Immigration Reform:
The Case for Making the Dream Act Law
Elizabeth Fonvergne
PLCY 700: Foundations of Public Policy
Professor Robert Nalbandov
January 26, 2022
2
Annotated Bibliography
The public policy I am looking at is Immigration Reform, specifically the need for
permanent legislation with regard to the undocumented children (DREAMers) who were
brought to the United States when they were too young to know or decide for themselves
and know no other home. Congress has been presented various versions of the DREAM
Act for legislative consideration since 2001 but has failed to pass any. President Obama
initiated DACA in 2012 as a temporary measure to provide some relief to these children.
President Trump tried to end DACA creating uncertainty and confusion for DACA
recipients. It is past time that Congress approves a law that provides permanence and a
path to citizenship for these undocumented children. It is the moral, fair, and just thing to
do.
Alulema, Daniela. “DACA and the Supreme Court: How We Got to This Point, a Statistical
Profile of Who Is Affected, and What the Future May Hold for DACA Beneficiaries,”
Journal on Migration and Human Security 7, no. 4 (2019) 123–30. [Note prior to starting:
This article was written before the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration
could not rescind DACA. This article outlines the beginnings of DACA, provides statistics
on DACA recipients, and gives an overview of what the Trump Administration’s rescission
of DACA would do and the legal challenges made subsequent to the Administration’s
announcement. She further examines what DACA has done for these undocumented
children such as providing them access to education, financial aid, and jobs. It also notes
as a “side benefit”, that DACA has improved the mental health of these individuals. It
further comments that the thought of rescinding DACA has left these children with
uncertainty about their future which has given them more stress and anxiety. These
mental health assessments have been noted in several studies done since the
implementation of DACA. In the end, the author opines that the temporary relief offered
by DACA has allowed these children to be recognized as Americans. She believes that
the Supreme Court should take into account all that these DACA recipients have done
since being here and their allegiance to the only country they have known. She also states
that Congress needs to take action to pass legislation that provides permanence and a
path to citizenship for these Dreamers. This directly supports the proposal of my thesis:
to make a case for this same thing in the form of passing the DREAM Act]
Bono, Marisa. “When a Rose is not a Rose: DACA, the Dream Act, and the Need for More
Comprehensive Immigration Reform” Thurgood Marshall Law Review 40, no 2 (Spring
2015) 193-222. [DACA was intended to provide relief to DREAMers. However, it created
more issues and uncertainty than it resolved, especially at some state levels where
DREAMers have been stigmatized and DACA has been challenged continuously. Major
support for the need for permanent legislation is in Section IV. A New Can of Worms:
DACA and Ensuing Legislation and Section V. The Lack of Permanent Statutory Relief
for DREAMers has Led to Patchwork System that Must be Uniform and Cohesive. At first
3
skim of the article, I knew it would be relevant to my topic by the last line of the Conclusion:
Until there is permanent immigration reform for DREAMers, these fissions in the system
will remain]
Burciaga, Edelina M., and Aaron Malone. “Intensified Liminal Legality: The Impact of the
DACA Rescission for Undocumented Young Adults in Colorado.” Law & Social Inquiry
46, issue 4 (November 2021) 1092-1114 [The authors interview Colorado DACA
recipients and community members to show how the uncertainty of DACA has negative
effects on those it purports to help to underscore the need for permanent legislation.
DACA was created by an executive order. Executive orders are weaker than legislation.
An issue that was made relevant when President Trump tried to repeal DACA. The
authors use the terms liminality and liminal legality to describe the status of DACA
recipients. DACA does not provide a path to citizenship. It does give a temporary respite
from the threat of deportation and allow the recipient to work, get a driver’s license, and
obtain higher education. Under the DACA program recipients receive deferred status for
a period of two years. At the end of the two years the recipient must apply for renewal for
another two years. Studies prior to these authors’ research have shown that regardless
of the uncertainty, there have been positive effects on the social, economic,
psychological, and emotional aspects of DACA recipients’ lives. The study was unique in
that the data was collected in two rounds, before the election of President Trump and
after the election of President Trump. In the before interviews DACA recipients felt that
DACA created positive impacts on their lives, but they were also aware of the temporary
nature and that it could be done away with at any time. In the after-election interviews the
thought of losing DACA created emotional and mental issues. However, while the Trump
administration’s attempt to repeal DACA made its way through the court the respondents
seemed pragmatic in their desire to not dwell on the uncertainty and concentrate on what
was within their control. The authors conclude that while DACA provides some protections
and rights, its temporary nature that can be subjected to future executive actions creates
liminal legal status for DACA recipients that leaves still leaves them vulnerable, and the
thought of losing DACA creates negative effects on their emotional and mental health.
