Time to end DACA. Obama was wrong to start it without input from Congress
11
@kurfco.
Why? Because this is their home and it’s all they know. Because they didn’t choose to be brought here as children, and generally we don’t penalize children for decisions made by adults unless we turn people into abstractions and ignore the reality of their lives. Because, common morality and decency aside, these children who have now become adults are statistically more law-abiding then your average American citizen. Because, common morality and decency aside, these adults (and their successors) contribute billions of dollars a year to the American economy — probably a whole lot more than many of those who want to get rid of them. The opposition to DACA is one more chapter in the brutalizing of America by a mob of nativists and nationalists who believe their fears and anger should be the foundation of American government. The truth is, it already is and they have already won. They celebrate racism and ignorance. They support an oligarchy that’s eating them alive and while they don’t notice. They elected and support a demagogue who is destroying the American republic as the mob cheers him on. What have you given us, a woman famously asked Benjamin Franklin after the constitutional convention. “A republic, if you can keep it,” he replied.
It turns out we couldn’t.
@ADN
The only reason these folks have been here this long is failure to enforce our clear immigration law. If we don't catch a bank robber for 20 years, their kids don't become entitled to keep the money.
Here's as far as I'm willing to go: for any DACA enrollee with credentials we would accept as a legal immigrant, put them on a path to citizenship. But, if they have a lousy education, marginal job prospects, a high likelihood of becoming a "public charge", a marginally criminal past, no way. "Being brought here illegally through no fault of their own" does not -- in and of itself -- make them a desirable legal resident.
9
Many unauthorized migrants came from rural communities in Mexico and Central America which view adolescents as adults. The communities did not value education so their residents dropped out of elementary school or ended their education after the 6th grade. Once finished with their schooling, people went to work. Females traditionally started marrying by age 14 to have children of their own. In recent decades, more have given birth out-of-wedlock.
Even though the media relentlessly describes DACA migrants as those who were brought here as young children, DACA covers migrants who dropped out of elementary school, and eventually, by age 16, made their way to the U.S. These school drop-outs did not come here for education. They either came to have children and receive welfare or to work. As a former social worker in California, I know many adolescents arrived at the border in labor, gave birth in our country, and then signed up (the first of their many children to be born here) for welfare.
Any of the ones who can show that they arrived before turning 16 and who will now enroll in an alternative elementary school or in an English as a Second Language class (that could help them get a job) is eligible for DACA. DACA gives legal status to poorly educated migrants who are likely perpetuating the values of their home communities to future generations - big families matter more than education and adolescents are capable of making adult decisions.
11
If DACA recipients are given a path to citizenship, they will be able to sponsor their parents for citizenship. This would be an amnesty, not only for DACA recipients, but also for their parents and any of their other relatives who are here illegally. It will be a reward for coming to the U.S. illegally, with a child.
A 6/26/18 article in the Seattle Weekly titled "Immigrant Rights Activist Avoids Deportation And Moves Towards Citizenship” said an immigration judge had decided not to deport an unauthorized migrant because a child whom she had given birth to, almost 21 years ago, in the U.S., was (once the child turned 21) going to sponsor her mother for citizenship. It did not matter that the mother had been living here illegally. The judge decided an anchor baby could sponsor her undocumented mother for citizenship.
If we offer DACA recipients a path to citizenship, they will be able to sponsor their parents and members of their extended families for green cards and citizenship, just like the anchor baby in this case. It would not matter if their parents and other relatives have been living here illegally.
9
The fundamental question surrounding DACA is not whether one believes there should be a provision in U.S. immigration law to give legal status to people brought here illegally when they were children. Rather, the question is whether it is within the scope of presidential authority to create a benefit program, especially when Congress had rejected legislation on the point in question. For those enamored of DACA--How would you feel if the current administration declared a material change to existing federal law by executive order, right after Congress rejected legislation enacting such a change?
12
@Working Mama.
“How would you feel if the current administration declared a material change to existing federal law by executive order….?”
