“Mom hid a present for you in the basement.”
“Last time you said that, you locked me downstairs for three hours.”
“This time I won’t.”
Before Matt Groening gained wealth and fame from The Simpsons, he drew a bleakly funny series of comic books. That snippet of dialogue comes from one of them. It also explains a lot of the negative reaction to President Obama’s immigration proposals: There’s a long record of broken promises in this policy domain.
The record stretches back to the immigration reform of 1986. That year, Congress enacted an amnesty for illegal immigrants joined to promises of more effective enforcement in future. Instead of halting law-breaking, however, the 1986 reform enabled more of it. Immigration officials detected fraud in one-third of the applicants for the specialized amnesty for agricultural workers. Some applicants had never worked in the fields a day in their lives. Some had been convicted of crimes. Some weren’t the people they said they were. Some were disqualified for other reasons. Yet 90 percent of the 1.3 million applications were approved regardless.
Thirty years later, the question of good faith has again become urgent to the immigration debate.
To pry open the door of a wider amnesty, Obama and congressional Democrats have directed attention to a subsection of the illegal-immigrant population: young people who were brought to the United States as children, the poetically named “Dreamers.” They proposed a law to offer citizenship to this population—and through them, eventually and ultimately their parents and other relatives. (The original DREAM Act provided for a multiyear delay before Dreamers could sponsor parents and siblings. But DREAM’s most important purpose was to smooth the way for a more comprehensive reform for the benefit of a wider illegal population.)
Prospects for Congress passing a big immigration bill have, however, dimmed since the DREAM Act was proposed in the first Obama term. So in June 2012, as the election neared, Obama announced unilateral executive action: He would defer enforcement against the Dreamers, offering them a temporary legal-residency status in the United States. In doing so, Obama was stretching executive powers into the area of lawmaking about as far as any president has ever stretched them. He justified his bold move with three main claims:
- Dreamers have sunk deep roots in the United States. They have no other home.
- Minor children should not be held culpable for their parents’ law-breaking.
- The Dreamers are gaining the skills and education to contribute to American society.
Here’s Obama in his own words, first in 2012, in the speech announcing deferred action against Dreamers:
These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants, and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license or a college scholarship.
Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you’ve done everything right your entire life, studied hard, worked hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class, only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country that you know nothing about, with a language that you may not even speak.
And here he is again, even more emphatically, at a fundraiser in June 2014:
So these young people are graduating, ready to go to college, but also certified nurses, EMT folks. Many of them are choosing to join the military and will contribute to our country in this way. And looking out as I was speaking to them and then shaking their hands, and giving them hugs and high-fives and all the things that kids do on a graduation, I thought to myself: How could we not want to invest in these kids?
The truth is more complicated and more difficult.
To put substance behind his three arguments, Obama put some important conditions on applicants for “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”:
- They must have entered the United States before age 16 and continuously resided in the United States from 2007 to 2012.
- They must have a clean criminal record: no felony conviction, no major misdemeanors and no more than three petty misdemeanors.
- They must have graduated from high school, or be currently enrolled in school, or have gained honorable discharge from the armed forces.
Those sound like defined and enforceable conditions. In practice, they are proving anything but. From the start, the requirements of “continuous residency” and “no more than three misdemeanors” were highly porous. Now, as the first wave of DACA applicants seek renewal of their two-year status, it’s becoming clear that the education requirements will mean even less.
In immigration law, “continuous residence” does not mean what it seems to mean in ordinary speech. Immigration law allows people to claim “continuous residence” even if they return to their country of origin for visits (plural!) of up to six months each.