Executive Summary

The DACA program, an executive order established under the Obama administration, is teetering on the brink of extinction and with that will extinguish the hopes and dreams of over 1.2 million eligible DACA recipients who are motivated and have a positive influence on the United States workforce and economy through contributing billions in taxes and costs. Taking into consideration its benefits and negatives, the DACA program needs to be re-evaluated and re-designed to account for newer generations of undocumented immigrants in the United States whose futures depend on the hope of DACA or a new policy that would be in favor, rather than against them.  

‍

Overview

On June 15, 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program was implemented by the then-Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, under President Barack Obama. The 2-year temporary policy was intended for relief towards young undocumented immigrants, or referred to as “Dreamers,” within the United States. Although the program doesn’t authorize a pathway towards citizenship nor does it grant legal immigration status, DACA does, however, grant these individuals temporary legal authorization, travel opportunities, and protection from deportation so far as they meet the criteria to be eligible for DACA.

To be eligible for DACA, according to Boundless, one must:

-          Have entered the United States unlawfully before their 16^th birthday.

-          Have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007.

-          Have been under 31 years of age on June 15, 2012

-          Have been physically present in the United States on June 15 2012 and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

-          Have had no lawful status on June 15, 2012.

-          Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school.

-          Have not been convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Although, when applying for DACA for the first time, the process can be excruciating with time-consuming documents such as:

-          A completed Form I-82 ID and Form I-765

-          Proof of Identity (passport, birth certificate, state-issued photo ID, military Id, or school ID)

-          proof of arrival prior to the age of 16 (INS documents with date of entry, travel records, school records, medical records, passport with stamps)

-          proof of established residence prior to the age of 16 (utility bills, payment receipts tax returns)

-          proof of presence in the U.S. on June 15, 2012

-          proof of no lawful status on June 15, 2012

-          Proof of current education, graduation, G.E.D., or military service

-          Proof or removal proceedings

-          Proof of criminal history

However, despite these constraints, over 832,000 young individuals have been employed under the DACA program, allowing them – to an extent – some of the privileges their citizen counterparts have such as the ability to work lawfully, have health insurance, etc. These privileges have been returned in economic favor for the United States as households with DACA recipients pay over $6.2 billion in federal taxes and $3.1 billion in state and local taxes annually. Additionally, DACA recipients pose to be very beneficial to the workforce, especially in healthcare (estimated 29,000 DACA recipients are healthcare workers), education (14,900 DACA recipients are teachers), and food-related industries (142,100 DACA recipients work in food production and distribution).

DACA recipients are also eligible for In-State tuition when considering higher-level education in the United States so far as they reside in the District of Columbia and any of these sixteen states:

-          California

-          Colorado

-          Connecticut

-          Florida

-          Illinois

-          Kansas

-          Maryland

-          Minnesota

-          Nebraska

-          New Jersey

-          New Mexico

-          New York

-          Oregon

-          Texas

-          Utah

-          Washington

In some states, however, undocumented and DACA recipients are forbidden from paying in-state tuition (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, and South Carolina). These states are referred to as “locked-out” states.

The main countries of origin under the DACA program include Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, South Korea, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and the Philippines.

‍

Relevance

DACA has been a very controversial issue, like many other policies that have been implemented for the design for helping out undocumented immigrants, since its implementation as there have been polarizing debates about the extent to which the United States should help rather than deport these undocumented immigrants.

This attitude became very prevalent during the Trump administration, when the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum in September 2017, rescinding the DACA program. New applications were rejected and several restrictions were put in place reducing the duration of DACA to one year, and requiring renewals within 150 to 120 days before existing applications expired.

When the Biden Administration came into power, attempts were made to reinstate the program which were only met with further legal hurdles and obstacles. On July 16, 2021, in the ruling of Texas v. United States, a federal judge ruled against first-time DACA applicants applying. In October 2022, although the court of appeals likewise agreed with the ruling in Texas v. United States that the DACA program was unlawful, the court ruled that the program could run temporarily and renew applications for existing DACA recipients; new applicants would still be unable to apply.

With arguments targeting DACA’s entity and basis such as whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the authority to implement DACA, DACA’s relevance is very much prevalent not just for the over 1 million eligible DACA recipients who would suddenly be without privileges in the case of DACA getting eliminated, but for the millions of American citizens who have an opinion on immigration and undocumented immigrants in the United States.

‍

Current Stances

In the affairs of DACA – and immigration reform collectively - almost everyone in all corners of American society has an opinion on how they should be tackled in the wake of anti-immigration stances that – arguably - became prevalent during President Trump’s rule.

