Pamela Wilson USCIS Oct 2017 February 7, 2017 at 10:36 AM
Official Quote on your query
To: D.A. King
The categories of individuals who are eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12(a)-(c), and in the Instructions for Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. Individuals in the following EAD categories are applicants for lawful status. Many individuals in these categories are applying for change or adjustment of their current lawful status, but some may not be in status:
(c)(8) Aliens with pending applications for asylum
(c)(9)/(c)(16)/(c)(20)/(c)(22)/(c)(24) Aliens applying for lawful permanent resident status
(c)(10) Aliens applying for cancellation of removal
(c)(19) Aliens applying for Temporary Protected Status
(c)(31) Self petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act
Individuals in the following categories do not have lawful status. They have either been granted temporary relief from removal, or cannot be removed due to the refusal of all countries designated to receive the alien, or because the removal of the alien is otherwise impracticable or contrary to the public interest:
(a)(10) Aliens granted withholding of deportation or removal
(a)(11) Aliens granted deferred enforced departure
(a)(13)/(14) Aliens granted a stay of removal under the Family Unity Program (c)(14)/(33) Aliens in a period of deferred action
(c)(18) Aliens granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, and aliens under a final order of removal who are on an order of supervision because they cannot be immediately removed
Finally, in some cases, abused spouses of certain nonimmigrants who are eligible for an EAD under (c)(27)-(c)(30) may not be in status.
Original question/media request
From: D.A. King [mailto:Dking1952@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:04 PM
To: Wilson, Pamela G
Subject: Media request for official quote/info from USCIS
Hi, Ms. Wilson,
I am grateful for the info on USCIS and am preparing a write-up for several Georgia newspapers and statewide web-based news outlets.
For early next week I am writing for submission to the Macon Telegraph, Insider Advantage Georgia and other outlets about various codes on the federal EAD document noting the bearer’s non-citizen status as an educational piece on public benefits in Georgia. It is aimed at and at the request of several state legislators. I would be grateful for quotes from your office to insure accuracy.
As you have confirmed, DACA status does not provide lawful status or lawful presence. DACA status is indicated by “C-33’ on the EAD. I am using this (pages 12-21 – 12-24 as a reference). My request for the piece is a quote from USCIS on which other EAD codes denote a status that does not qualify as lawful status or lawful presence. As an example, code C-18 is described as “deportable alien under order of supervision.” Please let me know if this category of alien has lawful status or lawful presence? Which other categories in addition to C-33 do not have lawful status/presence?
My deadline is Tuesday afternoon. I am always grateful for your kind assistance. Please contact me with any questions.
Thank you so much for your hard work, your response to my query and your kindness in asking about my bout with the flu (it is horrible). Yesterday was my first day back to work in almost three weeks.
I am collecting quotes for my write up from several state lawmakers and have shared the USCIS info you sent with the two legislators who have asked me to investigate and write an educational piece on this.
—>Please correct me if I am overlooking it, but I do not see that your response includes info on aliens with the EAD code C-13 , (Deportation or exclusion proceedings pending, page 12-23 here). Can you please provide that information? Does C-13 denote lawful status?…
Thank you very much again. I look forward to meeting you.
Plyler v. Doe has essentially guaranteed a right to pursue a high school diploma to all students (children) regardless of immigration status. It applies to K-12 education.
An easy to read and accurate synopsis: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and a municipal school district’s attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their status as immigrants must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a “substantial” government interest.
The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441 U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny undocumented immigrants students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bar them from enrollment at public colleges and universities.
Plyler v Doe applies to admittance, enrollment and education of illegal aliens K-12 . It does not provide for any education of parents of students. Neither does it mean that school systems can or should provide any public benefit to parents (adults) in the name of furthering the education of the child/student.
The USDOE has distributed guidance letters which are linked below. Although many of the responses from Georgia school districts cite Plyler v Doe and these letters as evidence of the legality of adult education for already enrolled K-12 students, the letters all clearly address enrollment of K-12 students, not adult education.
