Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Means a Windfall for New Americans

My Refugee Seminar student, Glenn Harris, has given me permission to post his excellent paper he wrote last semester concerning the windfall that will benefit America when DACA  arrivals become American citizens. What a paper. Read and learn.


DACA Promises a Windfall of 1.7 Million New Americans


Deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) allows certain individuals, who meet specific guidelines, to request consideration of deferred action from the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS). Individuals who receive deferred action of removal will not be placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States for a specified period of time unless terminated. [1] The certain individuals that are referred to in the DACA guidelines are children whom arrived in the United States illegally. These childhood arrivals are seeking deferred action in deportation proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security defines deferred action as, “Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an individual. In addition, although an individual whose case is deferred will not be considered to be accruing unlawful presence in the United States during the period deferred action is in effect, deferred action does not excuse individuals of any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence.”[2]

DACA has specific guidelines. Childhood arrivals that pose a low risk to the country and are contributing to the community will be considered for deferred action, an administrative exercise of discretion that would halt removal proceedings against an individual for up to two years, and is subject to renewal.[3] Guidelines for DACA are important because of the need for prosecutorial discretion in terms of why there is need to examine each case individually which is clearly discussed by William Howard, Principal Legal Advisor for ICE in a memo titled, Prosecutorial Discretion, which states, “Prosecutorial discretion is a very significant tool that sometimes enables you to deal with the difficult, complex and contradictory provisions of the immigration laws and cases involving human suffering. It is clearly DHS policy that national security violators, human rights abusers, spies, traffickers in narcotics and people, sexual predators and other criminals are removal priorities. It is wise to remember that cases that do not fall within these categories sometimes require that we balance the cost of an action versus the value of a result. Our reasoned determination in making prosecutorial discretion decisions can be a significant benefit to the efficiency and fairness of the removal process.”[4]


DACA finds its roots in a previous form of legislation known as the DREAM Act. [5] The DREAM Act was introduced for the first time in 2001 to the 107th Congress.[6] The DREAM Act never passed the first hurdle of the House of Representatives until 2010.[7] The latest version of the bill was introduced on December 2010, when the DREAM Act was brought up and passed in the House by a vote of 216-198.[8] However, when the bill reached the Senate on December 18, 2010, it fell five votes short of cloture, receiving 55 yeas and 41 nays.[9]

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines might request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal.[10] They are also eligible for work authorization.[11] Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal proceedings against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.[12] On this same day, President Barak Obama announced the policy during a speech at the White House. The date of June 15, 2012 carried special significance to the development of laws in regards to children living illegally in this country. The date is the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, which held that children in this country illegally should receive free state funded educations.[13]

In August 2012, the United States Citizen and Immigration Service (USCIS) undertook the responsibility for accepting applications for deferred action and making the decision approval or denial of the applicant. Since August 2012, the USCIS has approved 1,206,679 requests for deferred action and denied 78,161 requests.[14] The year with most applications was 2013 with a total of 427, 601.[15] The top five countries of origin in order of most applications accepted: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and South Korea.[16] The top five states that received the highest number of immigrant applications in order of most applications: California, Texas, Illinois, New York and Florida.[17]

President Baraka Obama attempted to expand DACA on November 20th, 2014 to facilitate deferred action to approximately 4.4 million more childhood arrivals that were previously excluded from deferred action protection. [18] This was accomplished purely an executive order. This type of executive action is allowed because the money for the production the program comes from application fees, not the coffers of the United States Treasury Department.[19] The expansion proposed by President Obama is shown in the chart below:


Original Requirements for DACA Revised Requirements for DACA
Born on or after June 16, 1981. Age requirement is eliminated
Must have lived continuously in the U.S. since June 15, 2007.


Must have lived continuously in the U.S. since January 1, 2010
DACA deferred action and work permits were issued for a two-year period


DACA deferred action and work permits are issued for a three-year period


The provisional requirements for DACA that remained unchanged from the original guidelines are as follows:

  • Have been present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and on every day since August 15, 2012.
  • Not have a lawful immigration status on June 15, 2012. To meet this requirement, (1) you must have entered the U.S. without papers before June 15, 2012, or, if you entered lawfully, your lawful immigration status must have expired before June 15, 2012; and (2) you must not have a lawful immigration status at the time of your application.
  • Be at least 15 years old at the time you apply for DACA. If you are currently in deportation proceedings, have a voluntary departure order, or have a deportation order, and are not in immigration detention, you may apply for DACA even if you are not yet 15 years old.
  • Have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or U.S. armed forces, or “be in school” on the date you submit your DACA application. See below for more information about meeting the “be in school” requirement.
  • Have not been convicted of a felony offense. A felony is a federal, state, or local criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
  • Have not been convicted of a significant misdemeanor offense or three or more misdemeanor offenses. See below for more information about offenses that may disqualify you.
  • Not pose a threat to national security or public safety. (DHS has not defined what these terms mean but has indicated that they include gang membership, participation in criminal activities, or participation in activities that threaten the U.S.[20]

Analysis of the Issues: State Reactions

The states had different reactions to the implementation of DACA. Some states have given DACA recipients a variety of privileges afforded to the citizens of the state. California allows for DACA recipients to receive drivers licenses, if they pay state income taxes. Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes of California explained that his state is at forefront by saying, “While Washington has failed to address the issue of immigration for nearly a quarter century, this is another opportunity for California to lead the way on an important policy issue.”[21] The Governor of California Jerry Brown showed his support for allowing the DACA recipients to receive drivers licenses by stating, “President Obama has recognized the unique status of these students, and making them eligible to apply for driver’s licenses is an obvious next step.”[22] Most states followed California’s lead in the issuance of state identification and drivers license cards. The question that was a concern for the states was a clarification that immigrants with DACA status were considered “lawfully present” in the United States. [23] Two states did not follow the lead of California in the issuing of drivers licenses to immigrants whom had received deferred action status by the United States government under the provisions of DACA. The two states that refused to issue drivers licenses were Arizona and Nebraska.[24]

A second major point of contention for the states to debate was whether or not to give the DACA recipients the inclusion of the benefit of lowered in-state tuition for students whom reside in the state.  The National Immigration Law Center states on their website that 17 states have allowed DACA recipients the benefits of in-state tuition.[25] In Virginia, the Attorney General Mark Herring wrote a letter on whether from a legal standpoint if recipients of DACA were entitled to in-state tuition reduction if the DACA recipients meet all other requirements of residency in the state. The letter was sent to the Director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, Chancellor of the Virginia Community College System and all the Presidents of Virginia’s Public Colleges and Universities. This letter stated that under the law of Virginia the state funded universities must give the DACA recipients in-state tuition costs. Attorney General Herring wrote in the conclusion of this letter as follows, “ No provision of federal or Virginia law can be read to punish these smart, talented, hard-working young people or to relegate them to a life of limited opportunities. To the contrary, these young people are legally entitled to in-state tuition if they otherwise meet Virginia’s domiciliary requirements. Even apart from being the right thing to do, it is what the law requires.”[26]

Baltimore which is located in the state of Maryland has taken a different approach than most states by being overtly accommodating of DACA recipients and even going as far as the Mayor Baltimore welcoming immigrants.[27] The mayor is quoted welcoming the immigrants and explaining some of the cities policies that geared towards facilitating immigrant migration to Baltimore by saying, “It’s a city that won’t discriminate against them, and that’s a message that I think people need to hear at a time when too many cities, too many states are basically putting up a do-not-enter sign. Baltimore is not one of those cities. We are open for business, particularly in the area of Latino immigrants. We’ve actively recruited Latino immigrants to Baltimore, and when they come here, they’re thriving. Many have opened businesses, employed individuals. The Latino members of our community that are in our public school system are thriving. I think it’s a win-win.”[28] Baltimore has extended multiple benefits to Latino based immigrants. These benefits include: an executive order which prohibits police and city workers from asking residents about their immigration status; a city that supports Maryland’s Dream Act – a law which would ensure any student who graduates from a Maryland high school and comes from a family who has paid taxes, can get in-state tuition; an increasing number of Latino-owned businesses including food markets; Spanish-language nutrition and exercise classes provided by the city; and Spanish-language story time at the library.[29]

The states reactions and policies in the regards to DACA have spurred litigation inside of the judicial system. There has been litigation both from states upset at the requirement of DACA upon their sovereign entity and the additional litigation from the DACA recipients that have not been afforded the rights and privileges they believe they should be entitled to receive. Two cases that have received national attention that we will discuss are Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, which is a United States Court of Appeals case from the Ninth District decided in 2014 and Texas v. United States, which is a United States Court of Appeals case from the Fifth District decided in 2015.


Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer is set in the State of Arizona were over 80,000 DACA recipients reside. Governor Brewer by executive action instituted a policy of denying DACA recipients the privilege of obtaining an Arizona drivers license. [30] The Arizona Dream Act Coalition brought a class action suit claiming that the restriction violated both the 14th amendment provision of equal protection and that the policy was in direct conflict with federal policy which made Governor Brewers policy a violation of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution.[31]  The Plaintiffs in this case are seeking injunctive relief from the Court. In order for the Plaintiffs to prevail on a claim for injunctive relief they must meet both of these requirements: Likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm. [32]

The first step in the process in determining if the Court will grant the injunction is to look whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiffs argued that the State of Arizona is preempted by the fact that immigration and the ability of non-residents to work is regulated by field preemption under the federal government. [33] The ability to have a drivers license is paramount to being able to work in Arizona.[34] The plaintiff argued that statistics show that over 80% of workers drive themselves to work.[35] The Court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied this prong of the injunctive relief test.[36][37]

The second prong of the test for injunctive relief is for the Court to determine if the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.[38] Irreparable harm is traditionally defined, as harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.[39] The plaintiffs argued on the theory that without a drivers license the DACA recipients are extremely limited in their opportunities to pursue employment.[40] This fact is presented again in statistic that 87 percent of the workers do not use public transportation in order to get to and from their jobs. One of the DACA recipients is a small business owner who cannot expand his company and his brand without the ability to drive to opportunities and customers outside of his neighborhood.[41] The defendants argued unsuccessfully that the DACA recipients could theoretically break the laws dictating you must have a valid license in order to drive. This argument did not sway the Court and held that prong two was met. [42] The Court reversed and remanded the case back to 9th Circuit and approved the request for injunctive relief. The DACA recipients won this important battle against the State of Arizona. The fact that this Court upheld the theory of preemption against a state attempting to legislate an issue of immigration gives the supporters of DACA a strong argument against any state laws that discriminate against DACA recipients.

The second major case of litigation comes from the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. U.S. The case is in reaction to President Obama attempting to expand DACA and implement DAPA. DAPA is an acronym for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.[43] The DAPA implementation by President Obama included allowing illegal immigrants an opportunity to stay in United States without fear of deportation if they met these guidelines:

  • Have lived in the United States continuously since Jan. 1, 2010, up to the present time
  • Were physically present in the United States on Nov. 20, 2014, and at the time of making your request for consideration of DAPA with USCIS
  • Had no lawful status on Nov. 20, 2014
  • Had, on Nov. 20, 2014, a son or daughter, of any age or marital status, who is a U.S. citizen (USC) or lawful permanent resident (LPR)
  • Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors; do not otherwise pose a threat to national security; and are not an enforcement priority for removal.[44]

The plaintiffs in the case are 26 states.[45] The states that have brought the claim against the U.S. tend to have the highest number of potential immigrants that will claim for protection under DACA or DAPA.[46] These plaintiffs claim that an implementation of President Obama’s executive action will trigger such a large number of status changes for illegal immigrants that the states will face extreme financial hardship.[47] The Court first had to find if the states had standing to bring this claim. This issue of a State having standing to contest an executive action is paramount to decide the amount power an executive action has on a State being forced to implement an action without the ability to contest the action through the judiciary. First, the Court looked at if the States had satisfied the 3 prongs to standing: Injury, Causation and Redressability.[48] The court found that the States did have standing. In regards to the first prong of injury, the Court stated that issuing driver licenses would cost the States over $130 per issuance and that is an economic injury which has traditionally triggered injury in fact.[49] The second prong of the standing test is causation. The Court found for the plaintiffs on this prong as well. The Court stated that the link between the executive action and the injury in fact is not attenuated and is fairly traceable.[50] The third and final prong is redressability. The Court must decide that if the plaintiffs do succeed in their claim is there a remedy that the Court can grant that is sufficient to cure the harm. The Court found for the plaintiffs again on this point stating that a grant in the plaintiffs favor would easily meet the criteria for redressability.[51] The finding of these three prongs to the test for standing was a huge win for the States that oppose immigration reform by executive action.

