Posted by 23 June 2020
Earlier this year, President Trump said that the coronavirus made it necessary to halt much of the immigration coming into the United States. This week, he extended and expanded that immigration ban.
This move affects a variety of visas that foreign workers use to come into the U.S. and fill jobs. In March, the President issued a temporary suspension of some of these work visas as a part of his coronavirus response policy. He said it was necessary to protect the U.S. from the coronavirus and to help American workers.
This week’s action extends this suspension until the end of the year. It also adds more worker categories to the suspension, including high-tech workers.
Even before being elected president, Trump was a critic of immigration. Since he has taken office, Trump has pursued policies to limit legal immigration and crack down on illegal immigration. The current restrictions fit within his broader framework of reducing the number of people coming into the U.S.
Critics of this action say it has nothing to do with helping American workers. They note that this are jobs that are filled by workers with specific skills, and that they require companies to attempt to hire U.S. workers prior to hiring any foreign employees. These critics allege that President Trump is using the coronavirus crisis to advance his anti-immigration agenda.
Do you support suspending some immigrant work visas for the rest of the year?
Posted by 18 June 2020
Today the Supreme Court has ended the Trump Administration's efforts to strip legal protection from "Dreamers" -- children who were brought to the U.S. illegally.
In a 5-4 ruling, the high court said that the Trump Administration did not follow the proper procedures to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This program gave legal protection to some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Those in this program had to meet certain qualifications, such as having a clean criminal record.
President Trump had said that Congress should enact a law to protect these individuals, but that President Obama did not have the authority to protect them by executive action. He ordered the program to be phased out, which set up a legal fight that eventually ended up before the Supreme Court.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that this case was not about the merits of the president's actions. Instead, he said it concerned the procedure the Trump Administration followed to undo DACA. His opinion leaves open the possibility that the Trump Administration could once again try to end DACA.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the dissenting minority, arguing that the president's actions were indeed legal. He said that it is up to Congress, not the courts, to settle this issue.
Do you think the Trump Administration should continue trying to end legal protection for Dreamers?
Posted by 21 April 2020
President Trump took to Twitter on Monday night to announce that he would be stopping immigration into the U.S.
The president says that this immigration halt is necessary to protect the U.S. from the coronavirus and to help American workers. Even before he was president, Trump was a critic of immigration. Since he has taken office, Trump has pursued policies to limit legal immigration and crack down on illegal immigration.
The president plans to sign an executive order that will prevent the State Department from issuing visas to incoming immigrants. With the virtual shutdown in airline travel due to the coronavirus, there has already been a large slowdown in immigration. The president previously stopped travel into the U.S. from nations where there have been large outbreaks of the coronavirus, such as China.
Given the president’s broad authority to take steps in response to emergencies, this move is likely legal as long as it only lasts the duration of the epidemic. Critics, however, note that the president has long looked for ways to stop people from immigrating into the U.S., and they claim he is using this as a pretext to advance his anti-immigration agenda.
There will likely be legal challenges to this executive order.
Do you support stopping immigration into the U.S. during the coronavirus epidemic?
Posted by 08 March 2020
Currently, if someone seeking to enter the U.S. is detained at a point-of-entry, he or she does not have the right to consult a lawyer. Under legislation being considered by the House of Representatives this week, that would change.
The House will be voting on The Access to Legal Counsel Act this week. Here is how VoteSpotter summarizes that bill:
To provide that anyone held or detained at a port of entry or a detention facility overseas with a right to see a lawyer or other person, such as a relative, within an hour after the inspection process begins.
This legislation does not provided a taxpayer-funded lawyer for a detainee, but does give that detainee a right to see a lawyer or a family member during the time they are being examined by immigration authorities.
The House is considering this bill in response to complaints by detainees at U.S. points-of-entry that immigration officials are not letting them see lawyers prior to them being denied entry into the country. They say that if lawyers could advise them of their legal rights, their situations may be different.
The Constitution provides that individuals in criminal cases can consult with attorneys. Immigration detention cases, however, do not involve criminal law. Those being detained currently have no right to see legal counsel. To obtain such a right, federal law must be changed with this type of legislation.
