Why I’m Not Convinced Continuing DACA Protections is What’s Best for America

Why I’m Not Convinced Continuing DACA Protections is What’s Best for America

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protection for those brought to the U.S. by their parents has been in the news quite a lot lately.  In fact, it was a pivotal point in the Democrat position during the government shutdown in January.  I won’t, and don’t mean to, imply that the shutdown was one party’s fault or the other.  In my opinion, not having a budget approved, much less a government shutdown, is a failure of both parties, not one or the other.  Getting the government running again is also not a victory for one party or the other.  But I digress.  I’m not convinced that it is in the country’s best interest to continue DACA or to provide amnesty to those in the country illegally, regardless of how they got here.

Before going on, I think it’s important to point out that DACA is not law.  Any argument to the contrary is based on, at best, a misunderstanding of DACA or, at worse, deliberate deception.  DACA came about as a result of an Executive Order signed by President Obama.  President Obama signed the Executive Order after Congress didn’t pass the DREAM Act.  As a result, the Executive order does not have the weight of law, it only directs the DHS to defer deportation.  In other words, DHS was told to ignore existing law.

We’re not talking about “children” anymore, as many DACA proponents suggest.  According to FactCheck.org (The Facts on DACA), the average age of DACA recipients was 25 years old.  There are approximately 689,800 DACA recipients living in the U.S. as of September 2017.  72,000 initial applications were denied and it is estimated 1.3 million were eligible for the program.  According to Newsweek (DACA By The Numbers: 15 Facts About The Youth Immigration Program Trump Could Soon Shut Down), DACA recipients are making an average of $17.46 per hour, more than hey made before DACA.  72% of respondents in their survey were involved in higher education.

Some argue compassion is the reason these individuals should be allowed to stay.  They were brought here as children.  They didn’t have a choice.  However, if we are to use compassion as a reason for action, shouldn’t we be compassionate enough to prevent others from falling into questionable legal status in the future?  Is it compassionate to allow more immigrants to enter the country illegally and start this process all over?  Is that compassionate?  I don’t think so.  If I were to rob a bank and put the money into savings accounts for my young children, would they be able to keep it once the police caught up with me?  They didn’t have a choice of where the money came from.  They didn’t ask for it.  I think the bank would object.  The money doesn’t belong to them.

While we’re on the subject of compassion, where is the compassion for those that immigrated legally, who followed the rules, obeyed the law?  Allowing a pathway to citizenship for those that entered the country illegally, even if they didn’t really have a choice, would put those individuals ahead of others.  Many of these legal immigrants are unhappy about that prospect.  Many of these people have been waiting for years.

One of my arguments has been that DACA recipients haven’t applied for citizenship.  Well, in my researching for this blog, I found out they can’t.  In order for an immigrant to apply for citizenship, the individual must have been a permanent legal resident (those with green cards) for a certain amount of time.  DACA only provides a temporary legal residency status (Why don't people covered by DACA become citizens?). 

We are a nation of laws.  If there are people in this country who aren’t happy with the laws as they are, they should petition their elected representatives to change them.  If they don’t, they should elect those that will.  What we see happening now, is the result of people being impatient and working an end-run around the law.  The problem with Executive Orders is that another Executive can change them.  That’s no way to do business.  It’s certainly not a compassionate way to do business.

Suppose you decide to go fishing at a lake.  You rent a boat at the dock.  You row out to the middle of the lake, pull out your gear, bait your hook, and throw the line in the water.  You tie off your pole and lean back to relax.  You realize the boat is leaking.  You find a rusty old can in the boat, obviously left there by a previous boater to bail water.  You bail water until you get most of the water out of the boat.  You sit back and relax.  In another hour, you realize you have to bail water again.  At what point do you stop bailing the water and plug the hole?  The previous boater hadn’t plugged the hole or told the rental dock personnel about the leak.  This is how many people see the situation with illegal immigrants.

I realize we are a nation of immigrants.  I know the contributions that immigrants have made to this country since its inception.  However, sovereign countries have the moral and legitimate authority and right to limit who comes into the country.  Countries have the obligation to its citizens to ensure the safety of those living in the country.  America is no different.  We should encourage legal immigration.  We should be selective about who comes to the country.  Will this person contribute to our society, our culture, our country?  Will this person assimilate into our culture?  In other words, is this person truly interested in becoming a citizen and not simply someone who will take advantage of what America has to offer?  Obviously, we shouldn’t allow known criminals and ne’er-do-wells like drug dealers, members of criminal organizations and gangs, sexual predators, and child molesters.  The litmus test isn’t an absolute, but changes as the country’s needs change.

If I were President, here’s the deal I would put forward that I could live with:

1.  The DACA protections for those currently enrolled in the program (no new applicants) would be extended for 2 years to give Congress a chance to pass legislation that will allow DACA recipients to apply for permanent, legal residence.  No further extensions would be granted.

2.  DACA recipients would have a certain amount of time to apply for permanent residency.  Applicants would be allowed to stay in the country until 1) the time period to apply for residency expires and they haven’t applied for residency, 2) their application is denied, or 3) their application is granted.

3.  Congress must authorize and allocate funds to build a border wall.  Not just authorize funds.  Authorizing and not allocating funds means the funds can’t be used.  It’s legislative sleight of hand.

4.  Congress must work on real immigration reform.  It shouldn’t take a decade to become a citizen, nor should citizenship be a simple, quick process.  People staying in a limbo legal status for that long isn’t compassionate.

5.  Congress must authorize and allocate funds to improve enforcement of existing immigration laws.

People who oppose DACA have been called all kinds of names including xenophobic and racist.  I’m neither of these.  But I don’t see why illegal immigrants are being given privileges and benefits that legal residents and citizens aren’t getting.  To play the liberal card, it’s not fair.  And illegals waving flags of foreign countries demanding citizenship, saying it is their right, doesn’t help me feel supportive, compassionate, or empathetic toward their situation.  We have the right and obligation to ensure our country remains safe.  This is what the priority should be.  So, despite having some of my own misperceptions corrected, I still don’t believe that providing amnesty or a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients is what’s best for America. 

But what do I know?  I’m no immigration lawyer.  This is just my two cents worth … for what it’s worth.