Jan Brewer Immigration Order Contradicts Past Arizona Policy, Report Finds - Page 2

No, if AZ requires people to be in 'status' it would not accept EAD as primary document, it would only accept passport + visa + I-94 or green card. You need to read the article in the first post, it clearly says that since August 15 AZ DMV has issued more than 1000 driver's licenses to other EAD holders while denying them to DACA EAD holders. As I said before, most people who use EAD don't have any immigration 'status'.

Each item in that CFR section has its own process. The process for DACA is different from the one for Cubans, the one for asylum seekers, the one for people under TPS, and so on. The difference in processes and requirements doesn't matter because at the end of the day they are all 'lawfully present'. There is no justification to deny driver's licenses to one group of lawfully present immigrants, while denying them to another group that is just as lawfully present.

Not all other categories have legal status, you can check it yourself. For example, some people who are about to be deported can also get ead under category c18.

First, I must ask...is every single person in the US who is eligible for an EAD a nonimmigrant with no legal status? (If so, please explain J1 to me). You cant say that "most" people dont have legal status, we just dont have the proof to back that up (unless you do, please show me). Look at every single category of people that are eligible for EADs. Some of them can be considered analogous to being in DACA status, others are not. Some do not have legal status (some do), so I take back my a portion of my post where i said **I think** every other category has legal status. I've read that poorly written article atleast 2 times. They show you a chart of people who have received ID's with an EAD but they dont tell you if they are "legal or illegal" as the article itself mentions. They talk about those who are eligible to get an EAD, but they tell you that both legal and illegal are eligible. How do you know that most of those people didnt have legal status? Please dont refer me to the lawyer in AZ's AILA chapter who uses the word "probably", "believe", "most likely" etc...

I'll say it again, DACA is a new process and obviously a lot more people are eligible. As of november, 11,000 Arizona people have applied for DACA. Thats more than double the people who would be eligible for an EAD and would receive an ID in AZ than they have deemed eligible ("illegal or legal" status according to the article) each year in the past 7 years. This is a state issue and because the article failed to reproduce the data for how many out of status individuals currently have an ID in the state of AZ, the argument becomes less credible.

No need to requote the point the article was trying to make. They might be lawfully present, but again, the article doesn't give you solid data in regards to how many of them did not have lawful status. Like i mentioned before, this whole decision has been left up to the state and to my knowledge no one has filed a lawsuit against Arizona. I think Arizona could have saved itself the controversy if they had changed their policy to allow those with legal status only instead of making a DACA-specific policy change.

I am not sure what you're trying to achieve here other than to win this debate. The immigration lawyers in the article don't have solid numbers, but they are certain that the majority of EAD holders don't have 'status' because they're the ones handling the cases.

Let me repeat myself. If AZ really requires 'status' rather than 'lawful presence', then they should refuse EAD as primary document because aliens with 'status' have either green cards or passports+visas+I94 to prove it. That is, if it's legal for states to refuse to recognize federally defined 'lawful presence'.

They want to give only driver's licenses to EAD holders with status? They need to also refuse DL to at least:
- A3
- A4
- A5
- A10
- A11
- A12
- C8
- C10
- C11
- C14 (Deferred Action other than DACA)
- C18
- C19

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...0.1.2.54.2.1.1

Lol what? What would exactly be the point in me "winning this debate", on a link i didnt post, on an article I didnt write, and a state that has policies that do not physically limit me? But if this argument means that much to you, then you win =). I think youre focusing a little too much on your points and not reading anything im saying.

Yes you are correct in that they are probably handling most of the cases. So they can tell you whether or not an EAD is issued to them. But they are not the DMV.

[quote]Let me repeat myself. If AZ really requires 'status' rather than 'lawful presence', then they should refuse EAD as primary document because aliens with 'status' have either green cards or passports+visas+I94 to prove it. That is, if it's legal for states to refuse to recognize federally defined 'lawful presence'.[quote]

Is that some way of you saying you disagree with my previous statement:
What i tried to achieve / have achieved:
In summary, I stood somewhat corrected about all people with EAD's not having legal status. I also said many times that it was up to the state on what they did with daca, but i also did not give my personal opinion on if it was acceptable or not. You said that AZ would become a more solidly republican state, to which i asked you what was wrong with that...i said if the undocumented truly contributed there, then they would feel the affect once people left (im not saying this is an easy thing to do or that it wouldnt be a burden for people to leave AZ). AZ being hostile towards the undocumented is nothing new. We also made it clear that the article didnt provide good enough data to see how many people with EADs actually have legal status. Lastly, this whole time your main argument is why DACA beneficiaries are being singled out by being denied benefits, but it should be fairly evident from the hundreds of articles and interviews since sb1070 that Arizona wants something more concrete in dealing with immigration and better "border control" (whatever that means)...which is why for me and some others on here it wasnt a complete surprise when Brewer issued the executive order.

DACA beneficiaries are being singled out negatively by Brewer because they're high profile. In other word, it's a strategic political move rather than a logical attempt at making policy. Worse, it could very well be a product of her petty squabble with Obama. Her argument about 'status' doesn't hold water because the CFR clearly defines many other types of aliens who qualify for EAD without having status. To make an analogy, it's like saying "we don't give benefits to Mexicans because they're Hispanics" while giving benefits to Guatemalans, Venezuelans, Colombians, Peruvians, etc.

Ok, so AZ wants to do something about illegal immigration by targeting all aliens without status. Well then go ahead and refuse to accept EAD as primary identification document! They will deny DL to asylum seekers, refugees, and even Cubans who haven't received green cards. Let's see how that works out for them at the Supreme Court. I think the only reason nobody bothers with a lawsuit yet is due to all the talks about Obama and Republicans wanting to tackle CIR next year. These lawsuits can take years, and people don't want to spend the legal effort if there's a chance that it will be moot in several months.

Seems like dreamers in AZ are fuc***, no one has filed a lawsuit against the state, the only organization we have in Phx is ADAC which can't do anything about this. I don't know why the local media gives ADAC so much attention, we seriously need help in AZ.

Wish an tribe of indigenous Americans could walk up to Brewer and ask to leave their land. See how she likes it. And to nullify her driver's license for the illegal takeover and removal of their lands.

Guys look
http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-...-stop-dreamers