The Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative in June 2012. It protects deserving undocumented young adults and teenagers from deportation. The program also allows them to qualify for job permits, which improves their social and economic conditions. Around 1.7 million young immigrants applied for DACA after its implementation (Passel, Jeffrey, and Mark Hugo Lopez). Furthermore, in August 2012, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services started accepting applications and administering services. Nonetheless, individuals are expected to re-apply every two years, and it is retractable at any time. Moreover, the program is not a formal legal status, and it does not provide a way to permanent citizenship or residency (“Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)”). However, during Trump’s campaigns, he condemned illegal immigration and promised to change what he termed as President Obama’s “unconstitutional” executive actions. Since then, the policy has seen controversial debates with some supporting its continuation whereas others requested for its cancellation. However, based on the benefits that the DACA program has brought to the undocumented immigrants as well as the country as a general, there is a need for prevention of its rescinding.
Various reasons can be presented regarding the need for prevention of the rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. For instance, unlike most people’s beliefs, the policy does not lead to a reduction of job opportunities for the American citizens but rather can lead to increment. Also, the revoking of the program would not benefit the taxpayers either for the DACA participants contribute significantly to such payments. Furthermore, contrary to most people’s opinions that the immigrants increase the rate of crime within the United States, the repealing of the program would not ensure that the communities are protected from criminals. Most of the lawbreakers are local and hence criminal activities would continue despite the deportation of illegal immigrants. Another myth that has become quite popular is that the DACA participants incentivize a growth in illegal immigration, but research shows that other factors contribute substantially to the increment. Lastly, the cancellation of the plan can also be viewed as a breach of the country’s principle regarding fair treatment of all individuals.
The unauthorized immigrants without legal status face a wave of unique challenges, compared to the other citizens that can be reduced through the application of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Among the main issues is their economic well-being whereby most of them obtained below average levels of income (Pope, Nolan G). However, the employment of the immigrants does not mean that there would be a reduction of jobs for the American community like some people believe. By 2016, approximately 87 percent of the DACA population had been employed making around 14 dollars an hour (Gonzales, Roberto G., et al.). Besides, the program also permitted them to receive over-the-table employment and the additional money that they made resulted in financial stability as well as a significant growth in purchases of homes and cars. Some of the money was also invested back to their communities through paying taxes. Moreover, six percent of the beneficiaries of the DACA program started their own businesses thus creating job opportunities for others within the society. Also, some economists believe that in the long run, the DACA recipients do not have a substantial detrimental impact on the American workers’ employment chances (Kurtzleben, Danielle). According to a chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, Mark Zandi, there is no evidence supporting the claim that the program is taking away American jobs. Instead, the economist believes that the job market in the nation is comparatively healthy currently. Others believe that the country is at full employment with more job openings compared to the past years and in desperate need of an increment of workers (Kurtzleben, Danielle). Furthermore, due to their provision of labor to the country and opening up of businesses, DACA is an enhancement to the United States’ economy. As such, the program is not taking away jobs from the Americans but rather helping create more employment opportunities. On the other hand, another myth regarding the policy states that the DACA program is associated with growth in lawbreaking cases.
The rescind of DACA would also not protect the American communities from criminals. Among the myths that have emerged in support of the repeal of the DACA program is that it puts the United States at risk of crime. On the contrary, the beneficiaries of the program ought to undergo a background check before becoming eligible for the protection against deportation. As such, one cannot qualify for the protection unless they uphold the country’s laws (Nowrasteh, Alex). They have to live in the United States without undertaking of any severe offenses for them to be considered in the program and in case they do, their chances can be taken away hence ensuring that individuals who receive it are lawful citizens. Moreover, among the 800,000 recipients benefiting from the DACA program, only 2,139 have been reported to have lost their chances as a result of public safety or criminal matters (Kessler, Glenn). Oppositely, the number is four times less than that of American born citizens who end up in prison. As such, the unauthorized immigrants who are seen as the major contributors to crimes within the society have a less likelihood of breaking the law compared to the American population. Therefore, the revoking of the DACA program would not be a guarantee that there would be the protection of communities from the lawbreakers. Moreover, yet another myth created by people who are against the plan is that its repeal can lead to a rise in taxpayers benefits.
The repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program does not also certify that the taxpayers would gain benefits. Unlike what a number of people believe regarding the benefitting of taxpayers from rescind of the program, such an action would cost the United States’ economy great costs. For instance, the deportation of the DACA population would lead to a loss of workers as well as the paychecks that they earn. Such an activity would have a significant effect on states like Florida and California which have the greatest number of DACA participants. According to the Center for Americans Progress study, it is approximated that the deportation of all DACA laborers would lead to a reduction in the United States’ gross domestic product by about $433 billion within a period of ten years. Nonetheless, such an impact would be quite uneven with states like California experiencing an estimated loss of $11.3 billion annually as a result of loss of 188,000 workers. Therefore, the economy, as a whole, would be affected immensely leading to taking of actions like increment of taxes for the government to be able to provide public services efficiently. Furthermore, based on a research by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), first generation immigrants, with the inclusion of those who qualify for DACA, who enter the country as children end up making more tax payments during their life expectancy in comparison with what they obtain in benefits. However, they also found out that the unauthorized immigrants made major contributions towards taxes irrespective of their education level. Moreover, given that the program recipients are not entitled to any federal means-tested welfare, including health-care credits, Medicaid, food stamps, cash assistance, among other benefits, they ultimately contribute more in comparison to the average immigrant (Kessler, Glenn). Furthermore, those who qualify for the DACA program are also better educated than the typical immigrant for they ought to at least attain a high school degree for them to be considered. Also, 32 percent of the beneficiaries are pursuing a bachelor’s degree whereas an additional 36 percent of those who have attained 25 years and above had the degree. The research group pointed out such groups to be positive to the government for they contributed about $60,000 to $153,000 in net present value. Therefore, each DACA permit terminated is equivalent to a loss of tens of thousands of dollars within the country in form of taxes and thus it does not guarantee that the taxpayers would benefit. On the other hand, a great population of Americans believe that the policy is contributing to the upsurge of unauthorized immigrants within the nation.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program does not incentivize a growth in illegal immigration either. Most individuals argue that the program has led to an increase of illegal immigration within the United States. Moreover, such policies would encourage the illegal immigrants who qualify to stay within the nation waiting to be eligible for the program as well as incentivize others who are not ineligible to remain in the country looking forward to alteration of the standards for them to be beneficiaries. However, people who support such a concept forget that for an unauthorized immigrant to meet the requirements of being a part of the program, they ought to have lived in the nation for more than a decade and be less than 16 years of age (Gonzales, Roberto G., et al.). As such, none of the new immigrants who cross the United States’ border can apply for the DACA plan. Furthermore, others claim that the increment in the number of children within the border took place in the months prior to President Obama’s announcement the enactment of the program. Besides, the growth in illegal immigrants, particularly young children, is also associated with the rise in levels of violence. In support of the claim, the research found that a majority of the young immigrants came from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador which experience the most degrees of violence compared to other countries within the North America. Specifically, research on these three nations discovered that the most significant contributor to the immigration was an increase in the number of homicides between 2007 and 2009. Also, the overall illegal immigration in the United States is also quite decreased compared to how it was before the country’s last legalization plan that was established in 1986. In the current year, the number of crossers who get caught by every border agent has reduced to less than two from 40 in 1986. Therefore, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy does not have a significant adverse effect on the increase of unauthorized, illegal immigrants within the United States. Besides, the country is known for its fairness and provision of opportunities for all people to grow in all aspects of life thus bringing the question whether the revoking of DACA would be a good portrayal of the nation’s beliefs.
