# data[].attributes.headline
1986-Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1986-Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

# data[].attributes.body
This act was created in order to catch immigrants who were in the work force. It required all people to submit a report of who works their every year and the legality of all of it. This impacts Latino people because if they were immigrants in this country, they were not allowed to make a living.

# data[].attributes.headline
1991-- Spanish becomes the official language of Puerto Rico

# data[].attributes.subject
1991-- Spanish becomes the official language of Puerto Rico

# data[].attributes.body
While previously both English and Spanish were the official languages of this island, in 1991 a vote is passed to make Spanish the sole official language. English had previously been almost forced upon PR, and was seen by many as an attempt to strip it of its culture and heritage. The revoking of the Official Languages Act is crucial to PR in maintaining its culture, heritage, and identity.

# data[].attributes.headline
1991 Puerto Rican  referendum (Douglas Griffiths)

# data[].attributes.subject
1991 Puerto Rican  referendum (Douglas Griffiths)

# data[].attributes.body
Puerto Rico held a Constitutional Amendment Referendum. In which the Puerto Ricans vote 55% against Puerto Rico having a "status not subordinate to plenary powers of congress." Basically saying that they wanted to become closer to the United States, which was ignored.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994 -- The North American Free Trade Agreement

# data[].attributes.subject
1994 -- The North American Free Trade Agreement

# data[].attributes.body
To try and stimulate trade just like Europe has done, the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The agreement stimulated the United States economy, as well as North America as a whole. It benefited American famers and ranchers, and intergraded the economies of the three countries. Despite the increase of trade, labor unions did not like the law.

# data[].attributes.headline
1994--California Proposition 187, Illegal Aliens Ineligible for Public Benefits

# data[].attributes.subject
1994--California Proposition 187, Illegal Aliens Ineligible for Public Benefits

# data[].attributes.body
California Proposition 187 was approved on the general election ballot in 1984. The goal was to make illegal immigrants living in the country unable to receive public benefits. Though it was passed with roughly 59% in favor, many organizations fought against it, such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the ACLU, and the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC). On November 11, just days after it was passed, district court judge Matthew Byrne forbid the enforcement of the Proposition. In 1998, the U. S. District Court ruled it unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition, which would amend the state constitution to prohibit "state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education." It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed. A proposal to repeal Prop 209 was placed on the ballot for the 2020 Californian elections as Proposition 16, and was rejected by a margin of 57% to 43%. showing that Californias are still as supportive to race neutrality as they were before.

# data[].attributes.body
Proposition 227, passed in California, bans bilingual education and the education of English as a second language. The goal was to teach LEPs (limited English proficient --> term used in source) to be fluent in English. The law

Requires that California has to teach LEP students almost entirely in English (whether they understand it or not).

Shortens the amount of time that the LEP students would be in the special classes designed specifically to help them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June, 1998

Proposition 227
Education. Public Schools.
English as Required Language of Instruction.
Initiative Statute

Background

California's public schools serve 5.6 million students in kindergarten through twelfth (K-12) grades. In 1996-97, schools identified 1.4 million, or 25 percent, of these students as "limited English proficient" (LEP). These are students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up in school. Eighty-eight percent of the state's schools had at least one LEP student, and 71 percent had at least 20 LEP students.

Under current law, schools must make their lessons understandable to LEP students. To help schools address the needs of these students, the State Department of Education created guidelines for the development of local LEP programs. These guidelines state:

The main goal of all programs is to make LEP students fluent in English.

Programs must allow LEP students to do well in all school work. In some cases, this means teaching some subjects to LEP students in their home languages.

Schools must allow all LEP students the option of being in bilingual programs. A bilingual program is one in which students are taught both in their home language and in English.

Schools must allow parents to choose whether or not their children are in bilingual programs.

How Are Students Currently Served?

Schools currently use a range of services to help LEP students (1) learn how to speak, read, and write English; and (2) learn academic subjects (such as math, reading, writing, history, and science).

Services to Help Students Learn English. Almost all LEP students get special services to help them learn English. These services are often provided during a part of the school day, separate from lessons on regular academic subjects.

Services to Help Students Learn Academic Subjects. Most LEP students receive special help in their academic subjects in one of two basic ways:

Lessons That Use Special Materials. About 40 percent of all LEP students are taught their academic subjects in English. The class materials and teaching methods for these students, however, are specially designed for students who do not speak English well.

Lessons That Are Taught in Students' Home Language. About 30 percent of all LEP students are taught some or all of their academic subjects in their home languages. These are what people usually refer to as bilingual classes.

The remaining 30 percent of LEP students do not receive special help in their academic subjects. This is either because they do not need it or because the school does not provide it. These students are taught their academic subjects in regular classrooms.

How Long Do Students Receive LEP Services? State guidelines say that schools should give LEP students special services until (1) they can read, write, and understand English as well as average English speakers in their grade; and (2) they can participate equally with fluent speakers in the classroom. Schools report that LEP students often receive special services for many years.

How Are LEP Services Funded? The state currently provides over $400 million in special funds for students--both LEP and non-LEP--who need extra help to succeed in school. These funds are known as "compensatory" funds. Schools report that the majority of this money is spent for LEP students. In addition, schools may spend federal and local funds for special services for LEP students.

Proposal

This proposition significantly changes the way that LEP students are taught in California. Specifically, it:

Requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English. This would eliminate "bilingual" classes in most cases.

Shortens the time most LEP students would stay in special classes. The initiative states that: (1) LEP students should move from special classes to regular classes when they have acquired a good working knowledge of English and (2) these special classes should not normally last longer than one year. This would eliminate most programs that provide special classes to LEP students over several years.

Exceptions. Schools would be permitted to provide classes in a language other than English if the child's parent or guardian asks the school to put him or her in such a class and one of the following happens:

The child is at least ten years old and the school principal and teachers agree that learning in another language would be better for the child.

The child has been in a class using English for at least 30 days and the principal, teachers, and head of the school district agree that learning in another language would be better for the student.

The child already is fluent in English and the parents want the child to take classes in another language.

If a school lets 20 or more LEP students in a grade choose to take their lessons in a language other than English, then the school must give such a class. If there are not 20 students or more, then the school must let the students go to other schools that have classes in those languages.

Funding Provisions. The initiative requires the state to provide $50 million every year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. In addition, the measure requires that any special funding currently spent on LEP students be maintained, if possible.

Fiscal Impact
School Costs and Savings
This proposition would result in several fiscal impacts on schools.

Savings. By limiting the time LEP students can be in special classes generally to one year, the initiative would reduce the number of special classes schools would have to offer. This could result in major savings for schools.

Costs. The proposition could also result in new costs to schools, for a number of reasons. For instance, the one-year special classes could be more expensive than existing classes if schools provide more intensive services. Schools may also need to give LEP students extra help in academic subjects once they are moved to regular classes if they fall behind other students.

Distribution of "Compensatory" Funds. The state provides "compensatory" funds to schools based in part on the number of LEP students. The proposition would likely reduce the number of students who are considered LEP at any given time. As a result, state funds would be allocated differently--some schools would get more compensatory funds and others would get less.

Net Impact on Schools. We cannot predict the proposition's net impact on schools. It would depend in large part on how people respond to its passage, including:

Parents' decisions on the types of services they want for their children.

Schools' decisions on the types and levels of services provided to LEP students.

State decisions on the allocation of "compensatory" funds it currently provides to schools with LEP students.

The net impact could vary significantly by individual school.

State Fiscal Effects

Under the proposition, the state would spend $50 million each year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. This provision, however, probably would not change total state spending for schools. (This is because the level of state spending for K-12 schools is generally based on a formula in the Constitution.) As a result, the costs to the state of this provision would likely reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount.
Return to Initiatives and Propositions Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Proposition 227, 1998: English Language in Public Schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June, 1998 California's public schools serve 5.6 million students in kindergarten through twelfth (K-12) grades. In 1996-97, schools identified 1.4 million, or 25 percent, of these students as "limited English proficient" (LEP). These are students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up in school.

# data[].attributes.body
On Thanksgiving 1999, Elian Gonzalez who was just five years old at the time, was found hanging on an inner tube just three miles off the coast of Ft. Lauderdale. He was taken to the hospital for treatment after he was rescued. His mother, along with 11 others on the raft, had drowned as they attempted to come from Cuba to the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Ever since 1938 and extending to the end of the 20th century, the U.S. Navy has managed to acquire and take control of over 70% of the land of Puerto Rican island of Vieques, most of which they use for training grounds, weapon testing, bomb sites, live fire practice, and other maneuvers. Huge concerns were raised for toxic contamination, environmental damage, and increased rates of cancers due to the many years of serving as a military training location. A series of peace protests took place in the year 2000 and the extent of popularity from these protests attracted many influential environmental and authority figures to look at the case. After 3 more years of protesting, President Bush had finally agreed to halt Navy activities in February and finally have them leave the island by May 2003.

# data[].attributes.headline
2003--ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Founded

# data[].attributes.subject
2003--ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Founded

# data[].attributes.body
After the 9/11 attacks, in 2002 the Homeland Security Act was enacted and one of the new agencies created was ICE. The main goals were to strengthen security and prevent any forms of terrorism. In 2007, ICE gained responsibility for arresting and removing “criminal aliens.” Later they also focussed on arresting immigrants related to drug crimes. It is important to understand now that ICE was originally made to primarily stop terrorism, yet now its main focus seems to be the arresting of immigrants, stimulating anti-immigrant sentiment even more in America today.

# data[].attributes.headline
2003- Hispanics declared largest minority group

# data[].attributes.subject
2003- Hispanics declared largest minority group

# data[].attributes.body
The 2003 census numbers show that Hispanic population in the US is steadily increasing and they are officially the largest minority group. New Immigrants from latin america count for a large portion of this number as well as high birth rates from Latin American people in the united states. This demographic shift was very significant and it challenged many Americans ideals on race.

