Background:
I set out to create a proposal for DACA recipients, or DREAMers, figuring that those two terms are used more or less interchangeably.
However, In the midst of looking for relevant resources, I began to realize that the class of persons “DACA recipients” seems to be a smaller subset of the larger class of persons “DREAMers”. “DACA recipients” are those who have applied for and received temporary, 2-year status in which their deportation is ‘deferred’, or low priority, if they meet a certain set of criteria. DACA recipients were eligible from 2012 when President Obama made his executive order, until, effectively, Sept. 2017 when AG Jeff Sessions announced that the government would no longer be accepting applications. Court rulings have since required that renewals continue to be processed.
DREAMers, on the other hand, seem to be a larger class of people who were were minors when they brought into the U.S. by their undocumented parents. Some of these minors (many of whom are now adults) applied for and received DACA deferments. However, others of these minors are not currently DACA recipients, because they were not between the ages of 15 and 31 when the program went into effect in 2012. There are other minors in this class were ineligible for other reasons. However, all of these minors (regardless of whether they are still minors today) are still DREAMers, I think, because they are part of the larger class of persons who *could* receive some kind of amnesty from the government if Congress were to pass a version of the DREAM Act (from which the name DREAMers derived, I believe).
So I think we have a case where the term ‘DREAMers’ is both a variant (in practice) of a more specific set of people, and also a term for a broader set of people.
Do you agree with that assessment? Why or why not? How would it be best to proceed? I’ve laid out 2 options below, although I’m sure there are others.
Thanks in advance for your help with my first LCSH proposal!
–Karla
Option 1: Make two proposals, one for DACA recipients, and the other for DREAMers (Persons).
Proposal 1:
DACA recipients
UF Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients
Here are entered works about recipients of temporary legal status in the United States via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (2012-). For works about children without legal status who are brought to the United States by illegal alien parents, including those who are not DACA recipients, see DREAMers (Persons).
BT DREAMers (Persons)
BT Children of illegal aliens
Proposal 2:
DREAMers (Persons)
UF Children of illegal aliens–United States
Here are entered works about children without legal status who are brought to the United States by illegal alien parents.
BT Illegal aliens
BT Illegal alien children
NT DACA recipients
Pros: Accommodates both groups
Cons: Fairly big potential for confusion and mis-application.
Questions to answer
- Should the term ‘DACA recipients’ be qualified by years? If so, which ones, given the current uncertainty of the situation?
- How many references should I include, and what is most important to say? So far, I just have titles that seem to be very specifically about DACA recipients, rather than the broader ‘DREAMers’.
- Should either or both of these terms be qualified by U.S. or United States?
Option 2: Make one proposal, in which ‘DREAMers’ is a variant of ‘DACA recipients’ (or the opposite, I suppose).
DACA recipients
UF Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients
UF DREAMers (Persons)
Here are entered works about recipients of temporary legal status in the United States via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (2012-).
BT Children of illegal aliens
Pros: More straightforward, for this specific subset of people.
Cons: Does not answer the question of what to do about the broader set of people who are DREAMers.
Option 3: Any other option I haven’t thought of.
Karla’s opinion: I suppose I lean toward option 1, since there is literary warrant for both concepts.
I want to acknowledge that I know about the following problematic existing terms which will have to be part of the hierarchy, even though they are not good, because nothing can be done about that right now:
- Illegal alien children
- Children of illegal aliens
- Illegal aliens
My first attempt at Option 1 is below:
150 __ DACA recipients
450 __ Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients
550 __ $w g $a DREAMers (Persons)
550 __ $w g $a Children of illegal aliens
670 __ Work cat: ocm1035151583: Life, Deferred (Vida Diferida), 2018
670 __ ocm963250026: Deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) toolkit, 2016: $b pages 8-9 (On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several key guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of 2 years, subject to renewal, and would then be eligible for work authorization; guidelines include: Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; came to the United States before 16th birthday; Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time; were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS; Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012; are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety) $u http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo74754
670 __ 2014039751: Dream chasers : immigration and the American backlash, 2015: $b page 103 (by early 2014, more than 600,000 had applied for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — perhaps about half of those eligible–with a small fraction (about 3 percent) denied; DACA is a two-year renewable order)
670 __ ocm907293580: One step in and one step out : the lived experience of immigrant participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, 2015
670 __ ocm946086642: Exploring DACA Recipients’ Access to Higher Education in Connecticut, 2015
670 __ ocm910638323 : DACAmented-generation migrants contesting hegemonic notions of citizenship through the DACA Relief and Education, 2015
670 __ ocm1046076933: The influence of DACA on pathways : DACA’mented, 2018
670 __ ocm1034012687: What happens to a dream deferred?, 2018
680 __ Here are entered works about recipients of temporary legal status in the United States via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (2012-). For works about children without legal status who are brought to the United States by illegal alien parents, including those who are not DACA recipients, see DREAMers (Persons).
DREAMers (Persons)
UF Children of illegal aliens–United States
Here are entered works about children without legal status who are brought to the United States by illegal alien parents.
BT Illegal aliens
BT Illegal alien children
NT DACA recipients
LC Classification options:
I haven’t given this a great deal of thought yet, but I would suggest something around JV6600.5, with ‘DACA recipients” (or DREAMers) as ‘special classes of immigrants’.
Comments from Violet: 2018-09-11
You don’t need to suggest a class number along with a heading proposal if there’s not an obvious place for it. You can do this later with an LCC proposal or someone else can make it happen.
Your definition of DREAMers (Persons) is: children without legal status who are brought to the United States by illegal alien parents. Isn’t that the same thing (or at least very nearly the same thing) as Illegal alien children? (If it’s a matter of accompaniment, there’s also: Unaccompanied immigrant children—United States.) Is this a case where we would want to add a 450 for DREAMers to Illegal alien children—United States?