Abstract
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was established in June 2012. This program provided temporary deportation exemptions and worked permissions for undocumented youth throughout the United States. The article presents the historical background of the emergence of the program and a theoretical explanation of the program’s essence. Various and contradictory points of view of the program researchers are analyzed. This article aims to focus on the issues of effectiveness, constitutionality, and feasibility of DACA. This study examines how young undocumented immigrants overcome the uncertainty of ambiguous or threshold legal status. Also, the question is formulated about how the program corresponds to or contradicts the ethical ideas of society. A conclusion is made about the constitutionality of DACA; however, the effectiveness of DACA is controversial since, as it becomes possible to conclude from the results of research, DACA encourages violation of the law. Some ethical issues remained unresolved during the adoption of DACA, which may cause specific problems in the future. It became evident that the successful implementation of DACA will only be accomplished if proper attention is paid to the issues of the national identity of migrants.
Introduction
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a set of laws in the United States that allow persons brought into the country as a child to obtain a renewable two-year deferred period and a work permit. The project was to draw attention to the problem of illegal immigrants and ensure their protection and participation in society. The DACA’s goal was to develop interim measures to protect against deportation for people brought to the United States as children who did not have citizenship or legal resident status. This paper aims to analyze competing views on the constitutionality, effectiveness, feasibility, and ethics of DACA in the United States. The preliminary thesis of the work is that DACA does not violate the constitutional foundations of the United States. The alleged encouragement of violations of the law by the parents of DACA recipients is controversial.
Background
The predecessor of the current act was the so-called DREAM Act, which allowed recipients to obtain American citizenship and protection from deportation. It was introduced in 2001, compared to DACA, which came into force in 2012. The DREAM Act is a bill that aims to provide legal status to young immigrants who are illegally residing in the United States. Such young people came to the country after their parents brought them there. The DACA bill initially failed in the Senate in 2007 and 2011 due to Republican opposition. However, the essence of the law was reasonable, both from a political and social point of view. The law provided a clear path for obtaining citizenship and permanent residence in the United States. Unfortunately, the DACA bill came into force only during the Obama presidency. Among the problematic aspects of the program is the abuse of power – the law was implemented without Congress’s approval. It is also believed that the bill has placed a financial burden on the state to solve illegal immigration issues.
Discussion of Competing Perspectives
Perspective 1: Constitutionality of DACA
The first issue with DACA that creates competing perspectives is its constitutionality. The parties to argue their position refer to the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This amendment introduced the granting of citizenship to any person born in the United States territory and a ban on deprivation of rights unless by court order. It not only proclaimed the equality of all citizens, regardless of skin color but also provided for the punishment of states for violating these regulations. In addition, it was intended to decrease the rate of representation in the US Congress for the violating state.
To assess how consistent the analyzed bill is with the US Constitution, one should mention such a document as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. The program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), allows specific parents of US citizens to apply for temporary deportation protection and employment permissions. Researchers differ in their views on the constitutionality of the project. For example, Konopasek assessing the constitutionality of DACA and DAPA argues that DACA is constitutional, while DAPA is not. He writes about the need to determine the scope of the president’s powers to issue decrees to ensure that there is an abuse of the right. In a situation where the principle of checks and balances is not observed, it becomes impossible to determine whether specific actions of the country’s president are violations of the law. The author argues that the emergence of DAPA should be associated with the death of one of the Supreme Court judges and the resulting deadlock between the remaining judges. The essence of the author’s argumentation boils down to an analysis of the Constitution, particularly the provisions on care and actions taken following the presidential decree under both Obama and Trump’s presidency. According to the author, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to answer questions regarding powers. The document is mainly based on the opinions of researchers of law, and, accordingly, a much smaller part of the work is made up of objective facts.
The Supreme Court has not yet reached an unequivocal decision on birthright citizenship concerning children born in the United States from illegally present foreigners. This lack of a straightforward solution is the reason for disputes over the constitutionality of DACA. The author writes that in states with more violent migrant policies, the sense of legal uncertainty worsens. For states with more democratic laws, such as California, legal limits become less pressing. The study uses the semi-structured interview analysis approach, which may affect the reliability of the results obtained and the possibility of their application outside the targeted group of individuals.
