The DACA program is meant to temporarily protect undocumented children from deportation as long as they are crime-free and on the path to contributing to this country (with a work permit and high school graduation or military experience). I don’t feel it’s fair for kids (must have been under the age of 16 when they came to the U.S.) to be held responsible for their parents’ actions of bringing them into the country illegally. Additionally, the requirements for these kids to be eligible for DACA makes sure that these kids are positively contributing to our society or at least are on the path to, which is one of the main concerns for Americans. For these reasons, I think that the DACA program and the expansion of it (from 2 to 3 years) is giving immigrant children an even greater opportunity to be in a better economic standing than their parents.

In addition to the expansion of DACA, Obama created the DAPA program. I believe these two go hand in hand because if parents are deported, children will be forced to bring themselves up. However, how can we expect these children to contribute to our society if they don’t have anyone giving them proper guidance and support. In many cases, we see kids born in this country turn to drugs and violence because their families are broken. Now if we see this with our own kids who are usually in a better standing than immigrant children, then just imagine how much harder it is for these immigrant children to stay on the right path when in an unfamiliar country all by themselves. In all, without DAPA, the contributions made by these children will be less and thus, I believe DACA and DAPA are sort of a package deal, if one law is in place then the other should too and vice versa. In addition to this reason, it is simply the right thing to do; DAPA helps keep families together as opposed to breaking them apart.

On a different note, I believe Federal Law should have a final say over immigration matters because it is a matter that really does affect the country as a whole. Moreover, when someone illegally immigrates, they are illegally entering the Unites Sates not a specific state such as Texas. However, Mansha brought up a valid point about immigration being totally different in one state, such as Texas and another, such as New York. In order to accommodate for different circumstances in different states, perhaps very minor modifications can be made by individual states to DACA and DAPA to better fit a state’s specific needs.

So, in the case of Batalla Vidal vs. Baran, I think Mr. Vidal brought up a valid argument that Texas’ injunction should not apply to New York residents like him, instead the court of New York should rule on what should happen to him. Mr. Vidal is working 2 jobs while in school pursuing a medical assistant degree which shows he is continuing to contribute to our society. Also, given that New York favored the expansion of DACA and the creation of DAPA, it is likely that New York would’ve ruled in his favor. Therefore, I believe the ruling wasn’t fair; Mr. Vidal shouldn’t be subject to Texas’ ruling and he should be able to keep his 3-year permit.