WBEZ | illegal immigrants

Gay rights groups: Don’t leave us out of immigration bills

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:20:00 -0500

Some gay rights groups in Illinois are now applying their own political pressure in the fight to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, as they worry a final deal could leave same-sex couples in the lurch.

The political difficulty of recognizing same-sex couples in U.S. immigration law was on display Monday, when U.S. Reps. Luis Gutierrez, a liberal Chicago Democrat, and Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and former GOP vice presidential nominee, made stops in Chicago to plug their ideas for an immigration overhaul in the House.

Bipartisanship and compromise were the buzzwords of the day, until someone in the audience at a downtown luncheon asked whether Gutierrez thought the immigration changes would recognize same-sex relationships.

“And I will fight for it, but I do not believe it will be in a bill,” Gutierrez said, adding that he supported the idea, but was concerned about its ability to gain support in Congress.

After a long pause, Ryan, who opposes same-sex marriage, chimed in.

“So I’m gonna stick with just the immigration stuff here,” he said, giving a nervous laugh.

The exchange illustrates the political challenge of including so-called bi-national same-sex couples in an immigration overhaul, particularly in the GOP-led House of Representatives, where cobbling together bipartisan support for an immigration bill is already a tall order, even without tossing in the hot-button issue of gay rights.

But some activists in Chicago say recognition for same-sex couples must be included. They were surprised that Gutierrez seemed to declare the idea dead on arrival, even before a House bill has been introduced.

Recognition in U.S. immigration law would mean a same-sex relationship could be grounds to grant legal status to a foreign spouse, or to prevent their deportation. It could also help gay foreign couples who are working in the U.S. on visas.

Those laws currently apply only to heterosexual couples because federal law defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, though the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing the issue.

That provision could have a big impact on the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender immigrants who are now in the U.S. illegally – about 267,000 people, according to an estimate from the Williams Institute, a think tank that researches LGBT legal issues.

Gutierrez’s political calculus doesn’t sit well Julio Rodriguez. He chairs the LGBTQ Immigration Rights Coalition of Chicago, which advocates for gay rights in immigration law.

“You can’t pick and choose when you wanna be our allies,” Rodriguez said, adding that full recognition for same-sex couples is the right thing to do, regardless of political difficulties.

“We helped elect many of those folks who are sitting in Congress that are our allies,” he said. “We’ve provided financial resources, we’ve provided people on the ground, and we expect a return on that investment.”

Recognition for same-sex couples is not included in the sweeping immigration overhaul bill introduced in the Democrat-controlled Senate last week, though gay rights activists say they’re lobbying Illinois’ Senators to have it included via a later amendment.

But Gutierrez’s suggestion that it may not be included in a House version came as news to some of his allies in Chicago’s gay rights community.

“That is very surprising to me,” said Jane Merrill, with the Center on Halsted, an LGBTQ community center on Chicago’s North Side. “Though the bi-national same-sex couple provision was on in there, there was a lot of positive feeling that it would be.”

Passing immigration reform and recognizing same-sex couples in immigration law shouldn't be mutually exclusive, Merrill said.

But Randy Hannig, Director of Public Policy at Equality Illinois, suggested his group’s lobbying efforts will remain focused on the Senate for the time being.

“We realize just how hard a lot of our issues [will] be to make it through both chambers before we make it to the president’s desk,” Hannig said. “I guess for lack of a better term, we’re definitely keeping it real.”

Gutierrez, for his part, said in an interview with WBEZ on Tuesday he wants to include same-sex couples in an immigration overhaul. He pointed to his longtime support of gay rights, though in the past, he’s gone back on forth on how hard to push for them when it comes to his trademark issue of immigration reform.

Now, as one of the key Democrats working to navigate a massive immigration overhaul through the GOP-led House, Guiterrez said he’s simply being realistic when he tells his allies in the gay rights movement that the votes aren’t there.

“You shouldn’t pander,” he said. “You shouldn’t raise false expectations. That’s not what I expect from a friend and an ally.”

Gutierrez said he hopes to introduce the House immigration overhaul bill he’s drafting with Rep. Ryan in a few weeks. But the whole question could be moot by the end of June, when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the federal definition of marriage.

Alex Keefe is a political reporter for WBEZ. Follow him on Twitter @akeefe.

Conservative legal group challenges Cook County immigration policy

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:02:00 -0500

Invoking the Boston Marathon bombings, a national conservative group has filed a lawsuit aimed at a Cook County ordinance that requires jail personnel to disregard federal immigration detainers.

Washington-based Judicial Watch says the county has no legal right to ignore the detainers, which are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests that local jails hold specified individuals up to two business days beyond what their criminal cases require.

President Obama’s administration says the detainers, which help ICE put the inmates into deportation proceedings, are crucial for focusing immigration enforcement on criminals.

Cook County officials say detainers also erode community trust in local police. In 2011, the County Board approved an ordinance that halted detainer compliance by the county’s massive jail. ICE abruptly lost convenient access to hundreds of immigration violators each year. Lawmakers in other parts of the country, meanwhile, approved bills modeled after the policy.

The suit, which claims federal law preempts the ordinance, asks Cook County Circuit Court to strike down the local measure and compel Sheriff Tom Dart to comply with the detainers. The suit accuses Dart of “failure to carry out his legal duties under both federal and state law.”

At a Monday press conference Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton pointed to last week’s news events. “In light of the Boston Marathon bombings, there is a national-security component to these detainers by ICE.”

Authorities say two Chechen immigrants — one a permanent-resident visa holder, the other a naturalized U.S. citizen — are suspected of having planted the bombs that exploded April 15 in Boston.

Judicial Watch is representing the suit’s plaintiff, Chicago resident Brian McCann, who is the brother of a pedestrian killed in a 2011 hit-and-run collision in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood. The alleged driver, a Mexican immigrant named Saúl Chávez, had a DUI conviction. He was arrested and charged with the hit and run. A Cook County judge set the bond at $250,000.

ICE suspected Chávez was in the country illegally and slapped a detainer on him. But after the county enacted the ordinance, Chávez posted $25,000 — the required 10 percent of the bond. He walked free and went missing.

“Dart is thumbing his nose at the federal government and replacing federal immigration priorities with Cook County’s own immigration policy,” Fitton said. “Releasing these criminal aliens before they can be taken into custody by ICE endangers the public.”

Fitton echoed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton, who have said the Cook County ordinance threatens public safety.

That claim was the subject of a WBEZ investigation that found that inmates freed as a result of the ordinance had not reoffended or jumped bail more than other former inmates had.

Dart’s office, in a statement late Monday, pointed to the sheriff’s support for allowing the county to honor ICE detainers for inmates charged with violent offenses and inmates with a number of prior convictions.

Chip Mitchell is WBEZ’s West Side bureau reporter. Follow him on Twitter @ChipMitchell1 and @WBEZoutloud, and connect with him through Facebook and LinkedIn.

Attorneys steer undocumented clients away from a citizenship path

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:26:00 -0600

Some immigration attorneys say they are steering most undocumented clients away from a citizenship path created in the name of “family unity” by President Barack Obama’s administration.

“I’m telling most folks to wait and see how the rule is implemented before applying,” veteran Chicago immigration lawyer Royal Berg said.

“Any information the applicant gives to the government can be used against the individual,” Berg added, “and could result in the applicant being deported.”

The Department of Homeland Security laid the path in a rule that took effect Monday. The rule enables eligible undocumented immigrants to receive a “provisional unlawful presence waiver,” known in some quarters as a PUP waiver, before leaving the United States to attend visa interviews at an American consulate in their country of origin.

To qualify for the waiver, according to the department, an applicant must be inadmissible to the United States “only on account of unlawful presence.” The immigrant must also show that going abroad and getting stuck there would create “extreme hardship” for a U.S. citizen spouse or parent.

Since 1996, the federal government generally has required visa applicants to wait 10 years outside the United States if they have spent more than a year in the country without authorization.

The administration proposed the rule last April at the urging of immigrant advocates. After receiving some 4,000 public comments about it, the department published the final version January 3.

Some immigration lawyers see the rule as a potential boon to mixed-status families.

“We’re cautiously optimistic that this will be one way in which families can be reunified more quickly,” said Lisa Koop, managing attorney of the Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center, whose clients include many Mexican nationals. “If you get the provisional waiver granted, you can go down to Mexico with some assurance that at least that ground of inadmissibility has been waived and you should be allowed to come back in.”

A statement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS agency receiving the applications, says it “does not envision” placing PUP waiver applicants in removal proceedings. But the Obama administration has made no promise that information gleaned from applications will not lead to any deportations.

Chicago immigration attorney Kevin Dixler sees other risks. He said PUP waivers would not ensure that immigrants could return to the United States if they had committed certain crimes in this country or “falsely represented themselves to get a job.”