With anti-immigration views from trying to build a wall preventing unauthorized immigration from Mexico into the United States to racist rhetoric such as referring to Mexican immigrants as “Criminals and rapists,” polarization in American politics has never been more evident when analyzing the views that different party affiliations share towards the DACA program and the presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

According to a survey conducted by DataforProgress, in October 2022, it was found that 79% of democrats supported the DACA program with 58% of independents trailing behind with support of the policy. However, when Republicans were interviewed, they accumulated less support for the policy with 51% opposing the DACA program.

Moreover, in correlation with views towards the presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States, democrats with a higher percentage (89%) than Republicans (57%) say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally considering conditions are met, according to PewResearch.  

Additionally, these statistics also prove to be much higher when the scope of legal status to undocumented immigrants is narrowed to those who were brought to the United States illegally as children. With an exceptional 91% of democrats in favor of granting legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, so were most Republicans with 54% in favor.

Therefore, with the relative amount of support for protection and legal status for undocumented immigrants within polarized parties, it becomes not a question of whether the presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States should completely be eradicated, but how and to what extent undocumented immigrants should be protected and be granted rights by the United States.

It should also be noted that the dissenting opinions of the DACA program from Democrats and Republicans stem more from border control issues in the United States and fears that improving the DACA program would potentially open up the border to more illegal immigration in the hopes of reaping the benefits of DACA. “Until we get the border under control, it’s not possible to deal with some of these other issues where there is bipartisan consensus,” stated Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas). Another similar take was given by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina: “If you could do something to make the border more secure around DACA, count me in.” Hence, when discussing the topic of providing a legal pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, stances are more or less on the same page with support for the DACA program and offering support for already present illegal immigrants, but not at the expense of opening the border up to more illegal immigration to the point that immigration reform takes a further step back and fully becomes committed to reducing all undocumented immigrants present in the United States.

However, when discussing the implications of solely accounting for political affiliation to generate a collective view on the current stances towards the presence of undocumented immigrants, race and ethnicity, much more integrated factors in the diversified image of the United States, are neglected as a result.

In the data above, those of Hispanic ethnicity were the most receptive to being in favor of a legal pathway for undocumented citizens (87%). With surveyed Black individuals trailing with 81% in favor, and Asian individuals with 76%, White individuals – although relatively still in support – were the least in favor of a legal pathway for undocumented individuals as opposed to their racial counterparts. Thus, the disapproval of a legal pathway for undocumented immigrants is mainly prevalent in White individuals which could be hypothesized because of their lack of connection to undocumented individuals.

‍

Tried Policy

Although there have been a substantial amount of anti-immigration policies targeted at limiting the presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States, very minimal policies have been attempted to protect these undocumented immigrants. 

More or less of this was the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” (IRCA). Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in November 1986, the act served as a double-edged sword in which although established civil and criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hired individuals unauthorized to work in the United States (Undocumented Immigrants), also offered a legalization pathway for applicants who had continuously resided in the U.S. since 1982, to have lawful permanent residency. However, due to its outdatedness and its requirements that applicants be present in the U.S. since 1982, the relevance of IRCA has become virtually nonexistent and undiscussed.

A more recent and more recognizable of these attempted policies like DACA and IRCA was the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors” (DREAM) Act, first introduced in 2001 by Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch.

The origin from which the term “Dreamers” derived, the DREAM Act has had at least ten revised versions introduced in Congress to provide a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth who came to the United States as children.

However, despite bipartisan support for each version of the bill (as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House of Representatives), none ever became law. The closest to full implementation of the Bill was in 2010 after successfully passing the House of Representatives but failing to garner 5 more votes of the mandatory 60 to proceed in the Senate.

The most recent version of the DREAM Act, S.365, came on February 9, 2023, with the help of Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). The bipartisan bill, the DREAM Act of 2023, would be able to provide approximately 1.9 million Dreamers with protection from deportation and an opportunity to obtain legal status for up to eight years if certain requirements are met.

Qualifications for the Act include: 

-Proof of arrival in the U.S. at or before the age of 17

-Proof of residence in the U.S. continuously for at least four years

-Passing a government background check with no felonies or multiple misdemeanor convictions

-A demonstrated “good moral character”

-Having attained or in the process of completing a high school diploma or an equivalent

- Evidence of admission into a college or university

Momentarily, the Dream Act of 2023 is yet to pass the Senate. Although considering the 0% success rate of its predecessors, it is likewise very unlikely for the newest rendition of the Dream Act to be signed into law. Therefore, it is all the more reason to maintain and keep the currently established DACA system in place. 

