Migration Policies in Latin America

While the US wrestles with immigration reform, the topic of migration policies is also making headlines in the rest of America.  As regional immigration increases in volume, countries that are not accustomed to the social, political and economic impacts of immigration have to grapple with this difficult issue.  In Latin America this phenomenon is clearly defined both in terms of countries that are emerging as new destinations for regional migrants, as well as countries that serve as transition points for migrants moving through on their way to somewhere else.  In South America, for example, the emergence of Chile as a new destination for regional migration has heralded new political and social consequences for the once-isolated country.  In Central America, the flow of migrants toward Mexico and the US has forced governments there to respond with stronger administrative agencies and the dedication of more resources to deal with the impact of migratory flows through the region.

Recent developments include:

The Bolivian parliament has passed a large migration law that hopes to regulate the entry, passage and settlement of migrants in that country.  The law appears to be a technical response for coordinating administrative efforts at regulation by creating a National Council on Migration.  The law also includes measures that seek to protect the rights of immigrants.  For example, the law proposes to assure the ability of foreigners to attend universities for free in Bolivia, on par with Bolivian nationals.

Meanwhile, Brazil has sent a delegation of lower house members to Bolivia to discuss issues related to migration concerning both countries.  Human trafficking and slavery in and around Sao Paolo are among the issues discussed by the delegation.  There are an estimated 100,000 Bolivians living in conditions of slavery due to their undocumented status in Brazil.  A commission in the lower house also discussed the need for Brazil to finance “work centers” in Bolivia to stem the tide of migrants into Brazil.

In Columbia, the migration regulation agency has been attempting to issue new identification cards to immigrants, but has delayed release of the new cards.  The delay has caused doubts among immigrants who are unsure if their old cards are still valid, as well as frustration because new cards have been announced repeatedly but have not yet been released.  The Colombian government also has special migratory relationships through the Comunidad Andina and MERCOSUR regional integration schemes.   

Similarly in Ecuador, the government is under fire for slow and insufficient immigration inspection at its principle airport in Guayaquil.  While the airport has recently been rated as one of the best in the world for its size, serving between 2 – 5 million passengers annually, complaints abound because of the long lines and wait period for passengers to pass through immigration checkpoints.    

The Mexican lower house unanimously passed legislation that seeks to protect children and adolescent migrants travelling alone.  The bill instructs the National Migration Institute to direct detained youth to family development-oriented agencies where these youth can obtain housing and other attention.  The intent of the bill is to increase the protection of the rights of young unaccompanied migrants.

Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize Winner Rigoberta Menchú is calling on government to make immigration an integral part of their work.  She noted that embassies in the region are not responsive to the needs of migrants and governments should not leave all of the work to under-financed NGOs.

In Honduras, President Lobo has given a presidential commission 60 days to reorganize the National Department of Foreigners and Migration quoting the need to bolster the agency to confront the threat of terrorism and organized crime.  Among the goals of the commission is the strengthening of documents to prevent fraud, especially in the face of heightened demand for passports by the Honduran populace.

Costa Rica´s immigration agency has recently been called to task after a newspaper report revealed the illicit trafficking of Nicaraguan migrants to work on the orange harvest in the border area.  The director of the agency said an investigation of the situation would be undertaken and at least 115 people have been identified in the exploitive trafficking of laborers.    

The government of the Dominican Republic is taking measures to provide documentation to Haitians living along the border between the two countries in a push to enforce an “ordered, restrictive and legal” migration policy.  The regularization seeks to introduce governmental regulation into a largely irregular and uncontrolled border area.

A Risk of Temporary Labor Programs

As US policymakers slog towards a possible reform to the US immigration system, talk of a temporary work program hangs in the air.  Temporary labor programs have a long history in modern immigration regimes in both the developed and developing world.  However, at least in the US and Europe these programs have often resulted in less-than-desirable outcomes.   Some of the more well-known are the Bracero Program in the US during the 1940s and 50s as well as the wave of temporary worker programs that swept Europe during the 1970s.  These programs can be seen as less-than-desirable because they led to wide spread abuse of immigrants as well as a spike in undocumented populations and social polarization around the issue of immigration.  However, the interest in temporary labor programs has not disappeared.

