DACA & the DREAM Act
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an Obama administration policy implemented by executive order on June 15, 2012. DACA prevents the deportation of some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and allows those immigrants to get work permits.
Explore the ProCon debate
The undocumented immigrants who participate in the program are called “Dreamers,” a reference to the failed DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) that was first introduced in the Senate on Aug. 1, 2001, by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) but was not approved and passed by Congress. The DREAM Act would have implemented similar policies as DACA but via legislation passed by Congress and not instituted by a presidential executive order. (Executive orders can be more easily reversed than Congressional legislation.) [1][2]
In order to qualify for DACA, undocumented immigrants are required to meet certain criteria. They must:
- be under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012
- have come to the United States before their 16th birthday
- have lived in the United States continuously from June 15, 2007, to the present
- have been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of application
- have come to the United States without documents before June 15, 2012, or have had their lawful status expire as of June 15, 2012
- be in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or military
- have not been convicted of a felony or “significant misdemeanors” (such as DUI), or three or more misdemeanors of any kind
Enrollment in the program requires renewal every two years. [1]
A 2023 Data for Progress poll found that 56 percent of American voters opposed ending DACA while 36 percent were in favor of terminating the program. A 2024 National Immigration Forum and Bullfinch Group survey found 68 percent supported bipartisan legislation with a path to citizenship for Dreamers. [52][53]
For specific dates in DACA history, see the ProCon Historical Timeline below.
For more on the immigration debate in the United States, visit ProCon’s examinations of immigration and sanctuary cites.
Pros and Cons at a Glance
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: DACA is good for Dreamers and U.S. citizens. Read More. | Con 1: DACA and the Dream Act only encourage more illegal immigration. Read More. |
| Pro 2: Deporting Dreamers is inhumane and cruel. Read More. | Con 2: Amnesty should not be given to law breakers. Read More. |
| Pro 3: DACA recipients are vital members of the American workforce. Read More. | Con 3: DACA sets a bad precedent for letting presidents circumvent the legislative branch. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: DACA is good for Dreamers and U.S. citizens.
An October 7, 2024 study of DACA recipients in Los Angeles found that the program led to lower high school drop-out rates among male students, higher high school graduation rates overall, and increased effort and motivation to do well in school (supported by an increase in test scores) for undocumented immigrant youth. [50]
Plus, “at the average high school campus, where 3.4 percent of students were likely undocumented, DACA’s introduction resulted in a two-percentage-point (or four percent) increase in U.S.-born students’ probability of high school completion. U.S.-born students also experienced an increase in ELA achievement (0.06 standard deviations) after DACA’s enactment.” Meaning, DACA is a win-win both for undocumented youthand U.S. citizen youth. [50]
Benjamin Harris, former chief economist and economic advisor to then-Vice President Joe Biden, stated: “Individuals eligible for the DACA program tend to be higher-skilled than their ineligible counterparts, simply because the typical DACA-eligible immigrant arrived in the America at age six and was educated in the U.S. Put differently, sending DACA participants back to their home countries would be a waste of billions in human capital already invested in the young immigrants.” [9]
Pro 2: Deporting Dreamers is inhumane and cruel.
Arriving at a median age of six years old, many Dreamers do not remember life in their birth countries, have not met family members in those countries, and do not speak the native language fluently. [15]
President Barack Obama, responding to President Donald Trump’s plan to end DACA, stated, “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?” [16]
Many DACA recipients are well-integrated into families, communities, schools, and workplaces throughout the country. [7]
Thiru Vignarajah, former deputy attorney of Maryland, stated, “to deport immigrants raised in America since they were children for the supposed sins of their parents is the definition of cruel and unusual punishment—expelling a person to a country they do not know because of a decision they did not make is as spiteful as it is bizarre.” [17]
Pro 3: DACA recipients are vital members of the American workforce.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that 900 DACA recipients were serving in the U.S. military and 20,000 were schoolteachers, including 190 Dreamers in the Teach for America program. [35][36]
The Association of American Medical Colleges said in October 2019 that the U.S. health care system would be caught unprepared to fill the void left by deported Dreamers. Lawyers for Dreamers seeking to uphold the program wrote, “Healthcare providers on the frontlines of our nation’s fight against COVID-19 rely significantly upon DACA recipients to perform essential work. Approximately 27,000 DACA recipients are healthcare workers—including nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physician assistants, home health aides, technicians, and other staff—and nearly 200 are medical students, residents, and physicians.” [31]
Furthermore, 21,000 DACA recipients worked in transportation and warehousing, 32,800 in retail including pharmacies and supermarkets, 14,500 worked in manufacturing, and 13,000 in support and waste management services. Along with healthcare workers, that’s a lot of undocumented immigrants who helped the country run during the pandemic and continue to do so years later. [51]
Pro Quotes
Emiliana, a DACA recipient from California, stated:
I was six years old when I immigrated to the United States. Thanks to DACA, I was able to go to the University of California, Irvine for my bachelor’s in psychology and social behavior and be part of the UCI DREAM Center which fueled my passion to keep working for the community after graduating college. I am more than my undocumented identity. Everything I have accomplished wasn’t handed to me. I have worked hard to achieve my goals and career path. DACA allowed me to take space in professional settings that my little girl self sometimes finds hard to believe. Without it, my educational process would be stopped alongside my professional career. When a decision is made about DACA, the narratives of the community need to be heard and considered because we know how powerful and unique our journeys are more than anyone else. Our stories, our contributions, homes, careers, and most importantly, our humanity must be uplifted.
