Introduction to DACA

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), better known as the Dream Act, has been a topic of fervent debate in the United States since 2012. The program provides undocumented youth who came to the United States as children a pathway towards legal status. DACA does not provide permanent legal status to these individuals, however, the program has helped over 800,000 individuals live, work, and study in the United States without the threat of deportation. Although programs similar to the Dream Act have been put in place by administrations dating back to that of Dwight Eisenhower, none have become law. In the past ten years, there has been widespread bipartisan support for the Dream Act, with some versions of it having more than 48 cosponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House of Representatives. Although many of these bills had significant support, none were passed into law. The most recent version of the Dream Act was presented in 2019 and was called the American Dream and Promise Act. This act proposed a three-step pathway for current, former, and future undocumented General Educational Development (GED) recipients to attain US citizenship. However, recently the Dream Act has gained national attention because of the Trump administration’s hard line on immigration. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced its desire to end DACA and faze out the program. This decision not only resulted in widespread condemnation from various groups, organizations, and institutions, it also has threatened the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants, known as “dreamers”.

The DACA Disputation 

The ending of DACA would result in many changes, including no acceptance of new applications and the termination of DACA status for anyone whose DACA expires. For many undocumented immigrants, this would leave them vulnerable to deportation and without the ability to attain work and education in the United States. Upon releasing their decision to end the DACA program, the Department of Homeland Security relied heavily on a letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to justify their decision. The letter by Jeff Sessions stated that DACA is not only illegal, but also unconstitutional. Specifically, the attorney general described DACA as lacking “proper statutory authority” and being an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the judicial branch.” Throughout the years, the DACA program has been subjected to similar criticism as that from the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration. Stemming from President Barack Obama’s enactment of DACA through executive action after its failure to get passed by Congress, many argue that DACA is unlawful. At the time, Obama’s lawyers had argued that the decision to implement DACA under executive action was legal because it relied on the government’s authority and ability to use discretion in deciding whether to pursue deportation against individual immigrants. On the other hand, there has been a significant amount of backlash over the decision to rescind DACA, because of the consequences it will put upon almost one million immigrants living in the United States. Since the decision was released by the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security, both sides of the DACA debate have been put on the forefront of American politics. A poll conducted by USA Today along with various other organizations and partners, found that a majority of American’s believe in granting legal status and protections to DACA recipients. As a result, if the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the program does succeed, this may affect President Trump politically and result in mass social outcry.

Pro-DACA Side

The widespread support that DACA has received can be seen in the substantial imbalance between court cases filed for and against the administration’s decision to rescind DACA. In total, six cases have been filed by various Republican-majority states and conservative organizations in support of the administration’s decision. However, 35 cases have been filed in support of DACA by various educational institutions, companies, and healthcare professionals. Examples of cases that have refuted President Trump’s decision are New York v. Trump and California v. Department of Homeland Security. In New York v. Trump, the complaints were filed based on an argument that the rescindment of DACA represents unlawful discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. In the files, the complaint states that this policy represents historical and systemic discrimination against Latinos/Hispanics. In California v. Department of Homeland Security it is argued that the rescindment of DACA violates fundamental principles of justice under the Convention Against Torture by depriving DACA guarantees the right to pursue a livelihood, support themselves, and further their education. Both of these cases represent the mass uproar that the Trump administration has faced as a result of its decision to end DACA. In addition, it was recently announced that a team of lawyers from the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm was partnering with several DACA recipients, advocates, universities, and states to argue against the President’s decision to rescind DACA. This group is arguing that President Trump decided to end DACA without considering the harm it would cause for both DACA recipients and their families. This group, along with various judges and legal professionals, have argued that President Trump’s legal rationale to end DACA is both flawed and unjustifiable. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a federal statute that requires the government to provide transparent and substantial reasons for adopting public policies, Trump’s decision to end DACA could be illegal. Various courts have fortified this illegality of President Trump’s decision by saying that there were no concrete policy justifications to rescind DACA and that the administration has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Many have argued that this decision exemplified an illegal exercise of presidential power by President Trump who failed to provide any legitimate justifications to end the program. Besides the numerous harms that ending DACA would have for the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on the program, President Trump’s decision has also been widely criticized for the economic implications of his decision. Ending DACA would not only cost US employers over two billion dollars over two years because of the labor force that DACA recipients serve as, but, it would also cost the US federal government over sixty billion dollars to deport all DACA recipients. In total, the rescindment of DACA would reduce the United States’ economic growth by over 280 billion dollars. Based on the negative implications that this decision would have on DACA recipients and the economy, many have consistently advocated against President Trump’s decision.

Anti-DACA Side

Stemming from criticism over President Barack Obama’s immigration policies, President Trump has outwardly condemned DACA since the start of his presidency. Prior to releasing their decision to end DACA, the Trump administration had been attempting to shut down the program. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argued in many ways that the DACA program had encouraged illegal immigration into the United States. The administration has argued that Obama’s creation of DACA surpassed his legal authority, and that the program is not legal because it was not passed by Congress. Since its creation, the legality of DACA has never been analyzed by the Supreme Court. However, President Trump’s decision to end DACA relies heavily on a 2014 ruling where Supreme Court Justices split 4-to-4 and upheld the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision to nullify the expansion of DACA under the Obama administration. In addition to this case, the legal justification behind the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA is motivated by the risk of lawsuits based on the supposed unconstitutionality of DACA. In 2014, Texas, along with 24 other states, sued the Obama administration over certain immigration directives relating to DACA. The reason this lawsuit was filed can be seen through a statement released by the office of the Attorney General of Texas which said that, “the Executive Branch does not have the unilateral power to confer lawful presence and work authorization on unlawfully present aliens simply because the Executive chooses not to remove them”. A similar situation occurred in 2017 when Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, notified Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice that ten states would file a suit against the administration if they did not change the DACA program. Paxton stated that they were not requesting an immediate termination of DACA, but instead concrete action being shown by the federal government to begin the process of ending DACA. As a result, the Trump administration argued in court that its justification for ending DACA was to prevent these threats of lawsuits by Republican state Attorney Generals. Today, most courts are in the process of determining whether or not DACA was legal in the first place, and if the Trump administration’s decision to rescind DACA can be upheld. In 2018, a federal district court in Maryland, while presiding over another lawsuit challenging the planned rescission of DACA, ruled in favor of the Department of Homeland Security and determined that the rescission does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution.

Conclusion

Both the enactment of the DACA program and its rescindment  have resulted in widespread scrutiny. Since 2012, DACA has been a large point of contention in the United States, and continues to divide American politics and American society. There are arguments for both sides of the DACA debate which stem from conflicting beliefs on immigration. For generations, immigration policies and programs similar to DACA have been accepted and disbanded. Although the legal validity of President Trump’s decision continues to be refuted, many have also refuted the legal validity of the DACA program itself.