EDITORIAL: DACA legislation failure leaves New Mexicans in limbo

Dec. 16—Sadly, 2023 is going to be another year of uncertainty for New Mexico's Dreamers, many of whom have lived much or most of their lives in the United States.

A last-minute push by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina to pass a bipartisan immigration deal by the end of the year has failed, leaving in limbo some 600,000 undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Legal challenges threaten the existence of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a policy former President Barack Obama issued by executive order in June 2012. It provides a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation, but not a pathway for citizenship.

Congress was not involved in the constitutionally dubious formulation of the policy. A federal judge in Texas who has previously found DACA to have been illegally implemented is set to rule on the program's legality once again next year. An injunction in July 2021 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas prohibits the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from granting new DACA requests. The U.S. Supreme Court could ultimately strike down DACA, creating an urgency for Congress to act.

The potential deal by Sinema and Tillis focused on providing a pathway to permanent legal status to Dreamers. It also sought to address Republican concerns about unprecedented levels of unauthorized immigrants, with 2.4 million attempted crossings in the year to October.

CBS News reported border-related items floated as part of the talks included increasing the salaries of Border Patrol agents and bolstering their ranks, providing additional funds to DHS for detention facilities and deportations, enacting additional penalties for migrants who do not attend their court hearings, the establishment of processing centers to determine whether migrants have credible asylum cases, and an extension of Title 42, a 2020 pandemic-related public-health rule that allows for the expedited removal of unauthorized immigrants and which is set to end on Dec. 21.

But negotiations in the Senate failed to gain enough traction to secure the necessary 60 votes to pass a bill during the lame-duck session. It's the latest failure of Congress to pass a law designed to overhaul an immigration system that hasn't been significantly updated since the 1990s.

The Sinema-Tillis bill wasn't perfect. Some Republicans, who will take control of the House next month, say the U.S. shouldn't be granting amnesty amid record numbers of unauthorized immigrants crossing the southern border. They want the border secured.

Some Democrats oppose extending Title 42, saying that would undermine the rights of asylum-seekers. They want a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.But potential House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says the GOP-controlled House won't take up immigration legislation until the border is secure.

So what is the definition of a secure border? Half of the 2.4 million attempted crossings, 100,000, or none at all?

It's ridiculous to hold immigration reform captive to a philosophical enigma.

Meanwhile, New Mexico has about 8,300 DACA-eligible residents, according to the state's Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

We are front and center in this congressional impasse. Many migrants are living in a desperate situation, worried they could be rounded up and deported at any time, including thousands who have only known the United States as their home country.

Congress has missed yet another opportunity to give Dreamers a pathway to legal status, while also missing an opportunity to better secure the border. Extremists on both sides are blocking needed reforms. Immigration reform shouldn't require a complete overhaul; it can, and probably should be done piecemeal because a complete overhaul has been elusive for decades.

A divided government, and divided people, require compromise. It's past time for Congress to unite on the most achievable aspects of immigration reform.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.