Author: Quan Ha

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act, more commonly known as DACA, was introduced during the Obama administration to protect young undocumented immigrants that entered the U.S unlawfully with their parents. Often referred to as “Dreamers,” almost 800,000 of these young immigrants have lived in the United States since 2007. DACA provides temporary protection from deportation for two years, and it can be renewed for a fee of $495. DACA in its current form does not offer a path to citizenship, so Dreamers regularly renew their status.

Individuals that are eligible to apply for DACA must be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2021; have been under the age of 16 when the individual came to the United States; continuously be in the United States from June 15, 2007; be in the United States without authorization; have not been convicted of a felony, and are currently in school or have obtained a GED.

DACA programs grant the status holder temporary protection from deportation for two years. They can apply for a driver’s license, the license however contains a mark to signify that this ID is not valid for federal purposes such as voting. DACA status holders can get a work permit, called an EAD permit, and unlike other work permits, this permit currency does not have a cap for individuals with DACA status. They pay state and federal income taxes. DACA status holders currently do not have a path to citizenship or permanent residency, cannot vote, and cannot receive federal benefits such as Social Security or food stamps. 

DACA Policies in the Past

DACA is an executive order that was implemented by the Obama administration in 2012. Critics of the policy called it “a misuse of presidential power,” as they believed that the order overrode existing immigration law. The Obama Administration then planned to expand the executive order to try to create Deferred Action for Parents of U.S Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) but their actions were halted due to lawsuits from states including Texas. The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Texas was split and the expansion was halted. The Court did not rehear the case and lower courts sided with Texas, agreeing that the expansion overrode immigration laws that were already in place.

In 2017 the Trump Administration intended to phase out the DACA program over a six-month period, when the Justice Department would no longer accept renewal or new applications. However, three U.S district courts from California, New York, and the District of Columbia filed an injunction to halt the plan, based on the belief that terminating DACA was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court sided with the states, ruling that the DACA program was able to stay due to the way the Trump administration had tried to end the program, but did not focus on the merit or the constitutionality of the program. 

The Biden Administration on DACA

Within the first 100 days in office, the Biden Administration signed an executive order to preserve DACA. The executive order stated that DACA recipients are protected from deportation and will remain eligible for work permits. 

The Biden Administration is also assigning more immigration officers to review the backlog of DACA applicants. 81,000 first-time DACA applications and 13,000 DACA renewal requests were filed following the executive order. As of June 2021, more than 33,000 first-time applicants had completed their biometrics and 11,000 applicants have already had appointments. More than 37,000 individuals were waiting to receive an appointment date. 

On January 20, 2021, the Biden administration announced the U.S Citizenship Act of 2021. The act would make 11 million undocumented individuals eligible for various legalization programs to lawfully reside in the U.S. It includes a pathway to lawful permanent residence for DACA recipients. If passed, the act would enable DACA recipients to apply for an adjustment of legal status.  

Arguments in Favor of Biden’s DACA Policy

Some praise DACA and Biden’s efforts to protect the policy, claiming that it protects young individuals and allows them to pursue their educational and professional career goals. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, supports the policy because it gives young people the autonomy to make decisions regarding their education and involvement with serving in the military. A study conducted by Dartmouth University found that enacting DACA improved the attendance and graduation rates of undocumented youth by 40%. In addition, the study found that approximately 49,000 additional undocumented youth received a high school diploma due to DACA’s passage. Overall, DACA has shown to have a positive impact on educational outcomes among undocumented youth. 

A study by the American Action Forum looks at the impact that DACA recipients have on the United States economy. The study found that DACA recipients make positive economic contributions through their presence in the workforce. Over 380,000 DACA recipients are employed. 23% of all DACA workers are employed in the arts and food service industry, contributing an estimated 4 million dollars annually to the United States GDP. In total, employed DACA recipients contribute $41.7 billion annually to the United States GDP.

Arguments Against

Critics of DACA claim that expanding the program to include a pathway to lawful permanent residency rewards illegal immigrants. The Heritage Foundation, for example, thinks that the U.S should focus on immigration laws that prioritize Americans without risking the U.S’s national and economic security. They think that DACA and a possible expansion will result in higher rates of illegal immigration and diminish security at U.S borders which would affect American taxpayers negatively. For instance, the Heritage Foundation believes that undocumented immigrants are costing American taxpayers money through their use of public services such as the fire department, police department, highways, and parks.

Critics also claim that if DACA recipients receive amnesty from the Biden administration, they will take  employment opportunities away from native born U.S residents. A study by the General Accounting Office has shown that the large number of immigrant workforces would depress wages, or lower the wages for U.S-born workers. George J. Boras from Politico states in his article that wage trends have shown that a 10% increase in the number of workers for a certain job area will result in a wage decrease of 3%.

