Trump Set to Deport Dreamers to Appease His Supremacist Base

A Note from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto —

Last month, we celebrated the fifth anniversary of President Obama’s landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This program granted hundreds of thousands of young people the opportunity to come out of the shadows and pursue the American Dream.

Dreamers are our soldiers, engineers, teachers and the future of this great nation. They embody everything we stand for as a country. But right now, DACA is under grave threat, and Dreamers are anxious about their future. Anti-immigrant attorneys general are threatening to sue the Trump administration if he doesn’t end DACA – and recent reports suggest Trump is finally about to follow through with his disgraceful campaign pledge to end the program. Now, more than ever, we need to stand up and defend these inspiring young men and women!

More than 12,000 DACA recipients call Nevada home, and I have been fortunate enough to spend time with many of them. They are fighters. They never give up. These young people were brought to our country as children, and for many of them, America is the only place they’ve ever called home. But now, they face constant uncertainty about their futures. This is wrong. We should be helping them live up to their full potential.

Not only is rescinding this program un-American, it is economically unsound. Deporting nearly 800,000 DACA beneficiaries would cost our economy at least $433 billion over the next 10 years. That’s not an economic policy we should embrace.

Welcoming immigrants is an American tradition. We should not be tearing families apart and inciting fear and discrimination. Dreamers are our loved ones, our friends, our neighbors, and we must protect them.

Thank you for standing up for these extraordinary young people.

¡La lucha sigue! 
The fight continues!

Got a Twitter account?  Tweet your demands to respect and protect DACA to: @POTUS, @realDonaldTrump, @VP, @MarkAmodeiNV2, @SenDeanHeller

New Reports available at the Economic Policy Institute

2016 State of American Wages

In a new report, Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) Elise Gould finds that an improving economy in 2016 brought broad-based wage growth for most workers. Notably, wages at the bottom rose more in states that raised their minimum wages. Despite these improvements, large wage gaps persist by gender and race and between wage levels. Gould recommends that policymakers strengthen labor standards and that the Federal Reserve hold off on raising interest rates until the economy reaches full employment and worker pay rises. Read the report »

1.42M Guestworkers in the U.S.

A new EPI report estimates that 1.42 million temporary foreign workers, or “guestworkers,” were employed in the United States during fiscal year 2013—roughly equivalent to 1 percent of the total U.S. labor force. Authors Daniel Costa of EPI and Jennifer Rosenbaum, a visiting Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School, encourage the U.S. government to collect better data on temporary foreign workers and their employers to help policymakers to make more informed decisions about foreign worker visa programs. Read the report »

Women have a huge impact in the  economy — but it could be even bigger

A new article by EPI’s Elise Gould finds that policies like paid parental leave and subsidized child care would increase parental labor force participation and boost the economy. Gould finds that if prime-age women (age 25–54) in the United States participated in the workforce at the same average rate as women in Canada and Germany (78.4 percent), the U.S. GDP would increase by $600 billion. Read the article »


The Fatal Flaw in trump’s Legal Defense of his Muslim Ban

Remember Hobby Lobby? Republicans should have been more careful in what they wished for.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Reed Saxon

— by Ian Millhiser, Justice Editor at ThinkProgress

Saturday night, lawyers representing President Donald Trump filed an emergency motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking it to reinstate Trump’s executive order preventing many people from seven majority Muslim nations from entering the United States. On Friday, a federal trial judge issued a temporary order halting this Muslim ban.

The Ninth Circuit did not immediately grant Trump’s request. Instead, it ordered the parties to submit additional briefing.

Trump’s legal arguments rest on a 1972 Supreme Court decision which establishes that many foreign nationals have little, if any, First Amendment rights when they seek to enter the United States. This case does bolster Trump’s case for reinstating the ban against some of the arguments that its opponents have raised in court.

But Trump’s emergency motion makes no mention of one of the strongest arguments against the ban: Even if the First Amendment does not apply to the Muslim ban, that would not be enough to save Trump’s executive order — thanks to a federal law expanding the scope of religious liberty in the United States beyond the bounds of the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Trump’s argument
As a candidate for president, Trump repeatedly promised to ban Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. Trump’s executive order targets seven majority Muslim nations (although it’s worth noting that the order excludes several majority Muslim nations where Trump’s company does business). On the day that Trump handed down the order, he gave an interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said that Christians from the banned nations would be given special treatment should they seek to enter the United States.

