- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated September 22, 2017 at 2:02 pm by .
September 22, 2017 at 2:02 pm #1154
<p style=”text-align: left;”> On June 15, 2012, the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was announced and then publicly promoted by former President Barak Obama. This program set up guidelines to allow immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. as children under the age of sixteen to continue living in America without citizenship. President Trump recently announced his plans to eradicate DACA causing an uproar among those protected by DACA and their sympathizers. Thus the question has arisen, would it be just to end the DACA program and send those it protected out of the U.S. and back to their native countries?
First one must consider the foundation the U.S. was built upon. When the founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they were highly concerned with the freedoms and responsibilities both the citizens and the government are entitled to maintain. When DACA was established, it allowed thousands of immigrants to remain in U.S. without legal status. This introduces the issue of how can it be determined what responsibilities and freedoms do the DACA residents hold and similarly what responsibilities does the United States government hold for the DACA members. For example, members of DACA are not entitled to healthcare because they lack citizenship. Most hospitals, however, do not deny treatment for a member of DACA even if they are unable to pay for their expenses. The DACA program does not present a solution for this issue, thus the hospitals are required to deal with it. As a result many hospitals simply distribute the expenses into the bills of citizens who have healthcare, which strains insurance plans and adds to the debt that those with healthcare bear.
Now, to return to the original question-is it just to eradicate DACA? Yes, it is just. Not only would this action be just, but it would be necessary in order to work towards a just society. This program compromised some of the original features the U.S. was founded upon, but it has also added strain to the healthcare system. Furthermore, and likely most importantly, DACA was an executive order. Therefore it did not pass through Congress, as it should have. The entire program should not be in circulation; it is unconstitutional. If a program violates the virtues upon which a country stands, such as DACA has, it would be wholly just to eradicate it. Therefore, it is just to eradicate DACA.
1. “Eliminating DACA program will only clog immigration enforcement.” The Hill. John Sandweg. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/345008-eliminating-daca-program-will-only-clog-immigration
2. “Why ending DACA is so unprecedented.” Vox. Dara Lind. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16236116/daca-history
3. “DACA has shielded nearly 790,000 young unauthorized immigrants from deportation.” Pew Research Center. Jens Manuel Krogstad. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/01/unauthorized-immigrants-covered-by-daca-face-uncertain-future/
4. Pittard, Kent. Personal Interview. September 22, 2017.</p>
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.