Lastly, the argument that verifying the eligibility/immigration status of parents for public benefits or not providing illegal aliens parents (adults) of K-12 students language classes hinders the education of the child can be expanded to say that we cannot verify the legal status of the parents for a teaching or contractor job in the school system and that use of the E-Verify or SAVE system aimed at a parent is a “civil rights violation” or somehow damages the child’s education. Taken to extremes, use of the E-Verify system for parents of any or all Georgia K-12 students could be said to hinder the education of an illegal alien’s child because the parent cannot lawfully be employed. Shorter: The Plyer v Doe argument is intended for people who do not know the law.
2) Title lll made us do it and authorizes English classes for illegal alien parents of K-12 students already enrolled in Georgia’s school system.
I do not dispute that there is language in Title lll concerning parents and English language assistance. But partial quoting of Title lll without noting the federal requirement that all programs be in compliance with individual state law is incomplete and deceptive.
Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
Please note Section 3116 Local Plans “(a) PLAN REQUIRED – Each eligible entity desiring a subgrant from the State educational agency under section 3114 shall submit a plan to the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the State educational agency may require.
(b) CONTENTS – Each plan submitted under subsection (a) shall —
…(1) each local educational agency that is included in the eligible entity is complying with section 3302 prior to, and throughout, each school year;
(2) the eligible entity annually will assess the English prof iciency of all children with limited English proficiency participating in programs funded under this part;
(3) the eligible entity has based its proposed plan on scientifically based research on teaching limited English proficient children;
(4) the eligible entity will ensure that the programs will enable children to speak, read, write, and comprehend the English language and meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and
→(5) the eligible entity is not in violation of any State law, including State constitutional law, regarding the education of limited English proficient children, consistent with sections 3126 and 3127.
And Section 3126 LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW. →“Nothing in this part shall be construed to negate or supersede State law, or the legal authority under State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public official, over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the State agency, entity, or official.
SEC. 3127. CIVIL RIGHTS.
Nothing in this part shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with any Federal law guaranteeing a civil right. Use of Funds Requirements in OMB Circular A – 87
3) Title lll and Title l made us do it:
“Translation and Interpretation for English Learners – Requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Related to National Origin Discrimination and Use of Funds Under Title III, Part A and Title I, Part A of the ESEA.” See linked info ( for some reason, the link must be pasted into your browser to open the fed document). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/titleititleiii421.pdf
“Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A – 87 requires that the use of funds for a specific purpose be: necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient performance and administration of the program; and authorized and not prohibited under State and local laws or regulations.
Remember boys and girls, opposition to enforcement of American immigration laws is what “immigrants rights groups” do.
“Local immigrant rights groups oppose the measure, saying it could violate Fourth Amendment rights and create distrust between local police and immigrant communities. They plan to hold a press conference about SB 452 Tuesday morning.”
February 26, 2018
Georgia bill: Police, courts must help with immigration enforcement
Local police and court officials would be required to help with immigration enforcement in Georgia under legislation the state Senate passed Monday on a 36-17 vote.
Senate Bill 452 now moves to the House for consideration.
Sponsored by a group of Republican state senators and backed by Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, SB 452 would require local police to notify prosecutors when they learn suspects are in the country illegally. The legislation — titled the END Act, or Ensuring Necessary Deportations — would also require courts sentencing these suspects to determine whether they are here without permission and to report that information to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Further, local jails would be required to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before unauthorized immigrants are released from custody.
Supporters said the measure would help uphold the rule of law and protect public safety.
“This bill can save lives,” said state Sen. Josh McKoon, a Republican from Columbus. “It is a very modest requirement that information be shared so that the law can be enforced.”
Senate Democrats questioned whether the bill would burden local governments with unfunded mandates, scare away migrant Hispanic workers and damage the state’s huge agricultural industry.
“A lot of counties and towns are pretty hard-pressed for keeping body and soul together,” said state Sen. Nan Orrock, an Atlanta Democrat. She wondered aloud whether her fellow senators had “considered the fiscal impact of putting this mandate on local government.”
