By Brian Figeroux, Esq. 

The legal status of undocumented immigrants has been a hot-button issue in the United States for decades. Among the most vulnerable populations within the broader immigrant community are the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act—young individuals who arrived in the U.S. as children. Known as Dreamers, they have often lived in the country for their entire lives, receiving education, pursuing careers, and contributing to the nation’s economy and culture. Despite their significant societal integration, their immigration status remains precarious. President Donald Trump’s administration promised to target these individuals for deportation, most notably through the eventual attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The legal landscape surrounding this issue is complex, involving the exercise of executive power, constitutional defenses, and procedural intricacies.

This article will explore the defenses available to DREAM Act beneficiaries against deportation under the Trump administration’s policies. We will also delve into the legal process for deportation, the Trump administration’s legal arguments, and the subsequent defenses by these beneficiaries.

 

Part 1: The DREAM Act and DACA: Background and Context

The DREAM Act, introduced in 2001, was designed to provide a pathway to legal status for certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. The Act itself has not passed Congress but served as the foundation for later programs like DACA, which President Obama established in 2012. DACA provided temporary relief from deportation and work permits to undocumented individuals who met certain requirements, such as arriving in the U.S. before the age of 16, being under the age of 31 as of 2012, and having completed at least a high school education or military service.

Despite the program’s success, the Trump administration moved to rescind DACA in 2017, promising to deport Dreamers, although the legal path to this goal has been fraught with challenges. The legal process for deportation, and the defense strategies available to beneficiaries of DACA, are therefore central to understanding the broader debate.

Key Aspects of the DREAM Act and DACA

• Eligibility for DACA:
  Beneficiaries must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, arrived in the U.S. before turning 16, continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, and have not committed serious crimes.
• Benefits of DACA:
  DACA recipients receive protection from deportation for a renewable two-year period, the ability to apply for work permits, and, in some states, access to state-level tuition rates for higher education.
• Impact of DACA:
  The program has helped approximately 800,000 Dreamers, providing them opportunities for education, employment, and the chance to contribute to the U.S. economy. However, DACA does not confer permanent legal status or citizenship, making these individuals vulnerable to deportation if the program is rescinded.

 

Part 2: The Trump Administration’s Approach to Deportation

President Trump’s stance on immigration was marked by a hardline approach, with deportation being a central theme. In 2017, Trump made good on his campaign promise to rescind DACA, and his administration worked toward deporting individuals covered by the program. However, the legal process for deportation is a multi-step procedure, with numerous protections for those facing removal.

Executive Action and the Rescission of DACA

The Trump administration’s decision to end DACA was grounded in the argument that the program was illegal and beyond the scope of executive authority. In September 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the program would be terminated, arguing that it had been implemented without legal authority. This decision was met with immediate legal challenges, as numerous states and advocacy organizations filed lawsuits, asserting that the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

One of the most significant legal battles emerged in 2020 when the Supreme Court ruled in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California that the administration’s decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. The Court found that the Trump administration had not provided adequate justification for its actions. The ruling did not reinstate DACA but placed a temporary block on its termination.

Legal Process for Deportation

If President Trump’s administration were successful in terminating DACA permanently, the deportation process for Dreamers would follow a typical removal proceeding process under U.S. immigration law.

• Step 1: Issuance of Notice to Appear (NTA)
  The first step in the deportation process is the issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA), which is an official document notifying an individual of their removal proceedings. The NTA details the charges against the individual and provides information about the hearing.
• Step 2: Immigration Court Hearing
  After the NTA is issued, the individual is required to attend a hearing in immigration court. Here, both the government and the respondent (Dreamer) present evidence and legal arguments. Dreamers often seek relief from removal, which can include asylum, temporary protected status (TPS), or adjustment of status.
• Step 3: Appeals Process
  If the immigration judge rules in favor of deportation, the individual may file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If the BIA affirms the removal order, further appeals may be made to federal courts.
• Step 4: Deportation Order Enforcement
  Once all appeals are exhausted, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is responsible for enforcing the deportation order.

Legal Hurdles in Deporting DREAMers

Several legal defenses exist to challenge deportation orders against Dreamers, even under President Trump’s policies. Some of these defenses include constitutional protections, procedural safeguards, and humanitarian considerations.

• Constitutional Defenses:
  Dreamers can argue that deporting them would violate their Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. Given that many Dreamers have lived in the U.S. for most of their lives, they may assert that deportation would amount to an undue and unconstitutional punishment.
• Statutory Defenses:
  Dreamers may also rely on provisions within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to seek relief from removal. This could include demonstrating long-term residence, family ties to U.S. citizens, or significant contributions to the country.
• Policy-Based Defenses:
  Many advocates for Dreamers argue that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in favor of not deporting individuals who have integrated into U.S. society and who contribute economically and socially.

 

Part 3: Defense Strategies for DREAM Act Beneficiaries

Dreamers facing deportation may mount several defenses, ranging from constitutional arguments to humanitarian appeals. The most common defenses include:

1. Due Process and Equal Protection Claims

Given that many Dreamers have lived in the U.S. for most of their lives, they have developed deep ties to their communities. Deportation could be seen as a violation of their right to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all individuals in the U.S. equal protection under the law.

2. Prosecutorial Discretion

Dreamers can argue that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised to prevent their deportation, given their contributions to society, their lack of criminal records, and their humanitarian ties to the U.S. Courts have recognized that the government can choose to prioritize certain deportations over others, and Dreamers are often seen as low-priority targets.

3. Family and Humanitarian Defenses

Family ties to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents can also be an important defense. Additionally, Dreamers may appeal to humanitarian concerns, arguing that deporting them would result in undue hardship for U.S. citizen children, spouses, or other family members.

Part 4: Legal Defenses for DREAMers Facing Deportation

1. Constitutional Defenses: Due Process and Equal Protection

One of the most powerful defenses available to DREAMers facing deportation is based on constitutional principles, specifically the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

• Due Process Clause:
  The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This protection applies to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction, including non-citizens. For many DREAMers, particularly those who have lived in the U.S. for the majority of their lives, deportation can be seen as a fundamental violation of their due process rights.

Courts have repeatedly emphasized that long-term residents, who have integrated into U.S. society, should be afforded due process protections in any removal proceedings. This includes ensuring that deportation does not occur without proper legal procedures and protections. If the government fails to show that deportation is in line with constitutional due process, DREAMers can argue that their removal is unconstitutional.

• Equal Protection Clause:
  The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination by the government against individuals based on arbitrary classifications. DREAMers argue that deporting them, while allowing other groups of immigrants to remain in the U.S., constitutes discriminatory treatment.

Legal challenges often point out the inconsistency of the U.S. immigration system, particularly the disparate treatment of immigrants who have been in the country for long periods and developed strong family, community, and economic ties. DREAMers argue that they are being unfairly targeted based on their immigration status, despite their deep integration into U.S. society.

2. Prosecutorial Discretion and the Power of the Executive

Prosecutorial discretion is a key concept in immigration law that allows federal immigration authorities to prioritize certain deportations over others. Prosecutorial discretion is critical in the case of DACA recipients, as these individuals have generally been deemed low-priority for deportation due to their limited criminal histories and their contributions to U.S. society.

The Trump administration’s attempts to rescind DACA and deport Dreamers were challenged based on prosecutorial discretion arguments. Advocates argued that, as a matter of policy, Dreamers should not be targeted for deportation. Given their long-term residence in the U.S. and their role in the economy and society, advocates argued that these individuals should be considered a low priority for removal.

• Obama’s Legacy of Prosecutorial Discretion:
  President Obama’s administration set a precedent for the use of prosecutorial discretion in DACA, prioritizing the removal of individuals who had committed crimes or posed a threat to national security, while allowing Dreamers to remain in the country under temporary protections.
• Trump’s Approach to Prosecutorial Discretion:
  Despite the precedent set under Obama, Trump’s administration sought to dismantle this discretionary power, targeting DACA recipients as part of a broader crackdown on illegal immigration. This created an important legal battle, as the courts examined the validity of Trump’s rescission of DACA in light of the APA and other legal protections, as well as whether prosecutorial discretion could be used to protect Dreamers from deportation.

The concept of prosecutorial discretion continues to play a significant role in ongoing legal challenges to the deportation of DREAMers. Legal scholars and advocates for Dreamers argue that the discretion used by the Obama administration to shield Dreamers from deportation is a valid and important policy consideration.

