text:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals who were brought to the United States illegally as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.
In November 2014, Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional illegal aliens. Multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion which was ultimately blocked by an evenly divided Supreme Court. The United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. Plans to phase out DACA were initiated by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017, allowing Congress six months to pass the Dream Act, which would provide the path to citizenship for Dreamers under DACA that Congress had originally intended.[3][4][5][6] The phase out has been put on hold by several courts.
Research has shown that DACA increased the wages and labor force participation of DACA-eligible immigrants[7][8][9] and reduced the number of illegal immigrant households living in poverty.[10] Studies have also shown that DACA increased the mental health outcomes for DACA-eligible immigrants and their children.[11][12][13] There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment, and most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy.[14][15][16] To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records.
Contents
1 Background
2 Establishment
2.1 Reaction
3 Implementation
3.1 Eligibility
3.2 Travel eligibility
3.3 Renewals
3.4 Expansion
4 Impact
4.1 Crime
4.2 Economy
4.3 Education
4.4 Health
4.5 Migration flows
4.6 Safety and privacy
5 Legal challenges to DACA
6 State and city responses
6.1 Arizona
6.2 California
6.3 Illinois
6.4 Iowa
6.5 Maryland
6.6 Michigan
6.7 Nebraska
6.8 North Carolina
6.9 Texas
6.10 Virginia
7 Rescission
7.1 Reaction
7.2 Legal challenges to recission
7.3 Proposed responses to the DACA repeal
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 External links
Background[edit]
The policy was created after acknowledgment that "Dreamer" students had been largely raised in the United States, and this was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior.[17][18] "Dreamers" get their name from the DREAM Act, a bill that aimed to grant legal status to young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents. The illegal immigrant student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal immigrant students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis.[19] The vast majority of Dreamers are from Mexico.[20]
The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for illegal immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.[21] It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.[22][21] In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.[21] The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.[21]
Establishment[edit]
President Barack Obama announced this policy with a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 15, 2012.[23] The date was chosen as the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision barring public schools from charging illegal immigrant children tuition. The policy was officially established by a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security titled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children".[24] This policy allowed certain immigrants to escape deportation and obtain work permits for a period of two years—renewable upon good behavior. To apply, immigrants had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012, must have come to the U.S. when they were younger than 16, and must have lived in the U.S. since 2007. In August 2012, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people were eligible.[25]
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.[25] As of June 2016[update], USCIS had received 844,931 initial applications for DACA status, of which 741,546 (88%) were approved, 60,269 (7%) were denied, and 43,121 (5%) were pending. Over half of those accepted reside in California and Texas.[26] According to an August 2017 survey, most current registrants (called "Dreamers" in a reference to the DREAM Act bill) are in their 20s, and about 80% arrived in the United States when they were 10 or younger.[27]
In November 2014, Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to make more people eligible.[28][29] However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans,(a similar program).[30][31][32] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded.[33][34] After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4–4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.[35]
Reaction[edit]
Republican Party leaders denounced the DACA program as an abuse of executive power.[36]
Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224–201 to defund DACA in June 2013.[37] Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, "The point here is...the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect."[38] However, in practice Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations.[39]
Implementation[edit]
DACA approved requests by state[a]
California
424,995
Texas
234,350
New York
95,663
Illinois
79,415
Florida
74,321
Arizona
51,503
DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.[41]
To apply for DACA, eligible individuals must pay a $495 application fee, submit several forms, and produce documents showing they meet the requirements. They do not need legal representation.
Eligibility[edit]
To be eligible, recipients must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not currently provide permanent lawful status or a path to citizenship,[42] nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.[7]
In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).[43][42]
To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:
Came to the United States before their 16th birthday
Have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007
Were under age 31 on June 15, 2012 (born on June 16, 1981 or after)
Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012
Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school
Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
To show proof of qualification (verify these requirements), applicants must submit three forms; I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and I-765WS Worksheet, as well as supporting documentation.[42]
In striving for transparency, USCIS has released a variety of information on both the DACA policy and its population as part of a continued effort to keep the public informed. As such, criminal activity of DACA requestors has long been the subject of widespread discussion and speculation, with a regrettable lack of available data until now. The truth is that we let those with criminal arrests for sexually assaulting a minor, kidnapping, human trafficking, child pornography, or even murder be provided protection from removal. Yet the courts rule that we are unable to change this policy - even though those with criminal histories are getting through the system and permitted to remain in the country, despite having a high number of arrests for any types of crimes before or after receiving DACA protection.
—  USCIS Director Lee Cissna, June 18, 2018, New Data Shows Criminal Arrest Histories of DACA Requestors
Travel eligibility[edit]
In addition to the $495 application fee, if a DACA qualifying immigrant wants to travel abroad there is an additional fee and application requirement.
Form I-131 Application Type D*, with a fee of $575 needs to be submitted to USCIS.[44]
Form I-131 must also be submitted by anyone that applies for a Green Card or other residency option regardless of how they arrived upon U.S. soil.
To receive advance parole one must travel abroad for an educational, employment, or humanitarian purpose. This must be indicated on the Form I-131 as described below:
Educational purposes, such as studying abroad;
Employment purposes, such as overseas positions, interviews, training, or meetings with clients; or
Humanitarian purposes, such as travel for medical reasons, attend funeral services for a family member, or visit a sick relative.
Travel for leisure is not a valid purpose.[44]
Renewals[edit]
USCIS released the process for DACA renewals in June 2014 and directed applicants to file their documents during a 30-day window starting 150 days before the expiration of their previous DACA status. Renewing requires an additional $495 fee.[45]
As of June 2016, there had been 606,264 renewal cases, with 526,288 approved, 4,703 denied and 75,205 renewals pending.[26]
Expansion[edit]
In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal immigrants who entered the country prior to 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to two years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000.[29]
However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).[30][31][32] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded.[33][34] After progressing through the court system, the appeals court ruled 2–1 in favor of enjoining the DACA expansion. When the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely death left an 8 justice court, which then ruled equally divided (4–4) for and against the injunction. Procedural rules of the Court in the case of a tie would mean that no opinion would be written, no precedent would be set by the Supreme Court in the case, and that the appellate court's ruling would stand.[35]
The court's temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[42]
Impact[edit]
Crime[edit]
According to FactCheck.org, "there is no evidence that DACA holders are more likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens." Factcheck.Org noted that "numerous studies have found that immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants."[46]
Economy[edit]
