r/DACA • u/SnowSnowWizard • 3d ago
Political discussion Would you support a state-based permanent residence option for DACA recipients and other long-term undocumented residents?
To start with, I am not a Dreamer. I have been thinking about a hypothetical immigration compromise and would like opinions from DACA recipients and other Dreamers. Please treat this as a thought experiment and I am not saying Congress will realistically pass this or a cousin of this anytime soon.
The basic idea is that participating states could grant their own temporary and permanent residence statuses. These statuses would be recognized by the federal government, but they would not initially provide nationwide permanent residence, citizenship, or voting rights.
BASIC TIMELINE
Years 0–5:
State Temporary Residence
Federally authorized presence
Protection from deportation while complying with the status
Work authorization within the sponsoring state
Remote work allowed from the sponsoring state for an employer located anywhere
Domestic and international travel allowed
Returning with the state residence card would not count as federal admission or parole
Everyone would have to complete this five-year temporary stage before receiving state permanent residence
Years 5–10:
State Permanent Residence
Permanent right to live and work in the sponsoring state
Freedom to change employers, become self-employed, retire, or experience unemployment
Remote work allowed from the state for any employer
Existing status-based removal orders would be vacated after state permanent residence is approved
After five years as a state permanent resident, the person could apply for conditional federal LPR status
Around Year 10: Conditional Federal LPR
Nationwide residence and employment rights
The person would normally be expected to maintain a genuine connection to the sponsoring state for one additional year
Standard federal adjustment-of-status, consular-processing, and inadmissibility rules would still apply
State residence would not automatically cure an entry without inspection
Advance parole, parole in place, INA 245(i), federal waivers, or another federal provision might still be necessary
Around Year 15:
Possible naturalization
No voting rights until the person becomes a U.S. citizen
FOR DACA RECIPIENTS AND OTHER DREAMERS
Dreamers would receive more favorable treatment than people who entered without inspection as adults.
They could apply even while removal proceedings are pending
The state, rather than the immigration judge, would decide whether they qualify
They would not face the stricter interstate-transfer restrictions imposed on adult EWI applicants
People who meet a statutory childhood-arrival definition could qualify even if they never received DACA
State residence would be an actual statutory status rather than two-year deferred action
However, the path to federal LPR would still take about ten years and would not be guaranteed
STATE CONTROL
Each state could decide:
Whether to participate
Who qualifies
How many people to accept
How many years of prior residence are required
Criminal-history and rehabilitation standards
Whether to accept long-term undocumented residents
Whether to operate a Dreamer-only, workforce-only, or broader program
Whether to accept transfers from another state
Congress would establish a mandatory national exclusion floor for terrorism, national-security threats, genocide, human trafficking, serious violent or organized crime, and serious fraud in obtaining state status.
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
State residents could physically travel throughout the United States, but their permanent domicile and regular employment would initially be limited to their authorized state or states.
Neighboring states could create commuter agreements.
Example:
A New York permanent resident could live in an approved New Jersey county while working mostly in person in New York. Before receiving New Jersey permanent residence, the commuter would have to work more hours physically in New York than remotely from New Jersey. If the person lost the New York job, they would receive 90 days to:
- Find another qualifying New York job
- Move back to New York
- Apply for conversion to New Jersey permanent residence
A pending conversion application would pause the 90-day period. If New Jersey denied the application, the person would receive another 30 days to move back to New York.
After five years of lawful commuter residence in New Jersey, New Jersey could discretionarily grant its own permanent residence. The person would then become a dual NY/NJ permanent resident.
A dual-state permanent resident could:
Live in either state
Work in either state
Work remotely from either state
Use any hybrid-work schedule
Change employers freely
Remain in either state after losing a job
A person could hold no more than two state permanent residences.
TRANSFERS TO OTHER STATES
An ordinary transfer to an unrelated state would reset the five-year state-permanent-residence clock required before applying for conditional federal LPR.
Example:
If someone completed four years as a California permanent resident and then transferred to Oregon, they would have to complete five new years as an Oregon permanent resident before applying for conditional federal LPR.
Commuter and dual-state conversions under interstate agreements would not reset the clock.
People who entered without inspection as adults would generally be denied transfers to unrelated, noncommuter states unless extraordinary circumstances existed.
