On Nov. 20, President Barack Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration. His announcement came as the result of Congress’ inability to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill along with pressure from immigrant rights activists to reform the nation’s immigration system.
The centerpiece of his executive actions is known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability. It allows undocumented immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to apply for temporary permission to reside and work in the country. Because DAPA is an executive action, it could be revoked by whoever assumes the U.S. presidency in 2016, or by President Obama himself.
Sadly, President Obama’s announcement was not the comprehensive, inclusive reform that activists and advocates were pressuring him for. Like its predecessor Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, it does not provide a path to citizenship, nor is it a law. It also leaves out more than half of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in the country. While it is relieving to hear that some parents will be eligible for DAPA, it is also frustrating to know that half of the undocumented community was left out. For as long as any migrant is vulnerable to deportation and unauthorized to work, people will worry about their safety.
For families especially, this means constant worry about family separation. Just as worrisome is that President Obama’s announcement included a warning of enforced border security. Although this may seem necessary and fair to those who oppose undocumented migration, immigrants whose families have suffered violence at the border know that this means an increase in inhumane treatment at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Perhaps the most heartbreaking part of Obama’s announcement is the assumption that mixed-status families – those that have at least one child who is documented, either through citizenship or legal permanent residency – are more deserving of protection than those in which both parents and children are undocumented. Prioritizing mixed-status families over entirely undocumented ones sends the message that only those who were born in the U.S. are entitled to opportunity, while those that are not don’t deserve the same chance. Excluding any undocumented immigrant from administrative relief also points to the contradictory pattern the U.S. has of welcoming immigrants as sources of cheap labor yet treating them as disposable when it comes to immigration policy.
The unwillingness of the U.S. government to grant equitable opportunity through citizenship translates into a grim reality: Millions of immigrants working for low wages in sectors such as restaurant and hotel services, packing and manufacturing, domestic services and agriculture – the toughest jobs for the lowest pay. For the people who carry out such labor-intensive jobs, being the target of anti-immigrant hypocrisy is hard; in times of debate, lawmakers and constituents who side with them on certain issues oppose their presence because it is unlawful, but in times of action they are OK consuming the exploited labor of immigrants.
Along the same lines, it is time for lawmakers to stop using the DREAMer narrative because it promotes the false dichotomy of good immigrant versus bad immigrant. DREAMer narratives suggest that because youths are obtaining higher education, they are worthy of state aid and administrative relief. Just as DAPA prioritizes parents with U.S. children simply because of the same repetitive rhetoric of “worthy” immigrants, the DREAMer narrative creates division in the immigrant community. On one end of the dichotomy, students and parents of U.S. citizens are positioned as hard workers who have merited relief. On the other end of the dichotomy, low-skilled workers and undocumented parents are positioned as lazy and deportable. This dichotomy allows policy makers and legislators to praise DREAMers as contributing members of a capitalist society who will go to college and build up the economy, and dismiss those who don’t make it into universities as undeserving members of society. As a result, organizations limit their advocacy to focus on “worthy” immigrants at the expense of humanizing the entire undocumented community.
Deferred action for youths and parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents is a start but it is not enough; immigrant communities urgently need a path to citizenship, an end to deportations and an end to criminalization. In the meantime, activists throughout the country will continue advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. We will continue urging Congress and the president to ensure the safety of our entire community.
Ortiz-Silva is a fourth-year anthropology student and the internal representative of Improving Dreams, Equality, Access, and Success (IDEAS) at UCLA. Lopez is a third-year Chicana and Chicano studies and environmental science student and the external representative of IDEAS at UCLA.
“Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process.”
These are the words of former Texas Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (1936 –1996). Some background: Ms. Jordan was the first black person elected to the Texas Senate after Reconstruction and the first southern black woman elected to the U.S. Congress. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She was the first black woman to be buried in the Texas State Cemetery. Her dad was a Baptist preacher and her mother a maid. She was denied admission to the University of Texas, thanks to Jim Crow laws, so attended Texas Southern University. But most important, when Barbara Jordan spoke, everyone listened regardless of their political affiliation. She was a thoughtful, brilliant and electric orator.
Rep. Jordan is relevant to the immigration issue because President Clinton appointed her Chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. In 1995, the Commission released its findings and recommendations, and Rep. Jordan was called to testify before Congress. And the key declaration of the committee she chaired was the statement at top. This coming from a formerly poor, black, empathetic, brilliant Democrat who, nevertheless, didn’t let her compassion blind her to what makes good policy for our country.
In choosing to selectively enforce U.S. immigration laws, President Obama has acted in a manner that is very Latin American and problematic. You see, countries that respect and enforce the rule of law, and expect their leaders to do the same, have the highest living standards in the world. These first-world countries including, for example, the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Norway. Now compare the living standards of Latin American countries where it is common, if not expected, for elected leaders and even low level bureaucrats to enforce or ignore laws as they see fit. This crucial cultural difference must be preserved by Americans and embraced by new immigrants to keep America great. In this regard, President Obama’s executive action has failed all of us.