DACA programs Article Essay

User Generated

wznlll

Writing

Description

Answer these questions in paragraph form.

  • Should there be a legal path to citizenship for these undocumented children of illegal immigrants (“Dreamers”)? Why or why not?
  • If you were charged with proposing a solution to this dilemma, what do you think would be the best and most fair way to address this problem? Be sure to provide a detailed step-by-step proposal.

Include quotes from and/or references to at least three (3) of the articles you chose to read for this assignment. Be sure to cite these articles in parenthesis using the last name of the author and the date of the article. See the example: (Smith, John. Jan 01, 2000).

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Here's a look at the DACA program and what happens next for the nearly 800,000 people it covers. WHAT IS DACA? DACA was created by President Barack Obama in 2012 after intense pressure from immigrant advocates who wanted protections for the young immigrants who were raised in the U.S. but lacked legal status. The program protects them from deportation by granting them a two-year reprieve that can be extended and by issuing them work permits and Social Security numbers. DACA recipients must have no criminal record, proof they were brought to the U.S. before age 16 and be under 31 when the program was launched but at least 15 years old when applying. The application cost is nearly $500. The application and renewal process take several weeks. DACA does not give beneficiaries legal U.S. residency. Recipients get temporary reprieves from deportation and permission to temporarily work. WHY DACA? Frustration grew during the Obama administration over repeated failures to pass the "DREAM Act," which would have provided a path to legal U.S. citizenship for the young immigrants who ended up becoming DACA beneficiaries and became known as "Dreamers." The last major attempt to pass the legislation was in 2011. Immigrant activists staged protests and participated in civil disobedience in an effort to push Obama to act after Congress did not pass legislation. DACA is different than the DREAM Act because it does not provide a pathway to legal residency nor citizenship. WHY END DACA? President Donald Trump was under pressure from several states that threatened to sue his administration if it did not end DACA. They argued that the order Obama issued establishing the program was unconstitutional and that Congress should take charge of legislation dealing the issue. Immigrant advocates, business leaders including the chief executives of Apple and Microsoft, clergy and many others put intense pressure on Trump to maintain the program, but he decided to end it. WHAT HAPPENS NOW? Young immigrants already enrolled in DACA remain covered until their permits expire. If their permits expire before March, 5, 2018, they are eligible to renew them for another two years as long as they apply by Oct. 5. If their permits expire beyond that March date, they will not be able to renew and could be subject to deportation when their permits expire. People who miss the October deadline will be disqualified from renewing their permission to remain in the country and could face deportation, although the Trump administration has said it will not actively provide their information to immigration authorities. It will be up to Congress to take up and pass legislation helping DACA beneficiaries. One bill introduced this year would provide a path to legal permanent residency. Many DACA beneficiaries say they worry they will be forced to take lower-wage, under-thetable jobs and will be unable to pay for college or assist their families financially. Credit: Associated Press Illustration Caption: In a Sunday Sept. 3, 2017 photo, Michele Kessler holds a sign of support at a Defered Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA rally on Public Square in Wilkes Barre Pa. President Donald Trump on Tuesday began dismantling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, the government program protecting hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children.(Dave Scherbenco/The Citizens' Voice via AP) Tania Chavez, left, reacts as she listens to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announce the end of the program that protects immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, known as DACA, during a gathering in support of the program, Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2017, in front to the Texas Attorney General's office in Pharr, Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had given the Trump administration until Tuesday to decide if DACA would end or face a legal battle. (Nathan Lambrecht/The Monitor via AP) An unidentified woman holds a sign out her window as she drives through rush hour traffic in Portland, Ore., Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2017. President Donald Trump on Tuesday began dismantling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, the government program protecting hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children. (AP Photo/Don Ryan) The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities issued the following news release: President Trump's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants is harsh and unwarranted. It also makes no economic sense. The young individuals affected, often referred to as "Dreamers," came to the United States as children, have lived and attended school here, and -- like most immigrants -- are already making or are poised to make contributions to the economy. Ending DACA will deprive the economy of valued workers, lose tax revenue, and waste taxpayer dollars on costly and counterproductive immigration enforcement. Ending DACA won't strengthen the economy. To the contrary, it will deprive the economy of valued workers; it will lose tax revenue, worsening government finances; and it will waste taxpayer dollars on costly and counterproductive immigration enforcement. DACA: The Basics The Obama Administration created DACA in 2012 to provide a temporary reprieve from deportation for young unauthorized immigrants who have been largely raised in the United States. Policymakers have long recognized the need to fix the flaw in our immigration system that forces these young people to live under the threat of deportation. Congress, however, has yet to enact either comprehensive immigration reform legislation or narrower measures focused on young immigrants participating in DACA. DACA eligibility is limited to people born after June 15, 1981, who came to the United States before their 16th birthday and have lived here continuously since June 15, 2007. The program requires them to be in school, to have completed high school or a GED, or to have been honorably discharged from the armed forces. They cannot have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors or pose a threat to national security or public safety. And there is a $495 processing fee to apply. Young immigrants who are approved under the DACA program are granted a renewable twoyear deferral of action on deportation and may apply for a work permit. They are not eligible for federal public assistance or student aid. The Trump Administration's action allows a one-time renewal to the minority of participants whose status expires within the next six months, ends deferral altogether for everyone else when their current deferral grant expires, and ends consideration of any new applications immediately. The median age of DACA participants is 25, and the median age when they first entered the country was 6, an August 2017 survey of over 3,000 participants finds. Over 28 percent have a bachelor's degree or higher, including almost 36 percent of those over age 25. Of those still in school, more than 70 percent are pursuing a bachelor's degree or higher. Over 90 percent are employed (many presumably while also still in school), and their median annual earnings are $32,000 ($37,600 for those over age 25).[1] DACA Participants Will Make a Positive Economic Contribution Due to DACA's strict eligibility standards, participants are motivated to complete high school, go to college, and/or serve in the military. Their ability to obtain work permits under DACA allows them to pursue educational opportunities and career choices suited to their talents and ambitions and to be significant economic contributors to their communities.[2] Undocumented immigrants without DACA protection, although also motivated, face more barriers to completing their education and face more limited job opportunities.[3] The current uncertainty about the status of young immigrants participating in DACA harms them and their employers. Uncertainty that discourages people from investing in their future, starting businesses, and finding the best job match for their skills is also bad for the U.S. economy. The Administration's decision to end DACA, and some of the statements surrounding that decision such as those of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, do not comport with the evidence on the economic and fiscal effects of immigration, such as that compiled in a recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) consensus study report.[4] The report finds that "immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the United States." By increasing the size of the labor force, immigrants help offset the effects of an aging native-born population. In addition, high-skilled immigrants add to the nation's stock of human capital, boosting productivity and growth. The NAS report finds scant evidence that immigrants are taking jobs from the native-born on a large scale or driving down their wages. It cites evidence that some native-born high-school dropouts may experience negative wage effects and some native-born teens may experience some reduction in hours worked (but not in employment rates) due to immigration. But it finds that the individuals most likely to experience whatever negative effects there may be are immigrants themselves already working in low-wage jobs in the United States. Moreover, the evidence cited in the NAS report suggests that high-skilled immigrants have a positive effect on earnings and employment of native-born Americans both with and without a college degree. While there have been no studies that directly examine the economic impact of the young immigrants participating in DACA, their motivation and qualifications suggest they will not only boost economic growth by increasing the size of the labor force, but that their investments in their own human capital also will boost productivity. Notwithstanding this evidence, in announcing the Trump Administration's intention to wind down DACA, Attorney General Jeff Sessions alleged that DACA "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens."[5] Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders implied that DACA was responsible for higher unemployment among African Americans and Hispanics of the same age.[6] These comments reflect an assumption widely rejected by economists, and inconsistent with the evidence on immigration, that there is only a fixed number of jobs to go around. In fact, the main reason why immigration has a positive effect on economic growth is that immigrants are both workers and consumers. A larger working-age population means the economy can produce more goods and services and support a higher level of aggregate demand for those goods and services. Moreover, DACA participants are likely to be among the higher-skilled group of immigrants whom the National Academy report finds may raise the wages of both higher- and lower-skilled native-born workers. Responding to the Administration's comments, former Congressional Budget Office Director and Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin observed that there is no compelling proof that immigration, authorized or not, "squeezes out native-born workers in any systematic way."[7] Indeed, employers have added nearly 190,000 jobs a month to their payrolls over the past 90 months, and the unemployment rate has been under 5 percent for the last 16 months; it was 4.4 percent in August.[8] While there is some evidence that additional workers still can be drawn back into the labor force, DACA participants have not impeded the labor market recovery from the Great Recession because, with their education and skills, they are not generally in direct competition for jobs with older dislocated workers or younger low-wage workers who might still be struggling to find jobs. Deporting DACA Participants Will Lose Government Revenue DACA participants are, or soon will be, members of the workforce and taxpayers. Deporting them will produce a net drain on government finances. The National Academy report includes the results of a number of analyses of the net fiscal impact of immigrant and native-born populations (taxes paid by them less government expenditures made on their behalf). These analyses require a number of assumptions and should be interpreted with caution. Net fiscal impact is not the criterion by which we judge people's value, and estimating net fiscal impact -- especially at the state and local level -- is fraught with conceptual and methodological difficulties. Subject to those caveats, the report finds that people born in the United