Well, gee, that’s an easy one. The current administration does that fairly often and gets slapped down by the courts for doing it. Sometimes it feels like it happens every other day. When they’re not doing it by Executive Order they’re doing it with regulations that the courts have also thrown out. How I feel about that is, it’s depressing and scary that a racist mob in the guise of a political party is governing the United States. What’s really depressing is, their “vast right wing conspiracy” as Hillary Clinton called it has also taken over the Supreme Court. For those worried about illegal immigrants and the children of DACA, It might be a bit smarter to start worrying about having kissed your civil rights and basic freedoms goodbye. You might miss them when they’re gone.
The requirements to be enrolled in DADA are minimal: any kind of job, involvement with any kind of school, and a criminal record that isn't too bad -- but hardly clean. A DACA enrollee can have a record with a misdemeanor for which up to a year was served, or up to three misdemeanors with up to 90 days served for each.
Why should this country be extorted into granting some form of legal status to anyone we would never accept as a legal applicant?!
15
@KurfcoIn
In King County, Washington and some other jurisdictions, around the country, prosecutors have decided not to charge DACA recipients with the full extent of their crimes out-of-fear that they could lose their protected status. For example, a DACA recipient who was driving with over twice the legal limit of alcohol in her blood was charged only with "reckless driving" so she would continue to qualify for DACA.
(Reference: NYT 7/31/17 article titled "Prosecutors’ Dilemma: Will Conviction Lead to ‘Life Sentence of Deportation’?")
9
I would recommend all readers and commenters visit texas and the border to witness first hand how bad it is down here. And I live in North Texas.
14
DACA is a mistake and undoubtedly an illegal executive overreach.
First of all, recall the basic fact that DACA does not change the fact that an illegal "immigrant" is still an illegal "immigrant". It merely defers action. It's a can kick. What is the point of enabling the can kicking to be continued?
DACA should be ruled illegal because it effectively enacted law, which is not a preseident's prerogative. It gave work permits and other benefits of being a legal immigrant to illegal "immigrants". This can't by any stretch be considered "prosecutorial discretion". It's like deciding not to go after some speeders and letting them continue to drive over the limit, or not pursuing some bank robbers and letting them keep and spend the money.
The only reason DACA exists is mass illegal "immigration". There is nothing about "being brought in illegally through no fault of their own" that makes DACA enrollees into desirable legal immigrants. Every single one should be re-vetted and subjected to the same desirability screens used with legal immigrants.
And the parents, the ones who created the mess in the first place, should be deported.
17
This is absolutely shameful. I grew up in West Texas and Mexicans made a huge contribution to the state's prosperity and culture, from the cotton harvests to the names of my schools like Estacado and Coronado.
1
@james Haynes OK, then support candidates who will make legislative changes to the existing statute. The President does not have that authority.
2
SCOTUS may have upheld the legality of the program, but it would be an unprecedented curtailment of a sitting Executive's power to insist Obama's EO continue in the absence of President Obama.
7
Illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant. You can't sugar-coat that word. They all must go. They are welcome to come back legally but must stand in line like everybody else. No shortcuts.
19
BZ Dad
Are you willing to scrub your own toilets, mow your lawn in 90 degree plus heat, pick tomatoes for an average of $6.35 an hour ( no shade or toilet available), take a job for $7.25 an hour while on your feet for 8 hours a day up to your ankles in blood, feces and animal parts while butchering chickens, beef & pork?
Didn’t think so.
1
@Solamente Una Voz
There are many many unemployed Americans who are willing to do that sort of work given the opportunity for slightly higher wages. I am willing a little extra to hire Americans.
1
So let's hold 700,000 people hostage.
And to all you self-righteous comment authors, my compliments. You make me wonder if I want to continue to be an American.
6
@ozymandias
Nobody is holding them hostage. We need to look at what the law says.
