During the presidency of Obama, there was a policy named Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allowed immigrant children who came to the United States to work legally and stay there. Children who fulfilled the criteria were given a deferral of deportation for 2 years; before it expired, it could also be renewed. Children who were brought to the US illegally were given renewable 2-year deferrals from deportation, which made them eligible to work in the US. DACA doesn’t provide a path to citizenship for immigrants, whereas the DREAM Act gives this opportunity. On June 15, 2012, former President Barack Obama announced this policy, and on August 15, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) started accepting applications for the program.
Eligibility Requirements for DACA
The following criteria must be met to be authorized for the DACA program:
• As of June 15, 2012, the applicant’s age should have been less than 31, and the minimum age at application was 15 (those under 15 were unauthorized immigrants but were eligible to apply if they were in removal proceedings).
• Since June 15, 2007, the person should have resided in the US without legal status.
• The person should have arrived in the United States before the age of 16.
• He/she must not have been convicted of any serious misdemeanors or felonies and must not pose a risk to national security.
• The applicant must have obtained a general development certificate (GED), graduated from high school, been honorably discharged as a veteran, or been enrolled in school.
Trump Administration’s Attempt to End DACA
Last September, Trump’s government placed this program into a situation of uncertainty. First, it declared the end of the DACA program, stating that from March 5, everyone would be removed from the program and no more applications would be accepted. Although various temporary court verdicts earlier that year blocked the termination of the program, they still let recipients continue applying for renewal of their status, just as they had under the presidency of Obama.
Arguments Against Executive Immigration Relief
Although Obama faced a lot of harsh criticism over this announcement, he also had millions of people who were happy with this decision. Many objected that this decision seized congressional authority, surpassed executive powers, and exceeded federal statutory boundaries. The opposition argued that these immigration policies were misguided; they argued that providing forgiveness to unauthorized immigrants would encourage more foreigners to enter the United States illegally. In 2014, when protection was provided by Obama’s DACA program, critics charged that it generated chaos by encouraging parents in America to send their children north. Opponents of Obama’s step argued that enhanced border security must come before any other immigration reform. At the time, many Americans were facing unemployment and difficulties in finding a job. This gave opponents a basis for criticizing Obama for promoting policies that gave an undocumented person the right to work. Critics claimed that future presidents would continue to use the power of their office, as Obama used executive action.
The Case for Compassionate Immigration Reform
On the other hand, some people were waiting for the complete implementation of reform because they were disappointed that it had not progressed further. They commented that bold steps needed to be taken regarding the country’s deportation and immigration policies, which immigrants resisted and viewed as callous and cruel. They also commented that the policy was compassionate toward immigrants and good for the US as a whole. They stated that this action not only keeps families together but also implements immigration laws in such a way that it protects the security of our nation and the safety of the public. Not only will it strengthen our nation’s economy by providing new jobs, but it will also permit immigrant families to take part in the growth of the country that they call their homeland. They also mentioned that it was a constitutional move by Obama, pointing to the fact that it is a president’s responsibility to decide how to implement the law in the country. They also claimed that Republicans had no basis for criticism because, for many years, they had obstructed congressional efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform (Immigration and Executive Action).
Who DACA Recipients Are
According to the Migration Policy Institute, there were nearly 700,000 DACA recipients, of whom students made up 40%; the program was a lifeline for this important group. This policy made higher education more attainable, and among DACA recipients, many of these students were the first in their families to attend college; men had jobs, whereas women were in colleges or high schools. These women were normally home-based workers. Compared with undocumented women, those who were eligible for DACA were more likely to join the workforce. Whereas the bulk of DACA recipients came from Latin America and Mexico, others were from the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and other parts of the world. Seven hundred fifty thousand people applied for DACA, of whom 730,000 applicants were accepted by December 2016. Yet 1.3 million people living in the US were immediately eligible for the program. Several DACA recipients didn’t apply for the program because they were scared that an aggressive government might not follow this policy, or that a new administration might remove DACA and use the information provided to track these immigrants and deport them from the country. Suppose DACA were withdrawn; over 730,000 vetted, contributing members of our communities, including some professionals, would be subject to possible deportation. In this case, these DACA youth might be separated from their families and deported to their homelands, which they may not even remember (JFI).
