On June 15, 2012, then Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, announced the implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Announced via memorandum, this policy would allow undocumented people no older than age thirty to gain prosecutorial discretion and avoid removal proceedings. Applicants can also apply for employment authorization, which would grant a temporary work permit as well as a Social Security Number. This, of course, hinged on several crucial factors including physical presence in the United States, having come to the United States under age 16, and a clean criminal record (“Deferred Action Overview, 2015). The program, like many programs under United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
…show more content…
DACA evidences the combination of these two principles at work and will continue to do so if one promotes the policy and allows it to continue. This becomes especially salient for the undocumented population, as there are no viable alternatives to DACA at this time. Moreover, simply removing this policy would be ineffective and detrimental to the lives of the hundreds of thousands of applicants, as it would leave them with even less protection under the law. Despite popular opinion, Deferred Action does not grant much to undocumented immigrants in terms of rights, though it does offer significant opportunities. Applying and being accepted for Deferred Action does not guarantee anything for these unDACAmented individuals – they cannot realistically ask for any of the provisions listed in the policy to be enforced (Arco, 2014). Because of this, the individuals who apply are operating under their own enlightened self-interest with the understanding that their decision would certainly benefit themselves, but also the country. Moral freedom is also evident in the application of this policy as unDACAmented individuals are considering not only the external forces they are subject to, but also their own …show more content…
It is also not viable and unethical to remove this without an alternative policy option like the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act or amnesty for those already in the country and who can prove continuous presence. Both of these options seem to fit within the hybrid deontological and utilitarian framework, though there would be some challenges like equitable access for low-income families. Current humanitarian benefits for unDACAmented individuals will translate into economic developments, making Marco Rubio’s adamant refusal of Deferred Action rhetorical and
DACA evidences the combination of these two principles at work and will continue to do so if one promotes the policy and allows it to continue. This becomes especially salient for the undocumented population, as there are no viable alternatives to DACA at this time. Moreover, simply removing this policy would be ineffective and detrimental to the lives of the hundreds of thousands of applicants, as it would leave them with even less protection under the law. Despite popular opinion, Deferred Action does not grant much to undocumented immigrants in terms of rights, though it does offer significant opportunities. Applying and being accepted for Deferred Action does not guarantee anything for these unDACAmented individuals – they cannot realistically ask for any of the provisions listed in the policy to be enforced (Arco, 2014). Because of this, the individuals who apply are operating under their own enlightened self-interest with the understanding that their decision would certainly benefit themselves, but also the country. Moral freedom is also evident in the application of this policy as unDACAmented individuals are considering not only the external forces they are subject to, but also their own …show more content…
It is also not viable and unethical to remove this without an alternative policy option like the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act or amnesty for those already in the country and who can prove continuous presence. Both of these options seem to fit within the hybrid deontological and utilitarian framework, though there would be some challenges like equitable access for low-income families. Current humanitarian benefits for unDACAmented individuals will translate into economic developments, making Marco Rubio’s adamant refusal of Deferred Action rhetorical and