Nevertheless, Trump’s lawyers now claim that the real purpose of the executive order isn’t to implement the Muslim ban Trump repeatedly promised as a candidate, but rather to protect “interests of national security.”

Trump’s motive for handing down the order matters because the First Amendment prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If Trump acted for the purpose of harming Muslims, then he violated the Constitution.

Trump’s lawyers argue that courts must accept Trump’s stated motive even if Trump did act with unconstitutional animus. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion[.]’”

Mandel  was a First Amendment case. It involved a Belgian journalist who was invited to speak at a Stanford University conference, but was not allowed into the United States — allegedly because of his Marxist views. The Court held that this journalist could not invoke the First Amendment to challenge the decision not to let him into the country.

When the Executive exercises this power [to admit foreign nationals] negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.

So, if Mandel  was the last word on the subject, Trump would have a much stronger case. But it was not, and that leads to the fatal flaw in Trump’s argument.

Enter Hobby Lobby
The First Amendment is not the final word on religious liberty claims against the federal government. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except in very limited circumstances. This law was enacted to expand the bounds of religious liberty beyond the weaker protections provided by the First Amendment. Significantly, it also was enacted after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandel.

Which brings us to the Hobby Lobby case. Though RFRA expands the scope of religious liberty, the text of the RFRA statute states that its purpose was merely to restore a relatively expansive reading of the First Amendment that the Supreme Court announced in a 1963 opinion, then rejected a few decades later.

This limited purpose created a problem for conservatives, who wanted to use RFRA to exempt themselves from a legal obligation to include birth control in their employer-provided health plans. The Supreme Court had never held that the First Amendment permits such claims. To the contrary, the Court held in United States v. Lee  that “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

To put it another way, to win their case in Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs had to convince the Court to read scope of religious liberty under RFRA to be much more expansive than any Supreme Court decision in American history had ever understood it to be under the First Amendment. And that’s exactly what the Court did in Hobby Lobby.

A 2000 amendment to RFRA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court, was “an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law.” Thus, thanks to Hobby Lobby, prior First Amendment decisions are completely irrelevant to the question of whether a particular government action violates RFRA.

This interpretation of that 2000 amendment has clear implications for Trump’s Muslim ban. Even if Mandel does prohibit courts from examining Trump’s true motive for issuing the Muslim ban when that ban is challenged under the First Amendment, Mandel  does not prevent courts from searching for Trump’s true motive in a RFRA suit.

Hobby Lobby effects “a complete separation” between RFRA and the First Amendment, and that complete separation includes Mandel.

This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. ‘Like’ CAP Action on Facebook and ‘follow’ us on Twitter


If You’re Against Immigrants, You’re Against My Grandma

Many good kids — with the same American dreams my grandparents had — now fear being exiled to a land alien to them.
— by Mitchell Zimmerman

One day in a Latvian town more than 100 years ago, when my grandmother wasn’t much more than a girl, she heard that the czar’s “recruiters” were coming to conscript men into the Russian army for 20-year terms.

Two days before they came, a handsome young man she’d known only slightly told her he was going to America instead, and asked her to come along as his bride. She agreed.

Their travels weren’t wholly lawful. Lacking proper papers to enter Germany, where they planned to embark on a steamer to New York, they were smuggled across the border at night, in a cart.

Some 40-odd years later, when I was a small child, my mother would take me to Brooklyn to visit them. I recall grandma as a short, ancient grownup, her face square and her cheeks jowly. Despite having lived in New York for decades, she still spoke little English — only enough to make halting jokes. I don’t think she ever became a citizen.

She and grandpa faced hardship and discrimination. They’d been called “kikes” and “Jew bastards.” They’d been asked, “Why don’t you go back where you came from?”

New York’s Ellis Island, circa 1900. (Photo: NIAID / Flickr)

But they stayed, and their children and grandchildren — including my brother, a journalist, and myself, a lawyer — climbed the ladder to success.

My grandparents come to mind when I meet my young friend — “Jesús,” let’s call him, a pro bono client.

Jesús, too, is an immigrant. But he recalls little of coming to America, and less of Mexico, his birthplace. He was only 7 when his mother, hoping for a better life and lacking proper papers, carried him here.