—United We Dream, “As Trump Takes Office, DACA Recipients Speak Out: We Remember Your Attacks on DACA & We Won’t Back Down on the Fight to Stay in Our Home!,” unitedwedream.org, Jan. 20, 2025
Laurence Benenson, vice president of policy & advocacy at the National Immigration Forum, stated:
Dreamers have been here for many years and make vital contributions to our communities. American citizens depend on Dreamers. They serve in our military. They contribute to our economy and communities as teachers, health care providers, neighbors, co-congregants, and more. Together with their families, they make our nation a better place.
Dreamers help the American economy and serve in the military. Over the next 10 years, Dreamers who currently have DACA will contribute an estimated $420 billion to the GDP, $60 billion in fiscal impact, and $12.3 billion in taxes to Social Security and Medicare if they can continue to work legally in the U.S.
Over 900 DACA recipients [with] valuable language and medical skills have enlisted in the military under the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) Pilot Program.
—Laurence Benenson, “Fact Sheet: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” immigrationforum.org, May 21, 2024
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: DACA and the Dream Act only encourage more illegal immigration.
Former congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that DACA “encouraged more illegal immigration and contributed to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.” [10]
According to Karl Eschbach, adjunct professor at The University of Texas Medical Branch, DACA will increase the undocumented population because those who don’t qualify for DACA will stay in the hopes of qualifying eventually, and more people will immigrate assuming coverage by DACA or a similar program. [13]
Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated, “The Dream Act will only encourage more illegal immigration. One only needs to look at history to see how amnesty has played out in the past. The 1986 amnesty legislation legalized about three million illegal immigrants. But rather than put an end to illegal immigration, the amnesty only encouraged more.” [14]
History bears this out: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) included the legalization of about three million undocumented immigrants. Following the act’s implementation, between 1990 and 2007, the population of unauthorized immigrants in the United States shot up to 500,000 per year, peaking at 12.2 million. [33][34]
Con 2: Amnesty should not be given to law breakers.
A country fairly enforcing its own laws is not cruel. David Benkoff, senior policy analyst at The Daily Caller noted that Dreamers are “victims of their parents…[and] it’s stunningly callous and cruel that they would knowingly subject their own children to such risks.” [18]
Dreamers have already broken the law by crossing the border illegally and remaining in the country without documentation. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) stated that many Dreamers also commit work-related crimes such as Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury on I-9 employment forms, and falsification of ID cards. Since 2012, 1,500 Dreamers have lost their DACA status because of gang involvement or other criminal activity. [20][21]
Dreamers are only disqualified if they are convicted of a crime, which according to CIS author Ronald W. Mortensen, means that “Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven’t paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven’t been convicted of their crimes.” [20]
Con 3: DACA sets a bad precedent for letting presidents circumvent the legislative branch.
President Trump noted in his announcement to rescind DACA that President Obama knew he shouldn’t make immigration policy unilaterally, “and yet that is exactly what he did, making an end-run around Congress and violating the core tenets that sustain our Republic.” [38]
U.S. presidents shouldn’t be able to set legislative policy by executive orders; rather they should seek approval from Congress in accordance with the Constitution. [39]
According to Elizabeth Murrill, solicitor general of Louisiana, “No matter one’s views on the policy principles motivating DACA, we should all be able to agree that the executive cannot legislate by fiat….The core of DACA’s substantive unlawfulness is its grant of ‘lawful presence’ to hundreds of thousands of aliens whom Congress has declared to be unlawfully present.” [40]
Con Quotes
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, joined by other Texas officials and lawyers, stated:
The DACA Rule … violates the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. Presidents cannot exercise legislative power—and they certainly cannot dispense with statutes addressing unlawful presence by declaring an entire class of aliens to henceforth be present lawfully. Yet the Executive did just that through DACA, dispensing with Congress’s carefully delineated immigration policies for its own preferred legal regime....
In DACA, the President has dispensed with Congress’s carefully delineated immigration policies in favor of its own preferred legal regime …. The President then used this putative dispensation to grant a pathway to citizenship. …. The President did this by treating DACA recipients as eligible for advance parole, which allowed the program to function as a pathway to permanent legal residence and citizenship. Because DACA dispenses with the law in violation of the Take Care Clause, it is unconstitutional and “shall” be “h[e]ld unlawful and set aside.”
—Justice Action Center Litigation Tracker, “Texas’s Brief on Appeal (PDF) (04/09/2024),” litigationtracker.justiceactioncenter.org, Apr. 9, 2024
Attorneys General for the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia stated:
Congress created “an intricate statutory scheme for determining which classes of aliens may receive lawful presence, discretionary relief from removal, deferred action, and work authorization” ….
