By Maeve Breathnach
The Obama-Trump transition involved numerous policy shifts. President Trump’s cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program marks one of the most controversial. This Obama-era policy allows undocumented students who entered the United States as children to temporarily defer deportation proceedings and gain a work permit. Other benefits include the ability to obtain a driver’s license and to leave the country on “advance parole” for study abroad or family emergencies and return lawfully. After receiving DACA status, recipients must reapply every two years.
On Sept. 5, 2017, the White House announced the end of DACA on the grounds the Obama administration overstepped its authority in creating the policy. With the reversal, the White House gave a six-month grace period for Congress to pass a measure either saving the policy or creating a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Experts on immigration policy found Congress’ failure to meet the deadline unsurprising. Lower courts, however, blocked the decision on the grounds that the way in which Trump terminated the program is unlawful. Judges ruled that President Trump did not provide sufficient reasoning for cancelling the now seven-year-old policy. There are too many reliant on the program to cancel it suddenly. Thanks to the legal disagreements, current DACA recipients can continue renewing their status, but United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) no longer accepts new applicants nor allows for advance parole.
Due to the lower courts’ decision to block the cancelation, the future of DACA now lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. Hearings began on Nov. 12, and the public can expect to hear a decision anytime within the first six months of next year, but most likely in June 2020.
Overall, there are a multitude of potential outcomes for the case. DACA recipients and allies would prefer that the court rule President Trump’s cancellation of DACA unlawful. In this case, the program could potentially function as it did pre-cancellation, meaning new applications and travel with advance parole could resume. The Trump administration would most desire that the court find DACA itself unlawful and that President Obama overstepped. In this case, USCIS would not accept new applicants nor renewals. Non-expired DACA status and work permits could potentially be rescinded.
A declaration of the legality of DACA and the nature of its cancellation, however, may not even arise. The court could decide it cannot review the administration’s decision on the grounds that it lacks the legal authority to judge “the executive branch’s discretionary decisions.” Both Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch have made comments regarding this concern.
Considering these comments and the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, pro-DACA advocates may feel unoptimistic. In addition to Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch’s voiced opinions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh do not seem likely to save the program. The Chief Justice questioned those in favor of DACA more so than the logic of President Trump’s decision during the first day of hearings. Justice Kavanaugh noted Former Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen’s memo defending DACA’s termination, calling it “a very considered decision.”
All hope for DACA supporters, however, is not lost. Justices do not adhere to party lines to the same extent as elected officials, nor do their questions necessarily indicate their vote. For example, the Chief Justice voted not to place the controversial citizenship question on the 2020 census despite notably not expressing concern against it. In addition, there are advocates on the bench. Justice Sotomayor has made many comments in favor of saving DACA, emphasizing that lives and livelihoods are at stake. Nevertheless, the conservative side holds the majority and DACA’s nature as an executive order creates more gray area for the court’s jurisdiction.
The benefits of keeping DACA or providing DACA recipients another pathway should not be ignored. Setting aside the human rights implications of removing people from their homes, DACA makes sense from an economic standpoint. Terminating DACA seems counterintuitive considering recipients’ large financial contributions. Each year, DACA households pay around $5.7 billion in federal taxes as well as $3.1 billion in state and lower level taxes. In addition, the housing market experiences a DACA boost with $613.8 million in mortgage payments and $2.3 billion in rental payments.
Connecting the human rights perspective to the issue, many “mixed status” households, which refers to homes with varying immigration status, will break apart. Many DACA recipients have U.S. citizen children, so the end of DACA can lead to the separation of families if the government deports the parents.
The fate of DACA directly impacts Georgia. If DACA ends, harsh immigration crackdowns would likely ensue here. With over 20,000 active DACA recipients, Georgia is among the top 10 states with the most DACA recipients. Considering that Atlanta made the shortlist for the potential ICE raids in July of this year and that the majority of DACA recipients live in metro Atlanta, the possibility of the community losing its deferred deportation poses a real threat.
Georgia is one of the states notoriously least friendly to DACA recipients. Both President Trump and Governor Kemp won the state with clear anti-immigration stances emphasizing deporting those without documentation. Georgia bars “DACAmented” students, those with DACA protection, from receiving in-state tuition as well as bans them from attending “competitive entry” public universities, which includes Georgia Tech, Georgia College & State University, and the University of Georgia.
For now, Georgia along with the rest of the nation must wait for the court’s decision. That decision, however, may not decide the ultimate fate of DACA. If the court rules that the legal argument used to cancel the program is unlawful, a different approach for justification could cause the issue to travel up through the court system again. These cases are beginning with a Texas lawsuit claiming DACA is illegal and that Congress holds the responsibility to enact it. Regardless, DACA and its viability will be determined by judges in some form or another. Any decision will prove controversial, especially as the court’s ruling will occur during a presidential election year.
