A Timeline On DACA

A Timeline On DACA

Confused about DACA news? It's understandable. Here's a detailed timeline of all the events leading to September 5th, 2017.
9708
views

“They shouldn’t be very worried,” said Trump this past January on ABC news.

Now he is being quoted all over the internet, and I’ll just add to the pile.

As of 2016, DREAMers were, in fact, less worried, but that changed on January 20, 2017, when Trump was sworn in under the promise to get rid of Obama’s “unconstitutional executive orders,” one of them being DACA. Moreover, that statement became meaningless this September 5th, when his AG, Jeff Sessions, rescinded DACA.

According to VOX, a survey demonstrated that, as of 2015, 61% of DREAMers had found jobs in their preferred field and 78% were no longer scared of deportation three years after the program’s implementation.

However, things have changed rather quickly. A new president means new rules and new priorities. That’s why I thought it would be meaningful to have a timeline on the actions, or lack of them, taken with regards to DACA from the executive branch and from congress. This timeline is meant to provide context for understanding the events of this week. There are numerous articles explaining all the things you need to know about DACA, as well as those that try to list the things you can do to help. Those articles are incredibly valuable, and you should read them, but if you are trying to understand the roots of the mess we find ourselves in, you are in the right place.

Beware; the roots of this problem go way back. In the words of journalist Dara Lind from VOX, “this fight over DACA is old enough, that it could apply for DACA itself.”

A little historical context to preface the timeline:

The 1960s were a time when immigration was at the bottom of the list of priorities, and the government remained very open. Prior to 1965, there were no immigration quotas for migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, and the entry of people from these regions had never been never restricted. During that time, there was a program in place that dated back to 1942 and allowed for temporary migration for Mexican “guest-workers.” This program was called the Bracero Program and it allowed Mexican workers to cross the border to work in the U.S and go back to their families in Mexico after a day’s work. On 1964, that program was terminated, and caps on immigration for the Western Hemisphere were placed the following year. After 1965, immigration experienced a surge.

Sociologist, Douglas S Massey, a Princeton professor specialized in the sociology of immigration, argues that “the surge in immigration from Latin America occurred in spite of[,]rather than because of the new system.” Prior to 1965, 450,000 people from Mexico entered the U.S. each year on bracero permits, and there were 50, 000 Mexican legal residents. After the termination of the bracero program and the implementation of the caps (120,000 for permanent resident visas and 20,000 for the allowed number of legal residents from one country), the legal alternatives became scarce and people took action.

The flows of migration weren’t going to experience a major change because of the new policies, and in fact, they didn’t. People continued coming in, they just did it without the proper documentation and chose to stay and settle, rather than risk being apprehended and denied the possibility of reentry. Massey even argues that if the government had handled things differently, the results might have been varied drastically. He claims, “more might have continued to cross the border legally and for temporary stays, resulting in fewer permanent immigrants, less undocumented migration, and slower population growth.” Not to mention, less hard-line immigration politicians who found a culprit in the immigrant worker and bought into the Latino threat narrative.

That’s the end of the historical overview, so let’s dive right into to the timeline.

1965:

The cap on the number of entries from the Western Hemisphere set to 120,000.

# of illegal immigrants = 0

1976

The cap on the number of residence visas for a single country set to 20,000 visas per year.

1978:

The cap on the overall number of visas set at 290,000 visas.

1980:

The cap on the overall number of visas reduced to 270,000

1986:

Reagan introduced IRCA, a path to legalization, which helped reduced illegal immigration by granting permanent residency to undocumented immigrants

1990s-2000s:

Clinton and Bush governed during this time. In this decade, the government continued their efforts to secure the border and carried out the deportations. According to Statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, the total number of deportations under Clinton amounted to 12,290,905. The total amount of deportations for Bush’s first term aren’t readily available, but those of his second term are, and they amount to 10,328,850. The hardline immigration policies unintentionally resulted in an increase of undocumented immigrants, as immigrants decided to bring their families to the U.S. with them and settle here, instead of constantly risking apprehension at the border. They traded one risk for another.

# of legal immigrants from Latin American nations= 4.2M (44% of the entire flow)

2001:

The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, Education for Alien Minors) was proposed by senators, but it was stalled in Congress and ultimately failed to get the necessary votes. It was meant to provide immigrants brought to the U.S. as children with a path to citizenship. Granted, they had to be under 30, have no criminal record, and be enrolled in or have graduated from a university, or had served in the armed forces

The DREAM Act was introduced by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Senator Maria Cantwell, with 6 co-sponsors.

# of deportations: 200,000

2007:

The DREAM act, which was phased out because it felt victim to filibusters and major stalling, was revived in 2007 in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (or Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act) introduced by the 110th Congress. This bill was, like its name said, much more comprehensive because it aimed to provide legal status and a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants residing in the US. It died with a passing cloture motion. And with it, the DREAM act.

*The Reform Act also included major increases in funding for border enforcement and restructures to visa criteria.

2008:

President Obama’s first term. His goal wasn’t to target low-priority immigrants, but the truth is federal agents were doing so either way. Hence, the impending DACAmentation.

# of deportations 370,000

# of legal immigrants from Latin American nations= 9.6M (80% of the entire flow)

2010:

55 members of the Senate voted to pass the DREAM Act. The bill passed the House and got a majority in the Senate but failed to get 60. It was blocked by Republicans. Multiple senators who had once supported the bill, both on the right and on the left, either refused to vote on it or voted against.

*This made sense because Republicans who were hard on immigration took control of the House of Representatives in the tea-party wave of 2010. There were 87 of them in the House by the end of 2010.

2012:

DACA was born. It was supposed to be temporary, hence the DEFERRED in Deferred Action. It was meant to postpone or defer, the deportation proceedings for two years with the possibility to be renewed and with multiple benefits (i.e. permit to get a driver's license, work permits, etc.) The program was intended to protect immigrants (780,000 of them) who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, through no fault of their own.

2013:

Senate passed a bill to make a broader reform on immigration, but it never got to the House. The bill was supposed to provide a path to citizenship that would take 13 years, but the estimate would be less for the DREAMers. It also included security components, as it aimed to increase funding for border enforcement and make the use of the e-verify system (an electronic system for employers to check the immigration status of their employees) compulsory with an implementation period of 5 years.

2014:

Texas AG filed a suit against DACA on the grounds of its unconstitutionality. Abbott claimed that the effects of Obama’s order would be most felt in southern states who continuously suffer the brunt of illegal immigration. He claimed DACA had encouraged illegal immigration, which was costly for the states and continued to force them to redirect funds towards controlling illegal immigration.

January 2017:

Trump removed privacy protections for DACA recipients with a provision in his executive order. Under the Obama administration, the information of DACA recipients was protected from ICE agents by privacy regulations. Now, it’s not anymore. Their information is now easily available to ICE agents.

June 2017:

a group of 10 Republican state officials wrote the administration a letter asking them to end DACA and threatening to file a federal lawsuit over the program’s constitutionality if the administration didn’t respond.

*If Trump hadn’t end DACA, and the states had gone through with the lawsuit, it would have been the duty of the head of the Department of Justice to defend it in court. That person is no other than Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

September 2017:

Trump rescinds DACA.

*Now that the administration has chosen to end DACA, there are two possible courses of action. Either Congress passes a bill by the deadline, which is set to be March 5th, 2018 or it doesn’t. If it does, then the future of the DREAMers rests in the hands of the legislative branch. If on the contrary, the legislative branch fails to pass a bill for an immigration reform, then the stipulations outlined by AG Sessions will become the new law:

Those who have already applied to DACA will have their applications processed. As for those currently covered, two things could happen. If their DACAmentation is set to expire before March 5, 2018 (deadline for Congress to pass an immigration reform bill), they can apply for one last renewal until October 5th, 2017. If their DACAmentation expires on or after March 6th, 2018, they’ll become illegal aliens once again.

The question that remains is whether or not congress will pass a bill and finally deliver on the comprehensive immigration reform people have been waiting for decades. The other queries are, under what conditions will House majority Republicans agree to protect the DREAMers? Will future legal immigrants and present immigrants bear the brunt of their actions? What compromises is Congress willing to accept to save the DREAMers? Will we witness an of abuse of bargaining power? This was attempted in 2013, so who’s to say it won’t happen again, especially now that the pressure is higher and the threat more imminent. Tuesday’s actions have galvanized public opinion, and we all know what a movement of people can achieve. Hopefully, we will succeed and prove that the DREAMers are right to remain undocumented and unafraid.

Cover Image Credit: amny.com

Popular Right Now

6 Things You Should Know About The Woman Who Can't Stand Modern Feminism

Yes, she wants to be heard too.

88488
views

2018 is sort of a trap for this woman. She believes in women with all of the fire inside of her, but it is hard for her to offer support when people are making fools of themselves and disguising it as feminism.

