DACA

Oct. 8 (UPI) — Government shutdowns are the mark of some of the most tumultuous times on Capitol Hill in the United States, grinding government operations to a halt as lawmakers reach an impasse over funding.

Last week, the U.S. government was shut down after Congress failed to pass an appropriations bill or continuing resolution to continue funding employees and programs.

Republicans and Democrats stand apart on funding for Medicaid after the Republican majority and President Donald Trump passed a plan to cut access for an estimated 15 million people.

It is the third time the government has shut down during a Trump presidency.

In the last 50 years the government has come to at least a partial shutdown 11 times. Some have lasted a day or more. Others have stretched into weeks.

The Civiletti opinions

The U.S. government has faced a number of funding gaps that did not result in government shutdowns. Between 1976 and 1979, there were six funding gaps that lasted eight days or more. Government agencies continued to function.

In 1980 and 1981, everything changed. U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti penned a series of opinions that outlined how and why a government shutdown would happen.

Charged with interpreting the Antideficiency Act, a law passed by Congress in 1870, Civiletti determined that government agencies are not allowed to spend funds without approval under congressional appropriations unless “necessary for the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

Based on this interpretation, most federal employees would be furloughed during a funding gap.

Civiletti loosened his interpretation slightly in a third opinion, stating that agencies can do what is necessary to shut down in an orderly manner.

Since Civiletti’s opinions, funding gaps have resulted in government shutdowns.

Reagan administration

The federal government had funding gaps on eight occasions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, leading to at least some government agencies shutting down. It is the most shutdowns under a single president.

Three times during Reagan’s presidency, federal employees were furloughed.

In November 1981, the government shut down for two days after Reagan vetoed an emergency resolution put forward by Congress because he sought deeper funding cuts to domestic spending while maintaining defense spending.

The House, under a Democratic majority, sought to cut defense spending, and protect spending on social safety-net programs domestically.

On Nov. 23, 1981, Congress passed a joint resolution with broad support to make continuing appropriations. Reagan signed the bill that in effect bought time for the two sides to work out a longer term funding strategy.

In 1984, Reagan and Congress sparred over a crime bill, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It resulted in a two-day shutdown with about 500,000 federal workers being furloughed.

Reagan wanted the bill to impose stricter penalties and limit the efficacy of the insanity defense. Democrats sought to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision that peeled back Title IX protections.

Democrats also wanted to approve funding for local clean water projects, which Reagan opposed.

Democrats ultimately did not get the provisions they wanted in the final bill. Reagan meanwhile achieved his goal of installing stricter sentencing guidelines such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes and no-bail detentions. The bill also raised the standard for defendants to prove insanity.

The third shutdown during Reagan’s presidency lasted about two days. On Oct. 16, 1986, a continuing resolution that averted a shutdown earlier expired.

Welfare was at the center of the disagreement between House Democrats and Reagan. Democrats again attempted to protect and enhance social safety nets with an expansion of welfare access for families with dependent children.

Reagan’s vision was starkly different. He framed welfare as a tool that made people dependent on government support.

Democrats yielded on their push to expand welfare access with a promise that it would be discussed again in the future.Congress passed an omnibus spending bill after two days of a shutdown.

The debate over welfare in 1986 set the stage for the Family Support Act of 1988, a bipartisan bill that established the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program and created a new framework for child support payments, including wage withholding.

The 1990s

The first government shutdown of the 1990s was under the watch of President George H.W. Bush. The president wanted a funding bill that included a plan to reduce the federal deficit.

Democrats had a majority in the House and Senate.

On Oct. 5, 1990, government operations halted as Bush threatened to veto any bill that did not include the federal deficit plan he wanted. He vetoed such a bill the day after the shutdown began.

Two days later, the House and Senate passed a continuing resolution that was effectively the same as the bill they proposed just days earlier. Congress had the votes to sustain Bush’s veto this time, passing a bill to open the government.

The first of two shutdowns under President Bill Clinton began on Nov. 13, 1995, but the battle at the center of it caused a second shutdown to follow just weeks later.

Clinton and the Republican majority in the U.S. House, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, were apart on spending cuts. Republicans were seeking cuts to Medicare as well as agenda items Clinton favored such as public health, public education and environmental programs.

Republicans put forward a spending proposal that included the cuts Clinton opposed. Gingrich said the House would not raise the debt limit either. After five days, the shutdown ended when Congress agreed to a stopgap funding bill.

On Dec. 15, the stopgap funding expired and a long-term agreement had not been made. The longest government shutdown to that point commenced through the holiday season, lasting 21 days.

Senate-majority leader Bob Dole, Clinton’s opponent in the 1996 election, urged his side to end the standstill and both sides agreed to a compromised budget bill. The bill included tax increases and restored funding to education, health and environmental programs.

Healthcare and immigration

The Affordable Care Act has been one of the more polarizing pieces of legislation on Capitol Hill in modern history. In 2013, House Republicans attempted to undercut the law by defunding it and delaying its implementation.