Fact-checkers note that, on a large scale or in the long run, there is no reason to believe that DACA recipients have a major deleterious effect on American workers' employment chances; to the contrary, some economists say that DACA benefits the overall U.S. economy.[14][16][15][47][48] Economists have warned that ending DACA could adversely affect the U.S. economy, and that "most economists see immigration generally as an economic boon."[15][48] Almost all economists reject Jeff Sessions' claim that DACA "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens."[15] Sessions' claim is rooted in what economists call the "lump of labor fallacy" (i.e., the idea that there is a limit to amount of work force available in any economy).[14][49]
A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution.[7] The study estimates that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.[7] According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, DACA consequently "increases consumption and overall demand for U.S. services, products, and jobs where the DACA recipients live and spend. Economists have shown that highly skilled workers increase local productivity and create opportunities for the other workers too".[50] A 2016 study in Economics Letters found that DACA-eligible households were 38% less likely than non-eligible unauthorized immigrant households to live in poverty.[10] Furthermore, DACA-eligible workers tend to have higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs than undocumented immigrants.[51]
According to one survey, 91 percent of DACA registrants are employed, and 5 percent have launched their own businesses, compared to 3.1 percent of all Americans.[52] According to Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that, as of 2017, the U.S. economy is close to full employment.[14][53] Ike Brannon and Logan Albright of the CATO Institute wrote in a 2017 that ending DACA would have an adverse economic and fiscal impact, estimating that the cost of immediately eliminating DACA and deporting those who received deferred action would be $283 billion over a decade (representing an economic loss of $215 billion, a fiscal loss of $60 billion (from lower net tax revenue), and $7.5 billion in deportation costs).[54] Brannon and Albright wrote that their projections were "a conservative estimate due to the fact that many DACA immigrants are young and still acquiring education credentials that will boost wages later."[54] The Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade.[15] Peri argues that DACA recipients likely have a significant net positive fiscal impact given that DACA-eligible individuals have similar characteristics as second-generation immigrants, and that research shows that second-generation immigrants have a net positive fiscal impact of $173,000 to $259,000 per immigrant.[50] Peri also notes that the U.S. public school system has already invested in educating these individuals, and they are at the point at which they can start contributing to the U.S. economy and public coffers; deporting them or increasing the likelihood that they be deported is economically counterproductive.[50] A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress estimated that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years.[55][56]
According to Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas economist Pia Orrenius, due to their risk of deportation, it is likely that previously DACA-protected individuals would slip into the shadow economy or take low-profile jobs that pay less.[48]
A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that DACA likely led to greater productivity by increasing the college attendance and employment of DACA-eligible individuals.[57]
Education[edit]
Research has shown mixed findings for DACA on education outcomes. A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that DACA had no significant effect on the likelihood of attending school.[7] The study only found "suggestive evidence that DACA pushed over 25,000 DACA-eligible individuals into obtaining their GED certificate in order to be eligible for DACA."[7] However, research by Roberto G. Gonzales, professor of education at Harvard University, showed that DACA led to increased educational attainment.[58] A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that DACA led to greater high school attainment and college attendance for DACA-eligible individuals.[57]
A 2016 study in the Journal of Population Economics found that DACA "reduced the probability of school enrollment of eligible higher-educated individuals, as well as some evidence that it increased the employment likelihood of men, in particular. Together, these findings suggest that a lack of authorization may lead individuals to enroll in school when working is not a viable option."[59]
Health[edit]
A 2017 study published in the journal Science found that DACA led to improved mental health outcomes for the children of DACA-eligible mothers.[11] A 2017 Lancet Public Health study found that DACA-eligible individuals had better mental health outcomes as a result of their DACA eligibility.[12] A 2018 study in the journal Social Sciences & Medicine found that DACA-eligible individuals who transitioned from illegal to legal status had improved psychological wellbeing.[13]
FiveThirtyEight, summarizing the findings of past research, wrote that "the threat of deportation alone would likely have a negative impact on families. Immigration-related stress and anxiety have been shown to have negative health effects... Generally, researchers believe the stress that stems from the fear of having a parent deported has far-reaching, negative effects on the health of children."[60] In an editorial for the New England Journal of Medicine, Atheendar S. Venkataramani, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and Alexander C. Tsai, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, wrote, "The evidence clearly indicates that rescinding DACA will have profound adverse population-level effects on mental health... DACA was never intended to be a public health program, but its population-level consequences for mental health have been significant and rival those of any large-scale health or social policies in recent history. Rescinding DACA therefore represents a threat to public mental health."[61]
21 percent of DACA-protected immigrants work in education and health services.[48] The American Medical Association has estimated that under DACA or similar legislation, 5,400 additional physicians would work in the United States in coming decades, alleviating a projected shortage of primary care physicians.[48]
Migration flows[edit]
A 2016 study published in the journal International Migration found that DACA did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America.[62] A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing the reasons behind the surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America did not mention DACA, and cited crime and lack of economic opportunity as the main reasons behind the surge.[16]
Safety and privacy[edit]
After The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was repealed, a concern for safety became prominent in illegal alien families. In a study from PRI's The World, Caitlin Patler[63], assistant professor of sociology at UC Davis, says that DACA recipients have lost "ontological security." They think about the personal information they have given the government and worry that they will be deported or unable to work or study, she says. "These young people cannot count on the promise of the future." Many DACA recipients believe safety to be a prominent issue since the repeal of the act. In another journal by US Official News[64], it is revealed that "almost 800,000 youth trusted the government with their "fingerprints" and other personal information when they applied for DACA. In return, the two-year reprieve from deportation lifted the constant, everyday fear of existence that characterized their lives. These mental health gains, in addition to the fruits of all of their hard work over the past five years, are now threatened."
Legal challenges to DACA[edit]
See also: United States v. Texas
The legality of DACA and its proposed expansions were challenged in court. But only the expansions were halted under a preliminary injunction. Legal experts are divided as to the constitutionality of DACA, but no court has yet to rule it unconstitutional.[65]
One of challenges against DACA was filed in August 2012 by ten agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[66] The plaintiffs claimed that following the new lenient deportation policies established by DACA required them to violate the law. Almost a year later, Judge Reed O'Connor from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide on what essentially was a dispute between federal employees and their employer, the U.S. government.[67] Nonetheless, in his decision to dismiss the case, the judge reiterated his view that DACA was inherently unlawful.[67] The plaintiffs then filed an appeal but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal on procedural grounds.
The first challenge against the DACA expansions was filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in November 2014. In the lawsuit, Arpaio claimed that DACA and its expansions were "unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, and invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act as, in effect, regulations that have been promulgated without the requisite opportunity for public notice and comment."[68] The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia promptly dismissed the lawsuit ruling that Arpaio did not have standing. That decision was upheld unanimously by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 14, 2015. Arpaio then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, but on January 19, 2016, the court denied that request.[69]
The challenge that was granted a preliminary injunction was filed on December 2014 by Texas and 25 other states—all with Republican governors. The group of states sued to enjoin the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)—another immigration policy—and the DACA expansions announced by the Obama administration.[70][71][72] In the lawsuit, the states claimed that, by expanding DACA, the president failed to enforce the nation’s immigration laws in contravention to Article Two of the U.S. Constitution.[73][b] Moreover, the states claimed that the president unilaterally rewrote the law through his actions.[74] As part of the judicial process, in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded.[33][34] After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4–4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.[35] The court's temporary injunction did not affect the existing DACA. At the time, individuals were allowed to continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[42]
Regardless of the outcome of the preliminary injunction, legal opinions on the lawfulness of DACA are divided. In United States v. Texas, for instance, the Obama administration argued that the policy was a lawful exercise of the enforcement discretion that Congress delegated to the executive branch in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which charges the executive with the administration and enforcement of the country’s immigration laws.[75] Conversely, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, opined that DACA was unlawful by asserting that it unconstitutionally usurped Congress' role over immigration by illegally allowing certain classes of illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration law with impunity.[76]
On May 1, 2018, a coalition of 7 States, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the program, after originally promising to challenge the program if the administration didn't rescind it.[77]
State and city responses[edit]
This section is missing information about the quantitative and qualitative differences between the states that support DACA and those that oppose it. Please expand the section to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page. (September 2017)
State-level government officials are also divided on the issue. Those that support DACA claim that the government does not have the resources to target all illegal immigrants and that the policy thus helps federal agencies in exerting prosecutorial discretion—that is, in enforcing the law selectively by focusing limited resources on criminal immigrants rather than on non-criminal ones such as those eligible for DACA.[78][79] Those that oppose the policy, however, claim that states would be forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on health care, education, law enforcement, and other public benefits associated with the immigrants receiving relief.[73] For instance, DACA opponents claim that Texas could assume up to $500 million in administrative costs for issuing new driver’s licenses.[73]
Arizona[edit]
Arizona became the first state to oppose President Obama's order for DACA when Governor Jan Brewer issued an order blocking those with deferred status from receiving any state benefits.[80] This caused controversy,[81] as eligible and approved applicants would still be unable to obtain a driver's license.[82] In May 2013, a federal district court held that this policy was likely unconstitutional. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against Brewer's ban, and in November 2014 held this ban was in violation of the law.[83]
California[edit]
To assist those eligible under the program,[84] the state of California has agreed to support those who receive a DACA grant by allowing access to a state driver's license,[85] provided that such individuals participate in specific state guidelines (such as paying income taxes). The state of California also allows DACA holding individuals to qualify for Medi-Cal.[86]
Illinois[edit]
Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel stated that he wants to make Chicago the "most immigrant-friendly city in the country".[87] In addition to offering in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, he has also made plans for a city ordinance that would prevent illegal immigrants with no criminal background from being turned over to immigration enforcement agencies.[87]
Iowa[edit]
In 2012, the then-director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, Paul Trombino III (now nominee for Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration), announced a policy to deny driver's licenses to Iowa residents who were part of the DACA program. The policy was reversed several weeks later.[88][89]
Maryland[edit]
In 2016, Mayor of Baltimore (2010-2016) Stephanie Rawlings-Blake stated that Baltimore police would not check the citizenship status of people with whom they interact.[90]
Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status under certain conditions. A Maryland resident is eligible if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years and they graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years. They must have registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED. They must have registered for Selective Service if male, and they must have filed Maryland income tax returns.[91]
Michigan[edit]
In October 2012, the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, announced that Michigan would not issue driver's licenses or state identification of any kind to beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.[92] In making this decision, it was clear that the Secretary of State erroneously conflated the notion of "lawful presence," which is required under Michigan Law to issue a driver's license, and "lawful status," a different legal concept entirely.[93] USCIS has made it clear that DACA beneficiaries do not possess legal status, but does not state that DACA beneficiaries are unlawfully present; in fact, it states that DACA beneficiaries will not accrue unlawful presence time here while they are in this deferred action status.[94] The Secretary of State relied upon USCIS' own explanation, which discusses legal status, not lawful presence.[94] In response to this policy, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging that the policy violated both Michigan law and the U.S. Constitution.[95] On January 18, 2013, USCIS updated their "Frequently Asked Questions" page about DACA, clarifying, among other things, that DACA beneficiaries are, in fact, lawfully present in the United States.[96] On February 1, 2013, Johnson reversed her policy and began issuing driver's licenses to DACA beneficiaries on February 19, 2013.[97]
Nebraska[edit]
Governor Dave Heineman opposed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and in 2012 directed the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles to not issue driver's licenses to people who received deferred action under DACA. Heineman said that providing any benefit, including a driver's license, to an illegal immigrant would be a violation of Nebraska state law.[98]
In 2015, however, the Nebraska Legislature determined that Section 202(c)(B)(viii) of the REAL ID Act of 2015 required states to allow people to present documentation of deferred-action status when registering for a driver's license, and the Nebraska Legislature voted to change state law to allow qualified individuals with DACA to receive licenses by using documentation of their status of deferred action.[98][99][100] Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed the bill; the legislature voted 34–10 to override the veto.[98] Nebraska became the last of the 50 states to allow deferred-action recipients to obtain licenses.[98]
North Carolina[edit]
North Carolina briefly suspended giving driver's licenses to DACA grantees while awaiting the state attorney general’s opinion. The attorney general decided that even without formal immigration status, DACA grantees were to be granted legal presence. Subsequently the state once again continued to give driver's licenses and allowed DACA grantees to become legal members of North Carolina.[101]
Texas[edit]
Although in-state tuition was still offered, Governor Rick Perry announced his opposition to DACA by distributing a letter to all state agencies, meant "to ensure that all Texas agencies understand that Secretary Napolitano's guidelines confer absolutely no legal status whatsoever to any illegal immigrant who qualifies for the federal 'deferred action' designation.”[102]
Virginia[edit]
In April 2014, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring sent a letter to the director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the presidents of Virginia public colleges and universities, and the chancellor of the Virginia Community College System in response to inquiries from public institutions of higher education on whether DACA students were eligible for in-state tuition. The attorney general advised that under Virginia law, DACA students who met Virginia's domicile requirements were eligible for in-state tuition.[103][104]
Rescission[edit]
While running for president, Donald Trump declared he intended to repeal DACA on "day one" of his presidency.[105]
On February 14, 2017, a CNN report on the detention of 23-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina in Northwest Detention Center,[106] Tacoma, Washington following his arrest in his father's Des Moines, Washington home, observed that "The case raises questions about what it could mean" for the 750,000 Dreamers, who had "received permission to stay under DACA."[106][107] On March 7, 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi, another DACA recipient, was detained by ICE, further raising speculation about President Trump's commitment to Dreamers and questioning whether immigrants who speak out against the administration's policies should fear retaliation.[108] Vargas was released from LaSalle Detention Center on March 10, 2017[109] and Ramirez Medina's release followed on March 29.[110]
On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced it intended to repeal the executive order by the Barack Obama administration that expanded the DACA program, although the DACA program's overall existence would continue to be reviewed.[111]
On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the program is being repealed. Sessions stated that the DACA-eligible individuals were lawbreakers who adversely impacted the wages and employment of native-born Americans.[112] Sessions also attributed DACA as a leading cause behind the surge in unaccompanied minors coming to the United States from Central America.[112] President Trump said that "virtually all" "top legal experts" believed that DACA was unconstitutional.[112] Fact-checkers have said that only a few economists believe DACA adversely affects native-born workers, that there is scant evidence that DACA caused the surge in unaccompanied minors, and that it is false that all "top legal experts" believe DACA to be unconstitutional.[16][113]
Sessions added that implementation would be suspended for six months; DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD") that expired during the next six months would continue to be renewed. DACA recipients with a work permit set to expire on or before March 5, 2018 would have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if their application was received by USCIS by October 5, 2017.[114] In a follow-up statement, Trump said "It is now time for Congress to act!"[6] The approximately 800,000 immigrants who qualified for enrollment in DACA would become eligible for deportation by the end of those six months.[112] A White House memo stated that DACA recipients should "use the time remaining on their work authorizations to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States."[115]
Reaction[edit]
Protesters outside Trump Tower in New York City, September 5, 2017
Protesters in San Francisco, September 5, 2017
According to the New York Times, "Democrats and some Republicans, business executives, college presidents and immigration activists condemned the repeal as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy."[112] Former President Obama condemned the repeal as "cruel" and wrote:[116]
They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they're undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver's license... Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us... Kicking them out won't lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone's taxes, or raise anybody's wages.
The reaction was mixed among Republicans.[117] Several senior Republicans praised Trump's action, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.[118] Other Republicans, including Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, condemned the Trump Administration's choice to rescind the executive order.[118] In a released statement Senator McCain said:[119]
I strongly believe that children who were illegally brought into this country through no fault of their own should not be forced to return to a country they do not know. The 800,000 innocent young people granted deferred action under DACA over the last several years are pursuing degrees, starting careers, and contributing to our communities in important ways. While I disagreed with President Obama’s unilateral action on this issue, I believe that rescinding DACA at this time is an unacceptable reversal of the promises and opportunities that have been conferred to these individuals.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce condemned the repeal.[120] A number of religious organizations condemned the repeal, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops describing it as "reprehensible". The Catholic University of Notre Dame also urged the president to not rescind DACA and announced it would stand by those affected.[121]The United Methodist Church said it was "not only unconscionable, but contrary to moral work and witness," and the Evangelical Lutheran Church called on its members to "pray today for those that will suffer undue repercussions due to the end of this program."[122] Asked about Trump's decision to rescind DACA, Pope Francis said if Trump is truly pro-life, "he will understand that the family is the cradle of life and that it must be defended as a unit."[123] Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, endorsed Trump's repeal.[122]
The September 2017 announcement sparked protests in many cities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Los Angeles. At a September 5 protest in New York outside of Trump Tower, more than 30 protesters were arrested.[124] On September 19, more protesters were arrested outside Trump Tower, including Democratic congressmen Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois, and Adriano Espaillat of New York.[125]
Legal challenges to recission[edit]
See also: New York v. Trump and Regents of University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security
The rescission was challenged in court by different entities.[126] On September 6, 2017, fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit, titled New York v. Trump, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to stop the repeal.[127] A few days later, the California attorney general, Xavier Becerra, filed a separate lawsuit, which was joined by the states of Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland. Becerra stated that, as a quarter of the people in the DACA program live in California, he thinks that "everyone recognizes the scope and breadth of the Trump decision to terminate DACA hits hardest here."[128] Not only have state governments filed suit, but also six DREAMERs have filed suit against Trump in San Francisco.[129] The University of California, which currently has approximately 4,000 undocumented students, has also filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security which was filed in the Northern District of California.[130] Janet Napolitano, president of the UC system, called the rescission of DACA, “unconstitutional, unjust, and unlawful". In a released statement Napolitano said:
I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s decision to effectively end the DACA program and uproot the lives of an estimated 800,000 Dreamers across the nation. This backward-thinking, far-reaching move threatens to separate families and derail the futures of some of this country’s brightest young minds, thousands of whom currently attend or have graduated from the University of California.[131]
On December 20, 2017, the Supreme Court remanded five DACA cases originally filed in the Northern District of California back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This action stops the district court's order to deliver documents to the plaintiffs.[132][133]
On January 9, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the rescission of the DACA program, ordering the government to renew DACA until further order of the court.[134][135] On January 13, 2018, the government stated that it would immediately resume approving DACA renewal applications.[136]
On February 13, 2018, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction ordering the federal government to fully restore the DACA program, including accepting brand new applicants as well as renewals.[137] Moreover, as a rationale for his ruling, Garaufis said that DACA was neither unconstitutional nor in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) nor the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).[138]
On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration's request for it to review the lower court order that the administration must continue to accept DACA applications, so the Supreme Court will allow the Ninth Circuit to review the ruling.[139]
On April 24, 2018, John D. Bates, a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Trump administration must resume accepting new applications for DACA but stayed his decision for 90 days to allow the Department of Homeland Security to explain why the program was being canceled.[140]
On August 3, 2018, Judge Bates said the Trump administration has failed to justify its proposal to end DACA; however, he stayed the ruling for 20 days to allow the Trump administration time to respond and appeal, if it chooses. [141].[142]
Proposed responses to the DACA repeal[edit]
DREAM Act: Proposed by Sens. Graham and Durbin, the DREAM Act offers protections to illegal immigrants similar to DACA, as well as offering a path to citizenship.[143]
Recognizing America's Children Act: Proposed by Rep. Curbelo, RAC offers a pathway to legalization through education, military service, or work authorization. After 10 years in this program, immigrants could apply for citizenship.[144]
The American Hope Act: Proposed by Rep. Gutiérrez, this act offers an expedited path to citizenship that is attainable in eight years, but the immigrant must have entered the US before the age of eighteen.[145]
BRIDGE Act: Proposed by Rep. Coffman, this bill extends the DACA program by three years, allowing more time to discuss comprehensive immigration reform.[146]
Broader Options for Americans Act: This bill is used for immigration debate in the Senate.[147]
See also[edit]
Immigration to the United States
2014 American immigration crisis
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ As of March 31, 2017.[40]
Jump up ^ Texas v. United States (2016) "The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 3, cl. 5 [.]"[74]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Youngro, Lee (Fall 2006). "To Dream or Not to Dream: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act". Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. 16 (1): 8,9. Retrieved 12 February 2018. The DREAM Act is a bipartisan Congressional effort to allow certain illegal alien students who were brought into the U.S. as a child the opportunity to attend college and eventually to become permanent residents and citizens of the United States.
Jump up ^ "What is the DREAM Act and who are DREAMers?". LawLogix. Hyland. 2013-07-09. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
Jump up ^ "Democrats Look To Trump On DREAM Act After He Puts Expiration Date On DACA Program". September 10, 2017. Retrieved February 13, 2018.
