On June 15, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a policy at the White House that would save over “800,000” undocumented immigrants in America from deportation.  Under the policy, undocumented immigrants are eligible to apply for work authorization and are deferred from deportation for two years as long as they satisfy the following requirements:

1. They were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are under 30;

2. They have been in the country for at least five continuous years;

ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. They have no criminal record;

4. They have graduated from a U.S. high school, earned a GED, or have served in the military.

President Obama’s announcement is described by the ABC News’ Anchor Diane Sawyer as “throwing a thunderbolt” to the upcoming presidential election.  The announcement has triggered a drastic response from both sides of the issue, with the Latino community celebrating around the country and the GOP furiously reacting to his decision.

Putting the public response aside, this change in deportation policy, affecting nearly a million people, can induce a potential impact on the nation. Unfortunately, such impact may not be quite positive as some may think. Even though the policy change represents a humanitarian effort intending to push the Congress to pass the controversial DREAM Act, it is dilemmatic in its reasoning, temporary in its effect and narrow-ranged in its targeted population.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

At first glance, relieving eight hundred thousands of young, innocent and “good” (clean criminal record) undocumented immigrants from the life-long fear of deportation seems to be “the right thing to do”—as declared by President Obama during the Rose Garden address.  These young people were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, with “no idea that they are undocumented until they apply for a job, a driver’s license or a college scholarship.”

Some of them have assimilated into the American culture and society through education. These people may have little understanding of the culture and language of their countries of origin. They have adopted all the U.S. identities culturally and nationally except one—the legal identity. Therefore, Obama’s policy in and of itself is a humanitarian effort that alleviates thousands of young undocumented immigrants from bearing the burden of their parents’ wrongdoing and provides them with a bright future.

Unfortunately, the humanitarian idea behind Obama’s policy is deeply dilemmatic. The change in deportation policy benefits only the group of people who arrived in United States before they turned sixteen. It does not take into account of their parents, who are responsible for bringing the youngsters to U.S. many years ago. Thus, parents of the 800,000 unauthorized immigrants are still facing the danger of deportation because of their illegal status.

Under the “Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,” those parents, who have likely crossed the U.S. border illegally or overstayed their visas, are subject to deportation.  Ironically, according to the new policy, qualified individuals who are not in “removal proceedings” (in the process of deportation) and are applying for the work permits require a “background check,” which verifies the citizenship of their family members.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

However, family members—parents—of these young individuals are unauthorized immigrants; they will be subject to deportation once their illegal statuses are revealed and will be separated indefinitely with their children (from three to twenty years).  Whether or not the Department of Homeland Security will have the resource to deport all those parents remains questionable, but the flaw of this policy contradicts its humanitarian purpose. If a humanitarian policy means removing the unfair burden from the young undocumented immigrants, then how is it humane when such policy also means separating these young people from their parents indefinitely?

Supporters of the new deportation policy may argue that such dilemma can be resolved by pushing forward the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, also known as the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was proposed in 2001 to grant legal and conditional “permanent residency” to minors who are qualified under similar requirements listed under Obama’s new deportation policy.

Under this proposal, young unauthorized immigrants stand a chance to attain permanent residency and subsequently become a U.S. citizen. Once they become a permanent resident or a citizen, these minors can sponsor their parents and other family members to apply for U.S. citizenships or permanent residencies and reunite with their family (or unite legally on paper, since many of those parents remain in U.S.).  Thus, pushing the Congress to pass the DREAM Act can solve the dilemma brought about by the new deportation policy.

However, the DREAM Act itself is controversial. Proponents of the bill claim that the DREAM Act provides thousands of students, who are hampered by their illegal status, the opportunity to a promising future and subsequently benefiting the U.S. economy.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

However, opponents of the bill rebut that the influx of thousands of educated and skilled immigrants into the already suffering U.S. job market can potentially impact the job prospect for local workers.  This is true. Traditionally, the influx of unauthorized immigrants have arguably supported the U.S. economy, as most of these workers take up the low-end jobs not favored by native-born Americans, such as strenuous “farm work,” low-paid “homebuilding” projects, and “janitorial services.”  However, what the DREAM Act will unleash is a group of educated and skilled immigrants, once bounded by illegality, who will pose strong competition to the native-born American workers in the job market.

Similar argument is made by the Republicans regarding Obama’s deportation policy. They believe that introducing close to a million undocumented immigrants in to the formal job market can harm the job opportunities of local U.S. workers.  House Representative Lamar Smith from Texas commented: “How can the administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions of Americans are unemployed?”   Yet, such remark is an overstatement. The current U.S. job market comprises of more than a hundred million jobs.  The inflow of eight hundred thousand new workers will not produce a noticeable effect.

More importantly, these young workforces are facing the same job market as anyone else. They too have to struggle through the fierce competition in the job market and to face the risk of unemployment. On a local scale, when these minors are authorized to work, they will consider themselves as members of the formal workforces who qualify for a higher salary. They will unlikely settle for a lower wage on a job as what their predecessors traditionally do. This will allow local employers to consider them with native workers equally, without biasing towards the ones who ask for a lower wage which may harm the job prospects of native U.S. workers. Thus, the impact of Obama’s deportation policy on the U.S. job market is insignificant.

Yet, such negligible impact reveals another flaw of the deportation policy—it is temporary. President Obama himself recognized in his announcement that the policy “is not a permanent fix.”   Indeed, as what the President said, granting the 800,000 undocumented minors work permits “is not amnesty,” neither “a path to citizenship,”   These young people will only be able to apply for a citizenship or a permanent residency after the Congress passes the DREAM Act.  However, the DREAM Act has been stalled in the Congress for over a decade. With the fierce opposition from the Republicans, it is unlikely that the DREAM Act will be passed in the near future.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

That means if these newly authorized minors lose their jobs after their work permits expire in the future, they will again face the risk of deportation. Also, the deportation policy can be easily overturned by a new Administration. If Mr. Obama loses this year’s election, his Republican counterpart (potentially Mitt Romney) may likely remove the policy given his opposition on such matter.  Such overturning of policy will crush the dreams of the thousands of newly arrived and future undocumented immigrants who illegally cross the borders and overstay their visas.

Considering the fact that over half a million illegal entries are made into U.S. every year,  a new population of undocumented, young, and “qualified” immigrants will appear in the near future, longing for the implementation of another humanitarian but transient deportation policy,

The effect of the new deportation policy is not only temporary but also narrow-ranged. Out of the 11.2 million illegal immigrants estimated by the Pew Hispanic Center in 2010, less than ten percent will be benefited from the deportation policy.  It excludes a potentially large number of undocumented young immigrants who satisfy most but not all of the policy requirements.  These are individuals who either dropout from high school or carry criminal records. These youngsters generally grow up in impoverished conditions and receive poor attention from parents and teachers.  They are prone to academic inadequacy and minor misconducts, which would bar them from applying for work permits under the new deportation policy. Yet, their nonperformance and moral turpitude are the result of their parents’ and teachers’ irresponsible actions. Compared to those qualified individuals, these undocumented young immigrants bear a heavier burden of their parents’ wrongdoing. If it is morally imperative to relieve the 800,000 qualified illegal immigrants from the burden of their parents’ misbehaviors, then why not the “almost-qualified” individuals too?

President Obama’s bombshell announcement of the new deportation policy before the upcoming presidential election may simply be “a political act.”   Yet, parties of concern should recognize the overall impact of the policy.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The deportation policy may endow thousands of young, aspired and talented people the freedom to pursue a brighter future, but it does not relieve the parents of these youngsters from the risk of deportation. If families of these undocumented immigrants fall apart as a result of the handicapped policy, then the humanitarian doctrine behind such policy is deeply flawed. Even though the DREAM Act can be a solution to such dilemma, it may give rise to a strong competition in the job market, harming the already dim job outlook of the native-born American workers.

On the contrary, the impact of the deportation policy on the U.S. job market is much less disturbing than the Republican leaders have described. But such policy is transient, unable to accommodate the needs of the newly arrived and future young undocumented immigrants. The requirements of the deportation policy is narrow, excluding many individuals who can almost qualified for the deportation relief but fail because they lack a quality family and school education.

President Obama’s announcement of the new deportation policy may be a morale booster to thousands of students who have lived in the shadow of deportation, but its actual impact may not be as satisfying. As cautiously pointed out by Daniela Alulema, an unauthorized immigrant from Ecuador: “We don’t want to get too excited…We hope that what was announced will be implemented and will actually help out community.”

Work Cited:

  1. “New Obama Policy Will Spare Nearly 800,000 From Deportation,” CBS-DC, June 5, 2012, accessed June 18, 2012, washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/15/new-obama-policy-will-spare-nearly-800000-from-deportation/
  2. Sawyer, Diane. “Obama Eases Deportation Law for Young Immigrants,” ABC NEWS video, 1.31, June 15, 2012, accessed June 18, 2012, abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-loosens-deportation-law-young-immigrants-16578819
  3. Nadia Nedzel, “Immigration Law: A Bird’s-Eye View,” in Immigration—Debating the Issues, ed. Nicholas Capaldi (New York: Prometheus Books 1997), 134.
  4. Janet Napolitano, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” Memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security, June 15, 2012, i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/15/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf
  5. “FAQs—Mandatory Background Investigation,” Custom and Border Protection, accessed June 18, 2012, cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/apply/mandatory back invest.xml
  6. Bill Text 111th Congress (2009-2010) S.729.IS, Library of Congress, thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.729:
  7. 8 U.S.C. 1153(a); INA 203(a). accessed June 21, 2012, uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1059.html
  8. Steven Malanga, “Unskilled Illegal Immigrants Hurt the U.S. Economy,” in Illegal Immigration, ed. Debra A. Miller (Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press 2007)
  9. Debra A. Miller, Chapter Preface to “Does Illegal Immigration Harm the United States?”, in Illegal Immigration, ed. Debra A. Miller (Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press 2007)
  10. Julia, Preston and John H. Cushman Jr., “Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S.,” The New York Times, June 15, 2012, accessed June 18, 2012, nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all
  11. Mike Lillis, “GOP: New Obama deportation policy violates oath of office,” The Hill, June 15, 2012, accessed June 18, 2012, thehill.com/homenews/house/232941-gop-new-obama-deportation-policy-violates-oath-of-office-
  12. “Economic News Release,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Table A-9. bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
  13. Albor Ruiz, “DREAM Act: Poll Number Favors It, Republican Oppose It,” NYDailyNews.com, March 14, 2012, accessed June 21, 2012, articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-14/news/31183248 1 latino-voters-undocumented-immigrants-immigration-crisis
  14. Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010,” Population Estimates, Department of Homeland Security, February, 2011, accessed June 18, 2012, dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois ill pe 2010.pdf
  15. “Up to 1.4 Million Unauthorized Immigrants Could Benefit from New Deportation Policy,” Pew Hispanic Center, June 15, 2012,  pewhispanic.org/2012/06/15/up-to-1-4-million-unauthorized-immigrants-could-benefit-from-new-deportation-policy/
  16. Julia Preston, “Risks Seen for Children of Illegal Immigrants,” The New York Times, September 20, 2011, accessed June 21, 2012, nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us/illegal-immigrant-parents-pass-a-burden-study-says.html
  17. E. J. Dionne, Linda Chavez, guests, Audie Cornish, host, “Week in Politics: Obama’s New Deportation Policy,” NPR, June 15, 2012, transcript and Adobe Flash Audio, 00:30, accessed June 18, 2012, npr.org/2012/06/15/155135341/week-in-politics-obamas-new-deportation-policy

By

Shi, YI

Email: [email protected]