This administration is brilliant in creating messy situations and is addicted to dog-whistling rhetorics, tweets and administrative decision-makings. Trump, apart from his other faults and deficiencies , is a rank amateur in governing. He listens to weirdos ‘advising’ him. As such this administration is an unmitigated disaster.
3
As a service to this thread, here is an article profiling DACA enrollees.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/daca-dreamers-by-the-numbers-trump-sessions-funding/index.html
80% from Mexico. Average age at arrival was 6 1/2 years old.
2
If, at bare minimum, a majority of Supreme Court Justices are incapable of reaching the unassailable conclusion, at this point in the dark nativist history of this Administration, that racial animus drives the totality of its immigration policy, then we must wonder whether these jurists have been living under a rock for the last three years.
3
The fiercest opponent of administrative state will have second thoughts about deporting 700,000 young and lawful above-average people. But consequences aside, this one is not fundamentally different than the several environmental protection regulations current administration rolled back. And, Congress had been given 6 months before sunset, so the charged language in last paragraph isn't exactly fair. In term of the outcome, we all know John Roberts is (politically) savvy enough to keep those kids here. But the law, or whatever it is, needs to go.
1
The Supreme court should stick to its past decisions and affirm the lower courts in this case. The arguments made by this administration are ludicrous at best and very dangerous at worst. If the court goes along with what the administration wants it will forever taint all APA actions where the agency simply changes the procedures set out by the previous administration. All this will do is cause more chaos in our way government operates. This administration had an agenda, the Miller agenda to deport all people of color for no reason other than they are people of color.
27
@MLucero: At one time the Supreme Court decided that 1) Slavery was legal, 2) Women had no right to vote, 3) That Southern slaveholders had the right to "recapture' their slaves in a free state, and 4) That American citizens of Japanese descent could be imprisoned without due process and a trial as my brother in law was at age 4. Should the Supreme Court now uphold all those past decisions?
6
@MLucero The decisions in the Travel Ban case and even the Census case indicate that so long as the administrative decision is not pretextual it should be upheld. Its decisions in the Gerrymandering case and the Bucklew case indicate that the court should try to avoid decisions properly left to the political branches. To say one is ending a program seriously in jeopardy of being struck down because of the DAPA decision with a six month window for Congress to act in order to have a more rational ending to the program is not ludicruous, particularly when noting the six month deadline is negotiable. In any event, people who dislike Trump adminstrative decisions should welcome cases that make it easier to reverse them when he leaves office.
Trump is against DACA for two reasons: 1) It was enacted by President Obama, and 2) It increases the number of people in America who are not caucasian. The decision was made first. Then the Administration began looking for reasons it could try to use in Court.
26
@Noah Fecht Trump supports DACA, he has stated that numerous times. He will sign a bill that includes DACA in it, he has stated that numerous times.
DACA was about to face court challenge the very next week and that could have lead to it being completely gone by now. By cancelling it and giving some extensions, Trump has likely prolonged the life giving Congress more time to come up with a solution.
5
In #DACA, as in so much else, we must hope that the Chief Justice will steer the Court in the direction of sanity & decency until a progressive president has a chance to reconfigure the majority.
3
DACA is unconstitutional. However, many Americans have conceded that the current enrollees should be granted legalization. But, many also believe that DACA should be ended for all future illegal aliens as it is against our constitution. The only path to legalization is to follow the laws of our country. Anything less is unacceptable.
60
I am unsure as to whether your assertion that DACA is unconstitutional holds water. As stated in the article, the case before the Court will test process, not the constitutionality of DACA.
14
@Pvbeachbum In order do that that, you have to give them a path to citizenship. The only way to do that now is marriage.
5
@Pvbeachbum Perhaps you'd like to explain why you believe DACA is unconstitutional? I've never heard an explanation that rings true to me.
15
Thanks to Ms. Greenhouse for her column. She is one of my favorites.
So. Everything depends on the Chief Justice. The four Federalist Society justices are stooges for The Donald so the only thing left to decide is what will the Chief Justice do.
If the Chief rules against republican positions too much, he might not get invited to Federalists Society socials. If the Chief rules against The Donald in this case, will The Donald launch a "twitter war"? We will see.