Employment and Career Advancement
To assist DACA recipients in participating in the labor force more effectively, it is important for them to be allowed work authorization. Dorantesan (2016) found in a survey of DACA recipients that 91 percent of them were currently employed. Among the respondents, 69% reported moving to a better-paying job after receiving DACA and also reported better job and career satisfaction as a whole. The study also found that 5% of the respondents launched their own small businesses after receiving DACA. The percentage of economic activity grew with age.
Income Growth and Family Support
In general, the rate of starting one’s own business in the US is about 3.1 percent; however, among DACA recipients above the age of 25, it was close to 8 percent, showing the benefits of the DACA program in economically uplifting people and communities. The data from the survey also demonstrated that people’s wages had improved after receiving DACA, with about 70 percent of respondents reporting a significant increase. Furthermore, the people surveyed reported that their annual earnings reached up to 36,000 dollars, which increased with the respondents’ age. It is important to note that higher annual wages and earnings are not just beneficial for DACA recipients or their families but also for overall economic growth and revenue generation at the state and federal levels. With improved financial conditions and earnings that lead to economic independence and prosperity, it is evident how registering for DACA affected immigrants’ lives and, in turn, helped the US economy grow. In the same survey, about 71% reported that they were able to better support their families financially through increased earnings. The percentage rose to about 75 percent for respondents who were 25 and above. It is evident that DACA recipients experienced better purchasing power.
Purchasing Power, Homeownership, and Education
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents in the 2017 study were found to have purchased their first car, which cost an average of close to $17,000. It is important to note that these purchases are beneficial for state revenue because the state collects a certain amount from the purchase as sales tax, along with a title fee and an additional registration fee. Another benefit is that more insured and licensed drivers are on the roads, which further adds to the state’s revenue. Furthermore, after receiving DACA, about 16 percent of the respondents in the survey reported purchasing their first home, which grew to 24 percent among those who were 25 years old and above. This further increases overall economic activity and leads to job creation and more local spending. Moreover, the data also showed that among the top 25 companies in the US included in the Fortune 500, giants such as Apple, Amazon, Walmart, and JPMorgan Chase were employing DACA recipients. The total annual revenue of these companies alone accounts for $2.8 trillion. Among those who were surveyed, 45 percent were in school, of whom 72 percent would go on to pursue a higher degree or a bachelor’s degree (Tom K. Wong). Another study also concluded that household poverty among individuals eligible for DACA was reduced by as much as 38 percent as a result of the program, which suggests that even temporary authorization programs can lead to economic improvement, not just for these migrants but for the general economy as well (Catalina Amuedo Dorantes).
Mental Health Benefits of DACA
In another study, additional benefits of the DACA program included meaningful reductions in psychological distress among individuals who were eligible for DACA. The study found that the mental health effects were clinically significant. The odds of individuals reporting moderate or worse psychological distress decreased as the DACA program expanded to include them. These secondary benefits act in conjunction with the economic benefits but have often been underappreciated. However, these overall benefits of the DACA program can be useful in guiding ongoing policy debates, not only in shaping future US immigration policy but also policy in Europe, which is facing an undocumented migrant crisis of its own in some parts (Atheendar S Venkataraman).
Economic Losses From Revocation
Most of the arguments in favor of repealing DACA center on the economic point of view. However, it is interesting to note that studies from both conservative and liberal think tanks have pointed out the economic losses that could result from mass deportation should DACA be revoked. Texas and California, for instance, are projected to lose from 6 to 11 billion dollars each year if the workers are deported. Brannon (2017) estimated in a study that the federal government may lose up to 60 billion dollars in revenue in just a decade, with a reduction in economic growth estimated to reach as much as $280 billion. Although the amount may seem small compared with the federal budget and giant state economies, it carries a significant impact on local communities (Ike Brannon). Furthermore, a noticeable effect would be seen in many industries, as most people who are eligible for DACA tend to be employed in sectors such as food sales and services.
