, members noted high satisfaction with the association and its services – that’s not to say that everything is perfect, so we spent the next few hours discussing AILA’s 2013 goals.

This discussion followed the four prongs of AILA’s mission statement: promoting justice, advocating for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advancing the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhancing the professional development of AILA members. The conversation moved from global topics such as setting metrics to assess how AILA is doing, to more focused discussions on how to provide better member services through specific tool kits and programs. As you might imagine, it was a robust discussion that jumped around at times but ended up being extremely productive in identifying key AILA services areas in need of improvement. In January the Board will review and ultimately approve the 2013 Annual Plan, so this discussion was instrumental in helping AILA National focus and prioritize goals for the upcoming year.

The other main topic we discussed was deferred action for childhood arrivals (now commonly referred to as DACA) which many of us are currently confronting – either with clients in our own practices or through Pro Bono services. While this program was welcome news when it was announced on June 15th, it has proven challenging on a number of fronts. We discussed areas of success and frustration, and heard how AILA continues to work with the administration and stakeholders to ensure that the implementation of the program is clear.

In the end, I was impressed by the thoughtful, hardworking and dedicated attorneys with whom I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon. I continue to find enormous value in the being a part of a professional organization committed not only to the practice of immigration law, but the furtherance of fair immigration policy that benefits our nation. So in the end, despite the miles between us, my family and I had similar experiences last Saturday: we worked hard, we had some fun along the way and we ultimately persevered!

Written by: Sarah Peterson Stensrud, AILA Board of Governors Member

It is presidential political season again, and this time the candidates actually are talking about immigration law as November approaches.

If you remember 2004 and 2008, there was a diminishing amount of debate about immigration reform as Election Day came closer. Things look like they may be different this year. Why? Two words: deferred action. Although this program does not provide a direct fix for dairy, the political debate that has erupted in its wake is very relevant to the agricultural labor crisis.

On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced that deferred action would be made available to an estimated 1.5 million “Dreamers.” These are young people who are undocumented and were brought to the U.S. by their parents, usually at a very young age. Most look, sound and act “American” but typically had no choice in their parent’s decision to settle in the U.S. If granted, deferred action will allow a Dreamer to live and work in the U.S. even though he or she could otherwise be deported. Deferred action is temporary and does not confer legal status or citizenship.

In a recent blog post, lawyer and Fox News host Greta Van Susteren stated that any lawyer who advised a client to sign up for the program was committing legal malpractice.

Susteren concludes that the program is too risky because of its temporary nature. She speculates that it is nothing more than an invitation to deportation when a future president inevitably takes it away. Susteren’s bottom line: Do not trust the government.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those immigration attorneys who Susteren thinks is committing malpractice. Although there are risks to the program, I am advising most of my clients who qualify to apply. My reasoning is simple: What do they really have to lose?

Susteren completely ignores this part of the equation. Many of these young people are smart and industrious, but they see their youth and futures slipping away because they are undocumented and cannot enter the U.S. workforce in a way that is commensurate with their abilities. The Dream Act, which would grant these young people a path to citizenship, has been proposed since 2001 and has failed to pass Congress even though it has enjoyed majority support in many votes. Is 11 years enough? How much longer should we ask these kids to wait?

I do agree with one of Susteren’s points: Do not trust the government. In particular, do not trust politicians, many of whom have repeatedly turned a blind eye to this issue. In my opinion, young people should apply for the program and then scream like hell if any politician dares to try and take it away. It seems like that is the only way anything gets done in today’s political environment.

So what is really going on with Susteren’s criticism? Politics, pure and simple, and both political parties are guilty. Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican with no significant history on immigration, went hard to right on the issue in the primaries in order to attack Rick Perry. Now that Romney is the nominee, Obama has announced deferred action just months before the election to shore up his support with Latinos and exploit Romney’s extreme position on the issue. Romney, by his own admission, needs at least 38% of the Latino vote to win the election, so he has to get out of the box that Obama has put him in. The Romney counter-punch: Deferred action is either a cynical, reckless political action or cleverly disguised plot to deport Latino kids. Enter Greta Van Susteren.

Sorry for the cynicism, but haven’t we seen this dance too many times now? Dairy needs to pay very close attention to the political games being played on this issue, because they will be repeated the next time an immigration solution for agriculture is proposed. Susteran says do not trust the government. I say, do not trust the politicians.