The only way to eliminate the liminal legal status of DACA recipients is with legislative
reform. While the author is not specific about what that reform should be, I feel that this
study and conclusion support my argument for the passage of the DREAM Act]
Feldman, David B. 2020. “Beyond the Border Spectacle: Global Capital, Migrant Labor,
and the Specter of Liminal Legality,” Critical Sociology 46, no. 4–5 (2020) 729–43 [This
article reviews the various types of noncitizen work programs and how each in its own
way allows the exploitation of noncitizens. The author looks at the difference between the
undocumented and the migrant/guest workers to make his point. Each been treated
differently politically and legally, and changes in legislation, enforcement and public
viewpoints have caused businesses to vacillate between employing one or the other of
these groups of workers at any given time. These groups have been used consistently in
the political arena, both positively and negatively. Immigration laws are made, but
enforcement is subjective. Each administration has had its own foray into the issue.
Nothing then or now creates anything permanent for either group. The undocumented
4
face the constant threat of deportation and the migrant worker does not have the right to
settle only to live temporarily. The author superficially touches on capitalism and politics,
and how they may not always have the same objectives. He questions the idea that
creating a pathway to citizenship would solve the problems of the undocumented. Instead,
the author argues that to bring justice they must demand amnesty. The article is relevant
to my thesis because in it he argues that DACA may be well intentioned, but it only affects
a certain group of the undocumented, it does not provide anything permanent, has the
potential to be revoked, and a large percentage of that group cannot avail themselves of
the process due to the cost. One of my arguments for why more permanent legislation
like the DREAM Act is necessary]
Figueroa-Santana, Bianca. “Divided We Stand: Constitutionalizing Executive Immigration
Reform Through Subfederal Regulation,” Columbia Law Review 115, no. 8 (December
2015) 2219–2264 [Using his executive powers President Obama enacted DACA in 2012
and expanded it in 2014 due to the rift at the federal level regarding immigration reform.
The focus of the article is whether and how DACA can survive once President Obama
leaves office. While nothing has been done at the federal level to constitutionalize DACA,
states have engaged in passing their own immigration laws that either uphold or
delegitimize the intentions of DACA. A lot of these state laws have been met with legal
challenges resulting in various rulings, some upholding and some invalidating these laws.
The article argues that the states, by passing their own immigration laws upheld by
adjudication, will eventually lead to constitutionalizing DACA. In addition, the legitimizing
of DACA through state legislation brings into question the long-standing belief that
immigration regulation falls exclusively to the federal government. This article is important
to my topic as I believe that DACA is an important part of the conversation regarding
immigration reform. The article also provides a potential antithetical argument to the need
for substantial federal immigration legislation]
L. Schmid, Carol. “Undocumented Childhood Immigrants, the Dream Act and Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals in the USA,” International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy 33, no. 11/12 (2016) 693–707 [This article takes a critical look at the DREAM Act
and DACA as potential solutions for the issue of undocumented children who have lived
most of their lives in the United States. The DREAM Act has been introduced in the
legislature in several iterations since 2001, and to date has failed to gather enough
support in both houses to pass into law. The article discusses the pro and con attitudes,
and the rift between Democrats and Republicans. It also remarks on how undocumented
status affects life, family, relationships, work, financial aid, and education. One difference
between the DREAM Act and DACA is that the DREAM Act provides a path to
permanence for these undocumented children, DACA does not. Another is that DACA
only provides a temporary solution. Passing the DREAM Act would make it a law and its
effects permanent. Some states have tried to fill a part of the void by passing their own
versions of the DREAM Act. However, they are all different and are only valid within the
individual state. The author argues that there needs to be reform to the immigration
system to provide a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, otherwise our
5
communities will continue to be divided and there will be an unequal access to work,
education, financial aid. As it is the subject of my research, the need to pass the DREAM
Act, I agree with the author that there is a need to change to immigration law with regard
to undocumented children who have known no other home that the United States]
Mallet, Marie L., and Lisa Garcia Bedolla. “Transitory Legality: The Health Implication of
Ending DACA,” California Journal of Politics and Policy 11, no. 2 (2019) 1–25 [This is a
focus group article discussing the health ramifications of the threat of losing DACA. This
focus group was 43 DACA recipients in the San Francisco Bay area. This study was done
and published before the Colorado study previously cited “Intensified Liminal Legality:
The Impact of the DACA Rescission for Undocumented Young Adults in Colorado”. The
scope of the article is what the subjects’ knew about their ability to access healthcare and
how they felt about their mental health before DACA, in the first years of DACA, and after
they learned that DACA might be repealed. Under federal law, the undocumented are
precluded from receiving Medicaid or health insurance. A lack of health care for the
undocumented creates for them not just more illness but also more stress and fear. With
the introduction of DACA, even though the recipients knew it to be temporary, gave the
undocumented hope and a sense of security. In turn, their overall health, specifically
discussed in this study, their mental health, improved. They felt less stress and more
optimism. The underlying purpose of this study was to assess the physical and mental
health effects the publication of the intent to repeal DACA had on the subjects. In the
results the authors state that their analysis shows that not only did the thought that DACA
may be rescinded affect the mental health of their subjects, these subjects felt more
anxiety and stress than they had before DACA. Health is an important issue for all people.