Jump up ^ "After 16 Futile Years, Congress Will Try Again to Legalize 'Dreamers'". New York Times. September 5, 2017. Retrieved February 13, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Trump ends DACA, but gives Congress window to save it". The Washington Free Beacon. September 5, 2017. Retrieved February 13, 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Kopan, Tal (September 5, 2017). "Trump ends DACA, but gives Congress window to save it". CNN.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Pope, Nolan G. (2016). "The effects of DACAmentation: The impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on illegal immigrants". Journal of Public Economics. 143: 98–114. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.014.
Jump up ^ Patler, Caitlin; Cabrera, Jorge (June 2015). From Undocumented to DACAmented: Impacts of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program Three Years Following its Announcement (PDF) (Report). Institute for Research and Labor Employment, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jump up ^ Gonzales, Roberto; Terriquez, Veronica; Ruszczyk, Stephen (October 1, 2014). "Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the Short-Term Benefits of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)". American Behavioral Scientist. 58 (14): 1852–72. doi:10.1177/0002764214550288.
^ Jump up to: a b Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina; Antman, Francisca (2016). "Can authorization reduce poverty among undocumented immigrants? Evidence from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program". Economics Letters. 147: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2016.08.001.
^ Jump up to: a b Hainmueller, Jens; Lawrence, Duncan; Martén, Linna; Black, Bernard; Figueroa, Lucila; Hotard, Michael; Jiménez, Tomás R.; Mendoza, Fernando; Rodriguez, Maria I. (August 31, 2017). "Protecting unauthorized immigrant mothers improves their children's mental health". Science. 357 (6355): 1041–44. Bibcode:2017Sci...357.1041H. doi:10.1126/science.aan5893. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 28860206.
^ Jump up to: a b Venkataramani, Atheendar S; Shah, Sachin J; O'Brien, Rourke; Kawachi, Ichiro; Tsai, Alexander C (2017). "Health consequences of the US Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration programme: a quasi-experimental study". The Lancet Public Health. 2 (4): e175–81. doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30047-6. PMID 29253449.
^ Jump up to: a b "From undocumented to lawfully present: Do changes to legal status impact psychological wellbeing among latino immigrant young adults?". Social Science & Medicine. 199: 39–48. 2018-02-01. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.009. ISSN 0277-9536.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Fact Check: Are DACA Recipients Stealing Jobs Away From Other Americans?". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-09-07.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Trump's Harsh Message to Immigrants Could Drag on Economy". Associated Press. 2017-09-06. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-09-07.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "AP Fact Check: What the Trump administration said about DACA". Associated Press. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
"Analysis | The Trump administration's claim that DACA 'helped spur' the 2014 surge of minors crossing the border". Washington Post. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Stottlemyre, Scott (2015). "Strict Scrutiny for Illegal Childhood Arrivals". The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice – via EBSCOhost.
Jump up ^ Tuma, Mary (September 5, 2017). "Trump Ends DACA Program". Austin Chronicle. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
Jump up ^ Angela Adams & Kerry S. Boyne (2015). "Access to Higher Education for Undocumented and "Dacamented" Students: The Current State of Affairs". Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. 25. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
Jump up ^ Haltiwanger, John. "WHO ARE THE DREAMERS? WHITE, BLACK AND ASIAN DACA YOUTH EXPLAIN WHY IMMIGRATION REFORM MATTERS". Newsweek. Retrieved February 3, 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Alcindor, Yamiche; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (September 5, 2017). "After 16 Futile Years, Congress Will Try Again to Legalize 'Dreamers'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Your Questions About DACA, Answered". NBC Chicago. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Remarks by the President on Immigration". whitehouse.gov. June 15, 2012. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
Jump up ^ Napolitano, Janet (June 15, 2012). "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children" (PDF). Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Jeffrey S. Passel and Mark Hugo Lopez (August 14, 2012). "Up to 1.7 million illegal immigrants may benefit from new deportation rules". Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Number of I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals by Fiscal Year, Quarter, Intake, Biometrics and Case Status: 2012–2016 (June 30)" (PDF). Uscis.gov. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
Jump up ^ Witherspoon, Andrew (September 5, 2017). "Dreamers, by the numbers". Axios. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Executive Action Flier" (PDF). United States Customs and Immigration Service. November 20, 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Jens Manuel Krogstad and Jeffrey S. Passel (November 20, 2014). "Those from Mexico will benefit most from Obama's executive action". Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Zargham, Mohammad (November 9, 2015). "Obama's immigration action blocked again; Supreme Court only option left". Reuters. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b David Montgomery and Julia Preston (December 3, 2014). "17 states suing on immigration". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b "Texas et. al. v. United States et. al.: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Office of the Attorney General of Texas. December 3, 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 2, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c "After Judge's Ruling Obama Delays Immigration Actions", The New York Times, February 18, 2015
^ Jump up to: a b c Kalhan, Anil (2015). "Deferred Action, Supervised Enforcement Discretion, and the Rule of Law Basis for Executive Action on Immigration". UCLA Law Review Discourse. 63: 58.
^ Jump up to: a b c Liptak, Adam; Shear, Michael D. (June 24, 2016). "Split Court Stifles Obama on Immigration: A 9-Word Ruling Erases a Shield for Millions". The New York Times. p. A1, Column 1. Retrieved June 25, 2016.
Jump up ^ Preston, Julia; Cushman, Jr., John H. (June 15, 2012). "Obama to permit young migrants to remain in U.S." The New York Times. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
Jump up ^ Kasperowicz, Pete (June 6, 2013). "House votes to defund Obama's 'administrative amnesty' for immigrants". Thehill.com. Retrieved September 9, 2017.
Jump up ^ Lind, Dara (July 31, 2014). "How Ted Cruz helped kill the GOP's border bill". Vox. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
Jump up ^ "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process (Through Fiscal Year 2017, 2nd Qtr)" (PDF). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. March 31, 2017.
Jump up ^ Napolitano, Janet (June 15, 2012). "Exercising prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children" (PDF). United States Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)". U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved December 2, 2016.
Jump up ^ Jeanne Batalova and Michelle Mittelstadt (August 2012). "Relief from Deportation: Demographic Profile of the DREAMers Potentially Eligible under the Deferred Action Policy". Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Application for Travel Document". USCIS. Retrieved November 16, 2016.
Jump up ^ Nicole Prchal Svajlenka and Audrey Singer (July 8, 2014). "DACA renewals ramp up". Brookings Institution. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
Jump up ^ "No Evidence Sanctuary Cities 'Breed Crime'". FactCheck.org. 2017-02-10. Retrieved 2018-01-10.
Jump up ^ "What's the economic impact of ending DACA?". @politifact. Retrieved 2017-09-17.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "DACA's end would hurt economy, hiring". USA Today. Retrieved 2017-09-17.
Jump up ^ Tracy Jan (September 6, 2017). "Analysis: White House claims 'dreamers' take jobs away from blacks and Hispanics. Here's the truth". Washington Post.
^ Jump up to: a b c "The Economic Cost of Repealing DACA | Econofact". Econofact. 2017-09-11. Retrieved 2017-09-13.
Jump up ^ Gould, Skye; Garfield, Leanna (September 6, 2017). "How much money a DACA repeal could cost every state". Business Insider.
Jump up ^ Davidson, Paul (September 8, 2017). "Analysts Say Ending DACA would Hurt Economy, Hiring". USA Today. PressReader. Retrieved 9 March 2018.
Jump up ^ "What is Daca and who are the Dreamers?". The Telegraph. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Ike Brannon and Logan Albright (January 18, 2017). "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Repealing DACA". Cato Institute.
Jump up ^ Schoen, John W. (September 5, 2017). "DACA deportations could cost US economy more than $400 billion". Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Silva Mathema (January 9, 2017). "Ending DACA Will Cost States Billions of Dollars". Center for American Progress.
^ Jump up to: a b Kuka, Elira; Shenhav, Na'ama; Shih, Kevin (February 2018). "Do Human Capital Decisions Respond to the Returns to Education? Evidence from DACA". NBER Working Paper No. 24315. doi:10.3386/w24315.
Jump up ^ "DACA's beneficiaries landed good jobs, enrolled in college, and contributed to society". Vox. Retrieved 2017-09-17.
Jump up ^ Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina; Antman, Francisca (2017-01-01). "Schooling and labor market effects of temporary authorization: evidence from DACA". Journal of Population Economics. 30 (1): 339–73. doi:10.1007/s00148-016-0606-z. ISSN 0933-1433.
Jump up ^ Barry-Jester, Anna Maria (2017-09-06). "The End Of DACA Will Ripple Through Families And Communities". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
Jump up ^ Venkataramani, Atheendar S.; Tsai, Alexander C. (2017-09-13). "Dreams Deferred – The Public Health Consequences of Rescinding DACA". New England Journal of Medicine. 0 (18): 1707–09. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1711416. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 28902574.
Jump up ^ Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina; Puttitanun, Thitima (August 1, 2016). "DACA and the Surge in Unaccompanied Minors at the US–Mexico Border". International Migration. 54 (4): 102–17. doi:10.1111/imig.12250. ISSN 1468-2435.
Jump up ^ Patler, Caitlin (November 22, 2017). "DACA recipients saw their mental health improve. Now, advocates fear its end will have the opposite effect". PRI's The World. Retrieved April 19, 2018.
Jump up ^ "How DACA affected the mental health of undocumented young adults". US Official News. September 9, 2017. Retrieved April 19, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Have courts ruled on DACA's constitutionality?". @politifact. Retrieved 2017-09-17.
Jump up ^ Dade, Corey (August 23, 2012). "Immigration Employees File Suit Against Obama's New Immigration Policy". NPR.
^ Jump up to: a b Llorente, Elizabeth (August 1, 2013). "Judge Dismisses ICE Agents' Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Deferred Action". Fox News.
Jump up ^ Adler, Jonathan (August 16, 2015). "Sheriff Arpaio lacks standing to challenge Obama immigration initiatives". The Washington Post.
Jump up ^ "Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action". American Immigration Council. June 28, 2016.
Jump up ^ Zargham, Mohammad (November 9, 2015). "Obama's immigration action blocked again; Supreme Court only option left". Reuters. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
Jump up ^ David Montgomery and Julia Preston (3 December 2014). "17 states suing on immigration". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2015. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
Jump up ^ "Texas et. al. v. United States et. al.: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Office of the Attorney General of Texas. 3 December 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 27 February 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c Masters, Jonathan (June 23, 2015). "The U.S. Supreme Court and Obama's Immigration Actions". Council on Foreign Relations.
^ Jump up to: a b "Texas v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-254 (District Court for the Southern District of Texas)" (PDF).
Jump up ^ Tan, Michael (August 7, 2017). "Are States Coordinating With the Trump Administration to Take Down DACA? We Aim to Find Out". American Civil Liberties Union.
Jump up ^ Sekulow, Jay (September 6, 2017). "End of an Error: Dealing With DACA From the Proper Perspective". American Center for Law and Justice.
Jump up ^ Platoff, Emma (May 1, 2018). "Texas and 6 other states sue to end DACA". Texas Tribune. Retrieved 4 August 2018.
Jump up ^ Jordan, Miriam (August 27, 2017). "'Dreamer' Plan That Aided 800,000 Immigrants Is Threatened". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ Morrissey, Edward (September 7, 2017). "Obama's original sin on DACA". The Week.
Jump up ^ Schwartz, David (August 15, 2012). "Jan Brewer Signs Executive Order Denying State Benefits to Children of illegal immigrants". Huffington Post. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ Shoichet, Catherine E. "Driver's license rules fuel new immigration debate". CNN. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ Eng, James. "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's ban on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants likely to wind up in court". NBC News. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Decision – at long last – paves the way for young immigrants to apply for driver's licenses". ACLU of Arizona. November 24, 2014.
Jump up ^ "California lawmakers seek relief for illegal immigrants to work in state". Los Angeles Times. August 23, 2012. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ "California will give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants". Los Angeles Times. October 1, 2012. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ Brindis, Claire (2014). "Realizing the Dream for Californians Eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Demographics and Health Coverage" (PDF). UCLA Center for Health Policy Research – via EBSCOhost.
^ Jump up to: a b Preston, Julia (July 10, 2012). "Obama Policy on Immigrants Is Challenged by Chicago". New York Times. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Director of the Federal Highway Administration: Who Is Paul Trombino?". AllGov. Oct 8, 2017. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Jump up ^ Petroski, William (December 27, 2012). "Iowa stance on immigrant driver's licenses criticized". USA Today. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Jump up ^ Wenger, Yvonne. "Mayor: Baltimore is a 'welcoming city' for immigrants and refugees". The Baltimore Sun. November 17, 2016.
Jump up ^ Anderson, Nick; Lazo, Luz. "Md. voters approve ‘Dream Act’ law". The Washington Post. November 7, 2012.
"Maryland Dream Act: New Fall Student". Montgomery College. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
"Maryland Dream Act: New Fall 2017: I meet the requirements". Montgomery College. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
Jump up ^ Oosting, Jonathan (October 18, 2012). "Federal program allows some illegal immigrants to work, but they won't be able to drive in Michigan". mlive.com.
Jump up ^ "Issue-Brief-SOS-DACA-licenses.pdf – Google Drive". Docs.google.com. Retrieved September 30, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b "Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process". United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Retrieved September 30, 2013.
Jump up ^ "One Michigan v. Ruth Johnson". American Civil Liberties Union. February 1, 2013. Retrieved September 30, 2013.
Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Uscis.gov (USCIS). Retrieved September 30, 2013.
Jump up ^ Jonathan Oosting. "Michigan Secretary of State to issue driver's licenses to immigrants approved for federal deportation deferral program". MLive.com. Retrieved September 30, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Duggan, Joe (May 30, 2015). "Nebraska begins issuing driver's licenses to children of illegal immigrants". Omaha World-Herald.
Jump up ^ "REAL ID Act – Title II". United States Congress, via United States Department of Homeland Security. 2015.
Jump up ^ "Legislative Bill 623". Nebraska Legislature. Section 1. January 21, 2015. "The Legislature finds and declares that section 202(c)(2)(B)(i) through (ix) of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 5 109-13, enumerated categories of individuals who may demonstrate lawful status for the purpose of eligibility for a federally secure motor vehicle operator's license or state identification card. The Legislature further finds and declares that it was the intent of the Legislature in 2011 to adopt the enumerated categories by the passage of Laws 2011, LB 215. The Legislature declares that the passage of this legislative bill is for the limited purpose of reaffirming the original legislative intent of Laws 2011, LB 215."
Jump up ^ "Are Individuals Granted Deferred Action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Policy Eligible for State Driver's Licenses?". Immigration Law Center. Retrieved April 1, 2014.
Jump up ^ Aguilar, Julian (August 20, 2012). "Perry: "Deferred Action" Doesn't Change State Policies". Texas Tribune. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
Jump up ^ Letter from Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, to the Director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, the Chancellor of the Virginia Community College System, and the presidents of Virginia public colleges and universities (April 29, 2014).
Jump up ^ Laura Vozzella & Pamela Constable, Virginia attorney general declares 'dreamers' eligible for in-state tuition, Washington Post (April 29, 2014).
Jump up ^ Brian Bennett, Michael A. MemoliContact Reporters (February 16, 2017). "The White House has found ways to end protection for 'Dreamers' while shielding Trump from blowback". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Ariane de Vogue, Madison Park, Artemis Moshtaghian and Mary Kay Mallonee (February 15, 2017), Immigrant protected under Obama's 'Dreamer' program is detained for failure to renew her DACA application (a requirement of the Dreamers act)., CNN, retrieved February 15, 2017, The conflicting stories come amid immigrant rights attorneys' fears that President Donald Trump's administration will target the Dreamers, who were temporarily allowed to live and work in the United States after passing background checks. About 750,000 people have received permission to stay under DACA. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Daniel Levine and Kristina Cooke (February 14, 2017), Exclusive: U.S. arrests Mexican immigrant in Seattle covered by Obama program, San Francisco, Reuters, retrieved February 14, 2017 CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
Jump up ^ Schmidt, Samantha. "ICE nabs young 'dreamer' applicant after she speaks out at a news conference". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Sanchez, Ray (March 10, 2017). "DREAMer Daniela Vargas freed, immigration group says". CNN. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "'Dreamer' threatened with deportation in Seattle is released after weeks of detention". LA Times. March 29, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Gerstein, Josh (June 15, 2017). "Trump won't alter status of current Dreamers". Politico. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
Hesson, Ted (June 16, 2017). "DACA still 'under review,' Trump administration says". Politico. Retrieved June 17, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Shear, Michael D.; Davis, Julie Hirschfeld (September 5, 2017). "Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina; Puttitanun, Thitima (2017-12-01). "Was DACA Responsible for the Surge in Unaccompanied Minors on the Southern Border?". International Migration. 55 (6): 12–13. doi:10.1111/imig.12403. ISSN 1468-2435.
