Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Biden’s immigration actions provide work permits for some, but not all

Biden speaing at a podium

President Joe Biden delivers remarks during an event marking the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in the White House on June 18.

Michael A. McCoy for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Sedeño is the immigration policy analyst for the Latino Policy Forum.

“¡Tengo treinta años aquí! ¡No califico para esto!” ( “I’ve been [in this country] for 30 years! I do not qualify for this!”)

The words of this long-time immigrant worker were not easily forgotten as dozens of immigrants, advocates, elected officials, labor unions, and faith and business leaders gathered at The Resurrection Project on June 19 to respond to President Joe Biden’s recent actions on immigration. Once implemented, these actions will streamline paths to work authorization and legal status for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants and DREAMers across the country — the largest move since the Obama administration instituted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012.


The proclamation, as announced, would help immigrants in two key ways:

  1. Allow certain undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens to apply for “ parole-in-place (PIP),” a protection against deportation, while inside the country. This will allow many to access a work permit and legal permanent residency. Approximately half a million undocumented immigrants and their children will be eligible. Eligible spouses and children will be able to apply beginning Aug. 19.
  2. Allow DACA recipients and other DREAMers, who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher and who have received an offer of employment from a U.S. employer in a specialized field related to their degree, to more quickly receive work visas, which in time, could provide a pathway to legal permanent residency.

The announcement came just one month after the Illinois General Assembly became the largest governing body in the country to pass a resolution calling on Biden to use his executive authority to grant work permits through parole to all long-term undocumented immigrants in Illinois amid prolonged workforce shortages.

“[Passing HJR 69 was] a declaration of our state’s commitment to both economic pragmatism and human rights,” said Latino Policy Forum President and CEO Sylvia Puente.

Every year, 400,000-plus workers contribute $1.9 billion to the Illinois economy without official work authorization. Nearly 30 percent have been residing in the United States for 20 or more years. The resolution made it very clear: granting work permits to this population would increase tax contributions to the state, secure fair wages and protections for workers, and keep families and businesses thriving.

Passing HJR 69 took an enormous amount of issue education, advocacy and organizing by 100-plus members of the Work Permits for All campaign, which officially launched in August of last year, alongside the national Here to Work Campaign. Advocates and allies organized rallies and press conferences across the country, including in Washington, D.C., where over 2,000 people attended to express their support. The first political responses came from the Chicago City Council and the Cook County Board, which passed the first resolutions calling for work permits for the long-term undocumented in December 2023.

In the winter and spring of 2024, rallies and educational workshops continued, Mayor Brandon Johnson announced his public support, and by the end of May, HJR 69 passed with overwhelming support in both chambers of the legislature.

As a member of the campaign, the Latino Policy Forum quickly became a leader in developing a legislative advocacy strategy, policy language and analysis. Biden’s announcement provided the one thing the campaign needed and hoped for — political will.

However, as the immigrant worker’s justified frustration reminds us, the new PIP policy will only grant work permits and protections to some — not all undocumented immigrants. There are many immigrants who will be left out — spouses who were unable to marry before the arbitrary cutoff date, spouses who have been in the country only nine years but still pay taxes, parents of U.S. citizens, long-time workers, caregivers, etc. Many immigrants who are ineligible for PIP will not even be able to obtain a work permit.

For many immigrant and worker advocates, work permits for all is still the goal, along with a meaningful pathway to citizenship. For far too long, immigrant communities have had to collectively celebrate wins even though many will not benefit. While this action is a significant step forward in protecting mixed-status families, more work needs to be done to secure relief for the other 10.5 million undocumented immigrants.

A version of this article was first published by the Latino Policy Forum and has been republished with permission.

Read More

Two volunteers standing in front of a table with toiletries and supplies.

Mutual aid volunteers hand out food, toiletries and other supplies outside the fence of Amphi Park in Tucson, which was closed recently over concerns about the unsheltered population that previously lived there.

Photo by Pascal Sabino/Bolts

Facing a Crackdown on Homelessness, Two Arizona Cities Offer Different Responses

In August, fewer than 250 voters cast a ballot in a South Tucson recall election targeting the mayor and two allies in the city council. The three officials, Mayor Roxnna “Roxy” Valenzuela and council members Brian Flagg and Cesar Aguirre, form a progressive coalition in the small city’s leadership. Outside government, they also all work with Casa Maria, a local soup kitchen that provides hundreds of warm meals daily and distributes clothing, toiletries and bedding to the city’s unhoused population.

It was their deeds providing for the homeless population that put a target on their back. A political rival claimed their humanitarian efforts and housing initiatives acted as a magnet for problems that the already struggling city was ill-equipped to handle.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

Keep ReadingShow less
In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Jason_V/Getty Images

In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less