A brief history into U.S. immigration policy and its pertinence to DACA
Immigration has long since been an emphatically controversial point of congressional discussion, riddled with esoteric uncertainties and sequestered intolerances that have largely shaped the bureaucratic landscape for immigration policymaking since the late nineteenth century, infamously originating with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
Over time, the United States has consistently procured a distinctive mindset regarding the immigrant population, a detrimental perspective that oftentimes coincided with the ongoing political, social, and economic incongruities of each generation. It has transpired in the form of invidious, ethnically-centered restrictions that rendered preliminary entry into the U.S. nearly impossible, if not entirely so.
From the aforementioned Chinese Exclusion Act to the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924, the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to Operation Wetback of 1954, the legislative process has historically been gratuitously exploited to depict the respectively prevalent influx of certain immigrants as the root of the nation’s problems, particularly during unforgiving periods of economic crisis.
It wasn’t until the Hart-Celler Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, shepherded by the ongoing civil rights movement, that the federal government actively drafted measures that forbade the brazen attempts of legislators to institute blatantly discriminatory immigration policies. However, despite the amiable intentions of these largely progressive lawmakers to liberalize immigration policy under the Johnson administration, the heavily-revised, quota-intensive Hart-Celler Act ushered forth a tremendous surge of illegal immigrants into the country that persists today.
A prolonged trend of generally liberal legislation and federal case decisions over the next several decades gradually defined the status of undocumented immigrants, ultimately discerning whether or not an immigrant has committed a federal or civil offense that in turn determines their legality.
This perpetual alteration of immigration reform, in accordance with the copious overflow of undocumented immigrants into predominantly border states, laid the foundation for certain state legislatures and eventually the federal government to address the undeniable shift in their demographic climate as minority groups – primarily Hispanics — are collectively surpassing the ‘white majority,’ hastening what the U.S. Census Bureau theorizes will transform the United States into a majority-minority country by 2055.
Texas was first among those states, pioneering the cause by passing the Texas Dream Act of 2001 (HB 1403) as an indirect predecessor to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals bill implemented by the Obama administration in 2012.
Thematically similar to DACA, the Texas Dream Act provides accommodation for undocumented students that spent the majority of their adolescent years in the United States, adhering specifically to the Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe (1982) that definitively declared that all individuals, regardless of documentation, are included in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore legally entitled to public education.
Texas was far from secluded in their attempts at uncharacteristically pro-immigration directives, with the Texas Dream Act drawing inspiration from a larger, more encompassing federal DREAM Act. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors bill was a bipartisan legislative effort that commenced in 2001 but, despite a relentless, continual campaign at the behest of a tiring base of progressive politicians, failed on numerous occasions throughout the course of the past 16 years.
The DREAM Act last gained considerable momentum during the midterm elections of former President Barack Obama’s first term, but due to insurmountable obstacles corresponding directly with partisan politics, the DREAM Act failed once more and presented a passable rationale for Obama to solely dictate the direction of immigration reform.
Despite lacking both the congressional and constitutional authority to enact DACA, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reports that Obama managed to bestow protections upon about 800,000 immigrants that illegally entered the United States as children, over 1,000 of which attend a higher education institution either within the Alamo Colleges district or the several four-year universities San Antonio offers.
These immigrants, more commonly referred to as “Dreamers,” are “threads in the American tapestry, adding fibers of other cultures into the fabric of America,” insists Professor Christy Woodward-Kaupert, the Political Science Program Coordinator at San Antonio College who obtained her Masters in Political Science at Sam Houston State University.
“These immigrants are acculturated and many are, by the third generation, fully assimilated” into the framework of American society, which ascribes to Woodward-Kaupert’s assertion that the Dreamers are “no less American than the rest of us.”
The premise behind DACA, to put it simply, permits unlawfully present immigrants that were nonconsensually relocated across American borders under the age of 16 to apply for lawful status, essentially granting them amnesty from federal extradition across renewable two-year intervals.
Contrary to popular belief, the prerequisites for DACA recipients are moderately restrictive, offering reprieves of deportation for only 7% of the undocumented immigrant population, which was recorded to be 11.3 million as of 2016 by the Pew Research Center.
