25 Facts About DACA

In September 2017, the Trump administration announced a plan to phase out DACA, triggering multiple lawsuits challenging this action.

Separately, on August 31, 2018, district court judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional, but he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeded.

The Supreme Court, ruling on June 18, 2020, on the three injunctions blocking the rescission of the DACA, affirmed that the reasoning given for the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, but did not rule on the merits of the DACA itself nor prevent the government from issuing a new rescission with better rationale.

Economists reject that DACA has adverse effects on the U S economy or that it adversely affects the labor market outcomes of native-born Americans.

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, U S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Related searches

Research has shown that DACA increased the wages and labor force participation of DACA-eligible immigrants and reduced the number of undocumented immigrant households living in poverty.

Studies have shown that DACA increased the mental health outcomes for DACA-eligible immigrants and their children.

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.

DACA increased the income of undocumented immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution.

The study estimates that DACA moved 50, 000 to 75, 000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.

Ike Brannon and Logan Albright of the CATO Institute wrote in 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, and $7.

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.

Many recipients have spoken about how their DACA status gives them anxiety because of fear for the unknown.

The possible threat of deportation at any moment causes many DACA students reduce the amount of time they spend doing coursework, and some even drop out in favor of earning money at a job.

The interviews demonstrated that DACA recipients received relief from immediate fear of deportation, but continued to suffer "anxiety and insecurity.

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.

One of the challenges against DACA was filed in August 2012 by ten agents from the U S Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In 2015, however, the Nebraska Legislature determined that Section 20(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.

On March 5, 2018, the rescission of DACA was supposed to become effective, leaving nearly 700, 000 Dreamers eligible for deportation.

On January 9, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the rescission of the DACA program, ordering the government to renew DACA until further order of the court.

On February 13, 2018, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U S District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction ordering the federal government to fully restore the DACA program, including accepting brand new applicants as well as renewals.

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to rescind DACA, saying that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason for its action as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

In June 2020, in Trump v NAACP the Supreme Court, ruling on the three injunctions blocking the rescission of the DACA, affirmed that the current reasoning given for the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, but did not rule on the merits of the DACA itself nor prevented the government from issuing a new rescission with better rationale.

DACA beneficiaries stated that they would hold him to his promise.

Related searches