107
If DACA illegals - nearly all now adults who long ago could've applied for citizenship - are made legal by SCOTUS what becomes of their still illegal many relatives? Can DACAs then turn around and chain migrate those illegal relatives?
1
@Maggie SCOTUS will not make them legal. SCOTUS will simply uphold, or else strike down DACA.
DACA never made them legal either. Is simply "deferred" action (such as deportation), with the intent being to try to buy them time while Congress gets its act together. Meanwhile, Congress (read as "Mitch" in this case) has been very clear that he will not bring relevant laws to the floor for vote. Why does Mitch do this? Because keeping things status quo with DACA in place is politically good for the Republicans (it gives them a target that they know keeps their base emotionally engaged behind them).
4
The Obama Administration described DACA as having educational criteria so the media assumed this meant that this meant an applicant had to have graduated from high school. Consequently, just about everyone who applied for DACA was a high school grad. Most of the 700,000 people who are currently protected under DACA have a high school degree or a GED.
The Obama Administration actually wrote the criteria more loosely. They said that anyone who was currently enrolled in an educational program could qualify for DACA. This would cover a migrant who had never attended school, but was now willing to enroll in either an English as a Second Language program (which had a demonstrated ability to help migrants find jobs or get into job training programs) or was willing to enroll in an alternative elementary school for adults.
If we are going to keep DACA, we must limit it to those who are currently enrolled in it, and not allow anyone else who fits under the Obama Administration’s loose educational criteria to apply.
If anything, we should make the educational criteria stronger - such as requiring a 2 year college degree, certification in an occupation, or an honorable discharge after at least 2 years of military service.
3
@ann
My criterion is simple: accept anyone we would take in as a legal immigrant candidate. We most certainly should not take DACA enrollee illegal "immigrants" with profiles we would never accept in a legal immigrant candidate.
3
Even SCOTUS cannot make incompetence and hate legal. When has this administration forwarded an opinion or policy deemed by anyone outside his base as "normal"?
3
I am wondering why these Dreamers have not applied for citizenship.
1
@James Ward They actually already have citizenship in their own countries.
5
@Rennata Wilson
They don't live in their own countries, and don't want to live there, or they'd go back. Some of them have never lived there.
1
@Rennata Wilson
Seeking asylum in the USA is not illegal.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
56
@Mon Ray The dichotomy between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigrants is a false one. No one desired to admit illegal immigrants. The question is and always has been: whose presence shall we, the sovereign people, make legal?
This administration has worked assiduously to reduce the number of LEGAL immigrants allowed into the country, especially in the two LEGAL categories of asylees and refugees.
There is also the question of how we shall deal with those who have come into the country without permission. Mercy has its place, even in law. We don't rail at the cop who fails to issue a speeding ticket to the man driving his wife to the emergency room. A child being brought here as a minor by his parents can hardly refuse to come. He is not of age to be held responsible for his bad decisions. Deporting him to a country he does not know where a language he does not know is spoken and where he has no family or friends because, forsooth, his parents dragged him over the border when he was three, is the equivalent of sending a toddler to prison because he walked out of a toy store with a teddy bear he didn't pay for.
32
"...US taxpayers cannot possibly support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here."
The DACA cohort is already here. They pay taxes, including for Social Security, which will need all the revenue it can get.
27
You are wrong from the first sentence. Trump got elected on a virulently anti-immigrant platform, and uses it to maintain his grip on the presidency. Legal immigration and refugee acceptance has been slashed deeply...and his supporters bray for more reductions and more exclusion, and cheer immigrant sweeps and deportations.
16
Perhaps the profitable solution to this problem is for the Courts to rule that the DACA decrees was an unconstitutional action that altered law and created a class of resident that now deserves some relief.
They could also rule that the party (or parties) responsible for the creation of the injured class should be held responsible, collectively and personally, for its solution by making them pay for any federal benefits claimed or reparations due to those of the injured class.
Why should I, as a law-abiding taxpayer who saw the illegalities of Obama's executive order, pay for an injury that was clearly and responsibly avoidable.
I'm sure Obama and Clinton can chip in a few bucks.
3
Every day we yammer over this, the continuing lunacy of Birthright Citizenship makes it harder to solve. As long as any tourist, illegal "immigrant", illegal "immigrant" enrolled in DACA, can have a US citizen child, often paid for by the US taxpayer, we end up with the dreaded "mixed families" of citizens and non citizens. This, of course, greatly complicates dealing with our immigration issues.
13
@Kurfco
Constitutional amendments are really hard. Since there will never be another one after the ERA is passed, get over that.
1
@Blank
There should be a case for just reinterpreting the language, not overturning it. It was intended to clarify the status of the children born to newly freed African slaves, not confer citizenship on kids born to tourists, truckers, illegal "immigrants", etc. Are illegal "immigrants" subject to our jurisdiction? If Texas tries to execute a Mexican citizen illegal "immigrant", Mexico intercedes. They won't be able to get a Real ID to board a plane or go into a Federal building because they lack the proper documentation to get one.
For me, the argument is very clear: It is illegal for an illegal "immigrant" to work in this country. No matter how we might ever "reform our immigration system, it is inconceivable that illegal "immigrants" will be able to work legally. How does it make sense to have kids be US citizens when their own parents cannot legally work to support them?
2
DACA and other forms of amnesty are a great insult to the millions of hardworking people who took the time and made the great sacrifices to immigrate legally to the United States.
13
@Armando Cedillo
Now that they are here maybe they want to lose the door behind them.
Very compassionate of them.
If one assumes good faith, which, in the Travel Ban case and even the Census Case, seems to be what the Supreme Court assumes, the Trump administration's policy on DACA was relatively straightforward and sensible. DAPA, a similar program, had been struck down by the 5th circuit and affirmed by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Fearing Justice Kennedy's replacement might provide a fifth vote to outlaw DACA, the administration essentially gave Congress six months to pass legislation clearly providing a DACA solution knowing that a judicial decision to strike down the program would be less than optimal. There were statements that the deadline could be extended. Instead of solving the problem legislatively, where it should be solved, the Supreme Court has to make a decision that will not be satisfactory. It can try to, again, make up a fiction (as in the ACA case that something was a tax) to save an improperly conceived (if not illegal) program (Ms. Greenhouse's solution) or stike down the program with all the attendant misfortune on those relying on DACA. Or perhaps it could strike down some of the provisions and make its decision prospective - which is a legislative decision, not a judicial one.
2
I listened to an NPR story yesterday looking back at prop 187 that the then Governor of CA, Pete Wilson, and the GOP pushed hard and passed, but, was never implemented. That brought about changes in the state quite the opposite of what Prop 187 and its supporters expected which is the demise of GOP in CA, large numbers of immigrant population in CA which as made the 6th largest economy in the world even more vibrant than ever. The predictions of the story is that a similar fate awaits the national GOP and it wouldn't be a day too soon for that to happen! DACA should be approved! The DACA students have achieved what many US born young people are not. We need the Dreamers and not the losers in this country!
4
It seems like a lot of people commenting here either didn't read the opinion piece or don't understand what they're reading. The article clearly explains that "No one is arguing that DACA must remain a permanent fixture of immigration law. The issue is whether the administration handled its termination in a manner consistent with basic principles of administrative law". A SC ruling against the administration doesn't mean that DACA is legal, it'd just mean that as a matter of administrative law, the government wouldn't have met the burden of reasonable reasons to set it aside. The government could restart the case with better reasons under administrative law, or, better yet, legislate immigration reform and deal with the dreamers in that context.
10
As soon as President Obama created DACA, the very people who would benefit cried foul. They said the President should also protect their parents. He acquiesced, creating DAPA to protect any unauthorized migrant who had a son or daughter who was living here legally (including sons and daughters under temporary DACA protection).
Those who had left their children behind in their home countries started sending for them in the belief that their children would also be eligible for DACA which would make themselves (as their parents) eligible for DAPA. (These parents who began sending for their children either did not know President Obama had limited DACA to those who had already been here for 5 years, when he announced the program, or they figured the limitation would be dropped.)
As usual, some of the newly arriving unauthorized migrants made it over the border without detection, while others were caught. But, something unexpected happened to those minors who were caught. If they said they were under age 18 and were from further away than Mexico, they were automatically entered into the asylum process. Word of this spread, and the number of young people who started coming from Central America increased 5 fold, and still shows no signs of diminishing.
In creating DACA, President Obama inadvertently signaled that anyone who was here illegally would be able to obtain legal status through a child and that has since led to hundreds of thousands coming here without papers.
11
@ann
DAPA was the immigration equivalent of the kid who was in court, convicted of murdering his parents, arguing for mercy because of being an orphan.
8
The issue confronting us goes beyond DACA to whether we intend to return to being a nation build by racism. After all the procedural and legalistic parsing, the question rests on who deserves the opportunity to benefit from the progress built on the backs of Indigenous and enslaved forebearers.
For most our nation's history, immigration stood atop racism. Europeans came, displacing and decimating Indigenous peoples. Without a native population to do the heavy lifting, European-descended Americans imported enslaved Africans -- immigration by force of arms. Amid the Civil War, Manifest Destiny demanded more labor. So Chinese immigrants came to build the railroad, but Exclusion Acts and other racist laws denied their dignity and their families.
The 1965 Immigration reform was a key step towards building a race-blind United States. Country quotas finally ended amid the civil rights movement, along with Jim Crow laws.
But now, descendants of Indigenous peoples have been used for a race-baiting revival -- ignoring the droves of undocumented Europeans who also arrive among us. Like non-whites before, they do some of our nation's heaviest lifting -- too often for unreasonably low wages in hazardous conditions.
History will judge SCOTUS harshly if it re-establishes racism as a guide to deciding who the United States will give a chance to flourish. Chief Justice Roberts, the world is watching.
4
Will the SCOTUS defenestrate the DACA kids? Unlikely. If the SCOTUS were to remove them from the US, this action would forever leave a dark smudge on our national reputation as well as the Court’s. Such an action would be unforgivable.
4
"No one is arguing that DACA must remain a permanent fixture of immigration law." Seriously, Linda G? Every liberal in the country has essentially argued for that for years.
6
@Mark
Wrong. Democrats COMPROMISED with 14 Republic Senators in 2013 to pass Immigration Reform Act by a 68-32 vote and Boenher refused to allow a vote on the House floor. He knew the legislation had more than 235 votes and would be signed by President Obama.
That would be the end of the wedge issue that the Republic Party used so effectively for decades to turnout their rabid racist voters.
2
So the SCOTUS is asked to legalize illegality? A strange question to ask the highest court in the land.
Whatever they decide will resolve little, as there are tens of thousands undocumenteds streaming across the borders every month. young people, who soon produce citizen children. This has completely changed the Southwest. Schools are unrecognizable; sometimes you barely hear English. Do the residents really have no say about this?
12
The Dreamers really did nothing wrong. They were brought here illegally by their parents illegal entry into our country. The kids should be allowed to stay. The parents should be deported.
3
DACA was permissible as an exercise of enforcement discretion. But enforcement discretion is a matter of executive judgement, not rule-making. To say Trump cannot undo it without a formal process is like saying that if the police choose for a time not to arrest shoplifters below a certain $ value, that they cannot resume doing so later without a formal rule-making. Of course they can, and Linda Greenhouse knows it. She would never tolerate anything similar in the space of civil-rights or abortion-rights enforcement.
5
DACA enrollees in the military, some might wonder?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-says-daca-recipients-in-military-number-fewer-than-900/
900 out of 800,000 or just over a tenth of one percent.
7
Oh, it’s only 900 people. That makes it okay to renege on our deal, and stick it to them. Got it.
I have to say, I admire the logic. It’s only maybe ten or twenty black folks shot by cops for no good reason, only maybe two thousand kids in cages at the border, only maybe five thousand damaged kids in Flint, only maybe 150, 000 folks kicked off their health care, only maybe a couple hundred thou kids kicked off school lunch programs, only maybe a mil or so Kurds who helped us left high and dry.
Keep counting. It’s not all that far from where you are to six million.
4
@Robert
What the SCOTUS ruling should be addressing is whether Obama's "deal" was an unconstitutional executive overreach that must be slapped back for the long term health of this country and its divided government.
DACA merely "defers" deportation. It doesn't change an illegal "immigrant" into a legal immigrant. Every single DACA enrollee remains an illegal "immigrant".
Obama set this tragedy in motion and rectifying it now rather than waiting our usual decade is preferable.
6
Get rid of the illegal Dreamer act, and force Congress to deal with the issue via official process. Send a message that no President can circumvent proper channels and make unilateral decisions that should be made by Congress.
30
@G G: The fate of a specific group of people who made a commitment in good faith to the US government is at stake here. I couldn't care less about Trump.