Congress specifically defined classes of aliens who are eligible for deferred action and discretionary relief from removal .… In addition, Congress enacted immigration classifications for lawful and unlawful presence …. Congress also allowed for work authorization for specific categories of illegal aliens ....
Congress never gave the Executive Branch permission to sidestep this carefully crafted, intricate, and extensive statutory scheme and create new classes of aliens eligible for deferred action protecting them from removal. Nor did Congress permit unlawfully present aliens to be lawfully present, much less allow such unlawfully present aliens to obtain attendant benefits and work authorization simply because the Executive chooses not to remove them. But that is precisely what Defendants did in the DACA Memorandum.”
—States of Alabama and Texas, “Case 1:18-cv-00068 Document 625-1 Filed on 01/31/23 in TXSD,” storage.courtlistener.com, Jan. 31, 2023
Who Are Dreamers?
Dreamers are the 537,730 DACA recipients, who are protected from deportation if they meet the requirements of the program.
Countries of Birth
| Country | Number of Dreamers |
|---|---|
| Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Active DACA Recipients – (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4),” uscis.gov, Dec. 16, 2024 | |
| Mexico | 436,300 |
| El Salvador | 21,260 |
| Guatemala | 14,370 |
| Honduras | 13,230 |
| Peru | 4,850 |
| South Korea | 4,700 |
| Brazil | 3,960 |
| Ecuador | 3,700 |
| Colombia | 3,100 |
| Argentina | 2,570 |
| Philippines | 2,480 |
| Jamaica | 1,770 |
| India | 1,620 |
| Venezuela | 1,610 |
| Dominican Republic | 1,440 |
| Uruguay | 1,300 |
| Bolivia | 1,120 |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1,110 |
| Nicaragua | 1,060 |
| Costa Rica | 1,010 |
| Chile | 950 |
| Pakistan | 830 |
| Poland | 820 |
| Nigeria | 730 |
| Guyana | 610 |
| Belize | 530 |
| Indonesia | 520 |
| Canada | 520 |
| Kenya | 450 |
| China | 400 |
| Bangladesh | 330 |
| Mongolia | 320 |
| Ghana | 320 |
| Portugal | 310 |
| United Kingdom | 300 |
| Not available | 290 |
| Panama | 280 |
| Italy | 250 |
| The Bahamas | 200 |
| Israel | 200 |
| Albania | 190 |
| Taiwan | 150 |
| Saint Lucia | 150 |
| Paraguay | 140 |
| Jordan | 140 |
| Germany | 140 |
| Zambia | 130 |
| Unknown | 130 |
| Thailand | 130 |
| Republic of Turkiye | 130 |
| South Africa | 120 |
| Saudi Arabia | 120 |
| Hong Kong | 120 |
| Egypt | 120 |
| Armenia | 120 |
| United Arab Emirates | 110 |
| Haiti | 110 |
| Ukraine | 100 |
| Malaysia | 100 |
| France | 100 |
| Zimbabwe | 90 |
| Sri Lanka | 90 |
| Senegal | 90 |
| Russia | 90 |
| Lithuania | 90 |
| Japan | 90 |
| Cameroon | 90 |
| United States | 80 |
| The Gambia | 80 |
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 80 |
| Romania | 80 |
| Morocco | 80 |
| Korea | 80 |
| Grenada | 80 |
| Suriname | 70 |
| Spain | 70 |
| Sierra Leone | 70 |
| Lebanon | 70 |
| Greece | 70 |
| Tanzania | 60 |
| Malawi | 60 |
| Hungary | 60 |
| Fiji | 60 |
| Cote d’Ivoire | 60 |
| Barbados | 60 |
| Uganda | 50 |
| North Macedonia | 50 |
| Czech Repubic | 50 |
| Vietnam | 40 |
| Tonga | 40 |
| New Zealand | 40 |
| Nepal | 40 |
| Montenegro | 40 |
| Kuwait | 40 |
| Iran | 40 |
| Cambodia | 40 |
| Cabo Verde | 40 |
| Bulgaria | 40 |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 40 |
| Uzbekistan | 30 |
| Turks and Caicos Islands | 30 |
| Singapore | 30 |
| Samoa | 30 |
| Norfolk Island | 30 |
| Netherlands | 30 |
| Mali | 30 |
| Ethiopia | 30 |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 30 |
| Australia | 30 |
| Angola | 30 |
| Togo | 20 |
| Sweden | 20 |
| Slovakia | 20 |
| Serbia | 20 |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis | 20 |
| Republic of the Congo | 20 |
| Qatar | 20 |
| Liberia | 20 |
| Gabon | 20 |
| Estonia | 20 |
| British Virgin Islands | 20 |
| Botswana | 20 |
| Belgium | 20 |
| Bahrain | 20 |
| Austria | 20 |
| Yugoslavia | 10 |
| Yemen | 10 |
| Syria | 10 |
| Switzerland | 10 |
| State of Palestine | 10 |
| Soviet Union | 10 |
| Somalia | 10 |
| Slovenia | 10 |
| Sint Maarten | 10 |
| Oman | 10 |
| Niger | 10 |
| Netherlands Antilles | 10 |
| Namibia | 10 |
| Montserrat | 10 |
| Moldova | 10 |
| Madagascar | 10 |
| Macau | 10 |
| Luxembourg | 10 |
| Libya | 10 |
| Lesotho | 10 |
| Latvia | 10 |
| Laos | 10 |
| Kyrgyzstan | 10 |
| Kazakhstan | 10 |
| Ireland | 10 |
| Iraq | 10 |
| Georgia | 10 |
| Denmark | 10 |
| Croatia | 10 |
| Cayman Islands | 10 |
| Burundi | 10 |
| Burkina Faso | 10 |
| Bermuda | 10 |
| Benin | 10 |
| Belarus | 10 |
| Azerbaijan | 10 |
| Algeria | 10 |
| Afghanistan | 10 |
U.S. Place of Residence
| U.S. Jurisdiction | Number of Dreamers |