Jesús grew up in East Palo Alto, California — a small city not far geographically from the prosperity of Silicon Valley, but a world away socio-economically. Plagued by poverty, drugs, and crime, the town was once the murder capital of America.

When he reached high school, Jesús found himself behind the kids from the richer towns. But he enrolled in the school’s computer science track, applied himself, and ultimately won a nationwide “Young Entrepreneur of the Year” competition.

The school offered him little guidance about a path to college, but he found his own mentors. Eventually, he earned a B.S. from a small local college, paid for by soccer and academic scholarships — and hard work.

Jesús meanwhile devoted himself to diffusing conflicts among Latino and black gangs in violent neighborhoods. “When asked about putting himself in harm’s way,” a counselor informed me, “Jesús said he didn’t want to live in a world where people hate each other based on the color of their skin.”

For some people, this is all irrelevant. All we need to know about Jesús is that he’s “illegal” — and so should be deported.

This would be fundamentally unfair. Jesús, like many others whose parents brought them here, had no say in whether or how he entered the United States. But also like those others, he’s lived an entirely American life.

I assisted Jesús with his ultimately successful application for DACA status.

This Obama-era program (in full, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) offered a little security to youths like Jesús who arrived as children. If they were in school (or graduated) and had no criminal record, they were eligible to remain in the U.S. for a renewable two-year period.

With an anti-immigrant administration coming into office, however, many of these good kids fear being exiled to a land alien to them. I hope Trump has the decency to let them be.

Jesús is now 24 years old and works at a tech start-up. He has an American wife, son, and baby daughter. His aspirations, like my grandparents’ were, are to educate his kids, work hard and prosper, and continue to inspire others to set aside despair and reach for the stars.

How American those ambitions seem to me.

Mitchell Zimmerman is an intellectual property lawyer who devotes much of his practice to pro bono work. Distributed by

Walling Them Out, or Walling Us In?

Shall we wall off Canada, too?

Jim HightowerEvading security cameras in the remote expanse along the U.S. border, three Guatemalans waited till dusk to slip illicitly into our country.

This is the stuff of Donald Trump nightmares — and if he were to witness such a scene, we can only imagine the furious rants that would follow.

But Trump will never see this scene or even know about it, because he’s facing south, fulminating against Mexicans and assuring his faithful followers that he’ll stop illegal entry into the U.S. by building a “beautiful, impenetrable wall” across our 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

Meanwhile, the scene described took place way up north, where rural Vermont connects to Canada. As the New York Times recently reported, “This area is a haven for smugglers and cross-border criminal organizations.”

With so many of our nation’s political and security officials obsessed with the southern border, more and more criminal action — including the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons — has plagued our 5,500-mile Canadian border, the longest in the world between two countries.


(Photo: Carolyn Cuskey / Flickr)

Running from the Atlantic to the Pacific through sparsely populated and heavily wooded terrain, there’s often no clear demarcation of where Canada ends and the U.S. begins. Some farms, homes, and businesses actually sprawl across the border.

Only about 2,000 agents patrol this vast stretch, and officials concede they don’t even have a good guess of how many people and how much contraband is coming across, or where.

So, the question for Mr. Trump is: Shall we wall off Canada, too? And how much of our public treasury, democratic idealism, and international goodwill shall we dump into the folly of militarizing both borders?

By simply thinking we can wall the world out, we’ll be walling ourselves in — and that’s suicidal.

OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, and public speaker. He’s the editor of the populist newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. Distributed by

Reviews Are In: Trump Doubles Down on Dangerous Immigration Policies

In his darkest speech to date, Donald Trump doubled down on hate in an anti-immigrant policy speech delivered in Arizona on Wednesday. Trump spoke about undocumented immigrants and DREAMers in dehumanizing terms, cast them as criminals, and confirmed what we all already knew,  that he plans to deport 16 million people.

Trump’s plan and speech continue to draw sharp criticism:

Trump doubles down on his illogical, un-American immigration plans

Washington Post // Editorial Board

To the GOP nominee, illegal immigrants are a useful instrument with which to whip his supporters into a froth of nativist agitation. He would hire thousands more immigration and Border Patrol agents; he would create a “special deportation task force”; he would round up the criminals whose countries refuse to accept them. He would do it all on Day One, in the first hour, the first minute, in the first fleeting seconds of his administration — by fiat, presumably, because he makes no reference to Congress or legality or judicial precedent. It will all be so fast, so beautiful, so efficient. Believe him.