From a policy standpoint these temporary programs are ideal for spurring economic growth and filling gaps in the domestic labor markets.  At the same time allowing working people only temporary access generally curbs the potential impact on social welfare programs geared to the very young and very old.  Thus, policymakers in democratic countries are logically drawn to such programs because they appear to offer a politically safe compromise between business interests and domestic social groups.  Since the early days of these programs, governments have become more effective at tracking people and thus limiting the increase of undocumented immigration as temporary workers overstay.  It seems that hope springs eternal for these types of programs, especially in the developed world.  Whether or not temporary labor programs actually achieve any of these goals is a topic for scholarly debate.  In fact, some have indicated that temporary labor programs have much more insidious effects on society (but that debate is for another day).

Setting aside the macro economic and social policy debate, one of the major flaws in temporary labor programs is that they generally fail the immigrants themselves.  This failure is a structural consequence inevitable from the beginning of any such program.  By conceiving of immigrants as a source of labor, policy makers begin conceptualizing immigrants not as people, but as inputs into an economic equation.  There is little in the way of a democratic backstops to check this type of objectification thinking.  While elected officials have strong political incentives to ensure that temporary programs do not spur illegal overstay, there is no incentive to ensure that temporary programs are treating immigrants (read: non-voters) well.  Thus the stage is set for abuse.

Another structural element that necessarily leads to abuse of temporary immigrants is the economic drive for instituting the programs in the first place.  A temporary immigrant labor program is designed to save costs on labor.  Simply put, domestic labor is too expensive to entice into taking the jobs offered at the salaries they are offered at.  By starting out with cost savings as the motor of these labor programs it is not a stretch to see abuses stemming from this same logic.  Poor working and housing conditions, long hours and underpayment are among the most common problems.  Because temporary workers lack any political voice, there are few incentives to stop this type of abuse.

The extent of the problem recently came to light involving a scandal at an Amazon.com warehouse in Bad Hersfeld in Germany.  A documentary film exposed harassment and poor conditions for temporary workers brought in from Poland and Spain to work during the Christmas rush.  This is a surprising story for two reasons:  First it involves a business and industry with a high profile.  Often temporary immigrant workers are in agriculture or domestic service where they are largely hidden from the mainstream consciousness of society.  Second, this scandal involved workers from countries with special rights in Germany.  Both Poland and Spain are members of the Schengen agreement and Spain is a member of the European Union.  These agreements entitle citizens of these countries political rights in Germany, far and above the situation of most temporary workers.  Despite better access to the system, these workers found themselves in an abusive and exploitative situation.

The take-away from this recent scandal is that even in highly developed countries with pro-active immigrant protection and integration programs (such as Germany), temporary immigrant labor lends itself to abuse.  When policy-makers are considering implementing such programs political and human rights protections must be built in specifically, because temporary immigrant workers lack the ability to protect themselves.  The Amazon case grabbed news headlines because it involved a popular, 21-century firm and took place in Europe and between Europeans.  The simple fact is that most of the abuses of temporary immigrant labor occur without media attention and involve even more politically vulnerable groups.  Thus, while temporary immigration policies appear attractive to elected leaders, they must be carefully crafted and thoroughly scrutinized.  

Costa Rica's Immigration

With all of the attention in the US focused on a possible attempt at comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, it can be easy for writers on the topic of immigration in this country (such as myself) to forget that immigration is a global phenomenon.   Given the name of this blog it seems that I have given disproportionate attention to the US migration order and today’s entry is the first step toward ameliorating this major oversight. 

One of the most interesting sub-notes in the US immigration debate is that a recent report by the Pew Hispanic Research Center has found that net migration from Mexico to the US has reversed or at least reached zero.  Among other findings the report mentions that increased opportunities within Mexico are diverting migrants who may have considered migrating to the US in the past.  Mexico has been and continues to be an important transit route for Central Americans seeking entry into the US.  While the US may be the primary destination for Central American migrants, it is not the only one. 

Costa Rica has long had a profile as a net receptor of migrants.  Because the small Central American country has an extensive tradition of political and social stability as well as a history of promoting human rights, Costa Rica has been a magnet for regional migrants.  Statistical data offers a rough sketch of the growing migrant population in Costa Rica. According to census figures the immigrant population accounted for only 1.3% of the total population in the early 1970s.  This proportion grew rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s to reach 7.5% of the total population in 2000.  Since the turn of the millennium the growth of immigrant stocks in Costa Rica has tapered off and now represents roughly 8.1% of the total population.  In a country of just over 4.5 million people, this equates to 370,000 or so immigrants.

According to a recent study Nicaraguans represent the vast majority of immigrants in Costa Rica at nearly 75% of the total immigrant population. According to the IOM around 12% of the population of Nicaragua has emigrated, driven by poverty, poor working conditions and youth unemployment.  Political unrest, as well as natural disasters, were the motor behind the massive arrival of Nicaraguans into the country.  This trend was principally due to the ease of entry and the ability of people to cross in and out of the country will minimal cost or risk.  However, since 2000 these push and pull factors have largely subsided.  Several immigration laws passed during the 2000s introduced harsh measures to combat undocumented immigration.  In particular, these reforms introduced criminal penalties for unauthorized presence in the country.  Some of these harsh measures were eased in later reforms that introduced humanitarian considerations to the immigration law. 

With respect to insertion in the society, Nicaraguan men tend to outnumber Costa Rican men in the agriculture and construction sectors, while Nicaraguan women tend to be overrepresented in domestic labor.  This trend parallels immigrant insertion patterns in many developed countries including the US and Spain. 

Another trend that is reflected in the modern migration order in Costa Rica that is present throughout the region is the increasing presence of Colombian migrants.  Between 2000 and 2010, the number of immigrants from Colombia has doubled in Costa Rica.  A similar, if somewhat less striking trend can be seen in Chile.  The exodus of Colombians has been occurring over the past two decades in response to political violence and economic insecurity.  However, as traditional destinations such as Spain and the US tighten restrictions on entry, the flow of emigrants from Colombia has also spread out in Latin America.  Regional migration such as this offers many benefits over traditional destinations.  In particular, immigrating to Costa Rica is less expensive and dangerous than longer trajectories for Colombian migrants.  While the potential income disparities are less between Costa Rica and Colombia, being close to home allows for more return travel and a closer connection with family and friends left behind.  This is an important consideration in light of the fact that many immigrants consider their travels abroad to be temporary movements.  Thus, the high barriers to entry and the sometimes prohibitive costs of emigrating to Europe or the US make local destinations such as Costa Rica attractive.

The impact on Costa Rican society by the arrival of immigrants into their society has been nuanced.  Costa Rica is far from a socially homogenous society.  The four principle cities of the Central Valley make up the bulk of Costa Rica’s population, but the country is far from homogenous.  Along the Caribbean coast in the province of Limon a large Caribbean population resides, accounting for nearly all of Costa Rica’s West Indian population.  Along the northern Pacific coast in the province of Guanacaste, los guanacastecos represent a mestizo mix unique from the populations in the Central Valley.  Increasing numbers of foreigners challenge the society in many of the same ways witnessed in other countries with large percentages of foreign-born people.  However, Costa Rica’s long tradition of receiving immigrant communities from Europe and other areas has made the social fabric at least marginally more receptive to outsiders.

What remains to be seen in countries such as Costa Rica is the ability of a government with limited resources to deal with immigration in a controlled and beneficial manner.  The challenges to countries with emerging, but fragile economies are great and the potential for backlash against immigrant populations cannot be discounted.  Costa Rica is a unique example in the Americas, particularly Central America, because of its long tradition of human rights defense and the promotion of democracy.  How these values grow and flourish in a society that is increasingly multicultural is a key component of developing peaceful and prosperous societies in an increasingly diverse world.

A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan (3 easy steps)

The state of the world at the close of 2012 has not helped prioritize immigration reform as a short-term goal of the US government.  The self-imposed fiscal crisis, gun violence, Syrian civil war, political chaos in Egypt and the continuing economic problems in Europe are all issues that crowd legislators’ agendas.  However, the wheels of reform may have been set in motion by the demographic political imperatives looming in the next election.  Put simply, the Republicans feel out of touch with growing Latino and Asian populations and there are murmurs that immigration reform could be a key issue.  The political impetus for this push is clearly to win the hearts and minds of these growing segments of voters.  However, the economic impetus for immigration reform may be far more compelling. 

