Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

src: www.nydailynews.com

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals who were brought to the United States illegally as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers. The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.

In November 2014, President Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional illegal immigrants. Multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion which was ultimately blocked by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Under President Trump the United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. Plans to phase out DACA were announced by the Trump Administration on September 5, 2017; implementation was put hold for six months to allow Congress time to pass the Dream Act or some other legislative protection for Dreamers. Congress failed to act and the time extension expired on March 5, 2018, but the phase-out of DACA has been put on hold by several courts.

Research has shown that DACA increased the wages and employment status of DACA-eligible immigrants, and improved the mental health outcomes for DACA participants and their children. It also reduced the number of illegal immigrant households living in poverty. DACA has not been shown to have any major adverse impacts on the employment of native-born workers. Most economists say that DACA is a net benefit to the U.S. economy.

On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional. However, he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.

Video Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Background

The policy was created after acknowledgment that "Dreamer" students had been largely raised in the United States, and this was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior. "Dreamers" get their name from the DREAM Act, a bill that aimed to grant legal status to young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents. The illegal immigrant student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal immigrant students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis. The vast majority of Dreamers are from Mexico.

The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for illegal immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate. It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House. The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.

Maps Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Establishment

President Barack Obama announced this policy with a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 15, 2012. The date was chosen as the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision barring public schools from charging illegal immigrant children tuition. The policy was officially established by a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security titled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children". This policy allowed certain immigrants to escape deportation and obtain work permits for a period of two years--renewable upon good behavior. To apply, immigrants had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012, must have come to the U.S. when they were younger than 16, and must have lived in the U.S. since 2007. In August 2012, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people were eligible.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012. As of June 2016, USCIS had received 844,931 initial applications for DACA status, of which 741,546 (88%) were approved, 60,269 (7%) were denied, and 43,121 (5%) were pending. Over half of those accepted reside in California and Texas. According to an August 2017 survey, most current registrants (called "Dreamers" in a reference to the DREAM Act bill) are in their 20s, and about 80% arrived in the United States when they were 10 or younger.

In November 2014, Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to make more people eligible. However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans,(a similar program). In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded. After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4-4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.

Reaction

Republican Party leaders denounced the DACA program as an abuse of executive power.

Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224-201 to defund DACA in June 2013. Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, "The point here is...the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect." However, in practice Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations.

src: www.ilgrp.com

Implementation

DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.

To apply for DACA, eligible individuals must pay a $495 application fee, submit several forms, and produce documents showing they meet the requirements. They do not need legal representation.

Eligibility

To be eligible, recipients must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not currently provide permanent lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.

In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).

To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:

Came to the United States before their 16th birthday
Have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007
Were under age 31 on June 15, 2012 (born on June 16, 1981 or after)
Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012
Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school
Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

To show proof of qualification (verify these requirements), applicants must submit three forms; I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and I-765WS Worksheet, as well as supporting documentation.

In striving for transparency, USCIS has released a variety of information on both the DACA policy and its population as part of a continued effort to keep the public informed. As such, criminal activity of DACA requestors has long been the subject of widespread discussion and speculation, with a regrettable lack of available data until now. The truth is that we let those with criminal arrests for sexually assaulting a minor, kidnapping, human trafficking, child pornography, or even murder be provided protection from removal. Yet the courts rule that we are unable to change this policy - even though those with criminal histories are getting through the system and permitted to remain in the country, despite having a high number of arrests for any types of crimes before or after receiving DACA protection.

Travel eligibility

In addition to the $495 application fee, if a DACA qualifying immigrant wants to travel abroad there is an additional fee and application requirement.

Form I-131 Application Type D*, with a fee of $575 needs to be submitted to USCIS.

Form I-131 must also be submitted by anyone that applies for a Green Card or other residency option regardless of how they arrived upon U.S. soil.