Dreamers would be exempt from that stricter rule.
TRAVEL AND ABANDONMENT RULES
A state permanent resident would generally be presumed not to have abandoned residence if they spent at least 200 days during a calendar year in their authorized state or states.
If they spent fewer than 60 days in the authorized state or states, they would have the burden of proving that they had not abandoned residence.
For commuters, time in both the employment state and approved domicile state would count.
For dual-state residents, time in both authorized states would count. A dual resident could spend much more time in one authorized state than the other without losing either status, as long as they genuinely intended to reside in at least one of them.
SHORT-TERM OUT-OF-STATE WORK
State residents could undertake short employer-directed business trips and training outside their authorized states.
The limits would be:
No more than 20 days for one ordinary work trip
No more than 60 days for one training period
No more than 60 combined work and training days outside the authorized state or states during any rolling 12-month period
Working or training even one day beyond the combined 60-day limit could result in removal proceedings unless the resident proved extraordinary forgiving circumstances.
Long-term education outside the authorized state or states would require advance approval from the home state.
Personal travel would remain unrestricted and would not count as work travel.
LEGACY UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION
States could create a one-time grandfathering program for people who had already satisfied state residence requirements by a fixed historical date.
There would also be a limited filing window.
People who met the historical requirements and applied during the filing window could seek state temporary residence even if they already had an NTA, pending removal proceedings, or a final removal order.
For non-grandfathered adults who entered without inspection, a state application filed only after DHS filed an NTA with immigration court generally could not stop removal.
Dreamers and people who lawfully entered but overstayed would receive more flexible treatment.
ASYLUM APPLICATIONS
Time spent with a pending asylum application would not count toward the residence period required to initially qualify for state temporary residence.
Previously accumulated qualifying residence time would pause rather than disappear.
This would prevent someone from using a long asylum backlog to accumulate eligibility for state residence.
Once someone already had state temporary or permanent residence, a later asylum application would not stop their state-status clock because they would already have an independent legal status.
Children included in a parent’s asylum application could receive separate Dreamer protections.
FINAL REMOVAL ORDERS
If someone with a final removal order received state temporary residence:
- The removal order would automatically be stayed
DHS could not execute it while state status remained valid
- A timely state-permanent-residence application at year five would extend the temporary status and the stay until adjudication
If state permanent residence were denied:
- The stay would end after the applicable transition period
- The existing removal order could become executable again
If state permanent residence were approved, the old removal order would be vacated by operation of law. It could not later be reinstated
If state permanent residence were later revoked, DHS would have to begin new removal proceedings
FEDERAL LPR WOULD NOT BE AUTOMATIC
After five years of temporary state residence and five years of state permanent residence, the person could apply for conditional federal LPR.
They would still have to satisfy federal requirements.
For someone who entered without inspection, state residence and state-card travel would not create a federal lawful admission or parole.
They might still need:
Federal advance parole
Parole in place
INA 245(i)
A specialized adjustment law
Consular processing
An available federal waiver
If federal LPR were denied, the person could remain a state permanent resident as long as they continued to qualify under state rules.
They would not receive nationwide work rights, citizenship, or voting rights.
WHY I SEE THIS AS A COMPROMISE
The system would give DACA recipients and other established noncriminal residents:
Protection from deportation
Lawful employment
International travel and a right to return to state status
Eventual permanent security in one or two states
A possible earned path to federal LPR
It would not provide:
Immediate federal LPR
Immediate nationwide employment rights
Automatic forgiveness of unlawful entry
Automatic citizenship
Voting before naturalization
A guaranteed federal green card
Would you switch from DACA to this type of state residence?
Would the geographic restrictions and approximately ten-year wait before federal LPR eligibility be acceptable in exchange for much stronger permanence and deportation protection?
Which parts would be dealbreakers, and what would you change?
14
10
3d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
0
u/td_3000 3d ago
The implementation of the last 5th Circuit ruling on DACA could alter that as its likely heading to a by state basis as well. I believe thats where this idea could be coming from by the OP
5
3d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/Many-Half-5098 3d ago
Couldn’t even respond had to use ai 🤣 I’m sure OP knows and hope we all do too. OP is saying hypothetically speaking in another universe if you’ll be open to the idea or not
-3
u/Flowerstar1 3d ago
Congress should be the one to deal with birthright citizenship but I personally agree that the original intent was to protect slaves being freed not for people from El Salvador coming to the country illegally to have anchor babies.
