Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or otherwise known as DACA, is an immigration policy put into place by President Obama’s administration on June 15, 2012. The policy protects people who were brought to the United States illegally as children. Called Dreamers, they receive deferred deportation for a period of two years, though the program is renewable as long as the participant meets certain requirements. There is a lot of controversy regarding the legality of the program itself, and whether or not it was beyond President Obama’s executive powers to influence immigration policies with the introduction of DACA. What is known is that nearly 800,000 immigrants have benefited from the program, and without it the some 690,000 currently enrolled recipients will face deportation the same as any other undocumented immigrant in the U.S. illegally (López & Krogstad 2017). However, unlike those immigrants, Dreamers grew up in America, identify as American, and it might be the only country they know. To send them back to the country they were born in would uproot their lives and leave them in an unfamiliar territory where they have to start all over again leaving behind friends and family. There are a multitude of pros and cons to this policy that have been argued, like the money/workforce Dreamers offer to our economy versus the debate over the constitutionality of the policy, but ultimately both elected officials and citizens have the moral obligation to protect those who were brought to the U.S. as children and are willing to be vetted and work to earn their citizenship.
According to the website for the Department of Homeland Security, an applicant must meet the following criteria in order to qualify for DACA. They have to have been “under age 31 as of June 15, 2012; have come to the U.S before they were 16 years old; continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; physically present in the United States at the time of request for DACA; have had no unlawful status on June 15, 2012; currently in school, graduated or obtained a GED, or an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. armed forces; and must not have been convicted of a felony, three or more misdemeanors, or otherwise pose no threat to national security.” All the above information must have proof of documentation and a fee of $495 is required to apply. Being admitted into the DACA program is a process and deferred deportation status is not lightly handed out. The DACA program was put into place by the Obama administration because Congress had failed to legitimize the DREAM Act, which was first proposed in 2002 (Ortega, Edwards, Wolgin.) An important distinction to note between DACA and the proposed DREAM Act is that it does not provide a route for permanent residency.
A lot of uproar was caused when President Trump decided that he was going to rescind DACA during September of last year. One of the main reasons was because as a nation founded by immigrants many citizens feel like it is our moral responsibility to protect those who do no harm and are seeking the same American dream. To deport a person, who in every sense except on paper is an American, to a country they do not know is cruel and so the element of humanity cannot be ignored. The undocumented immigrants who came forward when the DACA program was announced took the risk of identifying themselves. They have left themselves vulnerable to the possibility of deportation all because ultimately Dreamers do want to be here legally and they are willing to put forth effort and show that they deserve to be here and go through the process like everyone else. Since recipients had to offer information like addresses, photos, and finger prints it put them at risk of being found by ICE, and after President Trump decided to rescind DACA that possibility became greater than ever (Gonzales). Recipients were told that their information would be kept private, but what they were not told was that should ICE ask for their information the Department of Homeland Security would be obligated to hand it over, leaving the recipients more vulnerable than they were before they applied for DACA.
Besides feeling a moral duty towards Dreamers, there is evidence from publications conducted by the Center for American progress that the result of ending the DACA program would cost an estimated loss of $460.3 billion over the course of decade from our national GDP (Svajlenka, Jawetz, Bautista Chavez). Currently there are seven states suing the Trump administration because of its failure to end DACA back in March. Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia would collectively lose about $7,210,963,145 in their annual state GDPs (Svajlenka, Jawetz, Bautista Chavez). Texas alone stands to lose almost $6.3 billion by itself if they win. Of the 690,000 current recipients, about 91% are employed, all of which would have to leave the workforce if DACA ends (Wong, Martinez, Luna, etc.)
One of the major reasons that DACA is being opposed to is because it is believed that the implementation of the program has spurred an increase of illegal immigration. Like a domino effect, people may be coming to the United States illegally in hopes of also qualifying for protection from deportation. Dr. Karl Eschback, a demographer from Harvard who once held the title of State Demographer of Texas from 2008 to 2010, has stated,
“In short, the effect of DACA and DAPA is to incentivize residents of other countries to come to the United States. The policies also encourage individuals who are already present in the United States to remain with the hope that they would have a future adjustment of status. Based on my education, qualifications, experience, and knowledge of the relevant scientific literature, it is my expert opinion there will be a positive effect on the size of the unauthorized immigrant population in Texas and elsewhere in the United States based on DACA and DAPA.”
The belief is that amnesty will not put an end to illegal immigration, but rather it would do the opposite and encourage it. Experts look at past legislation to prove the point that history can repeat itself. In 1986 nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants were given amnesty and today there is over 11 million undocumented persons, suggesting that relaxed policies and too much leeway has not been able to contain the numbers of undocumented immigrants (Smith.)
