We've all probably heard about DACA by now: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is a program Barack Obama introduced that basically promises that if you were brought to the US as a child and don't have legal immigration status, you won't get deported*. On top of that, it allows you to gain a work permit so that you work legally (and pay taxes). It's a program that has done a lot of good aside from the obvious: allowing you to stay in the country you call home, which is in many cases the only country you have ever known. Despite what some say, there is no evidence that it negatively impacts other Americans' ability to get a job, and there's a significant amount of evidence that it actually benefits the economy overall, as while as increasing the quality of life for the families of those eligible, many of whom are US citizens who will wind up using welfare and similar services if DACA is repealed.
At any rate, Trump has announced that he will end DACA in six months, sort of. He's actually being very ambiguous, asked Congress to implement a law that does something similar, and said he'll "revisit the issue" if Congress doesn't act. It's fairly murky, and I'm really hoping that Congress will do something, but I'm not very optimistic because most of the members of our Congress are so content grand-standing and bickering that they have a hard time even passing budgets.
The Rule of Law
One of the most frequent arguments I've heard people use for ending DACA is that these people are law-breakers and we have to uphold the rule of law; I've also heard this argument made as a reason to split up families by deporting one of more parents of US citizen children. For me, this argument doesn't hold water because it's a naive view of the law. In reality, plea deals and pardons exist. The government selectively enforces things for it's own benefit all of the time. In some criminal cases, it's to catch the drug lord instead of the pusher; in others, it's to avoid a length trial that will cost lots of taxpayer dollars. With the IRS, it's regular practice to accept less than 100% of back taxes owed in order to collect some of them.
Why is it that the law is only sanctimonious when we're enforcing it against children and families, but not against criminals, draft-dodgers, tax-evaders, and many others? The law isn't practiced that way in the real world, and I feel that arguments like upholding the law / Constitution are cop-outs for people who don't want to confront the realities of immigration law. Deporting DACA recipients will orphan many children and leave others with only one parent; will that strengthen our society? For those that aren't deported, they will be left here without legal avenues for work. That reduces the taxes collected and the wages for these families. As I stated above, that will likely increase participation in welfare as it reduces the income of many who are US citizens. This isn't righteous justice that restores our legal system to some pristine state, it's is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
*It's a two-year renewable delay of any proceedings against you related to your immigration status.