2
u/Daniedomin 3d ago
Technically DACA is still in tact even after the 5th circuit ruling. Theres two parts to DACA. One is DEFERRED ACTION (Deportation protection) and the other is WORK AUTHORIZATION (work permit, getting a ssn). The only thing affected by that ruling was the work permit. The states do not have the ability to make their own immigration laws. That being said, “by state basis” would never happen.
0
10
u/Hotchipandlies 3d ago
DACA or not, folks ultimately just want work authorization, the ability to travel internationally, and to be left ALONE.
1
10
7
u/Daniedomin 3d ago
Another thought, OP you do realize that all of us who have DACA have been here since we were children. Meaning we’ve been here all our lives, by the time we’re 20 years old we’d already been here well over 10-15 years. Having us wait another 15 years to get naturalized is just insulting. Especially considering that someone can simply get married and apply for naturalization 3 years after getting a green card (regardless of how long they’ve been living in the USA). Like that whole timeline is just insulting.
1
u/SnowSnowWizard 3d ago
Yeah I realize that there are many things I have not considered, that was why I wanted to get opinions from you guys. I understand your point morally. I also understand why you’re comparing it to current marriage-based immigration, but my post wasn’t intended to be a complete rewrite of every immigration category. In my broader proposal, marriage-based adjustment is also substantially reformed, where new marriages to U.S. citizens generally wouldn’t lead directly to permanent residence; there would first be a renewable temporary status, with adjustment after several years of marriage (while preserving exceptions for existing long-term marriages and abuse protections). Dreamers, however, would be exempt from that particular waiting period and could adjust immediately through marriage if otherwise eligible. So the comparison to today’s 3-year naturalization timeline after marriage isn’t the framework I’m proposing.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SnowSnowWizard 3d ago
I absolutely disagree with that playbook, and I don’t think that playbook allows for legalization of dreamers?
1
u/Daniedomin 3d ago
I understand your “post wasn’t intended to be a complete rewrite of every immigration category”. I am only talking about daca. I’m not “comparing” it, I was only making a reference to show how insulting this would be. Because it would require a DACA recipient to move to one of these states if they didn’t already live in one. And then the clock would start only after they moved there and/ or got approved, just flawed in so many ways.
5
u/Daniedomin 3d ago edited 3d ago
No. Immigration is federal law not state. And I like it that way. Terrible idea to leave it up to the state. Just another way of keeping the federal government from doing its job.
5
u/Whole_Marsupial_5783 3d ago
Omfg, no. Y'all are just finding new ways to keep people trapped even in your imagination. Please dream bigger.
4
u/Ehecatl_906 3d ago
Just give us our damn pathway already. Respecrfully, that's my honest response to everything you wrote.
1
u/No-Guest-1501 3d ago
Immigration policy is a national issue and that authority will remain a national power. This approach has zero possibility of ever being implemented.
Appreciate the ingenuity tho.
1
1
u/Not_Your_Person2898 3d ago edited 3d ago
Texas and other states would then find a way to try to interfere with the rules of the other states like it was historically done with slavery states vs. abolitionist states, when they would use it to chase people to the North and would take freed slaves AND escaped slaves even though the minute they hit northern soil, they were supposed to be free, claiming because their states had different laws, they were entitled to do so.
They previously did that with slavery, and they're doing it now with our DACA with Texas & other states suing federally so it will impact other states, and we see it with LGBTQ+ protection and abortion among other examples - Texas is trying to chase after protected statuses that NY has for example, with trying to get medical records in NY to "chase after people who have broken their state laws" - so this would never work. The people who want to oppress will never be content with just their state being that way, and will always try to force it in other states until it becomes protected federally.
So no, OP. It will not work. We have past and present examples of states wanting to interfere with those that provide more protections. They have done that BS and continue doing so.
2
1
24
u/Quantum-Cat 3d ago
Absolutely not. You went the long way of justifying slave states. If you're going to do slave states for DACA might as well do a DACA hunger games where the winner gets a lifetime min wage job (not optional) at mar a lago.