Those opposing the bill argue that allowing detainees to see legal counsel would slow the system down, overwhelming immigration agents and leading to a breakdown in the border crossing process.
The House of Representatives is likely to pass this bill, but the Senate is unlikely to consider it.
Do you think that individuals detained at U.S. points of entry should be able to talk to lawyers?
Posted by 26 February 2020
President Trump has made no secret about his anger over some cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration agents. Now a federal appeals court has given his administration the go-ahead to cut some funding for such jurisdictions.
The federal government cannot compel local governments, such as states and cities, to enforce federal law. These governments can choose to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies, and routinely do. But so-called “sanctuary cities” have put in place policies that prohibit their law enforcement personnel from honoring requests from federal immigration agents or notifying the federal government of detainees’ immigration status.
These policies do not break federal law, so there is no way for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to attack them in court. However, the federal government does provide law enforcement grants to these jurisdictions. Under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ announced a policy of reducing federal funding to areas with sanctuary policies.
Some of these jurisdictions sued, saying that this funding cutoff was unrelated to the purpose of public safety grants. This week, however, a federal appeals court ruled that the Trump Administration could indeed reduce funding under these grounds. The court held that Congress gave the Attorney General broad leeway to write rules and conditions for these grants.
The cities affected by this ruling are likely to appeal. The case could end up before the Supreme Court.
Do you support cutting some federal funding for “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agencies?
Posted by 28 January 2020
A new rule affecting immigrants who are on public assistance or who may use public assistance in the future will go into effect under a Supreme Court ruling yesterday. In a 5-4 decision, the high court said that the Trump Administration can begin implementing this rule while legal challenges continue.
Last year, the Department of Homeland Security issued regulations that change the “public charge” definition used to judge immigrants’ applications for citizenship or Green Cards. This new rule tightened that definition, making it more difficult for immigrants who are on public benefits or who may use public benefits in the future to obtain permanent legal status in the U.S.
Issuing the rule, the Trump Administration noted that it was long-standing U.S. policy to admit only those immigrants who would not be a burden on taxpayers. They said that their new definition is a long-overdue update to the law. Opponents, however, said this was a backdoor way to limit immigration, especially from nations with large Latino populations. They argued that it was unfair to discriminate against immigrants who were not wealthy, since these individuals may have the most need to enter the U.S.
Critics of the rule went to court to fight it. Last year, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction stopping the regulations from going into effect. This week, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction and allowed the implementation of the new standard.
Court fights over the rule continue. The Supreme Court’s decision did not touch on the ultimate legality of this change to immigration law.
Do you think that the federal government should take into consideration’s someone’s use of public benefits while determining if that person can remain in the U.S.?
Posted by 12 November 2019
The Supreme Court is hearing the fate of children known as “Dreamers” today.
The Dreamers are children who were brought to the U.S. illegally. Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) issued by President Obama in 2012, these individuals would be able to avoid deportation under certain circumstances, such as serving in the military or attending college.
In 2017, President Trump announced that his administration would phase out DACA within 6 months. The president said that President Obama did not have the legal authority to issue DACA, and that his administration had no choice but to end it. He called on Congress to pass legislation that would deal with the fate of Dreamers.
States and individuals affected by the ending of DACA sued the federal government. Federal judges have stopped the government from rescinding DACA until the Supreme Court can make a decision. Today the justices heard arguments from both sides on this question.
The Trump Administration argues that President Obama issued DACA via executive action even though he previously said that such a move must come through legislation. They note that many legal scholars think that this was, in effect, a change in law by the president, not Congress. That is illegal.
Those arguing that the Trump Administration acted illegally are not disputing that one president has the power to revoke a previous executive action of another president. Instead, they are saying that the Trump Administration did not give a legally-justifiable reason to rescind DACA. If these arguments prevail, President Trump would be free to phase out DACA in the future, but would have to go through a more careful legal process.
There have been bipartisan attempts to pass legislation that would settle the fate of Dreamers. The president has indicated his support of such legislation, but there has yet to be an agreement on final details.
Do you think President Trump was right to rescind President Obama’s legal protection of Dreamers?