# data[].attributes.headline
2004--Minutemen Project founded by citizens living near the Southern border to patrol and punish illegal immigrants (Leah Prizant)

# data[].attributes.subject
2004--Minutemen Project founded by citizens living near the Southern border to patrol and punish illegal immigrants (Leah Prizant)

# data[].attributes.body
Founded in 2004, the Minutemen, a group of militants assembled to patrol the border, began to station themselves in Arizona in 2005. They claimed to be protecting America unlike the government from illegal immigrants, who they believe steal jobs, bring crime, and destroy America. These racists sat together near the border, armed heavily, willing to shoot any immigrant who comes there way, thinking that trespassing into the US should be a death sentence. Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox, the founders, had already gained over 1000 followers, and their base only spread through their campaigning in the media, which was filled with misinformation on the nature of illegal immigrants. Several members are guilty of murders and sexual assault of innocent immigrants. Their movement has died down, seeing that the government, especially under former President Trump, took immigration very seriously at the border.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
COCHISE COUNTY, Ariz. -- The predominantly Hispanic towns of Douglas and Naco are connected by the aptly named Border Road, a 20-mile stretch of rocky dirt that runs parallel to a ragged barbed wire fence separating the United States from Mexico.

The night of April 3, armed vigilantes camped along Border Road in a series of watch posts set-up for the Minuteman Project, a month-long action in which revolving casts of 150 to 200 anti-immigration militants wearing cheap plastic "Undocumented Border Patrol Agent" badges mobilized in southeastern Arizona. Their stated goal was to "do the job our government refuses to do" and "protect America" from the "tens of millions of invading illegal aliens who are devouring and plundering our nation."

At Station Two, Minuteman volunteers grilled bratwursts and fantasized about murder.

"It should be legal to kill illegals," said Carl, a 69-year old retired Special Forces veteran who fought in Vietnam and now lives out West. "Just shoot 'em on sight. That's my immigration policy recommendation. You break into my country, you die."

Carl was armed with a revolver chambered to fire shotgun shells. He wore this hand cannon in a holster below a shirt that howled "American bad asses" in red, white and blue. The other vigilantes assigned to Station Two included a pair of self-professed members of the National Alliance, a violent neo-Nazi organization. These men, who gave their names only as Johnny and Michael, were outfitted in full-body camouflage and strapped with semi-automatic pistols.

Earlier that day, Johnny and Michael had scouted sniper positions in the rolling, cactus-studded foothills north of Border Road, taking compass readings and drawing maps for future reference.

"I agree completely," Michael said. "You get up there with a rifle and start shooting four or five of them a week, the other four or five thousand behind them are going to think twice about crossing that line."

With a grilled sausage in one hand and a cheap night vision scope in the other, Johnny scanned the brush in Mexico, spitting distance away.

"The thing to do would be to drop the bodies just a few hundred feet into the U.S. and just leave them there, with lights on them at night," he said. "That sends the message 'No Trespassing,' in any language."

The conversation stopped just short of decapitating Mexicans and putting their heads on pikes, facing south.

"I don't really like violence, but if we did start doing what you're talking about, it would show we mean business for a change," said the group's only woman, and the only person who didn't carry a gun. "It would say, 'This is the USA, don't fuck with us!"

The woman, who said she was with a Pennsylvania anti-immigration group, had outraged Johnny and Michael that afternoon by reporting for duty with a Star of David pendant dangling below the neckline of her "I Survived the Minuteman Project" t-shirt. She also squabbled with them over the morality of pit bull fighting, and expressed her belief in animal rights and no-kill dog and cat shelters. They started calling her "Jew bitch" behind her back.

She got back on their good side by condoning blood lust.

"Damn, I thought you were one of them," Michael said.

"One of what?" the woman asked.

"You know, animal rights, pacifism, save the kittens, all that crap."

"Well, this may sound a little weird, but I just have more respect for the lives of stray cats and dogs than I do illegal aliens."

"That's not weird at all," Michael said. "Not one damn bit."
Playing Army
Vigilante militias have been capturing, pistol-whipping and very possibly shooting Latin American immigrants in Cochise County since the late '90s, when shifts in U.S. border control policies transformed the high desert region into the primary point of entry for Mexico's two most valuable black market exports, drugs and people.

But the Minuteman Project raised the stakes with a highly publicized national recruiting drive followed by a campaign of deceitful media manipulation. These maneuvers generated massive and mostly positive nationwide coverage of what in actuality was little more than a relatively small and ineffectual gathering of bigots and weekend warriors, led by a pair of dueling egos. While they played Army in the desert for a few weeks, this slapdash band was transformed by the hype into the elite vanguard of America's anti-immigration movement.

The Minuteman Project was the brainchild of two fathers: Jim Gilchrist, a retired accountant and Vietnam veteran from Orange County, California, and Chris Simcox, a former kindergarten teacher at a private school in Brentwood, Calif., who left his job and his family, moved to Tombstone, Ariz., and refashioned himself into a brash anti-immigration militant following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Before the Minuteman Project began, Gilchrist and Simcox repeatedly claimed they had recruited more than 1,300 volunteers. But when their plan lurched into action on April Fool's Day in Tombstone, fewer than 150 volunteers actually showed up, and they were clearly outnumbered on the Wild West movie-set streets by a swarm of reporters, photographers, camera crews, anti-Minuteman protesters, American Civil Liberties Union legal observers, and costumed gunfight show actors.

On the whole, the Minuteman Project's enlistees were nearly all white. This wasn't surprising, except that Gilchrist and Simcox also claimed prior to April 1 that a full 40% of their volunteers would be minorities, including, according to their Web site, "American-Africans," "American-Mexicans," "American-Armenians," four paraplegics and six amputees.

California and Arizona were the most heavily represented states among the Minuteman enlistees, but the volunteers reported from all regions of the country. Many, if not most, were over 50 years old, counting a relatively high percentage of retired military men, police officers, and prison guards. Women made up nearly a third of the volunteers, including a bevy of white-haired ladies from Orange County, Calif., selling homemade Minuteman Project merchandise like "What Part of 'Illegal' Don't They Understand" T-shirts and the quickly ubiquitous "Undocumented Border Patrol Agent" badges (which, oxymoronically, bore color-copy counterfeits of the official Department of Homeland Security seal).

The keynote speaker at the Minuteman Project's opening day rally was Tom Tancredo, the Republican Congressman from Colorado who chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

Tancredo addressed a crowd of about 100 inside Schieffelin Hall, an auditorium not far from the ok Corral. Outside the hall, a phalanx of Arizona Rangers (a state police agency) stood between the hall's entrance and about 40 anti-Minutemen protesters who banged on pots and pans and drums while the vibrantly outfitted performers of a traditional Aztec dance group leapt and whirled to the cacophonous rhythm.

In late March, President Bush had condemned the Minuteman Project at a joint press conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox. "I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Bush said. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."

Tancredo said that Bush should be forced to write, "I'm sorry for calling you vigilantes," on a blackboard one hundred times and then erase the chalk with his tongue.

"You are not vigilantes," he roared. "You are heroes!"

Tancredo told the Minutemen that each of them stood for 100,000 likeminded Americans who couldn't afford to make the trip. He applauded Gilchrist and Simcox as "two good men who understand we must never surrender our right as citizens to do our patriotic duty and defend our country ... and stop this invasion ourselves."

Enemy Territory
While Gilchrist is newly prominent on the anti-immigration front - he recently joined the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, a hate group whose leader routinely describes Mexicans as "savages" - Simcox has been active since 2002, when he founded Civil Homeland Defense, a Tombstone-based vigilante militia that he brags has captured more than 5,000 Mexicans and Central Americans who entered the country without visas.

"These people don't come here to work. They come here to rob and deal drugs," Simcox told the Intelligence Report in a 2003 interview. "We need the National Guard to clean up our cities and round them up."

But that was the old Chris Simcox talking, not the new, spiffed-up, buttoned-down, ready-for-primetime Chris Simcox.

The old Simcox described Citizens Homeland Defense as "a committee of vigilantes," and "a border patrol militia." The new Simcox - the one interviewed for dozens of national TV news programs and major newspaper articles about the Minuteman Project - characterized his new and larger outfit of citizen border patrollers as "more of a neighborhood watch program."

The old Simcox said of Mexicans and Central American immigrants, "They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughter and they are evil people." The new Simcox said he sympathizes with their plight, and sees them as victims of their own government's failed policies.

Gilchrist gave his sound bites an even more extreme makeover by frequently comparing himself and most of his volunteers to "white Martin Luther Kings," and the Minuteman Project to the civil rights movement. He and Simcox both also preposterously declared in interview after interview that they had designed the Minuteman Project to "protect America from drug dealers and terrorists" as much as to catch undocumented immigrants and turn them over to the U.S. Border Patrol.

The mainstream American media largely failed to challenge these flagrant reinventions, even though Gilchrist's militant rhetoric about immigrants "devouring and plundering our nation" was still up on the Minuteman Project's Web site; even though Simcox's statements are public record (many were published in his own newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed), and even though the Minuteman Project's leaders already had a record of lying to the media.

Early this year, white supremacist and neo-Nazi Web sites began openly recruiting for the Minuteman Project. In response, Gilchrist and Simcox proclaimed that neo-Nazi Skinheads and race warriors from organizations such as the National Alliance and Aryan Nations were specifically banned from participating. Pressured by journalists to explain exactly how they planned to keep these undesirables out, the two organizers said they were working with the FBI to carefully check the backgrounds of all potential Minuteman volunteers, only to have the FBI completely deny this was the case.

Gilchrist and Simcox then claimed they were personally checking out each and every potential volunteer using on-line databases. Even if this were true, one of Gilchrist's computers crashed the morning of April 1, wiping out the records of at least 75 pre-registered volunteers. As a result, the registration protocol in Tombstone rapidly degenerated into a free-for-all, and virtually anyone who showed up and gave a name was issued a Minuteman Project badge and told where to go the next day to be assigned to a watch post.

Gilchrist and Simcox further claimed to the media prior to April 1 that the only volunteers who would be allowed to carry firearms would be those who had a concealed-carry handgun permit from their home states, an indication that they had passed at least a cursory background investigation. In fact, virtually no one was checked for permits.

While most of the Minuteman volunteers were not organized racists, at least one member of Aryan Nations infiltrated the effort, and Johnny and Michael said they were two of six members of the Phoenix chapter of the National Alliance who signed up as Minuteman Volunteers. They said the other four had arrived separately in two-man teams in order to cover more ground and be less conspicuous. They said the Alliance members came out to support the Minuteman Project, but also to recruit new members, and to learn the remote hot zones for border crossers in Cochise County. They said they intended to return and conduct small, roaming, National Alliance-only vigilante patrols in the fall, "when we can have a little more privacy," as Johnny put it.