10
@G G Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Had Trump not rescinded it when he did, a number of AGs were ready to file suit immediately to challenge the constitutionality of it. And in reality it's a pretty clear cut unconstitutional act implemented via executive branch overreach.
12
You’re joking, right?! No president should circumvent Congress. Seriously? I’m sure then that you disagree with Trump falsely claiming a national emergency to appropriate military funds to build a wall that Congress explicitly denied funding.
10
The real issue is the scope of review to be given to this administrative decision. Libs like Greenhouse want to challenge the wisdom of the decision ("the president or the henchman who do his immigration handiwork can eject some 700,000 productive young people from the only home most of them have ever known."). These decisions are properly left to the discretion of the administration in power, and as decided by the electorate in the Presidential election, otherwise the Courts usurp the role of the executive.
2
The primary motive for the Trump administration’s immigration policies is an irrational enmity toward all immigrants whether they are naturalized citizens, authorized or not, with particular animosity toward Muslims that amounts to religious persecution and toward Central Americans that is motivated by blatant racism.
The Trump administration routinely resorts to defamation of entire groups of people, promoting irrational fears and inciting violence. In response, white supremacists are engaging in terrorist stacks targeting immigrants and Muslims.
Given this background, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS rules to enable the Trumpists to persecute immigrants by removing DACA protections. I think SCOTUS will, because the conservative justices voted to allow Trump to persecute Muslims.
1
Once, again, Ms. Greenhouse demonstrates her mastery of cogent explication -- the opposite of the result-oriented blather plaguing our courts.
Were I president, I would nominate her as a justice of the Supreme Court.
2
@Mack
That would have been in place of Justice Kagan perhaps.
DACA is neither an immigration law nor the product of a presidential executive order; it is Department of Homeland Security policy established by memos issued by DHS directors in 2012 and 2014. The Obama administration successively argued DACA was legal because it was temporary, not permanent.
In 2017, a new DHS director issued a memo revoking DACA,. No one argues that DHS lacks authority to revoke DACA, but DACA advocates persuaded federal judges to temporarily block the recession on grounds it violated the Administration Procedures Act.
The APA permits federal courts to set aside agency actions they conclude are "arbitrary and capricious’” Both liberals and conservatives complain that federal judges sometime simply use APA to set aside policies and regulation simply because they disapprove of them.
In August 2018, Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District Court rejected DHS’s appeal. In his ruling Judge Bates wrote: “The Court did not hold in its prior opinion, and it does not hold today, that DHS lacks the statutory or constitutional authority to rescind the DACA program. Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program—or to take any other action, for that matter—it must give a rational explanation for its decision. that DACA was illegal.”
The case hinges on whether conservative Supreme Court justices find DHS decision to revoke DHS irrational.
4
@marvin and a few others. Get your language straight, DACA is not the result of an act but pf an executive order, one written under Barack Obama. Writing or designing executive orders is a legal skill that requires the ability to analyze existing law and the Constitution to effect an order that is legally within what is allowed to the executive and which achieves the effects desired by who designed it. One thing that drove republicans absolutely bananas was that President Obama was simply brilliant at this. He could put together executive orders that stuck. He was smarter than any one of them and even than all of them put together and he was a man of color. Hence all the sputtering rage over executive overreach. It was not how many he effected; PresidentGeorge W Bush wrote more. He just wrote an average number. What killed them and still does to judge by some of these comments is that he wrote orders brilliantly so that they stuck. Compare that to the present occupant of the White House.
2
@Bill H
Well said and every word rings loud and true.
Whatever the good intentions of DACA, it was an Obama policy, not an act of Congress. And therein lies the problem. So set up pieces like this excoriating the Supreme Court in advance of its decision is something the NYT is doing more and more, and frankly is unfair to the judges. Despite what the left (and media) believe, this court has been fair in its rulings to date. I don't expect it to be anything but fair in the future.
4
@Mattbk
This $COTU$ is the worst in more than 130 years. Ruled 5-4 on at least 3 or maybe 4 issues that are among the 10 worst rulings in $COTU$ history.
