Beck, Qué onda guero?, Guero, 2005
President Obama's recent executive order regarding the Dream Act has predictably provoked both praise and criticism. Let's first look at the language of the order. In brief:
Effective immediately, certain young people who were brought to the United States through no fault of their own as young children and meet several key criteria will no longer be removed from the country or entered into removal proceedings. Those who demonstrate that they meet the criteria will be eligible to receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal.There are five criteria:
1) Have come to the United States under the age of sixteen; 2) Have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum; 3) Currently be in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; 4) Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; 5) Not be above the age of 30.
The order, in other words, gives young undocumented immigrants temporary immunity (or "deferred action") from deportation proceedings, an immunity that can be renewed every two years. The conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) calls this "administrative amnesty," and "amnesty" among immigration hardliners is a pejorative, implying an unwarranted forgiveness of a dastardly crime. Technically, though, this executive order does not grant amnesty at all (see legal definition of amnesty here). There's no forgiveness, just a temporary change in status from deportable to some legal netherworld that is neither illegal or legal residency. The order just tells prosecutors dealing with deportations that they can ignore immigrants who meet the criteria above.
Has the Obama administration "[ursurped] legislative authority," as CIS director, Mark Krikorian claims? Hardly. Since the New Deal era, Congress has been turning over a great deal of discretionary authority over to the executive--apparently unwilling or unable to write bills that proscribe executive action with specific language (read your Theodore Lowi. . .). And last year a number of Senators and Representatives asked the President last year to grant deferred action on young undocumented immigrants--Democrats and Independents, yes, and one moderate Republican (Richard Lugar of Indiana, recently vanquished by the Tea Party). Krikorian should really get on Congress' case for relinquishing authority instead of accusing President Obama of dictatorial tactics.
The presumptive GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and other Republicans have responded with what I imagine they developed as 'talking points' to blunt the impact of the order (Romney advisor, Kerry Healing delivers these points in this NPR story).
First, the executive order is merely a "stopgap measure" that does nothing to permanently fix immigration law. This is true, but the question is whether or not the measure is a good policy move or not given Congress' inability to move on immigration reform, including the Dream Act. I happen to think it is, for practical and idealistic reasons. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that this order could affect the status of around 1.4 million people, and focusing constrained resources on deportation efforts against immigrants with criminal records makes sense. And to treat immigrants who came before the age of seventeen, before the age of consent, also makes sense since it jives with our tradition of limiting the legal culpability of children. And I agree with the American Immigration Council's response:
The administration has acted responsibly and compassionately to a growing humanitarian crisis--thousands of undocumented young people, whose talents and energy are incredibly valuable to this country, languish while Congress refuses to act on the DREAM Act.
As well, this policy initiative makes more economic sense than the harsh and costly laws in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama that promote what is euphemistically called 'self-deportation' (see Your State Can't Afford It). Don't we want these hundreds of thousands in the legal workforce, getting degrees, joining the military?
 |
| Mothers arrive to pick up their children from Flowers School in Montgomery, Ala., Friday, Sept. 30, 2011. Hispanic students have started vanishing from Alabama public schools in the wake of a court ruling that upheld the state's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration. (AP Photo/Dave Martin) |
Second, Obama doesn't really care about Latino/as or about immigration law as much as he pretends; otherwise he would have accomplished reform when he Democratic majorities in both chambers over 2009-10. This is just plain wrong. The House did pass the Dream Act in 2010 (after a failed attempt in 2009), but the now standard GOP filibuster in the Senate killed it (five Democratic Senators helped with that).
And third, it was pure politics, on two levels, one as an election year gimmick and the other to undercut Senator Mark Rubio's intention to introduce his own version of the Dream Act (Rubio may be on Romney's list of possible Vice-Presidential candidates). For sure, there were political motivations in this election year, but the Republicans can hardly complain too loudly since so many of them have been ambivalent or even hostile to comprehensive immigration reform, as well as the Dream Act. And it's not just politics--since the death of the Dream Act in 2011 there has been a growing chorus of members of Congress and immigrant advocacy groups calling for just such a move. Obama's proclamation hardly appeared in vacuum. As for Rubio, what's to stop him from pushing his own version of the Dream Act? Moreover, Obama's order may well provoke Congress into action on his legislative proposal.
GOP and other critics, rather than complaining about motivations, should be talking about something far more important--does the federal government have the capacity to implement this directive? The executive order mandates a case-by-case review of applications and--as the MPI points out--with the policy taking effect in two months, there's a lot of work to be done training staff, outreach, and resolving questions of what counts as evidence to support the criteria (such as proof of entering before sixteen). Given the huge backlogs on other immigrant issues--cases in Los Angeles immigration courts sit for almost two years on average before being resolved--I have my doubts the Dream decree will be ready to go in August.