‍

Policy Problem

The main problems with DACA not only deal with the fact that the relief duration of the program is considerably short, but the program is also very outdated and does not take into consideration newer generations of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States after June 21, 2012. Taken from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, between 2015 and 2018, the United States received an average of 300,000 illegal immigrants. Discounting the increase in illegal immigration in 2013, 2014, as well as 2018 onwards, years after the installation of DACA, the presented statistic above still holds weight as the increase of 300,000 illegal immigrants, and more when including the years excluded from the statistic, are automatically discounted from applying to DACA as a result of their later arrival post-June 21, 2012. This becomes a problem when these young individuals are in new stages of their lives in terms of career, personal, and educational attainments but are automatically restricted from fully being able to attain their goals as a result of their undocumented status.

 DACA also offers no long-term benefits such as a legal pathway to citizenship for almost 1 million of its recipients, thus making the long-term future and prosperity of DACA recipients in the United States stuck in limbo with only an uncertain future filled with temporary and partial rights because that is all granted to them.

Additionally, with the fate of DACA on the brink of extinction (DACA’s future on whether it can be open to new applicants is still unsure), and the fact that its mere existence will continue to be at the forefront of anti-immigration aims designed at eliminating the program, it further proves to be an issue causing deep levels of unrest and uncertainty among DACA recipients.   

‍

Stakeholders

The main stakeholders, if DACA was to be rescinded, would be its 800,000+ recipients. If DACA was to be rescinded, meaning no more future DACA applicants, not only would DACA recipients virtually have no other protections in the United States, households would face the risk of separation at the hands of Ice and Customs Enforcement (ICE), tearing countless individuals away from their family members, who are citizens of the United States (approximately 300,000 U.S. citizens are children of DACA recipients). This has daunting consequences on the U.S. citizen children who are separated from their parents as there results in connections with decreased academic performances, a 15-17% decrease in the likelihood of graduating from high school, increased financial hardship, and increased depression and anxiety. Deported individuals would additionally face the risk of not being able to fully integrate into their country of origin as a result of language barriers, cultural differences, and lack of immediate family (73% of D.A.C.A. recipients don’t have an immediate relative in their country of origin).

Furthermore, the absence of D.A.C.A. recipients would be hugely damaging to the U.S. economy and workforce considering how beneficial D.A.C.A. recipients are to American society. With a  decrease in the share of taxes being contributed to the economy by D.A.C.A. recipients and a surge in the unemployment rate in industries extremely vital to the production of  American society (education, healthcare, etc.), when D.A.C.A. recipients are left without D.A.C.A., their ability to hold a job would be non-existent, resulting in labor shortages that would lead to higher prices. As a consequence, the federal government would lose out on more than $11 billion a year according to FWD.

‍

Risks of Indifference

When American citizens virtually have no connection to undocumented immigrants, their indifference in which they are unaffected by what happens to D.A.C.A. will be evident when considering how they choose to vote for candidates whose policies might or might not align in favor of undocumented immigrants.

This considerable amount of neglect as a result would be very damaging to undocumented immigrants in the case of an elected official who is anti-immigration and protection of undocumented individuals. Thus, the entity of D.A.C.A. would furthermore be threatened and contribute to the uncertainty and fear among D.A.C.A. recipients and their future being able to have privileges.

Policy Options

Although filled with a plethora of flaws, DACA is not a policy that should be completely eradicated because with that comes the complete exile of undocumented immigrants, especially those brought as children, from fully being able to live a life that their counterparts would simply based on their legal presence. This also poses to be an ethical issue as these individuals who have spent their upbringing in the United States and have assimilated just like their citizen counterparts by getting an education, and being fluent in English, would be at risk of deportation to a country in which they might not know the culture/language simply because that was where they were born. Additionally, with the eradication of DACA, and the uncertainty of the DREAM Act of 2023 being passed, there would be virtually no other opportunity for legal privileges for undocumented individuals.

Instead, I propose that DACA be revised and readjusted through its guidelines, constraints, and its goals. DACA should have a temporary duration of at least 10 years with which after 5 years of good behavior (no crimes, getting an education, contributing to the workforce), undocumented individuals have a legal pathway towards citizenship. With the acquisition of DACA, individuals will have the same rights as their citizenship counterparts such as the ability to get a job, amnesty, healthcare and work benefits, traveling opportunities, and access to federal financial aid and in-state tuition. Furthermore, its criteria on eligibility requirements ought to be shifted to account for newer generations under the age of 18 and in the United States as of January 1, 2023. This can only ensure the protection of undocumented immigrants whose only purpose in migrating to the United States was to provide a better life for themselves and their families for generations to come. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

With a new wave of undocumented immigrants at the forefront of American society ready to contribute positively, comes a dying DACA program with outdated guidelines and requirements. Furthermore, with the 0% success rate of the DREAM Act, DACA is the only chance for undocumented individuals to have the fair opportunity to receive legal privileges as their citizen counterparts in the United States. As such, DACA needs to be revived, re-adjusted and met with more support to counter opposing stances.