Donald Trump, Deporter in Waiting

New York Times // Editorial Board

Don’t be confused by the days of mixed messaging from Donald Trump’s campaign, or the head-feint trip to Mexico, where he was polite to the president. Speaking on Wednesday in Phoenix, Mr. Trump did not retreat from, or in any way soften, his promise to make 11 million unauthorized immigrants targets for deportation. His speech — in 10 points, embellished with statistics, ad-libbed asides and audience hollering and chanting — was as clear a statement of hard-core restrictionism as any he has given. It was a mass-deportation speech, even if he avoided that phrase. Its intent was hard to miss.

Trump can’t ‘soften’ bigotry

Washington Post // Eugene Robinson

Foreigners who come here seeking a better life are the scapegoats he blames for problems real and imagined. Never mind that Trump’s mother was an immigrant, or that two of his three wives came from overseas. Ronald Reagan saw this country as a shining city on a hill; Trump wants us to cower in fear behind a Berlin-style wall. Reagan invited millions of undocumented immigrants to stay and contribute to their adopted land; Trump wants to round them up, all 11 million, and ship them home.

Trump’s Fortress America

Wall Street Journal // Editorial Board

..the businessman missed a chance to make a more reasonable case to honor the law without embracing mass deportation that is politically impossible and economically damaging. “Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation,” Mr. Trump said. “And you can call it deported if you want. The press doesn’t like that term. You can call it whatever the hell you want. They’re gone.”

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Are Universes Apart on Immigration
NBC News // Benjy Sarlin and Alex Seitz-Wald

Experts from all sides of the immigration spectrum say the policy gap between Donald Trump, who on Wednesday reaffirmed his support for a border wall and mass deportation, and Hillary Clinton, who has pledged to further integrate millions of undocumented immigrants into American society, is unprecedented in recent history.

How Trump got from Point A to Point A on immigration
Washington Post // Jenna Johnson, Robert Costa and Philip Rucker

He spent days floating a series of possible changes and gauging the reaction… But later that night, he decided to stick with the far-right positions that were key to his success in the Republican primaries and could help him cement the support of white men — one demographic where he beats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

No more nation of immigrants: Trump plan calls for a major, long-lasting cut in legal entries

LA Times // David Lauter and Brian Bennett

Trump broke sharply from the Republican Party’s long-standing positions and adopted the most openly nativist platform of any major party presidential candidate in decades. If Trump is elected, the shift he advocates would greatly reduce immigration overall and move the U.S. from an immigration philosophy of allowing strivers from around the world to take advantage of American opportunities to one focused on bringing in people who already have money and job skills. That viewpoint is deeply divisive within the GOP — another example of the stress that Trump’s campaign has put on the party.

Trump’s “zero tolerance” failure: His harsh immigration policy would hurt immigrants and citizens alike

Salon // Simon Maloy

As I wrote this morning, Donald Trump’s big immigration speech on Wednesday night was a demagogic horror show. But folded into the nativist barking and anti-immigrant fearmongering was something resembling a policy proposal: a 10-point outline describing how, exactly, a President Trump would tackle the issue of undocumented immigration. Despite Trump’s promises of detail, very little of what he proposed delved into specifics. But the thrust of his policy was clear: mass deportation. He touted a “zero tolerance” policy for “criminal aliens” and promised that on Day 1 of his administration he will begin rounding up for deportation the supposed 2 million of them that he said are currently living in the country. The noncriminal element of the immigrant population would also be prioritized for removal under the Trump plan.

Deconstructing Donald Trump’s horrifying 10-step assault on immigration, due process and other cherished American values

Medium // David Leopold, Former President, American Immigration Lawyers Association

After Donald Trump met with his Hispanic Advisory Council on August 20, the media tied itself in knots over whether he had “softened” on his insistence that all 11 million undocumented immigrants be deported, a central pillar of his campaign…But on Wednesday in Phoenix, Trump put any talk of possible “softening” to bed, as he outlined a horrifying, 10-step assault on immigrants — documented and undocumented; due process; and other cherished American values. Trump laid out the most hardline, mean spirited immigration proposal in U.S. history; a scheme, that if put into effect, would result in the mass deportation, either by force or by forcing people out because life is so miserable, with no way back to the U.S.

