Reasons Why Daca Reform Should Stay And Continue

In this case, in 2012, Barack Obama announced DACA ( Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals) would be taking place. This program allows for the protection of immigrant youth who came to the United States when they were young, from getting deported back to their home country. Back during the 2016 presidential campaign Donald Trump indicated he would like to get rid of DACA, On September 5th, the Attorney General announced DACA would be phased out, however DACA recipients whose status expired on or before March 5, 2018, would be allowed to apply to renew their DACA status by October 5, 2017. On September 8, 2017, three days after the announcement of DACA being terminated, the University of California, led by the President of the University of California and former Secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano, announced they had filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to prevent the administration from terminating the DACA program. In December 2017 the government proceeded to file for a mandamus and application for stay with the Supreme Court still seeking to prevent the district court from considering the documents and with a 5-4 vote the supreme court granted the application and temporarily stopped the District Courts order to provide the documents explaining the set of circumstances reasoning for the termination of DACA. On January 9, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Alsup decided the government needed to maintain the DACA program while the lawsuit is in progress, writing that 'the agency’s decision to take away the DACA program was based on a “flawed legal premise' and noted plaintiffs 'have clearly demonstrated they are likely to suffer serious, irreparable harm'. This resulted in the order to reinstate the DACA program and is still active currently. The two questions before the Supreme Court are; whether the Department of Homeland Securit`y’s decision to terminate the DACA policy is judicially reviewable, and whether DHS’s decision to end the DACA program is lawful.

Justice Krupiak along with Justice Lujan Davis, and Justice Cano have concluded with the majority that without DACA, recipients would lose their authorization to work; it would also derail hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients from continuing their undergraduate- and graduate-level education with insufficient support. This is considering nearly 700,000 currently in the program, whom would have their lives turned upside down, be sent back to countries they do not recognize, and be punished for something they should not be held responsible for. Immigrant and undocumented youth are often brought to the United States at an early age. However, they are not US citizens, but they grew up here, went to school here, and identify with our culture. Statistics also show these students often face intense economic, legal, social, emotional, and educational barriers. Despite these obstacles, they keep showing themselves to be determined, an inspired group that refuses to give up on their dreams; evidenced by their ability to succeed despite the legal limitations continuously thrown in their path by the United States. In Plyler v. Doe, 1982, the US Supreme Court ruled no child should be denied a K- 12 public education based on their immigration status.

Today, I want to consider why we should not deny these citizens, who have been here for as long as they can remember an opportunity to flourish in the environment that they were brought up in. DACA has strict standards to be granted eligible. Recipients must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; they must have come to the U.S. before reaching their 16th birthday; and must have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007 up to the present time. Recipients must also be in school; have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate; or be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Additionally, recipients must not be convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety. These strict set of rules ensures DACA recipients pose no threat to us and our everyday life.

However, these DACA recipients do influence our economic state, and they work to better our community just as an average American citizen would. According to a 2019 national study, 90 percent are employed, 40 percent are in college, and many have served in the armed forces. Referring back to Plyler v. Doe, 1982, contrary to popular belief, many undocumented immigrants pay into the federal and state tax system, and yet we still deny their children funding to higher education. Research shows that allowing this group of young people to join their peers in higher education and the workforce would not displace US born citizens, but would in fact, be a great benefit and aid to our economy.

Here under question, it can be concluded President Trump’s Administration decision to terminate DACA was unconstitutional, as well as arbitrary and capricious. The action to terminate was not fully considerate of relevant factors. It was an abuse of discretion on the administration's part. There should be more of a process to terminating this largely used program. The Trump Administration has failed to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, when required, public input. As of now, two-thirds of the cases against the Trump Administration in the past two years include accusations of violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The administration did not go about ending the program in the right way.

Firstly, Jeff Sessions had given his decision to the country without any sort of warning, in opposition to one of the main principles of the APA that states “legislative rules are to be announced in advance, giving the public a chance to comment before a final rule is issued.'' Second, the attorney general’s claim that DACA was unlawful is flawed. Before DACA was announced, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) produced a 33-page legal memo detailing the policy, the legal limits it has, and the steps to attain DACA status, concluded the program was a permissible use of the broad discretion that the INA gives to the Department of Homeland Security. Jeff Sessions claims were not detailed in such a way that they needed to be to terminate this policy.

Sessions claims “DACA was instituted without proper statutory authority, and contains an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch” however there were no analysis or explanation of the claim. He did not clarify exactly which of the INA’s sections DACA was apparently violating, and for that matter the part of the constitution it violated. Sessions also added the Fifth Circuit had ruled against DAPA, stating that “the DACA policy has the same legal and constitutional defects,” This claim was seen to be false; the Fifth Circuit’s DAPA decision focused on a different part of the statute(it concluded the state would suffer a financial injury by having to issue driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries, as well as lose money since DAPA recipients could have received benefits to those eligible.) that doesn’t apply to DACA. Looking at all the facts present it is clear the decision to rescind DACA did not have the required credentials needed for it to be lawful. The government attempting to conceal documents that favor terminating DACA shows an arbitrary and capricious behavior, misusing the power of discretion. Knowing the facts of this case it has been concluded the decision is judicially reviewable. The termination of DACA can be classified as judicially reviewable simply based on the grounds that the administration is claiming DACA is unlawful in the first place. Having the reasoning based solely on being unlawful opens the door to the questioning of how this policy may be unlawful. Judicial review is defined as the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. In this case did they consider all the facts in the correct fashion. “Further, a decision to end a far-reaching policy like DACA is not the type of decision committed to agency discretion by law.”. We should be in a position to review how the law was taken, read, and interpreted for the administration to come to this decision and decide if they are in the right or not.

We took this case to decide whether the decision to terminate DACA was judicially reviewable and whether DHS’ decision to terminate DACA is lawful. While the case of whether DACA in its current form should stand as a policy is a separate matter i wish not to address, the decision to terminate DACA is found to be not lawful on the grounds that the Trump Administration and DHS did not prove DACA policy to be unlawful. They violate the Administrative Procedure Act. It is clear the decision was not carefully considerate of all relevant factors, they issued no warning of the termination of the policy, they gave no specific clear or precise arguments that showed valid reasoning for termination of the DACA policy and when asked they filed separate lawsuits to block district courts from viewing the decision, showing arbitrary and capricious behavior, conveying a notion to abuse the possession of power. The court has decided as well this decision to terminate is judicially reviewable based on the grounds that the administration is claiming DACA is unlawful in the first place, going along with the decision to end a wide set greatly used policy like DACA would typically not be the type of decision that should be classified to agency discretion. We should be in a position to review how the law was taken, read, and interpreted for the administration to come to this decision and decide if they made these decisions based on all reviewable factors without violating rules set on changing policy.