{"id":21211,"date":"2019-03-08T17:40:08","date_gmt":"2019-03-08T22:40:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=21211"},"modified":"2019-03-08T17:40:11","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T22:40:11","slug":"liberians-employ-unique-logic-to-prevent-termination-of-deferred-enforced-departure-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/03\/08\/liberians-employ-unique-logic-to-prevent-termination-of-deferred-enforced-departure-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Liberians Employ Unique Logic to Prevent Termination of Deferred Enforced Departure"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), similar to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), allows foreign nationals to remain in the United States temporarily due to extenuating circumstances in their homelands. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services<\/a> agency, DED \u201cis in the president\u2019s discretion to authorize as part of his power to conduct foreign relations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exercising his executive discretion, President George H.W.\nBush initially granted DED to citizens of Liberia who were in the United States\non some sort of temporary visa. And, exercising his executive discretion,\nPresident Donald Trump has decided to terminate DED status for Liberians,\nthereby requiring some 4,000 beneficiaries to return home when it expires at\nthe end of this month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pretty simple and straightforward: Receiving and maintaining DED status is at the discretion of whatever president occupies the Oval Office. Or, maybe not. Like TPS, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an extra-legal program that President Obama made clear could be terminated by some future president, President Trump\u2019s decision to end DED for Liberians is the subject of a lawsuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aside from the usual arguments offered whenever a \u201ctemporary\u201d status is revoked \u2013 \u201cThey\u2019ve been here so long,\u201d etc. \u2013 the advocacy groups representing Liberian DED beneficiaries have come up with a unique argument for why the Trump administration cannot end the program. \u201cThe Trump administration\u2019s decision to terminate Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberian immigrants was the direct result of intentional discrimination directed at the Liberian community, runs contrary to evidence, and violates the constitution,\u201d states a press release<\/a> by the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Lawyers for Civil Rights, which filed the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, if a president exercises discretionary\nauthority to grant a temporary benefit \u201cdirected at\u201d a specific group of\npeople, the decision to revoke that temporary benefit then becomes \u201cintentional\ndiscrimination\u201d against that specific group and is therefore unconstitutional.\nThe press release (and the lawsuit itself) then offers opinion dressed up as\nfact to bolster their argument. \u201cThis lawsuit seeks to combat the\ndiscriminatory and xenophobic immigration policies driven by the Trump\nadministration.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be little doubt that the plaintiffs will find an\nactivist federal judge who will buy these arguments and block the\nadministration from ending DED for Liberians. It may not survive the legal\nprocess in the long run, but that\u2019s not really the point of this and similar\nlawsuits. The goal is to run the clock on the Trump presidency and, in that\nrespect, their strategy seems to be succeeding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), similar to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), allows foreign nationals to remain in the United States temporarily due to extenuating circumstances in their homelands. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, DED \u201cis in the president\u2019s discretion to authorize as part of his power to conduct foreign relations.\u201d Exercising his<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":16182,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[511],"tags":[912,4002,418,1524],"yst_prominent_words":[3245,4840,4833,4837,2908,4834,4831,4842,4835,4836,4832,4830,1942,4838,4841,2981,3004,4839,1946,1933],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21211"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21211"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21211\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21212,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21211\/revisions\/21212"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21211"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}