Immigration Articles of the Day: Immigrant Assimilation into U.S. Prisons, 1900-1930 by Carolyn M. Moehling and Anne Morrison Piehl and Response, In Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and the DREAM Act by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

Immigrant Assimilation into U.S. Prisons, 1900-1930by Carolyn M. Moehling Rutgers University, Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)and Anne Morrison Piehl Rutgers University – Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) May 2013 NBER Working Paper No. w19083

Abstract: The analysis of a new dataset on state prisoners in the 1900 to 1930 censuses reveals that immigrants rapidly assimilated to native incarceration patterns. One feature of these data is that the second generation can be identified, allowing direct analysis of this group and allowing their exclusion from calculations of comparison rates for the “native” population. Although adult new arrivals were less likely than natives to be incarcerated, this likelihood was increasing with their years in the U.S. The foreign born who arrived as children and second generation immigrants had slightly higher rates of incarceration than natives of native parentage, but these differences disappear after controlling for nativity differences in urbanicity and occupational status. Finally, while the incarceration rates of new arrivals differ significantly by source country, patterns of assimilation are very similar.Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Response, In Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and the DREAM Actby Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Penn State Law Texas Law Review, Vol. 91:59 Penn State Law Research Paper No. 5-2013

Abstract: This essay responds to “The Obama Administration, the DREAM Act and the Take Care Clause” by Robert J. Delahunty and John C. Yoo. Though I credit Yoo and Delahunty for considering the relationship between the DACA program and the President’s duties under the “Take Care” clause, they miss the mark in at least three ways: 1) Contrary to ignoring immigration enforcement, the Obama Administration has executed the immigration laws faithfully and forcefully; 2) Far from being a new policy that undercuts statutory law, prosecutorial discretion actions like DACA have been pursued by other presidents, and part of the immigration system for at least 35 years; 3) Despite the unsurprising fact that some people who could qualify for the congressionally-created DREAM Act possess the kinds of equities that make them attractive for a prosecutorial discretion program like DACA, it is simply inaccurate to equate the limbo status offered with a grant under DACA to the secure status that attaches to those eligible under the congressional solution known as the DREAM Act. These three points are analyzed in greater detail in this essay. While the DACA program “feels” like something more or greater in scope than previous acts of prosecutorial discretion, the authority being exercised by the agency is no greater or different. It is dangerous to argue that the potential size of the class that stands to benefit from DACA or the greater transparency somehow makes the DACA program legally unsound or different. Conceivably, a future Administration could place a cap on the number of applications that can be approved under DACA but this is a policy question, not a constitutional one.

KJ