This can only ensure the happiness and prosperous life that everyone, regardless of citizenship, deserves on U.S. soil.

‍

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Gwen Singer, Sarah Zhang, Paul Kramer, Carlos Bindert and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Effective Discourse Department and associated Fellowship programming.

References

1. [1] “A Majority of Voters Support Continuing DACA Program.” n.d. Data for Progress. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/10/25/a-majority-of-voters-support-continuing-daca-program.
2. [2]     American Immigration Council. 2021. “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): An Overview.” American Immigration Council. September 30, 2021. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca-overview.
3. [3]     “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals | Federal Policy and Examples of State Actions.” n.d. Www.ncsl.org. https://www.ncsl.org/immigration/deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals.
4. [4] “Bill Summary: Dream Act of 2023.” 2023. National Immigration Forum. February 10, 2023. https://immigrationforum.org/article/bill-summary-dream-act-of-2023/.
5. [5] “The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers.” n.d. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_dream_act_daca_and_other_policies_designed_to_protect_dreamers.pdf.
6. [6]     American Immigration Council. 2021. “The Dream Act: An Overview.” American Immigration Council. March 16, 2021. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-overview.
7. [7]     “What Is DACA? Everything You Need to Know.” n.d. Boundless. https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/what-is-daca/#daca-eligibility-.
8. [8]  Sidebari, Legal. n.d. “CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress the Legality of DACA: Recent Litigation Developments.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10625.
9. [9]     Tatter, Grace. 2019. “Why DACA Works.” Harvard Graduate School of Education. 2019. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/01/why-daca-works.
10. [10]  Miller, Laura. 2022. “Ending DACA Would Come at a High Cost, Economists Warn.” MSU Denver RED. November 30, 2022. https://red.msudenver.edu/2022/ending-daca-would-come-at-a-high-cost-economists-warn/.
11. [11] “DACA Risks & Benefits.” DACA_Risks_and_Benefits_Fillable_in_Toolkit.pdf
12. [12] Michael Kagan, opinion contributor. 2020. “Building a Better DACA.” The Hill. December 23, 2020. https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/529902-building-a-better-daca/.
13. [13] “Dream Act of 2023.” n.d. FWD.us. https://www.fwd.us/news/dream-act-of-2023-priority-bill-spotlight/#:~:text=The%20Dream%20Act%20of%202023.
14. [14] “Solving the DACA Challenge.” 2020. Businessroundtable.org. 2020. https://www.businessroundtable.org/solving-the-daca-challenge.
15. [15] Krogstad, Jens Manuel. 2020. “Americans Broadly Support Legal Status for Immigrants Brought to the U.S. Illegally as Children.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. June 17, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/17/americans-broadly-support-legal-status-for-immigrants-brought-to-the-u-s-illegally-as-children/.
16. [16] “DACA Decade: From Students to Careers and Families.” n.d. FWD.us. https://www.fwd.us/news/dacas-beneficiaries-after-10-years/#:~:text=Most%20DACA%20recipients%20are%20working.
17. [17] “DACA Immigration Policy Reform Resources | Niskanen Center’s Work.” n.d. Niskanen Center. https://www.niskanencenter.org/daca/.
18. [18] Baker, Bryan. 2021. “Population Estimates Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in The.” https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/Pop_Estimate/UnauthImmigrant/unauthorized_immigrant_population_estimates_2015_-_2018.pdf.
19. [19] Connor, Phillip. 2022. “What Happens If DACA Ends?” FWD.us. August 22, 2022. https://www.fwd.us/news/what-if-daca-ends/.
20. [20] “Number of Dreamers under 2021 Dream Act.” 2021. FWD.us. March 1, 2021. https://www.fwd.us/news/dreamers-by-the-numbers/.
21. [21] “DACA Defeat Puts Pressure on Congress to Shield ‘Dreamers’ (1).” n.d. News.bloomberglaw.com. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/daca-court-defeat-puts-pressure-on-congress-to-shield-dreamers.
22. [22] “What the 2023 Dream Act Would Mean for Young Immigrants.” 2023. April 6, 2023. https://www.markjacobslaw.com/what-the-2023-dream-act-would-mean-for-young-immigrants/.
23. [23] Partida, Maria Guadalupe. n.d. “Research Guides: A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United States: 1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” Guides.loc.gov. https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca#:~:text=This%20act%20introduced%20civil%20and.
24. ‍

‍