The repealing of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program can also be perceived as a violation of the deep American principles. The United States is well known to be found in fairness through giving individuals from numerous geographical locations across the world the opportunity to get education and better their lives. Furthermore, although that most of the Dreamers begin from difficult personal circumstances, they carry out the activities that any American family might wish their children to undertake. They work relentlessly, study hard, and achieve a position in the military, in college as well as earn a degree in a pursuit of attaining a productive career (Reif, L. Rafael). Besides, the lack of documentation should not be considered to be their fault for most of them enter the country at a very young age. Moreover, once the government provided with the opportunity of ending their hiding due to lack of credentials, they believed in fairness of the system and trusted that they would not get punished as a result of the same. Nonetheless, despite having faith in the government, the unauthorized immigrants are exposed to brutal uncertainty with the cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. As a result of decisions made for them, the DACA program participants are set to lose the opportunities that they earned, the country that they love as well as the communities that they perceive to be home (Reif, L. Rafael). Such an action brings about the problem concerning whether the United States can still be viewed as a country of opportunities and fairness and the need for the government to consider avoidance of revoking of the DACA program. Some lawyers also stated that the retraction of the policy would infringe the Due Process clauses as well as the Constitution’s Equal Protection through removal of protection from the United States’ residents who depended on the government’s assurances. Nevertheless, despite the arguments regarding the prevention of cancellation of the plan, other strong arguments have also been made regarding the need to rescind the policy.
Contrary to arguments regarding protection of the unauthorized immigrants in the United States, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ought to be canceled on the basis that the former president did not follow protocol to the latter. Specifically, President Trump regarded the implementation of the plan as unconstitutional for the former head of state, Barack Obama enacted the program through an executive order (Spagat, Elliot, and Chris Rugaber). Nonetheless, such a statement raises the question as to why the president did not take into account establishment of the DACA program legislatively rather than rescinding it (Shephard, Alex). Also, the action has been viewed as more political-based by some people rather than a legal undertaking. Moreover, other individuals see it as a typical Republican decision for they have often attempted to block immigration reforms. Barack Obama also perceived Trump’s decision as one that was not required legally. He argued that despite the complaints or concerns regarding immigrants in general, there was no need of affecting the futures of the young people who had qualified for the program. Barack also pointed out that over the past years, both the Republican and Democratic parties had written legislation providing hope for the young undocumented immigrants who had entered the country as small children and grown up as American citizens. In tackling of Trump’s claim that the setting up of the DACA program was unconstitutional, the former president stated that he had requested the Congress to send him a bill during his years of serving the nation. However, the Congress never granted his request, and instead of bringing down the plan, he considered the prevention of expelling of talented and patriotic young individuals from the country that they regarded as their homes. He also pinpointed that his government protected the undocumented immigrants from being deported through an adequately established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion set up by both the Republican and Democratic presidents correspondingly (“Remarks by the President on Immigration”). As such, the program was an agreement between the two parties; hence it ought to have been considered rather than being repealed. Furthermore, the rescinding of the DACA plan by the Trump administration is also perceived to breach several laws.
The abolishment of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program also provides an opportunity for the Congress to resolve the issue of undocumented immigrants through the provision of permanent solutions to the problem (Kopan, Tal). As such, the reform that the Congress chooses to adopt ought to be of benefit to the immigrants as well as the American citizens. Four bills have already been presented for discussion concerning the protection of the Dreamers. They include BRIDGE Act supported by Mike Coffman, Luis Gutierrez’s American Hope Act, Carlos Curbelo’s Recognizing America’s Children (RAC) Act, and Lindsey Graham’s and Dick Durbin’s Dream Act (Kopan, Tal). The former Act has been created in an attempt to codify the present DACA program into law as well as provide a three-year extension. Therefore, it gives the Congress sufficient period for the establishment of a thorough immigration reform. On the other hand, the rest of the remaining Acts were created for the development of a path for receiving of permanent residence status or citizenship for applicants who meet particular criteria. However, the Congress has been struggling for a couple of years in an attempt to come up with a solution for the immigration issue and thus six months is not enough for them to make a fair and sound decision. Also, the Congress also seems to be divided hence leaving the fate of the dreamers as uncertain.