A side note:  I watched the full speech and was disturbed the most by two of his ten points

  1. That he would tighten up the immigration number and allow only those to enter who had a “good” chance of assimilating to our culture (translation: NO Muslims, NO Hispanics, just rich white folks)
  2. That he would employ the use of biometrics to track those within our borders on Visas— which to me sounded more like the modern-day technological equivalent of Nazi tatoos placed on the arms of people of the Jewish faith

If you have the stomach for it and care to “listen between the words”, you can watch the full speech here.

NV Dems Statement on Trump Opening Las Vegas HQ

Trump campaign invited former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, confirming again that his immigration plan hasn’t changed

Las Vegas, NV – In response to the Trump campaign opening their Las Vegas headquarters today with former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Nevada Assemblyman and Democratic National Committeeman Nelson Araujo released the following statement:

“It’s fitting that Donald Trump would invite the most extreme anti-immigrant Republican he could find to open his Las Vegas headquarters. After Trump has spent the past year demonizing immigrants, the fact that Nevada Republicans would promote a hateful individual like Jan Brewer is yet another disgusting insult to Latinos. Immigrant families like mine are the heart and soul of so many communities across the Las Vegas Valley. Once again, we are reminded that Trump’s divisive immigration plan hasn’t changed one bit. If he ever makes it to the White House, Trump will rip apart families and deport millions of hard-working people from the United States.”

In 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070, the most extreme legislative effort in the county to discriminate against and deport undocumented immigrants.

Declaración del partido demócrata de Nevada sobre la inauguración de la sede de campaña de Donald Trump en Las Vegas

La campaña de Donald Trump invitó a la ex-gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, confirmando una vez más que su plan de inmigración no ha cambiado

Las Vegas, NV – Respondiendo a la inauguración de la nueva sede de la campaña Trump en Las Vegas con la ex-gobernadora Jan Brewer, el Asambleísta y Miembro del Comité Demócrata Nacional Nelson Araujo publicó la declaración siguiente:

“Es obvio que Donald Trump decidió invitar a la Republicana anti-inmigrante más extrema que pudo encontrar para ayudarle abrir su sede en Las Vegas. Después de que Trump pasó un año clasificando los inmigrantes como criminales, el hecho de que los Republicanos de Nevada promuevan a alguien tan odiosa y divisionista como Jan Brewer es un insulto repugnante a los latinos. Familias inmigrantes como la mía son el corazón y el alma de tantas comunidades en el valle de Las Vegas. Ya de nuevo nos recordamos que el plan de inmigración de Trump no ha cambiado para nada. Si de alguna manera logra llegar a la Casa Blanca, Trump separará familias y deportará a millones de personas trabajadoras de los Estados Unidos.”
En el 2010, la Gobernadora Jan Brewer firmó el SB 1070, el esfuerzo legislativo más extremo en el país que discrimina en contra de inmigrantes, y deporta los indocumentados.

NV Community Leader Responds to Trump’s Call to Restrict Immigration from the Philippines

Captain Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq while serving in the U.S. Army, was an immigrant and an American hero. But we also have everyday heroes in our own families and neighborhoods. Maybe it’s your own brother, sister, friend, teacher or neighbor. Tell us why this person is an immigrant hero. We will review stories to share and help us in the fight.

Immigrants are under attack this election year. Donald Trump is running an anti-immigrant campaign based on hatred and bigotry. So we need your help, and 11 million immigrants in fear of deportation need your help too.

Let’s fight against these attacks by celebrating the contributions Latinos, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Afro-Caribbeans and other immigrants have made.

Hillary-NVCommunity leader and Filipino activist Margie Gonzalez issued the following statement following Donald Trump’s call for restrictions on immigration from countries like the Philippines:

“Donald Trump’s call to restrict immigration from countries like the Philippines shows once again that his divisive agenda is too dangerous for our community not to do everything we can to stop him. An estimated 150,000 Filipino Americans who live in Nevada could be impacted by Trump’s misguided proposal. As a proud Filipina dedicated to uplifting and empowering our community, I refuse to allow immigrant families like mine to be the target of Trump’s reckless and baseless discrimination. The Filipino community in Nevada makes our economy vibrant and the fabric of our nation stronger.”

“Hillary Clinton has a plan to fight for comprehensive immigration reform and reunite families. Filipinos have some of the longest visa wait times – up to 23 years in many cases. Hillary Clinton knows that America is a nation of immigrants, and she understands that our diversity makes us stronger together.”

Supreme Court on DACA Tied 4/4 (Updated)


The Republican Congress has done everything possible to NOT to address effective and efficient Immigration Reform legislation.  And to assure that NOTHING happens, 113 Republicans chose to use our limited tax dollars to sue the President for attempting to take whatever action he can constitutionally take to resolve the situation that our current Immigration system finds itself in today.  21 red-state Republicans have also jumped into the fray to challenge the legality of President Obama’s DACA/DAPA actions.  Nevada’s own Rep. Joe Heck may talk a good story and may not have voted to “deport Dreamers,” but he’s done relatively nothing to resolve
immigrations issues and has in fact, voted to defund implementation of a presidential executive order called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA].

DACA and DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans] are  two programs outlined in Presidential Executive Orders issued in 2014 that are designed to shield roughly 4 million people from deportation and make them eligible to work in the United States.  They were challenged in Court by Texas, 25 other states, Congressional Republicans and a number of Governors individually.  By strategically filing their suit in right-leaning Federal Court Districts, they were able to get favorable decisions for blocking implementation of those Executive Orders.

That ruling was challenged and the case ended up before the supreme court for resolution. Resolution, however, was not forthcoming as no final ‘decision’ was reached.  This morning’s announcement from the Supreme Court declared that they couldn’t agree on the basis of the case.  Four justices sided with the lower court, and four justices sided with the President’s actions. That tie vote sets no national precedent, but it does leave the ruling by the lower court prohibiting implementation in place.

Since many believe that a single, right-leaning jurisdiction should not be able to dictate what our national laws should be, we can now anticipate that supporters of President Obama’s executive actions may try to coalesce a different group of states to file suit in a different jurisdiction sympathetic to their position to get a ruling forcing implementation.  If successful, that would create a potential ‘split’ allowing an executive order to be considered constitutional in some parts of the U.S., while viewed as unconstitutional in other parts of the U.S.

In the meantime, we’re in the midst of a Presidential Election year.  The presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has declared that he would scrap both DACA and DAPA and deport en masse, some estimated somewhere between 5 and 11 million people. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has declared that she would keep both DACA and DAPA and find potential other ways to protect those who registered under those programs.

Elections are important folks.  There are some serious opportunity and economic costs associated with today’s ruling with puts not just those who trusted President Obama and registered for the program, but for a much larger population of people weary of what might happen if the government had information about them and are still sitting in the shadows.

We need to elect a Congress that is willing to dig in and work on issues.  We’ve now had a Congress unwilling to work for the money we pay them to manage our nation’s resources and laws.  It’s time for a change and I’m not talking about a change in the White House, but a change in Congress.

Statement from former NV Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, the Democratic candidate for Senate representing Nevadans re: Supreme Court Ruling on DACA/DAPA

“A knock on the door should not cause someone to fear that their family will suddenly be torn apart. This ruling is a setback for thousands of Nevada families, and Republicans like Donald Trump and Congressman Heck share the blame. This issue is personal for me – my grandfather came to this country from Chihuahua, Mexico. Contrary to what we hear from Republican politicians who call Mexicans ‘rapists,’ or promote debunked conspiracy theories about ‘Sharia Law’ coming to the United States, our country is stronger, not weaker, because of the contributions of immigrants. If Washington Republicans like Congressman Heck had actually done their job and passed comprehensive immigration reform, DACA and DAPA wouldn’t have even been necessary. Congressman Heck voted to join this anti-immigrant lawsuit that will result in families being torn apart – Nevada’s Latino community will hold him accountable for it in November.”

At the time of this writing, Rep. Joe Heck, the Republican candidate for Senate representing Nevadans has issued no statement regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this morning.