|---|---|
| Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Active DACA Recipients – (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4),” uscis.gov, Dec. 16, 2024 | |
| California | 151,060 |
| Texas | 89,960 |
| Illinois | 28,420 |
| Florida | 21,280 |
| New York | 21,270 |
| North Carolina | 20,660 |
| Arizona | 20,230 |
| Georgia | 17,680 |
| Washington | 13,630 |
| New Jersey | 13,020 |
| Colorado | 12,030 |
| Nevada | 10,490 |
| Oregon | 7,970 |
| Virginia | 7,830 |
| Indiana | 7,620 |
| Utah | 7,090 |
| Maryland | 6,730 |
| Tennessee | 6,600 |
| Wisconsin | 5,440 |
| Oklahoma | 5,290 |
| South Carolina | 5,100 |
| New Mexico | 4,500 |
| Kansas | 4,460 |
| Michigan | 4,430 |
| Massachusetts | 4,410 |
| Minnesota | 4,330 |
| Pennsylvania | 3,940 |
| Arkansas | 3,770 |
| Alabama | 3,610 |
| Ohio | 3,460 |
| Connecticut | 2,960 |
| Missouri | 2,620 |
| Nebraska | 2,460 |
| Idaho | 2,340 |
| Kentucky | 2,300 |
| Iowa | 2,060 |
| Louisiana | 1,410 |
| Mississippi | 1,150 |
| Delaware | 1,140 |
| Rhode Island | 740 |
| District Of Columbia | 480 |
| Wyoming | 410 |
| Hawaii | 340 |
| New Hampshire | 230 |
| South Dakota | 200 |
| West Virginia | 130 |
| North Dakota | 130 |
| Montana | 90 |
| Alaska | 60 |
| Maine | 60 |
| Puerto Rico | 50 |
| Virgin Islands | 20 |
| Not available | 20 |
| Vermont | 20 |
| Northern Marianas Island | 10 |
| Guam | 10 |
Gender
| Gender | Number of Dreamers |
|---|---|
| Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Active DACA Recipients – (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4),” uscis.gov, Dec. 16, 2024 | |
| Female | 290,170 |
| Male | 246,720 |
| Not Available | 840 |
Age
| Age | Number of Dreamers |
|---|---|
| Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Active DACA Recipients – (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4),” uscis.gov, Dec. 16, 2024 | |
| 17-20 | 1,000 |
| 21-25 | 87,060 |
| 26-30 | 197,460 |
| 31-35 | 151,060 |
| 36-40 | 84,430 |
| 41-43 | 16,690 |
Marital Status
| Marital Status | Number of Dreamers |
|---|---|
| Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Active DACA Recipients – (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4),” uscis.gov, Dec. 16, 2024 | |
| Single | 362,080 |
| Married | 158,690 |
| Divorced | 15,270 |
| Widowed | 670 |
| Not available | 1,030 |
Historical Timeline
April 25, 2001 - Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) Introduces Proto-DREAM Act.
—Congress.gov, “H.R.1582...,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
May 21, 2001 - Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT) Introduces a More Limited Proto-DREAM Act
The content of the bill was similar to the one Representative Gutiérrez introduced a month earlier, but changed a few requirements including lowering the maximum age to 21.
—Congress.gov, “H.R.1918...,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
August 1 2001 - U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Introduce the DREAM Act
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) would have amended the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to allow undocumented immigrants to be eligible for higher education benefits based on state residence. The act would have also prevented the deportation of college-enrolled undocumented immigrants under the age of 21 and changed their status to “conditional permanent resident.”
—Congress.gov, “S.1291 - DREAM Act,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
April 7, 2006 - DREAM Act Included in Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, and thus the DREAM Act, did not pass Congress.
—Congress.gov, “S.2611 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
May 9, 2007 - DREAM Act Included in Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and thus the DREAM Act, did not pass Congress.
—Congress.gov, “S.2611 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
October 18, 2007 - Senator Durbin Sponsors DREAM Act
The act would have “authorize[d] the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional permanent resident status, an alien who: (1) entered the United States before his or her sixteenth birthday, and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding enactment of this Act; (2) is a person of good moral character; (3) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (4) at the time of application, has been admitted to an institution of higher education, or has earned a high school or equivalent diploma; (5) from the age of 16 and older, has never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal; and (6) is under 30 years old on the date of enactment of this Act.”
The act did not pass Congress.
