President Donald Trump’s decision to dismantle Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), while giving Congress six months to save it, is not just controversial. It is baffling.
It seems that no one — except perhaps immigration hard-liners — relishes the prospect of deporting 800,000 young people to countries foreign to them, where they don’t know anyone and don’t speak the language, because as children they were brought to the U.S. illegally, or their families overstayed their visas.
Not even Trump seems inclined to kick them out. On Tuesday he tweeted: “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”
And two days later: “For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about — No action!”
No action? The president is too modest. As a result of Trump’s decision, his administration will no longer accept new DACA applications. The option for DACA participants to stay longer than two years has been eliminated, with the exception of those whose status expires by March 5 (provided renewal applications are submitted by Oct. 5).
Nothing to worry about? Those with DACA status, also known as Dreamers, now live in legal limbo, the lives they built and their very futures under threat of dissolution in six months.
It’s all so unnecessary and cruel. No court has found DACA to be unconstitutional. The Dreamers pose no threat and are blameless.
Hawaii has joined 14 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit challenging Trump’s action to dismantle DACA. Among other things, the lawsuit claims the action was motivated by prejudice against Mexicans, who make up most of the Dreamers.
Legal experts have differing views on whether the lawsuit will succeed. And a threatened legal challenge to DACA, by 10 state attorneys general, also looms. While presidents have broad powers related to immigration, they are not absolute — Hawaii’s success in blocking parts of Trump’s travel ban being one example.
It would be better if Congress does what it refused to do during the Obama administration: Protect the Dreamers and give them a path to permanent resident status.
DACA does not flout immigration law, as its critics claim. If anything, the opposite is true.
Rather than hiding or lying about their status, Dreamers submit themselves to extensive government vetting. They are recognized by a program the federal government urged them to join. DACA participants provided personal information to the government, trusting it would keep its end of the bargain.
Dreamers must have entered the U.S. under the age of 16, continuously residing in the U.S. since 2007. They must be in school, or have graduated high school, or have served honorably in the military, and have clean criminal records. They undergo extensive background checks.
In exchange, they may lawfully be in the country for at least two years without a removal action taken against them; they can then apply for renewal. It is not a path to citizenship or permanent legal status. Dreamers can work and receive certain benefits, such as a Social Security number, allowing them to open bank accounts, obtain credit cards and health insurance, start businesses, go to college, pay taxes — the tools a person needs to contribute to American society.
And contribute they do. According to the federal lawsuit, nearly 600 young people in Hawaii live, work and study here as a direct result of DACA. They contribute millions in tax revenues and the state gross domestic product. They attend local schools, including the University of Hawaii, which has invested in them because of the value they bring to the student body.
Josue Fuentes, a 26-year-old Dreamer who owns a landscaping business in Kaneohe, happily pays all state and federal taxes even though he is ineligible for Social Security or Medicare. Without a replacement for DACA, he could lose everything.
“I love this country, I love what it stands for,” he said. “I would have become a U.S. citizen if there was any opportunity for me to do so, but there is not.”
Indeed, Fuentes refutes the misinformed complaint: Why don’t they just apply for citizenship?
It is virtually impossible for Dreamers to become citizens. It requires, at a minimum, acquiring a green card — legal permanent residency — and most unauthorized immigrants can’t qualify under current law. That could change if Congress passed sensible immigration reform like the bipartisan DREAM Act of 2017, which would provide a pathway to citizenship — a lengthy, carefully vetted one, but a pathway nonetheless.
Such a program, sometimes labeled amnesty, hasn’t been seriously considered since Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Reagan’s idea may not work for all 11 million undocumented migrants living in the U.S. But surely it will work for the Dreamers, and the nation they are proud to call home.
