Home Categories About
argument top image
What are the positions on DACA and Dreamers? What are the positions on DACA and Dreamers?
DACA should remain and expand DACA should remain and expand
DACA should be eliminated DACA should be eliminated
Eliminating DACA is morally incorrect Eliminating DACA is morally incorrect
DACA helps improve the US economy DACA helps improve the US economy
DACA increases diversity in American society and the workforce DACA increases diversity in American society and the workforce
DACA is legally unjustified DACA is legally unjustified
DACA negatively impacts the US economy DACA negatively impacts the US economy
DACA can drastically change the political sphere DACA can drastically change the political sphere
Debate Mini Map

What are the positions on DACA and Dreamers?
Back to question

DACA should be eliminated

< (2 of 2)

DACA is legally unjustified

There are established immigration laws for people coming to the US with no status. President Obama had no constitutional authority to exclude young immigrants from these laws by making a program like DACA.
DACA Immigration Law USA
Ken Paxton Elizabeth Murrill Lamar Smith
< (1 of 3) Next argument >

The Argument

The laws for immigrants without status are already present in American law based on the constitution. These laws should apply to all immigrants and young immigrants should not be excluded. Dreamers have already broken the law by illegal travel to the US or remaining illegally in the US without documentation, and they should be entitled to the law including deportation. Trump tried to reverse DACA policy because Obama had no constitutional authority to impose the DACA policy that prevents enforcement of the immigration law on certain groups of immigrants. [1] Giving rights and protection against deportation for illegal immigrants will only encourage more illegal immigration to the country. People will find it less consequential to come to the US illegally since DACA will protect them and their rights for education and work. Those who do not qualify for DACA will still come and stay hoping that they would qualify later. Overall, DACA does not put an end to illegal immigration but encourages it, which amplifies the problem. [2]

Counter arguments

The decision of abandoning DACA would be a political decision, not a legal one. Establishing and implementing DACA does not violate the constitution or immigration laws. The US government succeeded in defending DACA against many legal objections and any constitutional challenges have failed. DACA is a temporary program that gives young immigrants, who pass criminal background checks and meet educational requirements and other criteria, the ability to stay for two years that is subject to renewal. The government has so many duties to protect its people. DACA makes perfect sense because it helps direct the government's time and efforts regarding immigration issues. DACA is fully lawful and does not violate the constitution. [3]

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/how-the-supreme-courts-daca-decision-harms-the-constitution-the-presidency-congress-and-the-country/
  2. https://www.procon.org/headlines/are-daca-and-the-dream-act-good-for-america/
  3. https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/road-citizenship/daca-and-will-always-be-constitutional
This page was last edited on Monday, 2 Nov 2020 at 23:22 UTC

Explore related arguments