Pros And Cons Of DACA Argument

The article gives valid points for both sides of the DACA argument. What people against DACA say is that immigrants should be allowed to stay if they come in the right way. However what they don’t know is that there is no right way to become a citizen in the United States. The people on the other side of the argument say that there is no clear way to becoming a citizen. The two people the article focuses on is Geraldine Donahue and Ana Alberto, an 84-year-old Trump supporter and a 23-year-old DACA recipient, respectively. Donahue says she doesn’t mind immigrants but she wants them to enter the country the right way. Alberto said her main concern, is that if DACA is taken out before Washington has a permanent solution than those in the program

The claim that the article makes is that the path to better immigration is through reform and that DACA needs to go away to make way for a better solution. Their reasoning behind this is that DACA is not a good system for immigrants becoming citizens. Members are only given protection as long as it’s instated. They get $500 dollars every two years, the chance to pay taxes, an opportunity to work, and get licenses within the program. The program does not make them permanent citizens, nor does it put them on a path towards gaining citizenship. It is merely a temporary fix for the bigger issue of a broken immigration system. They reason that their claim is true by offering up two personal stories of what people from both sides are saying and thinking. By putting the stories together, the author shows us that the two arguments are not so different after all. The warrant that the article rests on is that the reader has empathy for those coming into the country and that the reader wants immigrants to stay within the country. There is no counter-claim because the article chooses to focus on a middle ground between two arguments. It acts as a bridge between two mindsets so that the sides can come together to work on a

DACA was a temporary solution to a bigger problem; it was never meant to last forever. However, what I don’t really agree with is getting rid of the program without something else protecting the people who were a part of DACA. If the program is removed and there is nothing for the recipients to go to, we could be facing a bigger and more pressing crisis. DACA offered protection and without it the people who were once recipients could be targeted for deportation. There’s also the issue of DACA having all the information of the people within the program. If it is dissolved where will that information go and who will hold it? Could the information be given or maybe even leaked to deportation officers? Before DACA is dissolved, I think more concerns should be raised about these issues so that the people of DACA are not left vulnerable. Before they get rid of it, there should be some sort of program which does a better job than what DACA did which will make sure to pick up the people who were in the program as soon as it is ended. Overall I agree with the author in regards to what should be done to improve immigration, but what I find contention with is the limbo-like state the undocumented immigrants may find themselves in without a program like DACA