The day after the registration meltdown, the Minuteman Project sponsored a protest across the street from the Border Patrol's headquarters in Naco. It drew about 75 demonstrators, including Johnny and Michael, who sat quietly in camp chairs, wearing sunglasses and holding placards.

Michael's sign was decorated with a war-room graphic of arrows that represented armies marching north from Mexico and spreading throughout the United States.

"Invasion?" it asked. "What Invasion?"

The graphic on Michael's sign was almost identical to the imagery on a billboard the Alliance paid to put up earlier this year in a predominantly Latino neighborhood of Las Vegas and on Alliance fliers that were tossed onto driveways and lawns in Douglas and Tombstone in late March during a dead-of-night distribution drive.

"Immigration or invasion?" those fliers read. "Non-whites are turning America into a Third World slum. They come for welfare or to take our jobs. They bring crime. Let's send them home now!"

Johnny and Michael offered their last names to no one, and never spoke of their jobs, though Michael said he had fought in the first Gulf War with the 82nd Airborne Division. At the protest, he wore a desert camouflage vest over a black shirt emblazoned with a white fist and combat boots. There were other small clues to the pair's ideology. Driving to the protest, they blasted the white-power rock band Youngblood. Johnny made several references to the "14 Words," a white supremacist adage ("We must secure the existence of our race and a future for White children"). Johnny also had a National Alliance symbol tattooed to the back of his neck and "Born in the C.S.A." (referring to the Confederate States of America) inked below his left jawbone.

"We both grew up in El Paso, and we've been racially aware since we were kids," Michael said. "In the sixth grade, El Paso put in a forced busing program, and I got sent to a middle school that was 95% Mexican. I got my ass kicked about every day. Johnny and I started backing each other up and we've been fighting Mexicans ever since."

Though both have lived in Arizona since the late '90s, the Minuteman Project marked the first time either has dared come near the border.

"The only way I'd be down here is with a bunch of other white guys with guns," Michael said. "Whites are the minority in these border towns, man. They've already been taken over. This is enemy territory."
Lock and Load
The Minuteman Project's "command and communications center" was located on the campus of Miracle Valley Bible College, a former cult compound just outside Naco. Stained mattresses and dusty junk cluttered the halls of the compound's dormitory buildings, where 100 Minuteman volunteers slept two to a room.

Another 30 to 40 vigilantes pitched tents on a weedy ball field with a rusted backstop, where tumbleweeds soared and bounced on shrieking desert winds.

The social atmosphere on the desolate compound was saturated with paranoia, military fetishism and machismo. A neatly printed sign posted to the communal shower room announcing "Women's Shower Hours 7-9 and 3-5" was defaced with a scrawled "NO! MEN ONLY!"

By day two of the Minuteman Project, volunteers had taken to calling the college's cafeteria the "mess hall," the dormitories "barracks," and the boundaries of the campus "the perimeter." Security was tight. Armed guards patrolled the perimeter and stopped cars at the front gate to check occupants for Minuteman badges. Minuteman security teams randomly placed trip flares in the desert outside the compound's structures to alert them at night to the presence of intruders.

Rumors of imminent danger flew through the dorms regularly, along with shouts to "lock and load," because the notorious Central American street gang MS-13 was about to storm the campus.

MS-13 is a favorite bogeyman of the anti-immigration movement, and in late March unsubstantiated Internet rumors began swirling that MS-13 leaders had issued orders for hundreds of MS-13 members in Los Angeles and Phoenix to converge in Cochise County and "teach the Minutemen a lesson." The Washington Times reported these rumors as fact on March 28 in a front-page article headlined "Gang will target Minuteman vigil on Mexico border."

The night of April 4, a cry of alarm went up throughout the Miracle Valley compound that "a credible threat" had been received that armed MS-13 gang members were about to lead a charge of hundreds of Mexicans "over the wire" and against the Minuteman posts along Border Road.

Furiously donning body armor and loading weapons, Minuteman Project security officers and citizen volunteers piled into vehicles and raced to the rescue, only to find that, like all the supposedly impending assaults on the Bible college, the MS-13-led attack never materialized.

The Minuteman Project's culture of fear sprang from the top and then trickled down through the ranks. A towering bodyguard dressed all in black shadowed Gilchrist, and Simcox often donned a bulletproof vest (Simcox is prohibited from carrying a firearm due to his 2004 conviction for illegally packing a pistol in a national park while hunting immigrants).

When Johnny and Michael first arrived at their assigned post on Border Road, they warily eyed a rock formation atop a hill about 250 yards away, in Mexico.

"That's a perfect MS-13 sniper's nest," Michael said. "Keep an eye out for any glints of metal up there."

Johnny pulled out a pair of vinyl rifle cases from a hiding place in the heap of camping and military surplus gear that filled the back of his Toyota 4Runner. Inside the cases were assault rifles, a violation of the Minuteman's weapons policy, which required volunteers to arm themselves with handguns only. "They're loaded, and there are extra clips in there, just in case anything goes down," he said.

Carl found a depression in the earth behind his pick-up truck and called his squad together.

"This is our fallback position," he said. "If we start taking incoming rounds, everyone dive here and get your head down."

But there were no incoming rounds, and no invading, dark-skinned hordes. Day after day, hour after hour, the Minuteman Project volunteers spaced in seven posts along a mile-long stretch of Border Road sat in lawn chairs and milled around, staring at dirt, cacti, and the occasional jackrabbit.

There was so little action on the Mexican side of the fence that a lone cattle rancher riding his horse just south of the border was enough to spark a flurry of radio traffic: "Station Two, this is Station One, we have a mounted possible hostile coming your way, over."

The rancher smiled, waved, and shouted, "Hola!"

"He's probably scouting our troop strength and positions," said Michael. "I don't trust that guy."

Machine Guns and Minefields
Richard Hodges, lifetime Cochise County resident, lives with his wife on a homestead just off the Naco side of Border Road in the same house his great-grandfather built in 1897. Curious about the Minuteman Project, he cruised up and down Border Road, along with several other local residents, snapping photos and chatting up the vigilantes.

"Some of them seem all right, and I do give them credit for putting their money where their mouth is and for bringing a lot of attention to the problem of illegal immigration. But a lot of them are a little too extreme, a little too racist for my taste," Hodges said. "They were talking to me like they're white supremacists or something, and they were assuming I must be too just because I live here and have to deal with all the illegals. But I don't care too much for those kinds of attitudes. That's just not the correct mentality people need to bring down here. That sort of thinking should have died with Hitler."

Back when he was a kid, Hodges said, the average Mexican didn't have any reason to sneak into the U.S.

"They had it pretty okay in Mexico, so when my daddy found a Mexican on our property, he'd put a shotgun on him, you bet, but it wasn't because he didn't like Mexicans, it was because he knew that Mexican was probably on the run, because their criminals would run to America just the same as our criminals would run to Mexico. My father would order them to take off their pants, them give them a choice: either walk back to Mexico with no pants on, or wait for the sheriff."

Things are different now.

"I see illegals on my property all the time, and I don't point a gun at them. You can tell just from looking at them they're no threat. They don't scare me. They're not out to get me. They just want to go on their way. Sometimes I'll call Border Patrol if it's a really big group. Other times I just say, 'Oh, what the hell,' and let them be. I do worry that some of them are coming into the country for a welfare free ride, and I'm sure a few of them are criminals, but I talk to these people a lot, and I'll tell you, most of them are coming here to work. Pure and simple."

The immigration problem can't be solved in America, Hodges said. It can only be solved in Mexico.

"I was in the Air Force, and I saw how the Soviets did it. Sure, we could build a wall, and put machine-gun towers on top, and create a no man's land with a minefield, and we start machine-gunning people and blowing them to bits, and it might curtail them a bit, but it won't stop them from coming so long as we allow the Mexican government to keep treating its people so poorly. You can put the Marines on the border, you can build all the walls and bring in all the Minuteman Projects you want. They're not going to stop. There are millions and millions and millions of poor, desperate people in Mexico, and hunger is a powerful motivating force."

But no matter how desperate, it was hard to imagine any but the most foolhardy of undocumented immigrants would dare attempting to cross into the U.S. along the mile of Border Road staked out by the Minuteman Project, not when it was so easy for them to just hike an extra mile in either direction and circumvent the vigilante enforcement zone, which was a hive of activity easily spotted a distance.

The vigilante blockade was augmented by a constant procession of U.S. Border Patrol agents, Cochise County sheriff's deputies, curious local residents like Hodges, and the omnipresent media. Also, while they posed for the cameras, staring dramatically at absolutely nothing but empty desert through their spotting scopes and binoculars, the Minuteman Project volunteers were themselves under constant watch by roving clusters of American Civil Liberties Union legal observers, who the Minuteman volunteers referred to over their radios as "traitors," "Jane Fondas," and "ACL-Jews."

The Minuteman volunteers were stone-faced toward most of the reporters and camera crews that cruised up and down Border Road, trolling for interviews and footage. But the vigilantes cheered the arrival of Fox News Channel crews ("They're our people," said Michael) and that of anti-immigration CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, whose coverage of the Minuteman Project was particularly supple.

Gilchrist and Simcox had difficulty sharing the spotlight. Cochise County, it turned out, wasn't big enough for both their egos.

Once when Simcox saw Gilchrist surrounded by reporters, he said to himself, but loudly, "There goes Gilchrist, holding down his own fort again."

And to one group of volunteers, Simcox said, "Listen up, I need everybody to understand that while the California people did a good job of getting you here, now that you're here, this is my show, because this is Civil Homeland Defense territory, so just understand that, okay? Thanks."

Of the two, Gilchrist revealed himself to be the more hackneyed media ham.

The afternoon of April 2, a documentary film director posed Gilchrist in front of Johnny, Michael, and Carl standing shoulder-to-shoulder before the border fence, with their backs to the "sniper's nest" they'd been so fearful of scant hours before.

"We are not racists," Gilchrist said on camera. "We don't endorse racism, and we're not a hate group. We've told white supremacists they're not welcome here, and we've kept them out. The only hate group members here are from the ACLU."

Johnny and Michael put on their poker faces.

"The ACLU are no different from white supremacists," Gilchrist said. "They're a clear and present danger. They have the same mentality that murdered Martin Luther King, and they want to kill us. Literally the ACLU wants to kill us by invoking violence. We've been vilified and castigated as ghoulish monsters, as gun-toting, baby-killing war machines.