A recent Economist article examining the oncoming “demographic squeeze” bears ill news for the US.  While US population growth is still faster than every developed country and trails only India and China in percent growth, decreases in fertility, immigration and population aging are all taking their toll on the US economy.  Consumers of US news can see this manifest in the ongoing Social Security and MediCare crises and the diminishing ability of today’s workers to supports today’s pensioners.  The US is not alone in facing the Malthusian risk associated with economic and social development. With fewer young people and larger elderly populations living longer than ever, the ability of the state and the economy to support the current structure is cast in serious doubt.  Dire demographic forecasts have been made about China. The European Union may turn to promoting immigration in order to escape the trap of an ageing population and ballooning public debt.  The US hardly needs to promote immigration.  What policy makers need to do is facilitate immigration.

The work of economist Giovanni Perri would be a great first stop for legislators worried either about Malthus or reelection. In his recent policy paper Dr. Perri proposes a market-based regime for employment visas.  This would replace the first-come, first-served and lottery systems now being used.  By allowing employers to bid on employment visas, market efficiencies would distribute these scarce resources to most interested employers.  This is only the first step in what Dr. Perri sets out as a three phase plan for comprehensive immigration reform.

Phase one includes an auction for temporary employment visas, like the H-1B and H-2.  This visa auction places employers at the center of the decision-making process while reducing transaction costs such as legal fees.  A minimum price could be set by the government to cover the costs of the auction and the tracking database, which Dr. Perri estimates could easily be set at $7,000 for the three-year H-1B.  Immigrants coming to the US on these visas would not be tied to any particular employer and could circulate freely in the labor market as employers barter for immigrants and their visas on a secondary market.  By treating these employees as normal members of the labor pool, employment visas would no longer need to be encumbered by the byzantine labor verification system.  This process requires employers to prove that a position filled by an immigrant employee cannot be filled by a native worker and is a long, drawn-out bureaucratic exercise.

Phase two calls for the simplification of visa categories.  The current system for employment visas involves a wide array of visas (H, I, L, Q, R and TN) that are valid for differing periods of time.  

The second phase of this comprehensive reform plan calls for collapsing all of these categories into three simple classes: C, NC and S.  These new groups would be aimed at college educated work, non-college educated work and seasonal work respectively.  The first two new visas would be valid for five years while the last would be valid for twelve months.  This visa revamp would also abolish the distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” visas.  All visas would be considered provisional with the option of applying for permanence at their expiration.  Dr. Perri argues that this incentivizes rational self-selection among immigrants to decide if they wish to save and return to their countries of origin or if they wish to remain in the US.  The ability to seamlessly incorporate immigrant workers with five years or more of experience into the labor market as legal permanent residents would be a boon for employers, workers and the economy as a whole.

The third phase proposes expanding the provisions of the first two phases to the wider immigration regime.  Thus a new balance should be struck between family- and employment-based visas.  Adult children and siblings of US citizens should be diverted into the employment visa system.  National quotas should be eliminated and provisional visas should be granted to graduates of four-year universities in the US.  Along with these expansions, the current undocumented population should be folded into the system through a regimented process towards residence.

Dr. Perri offers convincing arguments and sufficient detail for a well-balanced debate over the merits of his proposals.  As an economist, his affinity for hard numbers and modeling lends itself to a tone of reasonableness that has long been absent in the immigration reform debate.  The political pitfalls of pushing through this type of reform may still be daunting, but the demographic and economic impetus for the changes outlined in this plan will only drive the need for its serious consideration.  Anyone looking for some content to insert into their comprehensive immigration reform package should certainly consult with Dr. Perri.

Immigration Reform in the US after the 2012 Elections?

On the heels of a very interesting panel held at UC Davis discussing immigration reform in the United States after the 2012 elections, I thought I would share some musings.

Mitt Romney’s overwhelming loss among Hispanic and Asian voters may have been a critical juncture for the Republican Party.

Demographic change in the US is nothing new, but political adaptation to shifting realities occurs in fits and starts.  During the recent election the national Republican message appealed primarily to non-Hispanic whites.  However, according to the US census non-Hispanic whites fell from 69.1% of the national population to 63.7% between 2000 and 2010.  Meanwhile, Hispanic and Asian populations rose from 12.5 to 16.3% and 3.6 to 4.8% respectively.  Of course these gross demographic shifts don’t indicate who will come out to vote, let alone who is eligible to vote.  But the trend is clear.  In the key swing states for the 2012 election, minority populations are growing, especially in the south and west. 

Strong anti-immigrant rhetoric from Republicans has arguably driven Latinos away from the party.  While George W. Bush and John McCain appear to have garnered around 31% of the Latino votes in 2004 and 2008, Mitt Romney appears to have gained only 23% of the Latino vote.  Romney’s poor showing comes despite the fact that President Obama has overseen the largest deportation initiative in US history.    The fact remains that a rash of anti-immigrant laws in Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Mississippi has been laid at the Republican door step.  The rejection of the DREAM Act and various “English-only” initiatives has not helped Republicans with Latinos. 

A new republican Super PAC reflects hand-wringing in the party that this strident nativist pandering is costing Republicans on the national stage.  The organization hopes to offer a pro-immigrant position that Republicans can use and attempt to steer the party dialogue away from demographically untenable positions.  The jury is out as to whether this initiative will gain substantial momentum and actually reshape the political discourse surrounding immigration.  Democrats appear to have very little incentive to spend political capital on immigration reform as long as Republicans continue to drive away minority and Latino voters.  A fundamental change in the Republican Party could change all that.

Economic crisis and new immigration trends and fallout

As the European debt crisis grinds on, immigration continues to inch toward the center of political debate, especially in Southern Europe.  A startling rise in xenophobic Greek activists and the bully-pulpit commandeered by the extreme right-wing party Golden Dawn should give EU leaders pause.  While Golden Dawn holds only 6.9% of the unicameral Greek legislature, less than the Greek Communist Party, the impact on immigration politics cannot be understated.  The EU took an unprecedented step of sanctioning Austria in 1999 when the far right, anti-immigrant Freedom Party (FPO) took second in legislative elections.  The sanctions were quickly lifted, but the FPO has fallen only slightly in popularity.  The fear in Europe is the re-emergence of a radical, nationalist right which in the modern world pivots on the issues of immigration as a proxy for race, religion and class.  

As the economic outlook deteriorates further and further, pressure mounts from nativist segments of society to curtail immigration and limit immigrants’ rights.  Greece is currently the hotspot for European immigration as FRONTEX reports land crossings between Greece and Turkey spiking in 2010.  While this shift may be the result of increased spending on interdiction efforts at sea, it is also likely that the economic downturn has modified the cost-benefit structure of immigration to Europe.  That is to say, Europe is becoming less of a magnet for immigrants due to the prolonged economic and political turmoil.

As witnessed in the United States, the most effective means for stemming the tide of “unwanted” immigration is economic stagnation.  A well-publicized, but perhaps under-recognized Pew Research publication declared that Mexican immigration to the US has fallen to net zero.  This is a subtlety shocking development considering the recent history of Mexican immigration to the US and the resultant political overreactions and polarizations.  It does not appear that the political imagination of the nation has yet grasped this polarity shift in immigration to US.  Immigration remains synonymous with Mexican in the popular discourse.  However, this trend is not an anomaly.  

Various studies find parallels in Europe, this despite several intervening variables not present in the US-Mexico migration order. The first being a much wider gap in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita between Europe and its direct southern neighbors than between the US and Mexico.  According to World Bank statistics, average Mexican PPP per capita is 30% of that of the US, while the PPP per capita differential between only Italy, Spain and Greece and northern African countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt is only 22%.  This brief comparison does not take into account income disparities in more remote migrant origins such as the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.    A second important factor has been the “Arab Spring” which launched many countries along Europe’s southern border into political and economic chaos.  The results have not been as dire as some predicted because while foreign investment and tourism receipts fell dramatically, rising commodity prices, especially oil, have offset some of the impact.  Regardless, this socio-political shift has spurred extraordinary immigration to Europe, in turn fueling anti-immigration rhetoric within Europe.  Witness the spat between France and Italy as France temporarily closed its border to prevent the entry of immigrants fleeing the violence in Libia, many of whom landed in Lampedusa, Italy.  Essentially, immigration to Europe is slowing despite persistent push-factor pressure.

The take-away from both of the European and American cases is by no means clear.  Economic downturn has coincided with heightened enforcement and border pushback, so it is nearly impossible to single out a key driving factor.  While immigration has not played any noticeable role in the US presidential elections, it has become an important political touchstone in European elections.  Perhaps the most interesting fallout from this glacial shift in the global migration order is the reversal of some migration flows to and from Europe.  While the trend is still only nascent, Spanish emigrants are increasingly heading to destinations in Latin America to escape the unchecked deterioration of the Spanish economy.  There are signs that Greeks are increasingly crossing the Bosphorus against the traditional tide of immigration to look for opportunities in Turkey. It is still too early to tell if these signs of movement will indeed ripen into migration trends, but the coming decade will certainly be marked by new global immigration trends.  

Immigration "reform" in the US

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals “DACA” is Presidents Obama’s initiative to offer some type of movement in the stagnated area of immigration reform in the US.  While it appears to be receiving an enthusiastic response by some, DACA raises more questions than it answers both in form and substance. 

First of all, while Obama’s administration is considering DACA to be an enforcement issue, it is questionable that the executive actually has the power to take these steps.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano considers DACA an “exercise in prosecutorial discretion.”  However, offering Social Security numbers to undocumented individuals seems to be much more comprehensive than merely deciding not to proceed with deportation prosecution.  It has not taken opponents long to seize on this fact, criticizing the administration for everything from a presidential power-grab to election-year pandering.  In my analysis, this initiative does appear to be more of a decree than anything else.  While presidential decrees are not considered a formal part of the US system of government as they are in other parts of the region, the exercise of presidential action like this fits in with a trend.  Over the past few administrations we have seen various means for presidents to increase their law-making power such as line item vetoes or signing statements that resemble this decree method of governing.  The fact that President Obama is using the same, especially in the face of near constant filibuster in Congress, should not surprise. The question here is what does this initiative do to advance real immigration reform?  Is DACA in fact setting precedent for future reform efforts?

In essence, DACA offers a narrowly defined group of undocumented individuals the opportunity to apply for a limited right to stay in the US.  For a processing fee of around $450 people who are under 30, have arrived in the US before they were 16, have lived here continuously for 5 years and have graduated from or are enrolled in a university or have served in the military will be offered a two-year temporary stay.   This temporary status may be renewed and includes the assignment of a Social Security number, which is essential to living and working legally in the US.  However, it does not offer a path to citizenship or even permanent residence.  This raises several very important issues.

First, DACA appears on its face to be creating a new category of immigrant in the US.  That is, a legal taxpayer with no opportunity to fully engage in the rights of US residents. (It is unclear how an individual with a valid Social Security number would be excluded from rights that other permanent residents enjoy).  Political scientists and human rights activists alike should shudder at the thought of administratively establishing a non-voting taxpayer.  It is wholly inconsistent with the foundations of a country created on the maxim of “no taxation without representation.”

Second, it creates yet another temporary immigrant category.  If anything should be learned from the immigration debacle in Spain, it is that temporary immigration categories create havoc, not only for the individuals, but also the granting and enforcing institutions.  Deadlines, processing times and costs all conspire to create instability and unnecessary bureaucracy.  If the policy decision is that these people deserve to live and work in the US in 2012, there should be no reason to think, ceteris paribus, they would be undeserving in 2014.  While the political imperatives to downplay this regularization with the term “temporary” are fairly evident, it is inconsistent and simply bad policy.   

Third are some slippery slope issues (even though such arguments are a rhetorical fallacy, allow me to indulge). Does DACA set a precedent for future efforts to reform immigration law? Does this new category of disenfranchised quasi-citizen stand a chance of becoming enshrined in US law?   What happens to these people once they are registered and down the line this program is closed down? It seems a fair concern to register with a government that may, at any time, decide to pursue you for deportation.

Ultimately, DACA sends very mixed signals, both to immigrants and the US population at large.  What does it mean to legally live and work in the US?  Do we as a society feel that innocent people (DACA candidates necessarily entered the country as minors and therefore have not broken any US laws by their own volition) should be free from the consequences of actions they did not choose to undertake?  What is the future for immigration policy? Will the US continue to have an open (if onerous) immigration policy?  And finally, what will be the real impact on the people who enroll in DACA? Will this program improve their lives in the long-run?  As I mentioned at the outset, DACA raises more questions than answers and only time will tell how many of these issues shake out.