Since May, three Georgia cities — Atlanta, Clarkston and Decatur — have adopted measures in favor of restricting their interactions with ICE. They join scores of other municipalities and states nationwide that have enacted similar policies. Some jails in these communities won’t honor ICE detainers, or requests to detain people for up to 48 hours beyond when they would normally be released so the agency can pick them up and seek to deport them. Courts have found complying with such detainers can violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
In September, Decatur City Manager Peggy Merriss adopted a policy prohibiting city police from arresting, detaining or transporting anyone based solely on an ICE detainer. Her move drew the ire of Cagle, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, who accused Decatur of violating a state law prohibiting “sanctuary policies.” The city has vigorously defended its policy.
In-depth: Georgia cities limiting cooperation with ICE amid Trump’s crackdown
“No illegal aliens convicted of a crime against our society should ever skirt deportation because of the ineffectiveness of government bureaucracy,” Cagle said in a prepared statement about SB 452… Read the rest here.
Below is a photo of Georgia Governor Nathan Deal from earlier this month. He is helping out the anti-enforcement lobbyists at the ‘Asian Americans Advancing Justice’ who were lobbying hard against SB 452 (see the image below the photo), until it passed in the senate today. Now they will lobby the Republican controlled House to stop passage.
–> SB452 is a bill that will require police and courts to help with immigration enforcement in Georgia. You can read the caption description of the bill here. It will save lives and reduce the number of illegal aliens in Georgia, where we have more illegals than Arizona. AAAJ is working with the anti-borders GALEO on this lobbying effort to kill immigration enforcement in Georgia.
The photo and the info here was taken from the GALEO Facebook page. Whether we elect a Republican or Democrat, it seems we always end up with a governor who snuggles up to the anti-enforcement mob.
Thanks to EVERYONE who turned out to make this event a success. We truly appreciate the support!
Special thanks to our elected officials, featured speakers, sponsors, volunteers, organizations, and individuals who came out to support!
Professional photos are coming soon!”
Graphic as seen on the anti-borders GALEO facebook page
Failure to Include a Remittance Surcharge in the Tax Bill Was a Lost Opportunity
February 26, 2018
Mexican President Enrique Pena-Nieto has canceled a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump after an apparently sharp telephone exchange in which Pena-Nieto demanded, and Trump refused, to avoid any public references to a southern border wall — or more specifically, to his oft-repeated campaign pledge that Mexico would pay for the wall — a pledge we haven’t heard much about in recent days, even as Congress has dithered over whether or not to provide any funding at all to make the barricade a reality. This isn’t the first such canceled meeting between the two leaders.
The border wall issue is more significant and more politically charged than ever on the Mexican side of the frontier, as the July election over a successor to Pena-Nieto looms ever closer. The three main candidates from different parties may be sharply divided on some things, but the wall isn’t one of them.
In fact, the candidate now showing a lead in the polls, Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador is, if anything, the harshest critic of U.S. border policies and particularly the wall — something that plays well, as one might imagine, to Mexico’s electorate. Pena-Nieto’s own party, PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Institutional Party), is behind and cannot afford to lose ground on this matter by ceding anything at all to Trump.
But it is precisely because of the coming election that, from a U.S. perspective, little is lost by this exchange of snubs. Not meeting with Pena-Nieto will change nothing in terms of the outcome since, as I said, on this singular issue there is no space at all between any of the three Mexican parties or their candidates’ positions.
Of more interest, or concern, depending on your perspective, is why this was a sticking point with President Trump given that there is no tangible evidence that his administration has taken any steps to actually ensure that, in some way or form, the cost of the wall doesn’t fall on U.S. taxpayers — assuming that he can ever get an intransigent Senate to pony up 60 votes to pass any immigration reform measure whatever.
It seems to me that the best chance to have achieved his goal would have been to fold within the confines of the recently-passed tax bill a measure that would have established a surcharge or levy on outgoing money orders, since these are financial transactions that occur in the millions, and that collectively represent a huge amount of the remittances being sent home by Mexican and other illegal aliens working unlawfully in the United States. (By making the fee refundable for anyone who files a tax return, as is the case in Oklahoma, the cost would be borne mainly by illegal aliens.)
According to CNN Money:
Mexicans sent home $26.1 billion from January to November 2017, according to figures released Tuesday by the central bank of Mexico. That’s the most ever recorded and better than the $24.1 billion sent in 2016 over the same period.