"We are not in favor of violence, and we don't hate immigrants. We don't have any problem with Mexicans. If they come into the country legally, we want them here. We want America to be a melting pot of all different kinds of people, where every race, color and creed is blending together."

The two neo-Nazis bristled. Melting pot? Was he serious?

"We are a peaceful demonstration. We're doing this peacefully, the way our founding fathers wanted us to. We don't need baseball bats and tire irons and guns and flamethrowers and bulldozers to wipe people out and level villages. We can do this peacefully, same way Martin Luther King sought justice for American blacks. We're followers of Gandhi and Martin Luther King..."

"End of interview," Johnny said.

He and Michael abruptly walked away.

Once they were out of earshot, Johnny called King "an Alabama silverback" and made gorilla noises. Michael said, "I hope he [Gilchrist] doesn't believe that crap. I realize he's gotta be all PC for the media, but come on - Gandhi didn't wear a gun. We're in a race war, not a peace march."

'Avoid Them!'
Midway through April, the Minuteman Project declared total victory.

"Citizens in lawn chairs, armed only with cell phones and binoculars, shut down a 25-mile stretch of the border," Simcox boasted at a press conference held at the Miracle Valley Bible College compound. "We showed our government it can be done."

In reality, the citizens were armed with considerably more than cell phones and binoculars, and they were active along two miles of the border at most, and those two miles were not even continuous.

As proof of their success, Gilchrist and Simcox touted a potent statistic: the number of Border Patrol apprehensions of suspected illegal immigrants in the Minuteman Project enforcement zone dropped almost 90% during the month of April, compared to previous years.

But government officials on both sides of the border say that's because the Mexican government made a huge effort to warn immigrants looking to cross about the Minuteman Project, and thousands of immigrants either walked around the vigilantes or simply hunkered down in the Mexican border city of Agua Prieta and waited for the vigilantes to go home at the end of April.

The governor of the Mexican border state of Sonora, Eduardo Bours Castelo, ordered 44 members of the Sonora State Preventative Police Force to patrol a huge cattle ranch opposite the Minuteman sector of Border Road, in order to intercept unwary migrants before they reached the vigilante posts.

The Mexican federal border patrol agency Grupo Beta, which is assigned to protect immigrants from bandits and to search for those who have succumbed to the scorching sun, also bolstered their forces.

"We're trying to scare them. We tell them they may be shot by the Minutemen," said Enrique Palafox, the Grupo Beta commander in Agua Prieta. Both the state and federal patrols informed the immigrants of the Minuteman Project watch post locations and offered to give them rides back to Agua Prieta so they could either wait out the vigilantes or at least re-supply with food and water before setting out again on an alternate route.

The streets of Agua Prieta were posted throughout April with bright red fliers that warned in Spanish: "Danger! Publications in the United States and Mexico are reporting that during the month of April, hundreds of vigilantes from the United States will form patrols along the border from Agua Prieta to Naco. It's possible these individuals will have guns. They are not part of the Border Patrol or the government of the United States. Avoid them! They're dangerous!"

One night during the second week of the Minuteman Project, at Centro de Atención al Migrante Exodus, or C.A.M.E, a temporary shelter for immigrants housed in a Catholic church a couple miles from the border in Agua Prieta, a group of nine men in their late teens and early 20s from Vera Cruz sat around a long table, hungrily downing soup and tortillas. They said they were determined to get into America so they could make 50 dollars a day as laborers, instead of the 50 pesos (about $5) they earned for ten hours of cutting sugar cane at home.

"I'm not coming into America to rob anyone," said the group's apparent leader, a 20-year-old farm kid named Luís. "If I wanted to rob for a living, I could do that in Mexico. Please, tell the Minutemen I don't want to fight."

By the end of the Minuteman Project, its organizers claimed to have assisted in the capture of 336 undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. In addition to the posts along Border Road, the Minuteman Project set up a chain of camps 40 miles east of Border Road and 35 miles north of the border. There, volunteers staked out a series of dry washes and culverts around a highway that serve as "lay-up spots" where exhausted immigrants stop to sleep and wait for rides after hiking two or three days over mountains and through open desert.

Judging by Minuteman Project radio traffic, the vigilantes patrolling the lay-up spots busted far more immigrants than those on the higher profile Border Road, but their final tally of 336 is impossible to verify because the U.S. Border Patrol does not record the identity or affiliation of citizen informants.

Border Patrol officials did say the Minuteman volunteers were more hindrance than help because they so frequently called in false alarms and set off ground sensors.

"The Border Patrol didn't want them, my community didn't want them here, and I didn't want them here," said Douglas Mayor Ray Borane. "All they succeeded in doing was creating hard feelings and spreading a racist message. The amount of media attention they received has been totally out of proportion to their actual impact. The Mexicans have a saying that I think applies quite well to the Minuteman Project: 'It was all song and no opera.'"

Brown and White
Chris Simcox bounded onto the stage in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Square. With the White House in the background, he grinned ear-to-ear and gave the cheering crowd a double thumbs up.

It was the morning of Monday, April 25. The Minuteman Project had less than a week to go, and Simcox had left his troops in the field - by then their numbers had dwindled to fewer than 50 - in order to be received as a champion in the nation's capital by the "immigration reform army" gathered there for "Hold Their Feet to the Fire," a week of rallies and lobbying sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR.

FAIR Executive Director Dan Stein had personally invited Simcox. "For many Americans, the Minuteman Project looks more like Lexington and Concord," Stein stated. "It represents the escalation of action required to face down the arrogance and contempt of selfish greed. In my view, those who see it differently mistake the matter entirely."

Standing above an adoring audience, Simcox said the Minuteman Project in Arizona was just the beginning. "This has been a dream come true for citizens," he said. "We were bold enough to stand up and tell the federal government that it's not securing our borders. But our efforts will continue in the future with a multi-state campaign. There will be no compromise!"

Simcox left the stage to a chant of "Thank you, Chris! Thank you, Chris!'

The Minuteman volunteers and the FAIR enthusiasts draw their inspiration from the same cauldron of seething resentment. They're fed up with being asked their language preference by automated operators, with hearing Spanish on their radio, seeing it on billboards, and with struggling to be understood by busboys and hotel maids who "speak Mexican."

The news that Los Angeles had just elected its first Latino mayor in 100 years was just another foul omen that America really is being conquered, one fake green card and one minimum wage job at a time. They don't care to discuss the complexities of global economics. They don't want to hear about international trade policies or economic migration.

They see the world in brown and white.

"Thanks to the gross malfeasance of our government, Americans are going to be fighting for their nation on the streets of their own cities," wrote Glenn Spencer, a prominent anti-immigration activist, Minuteman Project volunteer and repeat "Lou Dobbs Tonight" guest, in a May 2 essay publicized on his America Border Patrol Web site. "Many are not going to survive this conflict alive. Thousands will die."

Already, imitation groups waving the Minuteman banner have formed in California and Texas. The same week that Simcox appeared in D.C., California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the Minuteman Project in a radio show, saying he'd welcome border vigilantes in his state.

"I think they've done a terrific job," he said. "It just shows that it works when you go and make an effort and when you work hard. It's a doable thing. It's a shame that the private citizen has to go in there and start patrolling our borders."

Gilchrist and Simcox have both announced they're forming separate splinter vigilante groups. In May, Simcox claimed that "over 15,000" people had already joined his new organization, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

"We are now undertaking the task of recruiting, training and deploying thousands of U.S. citizens to the four southern border states with Mexico," he said.

"We have a mandate from the citizens of the United States who are no longer just demanding better border security, they are now willing to participate in securing the borders themselves," Simcox said. "Our intentions are to follow the will of the people."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minutemen, other Anti-Immigrant Militia Groups Stake Out Arizona Border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COCHISE COUNTY, Ariz. -- The predominantly Hispanic towns of Douglas and Naco are connected by the aptly named Border Road, a 20-mile stretch of rocky dirt that runs parallel to a ragged barbed wire fence separating the United States from Mexico.

# data[].attributes.headline
2005 - The US House of Representatives passes a bill (H.R. 4437) on immigration that sought to impose criminal penalties on “aliens” who illegally enter the country. (Shamir Remy)   

# data[].attributes.subject
2005 - The US House of Representatives passes a bill (H.R. 4437) on immigration that sought to impose criminal penalties on “aliens” who illegally enter the country. (Shamir Remy)   

# data[].attributes.body
The co-sponsors of the bill were James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, and Peter King, a Republican from New York. The goal of the bill was address the rise in illegal immigration in the United States. The bill would address the rise of illegal immigration by doing things such as strengthening the border between the United States and Mexico, re-verifying all hired employees under a new system, criminalizing violations of federal immigration law etc. The bill was very controversial as many protests broke out in the United States against the bill. It managed to pass the House of Representatives, but it did not manage to pass the Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
H.R. 4437 was passed by the US House of Representatives on December 16th, 2005 and was sent on to the Senate, where it is currently in committee. This bill, which was introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for "other purposes."

HR 4437 would make it a felony offense to be in the U.S. without proper documentation. This would push undocumented immigrants further underground, and increase the potential for exploitation by employers. This bill would also criminalize nurses, teachers, clergy, social workers, and anyone else who aids, assists, or otherwise has regular contact with undocumented immigrants. Read Carlos X's PNN report about how HR 4437 would affect his life.

A Rally for Immigrant Rights/ Manifestacion Pro-Inmigrante will be held on Saturday, February 25th, from 12pm to 3pm at the St. Elizabeth's Schoolyard on the 1500 block of 34th Ave. in Oakland's Fruitvale District. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the Minutemen vigilantes and the "Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act" -HR 4437-and committed to a non-compliance of its provisions. It is expected that HR 4437 will reach the US Senate for debate in late February or early March. There will be a Call-In Week to tell Senators to oppose this bill from Monday, February 6th to Friday, February 10th.

Some local immigrant rights organizations: East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy | National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights | La Raza Centro Legal | Poor Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H.R. 4437 Threatens Undocumented Workers in US : Indybay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
H.R. 4437 was passed by the US House of Representatives on December 16th, 2005 and was sent on to the Senate, where it is currently in committee. This bill, which was introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for "other purposes."

