By Marina Torres
May 1, 2023, 9:00 AM

In February, U.S. Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced the Dream Act of 2023,¹S. 365, 118th Cong. (2023). marking the formal push in the 118th Congress to establish a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.  The legislation would allow those without lawful status who were brought to the United States as children and meet certain education or work requirements to earn permanent residency.  But the legislation faces an incredibly steep climb in a split Congress:  it has been over twenty years since the introduction of the first Dream Act of 2001.²See S. 1291, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, 107th Cong. (2001).  Ongoing litigation also threatens the future of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrival Program (“DACA”), which was originally established in 2012 by an Executive Order to protect Dreamers from certain removal proceedings.³Notably, DACA was accompanied by another Executive Order, the Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents Program (“DAPA”).  DAPA sought to authorize deferred action for millions of parents whose children were U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  In 2015, however, the Fifth Circuit blocked the program, contending “it was too massive to fit within Congress’s scheme under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

Since President Obama’s Executive Order in June 2012, DACA has enabled over 900,0000 immigrants to stay in the United States—at least one-third of whom have been here since they were five years old.  Though the Trump Administration rescinded the program in 2017, the United States Supreme Court ruled the rescission unlawful in 2020.⁴See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (holding that the Trump Administration’s rescission of DACA was “arbitrary” and “capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to offer valid reasons for terminating the forbearance policy at the heart of the program and to address reliance interests in the program).  In October 2022, the Biden Administration published a final rule that codifies DACA largely consistent with its existing eligibility requirements and scope.  The rule’s implementation, however, is limited.  In early October 2022, the Fifth Circuit found the original 2012 DACA policy unlawful and remanded the case to the district court.  As of October 31, 2022, current DACA approvals and work authorizations remain in effect, though Dreamers still remain in legal limbo.  Indeed, if the federal district court judge rules against the Biden Administration’s updated DACA rule, many Dreamers will immediately lose their right to work and again be subject to the possibility of deportation.

When I moved to Washington, D.C., in 2011, I had a front-row seat to this debate.  Except it was much more than a “debate”—hundreds of thousands of lives hung in the balance.  As a political appointee in the Obama Administration, it was my job to help draft and implement the president’s executive actions on immigration, and help oversee our enrollment, application, and community relations efforts.  I had the opportunity to actively participate in high-level policy meetings with the White House and share what we had learned on the ground about people’s fears, concerns, and reasons for not applying.  Most memorably, I met hundreds of DACA recipients across the country and heard them describe how DACA had enabled them to more fully live the American dream.  Many of them were in college; some were working as paralegals, medical technicians, and teachers.  They all shared that they finally felt safe enough with DACA to come out of the shadows.  More than a few, however, shared with me their concern that their DACA protection could easily be stripped away with a change in administration.  Unfortunately, their fears proved right with the subsequent Trump Administration’s recession of DACA.

Should the district court render an unfavorable ruling, the outcome to our country would be more than devastating, certainly surpassing any calculable emotional and mental anguish put on the Dreamer cohort.  Economists across the political spectrum have long declared the dire economic consequences to the country if DACA were to be repealed.⁵For example, a 2017 report from the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning libertarian think tank, concluded that “a repeal or roll‐back of DACA would harm the economy and cost the U.S. government a significant amount of lost tax revenue.”  Notably, 89.5 percent of respondents to one 2023 survey of DACA recipients were currently employed or enrolled in school across the country.  By one estimate, 22,000 jobs would be lost each and every month for two years—about 1,000 jobs per business day—at a time when inflation concerns, supply issues, and workforce shortages regularly make the evening news.  With the end of DACA, businesses would face $6.3 billion in turnover costs alone.  Certain sectors, like healthcare, education, and the STEM fields, would be disproportionately affected.  As would the economies of states like California and Texas, home to the highest numbers of DACA recipients.  Overall, the U.S. economy would lose as much as $11.7 billion annually from previously employed DACA recipients, as much as $6 billion a year in tax revenue, and the U.S. gross domestic product would take a $460 billion hit over the next decade.  On top of the massive reduction in economic growth that would follow the end of DACA, there is also the projected cost of immediately deporting the individuals currently enrolled in the program who remain protected against deportation—likely another $60 billion.  And none of these estimates include the impact on the family members of DACA recipients, many of whom are Green Card holders or U.S. citizens.

Politically, this is also a test of the fundamental tenets of our democratic governance.  Congress has debated variations of the Dream Act for nearly twenty years, yet it has failed to pass a bill, and DACA recipients remain in limbo.  If the true test of a civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable, what are we to make of the immigration stalemate our sharply divided and partisan government has found itself in?  But there is reason to hope.  Wide swaths of registered voters support DACA recipients regardless of the voter’s gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion, and ideology.  Almost 75 percent of Americans support granting legal status to DACA recipients, with some polls showing that percentage even higher.  And at the beginning of this year, Senators Durbin and Graham introduced the bipartisan Dream Act of 2023, which would establish a pathway to citizenship for approximately 1.9 million undocumented individuals brought to this country illegally as children (including DACA recipients).  If passed, the Dream Act would resolve the myriad of ongoing legal challenges and offer permanent protection to DACA recipients, allowing them to continue living the American dream without fear of deportation or family separation.  What could be a better testament to our democratic and American values?

References:

• 1
  S. 365, 118th Cong. (2023).
• 2
  See S. 1291, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, 107th Cong. (2001).
• 3
  Notably, DACA was accompanied by another Executive Order, the Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents Program (“DAPA”).  DAPA sought to authorize deferred action for millions of parents whose children were U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  In 2015, however, the Fifth Circuit blocked the program, contending “it was too massive to fit within Congress’s scheme under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
• 4
  See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (holding that the Trump Administration’s rescission of DACA was “arbitrary” and “capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to offer valid reasons for terminating the forbearance policy at the heart of the program and to address reliance interests in the program).
• 5
  For example, a 2017 report from the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning libertarian think tank, concluded that “a repeal or roll‐back of DACA would harm the economy and cost the U.S. government a significant amount of lost tax revenue.”