The guidelines for aspiring recipients are listed below:
- Were under the age of 31 as of June 15th, 2012;
- Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
- Have continuously resided in the United States on June 15th, 2007, up to the present time;
- Were physically present in the United States on June 15th, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
- Had no lawful status on June 15th, 2012;
- Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
- Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, link here]
These restrictions theoretically ensure that only productive, undocumented members of the millennial generation are eligible for DACA’s benefits, which leading generational theorists Neil Howe and William Strauss define as anyone born from 1982 to 2004. This remains true for members of the youngest generation, which some refer to as Generation Z.
In any case, the Trump administration resolved to rescind DACA on Tuesday of last week and consequentially obstruct the admission of any future DACA recipients, allocating a six-month window for Congress to reinstate a permanent alternative within the realm of constitutionality.
His decision comes as no surprise to millions of Americans as many perceive this administration’s recent efforts as Trump’s commitment to last year’s campaign promises of “railing against illegal immigration” and “reversing Obama’s unconstitutional executive actions,” despite grievances over ethical complications in regards to an objectively faultless party.
The public’s opinion of Trump’s decision is misguided, however, as the driving force behind the termination of DACA is a congregation of Republican attorneys general governed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who threatened to “launch a legal challenge against DACA” unless Trump “phased out the unlawful actions” imposed by the policy by Sept. 5.
Many candidly denounce the president’s actions, disparagingly decrying him as an individual motivated by inherently prejudicial inclinations without thoroughly immersing themselves within the political context of the situation.
Even the Republican assembly championing the anti-DACA movement have illustrated their intentions as an unequivocal condemnation of the White House’s continuous misappropriation of the executive order, a reoccurring pattern amongst presidents that transcends beyond partisanship and political affiliations.
Although classifying DACA as unconstitutional can be considered presumptive due to the absence of official judiciary appraisal, Obama – a Harvard Law School graduate who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School – repeatedly contended that he couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the [immigration] law myself” in response to increasing demands for unilateral immigration reform in 2010 following the failure of the federal DREAM Act.
Yet despite his previous reservations, Obama circumvented congressional authorization by enacting an executive order that rewrote pre-established immigration laws and integrated DACA into legislative authority two years later, strategically incorporated into the legal infrastructure just five months prior to the 2012 presidential election.
As such, the principal justification behind discontinuing DACA is one of constitutional adherence, a stark contrast to the predominantly discriminatory policies of the past that specifically targeted different sects of the immigrant population.
Even then, the fundamental deliberation surrounding DACA is between the significance of legal statutes over moral authority (and vice versa), a prominent source of ostentatious dissension that heralds back to the explication of an undocumented immigrant’s legality and the ethical ramifications of inflicting punishment upon, again, a largely blameless party.
The USCIS has disclosed that Dreamers whose “work permits expire before March 5, 2018” may apply for a two-year renewal if they meet the upcoming Oct. 5 deadline. DACA recipients should remain wary, however, as the Department of Homeland Security recently issued an ominous statement warning that the department will “continue to exercise its discretionary authority to terminate or deny deferred action for any reason, at any time, with or without notice.”
Until then, full responsibility for yielding a plausible substitute rests firmly upon Congress’ shoulders, with President Trump delegating unconditional jurisdiction to both legislative houses under the six-month time frame.
Congressional leaders are optimistic regarding the prospect of a viable resolution to the Dreamer dilemma, with House Speaker Paul Ryan espousing the prevailing feasibility of “finding a consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country.”
Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed his sympathies for these “young people who were brought here at a tender age and have grown up here,” advocating for a “lawful system of immigration” while simultaneously supporting a bipartisan collaboration to protect the Dreamers from deportation.
A joint effort is required in order to safeguard the future of over 800,000 undocumented immigrants from both Democratic and Republican delegates, although a history of unproductive congressional discord may render such an ambitious endeavor exceedingly arduous.
If Congress fails to satisfy the predetermined stipulations that both parties propose in accordance with constitutional considerations, aspirations of a renewed DACA will likely dwindle as the last of the Dreamers will eventually deteriorate into a state of administrative demoralization by October 2019, ushering forth a merciless wave of mass deportation.
THE MIDDLE ROAD 