3. Family-Based Defenses and Humanitarian Considerations

Family ties have long been a central defense in immigration cases, and DREAMers are often able to raise family-based defenses to fight deportation. For many Dreamers, their immediate family members are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. These familial connections can provide a powerful defense in removal proceedings.

• Hardship to U.S. Citizen Family Members:
  Under U.S. immigration law, Dreamers may argue that their deportation would cause significant hardship to U.S. citizen family members. This argument is rooted in the principle that deporting an individual would result in undue emotional, financial, and psychological hardship for their spouse, children, or parents who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Courts have long recognized that family unity is an important consideration in immigration law. The Family Unity Program, for example, was designed to allow immigrant families to stay together while their immigration petitions were processed. Similar arguments can be made by Dreamers who have children or spouses who would suffer hardship if the individual were deported.

• Humanitarian Defenses:
  In addition to family-based defenses, many Dreamers also present humanitarian arguments. Given that many of these individuals arrived in the U.S. as children, they have developed deep roots in American society, including education, employment, and social connections. Deporting individuals who have lived in the U.S. for most of their lives, and who have no ties to their countries of origin, can be seen as inhumane.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has emphasized that the deportation of long-term residents could have severe consequences, particularly if the individual is sent to a country where they no longer have familial or social ties.

 

4. Legal Precedents and Supreme Court Decisions

Several landmark cases have influenced the legal defenses available to DREAMers. Notably, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020) stands as a key legal moment in the fight to preserve DACA.

• DHS v. Regents (2020):
  In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind DACA was unlawful because it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court found that the administration’s decision lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider the serious consequences of ending DACA, such as the impact on Dreamers and the U.S. economy.

The ruling was a temporary victory for DACA recipients but did not address the underlying issue of whether DACA itself is constitutional. The case highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in the rescission of executive orders and set a significant precedent for future legal challenges to deportation efforts.

• Trump v. Hawaii (2018):
  Another significant case during Trump’s presidency was Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the president’s authority to implement a travel ban targeting several predominantly Muslim countries. While not directly related to Dreamers, this case highlighted the broad powers that presidents have in setting immigration policy. However, it also demonstrated that such actions are subject to judicial review if they violate constitutional rights or statutory requirements.

 

5. Administrative and Legal Challenges to Deportation

While DACA recipients have won several legal battles, they face ongoing challenges as the political and legal landscape surrounding immigration continues to shift.

• Administrative Challenges:
  The rescission of DACA remains tied up in legal challenges, and the administrative process has been subject to frequent changes. Under the Trump administration, attempts were made to end the program, but under Biden, the administration has attempted to reinforce DACA protections. As of 2021, the Biden administration issued a new rule to try and solidify the program, but courts continue to evaluate the legality of both rescinding and expanding DACA.
• Legal Hurdles:
  Even if DACA is permanently reinstated, many Dreamers may face legal battles for adjustment of status or permanent residency. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, remains a central issue.

 

Conclusion: The Future of Dreamers and Their Legal Protections

The future of DREAMers in the U.S. hinges on ongoing legal battles, political decisions, and legislative action. While DACA has provided temporary relief to nearly 800,000 individuals, its future is uncertain. The legal defenses available to Dreamers, particularly those based on constitutional rights, prosecutorial discretion, and family ties, remain powerful tools in their fight against deportation.

The Trump administration’s attempts to end DACA and deport Dreamers were met with significant legal challenges, and the courts have consistently ruled in favor of procedural fairness and the protection of constitutional rights. However, without permanent legislative protection through immigration reform, Dreamers will continue to live in uncertainty.

Ultimately, the legal struggle for Dreamers underscores the need for comprehensive and humane immigration policies that recognize their contributions and their fundamental rights. Until such reforms are enacted, Dreamers and their legal advocates will continue to fight for a future in the U.S.—the only home they’ve ever known.

 

If you are a DACA recipient or know someone who is facing deportation, it is essential to seek legal representation to protect your rights. Figeroux & Associates, located at 26 Court Street, Suite 701, Brooklyn, NY 11242, specializes in defending DACA recipients and Dreamers against deportation. Call 718-222-3155 for a consultation or visit www.askthelawyer.us for more information.

 

  #DeferredAction, #DeportationDefense, #DREAMAct, #Dreamers, #ImmigrantRights, #ImmigrationLaw, #ImmigrationReform, #TrumpAdministration, #UndocumentedImmigrants, DACA