On November 20th, 2014 President Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration. As he told the public in his address, the executive actions would accomplish three things: they would strengthen the security around our borders; they would make it easier for highly skilled and intelligent immigrants to remain and contribute to the US economy; finally, they would make it easier for undocumented immigrants and their children to stay in the US. The program that Obama and his staff created to accomplish these goals is referred to as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents or DAPA; his executive order also expanded the pre-existing program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA.
DAPA and DACA are not a direct path to citizenship. Those who qualify for the programs are not necessarily looking to become complete citizens but instead to delay deportation and allow them legal status so that they can become protected by and held accountable to the laws of our country, be they labor laws, tax laws, tenant’s rights, etc. Those who qualify all receive work authorization.
The creation of DAPA and expansion of DACA has since led to a great deal of controversy. Obama spoke about the responsibility we have as a nation to accept the reality of these undocumented immigrants – our neighbors, coworkers, friends, and acquaintances. The reality is that the US cannot send all of them to their home countries and shouldn’t want to; instead, we should welcome them and allow them to live their lives within our borders as legal residents, and in addition to this, they should be allowed to come out of the darkness once the fear of deportation is lifted, or at least lessened.
Opposingly, many did not agree with the executive order. Less than a month after its enaction, Texas and 25 other states sued the United States federal government in an attempt to block DAPA and expanded DACA from going into effect. This block, enacted by United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, has been sustained and will be until the trial can be completed. Many hoped for a conclusion on June 23rd of this year when it made it to the Supreme Court., but the court did not reach a majority decision. Due to the sudden passing of Antonin Scalia and the tension surrounding the upcoming presidential election, only eight members heard and voted on the case, creating the possibility of a tie, a possibility that came to fruition. This upheld the decision of the lower courts, which are still blocking DAPA and the expanded DACA from implementation. Since no majority could be reached, the Supreme Court did not set a precedent. DAPA and expanded DACA’s legality has still not been decided, but because it was a rare vacancy on the court that prevented a majority decision, many dedicated organizations and individuals are hoping and expecting a rehearing after a ninth judge is instated.
The pressure of who the new judge will be and how that will affect the Supreme Court’s decision, if they decide to grant a rehearing to Texas v. the United States, raises the stakes for immigrants in the upcoming election. Trump has been incredibly clear about his stance on immigrants: whether it was his idea for a wall along the borders or his plans to expel all Muslims and undocumented immigrants from this country, he has not been a welcoming candidate to the immigrant communities.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign could not be more opposite. During her acceptance speech at the DNC, Clinton promised “we’ll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are already contributing to our economy!”, and her website states that she “will defend DACA and DAPA against partisan attacks and politically motivated lawsuits” as well as many other reforms and actions listed on her website. Secretary of State Clinton has also vowed to be the first president to create a national office dedicated to immigrant and refugee affairs if she is elected president this year. Although there are many other roadblocks that Obama’s executive order will meet, not least of which is Congress, the first step is a president who would not strike down the order and would appoint a judge favorable to the programs.
Fortunately, there is also great progress that has been done to create a more welcoming America in recent years, and more cities have been showing their support for the immigrant community. New York City, which has had a municipal ID program called IDNYC since January of 2014, expanded its multilingual services for healthcare, education, and after-school programs and intends to continue to do so even after the Supreme Court decision in June. Since the start of the trial, fourteen states, Massachusetts included, have stood up in defense of the President’s executive actions, calling for support from the courts. Five foundations in Boston provided a grant to the city for the DACA/DAPA Outreach Initiative, which will work with a number of Boston and Massachusetts organizations, including MIRA.
Unfortunately, DAPA and expanded DACA will not be put into effect later this year as was originally planned; in many parts of the country undocumented immigrants will have to wait a little longer to start making their way in our world legally. For many, this is a long-awaited next step towards making a life for themselves and future generations with greater senses of both security and confidence, in the country they have decided to call home.
Fortunately, the order still exists, and there are ways immigrants who plan to apply can begin preparing. The USCIS provides a detailed page on their website with further information about DACA/DAPA eligibility, what people who are eligible can do now to prepare themselves, along with much more helpful information to help see if you or someone you know may qualify. The National Immigration Law Center also provides detailed information about the actions, Supreme Court rulings, and frequent other immigration reforms and executive actions on their website, so please pass this information along to a friend or loved one who may be interested in learning more.
Immigrant Advocacy Group of Cambridge 