Written by: Erich Straub, EOIR Liaison Committee

This article first appeared on dairytoday.com

The last I checked federal bureaucrats are supposed to implement the administration’s policies, not publicly obstruct them.

So why is Christopher Crane, President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — the union of 7,000 immigration agents, officers, and employees — engaging in a pattern of open insubordination designed to thwart the president’s effort to deport dangerous criminal aliens and national security risks?

Crane is livid about President Obama’s Deferred Action plan, announced on June 15, to temporarily defer the removal of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. years ago as children and have shown promise by furthering their education or preparing to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Crane has the audacity to publicly challenge President Obama’s view that it makes more sense to deport violent criminals and national security risks than young students, graduates, and veterans. Someone should remind Crane that the American people elected Mr. Obama president, not him.

Crane was a featured speaker Monday at a Capitol Hill press conference organized by a group of Republican Senators to denounce the President’s Deferred Action program. According to press reports, the ICE union president claimed:

Prosecutorial discretion for dreamers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go… Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything… At this point we don’t even know why DHS has criteria at all, as there is no requirement or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien.

Crane is either intentionally trying to mislead the public or he hasn’t bothered to read the Deferred Action guidance posted on ICE’s website. It squarely puts the burden on the alien applicant to prove he or she qualifies:

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding today’s date. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

This isn’t the first time Crane has played fast and loose with the facts in an effort to undercut the administration. Last year he openly deplored ICE Director John Morton’s prosecutorial discretion policy which, frankly, empowered ICE agents to focus their efforts on arresting and removing dangerous criminal aliens in an effort to keep America safer.

Crane’s reaction to the administration’s enforcement priorities shows that the union’s leadership, apparently out of touch with its own members, is hell bent on maintaining the status quo — indiscriminate arrest, detention, prosecution, and deportation of immigrants — without thinking about what’s best for America. Where was Mr. Crane earlier this year when it was reported that the administration deported over a million people, more than any administration before it? Nor has Crane said a word about the fact that since Mr. Obama took office in 2009, illegal border crossings have dropped to their lowest point since the 1970s.

Crane’s comments hardly reflect what the ICE union’s rank and file think is good for America. They demonstrate the self-interested fears of an entrenched bureaucrat attempting, at all costs, to resist positive change; a desperate hold on a tired policy that has outlived its effectiveness. Unfortunately, for the ICE union’s many hard working agents, Crane’s knee-jerk, mutinous reaction to President Obama’s immigration enforcement policies is narrow minded, short sighted, and misses the point. The danger to an American community is less likely to come from a gifted student than from a dangerous felon or terrorist.

But where does Crane come off attempting to set administration policy? Since when does the soldier tell the general what to do? It is nothing less than shameful, indeed scandalous, that this ICE bureaucrat would work in cahoots with the president’s political opponents to thwart legitimate policy objectives. Crane’s statements are chalk-full of unsubstantiated allegations and vitriolic language but short on considered analysis. Not surprisingly, Crane offers no immigration policy solutions.

President Obama’s Deferred Action program is hardly the answer to a dysfunctional immigration law badly in need of repair. That’s Congress’ job and, hopefully, one day soon it will deliver a safe, orderly, and fair immigration policy which will keep America secure and prosperous.

As for ICE Agent Christopher Crane, it’s high time his superiors demand his badge and show him the door.

We don’t have all the details yet, but the basic requirements to qualify for deferred action seem, well, pretty straightforward—and a motivated high school graduate or college student might be tempted to try to apply on their own, without seeking advice from an attorney or legitimate nonprofit.

Even though the requirements look simple, you don’t need a law degree to know that looks can be deceiving.  So when do you really need a lawyer?  And just as importantly, what can (and should) a lawyer do for you?

In order to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals or “DACA” (apparently the new government acronym for the program) an individual must have arrived in the U.S. when they were under age sixteen.  In addition, they must have been physically present in the U.S. and under age 31 when the policy was announced on June 15, 2012, as well as show that they continuously resided in the U.S. for at least five years before that date.

In order to qualify, the applicant must be in school, have graduated high school, obtained a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces.  Individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense, a “significant misdemeanor offense,” three or more non-significant misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety may not qualify. Only youth who are at least 15 years old will be able to apply, unless they are currently facing deportation.

