It's time to sort the good from the bad in the 800,000-person DACA bloc

A study shows that DACA-aged illegals are more likely to commit additional crimes and be jailed than citizens.  With all the news about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program being subject to a congressional deal, this latest bit of news points to a need to start separating good from bad DACA recipients in any amnesty for them.

According to the Washington Examiner:

A new report about crimes committed by illegals finds that younger undocumented immigrants [sic; should be "illegal aliens" –ed.] who were eligible for former President Obama's DACA amnesty program commit far more crimes than other immigrants or U.S. citizens.

In unearthing rare data that details the crimes and sentences of illegals in Arizona, the Crime Prevention Research Center reported that immigrants age 15-35, the general population of the 700,000 in Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, "commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens."

The crimes cited in the study are authentic thug-type crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping, not the white-collar variety such as Social Security identification theft, which has an even greater subset of violators among illegal immigrants.

Two caveats should be noted from the report: the study covers only Arizona state, and its conclusions are a nationwide projection from those results.  Also, the study itself covers only DACA-aged youths, not actual verified DACA recipients.

That said, the research was done by the respected John Lott, whose work is known for its rigor.  And any youth of the right age who hasn't applied for DACA would be a fool not to, given its 99% approval rate on applications.  There is reason to think there is merit in Lott's claims.

This points to a problem we see again and again in DACA recipients: for every valedictorian proudly featured in the press among the program's 800,000-strong bloc, we have far higher numbers of illiterates, underachievers, unassimilated non-English-speakersdropouts, and repeat criminals.

The negotiations in the Congress on a DACA deal with President Trump continuously use the 800,000-strong recipient base as an undifferentiated bloc.  Yet we know there was no differentiation in the approval process, and the valedictorians went into the same bin as the underachievers and the underclass-assimilators.  Most Americans would be fine with allowing the valedictorians and the 900 servicemembers among the 800,000-person bloc to stay as part of a deal, as these people would probably make successful Americans.  Where they draw the line is with gang members, habitual criminals, underachievers, and terrorist sympathizers piggybacking onto them as part of a lump-sum deal.

Why anyone would refrain from splitting up the DACA bloc into categories that go well beyond an applicant's age is a mystery to me.  Breaking up the bloc will make a deal for the more deserving of the applicants that much easier, if a deal ever comes to pass. And that number is likely to be far more manageable as well as less of an incentive to come to the U.S, than amnesty for 800,000 new entrants.

A study shows that DACA-aged illegals are more likely to commit additional crimes and be jailed than citizens.  With all the news about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program being subject to a congressional deal, this latest bit of news points to a need to start separating good from bad DACA recipients in any amnesty for them.

According to the Washington Examiner:

A new report about crimes committed by illegals finds that younger undocumented immigrants [sic; should be "illegal aliens" –ed.] who were eligible for former President Obama's DACA amnesty program commit far more crimes than other immigrants or U.S. citizens.

In unearthing rare data that details the crimes and sentences of illegals in Arizona, the Crime Prevention Research Center reported that immigrants age 15-35, the general population of the 700,000 in Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, "commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens."

The crimes cited in the study are authentic thug-type crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping, not the white-collar variety such as Social Security identification theft, which has an even greater subset of violators among illegal immigrants.

Two caveats should be noted from the report: the study covers only Arizona state, and its conclusions are a nationwide projection from those results.  Also, the study itself covers only DACA-aged youths, not actual verified DACA recipients.

That said, the research was done by the respected John Lott, whose work is known for its rigor.  And any youth of the right age who hasn't applied for DACA would be a fool not to, given its 99% approval rate on applications.  There is reason to think there is merit in Lott's claims.

This points to a problem we see again and again in DACA recipients: for every valedictorian proudly featured in the press among the program's 800,000-strong bloc, we have far higher numbers of illiterates, underachievers, unassimilated non-English-speakersdropouts, and repeat criminals.

The negotiations in the Congress on a DACA deal with President Trump continuously use the 800,000-strong recipient base as an undifferentiated bloc.  Yet we know there was no differentiation in the approval process, and the valedictorians went into the same bin as the underachievers and the underclass-assimilators.  Most Americans would be fine with allowing the valedictorians and the 900 servicemembers among the 800,000-person bloc to stay as part of a deal, as these people would probably make successful Americans.  Where they draw the line is with gang members, habitual criminals, underachievers, and terrorist sympathizers piggybacking onto them as part of a lump-sum deal.

Why anyone would refrain from splitting up the DACA bloc into categories that go well beyond an applicant's age is a mystery to me.  Breaking up the bloc will make a deal for the more deserving of the applicants that much easier, if a deal ever comes to pass. And that number is likely to be far more manageable as well as less of an incentive to come to the U.S, than amnesty for 800,000 new entrants.