The failure to wrap the remittance levy into the tax bill was a lost opportunity of epic proportions…. Read more here.
I write from Marietta to sadly commiserate with other conservatives in the Dalton area. My own state Republican state senator, Kay Kirkpatrick, recently joined Dalton’s Sen. Chuck Payne in voting with the Democrats to kill a Republican bill aimed at reforming the system by which Georgia issues driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
Astonished or doubtful readers can watch a video archive on the General Assembly website of the Feb. 21 Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on SB 417 and watch as Payne raises his hand to vote “no” with the Dems while the illegal aliens who opposed the bill can be heard literally applauding in the back of the room. (Here is a link to the official video archive. SB417 presentation begins around 55:20 and the vote begins around 123:20. Use the red button slide on the bottom of the screen. You need to put your cursor near it to see it.)
The state legislation, offered by conservative stalwart Sen. Josh McKoon of Columbus was designed to end the practice of giving a common driver’s license to legal immigrants and illegal aliens, many of whom have been convicted of crimes in the USA and have already been ordered deported. The bill took advantage of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) uses a code on the work permits they issue to denote the unlawful immigration status of aliens who have been awarded the permit, in large part, by the Obama administration.
McKoon’s bill would have taken advantage of the in-place USCIS system and changed the illegals’ driver’s licenses so that they were easily recognizable and could not be used as ID to board airliners — as a legal immigrant’s ID is.
Payne is now explaining his join-the-Dems vote by saying he was concerned about the cost of enforcement of the legislation if it became law. Here is where Dalton voters should remember that all laws have a cost of enforcement. And that Georgia has more illegal aliens than Arizona. And that even if the well-known but little understood DACA program ended tomorrow, we will still have illegal aliens in Georgia with the same drivers and ID credentials as legal immigrants. Blurring that line is an insult and a needless public safety risk. What “cost” is too high for Payne?
GOP readers should imagine a primary campaign speech at a Whitfield County Republican meeting in which candidate Payne assures voters that if he is sent back to the Gold Dome he will vote with the Democrats against a Republican public safety bill on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.
Would you still vote for him?
King is president of the Georgia based Dustin Inman Society. He is not a member of any political party.
Sen. Payne responds:
Sadly, Mr. King illustrates the ever-present obstacle in politics, the driving venture of “want.” For it doesn’t matter if Democrats want or Republicans want. If our efforts are only a pursuit of our want then eventually our want will cripple us all. Maybe it’s time that we seek to set want aside and commit to do the work to achieve responsible and sound legislation that would stand the tests of time. I do strive to maintain a measure of responsibility in discernment, but I’ve learned that the result of want unfulfilled can sometimes bring misguided anger to those who only want. The reason I wasn’t able to join my friend, Sen. Josh McKoon, as he proposed SB 417, was simply due to my understanding in reading through the bill that it would create more government and without any qualifying results to show for it.
In 2012, the Department of Driver Services began printing “LIMITED-TERM” on Georgia driver’s licenses and identification cards issued to those who are not U.S. citizens. In my view, SB 417 would create a whole new arm of state government in the creation of a new method of issuing driving permits to those who are not U.S. citizens. SB 417 establishes that beyond the issuing of Georgia diver’s licenses, the state would take on new enforcement policies for these new “driver safety cards” for those who are not citizens. It is my understanding that the cost and creation of a whole new bureaucracy to enforce these new provisions would come without any warranted difference from what we currently have. SB 417 requires that a person be fined if caught using these new driver safety cards for personal identification, but the costs associated with the enforcement would have to be appropriated later with additional legislation.
Recently, the Legislature moved forward on HB 918, as for the first time in our lifetimes the state will reduce tax rates for individuals and businesses from 6 percent to 5.75 percent, and includes provision to further reduce the tax rate to 5.5 percent in 2020. The question I asked in the consideration of my vote over SB 417 was, “Are we seeking to reduce the size, costs and excesses of state government, or are we creating more government and laws that could be deemed as unenforceable in the end?” As I had promised, I have kept my word that I would read the legislation with an eye of meaningful critique. I simply disagreed with the costs of implementing SB 417 and questioned if this bill would offer any measurable result.