Sun Sentinel (Op-Ed-Florida)
By Lizet Ocampo
May 20, 2015
May 19th would have been the day that approximately 163,000 thousand Floridian parents of U.S. Citizen children and legal permanent residents could have requested long awaited and much needed temporary relief from deportation through the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. However, Florida is one of the states that has brought a lawsuit to block implementation of the program, filed before one of the most conservative district judges. Business, faith, labor, community, and elected leaders are held events all across the country yesterday to demand an end to the lawsuit so parents in Florida and millions more across the country can move forward with their lives, without fear of being separated from their families.
Florida’s statewide elected leaders made the decision to join this lawsuit and block this program that would shield many American children from tragedy. Attorney General Pam Bond, Governor Rick Scott, and Lieutenant Governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera – who many expect will run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Marco Rubio – are all from the Republican Party. Additionally, votes in Congress against DAPA have been overwhelmingly partisan, with Democrats supporting DAPA and Republicans opposing. Even still, Miami-Dade County has committed to drafting a resolution in favor of Executive Actions, joining 3 other local governments in Florida who understand the importance of both DACA and DAPA programs for immigrant families and 253,000 Floridians, Florida’s economy, and the well-being of the country as a whole.
Wouldn’t it be great if our country’s GDP increased by $164 billion, incomes of all Americans went up by $88 billion, and 20,538 jobs were created each year over ten years? How about if payroll tax revenue increased by $16.7 billion over 5 years? That sure would help all Americans and Floridians, who were hit hard by the economic downturn. Recent analysis by the Center for American Progress found that we could do all that by simply implementing DAPA, a program that already exists and would have started yesterday were it not for the lawsuit.
And we’re not alone. The Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security Administration, and the Council of Economic Advisers have also found significant economic and fiscal gains from implementing the immigration directives.
Even if the moral and economic benefits of the program are not enough to persuade elected leaders to support DAPA, one would expect the potential electoral consequences to give them pause. Opposition to DAPA is motivating key and growing voting demographics against them, while champions of DAPA are mobilizing support.
Nationally, 5.5 million U.S. citizen children have a DAPA-eligible parent, and over 185,000 of these citizen children live in Florida. It is impossible to ignore the fact that these are all current and future voters. Across the country, more than half a million of these children can already vote, a number that will grow to 1.7 million by 2020. In Florida, these new voters would comprise 70 percent of the margin of victory in 2012. And these figures do not even include other citizens of voting age who are direct family members or live in “mixed-status” households.
We know that the immigrant population is comprised of largely Latino individuals. As a whole, Latinos will be 13 percent of the 2016 voting eligible population nationally, and 18 percent in Florida. In fact, 3.3 million new voters between 2012 and 2016 will be Latino, and about 2 million of these voters are children of immigrants. Moreover, there’s an additional 700,000 naturalized citizens each year, and in 2013, we already had 19.3 million naturalized voting citizens.
Ample evidence already shows that Latino voters care deeply about DAPA. Polls find that 89 percent of Latinos support the immigration actions. In fact, Americans broadly favor DAPA policy by a 76 to 19 percent margin.
Given the economic benefits of DAPA, and considering electoral demographics, it seems that presidential candidates should be clear on their positions: As President of the United States, do they believe they would have the authority to implement DAPA? And, would they implement it?
But both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have provided unclear and confusing answers to these questions. The latest understanding is that Bush would undo the actions by passing reform, without addressing the specifics of reform. Does Bush mean he would implement DAPA until comprehensive reform that protects these and other individuals is passed? Does he believe the president has the authority to implement DAPA? Marco Rubio has said he would eliminate DAPA and would try to push for reform. Does that mean he would eliminate DAPA before there are protections for these parents while Congress tries to come to an agreement on an unspecified reform? In contrast, Hillary Clinton has not only expressed support for the executive actions and announced the hiring of DREAMer activist Lorella Praeli, she would expand actions to protect additional undocumented individuals. Voters deserve straightforward answers on whether parents of U.S. citizen children will be protected by the DAPA program – a program that provides significant economic benefits for all and hits close to home, and most often in the home, for so many Floridians and Americans.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment