Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Illegal immigration

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.



Policypedia Imigration Final.png

Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Illegal immigration into the United States refers to the practice of entering or residing within the country in violation of federal law. This includes entering without legal permission or through the use of falsified or expired documents. Individuals considered to be residing in the country illegally can include those whose paperwork has expired or who are in deportation proceedings. As of January 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that 11.4 million individuals were residing in the country without legal permission.[1][2]

Overview

A 2005 report from the Migration Policy Institute identified four primary types of illegal immigration worldwide, all of which are also applicable to the United States:[1][3]

  • Entry without inspection: foreign-born individuals who enter the country without obtaining legal documentation and express permission from immigration officials.
  • Fraudulent entry: individuals who enter the country using falsified documents. Falsified documents may include identification or fraudulent financial or civil documents that support admission.
  • Violation of visa duration: foreign-born individuals who obtain a legal visa but remain in the country beyond the time period authorized.
  • Violation of visa terms and conditions: foreign-born individuals who obtain a legal visa but violate the terms of the visa, such as by accepting employment while holding a non-work visa.

In the United States, individuals in the midst of deportation proceedings are also considered to be residing in the country without legal permission.[1]

Deferred action

See also: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program that allows individuals who were brought to the United States as children without legal permission to receive relief from being deported for a period of time if they meet certain criteria. Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) proposed delaying the deportation of parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and providing them with work permits, as long as they were in the United States since January 1, 2010, and did not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Both programs rely on deferred action which is "[a] use of prosecutorial discretion to not remove an individual from the country for a set period of time, unless the deferred action is terminated for some reason. Deferred action is determined on a case-by-case basis and only establishes lawful presence but does not provide immigration status or benefits of any kind." Nearly 800,000 people were granted deferred action under DACA through fiscal year 2015, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.[4][5]

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) originally applied to people who met the following criteria:[6]

President Barack Obama meets with individuals who were granted deferred action under DACA
  • Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  • Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  • Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  • Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  • Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
  • Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  • Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.[7]

Obama expanded the DACA program in 2014 to include individuals who had entered the United States before age 16 and before the year 2010. He also proposed a new program called Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA was intended to apply to people who met the following criteria:[8][9]

  • Lived in the U.S. continuously since January 1, 2010
  • Physically present in the U.S. to apply for DAPA
  • Had no lawful status on November 20, 2014
  • Had on November 20, 2014, a son or daughter of any age or marital status who was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident
  • Had not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors
  • Were not determined to pose a threat to national security and were not an enforcement priority for removal

Since DACA and DAPA were executive actions and not the result of new legislation from Congress, there was debate about whether such actions were permissible under the United States Constitution. On November 9, 2015, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of 26 states that had sought and won an injunction from a district court against the programs. The injunction halted implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA. The states had argued that the process used to implement the rules did not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The 5th Circuit found that the states had standing to request an injunction and that they had "established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims." This means implementation of the DAPA program and DACA expansion was blocked until a final ruling on the case.[10]

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling affirming the judgement of the 5th Circuit. A per curiam opinion is one without a specific justice named as the author of the opinion. The court was evenly divided on the question, which left the injunction in place. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court rejected a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to rehear the case. These rulings have been preliminary ones on the merits of the case; the full case will now be heard by the lower courts and could work its way back to the Supreme Court in the future.[11][12][13][14]

Statistics

Due to the nature of residing in the country without legal documentation, accurate statistics regarding illegal immigration are more difficult to gather than for other areas of immigration. As of January 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that 11.4 million individuals were residing in the country without legal permission. The Pew Research Center estimated the number to be at 11.1 million in 2014. Pew also estimated that 8 million of these individuals were in the workforce, comprising about 5 percent of the total United States workforce.[2][15]

The table below provides data on the number of individuals residing in the country without legal permission as estimated by the Department of Homeland Security for the years 2006-2012.

Number of individuals residing in the country without legal permission, 2007-2012
Year Number
2012 11.4 million
2011 11.5 million
2010 10.8 million
2009 10.8 million
2008 11.6 million
2007 11.8 million
Sources: 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 The University of Texas at Austin, "Who is Undocumented?" accessed January 17, 2017
  2. 2.0 2.1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012," accessed January 17, 2017
  3. Migration Policy Institute, "The Global Struggle with Illegal Migration: No End in Sight," September 1, 2005
  4. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Executive Actions on Immigration," accessed February 2, 2016
  5. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Number of I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals," accessed February 10, 2016
  6. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)," accessed December 21, 2016
  7. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  8. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Expanded DACA," January 30, 2015
  9. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "DAPA," January 30, 2015
  10. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "State of Texas et al v. USA et al (2015)," November 25, 2015
  11. Supreme Court of the United States, "United States et al v. Texas et al," June 23, 2016
  12. The Washington Post, "Equally divided Supreme Court affirms lower court decision on Obama immigration policies," June 23, 2016
  13. Vox, "A Supreme Court tie all but kills Obama’s plans to protect millions of immigrants," June 23, 2016
  14. BuzzFeed News, "Supreme Court Ends Last Hope For Obama’s Immigration Actions," October 3, 2016
  15. Pew Research Center, "5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.," November 3, 2016