Corporations Claim Texas Will Lose if DACA Goes

Throwing everything against the (yet-to-be-built) wall in hopes that something will stick, a coalition of U.S. businesses claims Texas’s lawsuit against DACA will cost the state $6 billion.

Who knew that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was such a cash cow?

“In the face of DACA rescission … immigrant communities in Texas are increasingly holding back from economic activity, focusing instead on saving to protect their families from the economic trauma in the form of job loss and legal fees that comes with deportation proceedings,” the corporate consortium argued in a federal court brief filed late Saturday.

The 114 businesses – including Southwest and United Airlines, Amazon, Uber and Verizon – estimate that 126,000 of 689,000 illegal aliens protected under former President Barack Obama’s DACA program reside in Texas. From that estimate, the companies draw the following outrageous conclusions:

  • The purchasing power of DACA recipients has “led to the existence of 5,800 manufacturing jobs” in Texas. This is a slippery statement, since fast-food employment has blurred with “manufacturing” in government reports.
  • DACA individuals are expected to contribute about $244.7 million in Texas taxes in 2018. There is no mention of public services and subsidies received.
  • The state would lose more than $6 billion in annual GDP over the next decade if DACA were scrapped. In the absence of supporting documentation, this is merely a blue-sky figure floated for headline value.

The corporatists use a thin tissue of anecdotes to fabricate their speculative assertions. In fact, DACA recipients are neither as well-educated nor financially independent as they have been presented in the media. More than a few have dangerous criminal records, which come with heavy social and economic costs.

It is unclear where or how the business coalition derived its data, but the “research” seems to rest on the illogical assumption that the economic output of DACA recipients would simply disappear and not be replaced by others in the country who would perform the jobs and pay the taxes.

We can agree with the business coalition on one point, however: Texas and other opposing states did not move soon enough against DACA.

“The states’ delay undercuts any claim they have to immediate, irreparable injury, since they have been living with the status quo for six years,” the brief contends.

“It’s a clever argument, and given the standard for an injunction, it could carry sway with the court,” says Rich Kelsey, a former law dean at George Mason University and frequent writer on immigration issues.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded, “Texas has argued for years that the federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization.

“Left intact, DACA sets a dangerous precedent by giving the executive branch sweeping authority to ignore the laws enacted by Congress and change our nation’s immigration laws to suit a president’s own policy preferences.”

Whatever its economic implications, the DACA is bad law that tears at the foundations of border security and national sovereignty. As Paxton put it: “Our lawsuit is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy.”

About Author



  1. avatar
    Don Stephens on

    I do not know about anyone else–but for me–if DACA legalization or amnesty is passed by Republicans and signed by President Trump–then I will not vote for Trump for a 2nd term or ever vote for any Republicans again.DACA people are here illegally and they they “MUST” be deported–not rewarded.

  2. Pingback: Corporations Claim Texas Will Lose if DACA Goes | San Antonio Tea Party

  3. avatar
    Tricia Kennemer on

    SICK OF THIS BS. The constant attempts to circumvent our immigration laws, the money the taxpayers are paying out to defend ILLEGALS at OUR expense. What is the question here? Illegal is illegal. Period. Deport.

  4. avatar

    OK, I hope there is “documentation” on the records of the court to prove that Texas has been fighting BORDER JUMPERS ‘..for years!”

    • avatar

      Actually yes. According to “The National Guard began assisting US Customs and Border Protection in support of Operation Phalanx in 2010 with ground troops”. There are numerous other examples since then. If you look at the businesses involved it’s obvious that this “court brief” is just pandering to Hispanics.

  5. avatar

    This all comes down to the English/Advocate dictionary where everything must be translated into the proper terms. For example, abolish Ice = open borders. The claim that somehow the economy will suffer translates to we don’t want to lose our low paid workers. And as stated, the idea that these are well educated individuals is flatly untrue. The truth is in fact the opposite. Few have college education and a substantial percentage have not even finished high school. There are the exceptions to the rule, but in general the lower the education, the lower paid the jobs, and the more they will rely on government assistance of some sort throughout their lives.

    And Attorney General Paxton puts the argument succinctly: “Our lawsuit is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy”. It’s like the “travel ban” argument. The law, the clearly written law, passed by Congress and repeatedly upheld by previous Supreme Courts, says the president can ban entry of foreigners from any nation or group at his discretion. Period. And yet four liberal Supreme Court justices attempted to say that Trump did not have the power he clearly has. It’s the same old thing. Don’t like the law, then change it. But you can’t ignore it because you don’t agree.

    In the last couple days the North Korean state media has been telling their citizens there will have to be “belts tightened”. There has been a 3 to 5% drop in GDP and exports fell 37% in the last year. There is one reason for this. Trump insisted on tight sanctions that were unprecedented in their scope and has said they will stay until they denuclearize. That is a little confusing though, since North Korea is one of Russia’s important client states. So how come Putin was not able to prevent Trump from imposing them? There’s talk and then there’s action. We had 25 years of catering to North Korea and Trump said no more. Maybe the media can tell us the credit is really Obama’s.

  6. avatar

    And the detail they left out of this equation is the “70 Billion Plus Dollars” sent back to these third world **** holes every year by illegals includes the “DACA illegals” which every penny is and illegally gained just like drug cartel dollars and should be confiscated !!!

  7. avatar
    William Vanderbrink on

    DACA is a program that gives individuals DELAYED enforcement on violations of American law.

    The logic utilized here concerning the economic activity driving by these illegal immigrants might be reason enough to give them a pass if terribly flawed.

    If you use the same logic on drug dealers in neighborhoods, would you give them a pass. Drug dealers faciilitate a lot of economic activity in their neighborhoods. They make purchases and bring folks into the area. They do create jobs. That doesn’t make them a positive influence.

  8. avatar

    This article calls DACA a law …. it’s not a law … it’s a policy and the President has every right to change policy but the courts have again overstepped their authority …..