Abstract
Executive Summary Will recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) leave the United States if a legal challenge succeeds in ending this important program? The fate of over 600,000 current DACA recipients may depend on answers to this question in one expert report and one online survey question, which a Texas District Court found to show “a quantifiable percentage” would leave. Had the District Court in its DACA ruling not credited these sources, Texas’ lawsuit could have collapsed, and DACA would persist. The issue of whether DACA recipients will leave if DACA is ended will matter as this case is litigated, most likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. Drawing on research on immigrant return, DACA recipients, survey questions, priming, and intention-behavior gap, this paper argues that this expert report and the single online survey question used by the District Court cannot support the inferences regarding the return of DACA recipients to their birth countries. Rather, relevant research points toward DACA recipients staying in the United States, even if DACA were terminated. The paper recommends offering DACA recipients and long term undocumented residents a short path to legal status and citizenship, reassessing whether these two sources can support the conclusions drawn by the District Court; and analyzing the benefits accruing from DACA to Texas and all Texans, including US citizen children of DACA recipients, in assessing the claimed injury to the state.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.