Eakinomics: DACA Do Over

Eakinomics: DACA Do Over Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration could not proceed with its plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy initiated by President Obama in 2012 to shield certain young undocumented immigrants from deportation. DACA applicants must: prove they were under the age of 16 when they came to the United States; have continuously resided in the country since 2007; be enrolled in school, have graduated high school (or equivalent), or have served in the military; be less than 31 years old as of June 15, 2012; and have no conviction of any crime or felony. If an individual satisfies these requirements, he or she acquires provisional legal status and can get papers permitting legal work. The DACA executive action generated an immense controversy and added to an ongoing debate over whether it constituted executive overreach. The Court did not rule on these core issues, but rather on the process the administration used to end it. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” In short, the justifications for ending DACA were insufficient, but this decision does not rule out another attempt to end DACA. This decision is an important reminder of the tenuous legal standing of the DACA population. And it is a good time to emphasize that DACA protections affect more than just the immigrants themselves. AAF once estimated that “the average DACA worker contributes $109,000 to the economy each year. If all DACA recipients were removed, U.S. GDP would decrease by nearly $42 billion.” Put differently, the DACA population is an economic asset, and failure to protect it would undercut economic performance. This, in turn, is a reminder that we need immigration reform. While DACA will have the headlines for a few days, the statistical reality is that the native-born population in the United States has a fertility rate that is too low (and still declining) to keep the population stable, much less growing. Put differently, in the absence of any immigration the U.S. population and economy will shrink, limiting the ability of the nation to defend itself and project our values around the globe. The flip side of this reality is that choosing the rules for granting visas to immigrants is tantamount to choosing the growth rate and composition of the labor force. Given that, it is desirable to move the immigration system away from a nearly exclusive focus on family unification and humanitarian objectives and toward one that rewards those providing the attributes that the labor market values. Indeed, my proposed reform builds a strong economic foundation for the immigration system and is precisely the kind of pro-growth policy that will enable the United States to regain its former vitality in the aftermath of the COVID-19 recession.