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.
The article by Pope (2016) examines the effects of DACA on unauthorized migrants on several parameters, such as labor market outcomes, unemployment, income, and legalization of work. It uses a difference-in-differences design, where some groups are applied treatment, while others are not. It is similar to control groups and is a reliable design for unbiased results. Pope (2016) does not state any conflicts of interest or received support for his research from politically engaged parties, making the likelihood of personal bias low. His findings indicate that DACA had positive labor market outcomes. Unemployment in DACA recipients went down as more of them were moved into the legal field. Their incomes rose, especially in the bottom bracket, and between 50,000 to 75,000 people were moved into legal work (Pope, 2016). Therefore, it could be concluded that in the field of improving labor and income situation among migrants, DACA is an efficient solution. However, the article does not represent other facets of migrants and overall pictures affected by DACA, which is a limitation of the paper.
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.
Amuendo-Dorantes and Antman (2016) evaluate the effect of DACA on families with eligible heads in regards to poverty, going in depth regarding the concept as first discussed by Pope (2016). The research also uses a difference-in-difference approach, which seems to be a standard tool for these sorts of inquiries, to discover how much the situation improved compared to the control group. In this case, the likelihood of poverty developing among the families with recipients of DACA decreased by 38% (Amuendo-Dorantes & Antman 2016). This shows the economic feasibility of DACA in improving the situation of migrant families and having them support themselves through legitimate work. The limitations of the research stem from a lack of clarity in whether there was a correlation or causation between the outlined factors.
Brannon, Ike, and Kevin McGee. “Would Suspending DACA Withstand a Benefit-Cost Analysis.” Regulation 41, (2018): 4.
Brannon and McGee (2018) investigate the possibility of eliminating DACA due to it being politically unsustainable from the perspective of certain political parties. In order to calculate the economic costs of such motions, they analyzed current DACA participant profiles using the Dream.us database and predicted their future economic and educational paths. Based on their calculations, DACA participants would earn around 102 billion in total federal revenue, whereas removing the legal protections would result in a decline to about 30 billion in the next decade (Brannon & McGee, 2018). The article, thus, offers a solid economic incentive to keep DACA around. The limitation of the article, however, lies in the process of predicting future economic success. It is difficult to accurately make these estimations due to a plethora of associated factors.
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.
The article by Paschero and McBrien (2021) discusses the challenges to the national identity and integration of DACA recipients into society. One of the arguments against DACA is that children that receive working permits and other benefits do not fully integrate into society due to various internalized issues (Paschero & McBrien 2021). However, the article discovers that the majority of problems associated with identification and integration into society stemmed from various discriminatory practices (Paschero & McBrien 2021). Obtaining a driver’s license, financial aid, and higher education were among the primary reasons for complicated integration. The research utilizes in-depth semi-structured interviews as a data collection method (Paschero & McBrien 2021). It allows for bias to be present in the findings, but it was largely mitigated by cross-checking with other resources. Overall, this source gives enough supportive evidence to demonstrate that the problem with integrating DACA recipients lies not within the targeted social group.
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.
Konopasek (2018) evaluates DACA and DAPA through the lens of constitutionality and asserts that DACA is constitutional, whereas DAPA is not. His argument lies in his interpretation of the Constitution, the Take Care Clause, and the actions taken under executive orders under both Obama and Trump (Konopasek 2018). He asserts that DAPA was made possible only because of the death of one of the Supreme Court Justices and the following deadlock between the remaining ones (Konopasek 2018). The article gives good reasoning and quotes legal documents as well as cites the Youngstown precedent to support its case (Konopasek 2018). The document’s limitations lie in the fact that it is opinion-based and does not provide enough investigation into the opposing points of view.
Di Bartolo, Isha Marina. “Immigration, DACA, and Health Care.” AMA Journal of Ethics 21, no. 1 (2019): 4-7.
Di Bartolo (2019) investigates the moral perspectives of DACA based on immigration conditions and healthcare. From several ethical frameworks that he examines, DACA appears to be a moral choice, as it does not implicitly break any laws and allows for a greater amount of good to be produced overall (Di Bartolo 2019). It provides DACA recipients and their families with protection and also improves their healthcare situation by offering access to better facilities (Di Bartolo 2019). The ethical justification for retroactively legalizing the presence of unlawful aliens is done under the incremental framework, since undoing the entirety of the migrant population by sending them back home would collapse the country’s economy and undermine the societal norms the country was built upon (Di Bartolo 2019). The limitations of the article lie in their interpretations of ethics, making the presence of bias inherent in the paper.
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.
Farrell (2018) also investigates the moral dilemma of repealing DACA and deporting the recipients of such from the US. The article is based on legal versus virtue ethical frameworks, the discussion revolving around the legal and moral rights for the proposed actions. Farrell (2018) concedes that it is within the nation’s legal right to deport individuals and families that have broken the law by entering the US illegally. However, both virtue and legal frameworks highlight the issue of the children in question – they are captives of their parents’ decisions with no way to influence the process. DACA is presented as a virtuous solution to solve the legal and moral uncertainties. The limitation of this article, as is with any ethical analysis, is in the scope of the writer’s interpretation of frameworks, but the arguments offered are in line with some of the other sources viewed in the scope of this paper, such as Di Bartolo (2019).
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.
The article by Umfress (2018) discusses DACA through the lens of agriculture, which is one of the most strategically important industries in the US, especially for its southern states, which have a largely agriculture-based economy. Umfress’ (2018) literature review highlights several important aspects of DACA and the economy in general. The first point made is that repealing DACA or otherwise obstructing it had severe repercussions throughout the sector, as DACA recipients were connected to families that relied upon them. Second, work in agriculture is labeled as a low-skill employment opportunity, thus not affecting American citizens, who have state support and opportunities to find better employment. Third, Umfress (2018) argues against the zero-sum approach to the labor market by stating that the number of jobs in the US has been growing steadily since 2010, meaning that there is enough for everyone. While the article has a solid evidence base from previous works, some of the interpretations are suspected of bias. Namely, the number of jobs increasing since 2010 can be offset by population growth, thus allowing the zero-sum argument to retain some of its validity.
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.
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.
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.