13
DACA is not the law. If these people want to stay in the US then get an employer to sponsor you on an H-1B and get in line with those immigrants who choose to play by the rules, the law.
30
@Anita DACA recipients cannot get an H1-B. Or any other kind of visa. They are still considered to be illegal immigrants, even on DACA, and you need to be in lawful status before you can apply for a visa or green card. If it was that easy, DACA recipients would be doing it already. And by the way, they didn't choose to be here illegally.
We can thank Obama for this mess, for after telling the American people time and again that the law constrained him he went ahead and legislated from the Oval Office because another branch of government - the only one actually charged and empowered to write the law - would not bow to his wishes.
Make no mistake, this is really about reining in abuses of presidential power, something Congress has allowed to happen for years now. It does not matter if the issue is popular with voters (dubious, depending on which survey you look at) or if the EO is "the right thing to do" (dependent on one's view) - the bottom line is only the Congress can enact laws. Period. And the lamest excuse is "well it's been in place for a few years so must now continue, even if not legal". Nonsense. Will those taking that view on DACA sit back and sigh and agree when and if a Trump EO remains in place until he is out of office and winds through the court system only to have some judges say "it must be okay since it's still with us".
And because an EO is NOT law it should not, in any way, be binding on any subsequent administration. Again, think Trump - should one of those judges bar future presidents from rescinding, for example, one of Trump's orders on the environment? Would you like that? I seriously doubt it! Executive Orders must be curtailed and limited to purely administrative matters that do not contradict any law on the books.
32
I do not support DACA. All people are subject to the law- equally.
The idea that we should reward some for law-breaking is obscene to me.
Those here illegally need to be deported back to their home countries. All of them.
Daniel De Jesus Rangel-Sherrer
Apolinar Altamirano
All told, 53,000 people who have been approved for DACA — 7 percent of the total — had a criminal record when the government granted them status. Nearly 8,000 racked up criminal charges after they’d been approved, according to the data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
31
@WillT26 You need to put a context on these misleading statistics. First of all, you falsely claim that 53,000 had "criminal records" when granted status. The reality is that 53,000 were arrested. An arrest does not necessarily indicate a criminal record. If a case went to trial, they could have been acquitted, charges dropped, etc. Secondly, more than 60% of those arrests were for minor misdemeanors or immigration cases, not for the types of crimes that automatically result in removal from the program. Almost 40% were for driving related offenses, not including driving under the influence. Thirdly, you do not compare these figures to the general US population yet you are implying that the DACA recipients are somehow more "criminal" or more "dangerous" than the average person. These rates actually show they are less dangerous than the rest of the population. So stop trying to twist information to scare people.
The DACAs, (and their many millions of parents), ought to be packing and they know it. Their extended stay here, compliments of the US taxpayer, is over. Try doing what they've done in Canada or any other country in the world and see how long they'd allow you to stay. We're such pushovers.
30
This is a case where courts should defer to Congress. Obama properly used his authority to implement DACA and Congress has now had years to overturn it if they choose. Trump has no apparent reason for overturning the failure of Congress to act.
Absent Congressional action then or now the courts should leave DACA in place.
But even more troubling is the Trump/Republicans' acts to deport hundreds of thousands of lawful immigrants admitted to the US under the Temporary Protected Status Act. Although the Republicans argue that the conditions that prompted this protection are no longer in effect, a) they are often wrong, and b) after being in this country for decades, moving people off TPS status should only be to allow them permanent residence with a possibility of citizenship. At some point these refugees have shown they deserve to stay in this country. Vote for rational and humane government, vote Democratic.
5
@Eero
There was nothing for Congress to overturn - an Executive Order is NOT law, for only Congress can make laws. Only Congress can override a president by a veto, but no president can "override" Congress by using the imaginary "if Congress won't act (i.e. do what I say) then I get to step in and create law) amendment. Indeed, Congress had already acted when it passed laws that Obama simply decided he would change, which is not the way things are supposed to run.
