To DACA OR NOT TO DACA? That is the question.

The issue of whether to continue or not to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is making headlines these days.

Before continuing, I should point out 2 facts:

1. I have read that by discontinuing DACA "children" would be harmed in some way. The DACA program is not now nor ever was about "children", per se. To apply for the DACA program one must be/have been brought to this country illegally before their 16th birthday and can be/could have been as old as 31.

2. The DACA program is, itself, an "illegal" program. Even President Obama, who initiated the program in 2012, admitted so himself with an accurate discussion of the issue.

Whether any of us feel DACA should be or should not be illegal, it is illegal nonetheless. What should be important to us all is whether we are a Nation of Laws or not.

Further, Congress which has the actual authority to make laws - not the president, not any president - did absolutely nothing to curtail this executive order.

At the height of participation in DACA some 800,000 people fell under its umbrella. Currently there are approximately 690,000 people still protected by the DACA executive order.

The real question relative to the DACA program is: Should these people, i.e. "the Dreamers", be allowed to stay in our country or not?

Oh, I know; statistics are often used to support that these people should not be allowed to stay - these are mainly focused on the "non-contributory" nature of those in DACA. Examples are:

The problem with "Identity Politics" is simple and straightforward: Associating any individual with the actions, motives, or abilities of a "group" to which the individual may belong is erroneous, faulty, and unfair.

Now, as to these Dreamers, as they are called, even though they, in fact, are here illegally, they have stayed here based on a "trust" in the "good faith" of the United States government. And, even though the name of the DACA executive order gives a clue, i.e., "Deferred", or "later" just not now, is it right and just to simply deport them now? I think not.

Should they, instead, be granted citizenship? Also, I think not.

There are thousands of people who have applied for citizenship and who are, and have been, waiting and waiting and waiting to become citizens. To have a group of people "jump to the head of the line" is also faulty and unfair.

I feel the following is a reasonable and fair way to deal with the problem, a problem created by the US government and not by the so-called Dreamers.

   1. No new persons will be added to the "DACA" roles.

   2. For Dreamers who have a criminal history or are known to have gang affiliations, they should be deported immediately.

   3. Those who have a history of and are currently receiving State welfare benefits of any kind will have 6 months to self-deport; the applicable State government (which allowed the US taxpayer-funded welfare to be extended to non-citizens in the first place) to supply sufficient funds for their relocation if they can't afford to do so themselves.

   4. To all others, temporary "green cards" will be issued with the following stipulations:

      a) Such are only valid for 2 years (except as noted in #4.b, below).

      b) Dreamers who wish to stay are required to apply for citizenship immediately and be placed at "the back of the line". Prior issued "green cards" will be extended until citizenship is a reality.

      c) Those not wishing to become citizens have 2 years to self-deport at their own expense.

Whether we like our laws or not, we have the obligation to follow our laws - or change them. We do not enjoy the privilege to ignore them - or, at least, no person should have such privilege.

For an update to the DACA issue, Click Here.