The most legally aggressive part of Obama's immigration plan is one nobody is talking about

The most politically charged aspect of the immigration debate concerns the fate of the millions of mostly Latino, mostly working-class unauthorized immigrants living in the United States.

But the most aggressive move he's making concerns something else entirely — foreign technology entrepreneurs.

A memo released today by the Department of Homeland Security clarifies that Obama is planning to increase the number of foreign entrepreneurs allowed in.

A memo from the Council on Economics Advisors suggests the scale of this program will involve around 33,000-53,000 new migrants.

The legal basis for this action involves a break with precedent that is much more dramatic than the more-controversial deportation protection being given to unauthorized immigrants who are already here.

What Obama is doing for foreign entrepreneurs

The DHS memo states that the president is directing the US Customs and Immigration Service to devise a program that would, on a case-by-case basis, let foreign entrepreneurs move to the United States. There are two broad limits laid down for the sort of entrepreneurs who would qualify. One is a guideline that the entrepreneurs in question be "awarded substantial US investor financing" or otherwise be involved in "the development of new technologies or the pursuit of cutting-edge research." The other is a stipulation that anybody allowed in under this initiative be prosperous enough to be ineligible for federal benefits programs, including Obamacare subsidies.
In other words, this means an Israeli technologist with backing from American venture capitalists should be allowed in but an Indian cook looking to open a restaurant should not.

Why does the President have the authority to do this?

The DHS memo cites section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act which grants the executive branch authority to "parole" people into the United States when there is a "significant public benefit" to doing so. The text of the statute places very little limitation on the scope of Significant Public Benefit Parole, so the administration appears free to argue that the entry of foreign technology entrepreneurs would be beneficial.
This is not, however, the traditional use of SPG authority.
Historically, most paroles have been humanitarian paroles. SPG parole, as the Department of Homeland Security itself says "is generally used for aliens who enter to take part in legal proceedings." In other words, if a foreign witness is needed for an important case a law enforcement agency can submit a request for parole. The Congressional Research Service notes, however, that SPG parole has been used at least once for economic reasons when 2,468 Hong Kong Chinese were paroled into Guam to "support defense projects" following a typhoon.
In other words, this is a much larger break with precedent than the more-debated deferred action program for already-resident immigrants where the White House can point to the broadly similar George H.W. Bush action.

Why is nobody talking about this?

The administration appears to have structured this particular initiative to be narrowly drawn to minimize political backlash.
Silicon Valley is hungry for more skilled migrants, and Republicans have been eager to appear sensitive to those concerns even while remaining hostile to any form of "amnesty" for current unauthorized residents. The specific prohibition on allowing parole for anyone who would be eligible for public benefits should firewall this initiative from one major source of controversy. And the implied focus on entrepreneurs who are already backed by US-based venture capitalists means the individual beneficiaries of this program will, by definition, have powerful political advocates inside the United States.