Berg says he is advising clients to explore other options, including applying for work papers and a deportation reprieve under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a policy the Obama administration initiated last year. “DACA is safer, quicker and less expensive, and leads to work papers without leaving the country,” Berg said.

DACA has its own downsides for applicants, Koop pointed out. “It’s not permanent,” she said. “It’s a quasi-legal status that they’re in for two years. Whereas, if they go through consular processing, when they come back into the United States they’re lawful permanent residents, which means they have their green card and, in [a few] years, will be eligible to apply for citizenship.”

Among other qualifications for the PUP waiver, an immigrant must be at least 17 years old, must be physically present in the United States, and must not be in deportation proceedings.

Follow Chip Mitchell on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

U.S. rule to help thousands of Illinois immigrants

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:51:00 -0600

In the name of family unity, the path to lawful status is about to get shorter for some immigrants who are in the United States illegally — including thousands of Illinois residents.

A rule that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Wednesday helps those who can show that separation from an immediate relative who is a U.S. citizen would create “extreme hardship.” Starting March 4, the immigrants can apply for a U.S. visa without risking a long wait outside the country.

Since 1996, the federal government generally has required visa applicants to wait 10 years outside the United States if they have spent more than a year in the country without authorization.

President Obama’s administration says it received more than 4,000 public comments about the rule after proposing it last April.

“This final rule facilitates the legal immigration process and reduces the amount of time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who are in the process of obtaining an immigrant visa,” Napolitano said in a statement.

Immigrant advocates applauded the change.

Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, pointed out that the applicants would still need to leave the country to get the visa. “But they could [return] to the United States in a matter of weeks as opposed to years,” said Tsao, who helped gather comments supporting the rule.

Asked whether the rule would amount to a pardon for living in the United States without authorization, Tsao pointed to existing law: “People who are married to — or parents of, or children of — U.S. citizens already qualify for lawful status.”

To qualify under the rule, according to a Department of Homeland Security statement, an applicant must be inadmissible to the United States “only on account of unlawful presence” and must demonstrate that getting stuck outside the country would lead to “extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent.”

The Obama administration, without Congress, has recently helped other immigrants who are in the United States illegally. Under a program initiated last year, thousands who were brought to the country as children have received work papers and a deportation reprieve.

Senate panel OKs licenses for illegal immigrants

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:00:00 -0600

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Supporters of licensing illegal immigrants to drive say it would make Illinois roads safer with trained motorists required to carry insurance.

The Senate Executive Committee voted 12-2 Thursday to advance the plan for some of the 250,000 people living in Illinois illegally.

Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran told the committee unlicensed and uninsured illegal immigrants cause $64 million in damage claims each year — a cost covered by insured motorists' premiums.

Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont says the plan is a good example of state law filling in where the federal government has failed to act.

The legislation's sponsor is Senate President John Cullerton. The Chicago Democrat says the licenses would be good for three years.

Joliet detention-center talks include private prison firm

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 05:02:00 -0500

A top Joliet official says his talks exploring possibilities for an immigrant detention center in the city have included the nation’s largest private prison operator.

City Manager Thomas Thanas told WBEZ he had engaged in a “preliminary conversation” with officials of Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America to see “whether Joliet might be a suitable site” for a facility that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants in the Chicago area.

Thanas declined to say when and where the conversation took place or what details were discussed. “We have not reviewed plans,” he said. “Nothing has been filed on a formal basis.”

Joliet officials are “not talking about any specific sites at this point,” Thanas said. He added that “a facility like this could not be located near a residential area, schools or a commercial district.”

Thanas referred questions about site possibilities to CCA, whose spokesman referred inquiries to ICE, which declined to discuss the Joliet project.

The federal agency sent a statement that said building a Chicago-area detention center would help improve immigrant confinement conditions and enable “locating detainees closer to where they are apprehended so that they can be near their families, community resources and the ICE field office.”

What would Joliet get? “Hundreds of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs,” Thanas said. “I’m always interested in projects that have an opportunity to create jobs and revenues for our school district.”

Federal officials met with Thanas about the project October 17 in Washington, he said. “It was a fact-gathering opportunity for both them and me.”

Thanas also briefed some City Council members about the detention-center possibility.

But officials managed to keep the project out of public view until the Chicago Tribune revealed it late Wednesday. Within hours, some Joliet activists and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights began organizing opposition.

“We don’t believe you should be making a profit off of tearing families apart because they’re undocumented,” said Richard Rodríguez, a Joliet resident who chairs the Mexican American Coalition of Will County. “There should be comprehensive immigration reform. Address the issue properly.”

Thanas replied that national immigration policy was not Joliet’s business. “That’s a matter of federal concern,” he said.

Joliet’s nine City Council members on Thursday declined to comment or did not return messages about the project.

The Joliet talks follow a highly publicized setback for ICE and CCA in south suburban Crete, where the agency wanted the company to build and run a 788-bed detention center. Village trustees rejected the plan June 11 after months of protests by residents, human-rights advocates and public-sector unions.

CCA had greater success in Springfield. The company lobbied against Illinois legislation that would have banned government agencies at the local and state levels from contracting with private firms to build or run civil detention centers. The bill passed the Senate in March but stalled after a series of close House floor votes May 31.

After Obama immigration offer, college roommates weigh risks

Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:00 -0500

President Barack Obama has an offer for many undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Since Aug. 15, the Department of Homeland Security has been letting them apply for work papers and a deportation reprieve under a policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. But the department says it had received fewer than 180,000 complete applications as of Oct. 10. That represents a small fraction of the 950,000 immigrants that, according to a Pew Hispanic Center estimate, could qualify immediately for the deferred action.

That got me wondering: What would keep people from applying? I’m hearing about immigrants having trouble gathering documents to prove their eligibility. I’m hearing about struggles to find affordable legal advice and scrape up the $465 application fee. But there’s another factor: fear. Many immigrants are wondering how long the policy will remain in place and whether the application information will be used for immigration enforcement. Some are also wondering whether they can count on the Obama administration, which has deported people in record numbers.

I found a pair of young roommates bound up in these questions. Both women have immigrant parents. Both grew up in Chicago. And both are college sophomores. But just one has papers to be in the United States. That woman, a U.S. citizen, wants to convince her undocumented roommate to take up Obama’s offer and send in the application. Their story revolves around trust, immigration status and who will have a future in the United States.

Driver licenses for undocumented youths?

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:19:00 -0500

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio are planning to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants who get work papers under a new federal policy.

The Obama administration policy, called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” will allow as many as 1.7 million illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children to get Social Security and employment-authorization cards, along with a deportation reprieve. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began accepting applications Aug. 15.

“As long as the Social Security Administration issues an individual with a Social Security number, and they have the other documents that are required under Illinois law, then they can apply for a driver’s license,” said Henry Haupt, spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who oversees that state’s driver licensing.

WBEZ surveyed eight Midwestern states about their response to the policy change. Along with the four states planning to provide licenses, Wisconsin and Iowa officials said they had not decided yet, while Minnesota and Missouri officials did not respond to numerous WBEZ inquiries.

The states planning to issue the driver’s licenses differ from Arizona, Nebraska and Texas, where governors have vowed to block illegal immigrants from getting licenses.

The immigrants must meet several requirements to get the Social Security and work-authorization cards, including having been younger than 31 on June 15; having arrived in the U.S. before turning 16; having lived in the country continuously since June 2007; being a student or graduate, or having served in the military; and having no serious criminal record nor posing any public safety threat. The work authorization will last up to two years and, if the federal policy stays in place, be renewable. The policy does not provide a path to citizenship.

Assuming some of the immigrants have been driving illegally, states that enable them to get a license could make roads safer. “They have to pass the road exam, they have to pass the written exam, and they pass the vision test,” Haupt said about Illinois. “We require so many different things of our young drivers and — by doing so — they, of course, become better drivers.”

Illinois also requires proof of liability insurance on the car the driver uses for the road test. So it’s possible that allowing undocumented immigrants to drive legally could reduce the number of uninsured vehicles.

The immigrants themselves have more at stake. Karen Siciliano Lucas, an advocacy attorney of the Washington-based Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., points out that driver’s licenses are vital for working and attending school in most regions of the country. “Not only that, it is a state-issued identification that shows who you are,” she said.

The issue is complicated because most states require driver’s license applicants to prove “lawful status” or “legal presence” in the United States. Officials in some states say the work authorization under the Obama policy will be sufficient proof. But a USCIS statement says the policy “does not confer lawful status upon an individual.” It’s unclear whether courts will enable states to define lawful status differently than the federal government does.

States expecting Obama administration guidance about the driver’s licenses could be waiting awhile. In response to WBEZ questions, the Department of Homeland Security sent a statement saying the department does not comment on state-specific matters.

