Clash over immigration exec orders impacts counties

When it became clear in mid-2013 that the 113th Congress would fail to reach agreement on legislation to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, many advocates of immigration reform called for President Obama to initiate changes through executive orders.

But given the political ramifications of taking executive actions on an issue that was too divisive to be addressed effectively in Congress, the president delayed his actions until after but not long after the midterm elections in November.

On Nov. 20, 2014, President Obama announced he would expand the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which gives legal status and work permits to certain undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, meet eligibility requirements and pass background checks. In doing so, he would establish a similar program called Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (DAPA) that would benefit certain undocumented parents of Americans and permanent residents.

In response to the president's announcement, Republican lawmakers included only temporary funding through Feb. 27, 2015 for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the so-called "CRomnibus" spending bill (P.L. 113-235) that funded other departments through the remainder of FY15. This set the scene for a showdown over the president's executive actions in the lead-up to the expiration of DHS funding, and, as predicted, GOP leaders in the House passed a DHS spending bill (H.R. 240) on Jan. 15 with amendments that would effectively end the DACA and DAPA programs.

Less than a month before DHS funding is set to expire, it remains unclear how and when this standoff will be resolved. Senate Republican leaders attempted to move H.R. 240 through their chamber on Feb. 3, but the measure was halted by Democrats who ensured that it did not receive the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. A "clean" spending measure one without amendments to derail DACA and DAPA could be introduced instead in either chamber, or a Continuing Resolution could be used to extend funding for the time being.

The remaining possibility, of course, is that DHS will no longer have funding after Feb. 27 and will carry out only "mission critical" functions, similar to its status during the federal government shutdown of 2013. Such an outcome would negatively impact county governments, since DHS would delay publishing guidelines for FY15 grants until it gained funding. In turn, counties would be unable to apply for FY15 DHS grants, including those under the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), until guidelines were published.

Interestingly, the status of funding for DHS will have little impact on the DACA and DAPA programs, which fall under DHS's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division that is almost entirely funded by fees tied to immigration applications.

When forms for the expanded DACA program and the new DAPA program are made available on Feb. 18, millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. will be eligible to apply. County governments, especially those in California and Texas, will be affected as these individuals enroll in DACA and DAPA.

According to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), there are an estimated 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and nearly 50 percent of these individuals are eligible for DACA or DAPA. In California, 1.6 million individuals are eligible for DACA or DAPA, while in Texas, 744,000 individuals could apply to the programs.

Although many of these individuals will not actually be granted legal status through DACA or DAPA whether because they are unable to meet eligibility requirements or pass background checks, or because they do not apply in the first place millions of county residents throughout the U.S. will gain legal status in the next several months.

As these individuals gain legal status, their access to certain benefits will change in ways that impact counties. Most importantly, DACA and DAPA beneficiaries will receive legal work authorization. Although MPI estimates that 63 percent of undocumented immigrants are employed despite their immigration status, receiving legal work permits could increase the rate at which currently undocumented individuals pay taxes. In addition, DACA and DAPA beneficiaries could earn higher wages as documented workers and in turn contribute more to their local tax bases and economies.

Gaining legal employment could also help DACA- and DAPA-eligible individuals attain health insurance. Counties are often the health care providers of last resort for the uninsured, and MPI estimates that roughly 63 percent or 7 million of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. have no health coverage. Although individuals granted DACA or DAPA would not gain access to the Affordable Care Act marketplace or other federal benefits, they would be eligible for health insurance offered through employers; as a result, the number of individuals who rely on counties to provide emergency health care could decrease.

Lastly, many counties play a role in facilitating adult education, including English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. Because DACA requires applicants to have a high school diploma or its equivalent, counties involved in adult education will likely see increased demand for their programs. Additionally, both DACA and DAPA applicants are more likely to seek ESL courses as they gain legal status and newfound employment opportunities. MPI estimates that roughly half of all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. lack English proficiency.