The next step after receiving an affirmative answer from the Court on the decision of standing is if a preliminary injunction should be issued concluding that Texas has shown a substantial likelihood of success on its claim that DAPA’s implementation would violate the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.[52] The Court found for Texas on this point as well and upheld the injunction for halting of the implementation of the executive action of expansion of DACA.[53]


Analysis of the Issues: Collaborate Efforts to Combat Fear


With the amount of litigation and debate on this topic a series of questions arise that are notable and worthy of this discussion within the context of this paper. The questions that I purpose to discuss are: Why would someone not partake in the DACA program? Why would states enact legislation to block rights of childhood arrivals? Why would the general population be against DACA? These three questions can all be answered in my opinion by one word, fear. Fear is a dangerous feeling that can lead a person or even a nation towards anger, hate and suffering. This thought process is laid out by although a fictional character, a character that speaks volumes of brilliant foreshadowing of the actions of human nature by stating,” “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda[54]

Why would a person whom is eligible to receive the protections of DACA not apply? The answer is not that it is difficult to obtain or the fact that the government scrutinizes each application. This fact is shown by the statistical analysis that 99.5% of applicants for DACA protections are approved.[55] The real reason that undocumented immigrants are scared of DACA is that with the amnesty from deportation only being two years in length there is a possibility that US government is using this program to gain a statistical analysis of the amount of immigrants in the US and is also creating a database of the information on each of these immigrants.[56] This concept has its roots in fear, but as we all are aware when a new executive and legislative branches of government take control of their respected branches of government changes in policy can occur.

Why would states enact legislation to block rights of childhood arrivals? The States claim that the influx of undocumented immigrants cost a significant economic burden on the State. Texas has over one million undocumented immigrants living inside their states borders.[57] The one million undocumented immigrants living inside the borders of Texas is dwarfed by California. California is home to by far the most undocumented immigrants with over 2.5 million undocumented immigrants that encompass almost 7% of the population of the entire state.[58] This accounts for California spending over $25,000,000,000 a year (25 billion) on undocumented immigrants.[59] The largest costs to California for undocumented immigration are in the areas of education, law enforcement, public assistance and medical care.[60] The undocumented immigrants do pay taxes to California in the range of 3.2 billion per year.[61] This brings nearly a 22 billion dollar deficit between what is revenue and expenditures. There is no exact answer to an exact dollar amount in terms of the costs associated with undocumented immigrants. The pro undocumented immigrant section of the nation will claim that the 22 billion dollar deficit amount is skewed because immigrants provide invaluable resources to the economy of the United States by providing employers with labor workers whom have skills in the labor force that most American citizens will not preform due to the fact that most Americans feel over qualified to preform labor work.[62]

Why would the general population be against DACA? This question is hot topic that the candidates for legislative positions for state and federal government, as well as, for the Presidency of the United States. The politicians and special interest groups have done a stupendous job in spreading propaganda for selfish gain and circulate myths. There are five common myths that the general public believes that needs to be debunked.[63] These common myths include: 1) Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes[64] 2) Undocumented immigrants do not pay social security[65] 3) Undocumented immigrants qualify for food stamps and welfare[66] 4) Illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans[67] 5) It is just a matter of following the law.[68] These particular five myths do not seem on their face to be prejudicial to DACA recipients in particular, but this is a situation were the general public does not section off types of immigrant. As a nation, predominately we lump all immigrants whether they are children or not they are under the blanket of undocumented immigrants.