—Congress.gov, “S.2205...,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
March 26, 2009 - Bipartisan Group from Both Houses Reintroduce DREAM Act
With 40 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, the bill still failed the pass Congress.
—Congress.gov, “S.729...,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
September 22, 2010 - DREAM Act Reintroduced by Dick Durbin
Even with bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill still failed Congress.
—Congress.gov, “S.3827...,” congress.gov (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
May 10, 2011 - President Barack Obama Called for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Obama said to an audience in El Paso, Texas:
So one way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else. I want incomes for middle-class families to rise again. I want prosperity in this country to be widely shared. I want everybody to be able to reach that American dream. And that’s why immigration reform is an economic imperative. It’s an economic imperative.
—The White House of President Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in El Paso, Texas,” obamawhitehouse.archived.gov, May 10, 2011
May 11, 2011 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Reintroduces the DREAM Act
The act, similar to the other iterations, would provide a path to citizenship for students and those enrolled in the military who were brought to the country as children. The bill did not pass Congress.
—Karoun Demirjian, “Harry Reid Reintroduces the DREAM Act,” lasvegassun.com, May 11, 2011
July and October 2011 - California DREAM Act Signed into Law
AB 130 was signed into law on July 25, 2011 and AB 131 was signed on Oct. 8, 2011 by Governor Jerry Brown. The laws allow undocumented students to access financial aid for college.
—Immigrants Rising, “CA DREAM Act Overview,” immigrantsrising.org (accessed Jan. 23, 2025)
June 15, 2012 - Obama Announces DACA
With Congress not passing a law, the Obama administration relied on an executive action to accomplish their immigration goals to stop enforcing deportation laws for a select group. Obama stated, “This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.”
—Tom Choen, “Obama Administration to Stop Deporting Some Young Illegal Immigrants,” cnn.com, June 16, 2012
June 15, 2012 - Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano Establishes DACA as Policy
Napolitano issued “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” which established prosecutorial discretion for ICE, CBP, and CIS when dealing with undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before they turned 16, have lived in the U.S. for the prior five years, are in school (or have a diploma or certificate) or has been honorably discharged from the U.S. military, has not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor, and is not older than 30.
The memo indicates that ICE should defer action for two years for individuals meeting the above criteria.
—U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” dhs.gov, June 15, 2012
August 15, 2012 - March 19, 2018 - Arizona Dream Act Coalition (ADAC) v. Brewer
On Aug. 15, 2012, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order barring Dreamers from obtaining Arizona driver’s licenses. The order was implemented on Sept. 18, 2012, by the Arizona DMV.
In Nov. 2012, the Arizona Dream Act Coalition—a group of organizations including the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)—sued Brewer, arguing that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In Sept. 2013, Brewer expanded the executive order to include everyone who had been granted deferred action.
In July 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the executive order was illegal and blocked the order. Efforts to revive the license policy were rejected.
In Jan. 2015, the executive order was permanently blocked by a federal court. And, on Apr. 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
Arizona filed a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request for review) to the U.S. Supreme Court on Mar. 29, 2017. The court denied the petition on Mar. 19, 2018, meaning the court refused to hear the case and allowed the lower court ruling to stand.
—ACLU, “Arizona Dream Act Coalition, et al v. Brewer,” aclu.org. Apr. 5, 2016
—SCOTUSblog, “Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition,” scotusblog.com, Mar. 19, 2018
November 20, 2014 - Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson Expands DACA and Announces DAPA
The memo allowed DACA recipients to renew their deferred action status for two years, removed the age cap of 30, and extended the DACA renewal and work authorization to three years.
Furthermore, the memo expanded deferred action with DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) to those with a U.S. citizen child, who have lived in the U.S. continuously since January 1, 2010, are in the U.S., and have no criminal history or enforcement priority.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents,” dhs.gov, Nov. 20, 2014
—Jeh Charles Johnson, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents,” dhs.gov, Nov. 20, 2014
April 7, 2015: Crane v. Johnson
Mississippi and several individual ICE agents filed a lawsuit against DHS claiming DACA
violated federal law, because the law required them to detain all illegal aliens for the purpose of placing the aliens in removal proceedings. The State of Mississippi alleged that the deferred action has caused additional aliens to remain in the state and, thus, causes the state to spend money on providing social services.
The district court, and subsequently the Fifth Circuit court, dismissed the case on grounds that Mississippi and the ICE agents had not proven injury.
—Justia U.S. Law, “Crane v. Johnson, No. 14-10049 (5th Cir. 2015),” law.justia.com (accessed Jan. 27, 2025)
August 14, 2015: Arpaio v. Obama
Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, filed a lawsuit against President Obama and several members of the Cabinet claiming DACA and DAPA were unconstitutional overreaches of presidential power and that the programs increased undocumented immigrants and crime in Arizona. The case was dismissed because Arpaio failed to prove causation or provide proof of injury.
—Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, “Case: Arpaio v. Obama,” clearinghouse.net (accessed Jan. 27, 2025)
June 23, 2016 - United States v. Texas
Oyez summarized the case:
Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans] and argued that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it had not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and because it was arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which clarifies the President’s power. The district court held that the states had standing to file the suit and temporarily enjoined the implementation of DAPA because the states had established a substantial likelihood of success on the notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the states had standing as well as a substantial likelihood of success on their substantive and procedural claims.