Triste ver que nuestra democracia no funciona

Es patético observar la actuación, más bien la no actuación, de la oposición frente al caso de la Casa Blanca de Angélica Rivera, esposa del presidente Peña. Su silencio denota el nivel de complicidad que han alcanzado los partidos en México. Parecería que aquí ya no hay oposición sino un pacto de “tapaos los unos a los otros”, como genialmente ha descrito nuestra colega editorialista de Excélsior, María Amparo Casar. Es una vergüenza que genera tristeza para aquellos que creíamos en la existencia de una democracia funcional en el país.
Un régimen democrático presidencialista de división de poderes descansa en la idea de pesos y contrapesos de tal suerte que los políticos se vigilen los unos a los otros. Bien decía James Madison, uno de los padres fundadores de la exitosa República estadunidense, que “si los hombres fueran ángeles, no sería necesario ningún gobierno. Si los ángeles gobernaran a los hombres, ni los controles externos ni los internos en el gobierno serían necesarios. En el diseño de un gobierno que va a ser administrado por hombres sobre hombres, la gran dificultad estriba en esto: en primer lugar debe permitirse al gobierno controlar a los gobernados; y en segundo lugar hay que obligarlo a controlarse a sí mismo”.
¿Cómo evitar el abuso de hombres que no son ángeles? ¿Cómo lograr que haya un autocontrol gubernamental? Madison lo tenía muy claro: “para contrarrestar la ambición hay que crear ambición”. Frase memorable que sustenta el régimen de división de poderes. Al diseñar un sistema democrático el objetivo es “dividir y organizar las varias instituciones de una manera en la que cada una pueda checar a la otra –que el interés privado de cada individuo pueda ser el centinela de los derechos públicos”.
Si existe la sospecha de que el Ejecutivo abusó de su poder, el Legislativo debe intervenir. Para ello cuenta con facultades de investigación, fiscalización y sanción. El sistema funciona precisamente por la ambición que tienen los políticos del Congreso de desbancar a los políticos de la administración.
En esta lógica resulta fundamental la presencia de verdaderos partidos opositores en el Legislativo. Recordemos que en las épocas autoritarias de México sí había división de poderes en el papel. No así en la realidad. El Legislativo ni vigilaba ni castigaba al Ejecutivo y viceversa. ¿Por qué? Muy sencillo: porque el PRI controlaba todo: no había oposición. La democratización comenzó con una mayor presencia opositora en el Congreso que eventualmente derivó en la alternancia en el Ejecutivo.
En 2012, el PRI recuperó la Presidencia. La oposición, no obstante, mantuvo una fuerte presencia en el Congreso. Tiene, de hecho, la mayoría en el Senado. Uno esperaría que la fuerza opositora en el Legislativo vigilara y sancionara los posibles abusos del Ejecutivo. O por lo menos que los investigara para demostrar que la democracia está funcionando. Desgraciadamente, no ha sido el caso: ni el PAN ni el PRD, los dos principales partidos opositores, han reaccionado frente al caso de las propiedades de Angélica Rivera.
Menuda diferencia a lo ocurrido en 2005 cuando apareció información de que los hijos de la entonces Primera Dama, Marta Sahagún, habían ejercido influencia para otorgar contratos gubernamentales a ciertos empresarios. La Cámara de Diputados formó una comisión especial para investigar el tema. Ciertamente no produjeron muchos resultados que digamos pero por lo menos se armó cierto revuelo. Lo increíble es que ahora, con el posible conflicto de interés de una residencia comprada y financiada por uno de los contratistas favoritos del gobierno de Peña, el Congreso no diga ni pío.
Carlos Puig especula que el estruendoso silencio podría deberse a la larga cola que tienen los opositores y que el gobierno del PRI podría pisar. No lo dudo: la democracia mexicana ha tenido como consecuencia la ampliación de la corrupción a todos los partidos. Y como nadie se salva, ya no existen contrapesos. De esta manera, la democracia ha dejado de funcionar. Qué tristeza.
                Twitter: @leozuckermann

Dreamers to Obama: Don’t leave our parents behind

As President Barack Obama prepares to take executive action on immigration, Dreamers have a message for the president: Don’t leave our parents behind.

“It is becoming clear that there is a new consensus emerging from those who support our communities — the parents of Dreamers must be protected,” Lorella Praeli, director of advocacy and policy at United We Dream, said Tuesday during a press conference on Capitol Hill"

Obama could take action as early as this week to offer deportation relief and work authorization to millions of undocumented immigrants. The president did something similar in 2012 when he announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented youth who came to the United States as children.
The New York Times reported last week that up to 5 million undocumented immigrants — including parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents — could benefit from Obama’s planned executive actions. But it’s still unclear whether the parents of Dreamers will also qualify for protection.

Erika Andiola (right) stands next to her mother, Guadalupe Arreola, at a press conference last December. (VOXXI/Griselda Nevarez)

Erika Andiola, a Dreamer and co-director of the Dream Action Coalition, said she hopes her mother is not left out from Obama’s executive actions.
In an op-ed published Tuesday by the Huffington Post, Andiola said her mother was put in deportation proceedings two years ago when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials raided her home and arrested her mother.
Andiola said shortly after that happened, she quit her job as a staffer for Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) in Washington, D.C., and returned to Arizona to fight to stop her mother’s deportation. She succeeded in convincing immigration officials to allow her mother to stay in the U.S. temporarily.
But Andiola’s mother is still not in the clear. She has an appointment with ICE officials in December where she’ll find out if she gets to stay in the country for another year.
Andiola said she now hopes Obama will “go big” and extend relief to her mother and other immigrants like her who are parents of Dreamers but don’t have children who are U.S. citizens or legal residents.

