The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The 10th Anniversary of DACA
A compendium of my writings defending the morality and legality of this program - but also warning that it remains imperiled unless and until Congress passes a law institutionalizing it.
Today is the tenth anniversary of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a policy originally established by President Obama to protect children who were brought into the United States illegally. DACA allows such migrants (often referred to as "dreamers," after the Dream Act, which has so far failed to pass Congress) to stay and work in the U.S. as long as they arrived in the country when they were 15 years old or younger, were 30 or younger when the program began in 2012, have not been convicted of any crimes as of the time they apply for the program, and have either graduated from a U.S. high school, are currently enrolled in school, or have served in the armed forces. All told, the policy protects some 800,000 people from deportation.
I have been writing about this program from early on, and have consistently defended its morality and legality. But I have also warned that the "dreamers" won't be truly safe from deportation unless and until Congress passes a law institutionalizing the program. Until then, a hostile president can - if he tries hard enough - find a way to end DACA. The Supreme Court's 2020 decision invalidating the Trump administration's hamfisted efforts to abolish the policy made clear that a better-planned executive effort to get rid of it would likely succeed. It is also possible, though less likely, that lawsuit filed by GOP-controlled states will eventually lead the more conservative Supreme Court to rule that DACA is illegal. The 2020 decision didn't address the legality of the program itself, only whether Trump's attempts to end it violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
For those interested, here is a compendium of my writings on DACA and related issues. Unless otherwise indicated, all of these works are posts at the Volokh Conspiracy blog:
- "In Praise of Obama's New Immigration Policy," June 20, 2012.
2. "Yes, Obama's Executive Action Deferring Deportation for Millions of Immigrants Is Constitutional," Reason, Apr. 19, 2016. This was part of a debate with the "other" Ilya, Ilya Shapiro, over the closely related DAPA program. The legal issues raised by the two are similar. See Shapiro's contribution here.
3. "The Case for Keeping DACA," Sept. 4, 2017.
4. "Why DACA is Legal," Nov. 11, 2019.
5."Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Sound, but Very Narrow Ruling on DACA," June 18, 2020.
6."A Simple Way to Help Protect DACA Against Legal Challenges," Nov. 9, 2020.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"For those interested, here is a compendium of my writings on DACA and related issues. Unless otherwise indicated, all of these works are posts at the Volokh Conspiracy blog:"
If you are you must be a masochist.
Wall is part of the price of any law.
Start by enforcing existing law instead of claiming "it's broken".
There's the GOP for you.
"You can't do something sensible unless you cater to our stupidity."
And there’s the Democrats for you:
We demand 100% of everything we want in every area of policy, culture, and day-to-day life and we have only bitter hatred for anyone who refuses to applaud us 24/7/365.
The only flaw in your comment is that Republicans have repeatedly expressed support for the dreamers.
They're just assholes who don't care about disrupted lives or anything else, as long as they can scream and kick their feet to get their idiotic way.
Toxic bastards.
Suggest you purchase a mirror.
Federal Republicans. The Federal Class loves the browning and the pooring of America.
They want a two-class nation with rich, powerful Federals and then the rest be working-class Poors.
rich, powerful Federals
You know what is the strongest indicator of being rich and powerful? It's not being a civil servant. It's being born rich and powerful parents. And that indicator is only getting stronger over time. If you want to follow trends ad ridiculum, the trend is towards private aristocracy, not public.
I'd wager you have never met an actual federal employee.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2021/12/21/richest-counties-in-the-us/
Weird how 4 of the top 8 richest counties in America are where the Federal Class lives.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/all-news/2017/09/latest-study-on-federal-compensation-puts-public-private-pay-gap-at-widest-margin-yet/
"Federal employees earned 80 percent more in 2016 compared to private sector workers, according to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato. Federal employees earn 42 percent more than"
80% more than the people they are allegedly supposed to serve.
The data suggests Americans serve the Federals, not the other way around.
1. No new goalposts. From Feds are rich and powerful to they earn marginally more.
2. That Cato study sucks. It doesn't control for age or education (federal workers are a lot older on average with more schooling). It also ignores part-time versus full-time. It counts health insurance as compensation.