Hillary Clinton Statement on Texas v. United States

Today, following the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision in Texas v. United States, Hillary Clinton issued the following statement:

“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election. As I have consistently said, I believe that President Obama acted well within his constitutional and legal authority in issuing the DAPA and DACA executive actions. These are our friends and family members; neighbors and classmates; DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. They enrich our communities and contribute to our economy every day. We should be doing everything possible under the law to provide them relief from the specter of deportation.

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President’s legal authority. But in addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our families and our country need and deserve a full bench, and Senate Republicans need to stop playing political games with our democracy and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing and vote.

“This decision is also a stark reminder of the harm Donald Trump would do to our families, our communities, and our country. Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office. He has called Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘murderers.’ He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes.

“I believe we are stronger together. When we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them. When we build bridges, not walls. That is why, as president, I will continue to defend DAPA and DACA, and do everything possible under the law to go further to protect families. It is also why I will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship within my first 100 days. Because when families are strong—America is strong.”

Las declaraciones de Hillary Clinton sobre Texas versus Estados Unidos

Hillary Clinton publicó las siguientes declaraciones luego de la decisión dividida en el caso Texas vs. Estados Unidos:

“La inhabilidad de la Corte Suprema de llegar a una decisión en el caso Texas vs. Estados Unidos hoy es inaceptable y nos confirma la importancia de esta elección. Como he dicho consistentemente, creo que el presidente Obama actuó adecuadamente dentro de su autoridad legal y constitucional al emitir las acciones ejecutivas DAPA y DACA. Estos son nuestros amigos y familiares, vecinos y compañeros de clase; DREAMers y padres de residentes permanentes legales. Ellos enriquecen nuestras comunidades y contribuyen a la economía todos los días. Debemos hacer todo lo posible bajo la Ley para proveerles alivio de la sombras de la deportación.

“La decisión de hoy de la Corte Suprema es puramente procesal y no deja ninguna duda del hecho que DAPA y DACA están totalmente bajo la autoridad legal del presidente. Pero en lugar de echar a millones de familias a través de todo el país en un estado de incertidumbre, esta decisión nos recuerda cuánto daño los senadores republicanos están haciendo al rehusar considerar nombrar la vacante del presidente Obama a la Corte Suprema. Nuestras familias y nuestro país necesitan y merecen que se nombre esa vacante y los senadores republicanos tienen que parar de seguir estos juegos políticos con nuestra democracia y darle al juez Merrick Garland una audiencia justa y un voto.

“Esta decisión representa más evidencia de cuánto daño Donald Trump le haría a nuestras familias, nuestras comunidades y nuestro país. Trump se ha comprometido en revocar las acciones ejecutivas del presidente Obama en su primer día de administración. Ha llamado a los inmigrantes mexicanos “violadores” y “asesinos”. Ha enfatizado que creará una “fuerza de deportación” para separar a 11 millones de personas de sus familias y hogares. No podemos permitir un presidente que promueve la intolerancia de esta forma.

“Creo que somos más fuertes cuando nos unimos, cuando damos la bienvenida a los inmigrantes, no cuando los degradamos; cuando construimos puentes no murallas. Es por esto que, como presidenta, implementaré fielmente DAPA y DACA y haré todo lo posible bajo la Ley para ir más allá y proteger las familias inmigrantes. Es por esto, también, que introduciré una reforma migratoria integral con un camino a la ciudadanía durante los primeros 100 días de mi administración. Porque cuando las familias están fuertes, el país está fuerte”.





4 Reasons Why States Suing to Stop Immigration Actions Stand to Lose Big

Immigration activists demonstrate at the Supreme Court in Washington in support of President Barack Obama’s executive order to grant relief from deportation in order to keep immigrant families together, March 18, 2016. The U.S. Capitol is in the background.

Immigration activists demonstrate at the Supreme Court.
SOURCE: AP/J. Scott Applewhite

 — by Tom Jawetz 

On April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit, United States v. Texas, brought by more than two dozen states challenging an immigration enforcement policy by the secretary of homeland security. If successful, the lawsuit could tear apart millions of American families, while at the same time greatly undercutting the U.S. economy.