A preliminary injunction was placed on the implementation of DAPA. In a 4-4 decision (Justice Antonin Scalia had just died and not yet been replaced), the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order, leaving the injunction stopping the implementation of DAPA in place.
—Oyez, “United States v. Texas,” oyez.org (accessed Jan. 27, 2025)
September 4, 2017 - Attorney General Directs Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to Rescind DACA
In a letter to Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke, Attorney General Jeff Sessions requested that the DACA program be ended.
—Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Letter to Acting Secretary Duke, dhs.gov, Sept. 4, 2017
September 5, 2017 - Acting Secretary of DHS Elaine C. Duke Rescinds DACA
With a memo titled, “Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” Duke rescinded Obama’s June 15, 2012 memo that established DACA. This means no DACA applications filed after Sept. 5 were accepted.
—Elaine C. Duke, “Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” dhs.gov/archive, Sept. 5, 2017
January 9, 2018 - Court Injunction Requires DHS to Continue DACA
As a result of a lawsuit brought by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that DHS is required to continue DACA with a few exceptions:
with the exception: (1) that new applications from applicants who have never before received deferred action need not be processed; (2) the advance parole feature need not be continued for the time being for anyone; and (3) [DHS] may take administrative steps to ensure fair discretion is exercised on an individualized basis for each renewal application.
—Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, “Federal Court Requires Federal Government to Maintain DACA Program Nationwide with Certain Exceptions,” aalrr.com, Jan. 19, 2018
February 13, 2018 - June 18, 2020 - Dept. of Homeland Security, et al., v. Regents of the University of California, et al
Martín Batalla Vidal, a DACA recipient, filed a lawsuit (Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen) against the federal government challenging United States v. Texas in 2016. Once the Trump administration came into office and rescinded DACA, Batalla Vidal amended his lawsuit to challenge the rescission of DACA. Make the Road New York (MRNY) and five more DACA recipients joined the lawsuit.
Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York issued a nationwide injunction, ruling that the termination of DACA was arbitrary and capricious. The federal government appealed the ruling.
In the meantime, several other cases arguing against the rescission were heard and consolidated with Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen:
- April 24, 2018: NAACP v. Trump
- May 17, 2019: Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The consolidated cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled on June 18, 2020 in a 5-4 decision that the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA was unlawful. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion, “The dispute before the Court is not whether [the Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”
—John Kruzel, “Supreme Court Blocks Trump Plan to End DACA Program,” thehill.com, June 18, 2020
—Yale Law School, “Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen,” law.yale.edu (accessed Jan. 27, 2025)
Mar. 27, 2020 - Lawyers Argue Dreamers Are Essential during Covid-19 Pandemic
-
Lawyers for plaintiffs seeking to continue DACA submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court stating that “Termination of DACA during this national emergency would be catastrophic.”
Their reasoning was that DACA recipients working in healthcare were essential to fighting COVID-19 and that halting immigration enforcement would enable all Dreamers to comply with public health measures urging people to stay at home to slow the transmission of the virus.
—Michael J. Wishnie, et al., “Re: Wolf, et al., v. Batalla Vidal, et al., No. 18-589,” supremecourt.gov, Mar. 27, 2020
July 28, 2020 - December 4, 2020 - The “Wolf Memo” Seeks to Limit DACA
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf issued a memo (referred to as the “Wolf Memo”) on July 28, 2020, to the senior officials at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to once again limit DACA to the point of dismantling the program.
The National Immigration Law Center and Martín Batalla Vidal again sued the federal government. On Dec. 4, 2020, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis vacated the memo, restoring DACA to its 2012 state, based on the holding that
Mr. Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security when he issued the Wolf Memorandum, because the Department of Homeland Security failed to follow its order of succession, as it was lawfully designated under the Homeland Security Act.
—Chad F. Wolf, “Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled ‘Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,’” dhs.gov, July 28, 2020
—Department of Homeland Security, “354 Order Vacating Wolf Memo Ordering Further Relief,” dhs.gov, Dec. 4, 2020
January 20, 2021 - Biden Issues Day One Memo to Protect DACA
President Joe Biden signed an executive order instructing the Homeland Security Secretary to “preserve and fortify DACA.”
—Joseph R. Biden, “Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” whitehouse.gov, Jan. 20, 2021
July 16, 2021 - September 13, 2023 - State of Texas, et al., v. United States of America, et al.
The DACA program was declared “illegal” by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on July 16, 2021. The court issued an injunction but also stayed that injunction, meaning the DACA program could proceed but no new applications could be granted.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case on Oct. 5, 2022, but sent the case back to the Southern District of Texas Court that had ruled on July 16, 2021. The district court affirmed its ruling on Sept. 13, 2023.
—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Additional Information: DACA Decision in State of Texas, et al., v. United States of America, et al., 1:18-CV-00068, (S.D. Texas July 16, 2021) (“Texas II”),” uscis.gov, Oct. 11, 2024
August 24, 2022 - DHS Codfies DACA
The Biden administration finalized a rule on Aug. 24, 2022 to make DACA a federal regulation (instead of a policy). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule took effect on Oct. 31, 2022 and codified the policy in the federal government’s code of regulations. The new regulation purposefully addressed the steps Judge Hanen ruled the Obama administration should have taken in 2012, including making the regulation open to public comment.
