Government Policy Paper

Texas Policy Paper

Federal Immigration Reforms and the Effects on Texan Immigration Policy

Student Name

Dr. Skorick

GOVT 2305-2XXXX

Spring 2017

Word Count (excluding citations):1115

Immigration has been a hot topic legislative item for decades, spanning numerous Presidencies and causing partisan debate and opposition to any legislation proposed on the topic by either party. Historically, Presidents Carter, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush have all signed executive orders benefitting immigrants to the United States and those under threat of deportation (Schulberg 625). President Obama has passed executive orders for the reform of immigration policy, and has been met with fervent opposition by Republicans in Congress and Texas legislation. This policy report will serve to identify partisan positions and effects of legislation on Texans and immigrant populations.

President Obama issued two major immigration acts in 2012 and 2014: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). His November 20, 2014 executive order has caused much controversy nationwide, and opposition from Texas legislators (Schulberg 623). Under DACA in 2012, the Obama Administration gave “approximately 1.2 million undocumented youth respite from the specter of deportation” (Figueroa-Santana 2220). This legislative act deferred the possibility of deportation for youth who had been brought into the United States under illegal means. Texas legislators who opposed the act emphasized the strong economic and social strain that would occur and affect Texas citizens. Alternatively, “supporters emphasize the policy’s socioeconomic benefits and humanitarian appeal” (Figueroa-Santana 2221), largely stemming from the benefit to the Latino population who connect culturally to those under threat of deportation, and who are voters in support of relaxed immigration efforts.

DAPA is not simply a free ride to legalized immigration, nor does it grant free citizenry or refuge to all immigrants. The legislation contains stipulations for those who are able to receive DAPA benefits (Schulberg 626). Additionally, the legislation requires extensive background checks through criminal and national security databases in order to ensure the safety of American citizens. Those who do file for DAPA benefits are only permitted a three-year work permit, where Federal and State taxes and laws apply to them. This work permit also acts as a stepping-stone for naturalization instead of immigrants having to reapply or face deportation.

Texas legislators, whom are mostly Republicans, have harshly criticized and opposed the Obama Administration’s efforts and filed suit against the implementation of DACA. United State’s v. Texas sought to examine the constitutionality of DACA, on what many believe to be a purely partisan agenda, stating that the President and Department of Homeland Security (DPS) are unable to enforce such legislation, and have violated their own rules. The argument stands that the President is required under the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution to faithfully enforce the laws, to which the Supreme Court ruled that the clause had never been enforced upon the President because Congress has passed numerous laws that the Executive Branch is unable to enforce. Additionally, Texas legislators brought up the issue of the DPS’ own legislative wording where they are required “to give notice and ask for comment before issuing legislative rules” (Schulberg 629), but was also dismissed because DAPA and DACA are broad executive orders over immigration enforcement and not ‘legislative rules.’

Texas citizens, like any constituency, disagree on many legislative topics including immigration. A survey of Mexican American and Anglo citizens in Texas gave insight into the differences and similarities in cultural opinions on immigration reform. Some differences cover broad policy choices, such as how “Anglos tend to support more restrictive immigration policies than do Mexican Americans (Binder 324).” While cultural and race differences are an assured influence for differing viewpoints, similar views span from Texas citizens experiencing similar socioeconomic circumstances. One of the results of the survey found that “regardless of ethnicity, [Texans] tend to reject the idea of increased immigration” (Binder 328). Simply put, it is a common belief that increasing immigration is not beneficial to Texas. Additionally, “both populations agree that the employers of undocumented workers should be penalized” (Binder 329), an idea that extends the opposition of immigrants to those who may already be working in Texas as undocumented persons who are able to avoid paying taxes, a common conservative argument. Writer Norman Binder, who worked to execute the previously noted survey, concluded some commonalities from his results, “The older a respondent, the longer a respondent has been in the United States, and the higher a respondent’s income, the greater the respondent’s support of more restrictive immigration policies” (Binder 324). This conclusion shows how numerous factors affect a voter’s choice outside of race or cultural differences. However racial differences in the Texas constituency play a key role in support of immigration legislation. Bender further states “Mexican Americans… tend to support the extension of amnesty to undocumented immigrants and the provision of public education to the children of undocumented works, whereas Anglo respondents tend to oppose both of these positions” (Binder 334).

Immigration has further divided the Texas political world in recent years, but there may be possible solutions that are reasonable to both parties while remaining beneficial to both immigrants and Texas citizens. First, legislative changes to DAPA and DACA could be implemented that continue the stipulations for receiving benefits, but allows State’s the ability to regulate the annual influx of immigrants based on recommendations of social and economic costs on the state. This regulation allows for consideration of partisan views such as liberal’s support for immigrants rights and protection of immigrant children and youth, as well as conservative views on limiting immigrant movement into the U.S. and ensuring that immigrants are legally documented and not just enjoying a ‘free-ride.’ Additionally with a minimum immigrant amount set by the Federal government, the Executive can ensure that all States, even those in large opposition such as Texas, allow migration and will work to allocate support.

Immigration reform remains a controversial subject across the United States and in Texas, with partisan divides increasing and furthering opposition to President Obama’s executive action for reform. While the DAPA and DACA orders do not gain support from all Texans, there are similarities in the views of Texans on not increasing immigration but differ in views on how immigration reform should be enacted. While this issue may never decline in controversy, this proposal has offered a possible solution that attempts to take partisan views into consideration while continuing to benefit both immigrants and Texas natives alike.

Works Cited

Binder, Norman E., J. L. Polinard, and Robert D. Wrinkle. "Mexican American And Anglo Attitudes Toward Immigration Reform: A View From The Border." Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas Press) 78.2 (1997): 324-337. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 June 2016.

Figueroa-Santana, Bianca. "Divided We Stand: Constitutionalizing Executive Immigration Reform Through Subfederal Regulation." Columbia Law Review 115.8 (2015): 2219-2264. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 June 2016.

Schulberg, Jessica A. "President Obama's Dapa Executive Action: Ephemeral Or Enduring?." Arizona Law Review 57.2 (2015): 623-634. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 June 2016.