On September 5, President Trump ended DACA, a program that protects undocumented immigrants from deportation, and gave congress six months to pass a replacement.
Under DACA, undocumented youth could obtain a social security card, driver’s license, legally secure a job, pay income taxes, and enroll in college. There are 800,000 people in the United States that are currently DACA recipients.
However, the uncertainty on whether there will be a replacement for DACA has left its recipients with many unanswered questions. On September 18, Wright College assembled a panel to inform students on DACA’s status and answer any questions students may have on the program.
The four person panel included Director of Health and Leadership programs at Erie Neighborhood House Micaella Verro, Wright College Economist Professor Antonio Vasquez, Immigrant Director for Logan Square Neighborhood Association Marcelo Ferrer, Wright College DACA mentor Amanda Jiang.
People in the United States are not well informed of the repercussions the revocation of DACA would have on the economy. Economist Professor Antonio Vasquez explained the consequences from an economic perspective.
He explained how revoking DACA would deal a massive hit to the economy. The economy is built on a growing population, the youth of today is the current and future workforce and that workforce includes over 800,000 DACA recipients across the country. “But if all of a sudden you were to deport all those people who were taking those jobs there is a loss of human capital,” said Vasquez.
DACA recipients make a lot of career advancements, they build businesses, and obtain licenses and degrees. Over 90% of dreamers are employed; therefore, they help build the economy. “You can't just extract all those people and not have an impact. You would have empty office buildings and empty restaurants. Little village is a highly populated Latino community that has some of the highest total tax revenues and that would mean cutting the cities own throat to do that,” continued Vazquez.
A great deal of DACA recipients are hardworking students who registered with the program to earn the same basic rights and freedoms that so many take for granted. Many DACA recipients fear that they will soon have to forfeit these basic rights and revert to living in the shadows.
Sam, a DACA recipient at Wright College, talked about the impact DACA has had. “This was my only choice at the time, and the reason I got it was because I knew eventually I would have to start working. It allows you a social security number, a driver's license, a permit to work, and a state ID. This way, instead of having to show my matricula de Mexico (mexican registration), I have a state ID from the United States. It makes me feel like I belong.” The revoking of DACA has now singled-out Sam once more, making the individual feel unsafe and vulnerable.
Although the panel addressed many questions and concerns regarding DACA and the rights of its recipients, there were still many more waiting to be answered. During an interview with immigration attorney Julio A. Noboa, whose profession entails protecting the legal rights of undocumented people, he expanded on several issues discussed in the panel.
Noboa’s law office has had a long history of working with DACA recipients and applicants. When asked why almost 800,000 undocumented youth registered for DACA as opposed to applying for other visas or work permits, he explained that laws like the Ten-Year Bar make these other options impossible and leave the youth with no other option.
The Ten-Year Bar states that any person who entered the country illegally and stayed for a year or more after 1997 is barred from the United States. These people must then return to their home countries and stay there for 10 years before they are allowed to reenter the United States. Otherwise, they must marry a U.S. citizen or have a parent who is a citizen to be “forgiven” for the ban.
According to Noboa, DACA was “a way for those young people who were not married to the right person to step out of the shadows and become part of an American society that needs their labor and love.”
He went on to discuss the issue of deportations, stating that the likelihood of the government rounding up DACA recipients after its cancellation is extremely slim as the government knows that such an action would lead to strong opposition and negative perceptions by the public. Additionally, he claimed that for some immigrants, the best way for them to address their status is actually by getting caught by immigration as deportation proceedings allow immigrants to litigate their cases. Said immigrants can even become permanent residents before a judge if they have a mostly clean criminal record, have a spouse, child, or parent that is a citizen, and have been in the U.S. for 10 or more years.
Lastly, Attorney Noboa wanted to remind DACA recipients of their rights in the wake of DACA’s revocation. He affirmed that DACA recipients have the right to renew their DACA so long as they meet the renewal criteria, the right to keep their DACA status until it expires, and are under no legal obligation to inform their employers when their DACA status has expired or will expire. He also advised talking to an immigration attorney or a nonprofit organization like the National Immigrant Justice Center or Catholic Charities so that, in his words, “your unique set of facts are analyzed for the best possible outcome”.
While talking to Attorney Julio A. Noboa and generally conducting the research for this article, it was impossible to ignore the fear and anger felt by so many regarding the removal of DACA. Frustrated by the actions of Donald Trump, Noboa referred to Mr. Trump with comically spiteful nicknames like “El Payaso,” “Agent Orange,” “Pelos,” and “Twit-in-Chief,” even sarcastically referring to America as “‘Murica.”.
All jokes aside, the fear felt by DACA recipients is real. Such emotion is evident in our encounter with Sam as well as other affected students. The safety of falling back into the shadows is no longer there as vital records are now in the possession of the government.