In general, it appears that since DACA does not provide citizenship to recipients, it does not violate Amendment 14, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. However, there is an obvious need to regulate the balance of powers between representatives of different branches of government. The procedure of implementing such bills should be strictly defined.
Perspective 2: Effectiveness of DACA
DACA has been a significant economic growth engine for cities and states. The introduction of this bill allowed DACA recipients to benefit from new tax revenues from large purchases and new jobs. Pope’s research results show that DACA has produced positive results in the labor market. Unemployment among DACA recipients has declined, while incomes have risen. Accordingly, it can be considered that in terms of the effectiveness of economic indicators in the world of work, DACA is producing positive results. Pope’s research was not sponsored by any political organizations, which to some extent testifies to the author’s impartiality. However, Pope’s work did not consider other indicators of migrants’ problems, which should be attributed to the shortcomings of the essay.
It became possible for other researchers to use Pope’s research experience for their work. In particular, Amuendo-Dorantes and Antman build on Pope’s findings; they use the same difference-in-differences design, in which some groups are getting the treatment and others do not, that was used in Pope’s work. This way of doing research can be considered a standard tool for this kind of inquiry to determine how much the situation has improved compared to the control group. For example, the likelihood of developing poverty among families with DACA recipients decreased by 38%, according to the result of this study. However, since it is impossible to say with certainty that the 38% decrease in poverty was caused precisely by the implementation of DACA, this impossibility to establish a causal relationship should be attributed to the study’s shortcomings.
According to Brannon and McGee, maintaining DACA will allow current program members to earn around 102 billion in total federal revenue. At the same time, the elimination of legal protections would reduce revenues to about $ 30 billion in the next decade. The authors’ approach proves the economic efficiency of DACA. However, there is a considerable risk that the program will be canceled due to the unstable political situation. The expected forecast does not study many other factors that may affect the research results, which can be regarded as the limitation of the article.
There is a problem with the program itself balancing legality and illegality. Roth assumes that DACA has encouraged more migrants with young children to come to the United States. Nevertheless, according to the author, there is “legal violence”: the beneficiaries are given hope for social integration without the possibility of its full achievement. The author’s research uses a comparative approach and is carried out to analyze in-depth interviews with recipients in Carolina.
From an economic point of view, the abolition of DACA will cause a severe drop in the income of migrants. However, some studies linking income growth and poverty reduction among migrants do not consider other indicators, which gives reason to distrust the assumptions about the positive economic impact of DACA. While DACA helps existing migrant children gain legal status, it also encourages breaking the law and risks leaving recipients without parents or support in another country.
Perspective 3: Feasibility of DACA
Among the possible emerging problems in DACA implementation may be the difficulties of integrating recipients into society. The researchers believe that it will be difficult for children receiving work permits to adapt since many citizens indicate they do not belong to the country. Moreover, one of the key factors in slowing down the integration process is the growing discriminatory attitudes in society because of the number of terrorist attacks in recent years. The study was based on semi-structured interviews with representatives of youth migrants. Thus, the very basis of the survey raises reasonable doubts about the reliability of the results obtained, but this is compensated by cross-checking with other resources. The final result of the study is the conclusion that the problem of integration is characteristic and relevant not only for the group of interviewed persons but instead, has a mass character.
Umfress writes that the feasibility of DACA is extremely important for the successful functioning of the agricultural industry in the country’s southern states. The project’s cancellation could lead to the loss of jobs for many migrants employed in this area. Agricultural activity mainly involves low-skilled workers, who are mostly migrants. This problem is much less of a problem for affluent American citizens who have better job opportunities. Although the article has a solid evidence base from previous work, some interpretations are suspected of bias, particularly the author’s position against a zero-sum approach to the labor market.
The successful implementation of DACA is only possible if attention is paid to the problems of the national identity of migrants who have come to the United States. Consideration should also be given to the impact of the cessation of policies on specific areas of the economy. In particular, the end of DACA will negatively affect workers in the agricultural industry who are predominantly migrants.