In order for a piece of legislation to pass all the tiers of fear amongst the different groups and sections of our nation a piece of legislation must first look to reasons that prior legislation has failed. There is no need to look far into the past, because everything changed in terms of immigration after the terrorist attacks on 9-11.[69] Now once again it is important to note that as a nation we have put a blanket statement on immigration on either as a voter or politician that you are either for allowing immigration or against allowing immigration and approving mass deportation. So in essence, many members of the American public has lumped children of illegal immigrants with terrorists obtaining student visas in order to preform attacks on US soil. In 2001, a piece of legislation that would transform and be the basis for DACA is the DREAM Act.[70] The DREAM Act is bipartisan legislation first introduced in Congress in 2001. Known formally as Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, it has been reintroduced several times, including a big push in 2010, but failed to pass. This bill aimed to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented children who grew up in the United States.[71] The provision of the DREAM act being a pathway to citizenship is what seemed to promote fear amongst the states and the people. The myth is that the DREAM Act would provide mass amnesty of childhood arrivals.[72] The fear of mass amnesty must be addressed in a new bill with strict restrictions and clear guidelines. The guidelines that were introduced in the DREAM Act to promote a pathway to citizenship was a requirement of either a two years of college or two years of military service.[73] This requirement must be increased in a new bill, which will be proposed later in this paper. DACA attempted to fix the fears associated with the DREAM Act provisions by taking away the path to citizenship and replacing it with deferred action for a two-year period of time that was renewable. This provision may have had an impact on the fears of the people, but it did not help the States fears at all. The DACA provisions of deferred action gave the childhood arrivals a legal status in the States, which promoted all the litigation of the states being required issue drivers licenses and bestow in-state tuition benefits. The portion of the executive action that provides for the legal status must be addressed in the bill I am writing for the States fears of drastic downfall in economic windfall with regards to providing benefits to childhood arrivals. Proposed legislation that could help the economic windfall is for a State to receive federal funds for each drivers license that the state issues. The childhood arrivals have a valid fear that their information along with the information gathered on their family could be used against them in the future if there is a new executive action after their deferred action time of two years has expired. The second fear that childhood arrivals have is that if they are denied DACA for potential fraud, criminal activity, public safety or national security their information is sent ICE and deportation proceedings are possibly initiated.[74]  The proposed legislation in this paper will address both of these fears giving the childhood arrivals peace of mind in the application process of DACA.

Solution: New Legislation

To amend the executive order Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children , dated June 15th, 2012 and amendment to the DREAM Act H.R. 1582 107th Congress and, as amended, so as to provide changes to the regards the legal status of childhood arrivals to the United States by illegal immigrants.

Excepts from President Obama’s Executive Order, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,  dated June 15th, 2012,

The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:

  • came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
  • has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
  • is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
  • has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety;


  • is not above the age of thirty.[75]


Excerpts from DREAM Act H.R. 1582 107th Congress

Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional permanent resident status, an alien who:

  • entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding enactment of this Act;
  • is a person of good moral character;
  • is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
  • at the time of application, has been admitted to an institution of higher education or has earned a high school or equivalent diploma.[76]


New Proposed Legislation

The following criteria must be satisfied in order for a childhood arrival to be deemed permanent status, an alien who:

  • Came to United States before their 18th birthday
  • Has lived in the United States continually for ten years
  • Has been convicted of no felonies or violent crimes
  • Passes the English fluency test
  • Has graduated from an accredited university with a bachelor’s degree, or has served a minimum of 6 years in the United States Military and has been discharged honorably
  • Is not above the age of thirty
  • States that have issued driver licenses to childhood arrivals will be given $200 increase in federal highway money allocutions per driver license that is issued.
  • States that offer in state tuition rates to childhood arrivals will be allocated an additional $50 million of research and development grants per Stately funded universities with a minimum of 5,000 full time students.
  • DACA filings are strictly confidential and cannot be used to document or initiate deportation proceeding against the applicant or any information contained in the application to enjoin deportation proceedings against other people contained in the application.
  • DACA recipients are given deferred action agreements for a period of 10 years in order to fulfill the military or educational requirements.