—Camilo Montoya-Galvez, "Biden Administration Moves to Formalize DACA and Shield It from Legal Challenges," cbsnews.com, Aug. 24, 2022
October 5, 2022 - U.S. Court of Appeals Says DACA Is Illegal
The court affirmed the July 2021 court decision that DACA is illegal. The court stayed the decision and sent the case back to the Federal District Court in Houston.
—Eileen Sullivan, "Appeals Court Says DACA Is Illegal but Keeps Program Alive for Now," nytimes.com, Oct. 5, 2022
May 3, 2024 - December 23, 2024 - DACA Recipients Declared Eligible, then Ineligible, for Obamacare
Updated regulations issued by Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra allowed DACA recipients to qualify for health care insurance via the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) for the first time, effective Nov. 1, 2024.
The new rules were immediately challenged in several courts that issued a roller-coaster of rulings. A Dec. 9, 2024 ruling blocked PPACA eligibility for Dreamers in the 19 states that filed a lawsuit. A Dec. 16, 2024 ruling stayed the Dec. 9 ruling, thus allowing PPACA sign-ups in all states for Dreamers. A Dec. 23, 2024 ruling vacated the stay, making DACA recipients in the 19 states again ineligible for PPACA coverage.
The 19 states in which DACA recipients were ruled not eligible for Obamacare health care insurance are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
— Xavier Becerra, “Clarifying the Eligibility of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Recipients and Certain Other Noncitizens for a Qualified Health Plan through an Exchange, Advance Payments of the Premium Tax Credit, Cost-Sharing Reductions, and a Basic Health Program,” public-inspection.federalregister.gov, May 3, 2024
Drishti Pillai and Samantha Artiga, “Overview and Implications of the ACA Marketplace Expansion to DACA Recipients,” kff.org, Oct. 29, 2024
January 17, 2025 - DACA Ruled Unlawful Again
The Fifth Circuit again ruled that DACA was unlawful on Jan. 17, 2025, but stayed the decision for appeals. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services can continue to process renewal requests but can only accept (not process) first-time applications.
—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” uscis.gov/DACA, Jan. 24, 2025
Discussion Questions
- Is DACA good for America? Explain you answer(s).
- What do you think of the idea of ending DACA for future immigrants but allowing the Dreamers, many of whom know no other country than the United States, to remain in the U.S.?
- Should other undocumented immigrants be allowed a pathway to citizenship? Why or why not?
- What other immigration policies would you change? How would you change them? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
- Consider the stance of Cato Institute policy analyst David J. Bier that ending DACA would have cost employers billions.
- Explore updates and news about DACA with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
- Evaluate former acting director of immigration and customs enforcement Tom Homan’s position that DACA should have never been enacted and should be ended.
- Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
- Push for the position and policies you support by writing U.S. senators and representatives.
Sources
- Undocumented Student Program, “DACA Information,” undocu.berkeley.edu (accessed Jan. 30, 2018)
- Homeland Security, “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” dhs.gov, Jan. 29, 2018
- Orrin Hatch, “S.1291 – DREAM Act,” congress.gov, June 20, 2002
- Lindsey Graham, “Graham, Durbin Introduce Bipartisan Dream Act to Give Immigrant Students a Path to Citizenship,” lgraham.senate.gov, July 20, 2017
- SSRS, “CNN January 2018,” cnn.com, Jan. 19, 2018
- Tom K. Wong, et al., “DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow,” americanprogress.org, Aug. 28, 2017
- Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Tom Jawetz, and Angie Bautista-Chavez, “A New Threat to DACA Could Cost States Billions of Dollars,” americanprogress.org, July 21, 2017
- Fracesca Ortega, Ryan Edwards, and Philip E. Wolgin, “The Economic Benefits of Passing the Dream Act,” americanprogress.org, Sep. 18, 2017
- Benjamin Harris, “Why Your Economic Argument against Immigration Is Probably Wrong,” fortune.com, Sep. 11, 2017
- Bob Goodlatte, “Goodlatte Statement on Ending Executive Overreach on Immigration,” goodlatte.house.gov, Sep. 5, 2017
- Jeh Johnson, “United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016,” cbp.gov, Oct. 18, 2016
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Unaccompanied Children’s Services,” www.acf.hhs.gov (accessed Jan. 29, 2016)
- Karl Eschbach, “Exhibit 14 – Declaration of Karl Eschbach, Ph.D.,” scribd.com, Jan. 6, 2015
- Lamar Smith, “DREAM Act Rewards Illegal Immigrants for Law-Breaking,” thehill.com, May 20, 2011
- Alicia Parlapiano and Karen Yourish, “A Typical ‘Dreamer’ Lives in Los Angeles, Is from Mexico and Came to the U.S. at 6 Years Old,” nytimes.com, Jan. 23, 2018
- Andrew Rafferty, “Obama on DACA: Trump’s Decision to End Program ‘Cruel’ and ‘Wrong,’” nbcnews.com, Sep. 5, 2017
- Thiru Vignarajah, “Deporting Dreamers Is as Cruel and Unusual as It Gets,” seattletimes.com, Nov. 12, 2017
- David Benkoff, “Let Dreamers Stay – If Their Parents Go,” dailycaller.com, Sep. 4, 2017
- Adam Edelman and Kasie Hunt, “Steve King: Dreamers Can ‘Live in the Shadows’ after DACA Ends,” nbcnews.com, Sep. 6, 2017
- Ronald W. Mortensen, “DACA: Granting Amnesty to Dreamers Committing Crimes while Abandoning Their Victims,” cis.org, Mar. 10, 2017
- Nina Shapiro, “Seattle Judge Won’t Immediately Release ‘Dreamer’ from Detention Center,” seattletimes.com, Feb. 17, 2017
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Active DACA Recipients – (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 4),” uscis.gov, Dec. 16, 2024
- Adam Edelman, “Trump Ends DACA Program, No New Applications Accepted,” nbcnews.com, Sep. 5, 2017
- Donald Trump, twitter.com, Sep. 5, 2017
- Brett Samuels, “Judge Blocks Trump Move to End DACA,” thehill.com, Jan. 9, 2018
- Reuters, “Another Judge Blocks Trump Administration from Ending DACA Program,” nbcnews.com, Feb. 13, 2018
- Joseph P. Williams, “Supreme Court Doesn’t Act on DACA Appeal,” usnews.com, Feb. 20, 2018
- Richard Wolf and Alan Gomez, “Supreme Court Snubs Trump, Keeps DACA Immigration Program in Place for Now,” usatoday.com, Feb. 26, 2018
- Pete Wiliams, “In Blow to Trump, Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal of DACA Ruling,” nbcnews.com, Feb. 26, 2018
- Nina Totenberg, “DACA Recipients Look to Supreme Court for Hope,” npr.org, Nov. 12, 2019
- Michael J. Wishnie, et al., “Re: Wolf, et al., v. Batalla Vidal, et al., No. 18-589,” supremecourt.gov, Mar. 27, 2020
- Charles Franklin, “New Nationwide Marquette Law School Poll Finds Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Overall, Though More Pronounced among Conservatives,” law.marquette.edu, Oct. 21, 2019
- Jynnah Radford and Luis Noe-Bustamante, “Facts on U.S. Immigrants, 2017,” pewresearch.org, June 3, 2019
- Hans Johnson and Laura Hill, “Illegal Immigration,” ppic.org, 2011
- White House, “Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with Bipartisan Members of Congress on Immigration,” whitehouse.gov, Jan. 9, 2018
- Dick Durban, “Durbin: Let’s Show The American Dream Is Still Alive by Passing the Dream Act,” durbin.senate.gov, Sep. 12, 2017
- Adam Liptak, “‘Dreamers’ Tell Supreme Court Ending DACA During Pandemic Would Be ‘Catastrophic’,” nytimes.com, Mar. 27, 2020
- Donald Trump, “Statement from President Donald J. Trump,” whitehouse.gov, Sep. 5, 2017
- Hans A. von Spakovsky, “It’s Time to End DACA – It’s Unconstitutional Unless Approved by Congress,” foxnews.com, Jan. 23, 2019
- Elizabeth Murrill, “Symposium: DACA Is Unlawful,” scotusblog.com, Sep. 13, 2019
- John Kruzel, “Supreme Court Blocks Trump Plan to End DACA Program,” thehill.com, June 18, 2020
- Joseph R. Biden, “Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” whitehouse.gov, Jan. 20, 2021
- Priscilla Alvarez and Tierney Sneed, "What to Know about DACA Being Ruled Illegal," cnn.com, July 17, 2021
- Camilo Montoya-Galvez, "Biden Administration Moves to Formalize DACA and Shield It from Legal Challenges," cbsnews.com, Aug. 24, 2022
- Migration Policy Institute, "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Data Tools," migrationpolicy.org, Mar. 31, 2022
- Congress.gov, "S.264 - Dream Act of 2021," congress.gov (accessed Aug. 26, 2022)
- Congress.gov, "H.R.6 - American Dream and Promise Act of 2021," congress.gov (accessed Aug. 26, 2022)
- Eileen Sullivan, "Appeals Court Says DACA Is Illegal but Keeps Program Alive for Now," nytimes.com, Oct. 5, 2022
- Miriam Jordan, “Appeals Court Riles Obama-Era Immigration Program Is Unlawful,” nytimes.com, Jan. 17, 2025
- Briana Ballis, “Research Shows That DACA Benefits Both Dreamers and Their U.S.-Born Peers,” brookings.edu, Oct. 7, 2024
- Daniela Alulema, “DACA Recipients are Essential Workers and Part of the Front-line Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, as Supreme Court Decision Looms,” cmsny.org, Mar. 30, 2020
- Sabrina Jacobs, “A Majority of Voters Support Continuing DACA and Granting Citizenship to DACA Recipients,” dataforprogress.org, Sept. 20, 2023
- Dan Gordon, “New Survey: Americans Want a Legislative Solution for Dreamers,” immigrationforum.org, June 10, 2024