# data[].attributes.body
The National Day of Action was a day of organized protests regarding immigration reform. The proposed reform would increase deportations of undocumented immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in the protests, and there were protests in many cities throughout the country.Thanks to the protests, the bill wasn't able to pass the senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Spring 2006, hundreds of thousands of immigrants' rights activists marched in cities across the United States to protest Congressional legislation intended to increase the criminalization and deportation of "undocumented" immigrants. The protests began in March of that year and lasted until May, and focused the mainstream media's attention on immigrant rights. Students, veteran activists, and enraged individuals organized to demand new laws to end discrimination against immigrants in the United States or to speed up citizenship.

On Monday, April 10, 2006, the largest number of people gathered in over 100 cities in the United States to protest the proposed anti-immigrant legislation. Hundreds of newspapers covered the protests. The following day, the New York Times reported from the Washington, DC, rally:

Monday's gathering of tens of thousands of demonstrators in New York; Atlanta; Houston; Madison, Wis., and other cities also suggested that the millions of immigrants who have quietly poured into this country over the past 16 years, most of them Hispanic, may be emerging as a potent political force.

Over and over again, construction workers, cooks, gardeners, sales associates and students who said they had never demonstrated before said they were rallying to send a message to the nation's lawmakers.

The organizers of the protests called Monday a National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice, and the focus was on pushing for legislation that would legalize the roughly 11 million [undocumented] immigrants believed to be living in the United States. And in Atlanta, where the police estimated that 30,000 to 40,000 people participated in the rallies, some marchers invoked the tactics and slogans of the civil rights era.

Two other significant days over the course of the Spring protests were March 25 and May 1. On March 25, the largest single-city protest occurred in Los Angeles with estimated 500,000-1.5 million people. May 1 was the "Day Without Immigrants" or the "Great American Boycott." On that day in May, pro-immigrant activist groups organized people to skip school, work, and not purchase goods from American companies in order to show non-immigrants the presence and power of immigrants living in the United States.

Ultimately, the bill that sparked the protests that year passed in the House but failed in the Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
April 10, 2006: Immigrants' Rights Protests Peak - Zinn Education Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Spring 2006, hundreds of thousands of immigrants' rights activists marched in cities across the United States to protest Congressional legislation intended to increase the criminalization and deportation of "undocumented" immigrants. The protests began in March of that year and lasted until May, and focused the mainstream media's attention on immigrant rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
2008-- Miami Freedom Tower Designated a National Historic Landmark

# data[].attributes.subject
2008-- Miami Freedom Tower Designated a National Historic Landmark

# data[].attributes.body
The Freedom Tower, located in Miami Florida was constructed in 1925, and originally used for the Miami News. The building has served many purposes since its construction, but the most significant was when it was operated by the United States government as a reception center for Cuban refugees, fleeing their country. The U.S. government operated the Freedom Tower from the years 1962-1974, and during that time it was nicknamed "the Ellis Island of the South." The building came to represent new beginnings and faith in democracy for Cuban immigrants fleeing Communism. In 2008, the Freedom Tower was designated a National Historic Landmark because of it's significant role in Cuban immigration.

# data[].attributes.headline
2009--Sonia Sotomayor Nominated to Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
2009--Sonia Sotomayor Nominated to Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
In 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was nominated as the first Latinx member of the United States Supreme Court by President Obama. Sotomayor’s nomination was important because it proved to Latinx people all across the nation that they could see themselves represented in the highest court in the United States. It also meant that there would be a more diverse group of perspectives on the Supreme Court that would see different issues differently, so laws would be more deeply considered before they are passed.

# data[].attributes.body
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was a bill that would have provided a pathway towards legal status for those who are undocumented who arrived to the US as children. Despite bipartisan support for various versions of the bill over time, none of them have become law. In 2010, the DREAM Act was extremely close to full passage as it passed the House of Representatives, but it fell a mere five votes shorts of the sixty needed to pass the Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the unsuccessful rescission of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) initiative in September 2017, there has been renewed pressure on Congress to pass federal legislation known as the Dream Act to protect young immigrants who are vulnerable to deportation. This fact sheet provides an overview of the DACA initiative following the Supreme Court's decision blocking the program's rescission, the Dream Act and similar legislative proposals, and provides information about policies at the state level that support Dreamers.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, providing temporary relief from deportation (deferred action) and work authorization to certain young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. DACA has enabled almost 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, attend school, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation--usually to an unfamiliar country. Unlike federal legislation, however, DACA does not provide permanent legal status to individuals and must be renewed every two years.

On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded the 2012 DACA memorandum and announced a "wind down" of DACA. As of that date, no new applications for DACA were accepted. DACA beneficiaries whose status was due to expire before March 5, 2018, were permitted to renew their status for an additional two years if they applied by October 5, 2017. Any person for whom DACA would have expired as of March 6, 2018, would no longer have deferred action or employment authorization. The attempted rescission was challenged by U.S. district courts in California, New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the legal challenges of the lower courts during its 2019-2020 term. On June 18, 2020, the Court ultimately ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Trump administration's attempt to terminate the program was unlawful, reasoning that the administration failed to properly explain its decision or consider alternatives to a full rescission of the initiative in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the Court also recognized that the federal government ultimately retains the legal authority to end the DACA initiative if it were to do so in compliance with the APA.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, as well as a federal court order issued on July 17, 2020, the DACA program was technically restored to its state prior to the September 2017 rescission. This brought hope to the many people who aged into the initiative-particularly those who reached the minimum age requirement of 15 in the past couple of years while the litigation was ongoing. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) subsequently began accepting some initial DACA requests and applications for advance parole but failed to approve or adjudicate any of these forms. Approximately six weeks after the Supreme Court's decision, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf issued a memorandum making major changes to the DACA initiative.

Acting Secretary Wolf's July memorandum rescinds former Acting Secretary Duke's memorandum from 2017 and makes several significant changes to the operation of DACA. As of June 28, 2020, current and prior DACA recipients can continue to apply to renew their protections with USCIS. The validity period for those protections has been reduced to one year, however, and DACA recipients will now have to apply to renew their protections annually, rather than every two years. USCIS will reject all pending and future initial DACA requests from people who are eligible for DACA but have not previously participated in the initiative, as well as all pending and future applications for advance parole that fail to present exceptional circumstances. Acting Secretary Wolf's memorandum also indicates that he is reconsidering the DACA initiative in its entirety and further changes are likely.

On August 21, 2020, USCIS Deputy Director for Policy Joseph Edlow issued a memorandum implementing Acting Secretary Wolf's directive. Deputy Director Edlow's memorandum clarifies that USCIS will continue to accept and adjudicate DACA requests from all previous DACA recipients, including those who may have failed to renew their protections within one year of the expiration of their last DACA period. The memo also confirms that USCIS will no longer accept renewal requests submitted more than 150 days in advance of the expiration of an applicant's current DACA protections. Further, Deputy Director Edlow's memorandum indicates that USCIS is in the process of considering the merits and feasibility of reducing DACA-related fees during the period while the initiative is under review. Finally, the memorandum clarifies the new standard for the consideration of advance parole submitted by DACA recipients.

The Dream Act

The first version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001. As a result, young undocumented immigrants have since been called "Dreamers." Over the last 19 years, at least ten versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress. While the various versions of the Dream Act have contained some key differences, they all would have provided a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth who came to this country as children. Some versions have garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House.

Despite bipartisan support for each bill, none has become law. The bill came closest to full passage in 2010 when it passed the House of Representatives but fell just five votes short of the 60 necessary to proceed in the Senate.

In July 2017, Senators Lindsay Graham (SC) and Richard Durbin (IL) introduced a version of the Dream Act in the Senate and Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) introduced a partner version in the House of Representatives. That year, members of the House introduced several other legislative proposals to address the legal status of undocumented youth, most of which were variants of the Dream Act. Although some of these bills drew significant support, none became law.
Current Federal Legislative Proposals
The most recent version of the Dream Act, H.R. 2820, was introduced in May 2019 in the House by Rep. Roybal-Allard. The House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 2820 on May 22, 2019, and the bill was subsequently combined with H.R. 2821, the American Promise Act of 2019, to form H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. H.R. 6 would provide permanent legal status for Dreamers as well as beneficiaries of two humanitarian programs: Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). H.R. 6 passed the House on June 4, 2019, by a vote of 237 to 187.

What Would the Dream Act Do?

The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 would provide current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a pathway to U.S. citizenship through college, work, or the armed services. The Act outlines a three-step process, summarized below.

Step 1: Conditional Permanent Residence

An individual would be eligible to obtain conditional permanent resident (CPR) status for up to 10 years, which includes work authorization, if the person:

entered the United States under the age of 18;

entered four years prior to bill enactment and has since been continuously present;

has been admitted to an institution of higher education or technical education school, has graduated high school or obtained a GED, or is currently enrolled in secondary school or a program assisting students to obtain a high school diploma or GED;

has not been convicted of any "crime involving moral turpitude" or controlled substance offense, any crime punishable by more than one year in prison, or three or more offenses under state or federal law. There is an exception for offenses which are essential to a person's immigration status; and

has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence unless the individual can prove the crime was related to being the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse, neglect in later life, human trafficking, battery, or extreme cruelty.

Under the terms of the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security can issue waivers for humanitarian purposes, for family unity, or when the waiver is otherwise in the public interest. In addition, anyone who currently has DACA would be granted a swift path to CPR status.
Step 2: Lawful Permanent Residence
Anyone who maintains CPR status could obtain lawful permanent residence(LPR status or a "green card") by satisfying one of the following requirements.

Higher education: the person completed at least two years, in good standing, of higher education or of a program leading to a certificate/credential from an area career and technical education school;

Military service: the person completed at least two years of military service with an honorable discharge, if discharged; or

Work: the person demonstrated employment over a total period of three years and at least 75 percent of that time the individual had employment authorization, with exceptions for those enrolled in higher education or technical school.

Individuals who cannot meet one of these requirements could apply for a "hardship waiver" if the applicant is a person with disabilities; a full-time caregiver of a minor child; or for whom removal would cause extreme hardship to a spouse, parent, or child who is a national or lawful permanent resident of the United States.
Step 3: Naturalization
After maintaining LPR status for five years, an individual can generally apply to become a U.S. citizen through the normal naturalization process.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, as many as 2.31 million individuals would qualify for conditional permanent resident status under the 2019 version of the Dream Act, putting them on a path to citizenship. The bill would also provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 429,000 people who are current or former beneficiaries of TPS or DED.