Jump up ^ Adam Edelman (September 5, 2017). "Trump Ends DACA Program, No New Applications Accepted". NBC News. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kopan, Tai; Acosta, Jim (September 6, 2017). "Admin memo: DACA recipients should prepare for 'departure from the United States'". CNN.
Jump up ^ Kimball, Spencer (September 5, 2017). "Read Barack Obama's response to Trump's decision to end DACA". Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Daniella Diaz and Lauren Fox. "Democrats, some in GOP slam the end of DACA". CNN. Retrieved September 6, 2017. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
^ Jump up to: a b "US reacts to Trump's move to scrap the DACA programme". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ McCain, United States Senator John. "Statement by Senator John McCain on Trump's Decision to End DACA". www.mccain.senate.gov. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
Jump up ^ "Lawmakers, organizations speak out after Trump's decision to end DACA". ABC News. September 5, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Report, South Bend Tribune. "Notre Dame, other schools back DACA program". South Bend Tribune.
^ Jump up to: a b "'Reprehensible,' 'unconscionable': Christian leaders react to Trump's decision to overturn DACA". Washington Post. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ Zauzmer, Julie (2017-09-11). "Pope Francis: If Trump is 'pro-life,' he should extend DACA". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-09-11.
Jump up ^ Keneally, Meghan (September 6, 2017). "DACA announcement sparks protests nationwide, dozens arrested at Trump Tower". ABC News. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Three Democratic congressmen arrested at Trump tower Daca protests". The Guardian. September 19, 2017. Retrieved September 19, 2017.
Jump up ^ Harrington, Ben (May 23, 2018). DACA Rescission: Legal Issues and Litigation Status (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 23 June 2018.
Jump up ^ Kopan, Tal. "Blue states sue Trump over DACA". CNN. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ McGreevy, Patrick (September 11, 2017). "California politics updates: California to sue Trump administration for DACA decision". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 11, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Six Dreamers sue Trump administration over DACA decision". Reuters. September 18, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
Jump up ^ "University of California sues Trump administration on unlawful repeal of DACA program". University of California. 2017-09-11. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
Jump up ^ "UC President Napolitano denounces decision to end DACA program, calls on Congress to make protections permanent". University of California. 2017-09-07. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
Jump up ^ Strohr, Greg (December 20, 2017). "Supreme Court Lets Trump Team Withhold DACA Documents for Now". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
Jump up ^ "IN RE UNITED STATES, ET AL" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. December 20, 2017. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
Jump up ^ Samuels, Brett (2018-01-09). "Judge blocks Trump plan to end DACA". TheHill. Retrieved 2018-01-10.
Jump up ^ DeMarche, Edmund (2018-01-10). "Judge rules against Trump administration on rescinding DACA". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-01-10.
Jump up ^ Stevens, Matt (2018). "DACA Participants Can Again Apply for Renewal, Immigration Agency Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-01-14.
Jump up ^ Dinan, Stephen (February 13, 2018). "Court orders full restoration of DACA program". The Washington Post.
Jump up ^ Case 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-JO Document 255. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. February 13, 2018
Jump up ^ "Justices Turn Down Trump's Appeal in 'Dreamers' Case". The New York Times. 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
Jump up ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/daca-dreamers-trump.html
Jump up ^ "Judge upholds ruling that DACA must be restored". Cable News network. August 3, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Memorandum opinion" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Columbia. August 3, 2018. Retrieved 4 August 2018.
Jump up ^ "Dream Act of 2017 Bill Summary | National Immigration Forum". National Immigration Forum. 21 July 2017.
Jump up ^ "Recognizing America's Children Act".
Jump up ^ "The American Hope Act".
Jump up ^ "BRIDGE Act".
Jump up ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (12 February 2018). "Senate Begins 'Wild' Week of Debate on Immigration, Outcome Unknown". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2018.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Immigration Laws Update Immigrants Arrest Depends On Which State They Live In The US
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
The White House. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: Who Can Be Considered?
Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. DHS Outlines Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process
hide
v
t
e
Immigration to the United States and related topics
Relevant colonial era,
United States and
international laws
Colonial era
Nationality law in the American Colonies
Plantation Act 1740
18th century
Naturalization Act 1790 / 1795 / 1798
19th century
Naturalization Law 1802
Civil Rights Act of 1866
14th Amendment (1868)
Naturalization Act 1870
Page Act (1875)
Immigration Act of 1882
Chinese Exclusion (1882)
Scott Act (1888)
Immigration Act of 1891
Geary Act (1892)
1900–1949
Naturalization Act 1906
Gentlemen's Agreement (1907)
Immigration Act of 1907
Immigration Act 1917 (Asian Barred Zone)
Emergency Quota Act (1921)
Cable Act (1922)
Immigration Act 1924
Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934)
Filipino Repatriation Act (1935)
Nationality Act of 1940
Bracero Program (1942–1964)
Magnuson Act (1943)
War Brides Act (1945)
Luce–Celler Act (1946)
1950–1999
UN Refugee Convention (1951)
Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 / 1965
Refugee Act (1980)
Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986)
American Homecoming Act (1989)
Immigration Act 1990
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) (1996)
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1997)
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) (1998)
21st century
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) (2000)
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) (2000)
H-1B Visa Reform Act (2004)
REAL ID Act (2005)
Secure Fence Act (2006)
DACA (2012)
Executive Order 13769 (2017)
Executive Order 13780 (2017)
Visas and policies
Visa policy
Permanent residence
Visa Waiver Program
Temporary protected status
Asylum
Green Card Lottery
Central American Minors
US-VISIT
Security Advisory Opinion
E-Verify
Section 287(g)
National Origins Formula
Trump administration family separation policy
Government
organizations
Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Supreme Court cases
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923)
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011)
Related issues
and events
Economic impact
Eugenics in the United States
Guest worker program
Human trafficking
Human smuggling
Coyotaje
Immigration reform
Immigration reduction
Mexico–United States barrier
Labor shortage
March for America
Illegal immigrant population
Reverse immigration
2006 protests
Unaccompanied minors from Central America
List of people deported from the United States
Geography
Mexico–United States border
Canada–United States border
United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints
Proposed legislation
DREAM Act (2001–2010)
H.R. 4437 (2005)
McCain–Kennedy (2005)
SKIL (2006)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2006
STRIVE Act (2007)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2007
Uniting American Families Act (2000–2013)
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
SAFE Act (2015)
RAISE Act (2017)
Immigration stations
and points of entry
Angel Island
Castle Garden
East Boston
Ellis Island
Sullivan's Island
Washington Avenue
Operations
"Wetback" (1954)
"Peter Pan" (1960–1962)
"Babylift" (1975)
"Gatekeeper" (1994)
"Endgame" (2003–2012)
"Front Line" (2004–2005)
"Streamline" (2005–present)
"Return to Sender" (2006–2007)
"Jump Start" (2006–2008)
"Phalanx" (2010–2016)
State legislation
California DREAM Act (2006–2010)
Arizona SB 1070 (2010)
Alabama HB 56 (2011)
Non-governmental
organizations
Arizona Border Recon
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
National Immigration Forum
Center for Community Change
We Are America Alliance
CASA of Maryland
Mexica Movement
Mexicans Without Borders
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Minuteman Project
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
California Coalition for Immigration Reform
Save Our State
Center for Immigration Studies
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
NumbersUSA
Negative Population Growth
Migration Policy Institute
Utah Compact
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals&oldid=854608005"
Categories:
United States immigration law
2012 in American law
Childhood in the United States
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from September 2017
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
Articles containing potentially dated statements from June 2016
All articles containing potentially dated statements
Articles to be expanded from September 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Deutsch
Español
Français
한국어
Italiano
日本語
Norsk
Simple English
Svenska
中文
4 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 12 August 2018, at 15:33 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: b

