December 1st, 2017
Wharton School of Business
University of Pennsylvania
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA, 19104
RE: The Department of Homeland Security’s Rescission of DACA
Dear Sir or Madam:
Ana Ossa and Alexandra Ciullo, students at the University of Pennsylvania, are writing to the United States Department of Homeland Security in protest of the Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA). They represent DACA recipients that are currently enrolled in a 4 year university of community college program in the U.S.
Alexandra Ciullo is a sophomore studying International Relations and Hispanic Studies. Her expertise derives from extensive research on the origins of the DACA policy, its benefits, and the consequences of its recent rescission. She offers additional expertise from working with undocumented immigrant youth from Central America in an academic context and serving as a translator for University of Pennsylvania Law School students during interviews with refugees from Central America that are pursuing legal status in the U.S.
Ana Ossa is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Mathematics and Economics. Her expertise on this issue derives from her comprehensive investigation on the lawfulness of DACA, and her exhaustive review of testimonials and personal stories of those affected by the rescission of the program. She offers additional expertise from her personal background as a student who has born and raised in Colombia. Ana has carefully studied the differences between the opportunities available to the Latin American community in the United States compared to those in their home country.
DACA is an executive action established by the Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration in 2012. This action provided a two year renewable deferral of deportation for young undocumented immigrants, most of whom were brought to the U.S. at an early age by their parents and have lived in the U.S. for the majority of their lives. We join others in believing that the Rescission of DACA is an abuse of discretion not in accordance with the law and a counterproductive rulemaking because (1) it is based on the false premise that DACA is unlawful, and (2) it produces extensive negative consequences for college students affected by the rescission.
The Debate on DACA’s Lawfulness
The legal problem with DACA originates from a conflict of power between the U.S. legislative and executive branches. Administrative agencies are given the authority from Congress to create rules that have the same binding effect as statutes enacted by Congress. Agencies, in this case the Department of Homeland Security, can create whatever rules they deem necessary so long as they do not stray beyond the authority delegated to them and do not conflict with any existing rules made by Congress. In the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress stated that legal status in the U.S. is limited to “(1) family-sponsored immigrants…(2) employment-based immigrants…(3) for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1995, diversity immigrants.” A common argument for the unlawfulness of DACA stems from this law since DACA recipients are not one of these three classes of immigrants. Thus, it conflicts with the immigration law established by Congress and is therefore claimed to be unconstitutional. However, this claim is entirely invalid.
There exists no conflict between DACA and Congress’s immigration law because they serve different purposes. Congress’s law applies to granting legal status to immigrants. DACA does not grant recipients legal status or citizenship. It only de-prioritizes the removal of DACA recipients by deferring deportation for two years at a time. Deferred action has served as a way for the executive branch to exercise discretion over the deportation process in order to deal with its limited capacity to remove all illegal aliens. Attorney General Sessions supports this argument with a statement indicating that the executive branch has the right to de-prioritize and prioritize the removal of certain classes of aliens. DACA has only granted recipients deferred action and a set of benefits that do not legalize their status or give them the legal right to remain in the United States.
(2) Consequences of DACA’s Rescission for College Students
Loss of Work Authorization
It is commonly argued that the most important benefit granted to illegal aliens through DACA is the possibility of obtaining work authorization once establishing the economic necessity for employment. Even though the Rescission of DACA does not alter the employment authorization previously given to DACA recipients, once the deferred action of these recipients is terminated, they lose their access to the required Employment Authorization Documents. Their lack of work authorization gives employees the duty to fire them, causing significant distress to those who relied on employment for a specific term.
College students who are recipients of DACA suffer greatly from this decision. Many of them rely on their jobs to finance their college career and to pay for their daily needs. If a recipient’s period for deferred action is terminated while still in college, the recipient will lose the authorization to work, and thus, possibly lose the opportunity to remain in college given the financial burden. Moreover, given that the recipient is still a low-priority alien for removal despite the termination of the deferred action period, it is likely that the recipient will anyhow remain in the United States but without the opportunity to study, and at a low-paid job that (illegally) does not demand work authorization. Moreover, DACA gives college students the opportunity to apply to work authorization once they have ended their academic career, in order to put in practice what they have learned and to be able to develop their potential as professionals.
For example,
(Testimonial) Tania Garcia-Piña (CITATIONS)
(B) Loss of Opportunity to Pursue Higher Education
Unlike most teenagers that dread the lengthy, complex college application process, most Dreamers eagerly jump to begin applying to colleges thanks to the social security number that was provided to them through DACA. Most colleges require a social security number in their applications for admission and financial aid. Since undocumented immigrants do not have a social security number, a mere five to ten percent enroll in college. However, DACA provides its recipients with a social security number and the ability to enroll in college–something many never thought would be possible. As a result, about forty-five percent of recipients are currently enrolled in college, have completed some college, or graduated college with the majority of other recipients still in high school or working. Furthermore, in a recent study conducted by the Center for American Progress, of recipients currently enrolled in school, 94% said that because of DACA “I pursued educational opportunities that I previously could not.” Without DACA, these students would be left working low wage jobs without any higher career aspirations. For example, recipient Mary Soto from New York used to sixty hours every week at Pizza Hut because she didn’t have the proper documentation needed to apply for admission and financial aid to local colleges. Since receiving DACA she has been able to enroll in Bronx Community College and secure a higher paying job than she could without a social security number. DACA presented Mary with a future of academic advancement and skill acquisition that she had never even dreamed about when making pizzas sixty hours a week.
(C) Study Plans Disrupted
For Dreamers currently enrolled in college, the rescission of DACA will significantly disrupt and potentially even invalidate their studies. In the California State university system, in which about 10,000 undocumented students and DACA recipients are currently studying, 35 majors require students to study abroad. DACA provided exemptions to the travel ban for recipients so that they can pursue educational opportunities like study abroad. Now that exemptions are no longer granted, for these students “their major requirements–and graduation–are now in jeopardy.” Furthermore, if Dreamers currently enrolled in college are deported to their country of origin and decide to continue studying there, there is no guarantee that their credits from a U.S. college will be recognized elsewhere. If Dreamers’ credits don’t transfer, their past year(s) of study, made possible by DACA, will be entirely invalidated and useless.