FR 2021-00641

The document in question, published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announces the extension of the information collection for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program without introducing any changes. DACA is a significant program that affects many individuals brought to the United States as children, granting them deferred action against deportation under certain conditions. This notice invites the public to comment on the extension, allowing them to review and discuss the process and necessity of information collection related to the program.

Key Issues and Concerns

The document provides in-depth details about the collection process, which might be too technical for the general public. The estimated public burden, both in terms of hours and cost—$50,553,340 annually—might seem substantial. However, without context or justification, these figures can appear arbitrary to readers. The explanation about how these estimates are calculated or justified is absent, leaving a gap in understanding.

Additionally, the document makes numerous references to the Federal Register, which may be foreign to many readers. For those not accustomed to navigating such resources, these references, alongside updates and changes between prior notices, can be perplexing.

There are also meticulous instructions on how the public can submit comments, involving specific docket and control numbers. Such bureaucratic details can seem daunting, particularly for individuals or small entities wishing to contribute their views.

Impact on the Public

The public at large may find this document relevant as it concerns a topic that impacts many lives in immigrant communities. However, the complexity of the content could hinder public engagement, as individuals may struggle to comprehend the technical aspects or the rationale behind the procedures described. The requirement to submit comments via a formal portal, including the use of specific identification numbers, could also serve as an unintentional barrier to participation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For Dreamers—the individuals eligible under the DACA program—this announcement may relieve concerns about potential interruptions or changes to the program. Maintaining the status quo provides some temporary stability. However, without changes, any existing inefficiencies or burdens within the process remain unaddressed.

Stakeholders such as immigration attorneys, advocacy groups, and policymakers might use this document to examine the USCIS's commitment to the DACA program and its administrative processes. They might press for more transparency regarding the financial burden and encourage a more user-friendly pathway for public comment to enhance engagement and accountability.

Overall, while it sustains continuity for DACA recipients, the document's implications underscore the need for clearer communication and simplification in regulatory practices to enable more effective public interaction and understanding.

In the Federal Register document, the financial allocation is specifically mentioned under the section describing the estimated total public burden in terms of both hours and costs. The document clearly indicates that the estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $50,553,340. This figure is introduced in the context of assessing the administrative and logistical expenses that individuals or households may incur as part of submitting requests related to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The financial reference to $50,553,340 is significant as it represents the cumulative cost that the public is expected to shoulder on an annual basis for participating in the information collection process associated with DACA. However, the document does not provide further analysis or breakdown of this cost. As a result, it leaves the reader without a clear understanding of how this cost estimate is calculated or justified. For instance, there is no detailed explanation of the types of expenses that contribute to this total cost, such as administrative fees, paperwork processing, or other related activities.

The absence of such a breakdown might lead to confusion, particularly because the stated figure could seem high to those unfamiliar with governmental processes or the specific requirements of the DACA program. For a general audience, providing additional context or clarification could be beneficial in understanding the necessity and allocation of such a substantial financial resource.

Additionally, in the broader context of financial responsibility and public engagement, there is a clear opportunity for transparency. Explaining how the total is derived and how it aligns with the objectives of DACA would enhance trust and comprehension. This is especially pertinent given the issue identified in the document where the complex procedure and the references to past notices in the Federal Register are potentially daunting for the lay reader. Providing a more thorough explanation could bridge the gap between technical regulatory language and public understanding.

Overall, while the document successfully outlines the financial commitment expected from the public, further elaboration on the specifics of this figure could mitigate concerns and improve accessibility to the information for those less familiar with regulatory documentation.