The Dreamers are here to stay–for now. Late Thursday night, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a press release and Q&A page on the department’s website announcing a two-year expansion of President Obama’s 2012 DACA policy, which protects immigrants who came to The United States as children. These children are commonly known as “Dreamers.”

It’s a surprising move by the Trump Administration. During the campaign, Trump once said that Obama’s 2012 DACA program “defied federal law and the Constitution” and vowed to end the program if elected.

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was an executive order issued by President Obama in 2012 designed to protect children who entered the U.S. as minors from being deported. While DACA does not provide citizenship to those who qualify, it prevents them from being deported from their established lives in the United States and makes them eligible for work permits.

A sister program known as DAPA, for the parents of American citizens and lawful permanent residents, was blocked a few years earlier by a federal judge in Texas who declared that the program overstepped the president’s constitutional authority. Last week’s announcement formally rescinded the program, although it had never actually been implemented.

This change in immigration policy was praised by members of the immigration community, but to Trump’s hardline supporters, it may be seen as a betrayal of one of his key campaign promise on immigration.

However, aides to the president and representatives from Homeland Security confirmed that the DACA program is only under a temporary extension. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman stated that it is still up to Congress to form a long-term solution to the immigration debate. This means that when the extension of DACA ends in just two years, the ‘Dreamers’ could still face deportation in the absence of a further extension or legislative solution.

But for now, it looks as if the Dreamers are safe to stay, that is unless Trump changes his mind.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Trump Gives Dreamers a Temporary Reprieve appeared first on Law Street.

Every day, people all over the world are executed for a wide variety of crimes. Though in the west it is mostly used to punish serious crimes like murder, in some places you can be executed for who you sleep with, how you dress, or if you have a different opinion from your government. Some countries execute people who were underage at the time of committing a crime and some do it to the mentally ill. Monday, October 10 marks the World Day Against Death Penalty.

Some countries still use the death penalty for homosexuality.

Let’s stand with our LGBTQI friends on the 10th October for World Day Against the Death Penalty #NoDeathPenalty #LGBTQI pic.twitter.com/ZOabAGG9Iz

— Rainbow Amnesty (@AI_LGBTQI_NSW) October 6, 2016

Amnesty International is committed to abolishing the death penalty worldwide and presents some of the main arguments for why. The fact is that by sentencing someone to death, you are denying the person’s right to life–which was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally, because mistakes do happen, there have been several cases when an innocent person has been executed. There is also no proof that the use of the death penalty reduces the crime rate in a country. It is a discriminatory practice; death sentences are more likely to to be given to someone from a religious or racial minority as well as the poor and those who cannot afford an expensive lawyer for a lengthy trial.

Lastly, the risk that it is used as a political tool to quiet dissent in countries with a deeply corrupt justice system is too big.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement on Monday:

Let us be clear: participation in peaceful protests and criticism of a government–whether in private, on the Internet, or in the media–are neither crimes nor terrorist acts. The threat or use of the death penalty in such cases is an egregious violation of human rights.

World Day Against the Death Penalty – AI calls on Indon authorities to end DP and review all DP cases https://t.co/MppoXbz5et pic.twitter.com/0Y5Otj7jc3

— Amnesty Int’l (@AIIndoTimor) October 10, 2016

The U.N. Secretary-General also pointed out that although many countries seem to believe the death penalty is an effective way to handle terrorism, by scaring off future assailants, it actually has the opposite effect. He said:

This is not true. Experience has shown that putting terrorists to death serves as propaganda for their movements by creating perceived martyrs and making their macabre recruiting campaigns more effective.

Many Twitter users expressed their opposition to the practice.

On the World Day Against Death Penalty,I hail all those who were executed by #Iran‘s regime in the battle for freedom #NoDeathPenalty

— Maryam Rajavi (@Maryam_Rajavi) October 10, 2016

Places like China and Iran frequently execute people who dare to stand up against the government or reveal unflattering depictions of what life is like there. According to the most recent numbers from Amnesty International, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia account for almost 90 percent of all recorded executions in 2015. But this percentage does not include China, where thousands of people are believed to be executed each year, though data on executions is considered a state secret and is highly classified. The data also shows that last year saw the highest number of executions worldwide in 25 years.

Killing in the name of justice? Mapping death penalty https://t.co/z7eN42lrJk #NoDeathPenalty #WorldDayAgainstDeathPenalty @WCADP @amnesty pic.twitter.com/G9kP9IIQCG

— Benjamin Hennig (@geoviews) October 10, 2016

Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General said in a statement:

The rise in executions last year is profoundly disturbing. Not for the last 25 years have so many people been put to death by states around the world. In 2015 governments continued relentlessly to deprive people of their lives on the false premise that the death penalty would make us safer.

California has a particularly high number of prisoners on death row–prisoners who have been sentenced to death but not yet executed. Only 13 people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, and nearly 750 remain on death row. In November, Californians will vote on two ballot initiatives that will change the state’s death penalty practice. Proposition 62 would repeal the death penalty entirely, and Proposition 66 would change the current system to speed up the appeals process to reduce the number of prisoners on death row. If both pass ,the initiative with the most “yes” votes will become law.

California, we’ve fallen far behind the times. It’s time to end the death penalty for good. RT if you agree. https://t.co/F3ZjwbrgfM pic.twitter.com/l5qpQ0CBXk

— Yes On 62 (@yeson62) October 9, 2016

According to Amnesty International, the United States has the fifth highest number of executions worldwide, following China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Last year, it was also the only country in the Americas to actually perform an execution. We share a place on a list of countries that are infamous for violating human rights, while our neighboring countries and Europe got rid of this practice many years ago. It makes you wonder, does the death penalty really have a place in the United States in the 21st century?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Day Against Death Penalty: Do Executions Belong In the 21st Century? appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.