Fleeing from a crime ridden and a poverty stricken country, a young family makes the perilous journey to the United States in search of a better life. They are faced with a significant choice- to either bring their young children on this illegal journey or leave them behind in their undeveloped land.
Years later, some of these illegal immigrant children would be protected through a two year program leading to American residency called DACA. ‘Dreamers’ must have an American high school diploma, no history of crime, and five years of living in the US, just to name a few criteria. Outrage amongst both Democrats and Republicans alike sparked when DACA was repealed. According to President Trump, the repeal was to ensure “safe communities, a robust middle class, and economic fairness for all Americans.” This repeal begs the question- should there be a financial incentive that limits the potential of an immigrant over the potential of a “native born” American? Should children who came to the US as per their parents’ decision pay the price, as adults, for a decision that is not their own?
It is the view of several prominent US government officials that illegal immigration is restricting the job opportunities for “native born” Americans. These government officials believe that repealing this Act will discourage illegal immigration, increase job availability for Americans, and cut costs associated with illegal immigrants. However, in the article, The Economic Senselessness of President Trump’s DACA Repeal, Derek Thompson deconstructs this argument against DACA. Economic research has estimated that repealing DACA will result in a $280 million dollar tax loss within this decade. This is because Dreamers are required to pay taxes. Since more than 90% of Dreamers, aged 25 and above are employed, a huge tax loss would ensue from the repeal. “More than 98 percent of them speak English, and more than 70 percent of them are pursuing (or have attained) a bachelor’s degree,” the article said. Participants in this program are contributing effectively to their society and DACA recognizes their contributions by granting them residency.
It is unethical to pull funds from a program which puts disadvantaged youth on the track for becoming successful, valuable members of society. Not only would the repeal be a $280 million tax loss, but also an immeasurable loss of human capital. Any nation that will not invest in human capital because of where the person is born is acting on selfish and discriminatory motives. There are other ways to create more jobs for “native born” Americans, but taking them away from those are already at a disadvantage is not the ethical way to do so.
DACA’s positive effects on undocumented youth
Word Count: 433
