Tag: DAPA

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Trump’s DACA Defeat

Ten years ago, 41 senators voted down the “Dream Act” which — if passed — would have allowed young people not born in America but brought here by migrant parents the opportunity to apply for U.S. Citizenship. Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that the Trump Administration’s decision to end the Obama-era protections for these vulnerable young people was “arbitrary and capricious.” Mr. Trump may not begin deporting these so-called “Dreamers,” at least for now.


In 2012, with the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act, and right before his election to a second term, Mr. Obama took executive action in what is commonly referred to as DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This action acknowledged the political reality of that time, i.e. that if the Congress would not act to protect children from deportation, he would. 

[pullquote-2] In Tennessee, there are about 8,500 DACA recipients; in Memphis, approximately 1,800. They are young people who are not U.S. citizens but have lived here most of their lives, and hope to stay here. They attend public schools and universities, they serve in the armed forces, and they are working in healthcare as the nation faces the COVID-19 crisis.


Toward the end of his presidency, President Obama attempted to expand DACA and implement DAPA, which offered deferred action (concerning deportation) and some benefits, such as work authorization to the parents of DACA recipients.


Fast forward to 2015. Candidate Trump began his political campaign, as we remember all too well, by demonizing immigrants, especially undocumented persons, and with laser-like focus attempted to overturn any action taken by President Obama. During the notorious speech announcing his candidacy, the future president characterized the undocumented by saying, “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Thus, the battle was engaged.


Upon assuming the presidency in January 2017, Trump continued his anti-immigrant rhetoric. In 2018, the president pushed to end DACA, but did not want to rescind it unilaterally, since 76 percent of the American population supports DACA.


Trump’s inaction, coupled with an increasingly vocal political base, together with anti-immigrant hardliners in his administration, including Stephen Miller, created a mini-judicial revolt when seven states, led by Texas, argued that Obama had overstepped his authority in signing DAPA and the expanded DACA. The Fifth Circuit ruled in their favor — that the Obama administration had overreached by offering benefits to DAPA recipients.


Based on this ruling, the Trump administration quickly (and haphazardly) declared that Obama’s 2012 implementation of DACA was illegal and announced its end. This ultimately led to a variety of legal challenges — the result being the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on June 18th declaring the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn Obama’s executive order as “arbitrary and capricious.” In other words, the administration failed to engage in “reasoned decision making” in coming to its resolution to rescind DACA.


Ironically, the surprise 5-4 decision (with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority) was not a declaration of immigrant rights, but a finding of a somewhat mundane violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. In arriving at this outcome, Justice Roberts cited a landmark case near and dear to the people of Memphis. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971), which declared that administrative decisions could not offer “post-hoc rationalization;” in other words, evidence and arguments cannot be added in after the fact as efforts to bolster earlier decisions, which the Supreme Court found objectionable in both cases. 

[pullquote-1] Yet, preservation of DACA was never intended as an end in itself; DACA was seen as a protective bridge toward Congressional action. DACA provides no lasting relief for its beneficiaries who continue to live, learn, and work in a quasi-legal status that provides no permanent protections. 


While we celebrate this temporary reprieve, it is only temporary. This November, with possibilities of a new president and stronger leadership in Congress, we could see some hope for Dreamers. They want to live here in America in peace — free to work, study, and contribute to our nation as we struggle forward together. Only voters, together with the government we select in the fall, can offer the affirmation of rights and relief that Dreamers deserve.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Against the Wall

Ten years ago, the United States Congress passed H.R. 6061 authorizing construction of a 700-mile “wall” along our southern border with Mexico. Funding for the bill, which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2006, was not nearly enough (at $1.2 billion) to satiate our American wall fixation. Between 2007 and 2014, the government sunk another $5.2 billion into a Homeland Security account called Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology.
Now, the leading, but receding, GOP candidate for president has campaigned vigorously on the promise of building a wall. When someone at Rhodes College anonymously chalked a sidewalk with the message “Trump 2016: Build a Wall,” many students were offended and dismayed. But “wall politics” have been with us for a while here in America, and walls, we know, never solve problems or bring about social peace. If you don’t believe us, ask the Israelis. Talk to some Berliners. Study the rationale and history behind the construction of China’s “Great Wall.” 

Shouting at wall advocates is counter-productive. Thinking creatively about ways to engage those who truly believe in the benefits of border fences is a better strategy.

Most people in America are not mean-spirited, nativist know-nothings. But many are generally confused by an outdated, impossibly complex immigration system that can only be modernized through an act of Congress. Since this particular Congress takes the cake for fecklessness, fear, and inaction, it’s unlikely we’ll get authentic immigration reform any time soon. This means that the people with the biggest mouths, the deepest pockets, and the skills to manipulate the national media have taken control of the immigration issue. What to do? Here’s a game plan to prevent that foolish barrier:

First, register to vote, and work to elect a new Congress. It’s not impossible, but it won’t happen easily or quickly. It will take more than signing a passive, online petition. It will require much more time and energy than goes into posting a message or two on Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr.   

Second, study up. Good, careful articles dealing with the fence, the technological glitches, the politics and funding of the fence, and the negative international reaction have been published recently. It’s imperative to fight those who manipulate the fears of others with information, statistics, and historical analysis. 