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been of great help to a broad range of undocumented immigrants from various walks of life who entered the United States as young children. This program aimed at giving the eligible immigrants a chance of making their dreams true and living their lives like the rest of the American society. However, the policy has faced numerous challenges from being considered as a means of taking American jobs to an encouragement of the growth of illegal immigrants within the country. As a result, some people have been pushing for the cancellation of the plan. However, the program has not taken away American jobs from the residents. On the contrary, the DACA agenda has led to the growth of the economy through provision of labor from the participants as well as opened up more job opportunities. Also, the rescinding of the program would not benefit the taxpayers, unlike what some persons believe. The beneficiaries are considered among the highest contributors to taxes in the country hence their deportation would be attributed to a reduction in government revenues thus forcing the citizens to set aside more money for tax payment. The establishment of the DACA policy has not incentivized a growth in the numbers of illegal immigrants. Oppositely, other factors like violence in some North American countries has contributed to the increment of young immigrants within the United States. Moreover, the deportation of the DACA recipients would not guarantee a decrease in criminal activities. Research reveals that a small number of the program participants undertake unlawful activities due to the need for background checks before qualification for the plan. Lastly, DACA should not be repealed for it is an infringement of the American principles of equity and fairness. The United States is viewed as a country of opportunities and equitable treatment of people, regardless of their origin, and therefore cancellation of the policy would be perceived as a violation of the country’s beliefs. Despite the arguments against the revoking of the DACA program, some individuals see the need for the rescinding process. For instance, the president of the United States views it as an opportunity for the Congress to follow the lawful democratic process in obtaining a solution for the immigration reform, unlike the Obama’s government which allegedly used an unconstitutional means. However, presentation of the problem to the Congress does not ascertain that the reached agreement will be fair for the representatives are divided regarding their opinions. Nonetheless, given that individuals who qualified for the DACA agenda were raised in the United States, there is need to consider them in the decisions and help them keep the jobs that they have worked hard for as well as permit them to stay in the country that some believe to be their homes. Therefore, DACA should be rescinded.
“Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” USCIS, 2017, https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca.
Gonzales, Roberto G. et al. “Becoming Dacamented Assessing the Short-Term Benefits of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” American Behavioral Scientist, vol 58, no. 14, 2014, Sagepub, doi: 10.1177/0002764214550288.
Kessler, Glenn. “Analysis | The Trump Administration’S Claim That DACA ‘Helped Spur’ the 2014 Surge of Minors Crossing the Border.” Washington Post, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/09/06/the-trump-administrations-claim-that-daca-helped-spur-the-2014-surge-of-minors-crossing-the-border/?utm_term=.ffd17a13e382.
Kopan, Tal. “Trump Ends DACA but Gives Congress Window To Save It.” CNN, 2017, http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/daca-trump-congress/index.html.
Kurtzleben, Danielle. “FACT CHECK: Are DACA Recipients Stealing Jobs Away From Other Americans?” NPR.Org, 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/09/06/548882071/fact-check-are-daca-recipients-stealing-jobs-away-from-other-americans.
Nowrasteh, Alex. “Illegal Immigrant Crime Wave? Evidence Is Hard To Find.” Fox News, 2017, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/12/illegal-immigrant-crime-wave-evidence-is-hard-to-find.html.
Passel, Jeffrey, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Up To 1.7 Million Unauthorized Immigrant Youth May Benefit From New Deportation Rules.” Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, 2012, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/08/14/up-to-1-7-million-unauthorized-immigrant-youth-may-benefit-from-new-deportation-rules/.
Pope, Nolan G. “The Effects of Dacamentation: The Impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals On Unauthorized Immigrants.” Journal of Public Economics, Vol 143, no. C, 2016, pp. 98-114.
Reif, L. Rafael. “Trump Shouldn’T Repeal DACA – The Boston Globe.” Bostonglobe.Com, 2017, https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/08/31/trump-shouldn-repeal-daca/9sqIjciw0UseCKGTSVCRlK/story.html.
“Remarks by The President On Immigration.” Whitehouse.Gov, 2012, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration.
Shephard, Alex. “Trump’S Repeal of DACA Is the GOP’S Pathology In A Nutshell.” New Republic, 2017, https://newrepublic.com/article/144697/trumps-repeal-daca-gops-pathology-nutshell.
Spagat, Elliot, and Chris Rugaber. “AP FACT CHECK: What The Trump Administration Said About DACA.” AP News, 2017, https://www.apnews.com/20dd16f97a144a049bc502e51198c25c.