attrs: href title

value: sup

attrs: href class title

values: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

value: p

values: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

values: United States Department of Homeland Security

values:
/wiki/Trump_Administration
mw-redirect
Trump Administration

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Secretary_of_Homeland_Security
mw-redirect
Secretary of Homeland Security

values: plainlinks noexcerpt noprint asof-tag update

values: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

values:
/wiki/Andrew_S._Hanen
mw-redirect
Andrew S. Hanen

values:
/wiki/Texas_v._United_States
mw-redirect
Texas v. United States

values: padding:0 4px; width:1em; text-align:right;

values: border-left:solid 1px silver;border-right:solid 1px silver;

values: overflow-x: auto; border:1px solid silver; font-size:88%; padding:0.4em; width:600px; background: white;

values: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

values:
/wiki/Enforcement_discretion
mw-redirect
Enforcement discretion

values:
/wiki/Legal_representation
mw-redirect
Legal representation

values:
/wiki/High_school
mw-redirect
High school

values:
/wiki/Honorable_discharge
mw-redirect
Honorable discharge

values:
/wiki/Labor_force_participation
mw-redirect
Labor force participation

values:
/wiki/Productivity_(economics)
mw-redirect
Productivity (economics)

values:
/wiki/CATO_Institute
mw-redirect
CATO Institute

values:
/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor
mw-redirect
Reed O'Connor

values: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

values: Administrative Procedure Act (United States)

values: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

values:
plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content
presentation

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

values:
/wiki/Income_taxes
mw-redirect
Income taxes

values:
/wiki/Selective_Service
mw-redirect
Selective Service

values:
/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
mw-redirect
REAL ID Act

values:
/wiki/Virginia_Attorney_General
mw-redirect
Virginia Attorney General

values: State Council of Higher Education for Virginia

values:
/wiki/U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce
mw-redirect
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

values: Edit section: Legal challenges to recission

values: Edit section: Proposed responses to the DACA repeal

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: lower-alpha;

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.014

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.08.001

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1126/science.aan5893

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0036-8075

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28860206

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29253449

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0277-9536

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331

values: Category:CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter

values:
/wiki/Vox_(news_website)
mw-redirect
Vox (news website)

values: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.uscis.gov/i-131

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.3386/w24315

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0606-z

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0933-1433

values:
nofollow
external text
https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1711416

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1711416

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-4793

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28902574

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1111/imig.12250

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1468-2435

values:
/wiki/Washington_Post
mw-redirect
Washington Post

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1111/imig.12403

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0190-8286

values: Cable News network (page does not exist)

values: commons:Category:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

values: Template:Immigration to the United States

values: Template talk:Immigration to the United States

values: Nationality law in the American Colonies

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

values: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

values: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

values: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act

values: American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act

values: American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act

values: Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g)

values: Trump administration family separation policy

values:
/wiki/U.S._Border_Patrol
mw-redirect
U.S. Border Patrol

values: Category:United States immigration and naturalization case law

values: Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States

values: Immigration reduction in the United States

values: Illegal immigrant population of the United States

values: Reverse immigration in the United States

values: 2006 United States immigration reform protests

values: List of people deported or removed from the United States

values: United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints

values: Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005

values: Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

values: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

values: Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007

values: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

values: Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

values: Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

values:
/wiki/CASA_of_Maryland
mw-redirect
CASA of Maryland

values: Federation for American Immigration Reform

values: California Coalition for Immigration Reform

values: National Korean American Service & Education Consortium

values: Center for Migration Studies of New York

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from September 2017

values: Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from June 2016

values: Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements

values: Category:Articles to be expanded from September 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: القرار المؤجل للواصلين أطفالا – Arabic

values: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – German

values: Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia – Spanish

values: 불법체류청년 추방유예 제도 – Korean

values: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – Italian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

values: 若年移民に対する国外強制退去の延期措置 – Japanese

values: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – Norwegian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – Simple English

values: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – Swedish

values: 童年入境者暫緩遣返手續 – Chinese

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals rootpage-Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals skin-vector action-view