There is a need in this nation to find a solution to the questions that revolve around the childhood arrivals of illegal immigrants. These children have been brought to our nation and are rightfully afforded provisions of decency that every child deserves. Once these children have grownup in the United Stated and have been part of the our school system and fallen in love with this great nation and desire to intertwine themselves in the fabric of the nation they love with ultimate sign of commitment, citizenship. Our nation has attempted through both the vehicle of legislation and executive action to help accomplish the goal of protecting and promoting greatness of our nation with making proper decisions in the arena of childhood arrivals. The legislation started the trend of attempting to promote our childhood arrivals with the Dream Act. This act gave childhood arrivals an opportunity to achieve citizenship if they met certain guidelines.[77] The Dream Act failed to pass the bicameralism aspect of the Constitution by not passing both House of Representatives and the Senate. President Obama was next through executive action to address childhood arrivals with his executive order of DACA. DACA has been implicated, but does not provide for a gateway to citizenship. DACA only affords the childhood arrivals deferred action of deportation. The States have fought hard against DACA’s ability to present a lawful status to children of illegal immigrants. Two major court cases have been litigated in the Supreme Court with one favorable decision and one decision that is counter productive to the states interest. The favorable decision came in Texas v. U.S., which upheld the fact that States have standing to contest an executive action on immigration. Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer held counter productive to the states interest by holding that childhood arrivals that have DACA protection are here in the United Sates legally and the State of Arizona must issue drivers licenses to DACA recipients. In this paper, I have included a piece of legislation that could be a solution to overcome the fears of all the parties involved and bring finality to 1.7 million future Americans.

[1], ‘Consideration Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals’. N.p., 2015. Web. 2 Sept. 2015.


[2],. ‘Homeland Security’. N.p., 2015. Web. 2 Sept. 2015.


[3] Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland Sec., on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children (June 15, 2012), https://


[4] Memorandum from William Howard, Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, to all OPLA Chief Counsel (Oct. 24, 2005), available at


[5] acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors


[6] The DREAM Act. GroupDreamAct, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 4 Sept. 2015.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 1

[11] Id. at 1

[12] Id. at 1

[13] Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202.  Quoting Justice Brennen,  The Supreme Court, Justice Brennan, held that: (1) the illegal aliens who were the plaintiffs could claim the benefit of equal protection clause, which provides that no state shall deny to any person the benefit of jurisdiction in the equal protection of the laws; (2) the discrimination contained in the Texas statute which withheld from local school district any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States and which authorized local school district to deny enrollment to such children could not be considered rational unless it furthered some substantial goal of the state; (3) the undocumented status of the children non did not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying the benefits which that the state afforded other residents; (4) there is no national policy that might justify the state in denying the children an elementary education; and (5) the Texas statute could not be sustained as furthering its interest in the preservation of the state’s limited resources for the education of its lawful residents


[14] Retrieved 10/19/2015

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.



[19] Lind, Dara (31 July 2014). “How Ted Cruz helped kill the GOP’s border bill” Retrieved November 23, 2015


[20] Id.

[21] California lawmakers seek relief for illegal immigrants to work in state. Los Angeles Times. August 23, 2012. Retrieved October 22, 2015.

[22] California will give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Los Angeles Times. October 1, 2012. Retrieved October 22, 2015

[23] Retrieved October 22, 2015

[24] Nebraska Follows Arizona: No Benefits for ‘Deferred’ Immigrants. Newsmax, August 18, 2012. Retrieved October 23, 2015.
[25] Basic Facts about In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrant Students. The states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. In addition, Rhode Island’s Board of Governors for Higher Education and the University of Hawaii’s Board of Regents voted to provide access to in-state tuition at the states’ public colleges and universities to certain students, regardless of their immigration status. The University of Michigan’s Board of Regents has adopted a similar policy for its campuses.

[26] Retrieved October 23, 2015

[27] Baltimore Welcomes Immigrants – No Questions Asked. Fox New Latino. August 23, 2012. Retrieved October 24, 2015.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer., 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014)


[31] Retrieved November 9th, 2015



[32] Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer., 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014)

[33] Id.


[35] Id.

[36] Id.