State Policies That Protect Dreamers

States cannot legalize the status of undocumented immigrants, but they may address collateral issues that stem from being undocumented. All 50 states and the District of Columbia permit DACA recipients to be issued driver's licenses. Numerous states enacted legislation to help many Dreamers overcome barriers to higher education and employment. Pursuant to some state laws and policies, many Dreamer students may be able to attend state universities and qualify for in-state tuition and/or financial aid. Some may also qualify for licenses for certain professional or trade occupations.

Colleges and universities each have their own policies about admitting undocumented students; some deny Dreamers admission, while others allow them to attend. Even when undocumented students are allowed to attend college, however, the tuition is often prohibitively expensive. If students cannot prove legal residency in a state, they must pay the much higher out-of-state or international-student tuition rates. Further, undocumented students do not qualify for federal student loans, work study, or other financial assistance. As a result, it is extremely difficult for undocumented students to afford to attend public universities.

To help undocumented students afford college, at least 19 states have passed laws that provide them with the opportunity to receive in-state tuition. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington permit undocumented students who have attended and graduated from the state's primary and secondary schools to pay the same college tuition as other state residents. The laws generally require undocumented students to attend a school in the state for a certain number of years and graduate from high school in the state.

Many professional and trade industries--such as medicine, education, or cosmetology-require licensure to practice in certain states. Under federal law, undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving a professional license, unless legislation is implemented within individual states permitting their issuance. Thirteen states extend certain professional licenses to undocumented immigrants: Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the unsuccessful rescission of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) initiative in September 2017, there has been renewed pressure on Congress to pass federal legislation known as the Dream Act to protect young immigrants who are vulnerable to deportation.

# data[].attributes.body
Arizona SB 1070 is an immigration bill that, among other rules, allows police officers to question anyone they think is an illegal alien and detain them if they cannot provide documentation. It created a significant amount of controversy and received condemnations from figures including Barack Obama and the President of Mexico. One concern was that it would promote racial profiling, as police would be likely to judge someone based on their race/"foreign-ness" when deciding whether to ask for papers. However, it prompted a wave of activism, protest, and political involvement, and convinced more Latinos to run for office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AZ State Capitol Rally Against SB 1070-Apr 25, 2010

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of people along with political leaders gathered at the State Capitol in protest against SB 1070 which Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on April 23rd.

# data[].attributes.body
Georgia had been tightening up the requirements that would allow illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses and plates in order to keep "untested" and "uninsured" drivers off of the streets. The state  then enacted a law that would increase the penalties if stopped without a drivers license. Illegal immigrants were then subjected to more frequent stops my Georgia county police and once detained, would be turned over to federal immigration authorities (ICE). For the 200,000 illegal immigrants at the time, this meant that any traffic interaction could lead to deportation, but many still continued to drive for fear of losing their jobs. The new law ultimately antagonized Hispanic communities within in Georgia, with residents saying that the police had been targeting and singling them out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. - It was just another suburban fender-bender. A car zoomed into an intersection and braked too late to stop at a red light. The Georgia woman driving it, an American citizen, left with a wrecked auto, a sore neck and a traffic fine.

But for Felipa Leonor Valencia, the Mexican woman who was driving the Jeep that was hit that day in March, the damage went far beyond a battered bumper. The crash led Ms. Valencia, an illegal immigrant who did not have a valid driver's license, to 12 days in detention and the start of deportation proceedings - after 17 years of living in Georgia.

Like Ms. Valencia, an estimated 4.5 million illegal immigrants nationwide are driving regularly, most without licenses, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Only three states - New Mexico, Utah and Washington - currently issue licenses without proof of legal residence in the United States.

Many states have adopted tough new laws to prevent illegal immigrants from driving, while expanding immigration enforcement by the state and local police. As a result, at least 30,000 illegal immigrants who were stopped for common traffic violations in the last three years have ended up in deportation, Department of Homeland Security figures show. The numbers are rapidly increasing, aggravating tensions in the national debate over immigration.

The tensions seem likely to persist. The Senate may take up a bill next week that would give legal status to some illegal immigrant students. Its fate is uncertain, and prospects appear dim for a controversial overhaul, supported by President Obama, that would give legal status to 11 million illegal immigrants. In the absence of federal action, states are stepping in, trying their own solutions.

In Georgia, voters have been worried about unlicensed illegal immigrants whose driving skills are untested and who often lack insurance, including some who caused well-publicized accidents. Lawmakers have tightened requirements to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining licenses and license plates, and have increased penalties for driving without them.

"There are certain things you can't do in the state of Georgia if you are an illegal immigrant," said State Senator Chip Rogers, a Republican who was a prime mover behind some of the traffic measures. "One of them is, you can't drive."

Many Georgia counties have begun to cooperate formally with the Department of Homeland Security, so that illegal immigrants detained by the local police are turned over more consistently to federal immigration authorities.

Still, according to The Times's analysis, 200,000 illegal immigrants in Georgia are driving to work daily. For them, the new laws mean that any police stop, whether for a violation that caused an accident, or for a broken taillight or another driver's mistake, can lead to deportation. Since 2006, thousands of immigrants, mostly from Latin America, have been deported from Georgia after traffic violations, often shaking up long-settled families.

The stepped-up enforcement has been applauded by many citizens. It has also antagonized the fast-growing Hispanic communities in and near Atlanta, where residents say the police are singling them out for traffic stops.

Illegal immigrants say they continue to risk driving without a license in order to keep their jobs.

"We have to work to support our kids, so we have to drive," Ms. Valencia said in Spanish, after she was released on a $7,500 bond in late October from an immigration detention center in Alabama to begin her legal fight against deportation. "If we drive, we get stopped by the police. The first thing they ask is, 'Can I see your license?' 'Don't have one? Go to jail.' And from jail to deportation."
A Sheriff Cracks Down
Not a few unlicensed Hispanic drivers are traveling the chronically congested roads here in Gwinnett County, a commuter destination northeast of Atlanta. Years of growth resulted in spreading subdivisions and state highways that converge at vast intersections. Public bus routes are few. To get around the county, you have to go by car.

After several high-profile crimes committed by illegal immigrants, the sheriff, Butch Conway, a blunt-spoken lawman who rides motorcycles and breeds horses in his spare time, made it his goal to reduce their population in his jail and his county.

"Just the fact that these people committed serious crimes when they should not have been in the country to begin with," Sheriff Conway said, "I think that was an insult to the people of Gwinnett."

He enrolled the detention center here in Lawrenceville, the county seat, in a program with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency known as ICE. Under the program, known as 287 (g), 18 of his deputies were trained to question suspects about their immigration status when they arrive at the jail. The deputies place holds, known as detainers, on immigrants they determine to be here illegally, so when the inmates are released from the jail they can be turned over directly to ICE.

Image

DETAINED Felipa Leonor Valencia, a Gwinnett County homeowner from Mexico facing deportation, was reunited in October with her daughter, Crystal, 16, and left, and niece Stephanie, 7. Credit... Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times

The agreement with ICE specifies that Sheriff Conway is to focus on removing "criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to the community." The sheriff says that should include those stopped for driving without a license.

"I find it offensive that they just thumb their nose at our laws and operate vehicles they are not licensed to operate," he said, "on top of the fact that they are here illegally."
String of Violations
When some Gwinnett County residents explain why they support a crackdown on illegal immigrants, one case they cite is that of Celso Campos Duartes. Mr. Campos, a Mexican, accumulated at least five moving violations in five years, including a hit-and-run accident, before he was turned over to ICE for deportation last month through the county jail 287(g) program.

One afternoon in October 2005, Mr. Campos was driving his Ford compact down a county road just as Aubrey Sosebee, an 82-year-old retiree, reached the black mailbox at the end of his driveway.

"The house sits way off the road, and that was his exercise every day, to walk up to get the mail and then walk back," said Rusty Sosebee, 59, one of Mr. Sosebee's sons.

Mr. Campos struck Mr. Sosebee, knocking him to the pavement. Witnesses told the police that Mr. Campos tried to turn his vehicle and leave but several drivers blocked his path. Mr. Campos sprinted into nearby woods, where police search dogs found him hours later.

Three of Mr. Sosebee's children, who gathered recently to recount the accident, could not recall the events without breaking down.

"He knows all of the illegal actions that he has taken," Rhonda Neely, 49, Mr. Sosebee's daughter, said of Mr. Campos. "He's more concerned with getting away and not getting caught than with my dad's life, laying there on the road, the person he just ran over."

Mr. Campos, though sober, was driving without a license and with plates from another vehicle. Although insurance is mandatory in Georgia, he had none. Mr. Sosebee received no compensation from Mr. Campos for his medical care.

Mr. Sosebee never recovered from the head injury he suffered in the fall, his son Rusty said. He remained disoriented, his son said, and four months later he died.

Convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, Mr. Campos served 26 months in the county jail. But at the end of his sentence, he walked away. He was arrested two more times for traffic offenses.

After the Sosebees learned in May, to their disbelief, that Mr. Campos was still in the country, they contacted the news media. The furor ensured that ICE would not let Mr. Campos slip away again.

In an interview in October in the Gwinnett County Detention Center, Mr. Campos, now 37, was impassive and unapologetic. "I ran to protect my life," he said, speaking in Spanish at a jailhouse visiting booth. "The accident had already happened, there was nothing I could do to avoid it."

But Mr. Campos did not dispute his eventual deportation. The residents of Georgia "have every right to object to people who drive without a license."

Making Their Arguments
While traffic deaths involving illegal immigrants like Mr. Campos have galvanized public opinion, it is not clear that they are increasing, even as the illegal immigrant population has surged during the last decade.

There has been no surge in the percentage of Hispanic drivers killed in accidents in recent years, federal highway safety data show. What the data do show is that Hispanics who are involved in fatal crashes are far less likely than other drivers to have a valid license.

About 80 percent of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group.

Looming over cases like Mr. Campos's is the question of whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to have driver's licenses in the first place.

Highway safety and auto insurance experts argue that licensing requires drivers to pass tests and creates an official record of their performance on the road. Licensed drivers can also be made to buy insurance.

