Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) is a discretionary governmental reprieve from deportation. The program was created five years ago, and since its inception, it has allowed close to 750,000 young men and women who came to the United States as children- or dreamers as commonly called- to attend school, begin careers, buy homes, support their families, support their communities and pursue individual dreams. Many states and cities have seen a significant economic growth from DACA due to benefits such as new tax dollars and new jobs created as a result. Perhaps this could be the reason 80 percent of American voters are in support of the Dreamers to stay in the country. However, a section of Americans are opposed to this program, and they argue that their stay in the country is unconstitutional. I, therefore, see it necessary to find out whether Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is lawful and constitutional.
The necessities for DACA program are that: one should be 31 years of age and came to the US without documents or lawful status expired as of June 2012, went to the US before their 16th birthday, one had been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, have continuously lived in the US from June 15, 2007 until the present and that one has currently graduated from high school or studying. An individual must not have committed a significant misdemeanor or felony to qualify for DACA. In case one have had an encounter with immigration authorities or law enforcement, the attorney should be consulted (Margulies, 2015). The fact that these requirements are available to DACA applicants and the involvement of an attorney is enough evidence to argue in support of the lawfulness of this program. There is no way the country can have this kind of a strategy without a constitutionality backing. To make it clear, a decision to disgruntle the DACA program would be a political pronouncement but not a legal one.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The United States government has successfully and repeatedly defended DACA against constitutional challenges. Indeed, there has been a total failure of legal problems towards the program.
The absolute legal power for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals falls under the US constitution. Article II, section 3 of the constitution denotes how the president should take care of the faithful execution of laws. Deciding who to be targeted for deportation and who to stay is a way of executing immigration laws (Gonzales, Terriquez & Ruszczyk, 2014). Also, a branch of the executive has been given discretion of immigration laws over enforcement and administration by the Congress. The Supreme Court recognizes immigration officials to have extensive discretion over the removal system. Federal officials should decide on the viability of removing someone from the country. Many immigrants have been granted deferred action by federal officials for more than four decades in various settings (Silber, 2017). Victims of sexual exploitation, human trafficking, terrorism, international students affected by Hurricane Katrina and visa applicants have been granted deferred action. Therefore, it is clear that the judiciary is aware of this program and it has not yet ruled against it, a significant indication that DACA is lawful.
Lawfulness and constitutionality of DACA program are confirmed by an open letter written by 105 law professors to the president. It states that DACA is an example of momentary safeguard from expatriation which is referred as deferred action. Historically, the executive branch has exercised it to decide on whom should and should not be deported from the country. If at all the program was illegal and unconstitutional, there would be no much effort to support it. I, therefore, conclude that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is legal and constitutional.
References
Gonzales, R. G., Terriquez, V., & Ruszczyk, S. P. (2014). Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the short-term benefits of deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). American Behavioral Scientist , 58 (14), 1852-1872.
Margulies, P. (2015). Deferred Action and the Bounds of Agency Discretion: Reconciling Policy and Legality in Immigration Enforcement. Washburn LJ , 55 , 143.
Silber, I. C. L. (2017). Postwar El Salvador: Entangled Aftermaths. Latin America Since the Left Turn , 326.
