Updated January 18, 2013
Today USCIS updated its DACA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and explained that immigrants approved under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are lawfully present in the United States. The new FAQ can be found here: http://goo.gl/Tztwc The Michigan Secretary of State has repeatedly said that she is relying on the federal government for instruction on who is lawfully present for purposes of obtaining a Michigan driver's license or state identification. Clarification has now been provided.
Some of the many examples of what the Secretary of State's office has said:
From October 18, 2012:
Pointing to that language, spokesman Fred Woodhams said the Secretary of State is taking direction from the federal government as to who is and is not legally in the country.
"Because the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program doesn't confer legal presence on its participants, we are not able to issue licenses or ID cards to DACA participants," Woodhams said in an email.
From December 19, 2012:
"Michigan law requires legal presence for customers to receive a driver's license or ID card, but the federal government has said that DACA does not grant legal status," Secretary of State spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau said in an email.
"We rely on the federal government to tell us who is legally here in the United States and who is not. The feds have made clear that DACA participants are not."
USCIS clearly explains how DACA beneficiaries are lawfully present by virtue of having Deferred Action (from the first link above):
Q1: What is deferred action?
An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect. [emphasis added]
Q7: Is there any difference between “deferred action” and “deferred action for childhood arrivals” under this process?
A7: Deferred action for childhood arrivals is one form of deferred action. The relief an individual receives pursuant to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process is identical for immigration purposes to the relief obtained by any person who receives deferred action as an act of prosecutorial discretion.
This clarification should be exactly what the Secretary of State has stated that it needs to follow Michigan law - which permits driver's licenses to applicants who provide proof of their "legal presence in the United States."
Litigation brought by individual plaintiffs and One Michigan, represented by the ACLU of Michigan, is pending in this matter. For more information about that lawsuit and how today's announcement might affect it, visit http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/one-michigan-v-ruth-johnson