Posted by 07 November 2019
Calling President Trump “a racist, a xenophobe, and a demagogue,” Senator Bernie Sanders today unveiled his proposal to reverse the Trump Administration immigration actions and make major changes to U.S. immigration law.
Among other things, the Sanders plan would:
- Reverse President Trump’s executive actions that affect immigrants, including the travel ban and restrictions on asylum
- Put a moratorium on deportations
- Provide legal status to individuals in the DACA program (immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children)
- Stop deportations of undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for longer than 5 years
- Ask Congress to pass legislation to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
- Decriminalize illegal border crossing
- Provide illegal immigrants with the right to legal counsel in deportation hearings
- Restructure ICE and the Border Patrol
- Reform worker visas to allow immigrants to work in more places
- Focus immigration law enforcement on employers, not workers
- Mandate a $15 minimum wage for farm workers
- Lift the cap on refugee admissions
Many of these proposals are direct repudiations of Trump Administration immigration policies. In line with his position on the left wing of the Democratic Party, Sen. Sanders is focusing on penalizing employers over immigrants when it comes to enforcing current immigration laws. He is also supporting programs that would allow more immigrants into the U.S. and make it easier for those who are in the U.S. to remain here.
In the past, Sen. Sanders has criticized what he characterizes as “open border” policies as being a way for business owners to undermine U.S. workers’ rights. This plan is his attempt to spell out exactly what he would do as president when it comes to immigration reform. Many of these proposals would require action by Congress.
Do you support putting a moratorium on deportations? Should immigration enforcement focus on business owners who are using illegal immigrant labor?
Posted by 16 October 2019
Congress wants to end President Trump’s emergency declaration on the U.S-Mexican border wall. But President Trump is fighting back with a veto of a resolution that would terminate his declaration.
In February, President Trump declared a national emergency regarding the situation at the border between the U.S. and Mexico. His declaration freed up money that Congress had appropriated for other sources in order to build a border wall, something that Congress had explicitly refused to fund.
Under the terms of the national emergency law (something explained in this VoteSpotter Deep Dive), Congress can vote every six months to terminate that declaration. Congress voted to do so in the spring, and it recently did so again. But this termination resolution is subject to the president’s veto. President Trump vetoed the resolution in the spring, and he vetoed the latest resolution yesterday.
There were not enough votes to override the first veto, and there are unlikely to be enough to override this one. That means that, as far as Congress is concerned, there is no way to stop the border wall construction from occurring. However, the president’s plans have recently suffered a setback in the courts. Local officials in Texas sued to stop construction, and a federal judge sided with them. This ruling does not affect the entire length of the border wall, however, and it is likely to be appealed by the Trump Administration.
Do you support congressional and legal efforts to stop President Trump’s emergency declaration to build a border wall?
Posted by 27 September 2019
The House of Representatives is taking aim at how the Trump Administration is treating migrant children who cross the U.S.-Mexican border.
This week members of the House passed two bills that would change key part of the Trump Administration’s strategy to deal with migrant children. Here is how VoteSpotter described them:
U.S. House Bill 3525 Mandate speedy medical checks of children detained at ports of entry
Passed 236 to 174 in the U.S. House
To mandate that anyone under the age of 18 who is detained at a port of entry to the U.S. must receive a medical check within 12 hours. For individuals who may have health problems, the deadline would be six hours.
U.S. House Bill 2203 Limit immigration child separations
Passed 230 to 194 in the U.S. House
To limit the circumstances when the Border Patrol or Department of Homeland Security may separate a child entering the country from a parent. With few exceptions this would be allowed only when a court determines it is in the child's best interest. The bill also establishes a variety of government commissions and committees to reform the way that the Department of Homeland Security operates regarding immigration as well as stopping some of the Trump Administration's new asylum rules.
These bills come in response to what some observers call abuses by the Border Patrol of children who are detained entering the U.S. The policy of separating children from adults when they arrive across the border has been an especially controversial policy. Under the legislation passed by the House, this could only occur under rare circumstances.
Those supporting these bills say that they are necessary to end inhumane treatment of children at the border. Those opposing them counter that this would needlessly hamstring the Border Patrol and would end up leading to higher levels of illegal immigration.
The bills now head to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unlikely to bring them up for a vote.
Do you think that the federal government should only be able to separate migrant children from parents under rare circumstances? Should the federal government provide medical checks to anyone under 18 within 12 hours of being detained when they enter the country?
Posted by 26 September 2019
For the second time, the Senate has voted to terminate President Trump’s emergency declaration regarding the U.S.-Mexico border wall. But, once again, there were not enough votes to override a likely presidential veto, leaving the emergency declaration in place.
On September 25, the Senate votes 54-41 in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 54, which would terminate President Trump’s emergency declaration allowing him to re-allocate funds to build a border wall. The president issued such an emergency order on February 15 after Congress had refused to vote in favor of money for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
As explained in this VoteSpotter Deep Dive, the president has the power under a 1979 law to declare a national emergency. When this happens, he can shift some federal funds that were approved for other projects to meet the needs of whatever emergency the president has declared. However, Congress then has the ability to vote to terminate the emergency declaration.
Soon after this February declaration, both houses of Congress did indeed vote to terminate it. However, the president vetoed the termination resolution and there were not enough votes to override the veto. According to the law governing emergencies, termination votes can occur every six months. That is why the Senate once again took up this issue.
The Senate-approved resolution will now be considered by the House of Representatives, where it is likely to pass. The president is likely to veto it once again, and there is little chance that either house will override the veto. This will preserve the emergency declaration for at least another six months.
Do you think that Congress should end President Trump’s emergency declaration that allows him to move money around to pay for a border wall?
Posted by 12 August 2019
If you are an immigrant who is a recipient of a government assistance program, you may find it more difficult to become a permanent resident or a citizen under a new rule announced by the Trump Administration.
Current law allows the federal government to deny permanent residency or citizenship to immigrants who are public charges or likely to become public charges. Under the Trump Administration, proposal, the term “public charge” is broadened to include anyone who uses benefit programs like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing assistance. Under current regulations, a public charge is defined as someone who is primarily dependent on the government programs. Immigrants who are in the U.S. for five years can apply for most government assistance programs under federal law.
Critics see this is a way to rewrite immigration law to prioritize high-skilled immigrants over migrants from areas like Central America. They say that this will prevent immigrants who need government assistance from applying for it. Supporters counter that immigration law should encourage immigrants who will contribute to the U.S., not be dependent on taxpayers for support. They say that the law already prohibits permanent residency for immigrants who would drain government resources, and that this rule merely clarifies that standard.
The new regulation will go into effect in two months barring any court challenges. Immigrant rights groups are vowing to file lawsuits to stop it, however.
Should immigrants to receive government assistance be denied permanent residency in the U.S.?
Posted by 01 August 2019
Immigration has already been a big issue during the 2020 presidential race, and it will continue to feature prominently in the campaign. Former Vice President Joe Biden is seeking to distinguish himself from the field of Democratic candidates by coming out in opposition to decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing.
Biden made his stance on this issue known during last night’s CNN Democratic debate. He said that he opposed changing the law that makes it a misdemeanor to cross the U.S. border without authorization. He was responding to the stance of some Democratic candidates who had said that having such a law on the books has led to family separation at the U.S.-Mexican border.
Other Democrats on the stage attacked Biden’s immigration stance, saying that he shares blame for the Obama Administration’s large number of deportations. Biden said that he does not support returning to the deportation policy of those years.
With President Trump’s actions to restrict immigration and impose more border control, the Democratic candidates running for president are seeking to outline how they would differ from the president on these issues. Biden is staking out a less liberal plan than some in the party, although his ideas are far more liberal than those of President Trump.
Do you think that it should be a crime to cross the border without authorization? Or should it be a civil citation that does not require detention?
Posted by 22 July 2019
The situation at the U.S.-Mexican border continues to be the center of attention for many elected officials. Both President Trump and Democrats in Congress are focusing on this issue, though with widely different ideas on how to solve the problems on the southern border. This week the House of Representatives will vote on one idea put forward by Democrats – increasing the standards of care for those detained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Some observers have criticized the CBP for detaining individuals under inhumane conditions. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA) has introduced H.R. 3239, the “Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act.” This bill would require that CBP provide the following services to those in its custody:
- A health screening
- Emergency medical care
- Access to drinking water and hygiene facilities
- Adequate meals
The legislation also sets standards for the buildings housing detainees and forbids unaccompanied minors from being housed with adults. In addition, the bill would require that members of Congress have access to these facilities.
Following visits to CBP facilities, some members of Congress have decried the conditions there and have complained about their treatment by CBP staff. Some have even labeled such facilities as “concentration camps.” This charges have met pushbacks by Trump Administration officials, who say that detainees are being treated as well as possible under the circumstances of a rising tide of illegal immigration.
The House is expected to pass H.R. 3239 this week. However, it is unlikely to receive a vote in the Senate.
Do you think that Congress should pass legislation to mandate certain standards of care for immigration detention facilities?
Posted by 12 July 2019
Immigration has been a major issue throughout President Trump’s time in office. This week Congress tackled that subject, with the House passing a bill that would allow more high-skilled immigrants into the country.
HR 1044 would eliminate the 7% cap on employment-based immigrant visas, and end the country-based caps on high-skilled immigrants or investor immigrants. In addition, it would also increase the country-based cap for family-based immigrants.
The House passed this legislation by a vote of 365-65.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced legislation in the Senate that would accomplish similar goals. His bill, S. 2091, would nearly double the number of employment-based immigration visas (from 140,000 to 270,000), end the country-based caps on employment-based immigration, lower the burdens on hiring immigrants in occupations deemed to have a shortage of workers, and ease rules on work for some family members of those who hold work visas.
These bills are not comprehensive immigration reform, but they do address issues for higher-skilled immigrants. As reflected in the bipartisan support for HR 1044, there is consensus across the political spectrum that it should be easier for high-skilled immigrants or immigrants who have a job waiting for them to enter the U.S.
Even with this consensus, it is unclear if President Trump would sign such legislation. The president has said he would like any immigration reform to deal with border security.
Do you think that the U.S. should allow more high-skilled immigrants into the country?
Posted by 05 July 2019
The Trump Administration wants to move forward with building a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but lawsuits are stopping this from happening. A federal appeals court this week declined to issue a stay that would allow the wall work to proceed.
President Trump has made a border wall a top priority for his administration. Congress, however, has failed to provide money to build one. After a government shutdown earlier this year over the issue, the president used his emergency power to re-allocate funds to build such a wall. Residents in the border area went to court to stop this construction.
These residents argued that the president is violating the Constitution and federal law by his emergency action. They say that Congress did not appropriate funds for a border wall, so the president should not be able to build a wall. Federal courts have agreed with this argument, stopping the Trump Administration from proceeding with border barriers.
The Justice Department asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay these lower court orders, which would allowed construction to begin. By a 2-1 decision, a panel of this court’s judges disagreed. They wrote that the president is indeed misusing his authority:
The Constitution assigns to Congress the power of the purse. Under the Appropriations Clause, it is Congress that is to make decisions regarding how to spend taxpayer dollars. Congress did not appropriate money to build the border barriers Defendants seek to build here. Congress presumably decided such construction at this time was not in the public interest. It is not for us to reach a different conclusion.
The Trump Administration argues that the wall is necessary to secure the border from drug traffickers and illegal immigrants.
This decision by the 9th Circuit judges does not end the matter. The Justice Department can continue its legal fight in favor of the border wall, which means the Supreme Court may ultimately decide this matter.
Do you think that President Trump misused his power to spend money for a border wall when Congress did not authorize such spending?
Posted by 03 July 2019
A federal judge dealt the Trump Administration another setback in its quest to reshape the nation’s immigration policy. Judge Marsha J. Pechman issued a nationwide injunction stopping the administration’s plan to end bail hearings for some asylum seekers. The White House blasted the judge, saying she had no authority to do this.
Judge Pechman’s order affected a decision by Attorney General William Barr to end bail hearings for some people who have entered the U.S. seeking asylum. This order would have left these individuals in detention indefinitely, without any chance to request a hearing for release.
In the judge’s decision, she wrote “that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue.”
She then ordered that these asylum seekers must either have a bond hearing within seven days of detention or be released.
In response, White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham released a statement saying, “The decision only incentivizes smugglers and traffickers, which will lead to the further overwhelming of our immigration system by illegal aliens. No single district judge has legitimate authority to impose his or her open borders views on the country.”
This case is the latest in a series of decisions where federal judges have blocked or overturned aspects of the Trump Administration’s changes to immigration policy.
Do you think that asylum seekers should be able to be held without a bail hearing? Should a federal judge be able to block implementation of a policy nationwide?
Posted by 02 July 2019
Sen. Cory Booker laid out an immigration plan today that he said he would implement if elected president. The New Jersey senator’s proposal would be a big break from President Trump’s immigration actions.
Decrying the current situation at the border, Sen. Booker pledged to use executive action to remedy what he sees as inhumane conditions for individuals being held in detention. His proposal includes new standards for immigration detention facilities and an end to for-profit companies operating such facilities.
Sen. Booker also said he would reverse many of President Trump’s immigration actions. These steps would include stopping construction of the border wall with Mexico, reinstating the policy protecting “Dreamers” who came to the country illegally as children, ending the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers, and revoking the ban on people entering the U.S. from several majority-Muslim nations.
President Trump has imposed many of these policies through executive action, so they can be undone by the next president without congressional approval. This is what Sen. Booker said he would to accomplish if he is elected president.
Sen. Booker is part of a crowded field of challengers seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, all of whom have expressed some level of disagreement with how President Trump is pursuing immigration policy.
Do you think that there should be higher standards for immigration detention facilities? Should for-profit companies be prohibited from operating these facilities? How should the federal government treat immigration detainees?
Posted by 10 June 2019
Illegal immigration has been a hot topic throughout President Trump’s term in office. The president recently threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican goods unless that nation’s government took steps to curtail illegal immigration. This weekend, the two nations came to an agreement that will avoid these tariffs.
Under this deal, Mexico will increase the military presence on its southern border to deter migrants from Central America entering and coming to the U.S. Mexico will also allow some asylum seekers to be returned to Mexico to await a resolution of their claim.
This plan was drawn up after President Trump threatened an escalating series of tariffs in response to what he termed the Mexican government’s inadequate efforts to deter illegal immigration into the U.S. Many in the business community, and many Republicans in Congress, said that these tariffs would be destructive to the U.S. economy.
Democrats have expressed skepticism that this agreement will do much to address the problems causing people to enter the U.S. illegally. President Trump’s supporters hail it as a victory for his negotiating skill.
What should the Mexican government be doing, if anything, to stop illegal immigrants from entering the U.S.?
Posted by 07 June 2019
The fate of so-called “Dreamers” – illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children – has been debated in Washington for years. This week, the House of Representatives passed legislation to provide them with a path to permanent residency. But President Donald Trump has said he is opposed to it.
The House passed H.R. 6 by a vote of 237-187 on June 4. Here is how VoteSpotter described the legislation:
To stop deportation proceedings against non-citizens who were brought to the U.S. as minors, and allow those individuals to remain in the U.S. for 10 years. To qualify, a person must have been brought to the U.S. as a minor, must meet certain educational and residency requirements, and cannot have been convicted of a felony, among other things. The bill would also allow these individuals to become permanent legal residents if they graduate college, complete military service, or have three years of steady employment.
President Obama attempted to deal with the status of Dreamers without Congress. He instituted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This affected illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and who met educational requirements and had no criminal record to be shielded from deportation. Once he assumed office, Donald Trump canceled DACA, saying it was an overreach of executive power.
President Trump has signaled support for legislation that would provide permanent residency for Dreamers. However, he has issued a veto threat for H.R. 6. He would like to see this issue tied to a larger plan that limits immigration and provides more border security. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agrees with the president, and has said that the Senate will not consider H.R. 6.
Do you think that children who were brought to the U.S. illegally should receive legal residence if they have no criminal record and meet education requirements? Should the status of Dreamers be tied to overall immigration reform?