To receive advance parole one must travel abroad for an educational, employment, or humanitarian purpose. This must be indicated on the Form I-131 as described below:

Educational purposes, such as studying abroad;
Employment purposes, such as overseas positions, interviews, training, or meetings with clients; or
Humanitarian purposes, such as travel for medical reasons, attend funeral services for a family member, or visit a sick relative.

Travel for leisure is not a valid purpose.

Renewals

USCIS released the process for DACA renewals in June 2014 and directed applicants to file their documents during a 30-day window starting 150 days before the expiration of their previous DACA status. Renewing requires an additional $495 fee.

As of June 2016, there had been 606,264 renewal cases, with 526,288 approved, 4,703 denied and 75,205 renewals pending.

Expansion

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal immigrants who entered the country prior to 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to two years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000.

However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program). In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded. After progressing through the court system, the appeals court ruled 2-1 in favor of enjoining the DACA expansion. When the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely death left an 8 justice court, which then ruled equally divided (4-4) for and against the injunction. Procedural rules of the Court in the case of a tie would mean that no opinion would be written, no precedent would be set by the Supreme Court in the case, and that the appellate court's ruling would stand.

The court's temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.

President Trump's announcement to end the Deferred Action for ...

src: www.aclu-wy.org

Impact

Research has shown that DACA increased the wages and labor force participation of DACA-eligible immigrants and reduced the number of illegal immigrant households living in poverty. Studies have also shown that DACA increased the mental health outcomes for DACA-eligible immigrants and their children. There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment, and most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy.

Crime

According to FactCheck.org, "there is no evidence that DACA holders are more likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens." Factcheck.Org noted that "numerous studies have found that immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants."

Economy

Fact-checkers note that, on a large scale or in the long run, there is no reason to believe that DACA recipients have a major deleterious effect on American workers' employment chances; to the contrary, some economists say that DACA benefits the overall U.S. economy. Economists have warned that ending DACA could adversely affect the U.S. economy, and that "most economists see immigration generally as an economic boon." Almost all economists reject Jeff Sessions' claim that DACA "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens." Sessions' claim is rooted in what economists call the "lump of labor fallacy" (i.e., the idea that there is a limit to amount of work force available in any economy).

A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution. The study estimates that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment. According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, DACA consequently "increases consumption and overall demand for U.S. services, products, and jobs where the DACA recipients live and spend. Economists have shown that highly skilled workers increase local productivity and create opportunities for the other workers too". A 2016 study in Economics Letters found that DACA-eligible households were 38% less likely than non-eligible unauthorized immigrant households to live in poverty. Furthermore, DACA-eligible workers tend to have higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs than undocumented immigrants.

According to one survey, 91 percent of DACA registrants are employed, and 5 percent have launched their own businesses, compared to 3.1 percent of all Americans. According to Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that, as of 2017, the U.S. economy is close to full employment. Ike Brannon and Logan Albright of the CATO Institute wrote in a 2017 that ending DACA would have an adverse economic and fiscal impact, estimating that the cost of immediately eliminating DACA and deporting those who received deferred action would be $283 billion over a decade (representing an economic loss of $215 billion, a fiscal loss of $60 billion (from lower net tax revenue), and $7.5 billion in deportation costs). Brannon and Albright wrote that their projections were "a conservative estimate due to the fact that many DACA immigrants are young and still acquiring education credentials that will boost wages later." The Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade. Peri argues that DACA recipients likely have a significant net positive fiscal impact given that DACA-eligible individuals have similar characteristics as second-generation immigrants, and that research shows that second-generation immigrants have a net positive fiscal impact of $173,000 to $259,000 per immigrant. Peri also notes that the U.S. public school system has already invested in educating these individuals, and they are at the point at which they can start contributing to the U.S. economy and public coffers; deporting them or increasing the likelihood that they be deported is economically counterproductive. A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress estimated that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years.

According to Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas economist Pia Orrenius, due to their risk of deportation, it is likely that previously DACA-protected individuals would slip into the shadow economy or take low-profile jobs that pay less.

A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that DACA likely led to greater productivity by increasing the college attendance and employment of DACA-eligible individuals.

