DACA negatively impacts the US economy

The argument

The increase in the number of immigrants who are authorized to work through DACA presents competition on jobs with other American workers. The number of unemployed Americans increased by 16 million since 2000. As of 2016, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born employed Americans and 2 million more employed immigrants compared with 2007. Jobs are growing in the United States, but the net gain of job expansion is going to the immigrants and not native-born Americans. Both high and low-skilled Americans are affected by immigration, but because immigrants mainly occupy low-skilled jobs, low-skilled Americans are disproportionately affected. Because there is a large number of immigrants seeking jobs, not only are fewer jobs are available, but job benefits are less. The increase in the supply of workers leads to less demand for them by businesses. Immigrants are willing to get jobs for lower wages, and so businesses do not increase wages or benefits. There is less room for job improvement when there are more immigrants. DACA allows many immigrants to work which introduces competition. The government should eliminate DACA to improve the economy for Americans.

Premises

Counter-arguments

DACA recipients contribute positively to the economy in many important ways. It is expected that the economy would shrink by $280 million if the government eliminates DACA. Some Dreamers also start their own businesses which creates more job opportunities. DACA also increases wages for immigrants which dramatically increases tax revenues. The higher the salaries the larger the taxes immigrants need to pay. Research expects that DACA will contribute about $460.3 billion in revenue over the next decade. The US economy would lose this economic growth would be lost if DACA is eliminated.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise misdescribes what the policy does. DACA recipients were already living and working in the United States, largely in the informal economy; deferred action changes the legal formality of that work rather than adding people to the labour force. Removing it would not shrink the labour supply, only push the same workers back into unauthorised employment. [Rejecting P2] The employment figures are unsourced and the inference from them is invalid. Native-born and foreign-born employment are not shares of a fixed number of jobs, and the comparison spans the 2008 financial crisis and its recovery, during which native-born employment was affected by retirement of a large cohort and by declining participation for reasons unrelated to immigration. [Rejecting P3] The wage-competition claim is the most contested proposition in the field, and the research finding measurable negative effects generally locates them among a narrow group of prior immigrants and workers without a high school diploma, with small effects elsewhere and positive effects for complementary workers. It is also in tension with P1: formalising employment raises the wage floor these workers can accept, which reduces rather than increases downward pressure. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record puts the other side of the ledger — tax revenue from higher reported earnings, businesses founded by recipients, and the estimated cost of removing them — none of which the argument addresses. The recipients concerned were also brought to the country as children, which is the ground on which the rival positions rest.