What are the positions on DACA and Dreamers?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: What are the positions on DACA and Dreamers?
Position1 of 2›: DACA should remain and expand
Argument‹3 of 3: Eliminating DACA is morally incorrect

DACA serves an ethical purpose by protecting minor immigrants who came to the United States following their parents. It also gives them rights and benefits that allow them to succeed and help their families and the US.

The argument

Eliminating DACA will cause great harm to young immigrants for no benefit. Most of these young immigrants came with their parents and did not make the decision to travel themselves. The average age of DACA immigrants coming to the US is 6.5 years. Travelling at such a young age made many immigrants have little connection to the place they came from and identify more as Americans. In addition, many of them came to the US to seek protection from dangers in their homes. These dangers include wars and fear of persecution based on religion, race, political opinion, and nationality. It is unethical to deport these young immigrants who were forced to leave their countries. DACA protects these immigrants against deportation. The protection of DACA also gives these young migrants some rights and benefits that allow them to progress in their lives in the United States. About 96% of DACA recipients enroll in either the workforce or in educational programs. Education and jobs are crucial because they help young immigrants to be independent and able to support their families. Research also shows that when young immigrants are freed from the risk of deportation, they become more productive to help themselves and the country. The average salary of young immigrants has doubled between pre-DACA and after receiving DACA. Nearly 78% of American voters support DACA. Eliminating DACA is morally incorrect because it puts the immigrants in insecurity and fear that makes them unable to be productive to help themselves and society.

Premises

[P1]Most DACA recipients arrived as young children (average age 6.5), identify as American, and often fled dangers like war and persecution, so deporting them for a decision they didn't make is unethical. [P2] DACA also lets them work and study—96% are in the workforce or education and their average salary doubled—whereas eliminating it would plunge them into insecurity that harms both them and society, against the wishes of the ~78% of voters who support it. [C] Therefore, because eliminating DACA is morally incorrect, DACA should remain and expand.

Counter-arguments

DACA is an immoral program. It encourages more illegal immigrants to come into the United States and harms the state of the country. DACA protects a wide range of illegal immigrants and not just the ones that came to the United States too young or as infants. DACA protects all immigrants before their 16th birthday. Additionally, DACA does not employ prerequisites that are important for the Untied States like English language fluency.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The moral claim is the argument's strongest element and is narrower than the position it supports. That someone brought to the country at six should not be punished for a decision made for them is a reason to protect that group; it is not a reason to expand the programme, which by definition reaches people the premise's reasoning does not cover. Fleeing war and persecution also belongs to asylum, a separate route with its own criteria. [Rejecting P2] The economic figures show the programme works for its recipients rather than that ending it would be wrong, and they partly reflect selection: eligibility requires education or military service and a clean record, so a favourable employment profile follows from the criteria. Support at 78% records opinion, and treating it as a moral reason takes the step from popularity to rightness that the argument elsewhere avoids. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also passes over the objection its own subject raises. DACA was created by executive action and has been repeatedly litigated on that ground, so "should remain and expand" runs into a question about which branch can do it — the reason the programme has been insecure independently of its merits.

Proponents cited

Barack Obama
“To target these young people is wrong… It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?”
Joe Vasquez
“As a nation, we have a moral and humanitarian obligation to Dreamers. These young people have steadfastly worked to improve themselves and our country and attempted in goodfaith to comply with the law. Their futures hang in the balance”
Michael Blake
“Respect for the law entails respect for moral values. Protecting the Dreamers isn’t about rejecting the rule of law. Rather, it reflects respect for the morality that the law proclaims.”
Annaluisa Padilla
“Dreamers are the embodiment of the American dream. They were brought to this country as children and have made this nation their home, often contributing in powerful, meaningful ways”