Would Suspending DACA Withstand a Benefit-Cost Analysis?

AuthorBrannon, Ike
PositionBRIEFLY NOTED - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

In September 2017, President Trump announced that his administration would suspend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The program, launched in 2012 by executive order of President Barack Obama, grants temporary legal status to young adults without a valid visa who had been brought to the United States by their parents before the age of 16. To qualify, applicants must have lived in the United States since 2007, be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012, have received a high school diploma, and have no criminal record. Under DACA, participants can attend college (although without access to federal or state financial aid) and obtain legal employment.

When Trump announced DACA's repeal, he claimed the program's creation through executive order was constitutionally improper and gave Congress six months to pass legislation to extend and perhaps amend the program. Legislators proved unable to do that, but various lawsuits have prompted the courts to suspend DACA's phase-out until the legality of its repeal can be adjudicated.

We are agnostic as to the legality of DACA's repeal and on the constitutionality of its creation. However, we believe that any major regulatory action taken by an administration should be subject to a stringent benefit-cost analysis. Executive Order 12866, first issued by President Ronald Reagan and honored (more or less) by each of his successors, requires such analysis.

Weighing benefits and costs / In 2017 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that allowing DACA recipients to become permanent legal residents would cost the federal government $26 billion over 10 years. To reach that number, analysts assumed the recipients would become eligible for Medicaid, Pell grants, and other federal benefits that they currently cannot receive under DACA. Those benefits were the primary drivers of the estimated cost. This estimate has been used to defend Trump's repeal decision.

However, the CBO analysis does not reflect policymakers' current decision over DACA. The CBO compared only the alternatives of continuing temporary legal status for DACA participants and permanent legal status for those participants. We believe the status quo is politically unsustainable. Because of that, policymakers should be deciding between a different pair of alternatives:

* Congress passes legislation that allows DACA recipients to become permanent legal residents, and thus be eligible for most of the benefits conferred to citizens.

* The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT