Jan Brewer Immigration Order Contradicts Past Arizona Policy, Report Finds

Fellow AZ dreamers, here we go...

BTW...anyone has an update on the lawsuits that were supposed to be filed for this? I haven't heard anything of it

It is plain as day to me that Brewer is drawing a distinction where there is none. I dare say most EAD holders don't have 'status' because few visa holders qualify for EAD, and LPRs don't need them. Singling out DACA beneficiaries is a simple political maneuver with no legal precedent.

Like I have said a long time ago. People in AZ need to get the HECK out of there!

But that's exactly what they want... The more Hispanics they scare away, the more solidly Republican the state becomes. It's exactly what Romney meant by 'self deportation', to make life so miserable that undocumented immigrants choose to move out on their own.

Well in the meantime all the people who got approved for DACA won't get any jobs any time soon. Who knows when... AZ is crazy. How will the DACA people going to survive there now if they don't go get a job somewhere until AZ gets it straight.

Huh? I dont think what you've said there is accurate (Please correct if i am wrong though). Except for deferred action people, i think every other category eligible for receiving an i-765 does in deed have "Legal Status".

Im not saying that I agree with whats going on in AZ with regards to daca, but if it doesnt grant legal status (which it doesnt) then technically speaking, if their policies grant drivers licenses to only those who are legally present, then DACA beneficiaries do not fall under this category.


I have previously said that as well. If it becomes a more "solidly Republican" state (which i believe it has always been) why not let it? If the undocumented are making any significant contributions there, dont you think it will show and ultimately HURT AZ? If not, then its not a friendly place for them to live anyway (looks like a win-win to me).

Not all undocumented are Hispanic, there are fellow dreamers on this forums who aren't Hispanic. NEVER ASSUME OR GENERALIZE! IJS.

I know this is complicated, so let me try explaining it again. Maybe I'll write the explanation on a blog or something, so I don't keep repeating myself.

There are two separate concepts in immigration law: 'status' and 'lawful presence'. There are only two kinds of status: immigrant or non immigrant. The easiest way to remember it is people in immigrant status have green cards, while those in non immigrant status have valid visas (with few exceptions). Since DACA doesn't give you either a green card or a visa, you don't have any 'status'. People in status are always considered to be lawfully present. However, people that are out of status are NOT always unlawfully present.

Here's the definition of 'lawfully present' according to 8 CFR 103.12
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/103.12
The term used in the federal register for DACA is DED (Deferred Enforced Departure), look it up under (a)(4)(v). As you can see, DACA beneficiaries are not unique, you're not even the first on the list. You're about as 'legal' as a newly arrived Cuban waiting for his green card to arrive in the mail. This is why I say Brewer's action in singling out DACA beneficiaries is baseless, because most of the people on the list don't have 'status' either.

You need to dial down your sensitivity, I'm on your side. If generalizations are not permitted, then obviously people can't make a connection between Romney's low vote numbers among Hispanics and his idea of 'self deportation'. If the Republican party doesn't see the connection between Hispanics and undocumented immigrants, it wouldn't be willing to compromise on CIR to gain Latino votes.

That was a total mistake on my part for mentioning lawfully presence in the second to last sentence, which i clearly did not mean to as i was talking about status only. The "Rules" for AZ require people to have lawful STATUS and not lawful PRESENCE yes? While DACA Beneficiaries have lawful PRESENCE (They are assumed to have lawful presence because they do not accrue unlawful presence / not deportable under policy change) they do not have lawful status...which is why they are denying them IDs. Another issue is it seems as if this is up to the state, so while AZ COULD issue them ID's, do they have to? No.

DACA is a whole different process and not the same as any other which is why it might feel like they are being singled out.