Until federal courts weigh in, states are likely to face lawsuits no matter their course. “We will see battles on this,” Lucas predicted.

Making matters more complicated is the federal Real ID Act, a 2005 law aimed at fighting identity theft and keeping terrorists out of federal buildings and airplanes. Among other things, the act requires states to verify that driver’s license applicants have lawful status in the United States.

The law is set to take effect in January, but it’s not clear how the Obama administration will enforce it. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has fought for the measure’s repeal, calling it unworkable.

That irks advocates for tougher immigration enforcement: “If you want to protect against identify theft, you’ve got to eliminate the fraud,” said Janice Kephart, who focuses on national security policies for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies. “That means you have to eliminate the illegal-alien community out of that scheme. It doesn’t mean that states cannot give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. It just means that they have to do it outside the Real ID Act.”

Kephart praised Utah, which has created a “driving privilege card” specifically for undocumented immigrants.

At the moment the only other states that let undocumented immigrants drive legally are New Mexico and Washington, which provide them the same licenses that U.S. citizens can get.

Young immigrants line up to apply for deportation reprieve

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:05:00 -0500

Get the flash player here: http://www.adobe.com/flashplayer

Thousands of young undocumented immigrants lined up Wednesday at Chicago’s Navy Pier for help with paperwork as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began taking applications for deportation deferrals and work permits under a new policy initiated by President Barack Obama.

The turnout led the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which organized the event, to begin turning immigrants away in the morning.

The policy, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, allows undocumented immigrants who had not turned 31 by June 15 to temporarily live and work in the United States.

Elizabeth Espinosa, a Chicago resident who arrived at Navy Pier hours before the event's 9 a.m. start time, said she was applying so she could attend college to become a registered nurse.

“It means not just equality, but ... a better hope for us and our future children,” Espinosa said. “It means so much more than just a piece of paper. It means our whole lives.”

Cristián García of Mundelein said he wanted the deportation reprieve and employment authorization so he could work as a computer technician. He also said he wanted his family to gain some peace of mind.

“Sometimes, because we don’t have documents and we’re not legal we don’t feel secure and we don’t have the same opportunities to study,” García said.

Applicants must prove they arrived in the United States before turning 16 and that they have lived in the country continuously for five years. They also must be a student or graduate or have served in the military, among other requirements.

Republicans have called the policy an election-year maneuver that bypasses Congress and favors illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens. They also point to the fact that legislation known as the Dream Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for many of the youths that are now applying for deferred-action, failed in the U.S. Congress.

Prominent Illinois Republicans — including U.S. Reps. Judy Biggert (R-13th), Aaron Schock (R-18th), Randy Hultgren (R-14th), Adam Kinzinger (R-11th) and Peter Roskam (R-6th) — did not make themselves available for comment.

Mitt Romney — the party’s presumed presidential nominee — has talked about vetoing the Dream Act if it were ever passed and has suggested pushing undocumented immigrants, as he puts it, to “self-deport.” Romney has not promised to keep Obama’s deferred-action policy in place.

The election and its possible impact on the deferred-action policy has Chicago immigration attorney Robert Cotter calling Wednesday's Navy Pier event “reckless.” He adds that the immigrants ought to wait to submit the paperwork until they see who wins November’s election.

“We could have a new president," Cotter said. “That new president could undo what’s been done in one day. One signature could undo everything. So I’m counseling my clients, ‘Look, you survived this far. If you can wait another 10 - 11 weeks, you’re going to be a lot more certain that you’re really going to get that work permit and that you’re not going to get a notice to appear in immigration court.’”

This sentiment didn’t sit well with U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the principal sponsors of the Dream Act. The senator attended Wednesday’s event and gestured to hundreds of young people filling out their applicants in the ballroom, saying it will be politically unfeasible to reverse this policy.

“I will tell you the force that they are creating is a moral force here, beyond a legal force,” Durbin said. “It is a moral force that, I believe, that as the American people support this 2 to 1, that’s what the polls tell us. They will support these young people being protected. If someone later comes along and tries to exploit the fact that they did the right thing, they did what they were told legally.”

Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-4th) said the scene at Chicago's Navy Pier resembled Ellis Island.

Immigrant advocates and others cautioned that the applications for deferred-action include all sorts of things — fingerprints, information about family members — that would be useful for deporting people.

The Department of Homeland Security says it won’t use such information for enforcement unless there’s evidence of criminal activity.