States to immigrant parents had, on average, a more favorable net impact as adults on all levels of government finances than either their parents' generation or the rest of the native-born population, largely because they had slightly higher educational attainment and higher taxable incomes and thus paid more in taxes on a per capita basis during their working years. Simulations of the effect of immigrants with the average characteristics of recent immigrants on future budgets have reached a similar conclusion. As immigrants with above-average skills who have been here at least since 2007 and spent much of their childhoods in the United States, DACA participants as a group are likely to have many of the same economic outcomes as children who are born in the United States to immigrant parents -- and thus to contribute both to stronger economic growth and to government finances. On average, they are old enough that state and local governments have already incurred the cost of their education, and as workers they will be net tax contributors at all levels of government. Estimates from the Cato Institute[9] and the Center for American Progress[10] indicate that eliminating DACA could cost the economy several hundred billion dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next decade. Less GDP means less government tax revenue, and any offsetting reductions in spending on DACA participants would likely be much smaller than the revenue loss. Thus, repealing DACA would worsen government finances at all levels. Deporting DACA Participants Wastes Taxpayer Dollars Finally, ending DACA does nothing to increase border security or to locate and deport dangerous criminals. Contrary to Trump Administration rhetoric, immigrants generally are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens,[11] and those with serious criminal records are ineligible for DACA. Brookings Institution researchers estimate that the cost to arrest and deport an undocumented individual is $12,500, and that the cost across all DACA participants would be larger than the entire current Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget of $5 billion. The Brookings authors emphasize that the human cost of the decision is its most important price tag, but they also argue that it is fiscally irresponsible.[12] President Obama made a similar point when he created DACA: "We [have] focused and used discretion about whom to prosecute, focusing on criminals who endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education. And today, deportation of criminals is up 80 percent. We've improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. Well, today, we're improving it again."[13] For all these reasons, the decision to end DACA is economically foolhardy. It appeals to antiimmigrant sentiment with economic arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. Repealing DACA would hurt the economy and government finances and waste taxpayer dollars deporting contributing members of our communities without making the country any safer. Footnotes: [1] Tom K. Wong, "Results from Tom K. Wong1 et al., 2017 National DACA Study," Center for American Progress, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2017/08/27164928/WongEt-Al-New-DACA-Survey-2017-Codebook.pdf. This is an online survey, and although steps were taken to account for some well-known biases in such surveys, it is impossible to compute margins of error around the results, as the author acknowledges. [2] Tom K. Wong et al., "DACA Recipients' Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow," Center for American Progress, August 28, 2017, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/28/437956/daca-recipientseconomic-educational-gains-continue-grow/. [3] Erica Williams et al., "For States, Inclusive Approach to Unauthorized Immigrants Can Help Build Better Economies," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 29, 2015, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/for-states-inclusive-approach-tounauthorized-immigrants-can-help. [4] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, 2017, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-andfiscal-consequences-of-immigration. The Academy defines a consensus study report as one that documents the evidence-based consensus on the issue at hand by an authoring committee of experts. [5] Office of Public Affairs, "Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on DACA," U.S. Department of Justice, September 5, 2017, https://www-justicegov.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-daca. [6] Tracy Jan, "White House claims 'dreamers' take jobs away from blacks and Hispanics. Here's the truth," Washington Post, September 6, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/06/white-house-claims-dreamerstake-jobs-away-from-blacks-and-hispanics-heres-the-truth/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-topstories_dacalawsuit-450pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.618a7256c8f5. [7]Ibid. [8] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Chart Book: The Legacy of the Great Recession," updated September 12, 2017, https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/chart-book-the-legacy-ofthe-great-recession. [9] Ike Brannon, "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Repealing DACA," Cato Institute, January 18, 2017, https://www-cato-org.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/blog/economic-fiscal-impact-repealingdaca [10] Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Tom Jawetz, and Angie Bautista-Chavez, "A New Threat to DACA Could Cost States Billions of Dollars," Center for American Progress, July 21, 2017, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/07/21/436419/new-threatdaca-cost-states-billions-dollars/. [11] Richard Perez-Pena, "Contrary to Trump's Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes," New York Times, January 26, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trumpillegal-immigrants-crime.html?mcubz=0. [12] John Hudak and Elaine Kamarck, "The mind-boggling cost of DACA repeal," The Brookings Institution, September 7, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/07/the-mind-boggling-cost-of-daca-repeal/. [13] Office of the Press Secretary, "Remarks by the President on Immigration," The White House, June 15, 2012, https://obamawhitehouse-archives-gov.