3. You know what also lives in those counties? Government contractors.
In conclusion, your narrativism has once again failed. Mostly because it's wrong - federal employees in real life are workaday white collar workers like everyone else.
Stop railing at the feds in your head and start to deal with reality.
80% isn't marginal. Health insurance absolutely is compensation, just like every other benefit.
How do I know you didn't read anything at all? Cato absolutely addresses education. In fact, they demonstrate the more educated you get the LESS you get paid w.r.t. the private sector.
The Federal Government's incentive structure is literally a magnet for stupid greedy people and a repellant to smart people. Which explains alot.
You obviously didn't read anything I provided or anything from Cato, why did you still try to gaslight like you did?
I named a number of stats that explain the discrepancy without some inherent federal overpayment.
Cato did not address education, it briefly name-checks the CBO. And how can you think education is a good story for you? Among less-educated workers, the federal government pays better, but among highly educated workers, the private sector pays better.
Do you have an explanation for that, are are you just going to call me names?
Thanks for confirming Democrats' attitudes yet again.
Lots of things Dems want they're not demanding, Ben.
Once again, you bring a lot about your emotional state, and little about the actual facts on the ground.
Bernard11 is a clear example for everyone to see the attitude.
Meanwhile your post essentially says you disagree but have exactly nothing else to offer. Very slightly less than average for you.
Yeah, sometimes I say stuff because I assume you're not going to be really stupid about it.
For an example, I don't see Dems insisting government grind to a halt until universal basic income is passed.
Or transgender rights. Or single payer health care. Or a carbon tax.
And you also don't seem to have comprehended bernard's post either.
You may be getting even worse at reading before you hit post.
Dems like to talk about that sort of fantasy stuff but when it comes time to pay for it they only really support it when Santa Claus is paying for it. Even Vermont decided they didn’t really support single payer health care very much.
Dems thought they supported $5 gas policies, then they implemented those policies, and now they don’t support those policies any more after seeing the price tag — but it’s too late.
No new goalposts.
Your original thesis is that Dems were like this: "We demand 100% of everything we want in every area of policy, culture, and day-to-day life and we have only bitter hatred for anyone who refuses to applaud us 24/7/365."
Now you say instead that Dems can't pay for the policies they want. Which is a completely different debate.
The fact that you came in hot, and cannot support your original thesis and so switch to a different one says a lot about how little you care about the truth of what you assert.
That’s why Democrats are so unhappy all the time. Someone told them fantasy stories where they could get infinite free stuff. But then Santa Claus didn't deliver. So we get demands and tantrums and bitter hatred.
But when Dems are in charge with no effective opposition in places like Vermont and California they can't make Santa Claus real. Instead of giving up on storytime and starting to think like adults, they take it out on the rest of America.
First, this is your third goalpost. Can't stick to a 'Dems bad' narrative, can you?
Actually, Ben, Dems don't generally believe in infinite free stuff. Your extreme partisanship sure makes you say some ridiculous things!
California has a structural problem with one party rule. Which is not specific to liberalism - you can see plenty of red states with similar issues that go deep into dumb social wedge issue bullshit to the determent of their people and budgets.
Vermont seems by and large to be doing fine?
"You can't do something sensible unless you cater to our stupidity."Doing something "sensible" would be to enforce existing law instead of trying to create more loopholes.
Existing law includes discretion and priorities.
It does not require the level of ruthless cruelty the right insists on.
Right, so instead of a Rule of Law model where ruthlessly cruel laws are changed, you prefer a Rule of Man model where Federals get to apply their personal discretion and preferences to the application of our laws.
That's working out so well for us right now.
Do you know what discretion is?
Immigration law is not exhaustively directive - it is designed to add the judgement of individuals into the equation.
Obviously I know what discretion means, did you not read a word of what I wrote?
So you think discretion is anti-rule of law?
DACA typifies new behavior paralyzing American government: Presidential administrations with no intention of faithfully executing laws, honoring agreements with the opposition, or serving any American outside a small fraction of people who are core supporters.
Yes. Ilya is rather casual about selective enforcement of the law. I'd put rather more weight on the President's constitutional duty to see the law faithfully executed, which seems to prohibit systematically NOT faithfully executing it.
Legislative inaction is not an excuse for Executive action, the legislature is entitled to refrain from enacting laws, and see them not enforced, as it is to enact laws, and see them enforced. Inaction by the legislature is a BINDING decision.
The laws are being enforced. Only politicians who don't need to back it up say immigration law is being broken by the government.
Of course, the same people say our border is wide open. Because it's not an argument based on facts, but rather on getting support and unity by attacking an out-group.
The laws are NOT being enforced. DACA isn't enforcement of immigration law, it's a systematic refusal to enforce it.
It doesn't stop deportations, only prioritizes them. Which is well within the discretion allowed by law.
Yeah, and if there were enough resources, they'd totally deport those DACA people, because they're still on the list, they're just getting around to other people first?
Do you actually think about this crap before you hit "reply"? No, it actually "stops" deportations.
That's not a question even worth asking, Brett. Stay functional; that's what the law examines.
You're just using telepathy and hypotheticals to try and gin up a fight.
No, it actually "stops" deportations.
That's not established at all. The number of deportations was not driven by not picking up these kids. You know that. This is a pretty bad line of attack on a number of levels.
The truth is, DACA, "passed" as it was, operated as it was, is ultimately detrimental to real reform.
The truth is, Republicans have agency and chose to be awful.
Dems did not.
Sigh. Supposed "facts" without research, links, or any other evidence. And as classic, Sarcastro is too lazy to provide any.
As late as 2018, Trump and Grassley proposed a bill in the Senate that would've legalized the Dreamers. But...it provided funding for Trump's border wall.
Stopping Trump from having a political victory was more important to the Democrats than the Dreamers. Democrats figured they "already" had the Dreamers here, so didn't need to compromise on any border funding.
That's why Obama's bit was ultimately detrimental.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/374087-senate-rejects-trump-immigration-framework/
Yeah, I know that, no need to be a condescending ass.
The Republicans chose to ride or die with the wall. And used the Dreamers as leverage. Which is them having agency and choosing to be awful.
You give them a pass for instrumentalzing these people, because...well, doesn't seem like they're much more than instruments to you either.
As early as 2017, Trump and senate Democrats reached a deal to enact DACA without wall funding. Then Ann Coulter had a tantrum, and Trump backed out of it.
Let me guess, you want DAs and AGs to not enforce state abortion laws if Roe v. Wade is overturned, too.
I mean, that's up to state governments and their constitutions, as is all implementation of internal laws.
Also, you switched from is to ought without noting that you did
Don't do that.
This is a perfect example of something peculiar to American politics, and Somin's argument is certainly a manifestation of his adoption of a narrow sort of American political ideology. Somin's argument is this (which is typical of American politicians on both sides of the aisle): I approve of this policy so it must be constitutional. The evidence of the shallowness of his argument is that he admits that Congress is the institution that should be making immigration policy, but his open-borders ideological commitments continue to override his knowledge of the nature of American political authority.
Mentioning that immigrants (like Somin) favor other potential immigrants over American citizens whouldn't be proper (whoops, did it anyway).
Mentioning that immigrants (like Somin) favor other potential immigrants over American citizens wouldn't be proper
And also maybe not true!
Poor Elian Gonzalez, came 13 years too early, forced to slave away for peanuts in Commie Cuber, but hey, at least he's a "Doctor"
If they are here illegally, they need to go and apply for work visas or citizenship. I don't have an issue if they are first in line but they need to go first then apply or our laws are a joke...they are here illegally
They can't apply for either because they were brought here illegally. That's the way the is written and nominally how the law is supposed to be applied.
Govt cannot nullify its own laws..only the citizens can
As with so many things, progress is impossible so long as the Republican Party exists.
If that’s your attitude, then yeah.
If you had a more American attitude of America being one country where we all are on the same side and we work together to try to reach mutually acceptable answers, then you could anticipate some progress on some things.
you had a more American attitude of America being one country where we all are on the same side and we work together to try to reach mutually acceptable answers,
Ben, you don't think this. You cannot stop railing against half of America on this blog.
Stop the bad behavior if you want descriptions of your behavior to sound less damning.
Doesn't sound like much of an American attitude where we're all on the same side, Ben!
Eliminationist rhetoric much?
Thanks Barack "doing something unconstitutional is OK if Congress refuses to do what I want" Obama.
The law is broken! (Open border zealots who worked hard to break it)