If you're following mainstream news - then you've probably come across the term DACA. If you have, then you must have inferred that DACA falls under the umbrella of illegal immigration which, perhaps, is one of the most incendiary political issues out there. What you may not know is that a good majority of Americans would like to provide some form of path towards citizenship for at least DACA recipients if that measure is coupled with "real" border security. However, the fringe element who is absolutely against providing any "amnesty", to the best of my knowledge, really hasn't had the chance to look just beneath the surface of what DACA is, and what DACA recipients are going through. This article's primary audience is them.
What is DACA?
DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In 2012, President Obama announced that DHS, from this point on, will provide protection from deportation and work permits on a 2 year renewable basis to individuals who came to the US as minors (before turning 16), have been residing here since 2007, are "productive members of society", and show "good moral character". During this 2 year duration, an individual is considered to be legally present in the US.
Once the time comes for renewal, a DACA recipient has to reapply, pass background check again, and pay approx. $485 in application fee, to be considered for renewal. If they have continued their "good behavior", they are granted DACA status for another 2 years. And the cycle continues.
What are the demographics of DACA recipients?
As of today, approx. 700,000 individuals are protected by DACA status, with almost all of them granted work permits on a 2 year basis. Vast majority of DACA recipients are from Mexico and Latin America, who accompanied their parents coming into the States through illegal channels. Average age of a DACA recipient at the time of entering US is 6, while the oldest DACA recipient can be no older than 15 as per the rules.
Is DACA an immigration issue?
Technically, yes. DACA is an immigration issue because we are dealing with a class of individuals who are undocumented immigrants. However, there is a flip side to this particular issue - and that's why DACA is a unique subset within the larger undocumented immigration narrative.
A DACA recipient came to this country at an early age with no knowledge of deliberately violating the immigration laws. Next, it is our immigration system that turned its back onto these undocumented immigrants and let them assimilate into the society by allowing them access to schooling, healthcare, and other facilities within American fabric.
Their formative years were spent in United States and with a tight relationship with American social structure. They grew up as Americans.
Now that they are adults and reaching adulthood, a massive wall stands between them and everything that they need to make a living for themselves in their home. That wall is the tag of "illegal immigrant". An entire subclass of individuals now face a major identity crisis where they suddenly find themselves rejected by the very society they grew up in and helpless in finding any solution to move forward.
DACA is not an immigration issue. DACA is a humanitarian crisis.
Why DACA is not an amnesty?
A strict of definition of amnesty comprises of two components: 1) a presidential AND congressional pardon for immigration violations, and 2) a path towards citizenship.
DACA doesn't fulfill either. In fact, DACA was not even a presidential pardon. It didn't erase past unlawful accrual. In other words, under current laws, if a DACA recipient who has accrued unlawful presence of more than 180 days in their adult life, if they were to leave the US, an automatic 10 year ban is imposed upon them. They cannot even apply for a non-immigrant visa for the next 10 years.
DACA is a presidential deferral. It doesn't pardon for any violation so far. It simply prevents DACA recipient for any further unlawful accrual by placing them in a shielded bucket of deferred action.
And second, quite obviously, DACA provides no path towards citizenship.
Case for Permanent Residency
Permanent Residency is generally granted on one of the following cases in the United States: 1) through family, 2) employment or some exceptional social standing, 3) investment, 4) other special cases including lottery system in underrepresented countries.
Second option is perhaps the only path which comes closer to merit-based migration. US has no point-based immigration system like Canada does. Canadian immigration system allows individuals to apply for permanent residency independent of employers or any other institution. Under their system, an individual receives points for certain factors which captures their social, technical, and educational skills. It tends to bring in individuals who will best assimilate into Canadian society and be productive. It must be mentioned that a Canadian job offer exponentially increases the chances of approval, but under the point-system, a job offer is not mandatory.
In US, there is no clause under which an individual can apply for permanent residency independently - unless they happen to be world renowned intellectuals, artists, etc or seriously wealthy.
Most would agree that a strong case could be made to include an amendment to employment based immigration to expand it to merit based (like Canadian system).
A typical DACA recipient would handsomely pass a merit-based system. The fact they've grown up here, they are socially qualified. The fact that all of them are either studying, graduated, or gainfully employed, they have educational and technical merits. In fact, most of the adult DACA recipients would handsomely qualify for "Federal-Skilled Worker" point-system program in Canada, and many have already migrated to Canada via this channel after giving up all hopes of any reform within their home country. Alas, they now face a 10 year ban from US, while being productive tax-payers for Canada!
On top of that, DACA recipients are the only class of immigrants who go through background checks and security vetting with such frequency (every 2 years!). They are the most vetted class of young adults in this country.
Cutting the line or not?
One of the reasons a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients is resisted by extremists or even right-leaning moderates, is that such a move would allow an "expedited" path for folks for violating our immigration laws. In essence, they would get "green cards" even before those who have applied legally.
There are two counterarguments.
1) It is quite difficult to convince a grand jury that a minor (as young as a 2 year old) violated immigration laws. Even older, young adults who came to the country through illegal channels with their parents would be easily absolved since even if they knew they were violating the law, they really didn't face any choice but to hold the hands of their parents. Vast majority of DACA recipients, however, had absolutely no knowledge of the fact they were "undocumented" until they wanted to apply for SSN to work!
2) To be a DACA recipient, one must have entered the United States before 2007 as a minor. In other words, a DACA recipient has been living in the United States for at least 12 years (as of 2019!). Even if they were a granted a green card today, that's a 12 year path to permanent residency and 17 years to citizenship. On the other end, a typical example of a 6 year old (average age of DACA recipient at the time of entry into US) who came in 1993, if granted green card in 2019, had to wait for almost 26 years to get one! These examples are not one of expedited path to citizenship!
Last Word
DACA recipients are technically stateless children. A stateless child differs from an undocumented immigrant in that the latter is an alien residing in a country without authorization, whereas in DACA's case, from a DACA recipient's point of view, their home country has refused to acknowledge them as one of their own.
In a sane world, DACA recipients, at this juncture, would have been granted permanent residency within 45 minutes. This tells us the kind of world we are living in today.
What is DACA?
DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In 2012, President Obama announced that DHS, from this point on, will provide protection from deportation and work permits on a 2 year renewable basis to individuals who came to the US as minors (before turning 16), have been residing here since 2007, are "productive members of society", and show "good moral character". During this 2 year duration, an individual is considered to be legally present in the US.
Once the time comes for renewal, a DACA recipient has to reapply, pass background check again, and pay approx. $485 in application fee, to be considered for renewal. If they have continued their "good behavior", they are granted DACA status for another 2 years. And the cycle continues.
What are the demographics of DACA recipients?
As of today, approx. 700,000 individuals are protected by DACA status, with almost all of them granted work permits on a 2 year basis. Vast majority of DACA recipients are from Mexico and Latin America, who accompanied their parents coming into the States through illegal channels. Average age of a DACA recipient at the time of entering US is 6, while the oldest DACA recipient can be no older than 15 as per the rules.
Is DACA an immigration issue?
Technically, yes. DACA is an immigration issue because we are dealing with a class of individuals who are undocumented immigrants. However, there is a flip side to this particular issue - and that's why DACA is a unique subset within the larger undocumented immigration narrative.
A DACA recipient came to this country at an early age with no knowledge of deliberately violating the immigration laws. Next, it is our immigration system that turned its back onto these undocumented immigrants and let them assimilate into the society by allowing them access to schooling, healthcare, and other facilities within American fabric.
Their formative years were spent in United States and with a tight relationship with American social structure. They grew up as Americans.
Now that they are adults and reaching adulthood, a massive wall stands between them and everything that they need to make a living for themselves in their home. That wall is the tag of "illegal immigrant". An entire subclass of individuals now face a major identity crisis where they suddenly find themselves rejected by the very society they grew up in and helpless in finding any solution to move forward.
DACA is not an immigration issue. DACA is a humanitarian crisis.
Why DACA is not an amnesty?
A strict of definition of amnesty comprises of two components: 1) a presidential AND congressional pardon for immigration violations, and 2) a path towards citizenship.
DACA doesn't fulfill either. In fact, DACA was not even a presidential pardon. It didn't erase past unlawful accrual. In other words, under current laws, if a DACA recipient who has accrued unlawful presence of more than 180 days in their adult life, if they were to leave the US, an automatic 10 year ban is imposed upon them. They cannot even apply for a non-immigrant visa for the next 10 years.
DACA is a presidential deferral. It doesn't pardon for any violation so far. It simply prevents DACA recipient for any further unlawful accrual by placing them in a shielded bucket of deferred action.
And second, quite obviously, DACA provides no path towards citizenship.
Case for Permanent Residency
Permanent Residency is generally granted on one of the following cases in the United States: 1) through family, 2) employment or some exceptional social standing, 3) investment, 4) other special cases including lottery system in underrepresented countries.
Second option is perhaps the only path which comes closer to merit-based migration. US has no point-based immigration system like Canada does. Canadian immigration system allows individuals to apply for permanent residency independent of employers or any other institution. Under their system, an individual receives points for certain factors which captures their social, technical, and educational skills. It tends to bring in individuals who will best assimilate into Canadian society and be productive. It must be mentioned that a Canadian job offer exponentially increases the chances of approval, but under the point-system, a job offer is not mandatory.
In US, there is no clause under which an individual can apply for permanent residency independently - unless they happen to be world renowned intellectuals, artists, etc or seriously wealthy.
Most would agree that a strong case could be made to include an amendment to employment based immigration to expand it to merit based (like Canadian system).
A typical DACA recipient would handsomely pass a merit-based system. The fact they've grown up here, they are socially qualified. The fact that all of them are either studying, graduated, or gainfully employed, they have educational and technical merits. In fact, most of the adult DACA recipients would handsomely qualify for "Federal-Skilled Worker" point-system program in Canada, and many have already migrated to Canada via this channel after giving up all hopes of any reform within their home country. Alas, they now face a 10 year ban from US, while being productive tax-payers for Canada!
On top of that, DACA recipients are the only class of immigrants who go through background checks and security vetting with such frequency (every 2 years!). They are the most vetted class of young adults in this country.
Cutting the line or not?
One of the reasons a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients is resisted by extremists or even right-leaning moderates, is that such a move would allow an "expedited" path for folks for violating our immigration laws. In essence, they would get "green cards" even before those who have applied legally.
There are two counterarguments.
1) It is quite difficult to convince a grand jury that a minor (as young as a 2 year old) violated immigration laws. Even older, young adults who came to the country through illegal channels with their parents would be easily absolved since even if they knew they were violating the law, they really didn't face any choice but to hold the hands of their parents. Vast majority of DACA recipients, however, had absolutely no knowledge of the fact they were "undocumented" until they wanted to apply for SSN to work!
2) To be a DACA recipient, one must have entered the United States before 2007 as a minor. In other words, a DACA recipient has been living in the United States for at least 12 years (as of 2019!). Even if they were a granted a green card today, that's a 12 year path to permanent residency and 17 years to citizenship. On the other end, a typical example of a 6 year old (average age of DACA recipient at the time of entry into US) who came in 1993, if granted green card in 2019, had to wait for almost 26 years to get one! These examples are not one of expedited path to citizenship!
Last Word
DACA recipients are technically stateless children. A stateless child differs from an undocumented immigrant in that the latter is an alien residing in a country without authorization, whereas in DACA's case, from a DACA recipient's point of view, their home country has refused to acknowledge them as one of their own.
In a sane world, DACA recipients, at this juncture, would have been granted permanent residency within 45 minutes. This tells us the kind of world we are living in today.
No comments:
Post a Comment