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/the-pressoffice/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration. MSTRUCK-6009611 MSTRUCK Word count: 2070 Copyright © Targeted News Service. All Rights Reserved. THE MEDIA: Announcement rescinding DACA on Sept. 5. WHO SAID IT: Jeff Sessions. TITLE: U.S. Attorney General. PARTY: Republican. THE COMMENT: "(DACA) also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens." WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT: Whether or not Americans were denied jobs because of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients. ANALYSIS: As he announced on Tuesday that the federal government would phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Americans have been denied jobs because of qualified DACA recipients. The Obama-era program offers temporary deportation protection and work permits to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The program applied to those who entered the U.S. before turning 16, were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and have lived in the U.S. since June 15, 2007. Further, applicants must be enrolled in school or have a high school diploma or equivalency and no felony convictions or no significant misdemeanors to qualify. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders clarified Sessions' statement at a press briefing later that day, saying "it's a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients." Sanders' unemployment figures add up, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey. Though Sanders didn't specify the age range in the briefing, bureau data released Sept. 1 showed there are 3,725,000 unemployed youth from ages 16-34. And there are nearly 700,000 DACA recipients who are employed, according to research by the Center for American Progress. But the question is, are those DACA recipients taking jobs away from citizens? Research offers contradictory answers. A Department of Justice official referred to an Aug. 3 National Review article arguing DACA's negative impact on native-born youth unemployment. "But giving work permits to illegal immigrants makes it possible for them to seek employment in almost any job," the article states. "So the competition with less-educated natives will hit occupations that until now were mostly unaffected." The article also cites research by the Center for Immigration Studies, which compares immigrant employment rates to native-born employment rates and shows an increase in immigrant employment rates since DACA's implementation. Steven Camarota, the director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, said that while the research shows an increase in immigrant employment rates, "it's hard to know" whether immigrants are taking opportunities away from native-born workers. "There is certainly evidence to that effect," Camarota said about Sessions' statement. "But it's still being debated." Other reports reveal how DACA is beneficial to overall employment. Recently released CAP research showed that DACA recipients' legal employment status has a positive economic impact that creates jobs for others. Tom Wong, an associate political-science professor at the University of California-San Diego who worked on the research, said DACA recipients "are not in the traditionally skilled industries," meaning blue-collar jobs, because they must have a high-school diploma to qualify and many are pursuing college and graduate degrees. "We're talking about a lot of folks who are aspiring doctors, engineers, and scientists," Wong said. "So when we think about DACA recipients in the workforce, then we're talking about white-collar workers." Additional research by the Migration Policy Institute compares the number of DACA recipients in the same industries as native-born workers. MPI's research shows that the DACA program allowed for greater job distribution in the economy because education became more accessible for recipients. The research found "sizable numbers" of recipients in white-collar or higher skilled jobs that would have been unattainable without the program. Wong argues that Sessions' statement is incorrect because DACA recipients are moving into industries where there's already a shortage of qualified workers. "In those white-collar types of fields, labor shortages abound," Wong said. "So the argument that these folks are taking jobs away from Americans doesn't really jibe when some of these industries, in particular health, are plagued by laborer shortages, not surpluses." BOTTOM LINE: Sessions' claim that the DACA program has denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans doesn't have definitive support, nor is there definitive data proving otherwise. Due to the conflicting evidence, this statement is rated inconclusive. THE FINDING: No stars: Inconclusive. SOURCES: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services data, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigrat ion%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/daca_performancedata_fy2017_qtr2.pdf; Bureau of Labor Statistics data, https://www-blsgov.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/web/empsit/cpseea13.pdf; research by the Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/education-and-work-profiles-daca-population; "Time to End DACA," National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450080/obamas-illegalamnesty-trump-should-end-daca; Data from the Center for Immigration Studies; interview with researcher and UCSD associate professor Tom Wong; correspondence with the Department of Justice. Word count: 735 Copyright 2017 - Arizona Republic - All Rights Reserved
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

please find the attached files. i look forward to working with you again. good bye

Running head: DACA PROGRAMS

1

DACA programs
Name
Tutor
Institution
Course
Date

DACA PROGRAMS

2

Should there be a legal path to citizenship for these undocumented children of illegal
immigrants? Why or why not?
Yes. There should be a legal path to citizenship for “Dreamers”. Dreamers are young
immigrants who came to America before they were the age of 18 years and they have been raised
in the States but they don’t have any legal permits. It is not their faults that these children were
brought to the country illegally. Most of these children do not have crime records so it would be
very unfair for the government to deport these children, since they are hardworking and they will
help in building the nation (Jan, Sept 6, 2017).
Proposal to solve this dilemma
Legal citizenship platform
Children who were brought to the country illegally when they were under the age of 6
and have lived in the country for more than 7 years should be allowed legal citizenship through
the Dream act. Children who were also born to an illegal immigran...


Anonymous
Really helped me to better understand my coursework. Super recommended.

Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags