ObAmnesty less flexible for military, includes some IRCA rejects

Medallion marking the spot where the US and Mexico borders meet. [Customs and Border Patrol photo by James R. Tourtellotte]President Barack Obama’s blueprint for “deferred action”—de facto amnesty—is posted at the Dept. of Homeland Security.

However, ObAmnesty appears to be less flexible for the military and could include some families who chose not to apply for citizenship under the 1986 Amnesty.

DHS lists requirements for avoiding deportation in accordance with Obama's new law:

“1. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

2. Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

3. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

5. Are not above the age of thirty.”

DHS also said individuals must “prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria…”

USCIS provides information about what “verifiable documentation” means: “financial records, medical records, school records, employment records, and military records…”

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also provided in depth info for those interested in applying.

There’s a 60-day wait period for the agency to “create a process…”

One puzzling aspect of ObAmnesty is the reference to the age limit—30 years old. If someone is between 26 and 30, and was brought here before the age of 16, he was in the country when the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was passed.

The Center for Immigration Studies pointed out:

“It is well known that some 2.7 million aliens secured legal status — many of them fraudulently — in that program, but there has been little discussion of the strange inner machinations that caused so much of the problem.”

For more on the fraud as well as chain migration, read the CIS backgrounder written by an expert who monitored and evaluated that program.

 IRCA, as some Americans will remember, was supposed to be the solution that would prevent our having millions of illegal aliens in the country. So much for government promises. The border was not secured as promised, obviously.

Perhaps President Barack Obama had the military in mind when he selected that 30 year age limit.

However, that makes no sense because there is, as CIS pointed out, a more flexible procedure already exists for those who served in the military:

“[F]irst, the military will not knowingly enlist an illegal alien. Second, if an illegal alien manages to enlist anyway, there is a better benefit:

The statute provides that foreign nationals who have "served honorably" during wartime may secure citizenship "whether or not [they have been] lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence."

Obama established a policy that has no government infrastructure in place, no scoring from the Congressional Budget Office and little fairness for immigrants who come to America and follow existing law.

If this was so important to Democrats, the president and his party could’ve have easily reformed immigration in any manner they chose.

Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives after the midterm elections in 2006 and until the midterm elections of 2010. If Obama really wanted to address the chaos in America’s immigration system as well as our broken borders, he could have easily done so in a legal manner by working with the Congress his party controlled. Instead, he opted for ObAmnesty at a politically opportune moment.

Related at The US Report

Lack of border security and federal accountability cost taxpayers billions

Obama's illegal amnesty for illegals deserved reporter's callout

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 18, 2012)