The fact of the matter is that women possess qualities that men don't and men possess qualities that women don't. That is natural. Plus, no one sees men parading the streets in penis costumes complaining that they don't get to carry their own fetus for nine months.

1. She really loves and values women.

She is incredibly proud to be a woman.

She knows the amount of power than a woman's presence alone can hold. She sees when a woman walks into a room and makes the whole place light up. She begs that you won't make her feel like a "lady hater" because she doesn't want to follow a trend that she doesn't agree with.

2. She wants equality, too

She has seen the fundamental issues in the corporate world, where women and men are not receiving equal pay.

She doesn't cheer on the businesses that don't see women and men as equivalents. But she does recognize that if she works her butt off, she can be as successful as she wants to.

3. She wears a bra.

While she knows the "I don't have to wear a bra for society" trend isn't a new one, but she doesn't quite get it. Like maybe she wants to wear a bra because it makes her feel better. Maybe she wears a bra because it is the normal things to do... And that's OK.

Maybe she wants to put wear a lacy bra and pretty makeup to feel girly on .a date night. She is confused by the women who claim to be "fighting for women," because sometimes they make her feel bad for expressing her ladyhood in a different way than them.

4. She hates creeps just as much as you do. .

Just because she isn't a feminist does not mean that she is cool with the gruesome reality that 1 in 5 women are sexually abused.

In fact, this makes her stomach turn inside out to think about. She knows and loves people who have been through such a tragedy and wants to put the terrible, creepy, sexually charged criminals behind bars just as bad as the next woman.

Remember that just because she isn't a feminist doesn't mean she thinks awful men can do whatever they want.

5. There is a reason she is ashamed of 2018's version of feminism.

She looks at women in history who have made a difference and is miserably blown away by modern feminism's performance.

Not only have women in the past won themselves the right to vote, but also the right to buy birth control and have credit cards in their names and EVEN saw marital rape become a criminal offense.

None of them dressed in vagina costumes to win anyone over though... Crazy, right?

6. She isn't going to dress in a lady parts costume to prove a point.

This leaves her speechless. It is like the women around her have absolutely lost their minds and their agendas, only lessening their own credibility.

"Mom, what are those ladies on TV dressed up as?"

"Ummm... it looks to me like they are pink taco's honey."

She loves who she is and she cherished what makes her different from the men around her. She doesn't want to compromise who she is as a woman just so she can be "equal with men."

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Hey Donald Trump—The Media Is A Pillar Of Democracy, Not The Enemy Of The People

An attack on the media is an attack on the people.

184
views

If you know anything about Donald Trump, you know that he can't stand being criticized or bad-mouthed. He loves anyone who supports him and despises anyone who doesn't stand by him.

Trump is known for his contempt for the media. He has repeatedly labeled them as the "enemy of the people" and has claimed that approximately 80% of the "fake news" media is "dangerous and sick."

He claims that he is providing a "great service" to the American public by discrediting the media and exposing their lies. That claim is not just divisive, but incredibly dangerous. Discrediting the free press is discrediting the people. The government is always going to be criticized and the people have a right to report what is going on in the world. Any news reported that criticizes him or disagrees with his ideas is his definition of "fake news." Silencing the news and labeling anything that hurts his reputation as "fake" is an attempt to censor what the citizens are told. Once our intake of information becomes censored, we can no longer call ourselves a free nation.

News reporters and editors are human, which means that they are naturally biased. This doesn't excuse blatant false news being spread in an attempt to trick the people, but it doesn't mean that reporters should be silenced. Doing so would be detrimental to our democracy. There is misconstrued information on both sides of the political spectrum. People should think critically about the news they hear and be hesitant to accept statements without proof. However, when there is proof, you can't just call something "fake" and pretend like everything is a media-fabricated lie. We deserve more from our nation's president than slandering reporters without explanation or facts.

The president of the United States should not condone hostility toward the press. It would be acceptable to challenge what the press is reporting or provide facts to prove otherwise, but it is unacceptable to discredit them as a whole just because they say something that makes him look bad.

Bringing up the president's past and reporting the horrible things he has said is not just bogus "fake news" trying to sabotage his campaign. If you're in a position of power, people are going to hold you accountable for your wrongdoings whether you like it or not. Instead of playing the role of the victim and discrediting the press as a whole, respond to their statements respectfully. You owe it to your country to be better.

Related Content

Facebook Comments