"When you are licensed, you have proven you have some ability to drive and know the basic safety rules," said David Snyder, vice president of the American Insurance Association.

Opponents focus on a different set of issues, arguing that a license is an identity document that allows unauthorized immigrants to move about the country freely and to gain public benefits.

"Giving someone here illegally a driver's license is much more than giving them the privilege of driving," said D. A. King, president of the Dustin Inman Society, a group created in the name of a Georgia teenager who was killed in 2000 by an illegal immigrant driver. "It is giving them the keys to the kingdom."

Mr. King's side is winning. Since 2006, six states that once allowed illegal immigrants to obtain licenses have changed their laws, leaving only three. Susana Martinez, the Republican governor-elect of New Mexico, has pledged to revise license laws there to deny licenses to illegal immigrants.

Georgia has never given licenses to immigrants who are here illegally. In 2008, state legislators increased the penalties for driving without a license, starting with 48 hours of mandatory jail time for a first offense and fines amounting to $700.

Now, many more unlicensed immigrants are going to jail - and from there are being detained by immigration authorities. Some are offenders like Mr. Campos. Many others are average drivers like Ms. Valencia.
Wrong Place, Wrong Time
"I would like to be able to get a license, but I am unable to do so," Ms. Valencia told a state judge, speaking through an interpreter in Spanish, when she appeared on Oct. 6 in a Lawrenceville courtroom for the no-license citation she received at the accident scene.

On March 11, the day the speeding Chevy hit Ms. Valencia's vehicle, she was barely a mile from the home she owns in a Gwinnett County development. She was on her way to pick up her daughter, Crystal, 16, at high school to take her to a doctor's appointment.

Ms. Valencia's 2000 Jeep Cherokee was legally registered, inspected and insured. She had a driver's license she had obtained in North Carolina in 2003, when that state still granted them without proof of United States residency. It expired in 2008.

After coming to Georgia from an ox-and-plow farming village in Mexico, Ms. Valencia had a 12-year career at a fast-food restaurant in a suburban mall, rising from hamburger flipper to cashier to assistant manager. Among her most carefully preserved possessions are two diplomas for the company's management training courses.

Ms. Valencia, a single mother, has raised Crystal, an American citizen born in Atlanta, and an American niece, now 7, whose mother died in childbirth.

ENFORCER After some crimes by illegal immigrants caused an outcry, Sheriff Butch Conway of Gwinnett County, Ga., made it a goal to reduce their numbers and enrolled the jail in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement program. Credit... Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times

With the help of a lawyer, Ms. Valencia navigated the court hearing and was ready to pay her fine and go home. But at the last minute, the judge ordered her to be fingerprinted at the Gwinnett County Detention Center.

"Oh, no, my God, that's it," she thought. "I'm going to jail."

When she arrived to give her fingerprints, a 287(g) deputy asked for her immigration papers. When she had none to offer, she was sent to immigration detention in Gadsden, Ala.

Crystal was distraught, frantically texting her mother and scouring the county court Web site for information.

"She is the only person that's been there for me," Crystal said, dazed, at a relative's house one night while her mother was in the county jail. "She shows me what decisions to make, like keep going to school, do good in school, don't drop out."

Crystal has been preparing to go to college to study medicine, and she could not conceive of moving to Mexico. "To begin with," she said, "I really don't know that much Spanish."
The Repercussions
"I think there's some sad stories out there, no doubt," Sheriff Conway said. "But my job is not taking action on sad stories."

To date, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has signed agreements for 287(g) programs with 72 communities across the country. It is also rolling out a more ambitious program called Secure Communities, giving local police nationwide access to the Department of Homeland Security's database of fingerprints. Immigrants are checked for their legal status when they are booked.

Senior ICE officials have established priorities for these programs, with the highest being deportation of criminals convicted of major drug offenses and violent acts. Traffic violations are not among the top priorities.

Sheriff Conway takes a different position: "If they're here illegally in the United States, they should be deported regardless of the charge."

The results of the Gwinnett County 287(g) program reflect the sheriff's view. During its first year, which ended Nov. 16, immigration detainers were placed on 3,034 inmates, 93 percent of them Latino. Of a total of 6,662 charges those inmates faced, 21 percent were for ICE's high-priority crimes, like aggravated assault and child molestation. But 45 percent were for traffic violations other than driving under the influence, including 469 detainees held only for driving without a license.

The impact in this area has been deep. Vanessa Kosky, the defense lawyer who represented Ms. Valencia, said her young practice has been overwhelmed with cases of Hispanic immigrants arrested for driving without a license. To avoid deportation, they have clogged the courts to fight charges they once would have dispatched by paying a fine.

"These are not horrific drivers," Ms. Kosky said. "These are not D.U.I.'s. These are not people who are putting people in danger."

Hispanic leaders said immigrants are learning to avoid the police. Latino restaurants have lost business as their patrons choose to stay home. Attendance at Catholic churches dropped when police set up traffic checkpoints nearby.

"It's like a persecution," said Bishop Luis Rafael Zarama, the auxiliary bishop of Atlanta. "These laws only affect one group: the Latino community."

Law enforcement officials point to a sharp drop this year in arrests for driving without a license. Some unlicensed immigrants are car-pooling, and some are moving elsewhere in Georgia.

"I mean, that's success," Sheriff Conway said. "That's the point of the program, to remove illegal aliens from Gwinnett County."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Some Unlicensed Drivers Risk More Than a Fine (Published 2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. - It was just another suburban fender-bender. A car zoomed into an intersection and braked too late to stop at a red light. The Georgia woman driving it, an American citizen, left with a wrecked auto, a sore neck and a traffic fine.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2010, Arizona state issued a law known as S.B 1070, which addressed issues of immigration in that state. The original law was rejected by the district Court, saying that it didn't comply with the federal alien registration requirements. Therefore, 4 provisions were made to comply with the previous laws. These "newer" provisions made it illegal in Arizona to work/live without legal permission and allows law enforcement to arrest these people without a warrant because of "unwanted presence." the 4th provision allowed law enforcement to verify the legal status of any person when asked. This is still relevant today because these stricter provisions in Arizona, endangers the lives of undocumented individuals even more so than they already did. From what we have seen with the documentaries in class and the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Arizona v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2012 regarding Arizona's immigration-related law SB 1070, enacted in 2010. At issue was whether federal immigration law preempts state immigration law.

The court limited oral arguments to the following question:

"Whether the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt these four provisions of SB 1070 on their face."

In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the court held that federal law preempted three provisions of Arizona's law:

1. The provision making it a state crime to reside in the country without legal permission

2. The provision making it a state crime to work in the country without legal permission

3. The provision allowing law enforcement officers to arrest individuals without a warrant based on probable cause of unlawful presence

The court ruled that the first provision conflicted with federal provisions already in place, while the second and third provisions were preempted because they interfered with federal authority over immigration law.

Background

In 2010, Arizona enacted a state law, SB 1070, that contained four primary provisions related to immigration:

1. The first provision made it a state crime to reside in the United States without legal permission.

2. The second provision made it a state crime to work in the United States without legal permission.

3. The third provision required law enforcement officers to verify the legal status of all individuals who were arrested or detained.

4. The fourth provision allowed law enforcement officers to arrest individuals without a warrant based on probable cause of unlawful presence.

The United States government challenged the law in federal district court before the law went into effect, seeking to stop its enforcement. The government argued that Arizona's law usurped federal authority over the enforcement of immigration law. In its ruling, the district court blocked the four provisions listed above. Arizona appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the district court, finding that the United States had demonstrated that federal immigration law likely preempted the four provisions of SB 1070 at issue.

Arizona further appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on December 9, 2011.

In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the first, second, and fourth provisions of SB 1070 were preempted by federal immigration law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has "broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status," which precluded three provisions of SB 1070. However, the court also found that the lower courts had erred in deciding that federal law also preempted Arizona's requirement for law enforcement officers to verify the legal status of all arrestees and detainees.

The section of SB 1070 that made it a state crime to reside in the country without legal permission was preempted because it conflicted with federal provisions already in place governing the legal immigration process.

The section that made it a state crime to work in the country without legal permission was preempted because it imposed criminal penalties on such individuals in direct conflict with federal law.

The section that allowed the warrantless arrest of individuals based on probable cause of unlawful presence was preempted because it obstructed the federal government's authority over determining when to arrest an individual residing in the country without legal permission.

The provision requiring the verification of the legal status of all arrestees and detainees was not preempted because the court found no evidence that such a provision conflicted with or obstructed federal law enforcement. The opinion noted that the provision contained "three limitations that protect individual rights: a detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he/she produces a valid Arizona drivers license; an officer may not consider race, color, or national origin during a check; and the check must be implemented in a manner consistent with federal law."

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consideration. Kennedy wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:

"

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

"

The dissenting justices included Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas, each of whom wrote separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In his opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that none of the four provisions of SB 1070 in question were preempted by federal law, but rather helped enforce the law more effectively. Scalia also argued that invalidating the provisions undercut the sovereignty of the states:

"

Today's opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit's injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona's law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereigns territory people who have no right to be there.

"

Justice Thomas concurred with Justice Scalia that federal law did not preempt Arizona's SB 1070, but wrote that he came to that conclusion "for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the 'ordinary meanin[g]' of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here." Justice Alito, in his opinion, agreed with the majority opinion that the first provision was preempted, while the third provision was not. However, he disagreed that federal law also preempted the second and fourth provisions, finding that regulating employment laws is a state concern and that the authority granted to law enforcement under the fourth provision was consistent with federal law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arizona v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2012 regarding Arizona's immigration-related law SB 1070, enacted in 2010. At issue was whether federal immigration law preempts state immigration law.

# data[].attributes.headline
2014 -- Obama Passed "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents"

# data[].attributes.subject
2014 -- Obama Passed "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents"

# data[].attributes.body
Barack Obama passed DACA as a way of allowing undocumented people who migrated to the US as children protection, work permits, and even licenses for a 3 year time-span before they would need to reapply. In this time, those immigrants could not be deported. These immigration reforms would stop 5 million immigrants from being deported. This program allowed younger immigrants to attain legal status for their parents when they turned 21 years old, or at least make it easier to do that. This was significant because no president had done this in such a wide scale. Thus, Obama surpassed the negative stereotypes about Latinx immigrants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. President Obama will protect about 4.3 million unauthorized immigrants, including 4 million parents of legal residents, from deportation via a new "deferred action" program.

2. The White House believes that nearly 5 million unauthorized immigrants will be protected in total, thanks to other reforms.

3. He is also taking steps to facilitate legal migration to the United States, that should lead to 150,000 to 250,000 more skilled workers moving here.

4. Executive action fulfills a promise originally made in March, and twice delayed.

1) Who will Obama's executive actions help?

There are two big buckets of relief being granted here.

One is an expansion of a program Obama's already put into place: the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which allows young unauthorized migrants who've come here as children (and who meet a few other requirements) to get temporary protection and work permits. 1.2 million immigrants are eligible for DACA already (although only about 600,000 have actually applied for and received protection).

The other is relief for parents of legal residents of the United States.

There are other small forms of relief that are helping some unauthorized immigrants - some of which we'll get to later.

The White House says that in total, nearly 5 million unauthorized immigrants will be protected from deportation. The two major deferred action programs cover about 4.3 million immigrants.

By the numbers, you have:

270,000 immigrants who will now be covered under the DACA program

Immigrants who are older than 30 now, but still entered before they were 16, are now eligible for DACA.

Immigrants who entered after 2007, but before 2010, are now eligible for DACA.

4 million parents of US citizens or green card holders will be covered under a new program.

Only parents who've been in the country for at least five years (since January 1st, 2010) will qualify.

Parents will qualify even if their citizen or green-card-holding children are over the age of 18.

The logic behind the new program: US citizens are allowed to apply for their parents to get legal status, once they've turned 21. But there are rules that make it extremely difficult to get legal status in the US if you've ever been unauthorized - especially if you're not willing to risk leaving the US in the hopes that you might get to come back. And before they turn 21 (or get citizenship), there's nothing anyone can do. So granting parents deferred action allows them to stay in the US until their children can get them permanent legal status.

2) How will this program work?

In order for the program to be effective when it officially launches (which is expected to be in spring of 2015), people are going to have to apply. And that could be tricky. After all, these are people who've been living in the shadows for years - and have learned that any interaction with government officials could lead to their deportation.

The good news is that the administration, and community groups, have done something of a test run on the new program - via the DACA program in 2012. The push to get unauthorized immigrants to apply for DACA has created an existing infrastructure that can now be built on for the new, expanded relief programs. But in order to build on that, they're going to need more money and more lawyers. And the government agency running the program, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, doesn't have much money to spend on outreach.

3) Is the president granting immigrants legal status? Is this a path to citizenship?

No. Only Congress can do that.

Obama is promising certain classes of immigrants that they won't be deported for a three-year span of time. The program will also issue work permits that are valid for the same amount of time. And in most states, deferred action is also enough to make someone eligible for a driver's license. But as soon as the three years are up, if an immigrant hasn't applied for renewal, he or she is vulnerable to deportation again.

And that assumes that the administration - or a different presidential administration - doesn't stop accepting applications or renewals, killing the program slowly over three years - or eliminating it immediately.

4) So a future president can just take away these protections?

Yes. The president has a lot of authority to decide who gets deported, but the next president has just as much authority to make different decisions.

A Republican elected in 2016 could strip all the protections Obama has granted. President Ted Cruz (for example) could even, if he wanted, use the information from deferred-action applications to track down immigrants and deport them.

This creates something of a dilemma for the administration. Politically, the Democratic Party has an incentive to highlight how precarious this new program is - so that Latinos will turn out in 2016. But for the program to be effective as policy, the administration needs to play up its security - so that unauthorized immigrants are willing to apply. That means that the same messengers are going to be saying two different things to Latinos: that they should apply now because the program is safe, but that it could be taken away at any time.

5) Why is the president doing this now?

The Obama administration has been promising for years that it only deports "high-priority" unauthorized immigrants - like convicted criminals - rather than immigrant workers with US-born children. But those promises haven't always been accurate - the 400,000 immigrants that were deported each year of Obama's first term included around 80,000 parents of US citizen children (again, each year). The DACA program has demonstrated that formalized protections work much better than vague promises.

President Obama used to argue that he lacked legal authority to take any broad steps to change immigration policy. But in March 2014 he started a review of deportation policy to see if it could be made more humane. That review was stopped to give Republicans one last chance to pass immigration reform in Congress; they didn't take it, and in June President Obama restarted the review - now promising it would cover executive action for all aspects of the immigration system. The administration delayed announcing any changes this fall, but promised that after the midterm elections they would announce major executive actions.

And even though the Democrats got trounced in the midterms, the administration kept that promise. You can look at this as a way to keep Latino voters enthusiastic about the Democratic Party, since they'd soured some on President Obama for setting deportation records. Or you can look at it as the president doing what he believes is right, to protect his legacy.

6) Is it legal for the president to just do this without Congress?

When it comes to immigration, the executive branch has a lot of authority to decide who to deport and who not to deport. Even the conservative legal experts of the Federalist Society agree that Obama has the authority to take actions of this sort.

There's been some argument that tools like deferred action are supposed to exist for very rare individual cases - not to protect millions of unauthorized immigrants, like Obama did with the DACA program and is doing again now. But it's difficult to argue that it was legal to let 1.2 million immigrants apply for deferred action, but not legal to let another 4 million do it.

7) Has a president ever done anything like this before?

Presidents have frequently protected unauthorized immigrants from deportation in the past - but never on this scale.

Deferred action has been used a few times in the past - even before the Obama administration created DACA - to protect small groups of people, like foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

The closest historical parallel is probably a program called the Family Fairness program from 1990. George H. W. Bush used executive authority to allow family members of immigrants who were getting legalized through the Reagan amnesty to apply for protection from deportation, covering about 1.4 million people - 40 percent of the unauthorized population at the time. (Likewise, the president's new action covers about 40 percent of the unauthorized population today.)

In both cases, executive action covers people who are going to be eligible for legal status eventually, through their relatives - but are currently at risk of being deported. For Bush, it was the spouses and children of amnesty recipients who'd gotten legal status, but not citizenship. For Obama, it's the parents of US citizens and legal permanent residents.

8) What can Republicans do to stop Obama?

Republicans are united in their displeasure at this development, and they have several options for expressing it. One thing they acknowledge they can't do is "defund" executive action. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services is funded by application fees, not congressional appropriations. But Congress could pass a law rescinding or narrowing presidential deferred action authority.

The Republican House tried to do this earlier in 2014, for the DACA program, passing a bill that would have prevented anyone new from signing up, and preventing current beneficiaries from renewing. Democrats controlled the Senate, so it didn't come to the floor there. Once Republicans take control of the Senate in the New Year, they could pass a similar bill - but Obama would almost certainly veto it.

Rather than a standalone bill, Congress could attach riders killing Obama's immigration programs to the annual appropriations bills. If Obama vetoed the bills (or if Senate Democrats filibustered them) then we'll have another government shutdown.

They can also try to sue to stop the new program - maybe by adding it to their planned lawsuit against the administration over Obamacare's employer mandate.

9) What are the other changes Obama is making to immigration policy?

A few things are happening:

Reforming Secure Communities: The White House is making major changes to its signature immigration enforcement program, called "Secure Communities." Secure Communities sends the fingerprints of anyone booked into a local jail to immigration officials; federal agents can then ask the local cops to hold the inmate, so they can pick him up. Federal officials have come under serious fire for using Secure Communities as a dragnet to deport plenty of unauthorized immigrants who aren't serious criminals, and dozens of cities and states have said that they're only going to honor federal requests to pick up an immigrant in certain cases.

Now, the federal government is following that lead: it's only going to ask state and local officials to hand over an immigrant after she's been convicted of a serious crime (or a third misdemeanor). And even then, instead of asking the state or local jail to hold the immigrant after she would otherwise be released (so ICE agents can pick her up), federal agents will just ask local law enforcement to let them know when the immigrant's due to be released so they can take custody at that point.

Reforming deportation priorities: The Obama administration's boasted for the last several years that most of the people they're deporting are "priorities" for deportation. But those priorities were attacked for being way too broad. Now, the administration is overhauling its priorities. The new priorities target immigrants who've been convicted of serious crimes, and people who entered the US, or were ordered deported, in 2014.

Adhering to these new priorities is going to depend on ICE field agents - who've been extremely resistant to any attempt to limit deportations. But to impose some accountability, an agent's now going to have to prove to his office's director that someone should be deported even though she's not a priority.

Spouses of green-card holders can now apply for legal status in the US: Currently, green-card holders can apply for visas for their spouses, but if the spouse is already in the US as an unauthorized immigrant, that gets extremely hard. A few years ago, the Obama administration started letting spouses of US citizens stay in the US while applying for a waiver that would let them get legal status - instead of having to wait for months outside the country without knowing if they could return. Now, that's being expanded to green-card holders as well. The White House Council of Economic Advisors estimates this will create somewhere between 104,000 and 167,000 new work permits.

More work permits for recent graduates: The administration is looking to expand a program that lets foreign students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields work in the United Statesfor up to 2 1/2 years or so after they graduate.

The program's called Optional Practical Training, and it currently allows students to work in the US for a year after graduation - but if they're STEM professionals, they can apply to stay for an additional 17 months.

The OPT program was expanded in 2012, to cover more fields of study. It's estimated that anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 immigrants are currently in the US under the OPT program. Senior administration officials are planning further revisions to the system that should lead to 10,000-36,000 more OPT visas.

Making it easier for foreign entrepreneurs to get visas. The administration is planning a more expansive use of its parole authority to make it easier for foreign entrepreneurs who invest in job-creating businesses to move to the United States. CEA envisions 33,000-53,000 new migrants via this channel.
Support Vox's explanatory journalism
Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that empowers you through understanding. Vox's work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts to all who need them. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama's huge new immigration plan, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Obama will protect about 4.3 million unauthorized immigrants, including 4 million parents of legal residents, from deportation via a new "deferred action" program. The White House believes that nearly 5 million unauthorized immigrants will be protected in total, thanks to other reforms. He is also taking steps to facilitate legal migration to the United States, that should lead to 150,000 to 250,000 more skilled workers moving here.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2020, the Trump administration tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows people who immigrated to the US as children to receive protection from deportation and a work permit. The US Supreme Court, with a 5 to 4 ruling, blocked that action, stopping deportation for over 700,000 immigrants.