25
@George S
But Congress has the right to pass legislation overriding a presidential order. If they choose not to, then they have effectively agreed.
@Eero
You're missing the point, Eero - the law itself is all the override needed. If an Executive Order says something contradictory to a duly enacted law or grants rights and privileges that only the law can grant, then the Executive Order should be considered invalid on its face, and Congress doesn't need to anything in furtherance of that.
It would be like if you or I or a corporation violated a federal statute and instead of prosecuting them, the Attorney General says that Congress must first condemn our action. The law itself already does that.
If for the dreamers only and not for later use of their citizenship status to bring in legall their parents, then yes. Trump ask for that change and it was refused. So as it is, we have a stalemate.
Since the policy is not on its faced constitutionally safe, it will not likely make it past the supreme court .
In its current form, it is amnesty for the entire family and that is unacceptable without further reforms in the immigration laws.
18
The courts have been quite reluctant in the past to interfere with or limit executive authority. They have shown a desire to allow the President leeway to carry out laws as he sees fit if the desired result is lawful and in furtherance of the public good.
A prime example is the Robert's court ruling on Obamacare.
The court would have been inclined to support Obama on DACA as well since his purpose in enacting the policy was twofold: prioritization of limited immigration enforcement resources and support for these innocent "dreamers" caught up in the immigration mess.
In repealing DACA, the Trump administration is making a transparent political move designed to use the "dreamers" as hostages in an effort to build a useless and costly
border wall.
The repeal meets neither Supreme Court criteria: It is not in the public interest being a large waste of precious tax dollars and it is manifestly unjust to these young people whose only crime is an accident of birth.
I hope the Supreme Court will exercise some true wisdom and provide an example of American ideals by supporting the continuance of DACA as a minimum.
2
@Brian Barrett
You are conflating the Dream Act - which Congress refused to enact, and DACA, which is only an Executive Memorandum to Homeland Security, which usurped the Will of the People through their elected representatives and was a flagrant abandonment of the President's Oath of Office to enforce the laws of this land.
Under Separation of Powers, this is squarely on Congress's plate.
9
@holman The problem with DACA is overreach. Obama had the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion as to whether to seek removal proceedings against any individual in the U.S. unlawfully. He had no authority to grant work authorization in the absence of legislation.
This is of course what Obama wanted when he created the DACA as a "temporary" program. Once people signed up he knew it would be very hard for a future government to deport them. Of course, as he said many times, the program is likely illegal. But absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes, and of course liberals only care about the law when it benefits them.
21
Border line illegal to begin with ,DACA could not survive the Supreme court,of course ,they thought it would never go there. The end result of DACA is to turn Texas and Arizona to the Democrats. They are not really concerned about these folks they are concerned about the vote because they can't do it without undocumented immigration and open borders.Globalism and commercialism at it's worst and supposedly against all lefts idealism.
16
The judge’s order to continue DACA is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion which the President can, and should, gratuitously ignore. If the judge does not like it he can always precipitate a Constitutional crisis. Or try.
DACA wasn’t even an Executive Order, which would have violated separation of powers. It was an Executive Memorandum directing Homeland Security to stop enforcing a piece of our immigration law – also a violation since the Legislative Branch has not repealed or revised the law.
On 9/5/17 President Trump issued a Memorandum on Rescission of DACA to Homeland Security, which put the Congress back in charge of the law. Nothing more than that.
The Judicial Branch has no authority to block or cherry-pick the enforcement of the laws of this land. So let SCOTUS tell Congress their law es no bueno.
16
I had hopes at one point that President Trump would moderate his selfish cruelty, but I see it is not going to happen.
2
If Obama started DACA through an executive order, I don’t see why Trump can’t end if through an executive order.
Obama had no legal right to grant work permits as that is Congress’ purview.
40
I do not believe that the President has the authority to create such a program.
But surely, if one president has the authority to create such a program, another president must have the authority to discontinue it. Imagine a Congress that could pass laws, but not repeal them. This way lies madness.
37