The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents Program (DAPA) promulgated by the Obama Administration addresses one of the thorniest issues of contemporary politics: how a country of immigrants like the United States should deal with a sector of the population that have essentially abided by the laws of the country, but whose presence in the country is irregular or even “illegal” by current definitions of the law. The Administration’s solution is a classic Obama-style attempt to split the difference between the poles of opinion in the US and it has characteristically failed miserably to bridge the gap in opinion. Though, no doubt, some opposition is due to strictly partisan concerns with supporters of the Administration
…show more content…
One reasonable objection put forward by opponents of DAPA is that illegal immigrants have, by definition, violated the law. In that this is at first glance a powerful point, the question must be asked what kind of law has been violated? An argument could be made that the violation is in the failure to observe the normal laws of immigration. This is a kind of “negative” violation of law, not following a law is not the same as consciously breaking it, but more to the point, the laws that are broken are essentially civil in character, and thus to refer to undocumented immigrants as “by definition” criminals, as some more strident opponents of DAPA do, obfuscates an important factor in the nature of the crime. Frequently a crime that is non-violent can be settled by the payment of a fine. As illegal immigration is essentially a crime against territory, not unlike, for example, trespassing which is often remediable by a fine, then it follows that the “crime” of illegal immigration could be treated in a similar way. The least disruptive way to punish violators of the immigration laws, or at least the non-following of immigration laws would be to incur a financial penalty—perhaps a substantial one. This method of remediating immigration crimes would also have the benefit of providing the government with resources instead of depriving the government of resources (even if new staff were needed to process the payments, it would still be cheaper than hiring and paying enforcement staff to deport all the immigrants). The DAPA plan actually includes a fine for applicants so it already incorporates this aspect of remediation. In this way it is not an “amnesty” like the one extended in the 1980s, it acknowledges that a crime of some
One reasonable objection put forward by opponents of DAPA is that illegal immigrants have, by definition, violated the law. In that this is at first glance a powerful point, the question must be asked what kind of law has been violated? An argument could be made that the violation is in the failure to observe the normal laws of immigration. This is a kind of “negative” violation of law, not following a law is not the same as consciously breaking it, but more to the point, the laws that are broken are essentially civil in character, and thus to refer to undocumented immigrants as “by definition” criminals, as some more strident opponents of DAPA do, obfuscates an important factor in the nature of the crime. Frequently a crime that is non-violent can be settled by the payment of a fine. As illegal immigration is essentially a crime against territory, not unlike, for example, trespassing which is often remediable by a fine, then it follows that the “crime” of illegal immigration could be treated in a similar way. The least disruptive way to punish violators of the immigration laws, or at least the non-following of immigration laws would be to incur a financial penalty—perhaps a substantial one. This method of remediating immigration crimes would also have the benefit of providing the government with resources instead of depriving the government of resources (even if new staff were needed to process the payments, it would still be cheaper than hiring and paying enforcement staff to deport all the immigrants). The DAPA plan actually includes a fine for applicants so it already incorporates this aspect of remediation. In this way it is not an “amnesty” like the one extended in the 1980s, it acknowledges that a crime of some