President Obama’s administration was able to put DACA with the power of executive order. Changing immigration laws is a reserved right for Congress, and so by bypassing Congress the DACA program is believed to be unconstitutional. This is the ruling that the seven states suing the Trump administration is looking for (Garcia-Navarro.) In September, Trump gave Congress six months to come up with new legislation to replace DACA so that the recipients would not be left completely vulnerable once he started to phase it out. Trump himself has stated that DACA will be dealt “with heart” in an effort to show his sincerity and concern over the fates of the recipients (Mark.) Since it was decided that DACA cannot be ended the States are suing in an attempt to get the ruling they want. Ultimately, the Trump administration and those who support the end of DACA believe that not only is the policy unconstitutional but that amnesty cannot be given to those who have broken the law because then it would undermine the whole legislative process.
There are competing views that say whether or not DACA has actually had an increase on the rates of undocumented immigration. Advocates for immigration used data from the border patrol sector on apprehension rates of unaccompanied minors to show that there was in fact no correlation between DACA and the minors even though there was a stark increase since 2011 (Amuedo-Dorantes and Puttitanun.) In regards to the legality of DACA, Trump has also issued his own travel ban, which happens to also be an example of an executive order influencing immigration policy (Garcia-Navarro.) The similarity in conduct is questionable considering that Trump’s administration only recognizes the travel ban as constitutional and not DACA.
My definition of patriotism is not one where I stand by my country even when it does wrong; I think that as a citizen it is important to put effort into correcting legislations that are doing harm. Our immigration laws were not designed to keep people who were raised in the U.S. and who add to the betterment of our society out. Responsibly our laws should be reinterpreted and constantly evolving so that people are not overlooked and fall victims to outdated policies. Now that DACA and its recipients have been under the political spotlight, it is important for Congress to act on either legalizing DACA or a proposed version of it. Should a version of the DREAM Act eventually pass, it would alleviate the constitutionality concerns over DACA and provide an opportunity for Dreamers to accomplish their goals in the country they grew up in without fear of deportation.
Works Cited:
“Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals- daca. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (n.d.). Web. 23 June 2018.
Amuedo-Dorantes, C. and Puttitanun, T. "DACA and the Surge in Unaccompanied Minors at the US-Mexico Border." International Migration, vol. 54, no. 4, Aug. 2016, pp. 102-117. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/imig.12250.
Eschbach K. “Exhibit 14 – Declaration of Karl Eschback, Ph.D.” 6 Jan. 2015. https://www.scribd.com/document/252040629/Exhibit-14-Declaration-of-Karl- Eschbach-Ph-D. Web. 23 June 2018.
Garcia-Navarro, L. "States Sue Trump Administration Over Failure To End DACA." Weekend Edition Sunday, 6 May 2018. Literature Resource Center. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A537698512/LitRC?u=txshracd2898 &sid=LitRC&xid=6ec54adf. Web. 26 June 2018
Gonzales, R. "DACA Recipients Worry What The Government Will Do With Their Private Information." Weekend All Things Considered, 9 Sept. 2017. Literature ResourceCenter.http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A505170549/LitRC?u=txshra cd2898&sid=LitRC&xid=514495c6. National Public Radio. Web. 23 June 2018.
López, G., & Krogstad, J. M. “Key facts about unauthorized immigrants enrolled in DACA.” 25 Sept. 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key- facts-about-unauthorized -immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/. Pew Research Center. Web. 23 June 2018.
Mark, M. “This is Everything you Need to Know About DACA.” 5 Sept. 2017. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/this-is-everything-you-need-to-know- about-daca. World Economic Forum. Web. 24 June 2018.
Ortega F., Edwards R., Wolgin P.E. “The Economic Benefits of Passing the Dream Act.” 18 Sept. 2017. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/09/18/43913 4/economic-benefits-passing-dream-act/. Center for American Progress. Web. 23 June 2018.
Smith L. “DREAM Act Rewards Illegal Immigrants for Law-Breaking.” 20 May 2011. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/162393-dream-act-rewards- illegal- immigrants-for-law-breaking. Web. 24 June 2018.
Svajlenka N.P., Jawetz T, Bautista-Chavez, A. “A New Threat to DACA Could Cost States Billions of Dollars.” 21 July 2017. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/07/21/436419/ new-threat-daca-cost-states-billions-dollars/. Center for American Progress. Web. 23 June 2018.
Wong T., Martinez G.R., Luna A., Manning H., Reyna A., O’Shea P., Jawetz T., Wolgin P.E. “DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow.” 28 Aug. 2017. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/28/437956/ daca-recipients-economic-educational-gains-continue-grow/. Center For American Progress. Web. 23 June 2018.