Skip to main content

The Fight over DACA Makes Home Hostile for Young Immigrants

As part of the deal ending January’s government shutdown, Congress has until February 8th to strike a deal on immigration. Hanging in the balance are the fates of nearly 700,000 young people now at risk of deportation after the Trump administration announced the phasing out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) last fall. In his State of the Union Address on January 30, Donald Trump reiterated his plan to grant assistance if his long-promised border wall receives funding. Democrats insist on unconditional relief. Known as “Dreamers,” these immigrants are too important for Congress to relegate them to political pawns. Instead, they should regain legal status with a path to citizenship.


The Obama administration created DACA in 2012 to buy time for some undocumented immigrants while Congress developed comprehensive immigration reform. Under certain conditions, DACA allowed people who illegally entered the country as children to receive official documentation. Through this program, Dreamers could go to school, work, have a driver’s license, own a home, and pay taxes. Although DACA did not offer a path to immigration, it did allow migrants to make a life for themselves in the only home most of them have known.


When approval for a DACA recipient expires (after March 6 for most in the program), that person is considered “unlawfully present.” If the immigrant works, she legally must be fired; if she is a student, she must lose federal financial aid; and if she happens to be a homeowner, she must move out.


In theory, former DACA recipients will pack up and move back home. This very notion fails to appreciate who Dreamers are. DACA affects undocumented immigrants who crossed the border as children, almost always brought by their parents. Although they may have been born in another country, DACA recipients grew up, went to school, and worked in the United States. Their “native” nation is often more foreign to them in the United States. Subjecting former recipients to deportation is not simply a matter of making them return home; it forces them to abandon the life they built and start anew in a land of strangers. Because home is the United States for most Dreamers, the majority will likely choose to remain in the country and hope they do not run into trouble.


Unfortunately for former DACA recipients, trouble has become much harder to avoid. Since the Trump administration took office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has increased arrests by over 40 percent. Most of that increase is due to a shift in focus that came with the changing of the guard. Under the Obama Administration, ICE focused resources on detaining undocumented immigrants with criminal activity. Since President Trump took office, ICE has shown little regard for the civility of the undocumented immigrant, arresting nearly three times more non-criminal persons in 2017 than it did in 2016. With a backlog of over 650,000 cases, detained migrants have little hope of a speedy judicial resolution.


These changes in immigration policy can be difficult for a native-born American to comprehend. Imagine: one year you may happily be advancing in your career, and the next you are quite literally a fugitive from the law.


Indiana’s legislators are divided on immigration, but they must prioritize DACA recipients in the spending bill debate. Indiana is home to nearly 10,000 young immigrants who have used DACA to live, learn, and work legally. Although the majority of Hoosiers want to reduce immigration, DACA recipients in Indiana have been productive, contributing over a half billion dollars to state GDP and paying over $20 million in state and local taxes. Some Hoosiers, such as Representative Todd Rokita, see immigration as a positive but are concerned that DACA incentivizes migrants to cross the border illegally. Since DACA’s establishment, however, illegal immigration rates have dropped, so other factors appear more influential on a family’s decision to migrate. Even if reducing illegal immigration was the primary concern of DACA reform, repeal is misguided.


Dreamers did not choose to immigrate illegally, and repealing DACA would make them outlaws in their own land, increasing illegal immigration to boot.


A number of Indiana legislators praised President Trump’s repeal of DACA as a restoration of constitutional authority, assuring constituents that Congress had plenty of time to create a permanent, comprehensive immigration solution. The time has come for legislators to demonstrate the leadership they promised six months ago and pass humane immigration reform. Granting legal status to children of undocumented immigrants is a no-brainer, and creating a path to citizenship for them would be better still. There is no reason for young immigrants to be political pawns. All Americans benefit when we treat Dreamers like the neighbors they are.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to Create a Drug Crisis

Three months after declaring the opioid crisis a national emergency , President Trump declared during his first State of the Union that the United States would beat the epidemic by getting “much tougher on drug dealers and pushers.” Such combative rhetoric draws attention away from the real narrative behind America’s biggest drug epidemic: bad government policy catering to special interests. The Rise and Fall of OxyContin Prior to the 1990s, doctors generally viewed opioids as a last resort due to their addictive properties . Two medical perspectives shifted . First, a 1992 federal report concluded that fear of opioid addiction prevented too many patients from receiving the pain relief they needed. Around the same time, medical professionals began to accept chronic pain as a legitimate reason for treatment, with or without the presence of other symptoms. The resulting medical paradigm shift led to a spike in the demand for painkillers, and pharmaceutical companies raced to

Syrian Missile Strikes are About Brand, Not Strategy

The United States, along with France and the United Kingdom, launched missile strikes against Syria on April 7. In a prepared statement, President Trump declared these strikes were a “deterrent” in response to a poison gas attack in Douma, a city a few miles northeast of Damascus, that killed hundreds of civilians. President Trump also stated these attacks were vital to U.S. security. But without a long-term plan, the strikes raise more questions about the United States’ foreign policy strategy than answers. Earlier in April, Trump ordered the removal of troops from Syria, but there is no indication of how the U.S. expects to administer this policy after the strike. Given how little foreign intervention has impacted Syria’s civil war, it is unlikely that these strikes will alter the course of the conflict that has claimed and displaced hundreds of thousands of lives since 2011. It’s much more likely that these high-profile strikes are more effective in shaping the Trump admin

With New Tax Deduction Law, High-Tax States Even Costlier

A recent study published by the Cato Institute suggests the new GOP tax reform will add pressure to state governments with high taxes. Among the numerous reforms in the recent Republican-backed tax law is a $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. Before the tax reforms, there was no limit to the amount of state and local taxes people could deduct from their federal taxes. The study suggests that since the SALT deduction cap went into effect, states with higher tax rates have experienced higher out-migration rates. Understanding why this out-migration exists and what it means for state and local tax policy first requires an understanding of some public finance theory. Unlike goods and services produced by private business, though, determining the “price” for government services is not straightforward. A restaurant can look at a balance sheet and find when a price is too high for its burgers or when it can charge more for fries. A state cannot so easily isolate when