The former president Barack Obama came up with DACA and the DAPA executive actions on immigrants which have presently taken twisted turns. In November 2014, the president announced the intention of his administration to implement the DAPA policy within 90, a short period after the midterm election (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006) . The policy was meant to defer deportation and grant “lawful prevalence” to about four million fathers and mothers of lawful permanent individuals and the United States citizens. Hardly before the end of two weeks after the announcement, had Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot gone to court to seek a nationwide injunction to prevent the implementation of the DAPA policy.
The decisions awarded victory to Texas, a victory that I anticipated as temporary. Following the decision, various rights groups representing the immigrants filed suits in various other districts hoping to gain a circuit split on DAPA, hoping to get the issue back to the Supreme Court. The anticipations were that the ninth justice who was chosen by President Clinton would be able to uphold the DAPA policy. As soon as Donald Trump won the elections, he appointed a different 9 th Justice so as in case the DAPA is taken back to the Supreme Court; it would fail due to the absence of the fifth vote in order for it to survive (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006) . However, the president saved `the Supreme Court the trouble of hearing and deciding on the DAPA case by revoking the policy in June 2017.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Perhaps the government avoided terming the DAPA policy as illegal because it had plans to maintain the DACA policy. DACA policy is the 2012 President Obama’s executive action that granted work study permits and deferred the deportation of over two million immigrants. Probably the president felt sympathetic with the children immigrants and decided not to send them away. I view DACA act as more lawless compared to the DAPA, since DAPA entails parents of United States Citizens. On the other hand, DACA does not involve individuals with any form of family relationship with the United States citizens.
I find the DACA policy maintained by the States has had several issues on its legality. Texas’ amicus brief filed on behalf of several other states presents a significant proposition ; that since DACA is illegal in nature; it does not obstruct state law. Keller provided a convincing explanation of the unlawful nature the DACA policy. According to him, the policy does not adhere to the United States laws, hence cannot be made part of the laws governing the nation. He maintained that the policy supports illegal executive actions as it awards legal work and presence authorizations that violate the intricate statutory framework of the Congress that determines when a foreign person can lawfully stay and work in the country (Kalhan, 2016) . Hence, The Ninth Circuit made a mistake in granting a preemptive force to the DACA policy. It is not right that the DACA policy regards over two million of unlawfully present immigrants as lawfully eligible to work and stay in the country.
Texas is absolutely right in their argument. It is necessary for the courts to assess the lawfulness of a policy as the first thing so s to determine the applicability of the preemption. Although individual affected should not be rescinded abruptly, DACA fails to bestow the “lawful presence .” There is a need for the Supreme Court to seek views of the General on the matter. The government needs to assert that the DACA memorandum is capable of preempting the state law.
Although both DACA and DAPA has the potential to positively influence both the economic and the social aspects of individual , family, State and National level, DAPA is more lawful than DACA. It would be right to promote DAPA at the expenses of DACA due to the family relationship that the immigrant parents have with their children who are citizens of the United States. Unlike DACA, DAPA lacks educational requirements hence its implementation serves would call for educational, employment and language support that will subsequently improve the labor outcome. Kalhan (2016) asserts that Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents would have awarded about four million undocumented immigrants with new rights. According to Portes and Rumbaut (2006), the DAPA eligible is most likely to value securing jobs more than having the authorization. However, employers highly supported the dismissal of the DAPA policy so s to maintain the social classes, as permitted immigrants are more likely to demand for more pay. Recent researches suggest that over 10 million residents in the United States live in houses with individuals who qualify for the DAPA . Similarly, the children of parents eligible for DAPA learn in schools within the United States and are most likely to become part of the United States labor force in future (Kalhan, 2016) . Moreover, the DAPA legible distressed parents are not able to provide quality parental care to their United States born children thus affecting their well-being.
One major challenge posed by the DAPA is the policy presents a short time solution to the greater problem of immigration. Similarly, the number of the DAP legible individuals doubles that of the DACA legible individuals, hence granting new rights to DAP legible individuals would mean opening ways for massive immigration into the United States and granting new rights to several illegal immigrants with no capacity to significantly impact the economy due to their limited academic abilities.
References
Kalhan, A. (2016). DAPA,'Lawful Presence,'and the Illusion of a Problem .
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: a portrait . Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Pinnell. (2017). Lecture.