Education

Research has shown mixed findings for DACA on education outcomes. A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that DACA had no significant effect on the likelihood of attending school. The study only found "suggestive evidence that DACA pushed over 25,000 DACA-eligible individuals into obtaining their GED certificate in order to be eligible for DACA." However, research by Roberto G. Gonzales, professor of education at Harvard University, showed that DACA led to increased educational attainment. A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that DACA led to greater high school attainment and college attendance for DACA-eligible individuals.

A 2016 study in the Journal of Population Economics found that DACA "reduced the probability of school enrollment of eligible higher-educated individuals, as well as some evidence that it increased the employment likelihood of men, in particular. Together, these findings suggest that a lack of authorization may lead individuals to enroll in school when working is not a viable option."

Health

A 2017 study published in the journal Science found that DACA led to improved mental health outcomes for the children of DACA-eligible mothers. A 2017 Lancet Public Health study found that DACA-eligible individuals had better mental health outcomes as a result of their DACA eligibility. A 2018 study in the journal Social Sciences & Medicine found that DACA-eligible individuals who transitioned from illegal to legal status had improved psychological wellbeing.

FiveThirtyEight, summarizing the findings of past research, wrote that "the threat of deportation alone would likely have a negative impact on families. Immigration-related stress and anxiety have been shown to have negative health effects... Generally, researchers believe the stress that stems from the fear of having a parent deported has far-reaching, negative effects on the health of children." In an editorial for the New England Journal of Medicine, Atheendar S. Venkataramani, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and Alexander C. Tsai, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, wrote, "The evidence clearly indicates that rescinding DACA will have profound adverse population-level effects on mental health... DACA was never intended to be a public health program, but its population-level consequences for mental health have been significant and rival those of any large-scale health or social policies in recent history. Rescinding DACA therefore represents a threat to public mental health."

21 percent of DACA-protected immigrants work in education and health services. The American Medical Association has estimated that under DACA or similar legislation, 5,400 additional physicians would work in the United States in coming decades, alleviating a projected shortage of primary care physicians.

Migration flows

A 2016 study published in the journal International Migration found that DACA did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America. A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing the reasons behind the surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America did not mention DACA, and cited crime and lack of economic opportunity as the main reasons behind the surge.

Safety and privacy

After The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was repealed, a concern for safety became prominent in illegal alien families. In a study from PRI's The World, Caitlin Patler, assistant professor of sociology at UC Davis, says that DACA recipients have lost "ontological security." They think about the personal information they have given the government and worry that they will be deported or unable to work or study, she says. "These young people cannot count on the promise of the future." Many DACA recipients believe safety to be a prominent issue since the repeal of the act. In another journal by US Official News, it is revealed that "almost 800,000 youth trusted the government with their "fingerprints" and other personal information when they applied for DACA. In return, the two-year reprieve from deportation lifted the constant, everyday fear of existence that characterized their lives. These mental health gains, in addition to the fruits of all of their hard work over the past five years, are now threatened."

Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals Program | Pays Loudunais

src: d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net

Legal challenges to DACA

The legality of DACA and its proposed expansions were challenged in court. But only the expansions were halted under a preliminary injunction. Legal experts are divided as to the constitutionality of DACA, but no court has yet to rule it unconstitutional.

One of challenges against DACA was filed in August 2012 by ten agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The plaintiffs claimed that following the new lenient deportation policies established by DACA required them to violate the law. Almost a year later, Judge Reed O'Connor from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide on what essentially was a dispute between federal employees and their employer, the U.S. government. Nonetheless, in his decision to dismiss the case, the judge reiterated his view that DACA was inherently unlawful. The plaintiffs then filed an appeal but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal on procedural grounds.

The first challenge against the DACA expansions was filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in November 2014. In the lawsuit, Arpaio claimed that DACA and its expansions were "unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, and invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act as, in effect, regulations that have been promulgated without the requisite opportunity for public notice and comment." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia promptly dismissed the lawsuit ruling that Arpaio did not have standing. That decision was upheld unanimously by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 14, 2015. Arpaio then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, but on January 19, 2016, the court denied that request.