[37] Id. quoted “As a practical matter, the ability to drive may be a virtual necessity for people who want to work in Arizona. The record shows that more than eighty-seven percent of Arizona’s workforce commutes to work by car. (By contrast, only about two percent of Arizonans commute to work using public transportation.) Indeed, with one exception, the individual Plaintiffs in this case—like the vast majority of working Arizonans—rely on cars in commuting to work.2 And beyond the need for transportation, the link between driver’s licenses and the ability to work is heightened by the fact that some jobs—including jobs for which two Plaintiffs wished to apply—require driver’s licenses as a condition of hire. If Plaintiffs can ultimately show adequate proof of the link between driver’s licenses and the ability to work in Arizona, we agree that Defendants’ policy would be conflict-preempted.

910It does not matter that Defendants’ policy does not formally prohibit DACA recipients from working. “[P]reemption analysis must contemplate the practical result of the state law, not just the means that a state utilizes to accomplish the goal.” United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1296 (11th Cir.2012)cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2022, 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013). In considering whether a state law is conflict-preempted, *1063 “we ‘consider the relationship between state and federal laws as they are interpreted and applied, not merely as they are written.’ ” Ting v. AT & T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1137 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Jones v. Rath Packing Co.,430 U.S. 519, 526, 97 S.Ct. 1305, 51 L.Ed.2d 604 (1977)). If the practical result of the application of Defendants’ policy is that DACA recipients in Arizona are generally obstructed from working—despite the Executive’s determination, backed by a delegation of Congressional authority, that DACA recipients throughout the United States may work—then Defendants’ policy is preempted.”



[39] Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991)

[40] Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer., 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014)


[41] Id.

[42] Id. quoting “The irreparable nature of Plaintiffs’ injury is heightened by Plaintiffs’ young age and fragile socioeconomic position. Setbacks early in their careers are likely to haunt Plaintiffs for the rest of their lives. Thus, “a delay, even if only a few months, pending trial represents … productive time irretrievably lost” to these young Plaintiffs. Chalk, 840 F.2d at 710. Plaintiffs’ entire careers may be constrained by professional opportunities they are denied today.

We are unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ ability to drive illegally means they cannot suffer harm from their inability to obtain driver’s licenses. Laws are not irrelevant simply because they may be disobeyed. There can be no serious dispute that Defendants’ policy hinders Plaintiffs’ ability to drive, and that this (in turn) hinders Plaintiffs’ ability to work and engage in other everyday activities.

No award of damages can compensate Plaintiffs’ for the myriad personal and professional harms caused by their inability to obtain driver’s licenses. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.”


[43] National Immigration Law Center. The Obama Administration’s DAPA and Expanded DACA Programs.


[44] You may be able to request DAPA. Want to learn more? Retrieved November 11, 2015


[45] Texas v. US., 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015)  State of TEXAS; State of Alabama; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Utah; State of West Virginia; State of Wisconsin; Paul R. Lepage, Governor, State of Maine; Patrick L. McCrory, Governor, State of North Carolina; C.L. “Butch” Otter, Governor, State of Idaho; Phil Bryant, Governor, State of Mississippi; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma; State of Florida; State of Arizona; State of Arkansas; Attorney General Bill Schuette; State of Nevada; State of Tennessee, Plaintiffs–Appellees,


[46], Instant Analysis: Injunction in Texas v. United States, Retrieved November 11, 2015.


[47] Id.

[48] Texas v. US., 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015)  quoted, First, they must*748 assert an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.”24 “ ‘[T]hreatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact,’ and … ‘[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient.”25 Second, the injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action.” Clapper, 133 S.Ct. at 1147 (quoting Monsanto, 561 U.S. at 149, 130 S.Ct. 2743). The states may establish standing based on costs they incur as a reasonable reaction to a risk of harm only if that harm is certainly impending. See id. at 1151. Third, the injury must be “redressable by a favorable ruling.” Id. at 1147 (quoting Monsanto, 561 U.S. at 149, 130 S.Ct. 2743). “When a litigant is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.” Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 518, 127 S.Ct. 1438.


[49] Texas v. US., 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015)

[50] Texas v. US., 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015)

[51] Texas v. US., 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015) quoting “Thus, the government has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its notion that the states lack standing. At least one state—Texas—is likely to satisfy all three requirements, so the government’s challenge to standing is without merit.”


[52] Texas v. US., 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015)

[53] Texas v US., 787 F.3d 733(5th Cir. 2015) quoting, “The United States appealed the preliminary injunction and moved for a stay of the injunction pending resolution of the merits of that appeal. Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction.”



[54] glut, donald f  The Empire Strikes Back , , Published by Del Ray 1980. ISBN: 0345283929

[55], 99.5% of illegal immigrants get approval for legal status; high number raises concerns about fraud. Stephen Dinan. April 22, 2013. Retrieves November 18, 2015


[56] Retrieved November 18, 2015


[57] Retrieved November 18, 2015

[58] Retrieved November 18, 2015

[59] Retrieved November 15, 2015

[60] Id. quoting “Among the report’s key findings:

  • Funding the K-12 education for children who are themselves illegal aliens and for the citizen children of illegal aliens accounted for the largest share of the cost to taxpayers at $14.4 billion. These services included standard public school educations and supplemental English language instruction. Despite federal funding, the average per pupil expenditure is $10,450 each year.
  • Justice and law enforcement costs — policing, court and incarceration — associated with illegal aliens soared to more than $4.4 billion.
  • Medical services cost taxpayers approximately $4 billion, including $388 million associated with 68,000 births to illegal alien mothers.
  • Public assistance — low-cost meal programs, free immunizations, etc. — are available to residents regardless of legal status. The $792 million price tag for these services is borne by California taxpayers.” Retrieved November 15, 2015



[61] Retrieved November 15, 2015

[62] Retrieved November 18, 2015

[63] Retrieved November 18, 2015

[64] Id. Undocumented immigrants are already U.S. taxpayers.

Collectively, they paid an estimated $10.6 billion to state and local taxes in 2010, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a research organization that works on tax policy issues. Contributions varied by state. In Montana they contributed $2 million. In California, more than $2.2 billion. On average they pay about 6.4% of their income in state and local taxes

[65] According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), unauthorized immigrants — who are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits — have paid an eye-popping $100 billion into the fund over the past decade.

“They are paying an estimated $15 billion a year into Social Security with no intention of ever collecting benefits,” Stephen Goss, chief actuary of the SSA told CNNMoney. “Without the estimated 3.1 million undocumented immigrants paying into the system, Social Security would have entered in 2009,” he said.


[66] Id. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.

[67] Id. According to Griswold, immigrants, regardless of status, fill the growing gap between expanding low-skilled jobs and the shrinking pool of native-born Americans who are willing to take such jobs. By facilitating the growth of such sectors as retail, agriculture, landscaping, restaurants, and hotels, low-skilled immigrants have enabled those sectors to expand, attract investment, and create middle-class jobs in management, design and engineering, bookkeeping, marketing and other areas that employ U.S. citizens.

[68] Id. According to the State Department, that imaginary “immigration line” is already 4.4 million people long and depending on the type of visa sought and the country of origin, the wait can be years to decades long. In some countries, such as the Philippines and Mexico people have been waiting over 20 years for approval of a family-sponsored visa.


[69] Retrieved November 18, 2015

[70] Retrieved November 18, 2015

[71] Retrieved November 23, 2015


[73] Id.

[74] Retrieved November 23, 2015 According to USCIS, information provided in a request for DACA, including information about family members and guardians, will not be shared with ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for the purpose of initiating deportation proceedings unless your case involves fraud, a criminal offense, a threat to public safety or national security, or other exceptional circumstances. However, the information in your request may be shared with national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, for purposes other than deportation, including to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for national security purposes, or for the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense.



[75] Retrieved November 23, 2015


[76] Retrieved November 23, 2015

[77] Retrieved November 24, 2015

  • Must have come to the US under age 16 but must be at least 15 years of age when they apply.
    (if you are fourteen now and the process is still around in two years, then you could apply as long as you meet the education and five years residence requirement).• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum (June 15);

    • is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

    • has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and

    • is under the age of thirty one on June 15, 2012.

    • Will all be subject to background check (biometrics and background)

    • Will be eligible for Employment Authorization Documents for 2 years with renewal possible.


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *