The constitutionality of DACA can be challenged as certain legal contradictions related to the adoption of the program are evident. Since Trump’s inauguration, the President has focused on strengthening the deportation system, calling for more immigration and border patrols. Restricting immigration can be considered enforcing national laws; moreover, such restrictions facilitate the greater integration of migrants. However, the broad powers of American presidents to abstain from full compliance with immigration laws in certain circumstances are a form of the executive’s general powers to refrain from enforcing nearly all statutes in certain circumstances. President Obama’s decision at one time contradicted existing immigration laws, but the President had the authority to impose the passing of DACA. Thus, a situation arises when the significance of legislative acts can be arbitrarily reduced by the decision of the President or the executive authorities. Moreover, the program was launched illegally – it was implemented by a presidential decree bypassing Congress. Since DACA does not provide citizenship, the issue of compliance with the 14th amendment becomes less pressing. However, the problems of its legality that arose during implementation cast doubt upon its constitutionality.
Effectiveness of DACA
Problems of the program’s effectiveness or, on the contrary, its inefficiency arise primarily not from its essence but from the political and economic situation in which migrants find themselves. The Mexican authorities, according to Trump, are doing very little or nothing to stop the flow of people into the United States. Trump has declared that it is necessary to prevent the enormous flows of drugs and people from Mexico. However, such human flows of Mexicans to the United States should be associated with several economic and political reasons, not with the Mexicans’ general disrespect for American laws, as Trump put it. The process of migrating to the United States in violation of federal immigration laws is not explicitly caused by the DACA program and its terms. In turn, the legalization of illegal immigrants can significantly increase the income of immigrants and the gross domestic product of the United States, which is proved by many studies. The failure to consider certain factors in studies should be associated with the impossibility of absolute prediction of the final results rather than oversight or deliberate distortion of the data.
Feasibility of DACA
The reluctance of the new US administration to continue the migration policy of the previous authorities will lead to highly negative consequences for the country. The migration problem poses a direct threat to the national security of the United States. If the number of migrants from Mexico continues to increase further, the likelihood of separation of the southern states on the border with Mexico is high. Despite the predicted negative consequences of the abolition of DACA, a preferable policy would be to suspend the program to ensure national security in fighting against violations of migration laws.
Ethics of DACA
Leaving the DACA program raises many ethical issues that will take years to resolve. Protecting illegal migrants can create incentives for further violations of the law. This kind of incentive can be viewed as a moral hazard. The authorities should provide social support to migrants and open the borders chaotically. It is necessary to ensure that the number of persons seeking to migrate outside the legal system or violate specific legal provisions is reduced. If proven to be such, law violators are to be punished and not provided with support. Again, much more attention should be paid to the country’s national security and not to the ethical side of the problem.
References
Helbling, Marc, Simon, Stephan, and Schmid, Samuel. Restricting Immigration to Foster Migrant Integration? A Comparative Study Across 22 European Countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46, (2020): 1-21.
Ogujiuba, Kanayo, Anjofui, Patience, and Stiegler, Nancy. “Push and Pull Factors of International Migration: Evidence from Migrants in South Africa.” Journal of African Union Studies 8, (2019): 219-250.
Schmidt, Paul Wickham. “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 7, no. 3 (2019): 92–102.
Ullah, AKM Ahsan, Noor Hasharina Hasan, Siti Mazidah Mohamad, and Diotima Chattoraj. “Migration and Security: Implications for Minority Migrant Groups.” India Quarterly 76, no. 1 (2020): 136–53.