Perspective 4: Ethics of DACA
DACA raises questions from the perspective of morality, as discussed by many researchers interested in this project. DACA seems to some researchers to comply with the requirements of morality since it does not violate any laws and makes it possible to produce more benefits for people than potential harm. From Di Bartolo’s point of view, this program protects migrant families and improves their health situation by offering access to the best facilities. However, the ethical interpretation of the program, no matter how reasoned it is, remains a controversial object for research, limiting the applicability of this author’s findings for the current analysis.
In the next analyzed article, the study of ethical problems of the implemented policy continues. Farrell believes that DACA can be considered by addressing legal and moral uncertainties regarding the analyzed issues of migrants in the United States. The article’s essence is to study the possibility of canceling DACA and deporting recipients from the United States from a moral perspective. However, according to Farrell, attention should be paid to how reasonable such a decision is concerning children of migrants. In particular, they cannot influence what is happening in any way. Furthermore, deportation of parents who receive DACA can negatively affect these children’s emotional and psychological health. Once again, the ethical interpretation of politics here cannot serve as a convincing argument in favor of the possibility or impossibility of its implementation or further preservation. However, it should be noted that Farrell’s argumentation is in many respects similar to that of the previous researcher Di Bartolo.
It appears that several ethical issues remained unresolved during the enactment of DACA. In the future, this may affect the effectiveness and feasibility of the program. However, at this stage, from an ethical point of view, the decision to cancel the program cannot be made. Such a decision does not comply with the concept of ethics. In addition, it can be concluded that even insignificant changes in the conditions for granting work permits and temporary protection of deportation will cause tension in society and exacerbate ethical contradictions in the program’s implementation.
Conclusion
When the DACA was adopted, there seemed to be an abuse of power since the program was adopted without considering Congress’s opinion. This obliges authorities to resolve the distribution of powers between the branches of government regarding the implementation of DACA. It is also believed that the law has imposed a financial burden on the state to solve the problems of illegal immigration. Accordingly, this problem must also be resolved by the authorities.
It appears that DACA does not contradict the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution since DACA does not provide citizenship to recipients; however, the effectiveness of DACA is controversial. The lack of a Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship concerning children born in the United States to illegally resident aliens is a source of controversy over the constitutionality of DACA. The effectiveness of DACA is challenging to assess also because the currently available studies do not consider all the necessary factors, which affects the reliability of the research results. The dominant opinion among researchers is that DACA meets the requirements of morality since it does not violate any laws and allows people to do more good than potential harm. However, the lack of resolution of some ethical issues, such as the deportation of parents who receive DACA, may cause specific problems in the future. Successful implementation of DACA will only be achieved if proper attention will be paid to the issues of the national identity of migrants. Refusal to use the program can lead to a decrease in income and loss of work for recipients.
References
Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina, and Francisca Antman. “Can Authorization Reduce Poverty among Undocumented Immigrants? Evidence from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program.” Economics Letters 147, (2016): 1-4.
Arthur, Andrew R. “Birthright Citizenship: An overview.” Center for Immigration Studies, 1, no. 1 (2018): 1-16.
Brannon, Ike, and Kevin McGee. “Would Suspending DACA Withstand a Benefit-Cost Analysis.” Regulation 41, (2018): 4-5.
Di Bartolo, Isha Marina. “Immigration, DACA, and Health Care.” AMA Journal of Ethics 21, no. 1 (2019): 4-7.
Farrell, Joseph. “DACA-ptives: On the Moral Quality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 32, no. 1 (2018): 33-47.
Konopasek, Seth. “Examining the Constitutionality of Executive Orders: DACA, DAPA, and the Take Care Clause.” Brigham Young University Prelaw Review 32, no. 1 (2018): 15-25.
Paschero, Sofia, and Jody McBrien. “National Identity and Integration Challenges of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Recipients.” Societies 11, no. 1 (2021): 24-26.
Pope, Nolan G. “The Effects of DACAmentation: The impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on Unauthorized Immigrants.” Journal of Public Economics 143, (2016): 98-114.
Roth, Benjamin J. “The Double Bind of DACA: Exploring the Legal Violence of Liminal Status for Undocumented Youth.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42 no. 15 (2019): 2548-2565.
Umfress, Moriah D. “DACA and Agriculture: Why Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Should Not Be Allowed to End.” Drake J. Agric. L. 23, (2018): 549-556.