“Dreamers across the country have given their lives to this fight, and I ask you to not leave our parents and those who might not have family ties to U.S. citizens, behind,” Andioa said in the op-ed, directing her message to Obama. “Please don’t leave my mother behind.”

SEE ALSO: Republicans looking for ways to stop Obama on immigration
Dreamers aren’t the only ones calling on Obama to include their parents in his planned executive actions. A group of mothers of Dreamers have been fasting outside the White House since Nov. 3, making their case for why the president should protect them and other immigrants with strong ties to the U.S. from deportation. They are part of an advocacy group called Dreamers’ Moms USA.

A group of mothers of Dreamers joined Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard during a press conference Tuesday. (Twitter/@Rep.RoybalAllard)

Lenka Mendoza, a mother of two Dreamers who lives in Virginia, is among those who have been fasting outside the White House for 16 days. In an interview with VOXXI, she explained why Obama should offer relief to parents of Dreamers.
“A lot is said about the qualities of our sons and daughters and the contributions they’re making to this country,” Mendoza said. “But we, as parents, are the ones who have instilled those qualities in our children, and we shouldn’t be put aside.”
She added that like Dreamers, parents also deserve an opportunity to stay in the country because they have “worked hard and contributed to the economic development of this country.”
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Women’s Working Group on Immigration Reform, echoed that message during a press conference on Tuesday. She was joined by the mothers who are fasting as well as Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Dina Titus (D-Nev.), who are also part of the working group.

“Like the Dreamers, the parents of Dreamers love our country and contribute to our economy every day,” Roybal-Allard said. “As women leaders in Congress, our message is simple, Mr. President: Don’t separate children from their parents. Keep families together. And enable moms and dads to come out of the shadows to openly contribute to our country, and to live their lives with dignity and respect.”

Where Obamacare and immigration reform collide

the US Senate Majority, November 5, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The worst political news for President Obama, on top of the crushing mid-term elections defeat for his party, is that the centerpiece of his legacy may be in trouble in the most unexpected of places.
A year after open enrollment under the Affordable Care Act began, 1 in 4 Latinos in the United States still do not have health insurance, according to new Census Bureau data – and it may be an uphill struggle to reverse that.
That is significant to Obama’s legacy since it was widely assumed that Latinos would be the backdrop for the success of Obamacare, both because they are its biggest target ethnic group and were the celebrated core of his 2008 and 2012 success in several critical states.
But now comes this unexpected political collision: Obamacare is the president’s legacy issue and if it fails among Latinos – who are already suspicious of him because of broken promises on immigration reform – there may be little of lasting importance on which to hang his presidency.
SEE ALSO: New HealthCare.gov website unveiled
It may be both ironic and coincidental that Obamacare and the immigration reform have become almost inseparable in trying to connect Latinos to the Affordable Care Act.
In California alone, at least 600,000 Latinos — or almost twice those who have enrolled — are still balking at signing up for Obamacare, despite qualifying for subsidized coverage under the federal health law, out of fear it could lead to the deportation of undocumented relatives.
It is a fear heightened by the fact that the federal government has deported more than two million immigrants in the U.S. illegally since Obama took office in 2009.
“This is a very big deal in California,” says Catherine Teare of the California HealthCare Foundation. “It’s really hard for Covered California or anybody to make those concerns go away.”
It has become such an issue that the state’s exchange, Covered California, is tackling the immigration fears directly for the first time this fall in new TV ads targeting Hispanics for open enrollment which starts Nov. 15 and runs to Feb. 15.
But officials fear it will be a hard sell to many Latino families of mixed immigration status, even though last March Obama appeared on the Spanish-language TV network Univision attempting to assure Latinos that information they provide about extended family members in the country illegally would not be turned over to immigration officials.
At that time, as of April, when the first open enrollment in Obamacare ended, some 367,000 Latinos in California had signed up for insurance through the state’s health care enrollment exchange.
All in all, California has the highest percentage of uninsured Latinos in the country at nearly 60 percent,