DACA Immigration Policy: A Comparative Essay on Two Administrations

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, examining its origins, implementation, and the contrasting approaches of the Obama and Trump administrations. It explores the legal and political context surrounding DACA, including the Dreamer Act and the debates over immigration reform. The essay highlights the impact of DACA on undocumented young immigrants, often referred to as "Dreamers," and discusses the economic and social implications of the policy. It delves into the arguments for and against DACA, considering the perspectives of both political factions and the broader American society. The essay also examines the legal challenges to DACA and the uncertain future of the program, emphasizing the importance of immigration regulations and the rights of all immigrants. The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of Dreamers and ensuring fair immigration policies.

(Insert name)1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
DACA immigration
The dreamer act is a part of a bipartisan Act that was implemented to allow
undocumented young immigrants who arrived in the United States as children to get a legal
status. “DREAMER” is the term used of describes those youth. The Immigration and
Nationality Act 1952 (INA) has been amended frequently since its enactment, with the
primary objective of governing immigration law in the country. As a result, the provisions of
the law have increased over time. While undocumented immigrants might appear to be more
of a contemporary issue, it is important to note that multiple shifts in migration policy have
defined the man-made difference between legal and illegal migration (Singer, Audrey, and
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, 34-39) Some of the recent disagreements in both political factions
due to President’s decision to roll back DACA speaks to how the issue of who belongs to the
United States, which is not just simple as having a piece of paper.
On 15th June 2012, former president Barack Obama stated that his administration
applied a prosecutorial discretion as a way of implementing a policy of Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (Venkataramani, Atheendar et al. 175-180). The policy was
implemented two years after the DREAM Act failed to pass the Senate, as it would have
granted illegal immigrants brought to the US as children a conditional resident status. After a
residency for six years, they could get a permanent residency .DACA provided dreamers a
two-year renewable period of deferred action from being deported, as well as a temporary
work agreement (Fathali 122).

(Insert name)2
Following Presidents Trumps victory back in 2016, Attorney General Jeff Session
announced that the DACA Act would be repealed with the first permit expiring in 5th March
2018.The president further urged them to come up with a new replacement for the program.
The disagreements over a possible replacement for DACA resulted in a three-day government
shutdown, from 20th to 22nd January 2018, which ended out without a constructive
resolution over what should be done with the DREAMERS (Warren, Robert, and Donald
Kerwin 80-108). Following the legal challenge by the University of Carolina together with
the UC president Janet Napolitano, who during his tenure as the secretary of the Homeland
security oversaw the implementation of DACA, The US district court made a temporary
block of the repeal of DACA by the Trump administration in 9th January 2018, ordering the
government to proceed and renew DACA the existing recipients (Wong, Tom, et al 287-304)
In another separate case , A US District Court in New York granted an injunction requiring
the government to restore the entire DACA program. These decisions have been challenged
in many courts, and up to date the DREAMERS fate still remains undetermined. Therefore it
is not surprising that the issue of immigration, both legal and unauthorised is still huge within
the American society and political discourse today, particularly after the 2016 election
(Dickerson 237).
It is approximated that there are 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United
States. This is about 4% of the entire American population .Although they live under the
constant threat of being deported and are unable to legally work in the country, illegal
immigrants still play a huge role in the American economy. Recent studies have shown that
illegal immigrants contribute about 5% of the country’s GDP .Therefore, it is not easy to seek
the most appropriate way of dealing with an unauthorised population already in the country.
Mass deportation is both practically and politically hard to implements, yet given the
prevailing political environment, legalisation is still not an option.

(Insert name)3
A majority of Americans still agree that DREAMERS ought to be allowed to stay in
the country and granted citizenship, only if they are eligible. Most arrived in the United
States as Infants and consider English as the first language and the United States as the only
home they know. Therefore, it is not right for the current administration to assume that
rescinding DACA won’t have any negative effects on US society, the economy and the social
commitment for collective inclusion. Removing more than 1 million persons from the US
labor market would cost billions of dollars in termination costs. For instance, in New York
alone, there are close to 40,000 DACA recipients from different countries around the world.
Moreover, in CUNY, there are thousands of undocumented students and another huge
number of undocumented recipients who don’t have any academic ambitions but are highly
performing in other areas. A majority of DACA students often excel in school because of the
platform they have been provided by the policy that facilitates the process of receiving
private scholarships and finance their education.
Even though little is known about who are the authentic DACA recipients, we can
acknowledge that they have overcome the impoverishing environment they inherited from
their parents to become fundamental contributors. Bono indicates that contributions to work,
the community and the social security financing and taxes are necessary (193).They are
highly educated and their current and future earnings are key in fuelling the community.
Comparison between the Trump organization with DACA and the Obama
administration with DACA
The Difference between the DACA initiative, as initially implemented by the Obama
administration and the Trump Perspective of the policy is that the latter was establishing a
better process for the eligible recipients to become American citizens after a certain period.

(Insert name)4
However, the Trump administration has not provided explicit strategies if the policy is
repealed (Zatz 153-156).
The Education, relief, and education of the Alien Minors Act was basically rooted in
common sense by the Obama administration. To begin with, it was designed in a way that it
would benefit unauthorised youths, who in most cases never came to the country in their own
accord. Rather, they immigrated into the country when they were infants. Moreover, the
DACA policy could have enabled the recipients to accomplish higher education and later get
better and higher paying jobs, which in turn would boost their contribution to the country’s
economy (Kagan, 1083)
Simply put, the Obama DACA policy represented basic fairness and enlightening the
interest of these children. This would have ensured that more than 3 million children
benefited from the policy, and their numbers would grow with approximately 70,000 persons
every year. They immigrated to the United States prior to the age of 18, most of them as
young children even below 10 years of age. As a result, they tend to be Americans from their
culture preference to language (Cervantes, Wendy, and Christina Walker 246-250). Their
fundamental ties are into the country and a majority didn’t have any decision to this country
without authorisation .Such decisions were made by their parents or other adult members of
their families. This was the fundamental arguments of the Obama administration when
establishing and implementing the policy. Therefore, punishing these children for the actions
that were made by their parents runs against the social and legal norms of America (Martin
160-171).Yet, without the DACA policy, most of these young youths will be forced to live at
the edge of the US society or might eventually be deported to the countries they might not
even know. Assuming that they aren’t deported, the youths would greatly benefit from the
DREAM Act through facilitated processes of achieving higher education and later getting the
job of their dreams. They might be ineligible for most forms of college financial assistance

(Insert name)5
and cannot legally work in the country. The DACA policy eliminates those barriers, which in
turn would benefit the US economy.
That being said, Obama’s policy plan was in the best interest of the United States both
socially and economically. The policy would resolve the legal status of millions of
undocumented youths in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental values of the
country. Moreover, it empowers the young recipients to become further educated, and
eligible taxpayers. Every day that goes with the repealing of the policy by the trump
administration is a day of wasted talents and potential to transform the country to a greater
potential. Pierce, Sarah, and Andrew (Selee 236-240)
The Trump initiative to repeal the act is a different instrument that offers eligible
persons with different forms of immigration status. The Republican initiative is an exercise
that brings in more stringent measures where no more eligible recipients would be granted the
DREAMER status (Martin 15-17). However, those that had received earlier, would continue
getting the status until they attain the number of years necessary to be granted full citizenship.
Moreover, they are not provided with lawful immigration status. By contrast, the Obama
administration envisioned at establishing a process for eligible individuals to obtain LPR
status (Talamantes, Efrain, and Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola 121)
The Trump administration has not provided a lawful immigration status to the young
recipients of DACA. Moreover, the new proposals are pieces that make it hard for the
recipients to get any legitimisation. Further, there are multiple implications for the parents of
the beneficiaries once the Act is repealed by the Trump administration. Since the Trump
administration announced a complete repeal of the policy, by completely ending the entire
process, parents of the beneficiaries will be considered as illegal immigrant .Moreover, the
departments of Homeland security announced that it won’t terminate the previous DACA

(Insert name)6
grants for a duration stipulated by the law. However, the Trump administration has not yet
provided any measure to ensure such proposals are implemented (Venkataramani 1707-
1709).
Family Reunification
Trump administration called for further restrictions on family reunification in a move
that would see limitations established for family-based immigration to couples and children
of US citizens and permanent citizens. They intend to tie the proposals to legislation that
would grant DREAMERS a much longer period before they are eligible to be citizens. Selee
indicates that US immigration on both permanent and temporary basis is basically limited to
three different factions: family, and reunification which is also known as humanitarian
protection (Pierce, et al 154). As a result of most immigrants never qualify because they don’t
have the requisite family relationships.
Conclusion
The rights of all immigrants are basic human rights and thus are not meant to be used
as political channels to be gambled with every time a new government comes to power. It is
high time that society stands for the rights of all DREAMERS as a way of ensuring that the
rights are respected. Their liberty, families, and dreams are being attacked. Therefore there
must be immigration regulations on the freedom levels to benefit not only the DREAMERS
also their families. We must join hands with DACA recipients together with other
undocumented immigrants in a move to show the current administration that any attack on
one member of the American community is an attack on all.

(Insert name)7
Works Cited
Cervantes, Wendy, and Christina Walker. "Five reasons Trump’s immigration orders harm
children." Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy (2017).
Bono, Marisa. "When a rose is not a rose: DACA, the Dream Act, and the need for more
comprehensive immigration reform." T. Marshall L. Rev. 40 (2014): 193.
Dickerson, Caitlin. "What is DACA?." The New York Times(2018).
Fathali, Heather. "The American DREAM: DACA, DREAMers, and comprehensive
immigration reform." Seattle UL Rev. 37 (2013): 221.
Kagan, Michael. "A Taxonomy of Discretion: Refining the Legality Debate About Obama's
Executive Actions on Immigration." Wash. UL Rev. 92 (2014): 1083.
Martin, Philip L. "Election of Donald Trump and migration." Migration Letters 14.1 (2017):
161-171.
Martin, Philip. "Trump and US immigration policy." California Agriculture 71.1 (2017): 15-
17.
Singer, Audrey, and Nicole Prchal Svajlenka. "Immigration facts: Deferred action for
childhood arrivals (DACA)." The Brookings Institution (2013).
Venkataramani, Atheendar S., et al. "Health consequences of the US Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration programme: a quasi-experimental
study." The Lancet Public Health 2.4 (2017): e175-e181.
Warren, Robert, and Donald Kerwin. "Beyond DAPA and DACA: Revisiting legislative
reform in light of long-term trends in unauthorized immigration to the United
States." Journal on Migration and Human Security 3.1 (2015): 80-108.

(Insert name)8
Wong, Tom K., et al. "Paths to lawful immigration status: Results and implications from the
PERSON survey." Journal on Migration and Human Security 2.4 (2014): 287-304.
Zatz, Marjorie S., and Nancy Rodriguez. Dreams and nightmares: Immigration policy, youth,
and families. University of California Press, 2015.
Pierce, Sarah, and Andrew Selee. "Immigration under Trump: A review of policy shifts in the
year since the election." Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute (2017).
Pierce, Sarah, Jessica Bolter, and Andrew Selee. "US immigration policy under Trump: Deep
changes and lasting impacts." Retrieved from the Migration Policy Institute website:
www. migrationpolicy. org/research/us-immigration-policy-trump-deep-changes-
impacts (2018).
Venkataramani, Atheendar S., and Alexander C. Tsai. "Dreams deferred—the public health
consequences of rescinding DACA." New England Journal of Medicine 377.18
(2017): 1707-1709.
Talamantes, Efrain, and Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola. "Perspective: POTUS Trump’s Executive
Orders–Implications for Immigrants and Health Care." Ethnicity & disease 27.2
(2017): 121.