Critique Issues
When DACA was executed by President Barack Obama, his power to impose such an executive order has been placed into question and the constitutionality of the program has been debated. It is believed that under the constitution, what should have happened after the DACA program was seen as illegal and unconstitutional is that it should have ended immediately due to the rule of law. The opposition debates that President Barack Obama overstepped his rule of power when enacting DACA through an executive action. However, DACA was not illegally enacted by President Obama. Since the beginning of our government, Federal and State Agencies have been able to make executive orders, ever since President George Washington when he gave instructions to federal officers to prosecute citizens who interfered with the War.
Even when executive orders are not mentioned in our constitution, every president has used their power to enact an executive order more often during times of war or crises to make government policy work quicker. When executive orders overstep their presidential powers, the supreme court can reign back the powers and any preceding president can revoke the executive order. Therefore, when President Barack Obama executed the Deferred Action for childhood arrivals, it was a lawful exercise of executive authority. And pertaining to the case of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals the term “unconstitutional” is inaccurate. This is because the case of DACA has been discussed in the supreme court and in many legislative cases like in Texas v. Nielsen and the program itself has not been declared unconstitutional.
Secondly, another issue pertaining to DACA is the belief that it is rewarding criminals with benefits that they do not deserve because they broke immigration law. Immigration is a serious issue in America, for centuries America has had tough immigration laws that limit who comes into the country. There are different ways to enter the united states and achieve legal status. One can apply from their home country’s consulate for an immigrant visa if looking for a permanent residency, or if one is already in the united states, they can apply for a green card. Many immigrants get legalized this way, and many other different types of visas are available for anyone who wants to live, visit, work, or study in the united states. Those opposed to DACA say that the beneficiaries should not receive any amnesty for breaking the law, and if they want to live in the united states they should do it the right way and get to the “back of the line” and apply for citizenship and benefits the “right way”.
However, our united states immigration system is broken in many ways. Those opposed always mention the “line” in which all immigrants should get on for citizenship, however, there is no line available for the majority of immigrants who wish to come to America. In order to immigrate to America for a temporary or permanent time, you have to meet certain criteria. And the routes are limited to “employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection” (AIC, 2016). What this means that an immigrant has to be sponsored to be able to come to America or have a humanitarian need, and in order to obtain entrance through a humanitarian need you must meet very specific criteria designed to limit those who enter.
Many immigrants do not have sponsors in America and many do not fit the extreme criteria that the government requires to fit under the category of a humanitarian need. And for those who do meet those need have to wait for many years before being approved entering into the united states. And once an immigrant is in America in order to qualify for a visa you must apply, again, through a sponsor or humanitarian reason as well. These sponsors must be immediate family, a work visa requires for the applicant to be part of an advanced workforce such as anything requiring higher education, and or extreme cases of violence, neglect, or abuse. Many families who have brought their children to the united states when they were minors do not qualify under any of these categories. Many are faced with poverty and bring their children in for a better life than what their home country has to offer.
These DACA recipients were brought to the united states illegally by adults without their consent. Once in America, many of these youths are tough to blend in and were or are being integrated into the school systems where they are taught the American language and system. It is not the fault of the DACA beneficiaries to be in this country, for it was a product of a parent or adult to bring them here. Those with DACA are now young adults who know wish to be part of America because this has become their home. And many of these beneficiaries do not fall under the categories to apply for a Visa, therefore unable to get “in the back of the line”.
DACA recipients are not criminals, they are carefully chosen through a government application process by ICE to ensure that those who receive DACA are undocumented individuals with good morals and ethics who wish to be part of American society. DACA is also not permanent for applicants, meaning that it can be revoked at any time if the applicant shows to be a threat to America, or has committed a serious crime that is eligible for DACA removal and possibly deportation.
DACA creating an incentive for more illegal immigration and chain migration is another major issue with the DACA program. After DACA was executed by President Barack Obama in 2012 there was a wave of illegal immigration by children trying to cross the border by the self. An estimated 60,000 unaccompanied children and teens have fled their home countries and were being detained at the border creating a humanitarian crisis during Obama’s Administration. Many people opposed to the DACA program would debate that establishing a program such as President Barack Obama did would create an incentive for more illegal immigration, and many would ultimately blame this immigration on the “Amnesty” given to DACA recipients. However, many policies throughout the centuries have encouraged migration from immigrants looking for a better life, and there was a time in government where immigration and working immigrants were needed in the united states. For example the Bracero Program in 1942, which allowed working immigrants to come to the united states and legally work.
Opportunities like this have given incentive to immigrants around the world of a better life in America for decades. However, once the immigrant has been used and is no longer needed, the immigrant is deported. And unfortunately, there are still businesses who do this illegally and face no precautions. So while DACA offers an incentive for more immigration, it does not ensure that immigrants will actually enter the united states. Another issue is chain migration, the opposition fears that once the DACA recipient is offered permanent residency and ultimately citizenship, they will petition for their family member to legally come into the united states. Yet, as of now, DACA does not offer its recipients a pathway to legalization, therefore, no way for chain migration to occur. Even then, to petition for a family member the DACA recipient must become naturalized themselves.
To obtain permanent residency the process can take anywhere from 5 to 10 years. After receiving a green card, the applicant must wait exactly 5 years to be able to apply for citizenship and still pay a fine of over 1,000 dollars which many can’t afford. And after being approved for citizenship, the citizen is now able to petition, yet the time frame is still the same until the family could become legalized. My point is, that chain migration is not as simple as it is taught out to be. Even when one has petitioned for citizenship there is the chance of being denied or the process taking 15-20 years for the chain migration to possibly work.
It has also been debated the DACA program is not beneficial for the united states economy. The opposition argues that DACA is costing “taxpayers” an approximate 6.2 Billion a year solely on education (Camarota 2014) and another 2.2 billion a year in health costs (Wooldrige, 2013). However, while this information is true, the DACA worker is contributing back to the economy also in taxes and revenue. Another study found that the undocumented worker under DACA contributes over 11.74 billion dollars in state and local taxes (ITEP, 2017). And removing DACA ultimately will be detrimental to the united states economy as it would take thousands of eligible workers from the US workforce costing America over 280 Billion dollars and if they were to be deported, it would cost America another 60 billion in deportation costs.
Finally, it has also been debated that DACA recipients are taking away jobs from American citizens of the same age and that they are receiving benefits that American citizens are not receiving. This is a common misconception of the DACA program, while these undocumented immigrants are receiving benefits, they are only receiving enough benefits to work which citizens do not require. Unlike citizens, DACA recipients may not travel outside of the united states unless it is approved by the government, they may not receive or apply for health insurance, beneficiaries cannot receive federal benefits such as welfare or food stamps, DACA students may not apply for federal financial aid for college, and they do not receive social security benefits. Citizens, naturally, are born with all of these benefits and do not need to apply for any of the benefits that DACA recipients are receiving. Ultimately, once a DACA beneficiary enters the workforce they are placed into the same consideration than any other applicant during job searches. DACA recipients do not automatically get a job, or a promotion simply because they are immigrants. Like any citizen, DACA beneficiaries have to go through the same application process as citizens do when applying.
