Introduction
Republican-led states have been the target of lawsuits that have continuously contested the legality of DACA, navigating their way through a string of contradictory rulings in subordinate courts to get to the appeal stage. Most of these cases focus on claims that the president overreached his jurisdiction and that Congress’s authority regarding immigration legislation was violated. DACA is a legitimate and morally required use of prosecutorial discretion to protect talented young immigrants stuck in a state of policy inaction, despite a thorough analysis of the subtle differences in the existing legal precedents and the ongoing stagnation in the legislative process that supported the need for action. In response to persistent claims that DACA is unlawful, this paper attempts to analyze the intricate legal background of the program and evaluate the program’s stronger legal standing.
History of Litigation Surrounding DACA
DACA’s legitimacy has been contested in many courts from the time it was started. While an appeal was going on, a Texas federal district judge had already stated that DACA was unconstitutional in 2014. In 2016, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals thoroughbred the lower court’s judgment, concluding that DACA surpassed President Obama’s powers (KARAMANLIS POWERS, 2021). However, in a 2020 judicial decision, the Supreme Court was tied 4-4, thus DACA stayed in force.
Some legal impediments arose when President Trump alleged his wish to stop DACA in 2017. The Trump government’s 2018 trial to stop DACA was barred by a California federal district judge who said the action was absolute and impulsive (Powers, 2021). This past year, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court thoroughbred the lower court’s judgment.
The 5th Circuit now looks at the validity of DACA. A federal district judge in Texas ascertained in 2020 that DACA was illegal according to the 2016 ruling of the 5th Circuit (Rodrigeuz, 2020). A ruling by the 5th Circuit might have far-reaching impacts on DACA’s future since the case is now on appeal.
How judicial-political footballs are made of polarised immigration disputes is shown by the complicated and convoluted legal route of DACA. The program bounced between decisions that supported it and those that opposed it, even though it benefited economic development and at-risk youngsters (Powers, 2021). While presidents engaged in a tug-of-war over whether to eliminate or restore safeguards, courts were divided on accusations of circumvention. When minor, nonpartisan improvements become bogged down in litigation, it paralyze progress and jeopardizes people’s lives. Appeals stemming from contentiously disputed bases continue to cast doubt on DACA’s constitutionality.
Legal Arguments for and Against DACA
The program’s proponents contend that DACA is legitimate and beneficial to those who qualify. Their argument is based on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals regulation, which gives the DHS discretion to delay deportation proceedings for certain illegal immigrants (Patler et al., 2021). President Obama invoked this rule to establish DACA. They also argue that those who benefit from DACA are really counting on the program and that removing the program’s consolidation would be very difficult for them.
The people against DACA are claiming that the program is unlawful and an abuse of presidential power. The fact that Congress is allowed to give unauthorized immigrants lawful status is that it is not allowed (Burns, 2019). They also claim that DACA encourages illegal immigration, which is against the rule of law.
Differing viewpoints on DACA boil down to fundamental philosophical differences on the boundaries of presidential authority, the rights of illegal immigrants, and the prevention of more illegal immigration. Moral justifications, economic benefits, and the absence of legal options are used by those who support Obama’s humanitarian response to justify it. Opponents see it as a precipice that would undermine Congress’ power and go against the spirit of the social compact. The existence of impartial decisions on such divisive policies is cast into doubt because these different starting points color whole legal interpretations.
My Legal Conclusion on the Legality of DACA
DACA is an approved program that is meant to help many people with its qualifications. Those in support of DACA have a reasonable case, and I am in support; the program is the president’s legitimate use of his power under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals regulation. Furthermore, the legitimate participants of DACA would be severely impacted if the program were to be repealed.
Instead of taking a stand on this contentious issue, a prudent person would use a synthesis approach to deciding what is legal. There is no denying the power of Congress over immigration. Still, there are also clear responsibilities on the part of the administration to safeguard citizens if laws fail. It strikes a compromise between demands for individual rights and the prerogatives of national borders. It takes a more holistic rather than dogmatic approach to evaluating these elements. From this perspective, it is respectful of legal and moral duties to provide limited safeguards to those who fit certain assimilative conditions.