The Democratic majority in the Senate rejected attempts by the Republican-led House to strip funding from the ACA on multiple occasions throughout the budget negotiation process. The deadline to pass a budget bill came and went with no resolution and a 16-day shutdown began.

On Oct. 17, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act to fund the government and suspend the debt limit in 2014. The bill did not include the Republican cuts to the ACA.

The first of three shutdowns under Trump began on Jan. 20, 2018. Congress failed to pass a government funding bill due to disputes between Trump’s Republican Party and Democrats over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.

The Trump administration attempted to end the Obama-era policy, calling on Congress to replace it within six months. A federal judge thwarted Trump’s plan and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against the president but the policy remained central to budget negotiations in the months to come.

The shutdown lasted less than three days before Congress passed a continuing resolution. A replacement for DACA was not included and the courts rejected Trump’s attempt to end the program by the time the continuing resolution expired. No protections for dreamers were included either.

Immigration remained a key issue when the government shut down again in late 2018. Trump called for funding for a border wall across the southern border to be included in the next budget bill. He demanded more than $5 billion for the project, saying the shutdown would not end until that funding was approved.

The shutdown lasted 35 days, the longest of any government shutdown in U.S. history. It began on Dec. 21, 2018 and ended on Jan. 25, 2019.

About 800,000 federal workers were furloughed during those 35 days. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it costs the United States about $11 billion in gross domestic product lost.

Trump signed a continuing resolution to open the government back up without any border wall funding included. When the continuing resolution expired, Congress approved $1.375 billion for border fencing, more than $4 billion less than what Trump demanded.

WASHINGTON — For the first time in four years, the federal government plans to begin processing initial applications for DACA, the Obama-era program that grants deportation protection and work permits to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

The move, outlined in a proposal Monday by the Justice Department, would reopen DACA to first-time applicants in every state except Texas. The proposal was filed in response to an ongoing lawsuit in U.S. district court in Brownsville, Tex.

According to the filing, Texas residents who already have DACA could continue receiving protection from deportation but would no longer qualify for employment authorization.

Lawsuits over DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, have been ongoing since President Trump moved to end the program during his first term.

Under the government’s proposal, DACA recipients who move into Texas would risk losing their legal ability to work, while moving out of Texas could allow them to resume qualifying for a two-year work permit.

The proposal is pending a final decision by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen.

“These proposals do not limit DHS from undertaking any future lawful changes to DACA,” the filing states.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream, said misinformation was circulating Tuesday on social media.

“We’ve seen a lot of folks saying initial applications will start right away. That’s not true,” she said. “The status quo stays. If you are a DACA recipient right now, even in Texas, if you can renew you should renew as soon as possible because then you have another two years.”

Other advocacy groups, such as the nonprofit Dreamers2gether, urged DACA recipients and hopeful applicants to leave Texas and file a change of address form with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

More than 525,000 immigrants are currently enrolled in DACA. Texas follows California in the ranking of states with the highest number of program enrollees, according to USCIS.

To qualify, applicants must prove they came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and have graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military. Applicants also cannot have serious criminal records.

But for years the program has sat in a state of uncertainty, stoking anxiety for many recipients, amid court battles that stopped applications from being processed and left many younger people who would have aged into qualifying for DACA instead vulnerable to deportation.

In this first term, Trump attempted to shut down the program, but the Supreme Court concluded in 2020 that his administration had acted improperly. The court did not rule on the program’s legality.

Because of the court battle, the program has been closed to new applicants since 2021, though current recipients could still renew their work permits.

Los Angeles resident Atziri Peña, 27, runs a clothing company called Barrio Drive that donates proceeds toward helping DACA recipients renew their applications.

Peña, who also has DACA, said she knows many people in Texas who are thinking about moving out of state. The latest news is another example of how the immigration system breaks families apart, she said.

“A lot of us who are DACA recipients, we don’t necessarily know what it was like to be undocumented before DACA, so most of us have careers that we won’t be able to continue,” Peña said.

United We Dream has recorded at least 19 current DACA recipients detained by immigration agents in recent months. In one case in Texas, immigration authorities have kept Catalina “Xochitl” Santiago detained despite an immigration judge saying she cannot be deported.

“It’s a way of making sure she can’t renew her DACA and then she becomes deportable,” said Macedo do Nascimento. In her view, the Department of Homeland Security’s attitude toward DACA recipients lately has diminished the protections it offers.

“The bigger picture here is DHS is moving onto a new policy on DACA anyway — without having to go through the courts, the rulemaking process or taking DACA away altogether,” she said. “They’re really trying to end the program piece by piece, recipient by recipient.”

Even so, immigrants across the country are looking forward to applying for DACA for the first time.

“While we could still get detained, it’s a little bit of a sense of safety and hope,” Peña said. “I have heard of people who are just waiting for DACA to reopen. But let’s see what happens and let’s hope they don’t use this as a way to catch more of us.”