Now is a good time to remind people briefly of the reason
behind DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The “Dream Act” (not DACA) was first
introduced into Congress in 2001. Its
purpose was to provide a legal status for non-criminal immigrants brought here
as children. It bounced back and forth
over the years in various pieces of legislation, but never passed, although
each President at the time said he would sign it if it got through Congress.
President Obama also pushed for immigration reform legislation
that would include some version of the Dream Act. When it became clear that this was not a
legislative possibility during his tenure, he created something less, called
DACA, by executive order in 2012. The
Dream Act would have provided permanent residence and eventually citizenship
for persons who could benefit from it.
The President could not go that far by executive order, so DACA instead
creates a kind of temporary status for its beneficiaries. Their deportation is deferred if they qualify,
and that “deferred action” gives them the opportunity to apply for work
authorization, obtain driver’s licenses, go to school, etc. It’s not permanent, and it can be revoked at
any time by a subsequent executive order of the President.
The rationale for this action? Persons brought here as children and
remaining in the U.S. cannot be charged with having committed an illegal act by
entering the U.S., and yet they have no legal status and can be deported at any
time. They have long ties to the U.S. and should be
given the opportunity to remain and prosper and, in many cases, they have
virtually no ties to (and may not even speak the language) of their home
countries. It certainly cannot be regarded
as healthy for our country to have children grow up here, only to discover that
they have no opportunities and no hope for success in life because of their
legal status.
Since DACA was passed, almost 800,000 “dreamers” have
applied for the temporary protection. Of
these, the great majority have jobs and many are in higher education. In January, the libertarian Cato Institute --
which promotes limited government -- estimated that terminating DACA and
immediately deporting those enrolled in the program would cost the federal
government $60 billion, and would reduce economic growth by $280 billion in the
next 10 years.
There is no valid economic or humanitarian argument for
ending DACA. To end DACA now does not
comport with American values toward immigrants and cannot be said to be “patriotic”
in any sense of the word. It only
amplifies our most base instincts of fear toward the “other” and contributes
nothing to making the country great.
Immigrants, on the other hand, contribute much to the success of the
U.S. I need not go into the multitudes
of examples.
The threat to revoke DACA
appears even more cynical when we consider that the President just pardoned
convicted criminal, Joe Arpaio, who terrorized immigrants for years as Sheriff
of Maricopa County, defying court orders, and shaming his office with unconstitutional
enforcement actions. The President said he was "just doing his job." He was not. His oath is to uphold the Constitution and he failed criminally in that.
Although President Obama deported more immigrants than any
president before him, he did establish a priority for removal. This had to do with the recognition that only
about 400,000+ immigrants could be removed each year, given our enforcement
apparatus (include courts, officers, constitutional protections, etc.). But if there are 11 million unauthorized
immigrants, that means it could take 20 years or more to remove everyone (and
that is supposing no new unauthorized immigrants arrive and the maximum amount
can be removed each year). The solution
to the problem is comprehensive immigration reform that creates a pathway to
legalization for long term non-criminal aliens.
This would allow them to come out of the shadows and live productive lives
contributing to the U.S. It would also
make it easier to focus on criminal aliens.
But because we have failed to pass immigration reform (it
will happen one day), that leaves us with the question of who should be our
priority for removal? Under President
Obama, that meant that criminal aliens and recent arrivals should have the
highest priority for removal. Those with
no criminal convictions and with long ties to their communities should be
deferred in their removals. The
President could not grant them citizenship or permanent residence, which would
require congressional action, but could favorably exercise prosecutorial
discretion and focus the enforcement apparatus elsewhere. It brought some order to a system that seemed
to act randomly to pick the lowest hanging fruit, deporting some immigrants
deserving of discretion, and ignoring others that should be removed.
It is analogous in my mind to saying that with our limited
police force, it makes sense to focus more of our efforts on solving and
preventing violent crime, and less on traffic tickets.
When President Trump took office, one of his first actions
was to remove the priorities for removal established by President Obama. This meant that everyone without legal status
was a priority for removal. The result,
as could be expected, was that deportations over all are up, but removals of
criminal aliens are not. Every day we
see stories of non-criminal immigrants that have been here for 30 years or
more, with U.S. citizen children and spouses, who are suddenly sent back to
their home countries and ripped from their families in the U.S. The fear in the immigrant communities is
palpable. They want nothing to do with law
enforcement of any kind, because it could lead to removal from their families
and the lives they have established here.
DACA represented a step even further than mere prosecutorial
discretion in that it sought to couple the discretion (aimed at the most
sympathetic group of unauthorized immigrants) with an eligibility for work
authorization and a temporary confidence that the beneficiaries could pursue
lives of excellence here. If that goes
away through executive action, and Congress does not act to protect the “Dreamers,”
we will be witnessing first hand a gross act of injustice by our government.