Opposing Side’s Arguments and Why I Believe I Have the Stronger Argument
I agree with the points made by DACA’s detractors and think they are legitimate. Nevertheless, the advantages of DACA outweigh the disadvantages. My arguments are more robust based on a solid legal study of the program and its authority.
Counter-Argument 1: DACA Encourages Illegal Immigration
The assertion that DACA promotes unauthorized immigration lacks data to back it up. According to studies, the likelihood of criminal behavior among DACA beneficiaries is lower than among native-born Americans. Eligible for DACA also have a greater college attendance rate and persistence in higher education. Given these considerations, it seems like DACA is more concerned with facilitating the assimilation of unauthorized immigrants into American culture than with encouraging illegal immigration.
Counter-Argument 2: Amnesty Should Not Be Given to Lawbreakers
That DACA enrollees are, in fact, “lawbreakers” is just false. Receiving DACA does not make a person a criminal, even when they are unauthorized immigrants. They are not violating any laws by being in the US without proper documentation. The Department of Homeland Security has verified that DACA participants have fulfilled all program criteria.
Counter-Argument 3: DACA Sets a Bad Precedent for Circumventing the Legislative Branch
Another misconception is the statement that DACA will spearhead the sidestepping of the lawmaking process in the future. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals regulation, which gives the DHS liberty to stop deportation proceedings for some illegal immigrants, motivated President Obama to form DACA.
In addition to considering the constitutionality of Obama’s decree, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of safeguarding culturally assimilated youngsters, which carry significant weight. Evaluations of “illegal behavior” often fail to include the moral circumstances of youngsters placed in a situation without their permission. Judicial wisdom acknowledges that rigid enforcement disregards intricate human realities as a country forfeits its essence in thoughtless binary decisions. Claims on “precedent” demonstrate a lack of historical understanding since Congress has already endorsed measures for immigrant children. To prevent exacerbating injustice, legislative failure resulting from polarization must not lead to inactivity.
Furthermore, due to party opposition, governments should be allowed to react to humanitarian situations within their existing capabilities. Effective governance requires a fair and equitable balance between regulations and empathy – it does not seek refuge in biased interpretations when political majorities neglect the needs of communities. Accusations that go beyond the boundaries of circumvention and amnesty while disregarding moral wisdom misinterpret the functioning of executive functions about justice. Complicated difficulties often need balanced adaptability rather than inflexible adherence to principles.
Conclusion
Ultimately, DACA exemplifies a valid utilization of executive power within the framework of established discretionary abilities to prioritize safeguarding against deportation for a compassionate group of immigrants that Congress has generally supported in principle. The program does not result in any formal alteration of the legal status or undermining of parliamentarians’ constitutional rights on immigration policy. When considering all relevant precedents and acts prioritizing enforcement based on humanitarian reasons, DACA is based on presidential responsibilities, Congressional goals, and legal principles regarding administrative flexibility in immigration processes. The policy’s longevity in terms of its legal validity and moral obligation justifies the need for Supreme Court endorsement. Given the ongoing delay in passing bipartisan legislation to extend protections, it is crucial to maintain DACA to prevent more damage to individuals who deserve equal opportunity and fair treatment under the law. Assessing its legal legitimacy involves considering individual rights and national interests based on principle rather than bias. The program demonstrates fairness and impartiality towards all individuals.
References
Burns, A. (2019). A critical discourse analysis of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago).
KARAMANLIS POWERS, T. H. E. O. D. O. R. A. (2021). The Effect of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program on the Self-Concept of DACA Recipients (Doctoral dissertation).
Patler, C., Hamilton, E. R., & Savinar, R. L. (2021). The limits of gaining rights while remaining marginalized: The deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program and the psychological well-being of Latina/o undocumented youth. Social Forces, 100(1), 246-272.
Powers, T. K. (2021). The Effect of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program on the Self-Concept of DACA Recipients (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).
Rodrigeuz, L. C. (2020). Analysis of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Policy (Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Northridge).
write