Immigrants — documented and undocumented alike — make our cities more vibrant; they provide invaluable labor and services to our economy; and they contribute billions of dollars in taxes and to social security. Unauthorized workers pay about $13 billion a year in social security and take out less than $1 billion. Over the past 10 years, they’ve paid $100 billion into that fund. In other words, the undocumented are helping to float our social security system.

Third, allow artistic expressions to animate your thinking on immigration. Focusing only on the soul-draining political details minimizes the time we have to read literature, watch films, and listen to music. Carlos Fuentes, Yuri Herrera, Ana Castillo, and Oscar Casares have all published works that help us see the debate in a distinct dimension — creatively, metaphorically. 

Two important films — El Norte and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada — are worth watching to help humanize the issue. These stories add depth and beauty to a dispiriting, dour debate that’s increasingly playing out on social media rather than face-to-face. We don’t debate anymore; we argue on Facebook, using a medium where we choose our friends and stare into a computer screen rather than into a person’s eyes. 

Finally, any of you remember Lou Dobbs? We’ve forgotten about him, too. Dobbs was a CNN media star for many years and focused his nightly reports on the dangers of immigration. He carefully selected, collected, and reported the crimes and other deprivations committed by immigrants. It worked for a while, but, by 2009, people grew tired of his campaign, his ratings fell, and he was pushed out. Musician/activist Steve Earle concluded the liner notes to his 2007 album Washington Square Serenade with the memorable “P.S. F—k Lou Dobbs,” an addendum that sort of sums up that unfortunate era.  

Let’s take back the immigration debate and force Congress to act. Let’s stand up to those wishing for a wall not with lachrymose-laden laments but with real action predicated upon study and preparation. If we hope to retain our nation’s bedrock values, we’ll have to engage the wall advocates in this war of ideas and ideals. Retreating out of fear or behind dismissive labels is not the answer, and if the wall actually gets built, we’ll have only ourselves to blame.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board chair at Latino Memphis; Michael J. LaRosa is an associate professor of history at Rhodes College.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

DAPA on the Docket

On April 18th, the Supreme Court will hear U.S. v. Texas, an immigration case that has emerged out of continued and increasingly pernicious immigration anger enveloping American society.

The case is complex, and the ruling could affect 5 million people living in America, with direct implications here in Memphis. U.S. v. Texas reflects growing tension between the courts and the executive branch — tensions rooted in the political polarization that defines our nation at this time in history.

In November, 2014, President Obama announced a new program called DAPA — Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (and Lawful Permanent Residents). This executive action would allow about 5 million people — parents of children who are United States citizens — to apply for a three-year work permit upon successful completion of background checks. The program is designed as an extension of the popular and successful 2012 executive action called DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. More than 1.2 million DACA applications have been approved, which means youngsters are obtaining work permits (working and paying taxes) and seeking post-secondary educational opportunities.

The day before DAPA was to go into effect, in February 2015, federal District Judge Andrew Hansen, from Brownsville, Texas, issued an injunction which immediately halted implementation of DAPA. Hansen, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, has been a strong critic of federal immigration policy and leans toward anti-immigration nativists in his writings and opinions. The 26 states that brought the legal action — led by Texas — essentially “shopped for” and found a sympathetic judge and venue to plead their case.

The Obama administration argues — reasonably — that it has been forced to act via executive action because Congress has refused to fix what all sides concede is a badly broken immigration system. In 2013, Obama supported a moderate, comprehensive immigration reform that was passed by the Senate but not even considered by an increasingly partisan, anti-Obama House, controlled at that time by Speaker John Boehner.

Three years earlier, the Senate defeated the “Dream Act,” which would have allowed youngsters brought to the U.S. by their parents to seek citizenship upon completion of high school, on the condition they would agree to spend two years in either college or the armed forces.

We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the administration and against the 26 fractious states that seem motivated by politics, determined to characterize Obama as a sort of emperor-president who rules by fiat. These same states did not file any similar lawsuits against Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush when they committed to “family fairness.” The Family Fairness (1987-1990) law prevented the deportation of children and spouses of folks who had been offered a pathway to citizenship under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, signed into law by President Reagan.

Assuming the court rules in favor of the administration, about 50,000 individuals will be affected in Tennessee — thousands of whom reside here in Memphis. Mayor Strickland can lead by preparing for this eventuality, supporting the residents who hope to apply for DAPA. Folks will need to prove that they’ve resided here permanently since 2010, which can be demonstrated through documentation —utility and cable bills, for example. The mayor and others can and should facilitate this process by setting up clinics and organizing teams of attorneys and other concerned citizens to support those who hope to apply for DAPA. Supporting DAPA makes political and economic sense: It is estimated that, over a 10-year period, DAPA could add an additional $2.65 billion to the state’s GDP.

In this season of political irrationality, where fear of immigrants and a return to nativism has taken hold, we hope the Supreme Court can tune out the national noise, the anti-immigrant churn that’s absorbed us at this moment. Moments, thankfully, are only temporary, but the difference DAPA provides — for millions — would endure.

Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and board member at Latino Memphis; Michael J. LaRosa is an associate professor of history at Rhodes College.