Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists”. The Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA, for short, is a name you’ve surely heard about in the past couple years. It’s not until recently that the Obama-era program has been rescinded, leaving nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants frightened about losing their protection.
DACA’s roots
DACA is an administrative relief program that has allowed thousands of people who were brought into the United States illegally to remain in the country. President Obama created DACA through an executive order in 2012. DACA was initiated on June of 2012 and allows “certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years” (USCIS). This program gives young immigrants protection from deportation and are eligible for a work permit. Unfortunately, this does not provide a short cut for lawful status.
The winding down of DACA
DACA is being wound down way before congress’s deadline to fix it. According to a memo by the Department of Homeland Security, the government won’t be accepting any new applications after October 5, 2017. The luckiest group of DACA participants will be good through 2020, granting them two more years of protection and work permits. The people who are set to lose their DACA protection by March 6, 2018 or later will fall back to unauthorized status. Making them most vulnerable to deportation.
What’s next?
As mentioned before, the Trump administration formally announced the end of DACA on September 5th, 2017, leaving many DACA participants frightened about their future. President Trump will offer a six-month delay to give Congress time to come up with a fix (Kopan). President Trump wants to shift the decision to congress as a response to years of congressional inaction. This has triggered a national debate about DACA and what should happen next. Should the government keep DACA or end DACA?
Constitutional or Unconstitutional?
Those in agreement with keeping DACA believe that it is constitutional. Although, there has been no court ruling on the constitutionality of the program, it’s constitutional as an executive action. According to a legal filing in federal court launched as an attempt to overturn the decision, “Millions of people have benefitted from, and relied on, the DACA program over the past five years…Given that all of those people have interests that have deepened over the years…” (Denniston). They continue to add that the government needs a stronger reason than it has given before it can end the program and wipe out those interests.
Supporters of the program also add that the rescinding of DACA violates two federal laws- The Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra justifies this claim by explaining that the government rescinded DACA without giving “…public proper notice nor soliciting public comments on changes to it” (Reilly). The Justice Departments action violates those acts because they failed to properly examine the effects of ending DACA will have on business and municipalities.
On the other hand, people who oppose DACA believe it’s unconstitutional and was an abuse of executive power by President Obama. House speaker Paul Ryan explains, “Congress writes laws, not the president, and ending this program fulfills a promise that President Trump made to restore the proper role of the executive and legislative branches” (Speaker). Ryan also states that the program was never a viable, long term solution and hopes President Trump and Congress will find a middle ground on legislation that would allow the program to continue.
Fifth amendment violation?
Attorney generals in California, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota announced that they are suing President Trump’s administration to block it from ending protections against deportation. In the lawsuit, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra argues that rescinding DACA violates the fifth amendment’s due process clause due to concern over misuse of personal information used to apply for the program. Dreamers are scared that the administration will use that information against them. Attorney General Xavier Becerra argues that, “using that information would violate the legal principle of equitable estoppel” (Reilly). Therefore, giving dreamers a reason to believe their personal information that their personal information would be used against them.
Targeting the wrong problem
Many politicians are outraged about President Trump’s decision to rescind DACA. For example, Former President Barack Obama called the move “cruel” and “self- defeating”. In a Facebook post, Obama wrote, “To target these young people is wrong…it is self-defeating—because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love” (Liptak). Deporting over 800,000 young immigrants would be a cruel action. Many of these young immigrants have no connection to their home countries, seeing that many of them were brought to the US at very young ages. Politicians such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the young immigrants shouldn’t be punished for staying in the US through no fault of their own. Advocates of DACA feel that the young immigrants have just as much to offer to the American society as citizens and legal residents do. Ending DACA is a shameful attack on the young adults who have grown up in the United States and are making contributions to the economy, and to educational and civic institutions.
DACA contribution to society
People protected under DACA are contributing to the American economy and society. The inclusion of DACA recipients has contributed to prosperous local, state, and national economies. Research has shown that DACA has improved the lives of others and has also positively affected the economy greatly, which benefits all Americans. According to data by the Center for American Progress (CAP), ending DACA would result in a loss of $460.3 billion from the national gross domestic product (GDP) over the next decade (Svajlenka, Jawetz, and Chavez). This is an economic growth that the US can’t stand to lose if DACA is eliminated. Additionally, removing DACA would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation’s economy.
No path to permanent residence or citizenship in the US
Like many subjects, DACA has a few drawbacks. One of them being that under DACA there is no path to permanent residence and citizenship in the US. Lawful status refers to permanent residency (green card) or a temporary visa classification (H-1B worker, F-1 student, etc). The program only offers work permits and relief from deportation for a certain period of time. The participant is considered lawfully present in the US but will still have no lawful status. Therefore meaning, the participants can be denied a job, driver’s license, or etc.
Encouraging illegal immigration
Those who oppose of DACA fear that it will give amnesty to immigrants who have broken the law and will encourage more illegal immigrants to come into the United States. They claim that the policy misleads undocumented immigrants. People that oppose the program also Congressman Bob Goodlatte believes the DACA program, “…encouraged more illegal immigration laws and contributes to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S. illegally” (Goodlatte). Trump’s decision to rescind doesn’t come as a surprise because one of his major campaign messages was on the importance of enforcing the country’s immigration laws and securing the border.
Are the qualifications too easy?
Another reason those who oppose DACA believe it should end is they believe the qualifications to get into the program are easy. According to the USCIS website, some guidelines include: being under the age of thirty- one as of June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. under the age of 16, and not having been convicted of a felony offense. They believe the program doesn’t do more to verify the information received by the applicants. They have reason to believe this because only one percent of applicants have been denied, while seventy-two percent have been approved. Additionally, they want more detail on who is obtaining DACA, who should not be obtaining DACA, and how the guidelines can be improved to prevent fraud and abuse.
Opinion
After listing the pros and cons of ending DACA, it’s best not to end the helpful program. The only logical reason it would be okay to end DACA is if congress thinks of an improved, permanent solution. Behind the optimism that Congress might make a decision that positively impacts people is a terrifying alternative. Unless Congress takes action (keep in mind the lack of congressional action in the past couple years), then the answer will still be NO to ending DACA. This is not a policy to reduce the size of unauthorized workforce or to track down and deport the “bad” people. It is a life-changing program that allows young people to have hopes and dreams without fear of being deported to a country they know nothing of. Killing DACA silences the voices of those 800,000 young immigrants who continue to express hope for an opportunity at the “American Dream”.