Login | April 18, 2024
How DACA changed everything
SCOTT PIEPHO
Cases and Controversies
Published: September 15, 2017
Last week, the Trump administration announced its much-telegraphed decision to terminate Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) in six months. Since then President Donald Trump has been practically taunting Congress to enact a legislative solution for the group of near-citizens called DREAMers.
Now in early adulthood, DREAMers came to this country as children with families who crossed the border without authorization. They were brought to this country as young children in large part because of changes in immigration policy. Before the 1980s, when enforcement of the Mexico border for migrant workers was fairly lax, mostly male immigrants crossed back and forth regularly, heading north to work during harvest seasons, then back south to reunite with families.
Once the United States tightened up the border, entire families began coming over so that they would not spend years separated. The children grew up knowing only this country and in many cases learning only English. As they grew, they ran into barriers to opportunity, from difficulty accessing financial aid to limits on jobs they could find.
Members of Congress first proposed the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act in 2001. Different iterations would allow DREAMers either temporary work visas or permanent resident status with a path toward citizenship. DREAM acts were considered in 2007 and 2010, losing on narrow cloture motions both times.
Pushed by activism within the DREAMer community, President Obama enacted DACA in response, the last failure of the DREAM Act. It offered temporary relief for undocumented people who arrived before the age of 16, who have clean criminal records and either a high school diploma or a GED.
The current administration justified ending DACA by saying that it represents executive overreach. This may be the first time in history that an American administration argued about an executive power that it should not have.
The constitutionality of DACA is certainly arguable. Presidents undoubtedly have the authority to establish enforcement priorities. Whether the application fee and work permits constitute a valid extension of that authority is another matter.
But regardless, DACA did more than offer relief for the duration of the Obama administration. It fundamentally changed one facet of the immigration debate.
As noted above, Congress has attempted and failed to address the plight of the DREAMers for years. The Alien Minors referenced in the title of the original act now average 26 years of age. But today, even with a Republican Congress and an overtly anti-immigrant administration, passing a DREAM Act now seems like a real possibility.
Before DACA, the stunted futures of undocumented childhood immigrants were invisible to most of the voting public. For moderate to conservative lawmakers, the DREAM Act had only political downside. Those voting for it knew that at minimum they would be challenged by anti-immigrant constituents. At worst, a DREAM Act beneficiary might go on to commit a notorious crime, which would be a political disaster.
This is the nature of the immigration debate generally. The anti-immigration politicians point to individual undocumented immigrants who commit crimes. People in favor of a more humane immigration system cite statistics saying that immigrants commit fewer crimes (or are less likely to end up on public assistance or that they do not depress American wages), but in politics, the visible anecdote always beats cold, dry statistics.
DACA changed the political calculus. First, it created a set of identifiable recipients with thriving careers and bright futures. Nine hundred DACA recipients currently serve in the military; 250 work at Apple. Knowing who they are reduces the risk calculation of a post-DREAM Act political catastrophe.
On the other side, DACA repeal has raised the possibility of visuals that support DREAMers. Most of the Republican Party are nervous about 2018 campaign ads featuring accomplished young professionals or military veterans being hauled off in manacles by ICE agents. Even the Democrats can’t screw up that messaging. DACA turned the DREAMer plight from an invisible problem to an impending humanitarian disaster.
Going forward, the DREAM Act debate will likely bring into focus the ugly nativism at the heart of the immigration debate generally. For example, when he announced the termination of DACA, Attorney General and DREAM Act opponent Jeff Sessions decried it as an amnesty that was responsible for thousands of jobs going to “illegal immigrants.”
I won’t go so far as to say that Obama and the DREAMer activists have “already won,” which is a favorite shibboleth in the hot takes game. We can’t declare a winner until a DREAM Act is signed. But they did succeed in tilting the field in favor of finally acting.