Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Abstract 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has offered relief and work authorization for millions of undocumented immigrants who were brought into the US as children. This paper seeks to identify the reasons in support of and those against the DACA. It takes into consideration various surveys conducted on this population segment, statistical data from reputable organizations. After in-depthresearch, findings indicate that the DACA has significantly increased employment and educational opportunities for DREAMers (beneficiaries of DACA program). Furthermore, DREAMers file taxes despite beingplacedlower in income distribution. In conclusion, this study asserts the argument that DACA should be maintained and expanded to cover more individuals.

Introduction 

President Barrack Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy on June 15, 2012, to protect undocumented young people who came to the US as children. It allowed these individuals to renew for membership and offer work authorization and protection from deportation. 1 Applicants were supposed to satisfy various requirements as stipulated by DACA policy. However, deferred action does not offer a clear path to permanent citizenship for immigrants and thus it can be terminated. 2 On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration ended the DACA program leaving more than 750,000 undocumented immigrants unprotected from removal proceedings. This attempt has since been blocked after three cases challenging its legality were presented to the Supreme Court. 3 President Trump has argued that the program is unlawful and against the American constitution. 4 Terminating the DACA program is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and would have detrimental effects on various sectors as well as the lives of these young people. The DACA program should be upheld on the basis that individuals affected offer much-needed support to labor markets, pursue educational dreams and contribute to economic growth.

Chiefly, young undocumented immigrants (commonly known as DREAMers) are integrated into the US labor market. Terminating the DACA program exposes thousands of DREAMers to informal jobs where employers are unbothered by their legal status. 5 Also, they work under duress due to threats of deportation and arrest. Without DACA, DREAMers cannot obtain driver’s licenses which limit their labor mobility. DACA offers protection against such insecurities allowing DREAMers to acquire better jobs. A study conducted by Tom Wong and the National Immigration Law Center indicated that 54% of respondents obtained employment immediately after being authorized by the DACA. 6 Currently, about 91% of DREAMers are employed. 7 They offer their labor services in a variety of industries and about 8% operate their businesses and so, by terminating DACA, the government risks removing an estimated 700000 workers from the American economy. 8 This action would severely affect markets, industrial operations as well as communities.

Likewise, DACA applicants have an opportunity to pursue educational dreams and apply to programs that would otherwise reject them due to their legal status. DACA has significantly reduced school absenteeism rates among DREAMers, as some have opted to pursue education after failing to secure employment. 9 Despite DREAMers being cut off from financial aid, various scholarships have finally accepted their applications. Additionally, U.S. Department of Education has released resources for DREAMers to facilitate their entry into college and careers. Surveys conducted in 2018 among DACA beneficiaries, indicated that about two-thirds had benefited from access to educational opportunities. About 72% of the participants were enrolled in bachelor programs across the country. 10 Notably, about 200,000 DREAMers are in essential services while 27,000 are healthcare professionals. 11 Based on the demands of the current pandemic, these individuals are essential to the functionality of the US healthcare system. In that sense, terminating DACA would lead to unprecedented challenges to both the US and the educational aspirations of DREAMers.

Equally, DREAMers contribute an estimated $1.7 billion every year in taxes paid to both state and local governments. 12 These taxes include excise, property, sales and income taxes that offer significant contributions to the US economy. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) indicates that DREAMers offer about 8.3% of their income to taxes, which is higher than the average rate paid by top 1% taxpayers of 7%. 13 Furthermore, promoting DACA ensures that state and local revenue collected an additional $815 million in taxes. 14 DREAMers are subject to the same regulations that apply to American citizens. They also purchase clothing, goods and services at similar prices. Terminating DACA would result in a loss of $460.3 billion in US GDP over 10 years. 15 Every state reaps benefits from undocumented immigrants, but stand to lose more by removing work authorizations and temporary permits.

Conversely, contrary opinions suggest that DACA is against American law and the constitution. The plaintiffs supporting the decision to rescind DACA indicated that it was arbitrary and in violation of the Administrative Procedure ACT (APA). 16 The APA oversees the process by which federal agencies develop and approve regulations. 17 The government argued that the claims of renewal were against the APA because they did not follow the set guidelines. Plaintiffs argued that offering a legislative solution was better compared to renewing the program every two years. In Heckler v. Chanley, the government held that narrow exceptions to the APA’s “basic presumption of judicial review” 18 include an agency’s decision to overlook an enforcement action. The non-enforcement policy in the DAC was similar to that found in the Chanley case. 19 However, unlike the non-enforcement decision in Chanley, DACA’s creation and termination is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review that,” 20 Additionally, rescinding the DACA program would mean deferring access for 700000 applicants. Indeed, providing access to these permits benefits the US hence the court rejected the government’s reasoning.

Conclusion 

Consequently, DACA is of more benefit than harm to the US economy and other sectors. DACA recipients have been found to average 6 years old when their parents brought them to the US. Most of them use English as their first language and have little knowledge of their native countries. Additionally, some of these undocumented immigrants have children with US citizenship. Deporting them would cause adverse effects on their wellbeing and chances of survival. By terminating the DACA program, the Trump administration is forgoing all its promises on young working Americans and by persisting on this path, the nation risks losing the economic and societal contributions of DREAMers.

Bibliography

5 USC. §551 et seq. (1946)

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , 591 U.S. 2, 3 (2020)

Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 827, 838 (1985)

Immigration Equality, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) , (June 3, 2020), https://immigrationequality.org/legal/legal-help/other-paths-to-status/deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/ 

Karina Santellano &Jody A. Vallejo, Three Reasons to Protect DACA , USC DORNSIFE (Aug. 30, 2017), https://dornsife.usc.edu/csii/blog-protect-daca/ 

Misha E. Hill & Meg Wiehe, State & Local Tax Contributions of Young Undocumented Immigrants , ITEP (April 2018), https://itep.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/2018DACA.pdf 

Tom K. Wong & Greisa M. Rosas & Adam Luna& Henry Manning &Adrian Reyna& Patrick O’Shea, DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow , Center for American Progress (Aug. 28, 2017), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/28/437956/daca-recipients-economic-educational-gains-continue-grow/