Twenty-six states filed a lawsuit challenging the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, initiative along with the expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, initiative. Under DAPA, DACA, and expanded DACA, certain unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the United States for many years and who either came to the country as children or are the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents can come forward, register with the government, pass background checks, and request deferred action—a temporary protection from the threat of deportation. With deferred action, such people are also eligible to request permission to work in the country legally. The implementation of both DAPA and expanded DACA has been temporarily placed on hold while the case works its way through the courts.

In suing to freeze DAPA and expanded DACA, these 26 states have chosen to forgo tens of billions of dollars in increased state gross domestic product, or GDP, not to mention the additional earnings of their own residents, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars each year in increased state and local tax revenue. This is significant in part because the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the plaintiff states had standing to bring this lawsuit based upon the district court’s finding that the state of Texas may end up spending “several million dollars” to issue driver’s licenses to some of the people who receive deferred action. In addition to these monetary losses, the plaintiff states are also threatening to tear fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters away from the more than 2.6 million U.S. citizen family members with whom they live in these states. (see Table 2)

Here are four key facts you should know about the states that are suing to freeze DAPA and expanded DACA.

1. The plaintiff states stand to lose at least $91.9 billion in increased state GDP

Nationally, the three deferred action initiatives—DAPA, DACA, and expanded DACA—are estimated to grow the U.S. economy cumulatively by $230 billion over 10 years. The reasons for this are fairly simple. As professional economists and scholars in related fields recently explained in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, when unauthorized immigrants gain work authorization and protection from deportation—even temporarily—they are able to find jobs that make full use of their skills and abilities, earn higher wages, and become even more economically productive.

What’s more, individual states can expect to see their economies grow as a result of these initiatives. Together, 18 of the 26 states suing to freeze DAPA and expanded DACA stand to lose an estimated $91.9 billion in increased state GDP over 10 years if the three deferred action initiatives are not fully implemented. And while the original DACA initiative is not under review in United States v. Texas, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision places a cloud over it as well.


2. Residents of the plaintiff states stand to lose an estimated $48.4 billion in increased earnings

Because of the enormous economic activity that would be generated by these initiatives, the cumulative earnings of American workers would increase by an estimated $124 billion nationally. In the 18 plaintiff states for which CAP has data, we estimate that implementing DAPA, DACA, and expanded DACA would raise the earnings of these states’ residents by more than $48.4 billion over 10 years.

3. The plaintiff states stand to lose nearly $272 million annually in increased state and local tax revenue

Unauthorized immigrants contribute enormous sums to state and local coffers through taxes:$11.64 billion annually, according to a new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Full implementation of the three deferred action initiatives would increase state and local tax contributions by unauthorized immigrants by an estimated $805 million each year.

The 26 states that are suing to block DAPA and expanded DACA would stand to gain an estimated $271.7 million annually in state and local tax revenue. Texas leads the way with the nearly $59 million it is estimated to gain each year in such revenue through the implementation of DAPA, DACA, and expanded DACA. (see Table 1)

And it’s not just states and localities that would stand to lose additional tax revenues: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation studied the budgetary effects of legislation to block DAPA, DACA, and expanded DACA and found that the bill would reduce federal tax revenues by $22.3 billion over a 10-year period, leading to a $7.5 billion increase in the deficit over that same period.

4. More than 2.6 million U.S. citizens live with a DAPA-eligible family member in the plaintiff states

By definition, the parents of American citizens or lawful permanent residents who would be eligible to apply for DAPA have deep roots in the United States. Nearly 70 percent of anticipated DAPA beneficiaries have lived in the United States for at least 10 years, and a full one-quarter have lived here for at least 20 years.

According to an estimate prepared for CAP by the University of Southern California’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, there are more than 6.1 million U.S. citizens around the country who live in the same household as a DAPA-eligible family member. California leads the pack with an estimated 1.8 million individuals, but Texas comes in a close second at nearly 1.1 million. And in the 21 plaintiff states for which CAP has data, there are more than 2.6 million U.S. citizens living with a DAPA-eligible family member.



Given the facts presented above, it is little wonder that the largest cities and counties in many of the plaintiff states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing in support of DAPA and expanded DACA. If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court’s decision and permits these policies to take effect—as it should—not only will the nation as a whole benefit from the implementation of these sensible policies, but the plaintiff states will benefit as well.

Tom Jawetz is the Vice President of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress.

This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. ‘Like’ CAP Action on Facebook and ‘follow’ us on Twitter