On Sept. 5, 2017, the White House announced the end of DACA on the grounds the Obama administration overstepped its authority in creating the policy. With the reversal, the White House gave a six month grace period for Congress to pass a measure either saving the policy or creating a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Experts on immigration policy found Congress’ failure to meet the deadline unsurprising. Lower courts, however, blocked the decision on the grounds that the way in which Trump terminated the program is unlawful. Judges ruled that President Trump did not provide sufficient reasoning for cancelling the now seven-year-old policy. There are too many reliant on the program to cancel it suddenly. Thanks to the legal disagreements, current DACA recipients can continue renewing their status, but United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) no longer accepts new applicants nor allows for advance parole.
Due to the lower courts’ decision to block the cancelation, the future of DACA now lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. Hearings began on Nov. 12, and the public can expect to hear a decision anytime within the first six months of next year, but most likely in June 2020.
Overall, there are a multitude of potential outcomes for the case. DACA recipients and allies would prefer that the court rules President Trump’s cancelation of DACA unlawful. In this case, the program could potentially function like it did pre-cancellation, meaning new applications and travel with advance parole could resume. The Trump administration would most desire that the court find DACA itself unlawful and that President Obama overstepped. In this case, USCIS would not accept new applicants nor renewals. Non-expired DACA status and work permits could potentially be rescinded.
A declaration of the legality of DACA and the nature of its cancellation, however, may not even arise. The court could decide it cannot review the administration’s decision on the grounds that it lacks the legal authority to judge “the executive branch’s discretionary decisions.” Both Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch have made comments regarding this concern.
Considering these comments and the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, pro-DACA advocates may feel unoptimistic. In addition to Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch’s voiced opinions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh do not seem likely to save the program. The Chief Justice questioned those in favor of DACA more so than the logic of President Trump’s decision during the first day of hearings. Justice Kavanaugh noted Former Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen’s memo defending DACA’s termination “a very considered decision”.
All hope for DACA supporters, however, is not lost. Justices do not adhere to party lines to the same extent as elected officials, nor do their questions necessarily indicate their vote. For example, the Chief Justice voted not to place the controversial citizenship question on the 2020 census despite notably not expressing concern against it. In addition, there are advocates on the bench. Justice Sotomayor has made many comments in favor of saving DACA, emphasizing that lives and livelihoods are at stake. Nevertheless, the conservative side holds the majority and DACA’s nature as an executive order creates more gray area for the court’s jurisdiction.
The benefits of keeping DACA or providing DACA recipients another pathway should not go ignored. Setting aside the human rights argument of removing people from their homes, DACA makes sense from an economic standpoint. Terminating DACA seems counterintuitive considering recipients’ large financial contributions. Each year, DACA households pay around $5.7 billion in federal taxes as well as $3.1 billion in state and lower level taxes. In addition, the housing market experiences a DACA boost with $613.8 million in mortgage payments and $2.3 billion in rental payments.
Connecting the human rights perspective to the issue, many “mixed status” households, which refers to homes with varying immigration status, will break apart. Many DACA recipients have U.S. citizen children, so the end of DACA can lead to the separation of families if the government deports the parents.
The fate of DACA directly impacts Georgia. If DACA ends, harsh immigration crackdowns would likely ensue here. With over 20,000 active DACA recipients, Georgia lies in the top 10 states with the most DACA recipients. Considering that Atlanta made the shortlist for the potential ICE raids in July of this year and that the majority of DACA recipients live in metro-Atlanta, the possibility that the community loses its deferred deportation poses a real threat.
Georgia is one of the states notoriously least friendly to DACA recipients. Both President Trump and Governor Kemp won the state with clear anti-immigration stances emphasizing deporting those without documentation. Georgia bars DACAmented students, those with DACA protection, from receiving in-state tuition as well as bans them from attending “competitive entry” public universities, which includes Georgia Tech, Georgia College & State University, and the University of Georgia.
For now, Georgia along with the rest of the nation must wait for the court’s decision. That decision, however, may not decide the ultimate fate of DACA. If the court rules that the legal argument used to cancel the program is unlawful, a different approach for justification could cause the issue to travel up through the court system again. These cases are beginning with a Texas lawsuit claiming DACA is illegal and that Congress holds the responsibility to enact it. Regardless, DACA and its viability will be determined by judges in some form or another. Any decision will prove controversial, especially as the court’s ruling will occur during a presidential election year.