National GDP and Industry Effects of Mass Deportation
On the other hand, if the program does not end, then more people could potentially enter it. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the number could grow to 1.9 million people who would be eligible for DACA as young children age into it. A mass deportation policy could lead to a reduction in the nation’s GDP of 1.4 to 2.6 percent and potentially affect cumulative GDP by $4.7 trillion over 10 years. The long-term effects could be even larger as capital would adjust downward, leading people in the farming sector, for example, to sell off assets per worker. A national employment reduction could be similar to that experienced during the Great Recession if 7 million unauthorized workers were deported. Moreover, mass deportation would cost the federal government nearly $900 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. Industries could see a substantial reduction in their workforces. Industries such as construction, agriculture, hospitality, and leisure have higher concentrations of these workers and could specifically be hit by the move, as workforce reductions could be near 20%.
State-Level Economic Damage
It is also predicted that the state GDP in California could ultimately fall by $103 billion due to mass deportation if DACA is revoked, followed by New York, Texas, and New Jersey as the effects become more widespread (Ryan Edwards).
Mental Health Consequences of Rescinding DACA
Besides adversely affecting people economically, there is evidence to suggest that revoking DACA would have profound effects on people’s mental health. These effects may be enhanced by the political climate, which is becoming increasingly hostile to immigrants. As the Trump administration, besides contemplating revoking DACA, seeks to toughen immigration policies even more by banning specific groups of the population and tightening border security, the risk of deportation becomes increasingly high for Dreamers and their families. The adverse mental health consequences will be difficult to address through public health systems and formal healthcare. It will also reduce people’s chances of obtaining help from nurses, physicians, or social workers for their mental health problems, given their fears of falling under scrutiny amid increasingly strict measures. This can lead to isolation and fear, which can, in turn, make it difficult to deploy mental health treatments when people need them the most (Atheendar S. Venkataramani).
Political Uncertainty and the Future of Dreamers
So far, the situation continues to be unclear and could head in either direction. The Democrats continue their support of the DACA program, allied with a few moderate Republicans. But the majority of Republicans have not moved from their stance, with many hardline conservatives strongly advocating President Trump’s plans. The result of dismantling and revoking the program could lead the “dreamers” to once again become undocumented immigrants and lose their health insurance, work permits, and driver’s licenses, among other benefits. So far, however, renewals under the DACA program are still being processed by immigration officials due to court injunctions. It remains to be seen what the future holds for the dreamers.
Works Cited
Atheendar S Venkataramani, Sachin J Shah, Rourke O’Brien, Prof Ichiro Kawachi, Alexander C Tsai. “Health consequences of the US Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration programme: a quasi-experimental study.” The Lancet Public Health 2.4 (2017): 175-181.
Atheendar S. Venkataramani, Alexander C. Tsai. “Dreams Deferred — The Public Health Consequences of Rescinding DACA.” The New England Journal of Medicine 377 (2017): 1707-1709.
Catalina Amuedo Dorantes, Francisca Antman. “Can authorization reduce poverty among undocumented immigrants? Evidence from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.” Economics Letters 147 (2016): 1-4.
Ike Brannon, Logan Albright. The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Repealing DACA. 17 January 2017. 21 April 2018. <https://www.cato.org/blog/economic-fiscal-impact-repealing-daca>.
Immigration and Executive Action. “Issues & Controversies: Were President Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration appropriate?” Facts on File, 2015. <https://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?>.
Ryan Edwards, Francesc Ortega. The Economic Impacts of Removing Unauthorized Immigrant Workers: An Industry- and State-Level Analysis. 21 September 2016. 21 April 2018. <https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2016/09/21/144363/the-economic-impacts-of-removing-unauthorized-immigrant-workers/>.
Tom K. Wong, Greisa Martinez Rosas, Adam Luna, Henry Manning, Adrian Reyna, Patrick O’Shea, Tom Jawetz, Philip E. Wolgin. DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow. 28 August 2017. 21 April 2018. <https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/28/437956/daca-recipients-economic-educational-gains-continue-grow/>.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
