The language of the legislation that House GOP leadership will offer a vote on to win over conservatives on a border crisis bill contains significant differences from language Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a couple weeks ago.
The original Cruz-Blackburn legislation prohibited the government from spending funds on issuing any new applications under the Deferred Action for Childhood Releases (DACA) program, as well as issuing any work permits to individuals in the country illegally.
The new legislation prohibits the government from issuing “guidance, memorandums, regulations, policies, or other similar instruments” that would expand the scope of to whom DACA applies.
In other words, Cruz-Blackburn would prevent future implementation of DACA, while leaving the current pool of DACA beneficiaries intact but unable to obtain work permits. The leadership bill leaves DACA itself intact, but prohibits any official policies that would expand its scope.
The leadership bill also appears to include a prohibition of new work permits for individuals in the country illegally, including DACA recipients, but exempts individuals “paroled under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) or permitted to land temporarily as an alien crewman.”
But the parole system can be used to grant legal permanent resident status–not just temporary legal status–to illegal aliens, according to the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG).
The organization, which supports amnesty, has been publicly advocating that the Obama administration to expand its use of parole as a way to grant executive amnesty to illegal aliens in America.
The NYLAG wrote recently that “a discretionary grant of parole in place to individuals who are currently present in the United States and have a United States citizen immediate relative” could ultimately allow many illegal aliens with no criminal records “to proceed towards a more permanent and sustainable life here without leaving the country first.”
The group described “benefits of parole” as being a “tool already at the disposal of immigration authorities and therefore requires no legislative action,” and that it is “politically viable, in that it could not be classified as ‘amnesty’ as it can be limited in use to only the most deserving of immigrant groups and does not in itself confer any new status upon those who would benefit from it.”