Durbin: Youth deportation reprieve to hold up

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:32:00 -0500

President Barack Obama’s administration says it will start accepting applications Wednesday from some immigrants to get a temporary reprieve from deportation. That’s under a controversial policy the administration is calling Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The immigrants won’t get a path to citizenship — distinguishing the policy from stalled legislation, known as the Dream Act, that U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.) has been pushing for more than a decade. But an estimated 1.7 million young people will have their first shot at valid papers to live and work in the country. Durbin is planning to attend a Wednesday event at Chicago’s Navy Pier to help about 1,500 of these youths with the application. He told WBEZ’s Chip Mitchell that this is an important moment for them.

DURBIN: It is a leap of faith on their part. Many of them have lived in the shadows for years and now they’re stepping up to say to this government, “We’re here and we’re ready to follow your law.” I think it’s going to be a day that they’re going to remember for a long, long time.

MITCHELL: Yet, Senator Durbin, some immigrant advocates are calling the “deferred action” policy risky for the undocumented youths because they’d be revealing details about their immigration status — [and] biometrics for the first time, in many cases — to the same government department that could one day deport them. The next president could throw out President Obama’s policy as quickly as January. But you’re recommending that the youths apply anyway. Could you be putting them in danger?

DURBIN: I believe the fact that two out of three Americans believe President Obama did the right thing — that most everyone agrees that children should not be held responsible for the wrongdoing of their parents — argues that ultimately that, once they come forward, once they comply with the law and become part of the system, it won’t be reversed. And, if someone tries it, in either political party, if someone should try that in the future, I think there will be a strong public reaction in support of these young people and against efforts to rescind it.

MITCHELL: Some Republicans in Congress are criticizing the program’s cost. And at least one — Steve King, not too far away, in Iowa — is vowing to file a suit to try to force the administration to, in his words, “enforce the law.” What’s your response to him?

DURBIN: Congressman King of Iowa is notorious. He’s kept alive a tradition, which has been in America for a long time, of hating immigrants, resisting immigration, denying what America is today — a nation of immigrants. That’s his right. He can continue to. But let’s get to the bottom line. Let’s answer the question directly. These students are going to pay fees to cover all the costs to the federal government. So to argue that this is adding to our debt or deficit is just wrong.

MITCHELL: . . . Senator, how about the principle of enforcing the law as it stands — the rules enacted by Congress about who gets to stay in the U.S. and who doesn’t? The law says these young people are not supposed to be in the country.

DURBIN: Every day, at every level of government, prosecutorial discretion is used. In other words, the government, with the power to continue a lawsuit or to start a lawsuit, decides, “No, there are more important things to do with our resources to keep America safe.” President Obama has made a decision. These young people who are here, being brought here as children, who have no significant criminal record of any kind and are ready to come forward and be part of the system, should not be a high priority for taking people out of our country. I think he’s right. He’s using prosecutorial discretion — the enforcement decision — which every government has used and has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

MITCHELL: Some immigrant advocates are criticizing the timing of President Obama’s “deferred action” policy. He could have taken this step, after all, as soon as he took office in 2009. So these advocates are calling it a play for Latino support just months before he’s up for reelection. What do you think?

DURBIN: The president is in a terrible situation now. Anything he does this year will be viewed in this context of the political campaign. I know where Barack Obama stands. He was a cosponsor of the Dream Act. He worked for its passage. He voted for it. And he’s told me from the start that he will sign it as president of the United States, unlike Mitt Romney, who has promised to veto it. Two years ago, I said to the president, “If we can’t pass it in the Senate, because of the Republican filibuster, will you at least protect these young people from deportation until we can pass it?” And he said he would. I think he’s kept his word and he’s been consistent.

MITCHELL: The Obama administration, nevertheless, is deporting people at a record pace — about 400,000 a year. Has this president done all he could for undocumented immigrants — the roughly 10 million people living and working in the shadows in this country — and for their families?

DURBIN: Well, of course, there are deportations and there must be. In some cases there are people who are dangerous to America, living here illegally with a criminal record or some major problem that brings them to the attention of our government. And, in those circumstances, every president has a responsibility to keep America safe. I’ve never heard anyone argue that these Dream Act students are a danger to America. The president has made this decision. I think it is the right decision. And, ultimately, he has to depend on Congress to pass immigration reform. There’s only so much the president can do on his own. I think we should and I hope we can do it on a bipartisan basis.