The challenge that was granted a preliminary injunction was filed on December 2014 by Texas and 25 other states--all with Republican governors. The group of states sued to enjoin the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)--another immigration policy--and the DACA expansions announced by the Obama administration. In the lawsuit, the states claimed that, by expanding DACA, the president failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws in contravention to Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the states claimed that the president unilaterally rewrote the law through his actions. As part of the judicial process, in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded. After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4-4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent. The court's temporary injunction did not affect the existing DACA. At the time, individuals were allowed to continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.

Regardless of the outcome of the preliminary injunction, legal opinions on the lawfulness of DACA are divided. In United States v. Texas, for instance, the Obama administration argued that the policy was a lawful exercise of the enforcement discretion that Congress delegated to the executive branch in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which charges the executive with the administration and enforcement of the country's immigration laws. Conversely, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, opined that DACA was unlawful by asserting that it unconstitutionally usurped Congress' role over immigration by illegally allowing certain classes of illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration law with impunity.

On May 1, 2018, a coalition of 7 States, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the program, after originally promising to challenge the program if the administration didn't rescind it. On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional, however he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 101 on Vimeo

src: i.vimeocdn.com

State and city responses

State-level government officials are also divided on the issue. Those that support DACA claim that the government does not have the resources to target all illegal immigrants and that the policy thus helps federal agencies in exerting prosecutorial discretion--that is, in enforcing the law selectively by focusing limited resources on criminal immigrants rather than on non-criminal ones such as those eligible for DACA. Those that oppose the policy, however, claim that states would be forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on health care, education, law enforcement, and other public benefits associated with the immigrants receiving relief. For instance, DACA opponents claim that Texas could assume up to $500 million in administrative costs for issuing new driver's licenses.

Arizona

Arizona became the first state to oppose President Obama's order for DACA when Governor Jan Brewer issued an order blocking those with deferred status from receiving any state benefits. This caused controversy, as eligible and approved applicants would still be unable to obtain a driver's license. In May 2013, a federal district court held that this policy was likely unconstitutional. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against Brewer's ban, and in November 2014 held this ban was in violation of the law.

California

To assist those eligible under the program, the state of California has agreed to support those who receive a DACA grant by allowing access to a state driver's license, provided that such individuals participate in specific state guidelines (such as paying income taxes). The state of California also allows DACA holding individuals to qualify for Medi-Cal.

Illinois

Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel stated that he wants to make Chicago the "most immigrant-friendly city in the country". In addition to offering in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, he has also made plans for a city ordinance that would prevent illegal immigrants with no criminal background from being turned over to immigration enforcement agencies.

Iowa

In 2012, the then-director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, Paul Trombino III (now nominee for Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration), announced a policy to deny driver's licenses to Iowa residents who were part of the DACA program. The policy was reversed several weeks later.

Maryland

In 2016, Mayor of Baltimore (2010-2016) Stephanie Rawlings-Blake stated that Baltimore police would not check the citizenship status of people with whom they interact.

Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status under certain conditions. A Maryland resident is eligible if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years and they graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years. They must have registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED. They must have registered for Selective Service if male, and they must have filed Maryland income tax returns.

Michigan

In October 2012, the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, announced that Michigan would not issue driver's licenses or state identification of any kind to beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In making this decision, it was clear that the Secretary of State erroneously conflated the notion of "lawful presence," which is required under Michigan Law to issue a driver's license, and "lawful status," a different legal concept entirely. USCIS has made it clear that DACA beneficiaries do not possess legal status, but does not state that DACA beneficiaries are unlawfully present; in fact, it states that DACA beneficiaries will not accrue unlawful presence time here while they are in this deferred action status. The Secretary of State relied upon USCIS' own explanation, which discusses legal status, not lawful presence. In response to this policy, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging that the policy violated both Michigan law and the U.S. Constitution. On January 18, 2013, USCIS updated their "Frequently Asked Questions" page about DACA, clarifying, among other things, that DACA beneficiaries are, in fact, lawfully present in the United States. On February 1, 2013, Johnson reversed her policy and began issuing driver's licenses to DACA beneficiaries on February 19, 2013.

