DACA: Paving the Way for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
August 2020 | Vanessa Aponte, Associate Editor
Amid mass protesting for the rights of one marginalized group, there was a huge legal victory for another. On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in a 5-4 decision.[1] This decision blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the program, meaning that the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients across the country are now safe from deportation. However, this ruling did not support DACA so much as it chastised the Trump administration’s rescission of the program. Since the Court did not rule about the merits of DACA, President Trump will likely attempt to rescind it again, leaving DACA recipients in legal limbo. The whole ordeal has DACA advocates calling for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship not just for Dreamers, but for all undocumented immigrants.
DACA is an immigration policy that indefinitely delays the deportation of immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States because they were brought into the country as children. President Obama created DACA in 2012 to provide temporary relief to these immigrants as long as they meet certain qualifications.[2] The program delays their deportation for a period of two years, giving them a “lawfully present” status and allowing them to obtain a work permit and a driver’s license. While DACA protection only lasts for two years, it can be renewed by the applicant every time it ends if they still meet the criteria. Since its creation, DACA has shielded about 800,000 immigrants who entered the country as children, protecting them from deportation and giving them the opportunity to build a life for themselves in America.
Throughout President Trump’s campaign, he repeatedly expressed his goal to rescind DACA. He fulfilled that promise in September of 2017, but this decision was met with various lawsuits that brought DACA all the way to the Supreme Court. Regarding the rescission, Trump claimed that the program was unconstitutional. The reason for this assertion was because after creating DACA, President Obama also attempted to implement a similar program called “DAPA” to protect parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from deportation in the same manner that DACA recipients are protected. This case went to the Supreme Court as well, and the ruling decided that the Obama administration’s creation of DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which “governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.”[3] Because of this case, the Trump administration insisted that DACA shared the same legal flaws that DAPA did: that it did not adhere to the APA when it was enacted. While President Trump and his administration cite concerns of legality, DACA advocates assert that the rescission decision was made with discriminatory intent. Throughout his campaign and presidency, Trump has repeatedly insulted Mexican immigrants, calling them “criminals,” “animals,” and “rapists.”[4] This kind of rhetoric raises concerns about whether rescinding DACA had anything to do with its legality or lack thereof, or if the motivation behind such incendiary comments were inherently racist in nature.
Despite the arguments over DACA’s alleged unconstitutionality and Trump’s potential discriminatory intentions, the Supreme Court ruling weighed in on neither. Rather, they focused on “whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” which the Court claims it did not.[5] When DACA was rescinded, there was not enough sufficient reasoning as to why the program was now considered unlawful. The overall lack of explanation rendered the rescission “arbitrary and capricious” and, ironically, in violation of the APA.[6] As far as potential racial bias, Chief Justice Roberts disregarded those claims, stating that Trump’s comments against Mexican immigrants are not relevant since he was not a primary actor in the DACA rescission. However, in Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, she agreed with the majority except for the dismissal of Trump’s racially motivated bias behind the DACA rescission. She thought that the plurality prematurely dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as she felt their complaints had merit. Regardless, the plurality disregarded Trump’s remarks as insignificant, and the Court ruled against the procedural aspect of the rescission, not against the intent.
Although this is a victory for Dreamers all across the country, it may be short-lived. DACA recipients are safe for now, but President Trump is already rolling back DACA protections despite this recent Court decision. It seems likely that if he is re-elected, Trump will get the opportunity to repeal the program in a manner that follows the APA, so no one can challenge him on procedural grounds. Because of this looming possibility, immigration advocates know that this fight is far from over. DACA recipients and all other immigrants will not be completely safe until there is a pathway to permanent citizenship. Creating that pathway will require bipartisan congressional support on comprehensive immigration reform, which can replace the temporary shield with permanent protection. The House of Representatives has already passed the DREAM and Promise Act of 2019, which would provide a path for immigrants with temporary status to obtain citizenship. However, the Senate has not put it to a vote, and the White House issued a veto threat against the proposed DREAM Act.[7]
The partisan politics are playing with people’s lives, ignoring the detriments of deporting DACA recipients. The exclusion of DACA recipients from the labor force could “result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years. Meanwhile, States and local governments could lose $1.25 billion in tax revenue each year.”[8] In addition, an estimated 125,200 DACA recipients are essential workers in healthcare, retail, manufacturing, etc., with an additional 76,600 working in restaurants and other food services.[9] Locally, over 12,000 Nevada immigrants are DACA recipients, and they make up over a quarter of the whole labor force and about two-fifths of the hotel and food services industry.[10] It is abundantly clear that these immigrants are valuable members of their communities, their states, and their country, especially during these uncertain times. Dreamers are an integral part of Nevada and make beneficial contributions to their local communities, something that would not be possible without DACA.
This program protects so many people who have worked hard, who have established their lives here, who have made America their home. Immigrants are the backbone of this country, and they deserve some empathy. Stripping away the protections that allow them to work, study, and live in peace, especially given their contributions to the pandemic response efforts, would be unbelievably cruel. Although the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the merits of DACA, there is no amount of explanation that could justify upending the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Truthfully, the only way that this administration or any other could reasonably justify rescinding DACA would be if they implemented a pathway to permanent citizenship for undocumented immigrants in its place.
Sources
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 18-587 (U.S. 2020).
Secretary Janet Napolitano to David V. Aguilar, Director Alejandro Mayorkas, Director John Morton, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children, June 2012, p. 1.
“Summary of the Administrative Procedure Act.” EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.
Alan Gomez and Gregory Korte, “Trump Ramps up Rhetoric on Undocumented Immigrants: 'These Aren't People. These Are Animals.'” USA Today, May 2018.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 18-587, p. 29 (U.S. 2020).
Ibid., p. 26.
Camilo Montoya-Galvez, “House Passes Latest DREAM Act, Hoping to Place Millions of Immigrants on Path to Citizenship,” CBS News, June 2019.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 18-587, p. 25, (U.S. 2020).
Daniela Alulema, “DACA Recipients are Essential Workers and Part of the Front-line Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic, as Supreme Court Decision Looms,” The Center for Migration Studies, March 2020.
“Immigrants in Nevada,” American Immigration Council, July 2020, p.1-2.