I don’t hide the fact that I grew up Republican. While the Republican party no longer looks like the party I once belonged to, that doesn’t mean I’ve abandoned my Conservative ideals.
One reason I continue to call myself a Conservative relates to my continued belief in the importance of separation of powers at the federal level.
The gridlock in Congress has led to a failure to produce meaningful legislation in order to address some of the greatest challenges facing Texans in this new decade. As a result, executive powers have been expanded in order to fill that void.
When the Obama Administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012, it protected some undocumented individuals from deportation and made them eligible for work permits. This program was a sort of stopgap designed to protect young people who were brought to the United States by their families and who only know America as home.
DACA’s status, however, is threatened by a Republican administration that is oppositional to those goals. The Trump Administration is currently reviewing the program ahead of a potential rescission. This tug-of-war leaves many current DACA recipients unsure about what their future holds. Further, Americans miss out on economic and educational benefits that accompany the program’s existence.
This kind of executive overreach creates unnecessary whiplash and uncertainty as the two parties use these wedge issues as a political football, with major changes to law depending on who occupies the Oval Office. I advocate for Congress to return to its proper place drafting and passing legislation for continuity between administrations. I also support DACA-like legislation that would create a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.
Researched by: Caleb Paxton and Aida Farah
Continued reading and sourcing …
CATO: DREAM Act has major financial benefits for the US, and it should include children who come to the US with their parents under legal work visas
October 23, 2017
From the post:
H-1B high-skilled foreign workers can bring their spouses and minor children with them to the United States on H-4 visas. The H-4 is a temporary visa that is valid for as long as the H-1B is. Once the child turns 21, however, the H-4 is canceled. Most employers also sponsor their H-1B employees for permanent residency (a “green card”), and their minor children can receive green cards with them. But again, if their children turn 21 while they are waiting, the law boots them from the line.
The author goes on to estimate that there are at least 125,000 kids and $31.4 billion in net fiscal benefits if they are granted the same opportunities as Dreamers.
Migration Policy Institute report estimates 17,000 Dreamers graduate from Texas high schools annually
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
April 24, 2019
About 17,000 Dreamers graduate from Texas high schools every year, according to the Migration Policy Institute. California (27,000) is the only state with more Dreamers graduating. One of the contributing factors that may lead to Dreamers sticking out high school despite other uncertainties is a Texas law passed in 2001 that allows Dreamers who graduate from a Texas high school to pay in-state tuition rates for higher education.
Migration Policy Institute report: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/unauthorized-immigrants-graduate-us-high-schools
Paper: “Do human capital decisions respond to the returns to education? Evidence from DACA”
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Abstract: “This paper studies human capital responses to the availability of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provides temporary work authorization and deferral from deportation for undocumented, high-school-educated youth. We use a sample of young adults that migrated to the U.S. as children to implement a difference-in-differences design that compares non-citizen immigrants (“eligible”) to citizen immigrants (“ineligible”) over time. We find that DACA significantly increased high school attendance and high school graduation rates, reducing the citizen-noncitizen gap in graduation by 40%. We also find positive, though imprecise, impacts on college attendance.”
After SCOTUS ruling on DACA, Trump Admin reviews program, won’t consider new applicants
WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 28, 2020
Despite the ruling from SCOTUS on June 18 that the Administration’s plan to cancel Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lacked sufficient reasoning, the Trump Administration announced it would review the program and not accept any new applicants. Additionally, current DACA recipients will be eligible to renew benefits for only one year instead of two.
Trump Admin’s “comprehensive review” of DACA seen by some as potential step towards shutting it down after election
July 28, 2020
Opponents of DACA, including the Trump Admin, believe that the program was created illegally by the Obama Administration. While no court has ruled as such, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has led a group of state attorneys general to file a lawsuit–which is currently pending in federal court–making that claim.
Memo: DHS Acting Secretary Wolf outlines Administration’s review of DACA
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
July 28, 2020
Acting Secretary Wolf articulates the reasons why he believes the original policy should be rescinded, which include the role of Congress in determining long-term policy:
“Rescinding DACA entirely may well create a more pressing need for Congress to decide whether it wants to address this issue and the underlying conditions that led to a population of this size to remain in the United States in violation of our immigration laws for so long, and any other efforts to reform our immigration system in a manner that advances the national interest. As unilateral executive action, the DACA policy necessarily lacks the permanence of statutory law; it is more akin to a stopgap measure. For example, DACA recipients, as such, are not entitled to become lawful permanent residents and are not on a path to citizenship. Congress is best positioned to address that and other concerns on a more permanent basis through duly enacted statutes.”
SCOTUS rules that Trump Admin’s rescission of DACA violates Administrative Procedure Act
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
June 18, 2020
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Administration can legally rescind DACA, it must provide justification for why it makes that decision under the Administrative Procedure Act. From the report:
The court “reasoned that DACA is more than a non-enforcement policy. Beyond directing DHS officials to consider not pursuing the removal of some unlawfully present aliens, the DACA memorandum set up a system whereby childhood arrivals could apply to DHS for ‘affirmative immigration relief’ that included deferred action, work authorization, and other benefits. Thus, by rescinding DACA, DHS did more than simply change its mind about how to enforce the removal provisions in the INA against a segment of the unauthorized population. The DACA rescission also took away a system for delivering and adjudicating immigration benefits. This action, the Court held, is subject to review under the APA.”
SCOTUS Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Congressional legislation, state-level initiatives seek to legalize Dreamers
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
September 3, 2019
Over the past 19 years, there have been 10 versions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Most recently, the House passed HR 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, on June 4, 2019. The bill would “provide current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a three-step pathway to U.S. citizenship through college, work, or the armed services.”