Nebraska

Governor Dave Heineman opposed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and in 2012 directed the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles to not issue driver's licenses to people who received deferred action under DACA. Heineman said that providing any benefit, including a driver's license, to an illegal immigrant would be a violation of Nebraska state law.

In 2015, however, the Nebraska Legislature determined that Section 202(c)(B)(viii) of the REAL ID Act of 2015 required states to allow people to present documentation of deferred-action status when registering for a driver's license, and the Nebraska Legislature voted to change state law to allow qualified individuals with DACA to receive licenses by using documentation of their status of deferred action. Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed the bill; the legislature voted 34-10 to override the veto. Nebraska became the last of the 50 states to allow deferred-action recipients to obtain licenses.

North Carolina

North Carolina briefly suspended giving driver's licenses to DACA grantees while awaiting the state attorney general's opinion. The attorney general decided that even without formal immigration status, DACA grantees were to be granted legal presence. Subsequently the state once again continued to give driver's licenses and allowed DACA grantees to become legal members of North Carolina.

Texas

Although in-state tuition was still offered, Governor Rick Perry announced his opposition to DACA by distributing a letter to all state agencies, meant "to ensure that all Texas agencies understand that Secretary Napolitano's guidelines confer absolutely no legal status whatsoever to any illegal immigrant who qualifies for the federal 'deferred action' designation."

Virginia

In April 2014, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring sent a letter to the director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the presidents of Virginia public colleges and universities, and the chancellor of the Virginia Community College System in response to inquiries from public institutions of higher education on whether DACA students were eligible for in-state tuition. The attorney general advised that under Virginia law, DACA students who met Virginia's domicile requirements were eligible for in-state tuition.

Sign protesting President Trump's decision to repeal the Deferred ...

src: c8.alamy.com

Rescission

While running for president, Donald Trump declared he intended to repeal DACA on "day one" of his presidency.

On February 14, 2017, a CNN report on the detention of 23-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina in Northwest Detention Center, Tacoma, Washington following his arrest in his father's Des Moines, Washington home, observed that "The case raises questions about what it could mean" for the 750,000 Dreamers, who had "received permission to stay under DACA." On March 7, 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi, another DACA recipient, was detained by ICE, further raising speculation about President Trump's commitment to Dreamers and questioning whether immigrants who speak out against the administration's policies should fear retaliation. Vargas was released from LaSalle Detention Center on March 10, 2017 and Ramirez Medina's release followed on March 29.

On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced it intended to repeal the executive order by the Barack Obama administration that expanded the DACA program, although the DACA program's overall existence would continue to be reviewed.

On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the program is being repealed. Sessions stated that the DACA-eligible individuals were lawbreakers who adversely impacted the wages and employment of native-born Americans. Sessions also attributed DACA as a leading cause behind the surge in unaccompanied minors coming to the United States from Central America. President Trump said that "virtually all" "top legal experts" believed that DACA was unconstitutional. Fact-checkers have said that only a few economists believe DACA adversely affects native-born workers, that there is scant evidence that DACA caused the surge in unaccompanied minors, and that it is false that all "top legal experts" believe DACA to be unconstitutional.

Sessions added that implementation would be suspended for six months; DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD") that expired during the next six months would continue to be renewed. DACA recipients with a work permit set to expire on or before March 5, 2018 would have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if their application was received by USCIS by October 5, 2017. In a follow-up statement, Trump said "It is now time for Congress to act!" The approximately 800,000 immigrants who qualified for enrollment in DACA would become eligible for deportation by the end of those six months. A White House memo stated that DACA recipients should "use the time remaining on their work authorizations to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States."