Some of the red flags are obvious; some are not.

If a DREAMer has ever had any contact with law enforcement, even if it never resulted in a conviction, the case should still be screened by a lawyer.  Why?  A competent immigration lawyer should be able to review your records and determine what’s really in there (hint:  it’s often a whole lot different than what you thought).

For example, an incident you thought was resolved without any consequences may actually be a real problem. If the judge said you wouldn’t have a record because you were a minor, or told you your record would be wiped clean if you kept out of trouble or completed public service hours, that incident might still be used to disqualify you, either as a conviction for immigration purposes or under public safety grounds.  Just the suggestion—even without proof—of gang activity, or a history of certain traffic infractions might affect your application.

On the other hand, if you think a prior brush with the law means you can’t qualify, remember that these requirements are evolving, so it’s best to have an immigration attorney evaluate your case.  Even if a conviction stands in the way, a lawyer may be able to find a legal basis to reopen that case to obtain post-conviction relief.

Anyone who has ever filed anything or had any contact with immigration authorities would be smart to have a lawyer review their immigration file and history. Perhaps a prior application has gone missing—or gone south.  Cases filed by a notario—even something filed on your behalf by a family member—may contain inaccurate or even fraudulent information that could knock you out of consideration.  Sometimes, an out-of-date address means notices didn’t reach you and your case was referred for a deportation hearing—one that you never knew about and never went to.

If you have ever left the U.S., you will want to ask a lawyer whether that departure interrupted your continuous presence (especially if you left because you were granted voluntary departure or ordered removed).  And if there were any issues on your return—like being refused entry, caught at the border, or using a fake document—there will be immigration consequences to consider.

What about someone who isn’t sure how to prove that they were here on June 15, 2012, or isn’t sure they can show they have been continuously residing in the U.S. for five years?  A competent immigration lawyer can help, especially if you think you don’t have access to reliable evidence (or maybe don’t have all the evidence in your own name).

Did you ever use a false identity, make up a social security number or claim to be a United States citizen?  Did you use your cousin’s U.S. birth certificate to get an ID or a job or a driver’s license?  See a lawyer to understand the immigration consequences.

Ok, so people who have had run-ins with law enforcement or who have a tricky immigration history may already know they need a lawyer, but what about the “easy” cases?  You may be able to navigate the application procedures by yourself, but even for the cleanest cases, the real question is not whether it’s safe to apply, but smart.

Every applicant is coming “out of the shadows” and providing detailed information to the government.  If you’re wrong about your case or how you handle your application, maybe you only wasted time waiting for a decision and money on government fees.  But what if you find yourself in custody or facing removal?

In an initial consultation, an immigration attorney should not only review DACA eligibility, but also take your complete immigration history (and even your family members’ history, in some cases) to see if there are other options or particular risks to applying.  You should have a chance to ask the lawyer questions and leave with a clear understanding about your immigration case.  If that can’t be handled in the short time and with the limited information available during your consult, you should at least know what needs to be done to figure things out.

Even though it’s often better to have a lawyer handling your case, not every case will need a lawyer to be successful.  But if things aren’t going smoothly—if you get a notice that says your evidence isn’t good enough or a letter you don’t understand, consult with an attorney immediately to understand your rights.  If your application is denied, or you wind up being issued a Notice to Appear and referred to immigration court, it’s time to get back to a lawyer’s office!

Only a competent immigration attorney or BIA accredited representative can evaluate your case, identify the risks and even explore other legal avenues for gaining status (which might even be better than deferred action).

Consider using the American Immigration Lawyers Association referral service to find a lawyer in your area. The listed individuals are licensed attorneys who have been AILA members for at least two years and comply with annual continuing legal education requirements, as well as carry malpractice insurance.

If you can’t afford a lawyer, consider working with a legitimate nonprofit that provides immigration legal help, usual through a BIA accredited representative (a non-lawyer legal professionals trained and supervised by attorneys). Remember, not every group that claims to be a nonprofit is working in the community’s best interests.

Finally, if you think you’ve been scammed—by an attorney, or just someone posing as an attorney—report it to your local bar association before they take advantage of someone else! Be smart, be safe, and protect yourself and your family—get the right information to make the decision that’s right for you.