For most DACA recipients they have known no other place than the United States. While
DACA provides some security, as can be seen from the study, just the idea that this could
be pulled creates a negative effect for them. This further proves my contention that to be
just and fair to this group of undocumented, who are here only because they were too
young to have a choice, there must be permanent legislation like the DREAM Act to
protect them]
Olivares, Mariela. 2013. “Renewing the Dream: DREAM Act Redux and Immigration
Reform.” Harvard Latino Law Review 16 (2013) 79-126 [The article focuses on the need
for immigration reform for the employment based visa system and the need to pass the
DREAM Act. It draws parallels between the two and seeks to make an argument for the
proponents of the DREAM Act to find a new focus to obtain support for the passage of
the DREAM Act. In support of the argument for the need for a change in focus for the
DREAM Act the author lays out all times the DREAM Act has been presented and failed
to pass. It proposes that proponents focus on the advantages to be gained by the country
if the DREAM Act were to be passed. It also points out that there is desire by both
Democrats and Republicans for some sort of reform by recounting all the other failed
legislation proposals that have been put forth that were just lesser variations of the
DREAM Act. This is a strong positive that the DREAM Act could pass given the right
modifications to both the Act and the presentation argument. That the article seeks to
6
make an argument for the passage of the DREAM Act makes it directly relevant to my
topic]
Patler, Caitlin, and Whitney Laster Pirtle. “From Undocumented to Lawfully Present: Do
Changes to Legal Status Impact Psychological Wellbeing among Latino Immigrant Young
Adults?” Social Science & Medicine 199 (2018) 39–48 [A focused research study on the
correlation of DACA and the mental health of undocumented youth. The study looked at
both gender and socioeconomic levels to see if, in addition to undocumented status, these
factors played a role in the degree of stress and its subsequent impact on their mental
health. In the process, they found that education level also made a difference in the
emotional assessment. The higher the level of education attained the more pre-DACA
stress, fear of deportation, and negative emotions were reported. After DACA recipients
reported better health, less stress and negativity, and a significantly decreased concern
over deportation. However, those with higher education still faced barriers to jobs and
upward mobility due to the temporary nature of DACA. It was noted that while the DACA
recipients worried less about themselves, they still had concerns about other uncovered
family members. In the conclusion the authors reiterated the temporary nature of DACA
and the fact that it does not contain a provision for a path to citizenship. Subsequently
they mentioned that [while it has not been studied as of the writing of this paper] this may
cause, over time, a regression in the mental well being of this group if DACA were
discontinued and there was no permanent status option. Again, this helps make the
argument that legislation for this undocumented group is necessary]
Venkataramani, Atheendar S., and Alexander C. Tsai. “Dreams Deferred — The Public
Health Consequences of Rescinding DACA,” The New England Journal of Medicine 377,
no. 18 (November 2017) 1707–1709 [This is another researcher who looks at the
proposal by President Trump to rescind DACA and draws the same conclusion as prior
studies: that there will be serious harmful impact to the mental health of these
undocumented DACA recipients. The article cites a study that compared mental and
physical health changes between DACA eligible persons and persons who did not meet
DACA criteria. The study showed that for the DACA eligible subjects there was marked
improvement in the psychological attitudes once the DACA program was implemented.
The studies show that just the idea that DACA may be rescinded is creating fears of future
deportation, loss of access to schooling and jobs, and isolation. With the threat of
termination of DACA the authors argue that now is the time for legislative action to provide
Dreamers with a permanent legal remedy for their undocumented status. This article is
yet another document to support my position that the passage of the DREAM Act is
necessary now]
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
