The Trouble with DACA
The future of DACA is in the hands of the Democrats, they just don’t know it yet.
Written by Conner Bryan
This story was originally published January 17, 2018
US District Judge William Aslup, last week, January 10, 2018, effectively prevented Donald Trump from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program started by the Obama Administration in 2012.
The campaign in favor of DACA — which has enrolled more than 800,000 people brought to the US illegally, in workers permits — was headed by three California Democrats: Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León and Secretary of State Alex Padilla.
These three, US District Judge William Aslup, and their campaign, according to the Cato Institute, have saved the US economy an immediate $60 billion, along with $280 billion over the next ten years.
Those figures are what Dreamers (DACA recipients) contribute to the economy, when given the right to employment.
After Trump ended DACA on September 5, 2017, Congress was given six months to provide one of two solutions: either continue to offer temporary deferral for those brought to the US, allowing them to stay and work, or draft legislation granting them a path to citizenship. Failure to deliver on either will result in deportation.
It is not clear what motivates Trump to take a hardline stance on DACA. Contenders include conspiratorial revenge against Obama’s “illegal executive amnesty,” one of many supposed unconstitutional executive actions performed by Obama that Trump has promised to rescind, and just plain racism.
A more charitable explanation, however, could be a form of political hot-potato.
Before Trump made the prompt decision to end DACA in September, he acted as though he was beginning to soften and double back on his camping promises. Vox reports him telling Time magazine that the situation is “very tough,” assuring people he has a “big heart.” (He would later go on to meet directly with top Democrats in the Senate in an attempt to compromise.)
Despite a two-to-one margin against ending DACA, according to polls, Trump must have caved under the pressure of a group of Republican state officials who threatened to sue the federal government if, by September 15, Trump did not rescind parts of DACA .
It was ten days before this deadline that Trump decided to end DACA and give Congress a six month window to negotiate a resolution.
The decision by this administration to have catered to these state officials shows that Trump not wants to shift blame, by placing DACA’s fate in the hands of Congress instead of taking the task up himself, and more importantly, would rather let 800,000 people who grew up in America live in uncertainty than defend them in court.
Four months after his announcement, on January 9, 2018, Trump held a bipartisan DACA meeting that left congressional staffers’ and partisan pulpits’ heads spinning. It was unclear which side Trump was debating.
(For the sake of clarity regarding what follows, a “clean bill” is a bill in its original form, without amendments, and without changes, for the purposes of debating about a singular topic, effectively expediting congressional procedures.)
At one point, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) asked Trump to take up a “clean” bill that simply extends existing protections for Dreamers.
Trump reportedly responds by saying, “no problem.”
Doing so, however, breaks rank in the GOP (Republican Party), and may provoke outrage among the state officials who threatened to sue Trump’s administration over the continuation of DACA in the first place. It’s plausible the President misspoke when he sided with democratic Feinstein, he is a Republican anyhow.
Republican Majority Leader in the House, Kevin McCarthy, consequently provides some clarification on the party’s message by saying, “Mr President…we don’t want to be here two years later. You have to have security as the secretary would tell you.”
“That’s what she’s saying,” Trump retorts.
And the meeting continues like this before the Republicans in the room find a way to square up their candidate. Ultimately, this meeting on January 9 concluded with consensus on four “high priority areas:” border security, chain migration (when a US citizen, or sometimes green card holder, petitions to have family members join their status), the visa lottery system, and the “plight of ‘Dreamer’ immigrants.”
All of this is potentially moot, however, considering that as of Saturday, January 14, US Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that “until further notice, [DACA] will be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded” in September.
Recipients whose work permits expired on or after September 5, the date Trump rescinded DACA, are free to request a renewal of their deferment, escaping deportation. Unfortunately, those whose deferred action expired before September 5 have to file a new application. The same applies to recipients who were otherwise terminated from DACA altogether, meaning Immigration is accepting DACA applications of all forms.
With Immigration opening its doors up again, new legislation satisfying a permanent pathway to citizenship seems unlikely. For now, the status quo prevails.
Yet, DACA was never intended to be a fix. The cautionary side of President Obama’s speech on June 15, 2012, wherein DACA was outlined, rings louder today than it ever has.
“Now, let’s be clear. This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix…Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act,” he warned.
As of March 2017, two thirds of Americans prefer a legal path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. So what is Congress doing to legislate?
As mentioned, the bipartisan meeting regarding DACA concluded with four high priority issues, and only one specifically pertained to Dreamers.
Immigration is a network of policies affecting over a million brand new people in America every year. Threats of a government shutdown, federal lawsuits, and debates over Trump’s racism aside, recent events have introduced an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work productively.
It is in both parties’ best interest to choose to find a better solution for people brought to the US. The Democrats’ because many of these people are their base. The Republicans’ because the midterm elections in 2018 are drawing too close for comfort, and they could use a win that doesn’t benefit the richest, smallest demographic of their coalition. This means being responsible for making citizens out of those who ought to have highest priority, ie, the ones who call America their home.
Dara Lind at Vox has provided an outline of three proposals that circulated Congress in late September of last year. None of them, unfortunately, fit the bill.
The BRIDGE Act is more of the same temporary deferment of action toward Dreamers, but this time with congressional approval. The Recognizing America’s Children (RAC) Act is a bandaid, attempting to ease the illegal status of immigrants by allowing a singular batch of people who arrived in the US before the age of 16 to wait five years before being considered a “conditional” permanent resident, and five more before they can get a green card.
The amended DREAM Act is the most ambitious, allowing anyone who has been in the US since age 18, has lived in the US for four years, or has Temporary Protected Status, to apply for conditional permanent status.
The biggest hurdle is that all these proposals are “clean” bills. They do not make mention to, for instance, the other three “high priority” areas of concern for the white house. That is to say, these bills are not looking to compromise on border security, chain migration, or the visa lottery system, all of which seem crucial to win over the GOP.
Democrats should recognize they have the upper hand. Renewed interest in the extent to which Trump can offend large swathes of the Planet’s population, his mental ‘fitness’, and tightening of the midterm races give Democrats the public profile upper hand necessary to pressure the Republicans into “comprehensive” reform. If such an upper hand can be used to defeat Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, then they can be used to negotiate their way through bipartisan legislation. Focus on putting people to work, not on keeping people out of the country. Security of future, not security of borders.
Now that Immigration has renewed DACA, reform does not need to be “clean,” it needs to be comprehensive, as the pundits declare. Besides, it was Reagan who, in 1986, passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act that provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants, and for work related purposes.
The Republicans want this as much as Democrats do. And Trump has already handed the issue over to congress. The bill is in their court, not his. Democrats should act quick and with resolve, in order to capitalize on the spotlight needed to brighten the future of young immigrants to come.
