Executive Relief and the Roles of Mediating Institutions in Immigration Law and Policy

2014年11月，奥巴马总统宣布了“父母责任暂缓行动”计划(现在称为美国父母和合法永久居民暂缓行动计划)(DAPA)和2012年6月首次宣布的“儿童抵达暂缓行动”(DACA)计划(统称为“行政救济”)。通过这些计划，政府提议大幅扩大一类模棱两可的法律主体：被视为合法存在但未被国家授予永久合法身份的暂缓行动接受者。延期行动计划可能会影响多达440万非法移民。这项研究旨在解决这一大规模计划提出的三组问题。首先，延期行动的潜在申请者和接受者如何经历不确定性，首先是诉讼导致的计划实施延迟，其次是在美国拥有某种形式的临时和或有身份？第二，哪些民间社会组织和第三方在移民社区工作，以解释法律发展并为申请延期行动提供便利？在教育移民社区和调解这些计划的实施方面，他们面临哪些限制和激励？最后，这些非常规的法律利益如何改变了成员资格的含义和条款？这种新类别的模糊法律地位在多大程度上使个人能够主张权利并追究国家行为者的责任？回答这些问题将揭示各种法律地位的激增如何潜在地改变我们对美国政治成员身份的集体理解。为了回答这些问题，我们计划使用一种混合方法，结合采访、参与者观察和对国家和非国家行为者提供的材料进行法律分析。我们的研究将从2015年秋季开始，为期两年，并将以2014年6月开始的一项小型试点研究为基础，该研究在宣布扩大高管救济之前，一直持续到关于高管救济的诉讼的早期阶段。在NSF的支持下，我们将继续关注围绕行政救济的法律发展。我们将在两年的时间里分两次面试100名潜在的DAPA和DACA申请者。同样，我们将采访加州奥兰治县和洛杉矶县的移民服务组织的成员，并观察他们如何应对行政救济的法律障碍，以及最终他们如何在其社区解释和实施行政救济。为了了解一系列的宣传模式，我们确定了位于这两个县的一组组织，它们所服务的社区(西班牙语、亚裔和亚裔美国人，更广泛地说是移民社区)、其结构(无偿工作、法律宣传、基层组织、收费服务)以及它们的历史(新成立的、长期的)都有所不同。

In November 2014, President Obama announced the "Deferred Action for Parental Accountability" program (now known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program) (DAPA) and a significant expansion of the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA) program, which was first announced in June 2012 (together, "Executive Relief"). With these programs, the administration proposed to expand considerably a class of ambiguous legal subjects: Deferred Action recipients who are deemed lawfully present but who are not granted permanent lawful status by the state. The deferred action programs could affect up to 4.4 million undocumented immigrants. This study aims to address three sets of questions that are raised by this large-scale program. First, how do prospective applicants and recipients of deferred action experience the uncertainty, first of litigation-induced delays in implementation of the program, and second, of possessing a form of temporary and contingent status in the United States? Second, which civil society organizations and third parties are working in immigrant communities to interpret legal developments and facilitate applications for deferred action? What constraints and incentives do they face in educating immigrant communities and mediating implementation of these programs? Finally, how have these unconventional legal benefits changed the meaning and terms of membership? To what extent does this new category of ambiguous legal status enable individuals to assert rights and hold state actors accountable? Answering these questions will shed light on how the proliferation of types of legal status potentially alters our collective understanding of membership in the American polity.To answer these questions, we plan to use a mixed methods approach combining interviews, participant observation, and legal analysis of materials produced by both state and non-state actors. Our research will be carried out over a two-year period beginning in the Fall of 2015 and will build on a small pilot study that we began in June 2014, before expanded Executive Relief was announced, and which continued through the early stages of the litigation over Executive Relief. With NSF support, we will continue to follow the legal developments surrounding Executive Relief. We will interview 100 potential DAPA and DACA applicants at two points over a two-year period. Likewise, we will interview members of, and observe the ways that, immigrant-serving organizations in Orange County and Los Angeles County, California respond to legal roadblocks to Executive Relief and, ultimately, how they interpret and implement Executive Relief in their communities. In order to understand a range of advocacy models, we have identified a set of organizations located in the two counties that vary as to the communities they serve (Spanish-speaking, Asian and Asian American, immigrant communities more generally), their structure (pro bono work, legal advocacy, grassroots organizing, fee-for-service), and their histories (newly established, long-standing).