Representatives Linda Sanchez and Bob Menendez formally introduced the 2021 U.S Citizenship Act in February 2021. If passed, the act would establish an additional path to citizenship for immigrants in the United States and create a roadmap to lawful permanent residency for DACA recipients, which the DACA Act of 2012 did not include. 

The 2021 U.S Citizenship Act would create a new residency status called the lawful prospective immigrant visa. Undocumented immigrants would apply for this status and, if approved, would receive work authorization, protection from deportation, social security benefits, and the ability to travel outside the United States. The act will also grant permanent resident status to non-citizens, including DACA recipients, immigrants with temporary protected status, or those who have worked in agricultural labor. 

Employment Reform

The bill would make the current employment cap for immigration more flexible. The Immigration Act of 1990 allowed for 140,000 green cards to be distributed per year. This act would allow the Department of Homeland Security to adjust the yearly cap of employment-based visas based on the macroeconomic conditions of the United States, rather than continuing to keep the annual cap at 140,000. Additionally, it would reintegrate unused visas from the previous year into the yearly cap, and make all unused visas since 1992 available. This would make 157,000 employment-based visas available. Due to annual limits, these visas often go unused. The bill would ensure that these leftover employment visas would be distributed and used. 

The 2021 U.S Citizenship Act seeks to separate employment classes from the yearly employment visa cap. For instance, it aims to allow students in STEM fields that hold an F-1 visa to apply for permanent residency upon receiving their degree instead of having them apply for employment visas. The Center for American Progress found that increasing employment visas could generate 1.7 trillion dollars in the next decade. However, the Bipartisan Policy Center believes that although the bill increases the visa cap, it does not adequately benefit high-skilled immigrants, who are needed for the post-COVID-19 economic recovery. 

Creation of the Lawfully Protected Immigrants Status

The 2021 U.S Citizenship Act would create a class of Lawfully Protected Immigrants (LPI) which would affect 11 million undocumented immigrants and their families. To be eligible, undocumented individuals must have been physically present in the U.S on or before January 1st, 2021. Immigrants who were first responders or were performing essential critical labor services during COVID-19, temporary agricultural workers, and recipients with temporary protected status are also eligible to be a part of the LPI class. The LPI class provides privileges such as being able to remain in the U.S lawfully, being eligible for work authorization, social security benefits, and travel in and out of the United States. 

The Heritage Foundation believes that the LPI status would encourage more undocumented immigrants to illegally enter the United States. It sets a precedent that the United States will provide a path to citizenship and protection for people who choose to enter the United States illegally, making it unfair for those who choose to enter the United States lawfully. They believe that the January 1st, 2021 residency requirement can be hard to enforce since legal documents proving their residency can be forged or tampered. 

Provides a Better Path to Permanent Residence

The act would establish an expedited path to citizenship for DACA recipients, undocumented farmworkers, and holders of temporary protected status. DACA recipients must prove that they entered the U.S when they were younger than 18 and earned a high school diploma or GED. Males over 18 who have volunteered for the selective service also qualify. If a male over 18 years old volunteered for the selective service, they must have either earned a Bachelor’s degree (or higher) or demonstrated earned income for at least three years.

President Biden believes this act will modernize the immigration system and provide a “roadmap” to the permanent residency of undocumented individuals already in the United States. Moreso, it would give a path to citizenship for DACA recipients stuck in limbo since the DACA program currently does not provide one. The bill will also change the wording of immigration laws to no longer use the term “alien” when referring to undocumented individuals but instead opt for the term non-citizen. This word has a neutral connotation, in an attempt to use more inclusive language.

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez believes that this act will prioritize keeping families together. The act will eliminate discrimination in the immigration system as it creates a new definition of spouse to be inclusive of same-sex relationships. A new definition will allow lawful residents to sponsor their partners for immigration regardless of their sexual orientation. The bill will automatically extend citizenship to children with at least one U.S citizen parent regardless of the biological relationship to that parent. This automatic citizenship will change the “jus sanguinis” or birthright citizenship status that has been upheld since 1934, in which a child needs to have a biological connection to the parent, providing that the parents are married.

On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation believes that this act would impose a financial burden on American taxpayers, as the act would allow the Attorney General to appoint a government-funded attorney for undocumented immigrants facing deportation. In addition, they argue that this process could be costly, especially if a case goes to trial. Also, they argue that the $25 application fee surcharge for an immigration counsel is minimal when compared to the attorney fees.