Sessions' DACA Announcement Fueled with Myths

The Trump administration’s wave of anti-immigration action now includes overturning theDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, leaving the lives of about 800,000 young immigrants in limbo.


On Tuesday, Sept. 5, the exact date top Republican officialsin 10 states threatedto sue for the removal of DACA, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, a staunch opponent of the policy, announced its demise. The Trump administration apparently disregarded19 state attorneysgeneraland Washington, D.C.’s attorney general’s plea to keep the program in place.

“I am here today to announce that the program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama administration is being rescinded,” Sessions said at the Justice Department.

The DACA policy will end in March 2018, Sessions said. This gives Congress six months to decide the fate of the young immigrants.But Congress hasn’t been able to pass the DREAM Act in 16 years.

What Are the DREAM Act, DACA and DREAMers

The bipartisan Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was first introduced in Congress in 2001, and several versions of the bill have repeatedly failed to pass. The act would grant legal status to certain undocumented immigrants, often referred to as “DREAMers,” who were brought to the U.S. before the age of 16, had passed a background check, had graduated from an American high school or had obtained a GED and had lived continuously in the U.S. for at least five years. In 2010, Sessions penned a letter saying the act rewarded illegal behavior.

“[The DREAM Act] says that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here for five years, and you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship,” former PresidentBarack Obama saidin 2012.

Because Congress failed to pass the immigration legislation, the Obama administration introduced DACA, a Department of Homeland Securitypolicy program, in 2012 to allow DREAMers to have their deportations delayed and obtain a temporary work permit.

Sessions’ DACA Myths

In his announcement on Tuesday,Sessions made several statementsabout DACA:

1)DACA recipients are provided legal status

DACA “essentially provided a legal status for recipients for a renewable two-year term, work authorization and other benefits, including participation in the social security program, to 800,000 mostly-adult illegal aliens.”

According to the nonprofit Define American, a DACA recipientcannot:

-vote

-receive any federal benefits, like social security, food stamps or college financial aid

-receive amnesty, a path to legalization or citizenship

What DREAMers receive is a temporary stay against their deportation for two years at a time. They can also apply for a driver’s license in some states, but it is marked to indicate it cannot be used for federal purposes like voting. And, DACA recipients are required to pay federal income taxes.

Undocumented immigrants born after June 15, 1981, who were brought to the U.S. before their 16th birthday and have been in the country since June 15, 2007, are eligible for theprogram. Theymust be enrolled in or graduated from school and not have a felony conviction.

There’s a process, including a $495 fee, where applicants are vetted for criminal history or threat to national security. DACA lasts for two years, and each renewal is not guaranteed.

2)DACA is Unconstitutional

“The executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”

According to the American Immigration Council, Obama’s actions follow “a long line of presidents who relied on their executive branch authority to address immigration challenges.”

It is only Session’s interpretation of a court case that led him to say DACA is unconstitutional. On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court’s deadlock in Texas v. United States, a