Bush v Gore
Citizens United
Heller v DC
Shelby County v Holder
This is an issue for the Congress and not the courts. The best and most fair solution would be for the Dreamers to be permitted to stay if their illegal immigrant parents return voluntarily to their nations of origin with no chance of returning to the USA. Otherwise the Dreamers can go back to their nations of citizenship, use the gifts the United States has bestowed on them to improve living conditions in those nations and teach perfect English, and reapply for residency in America.
4
President Obama did not have the legal right to grant DACA.
7
@Sharon
Individual 1 did not have the legal right to end DACA.
This red meat for the deep-staters. Trump can rile the GOP base by saying that the SCOTUS is using the deep state secret weapon called the Administrative Procedures Act to keep him from righting an Obama wrong. Steve Bannon could not have given it a better name.
This is going to be messy.
1
DACA is an illustration on how we send conflicting signals to potential illegal immigrants. On the one hand, we make it difficult to cross our borders (unless you are asking for asylum) and we can theoretically deport you, even if it means separating you from any children you have while living here (if you do not chose to take them back to your own country with you).
On the other hand, we let you send any children you brought here illegally to school for free, offer them free language lessons and every school service which is available to citizens.
We give you free medical care.
Our country does not require you to present an ID with your immigration status to rent an apartment, open a bank accountant, or get most jobs.
The IRS will given you a special number with which you can file an income tax form. Whether or not you earn enough to pay any income taxes, you have been able to use this number to apply for the EITC and the Child Tax Credit. These are misnamed as “credits” in that the IRS has actually been sending money to illegal immigrants to supplement their incomes. Way back in 2010, the Inspector General for the Treasury Department found that the IRS was paying illegal immigrants $4.2 billion dollars a year to supplement their incomes.
Any offer to legalize a group of illegal immigrants further clouds the message to potential illegal migrants. It says that despite our laws, it is O.K. to come here illegally.
6
SCOTUS must declare that DACA is unconstitutional and throw it back to congress for action to immigration reform. If the court allows DACA then right behind will be Obama’s second EO on immigration: DAPA. Fortunately, this travesty giving illegal immigrant parents of their illegal children, the same rights, including entitlement to all other government benefits like disability insurance, social security, Medicaid etc. This cannot happen. Sotomayor should be excused from this vote as she has publicly stated that “...her decisions would be based on gender and national origin.” No surprise.
5
DACA must be terminated and those who conspired to traffic/smuggle millions of foreign nationals into our country must be held accountable with long prison sentences and ultimately permanent repatriation.
8
Apparently, executive orders and impeachment declarations have much in common...more like wishing thinking.
3
There is, to me, a reasonable argument to be made that Trump can choose to enforce the laws differently than Obama did. Why Trump would choose to enforce the law in a disgustingly cruel way that would ruin the lives of 700,000 young people, who are basically Americans in every way except for a technicality, is something that is truly baffling. Is deporting these people and uprooting them from the lives they have known really something that his base supports? I imagine Trump thinks so, because everything seems to be calibrated to appeal to his base. Which leads to the next question: Is his base really that heartless and cruel? I would hope not. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in this case, on a moral level, the idea of deporting these people is disgusting.
31
@Jim Dennis well said.
1
My vote counts for less because of illegal immigration. Rich people want cheap labor to destroy the working class and the party of the working class, the Democratic Party, supports that. Those that entered illegally broke the law. If their kids are harmed that is on the parents. What we do now determines the future of our nation- will we have a strong and prosperous nation or will we become another third-world country drowning in a massive underclass of people with no skills or hope? Liberals are free to donate their time and money to help foreigners- but they insist that the entire nation pay and that anyone, anywhere, with a puls and a sad story be allowed into the US and be provided infinite amounts of support. Citizens who need help? They are privileged whiners.
15
Minor technical details: these kids have been Americans in every sense except the legal one their whole lives. But feel free to keep glugging from the koolaid jug labelled, “Easier to blame colored folks.”
And speaking of having to put up with a “massive underclass of people with no skills or hope,” remind me of something: exactly where, and among whom, is the current opiate addiction rate highest?
1
It shouldn't take them more than a few minutes to give Trump another win.
If Obama had the right to do it (he didn't) then Trump has the right to undo it.
It's just that simple.
14
Along with a number of cases regarding the efforts of the Trump administration to stonewall or even to mount an aggressive attack against the Congressional impeachment inquiry, Chief Justice John Roberts is being tested in the DACA matter.
The name of the game for the cynical, anti-democratic litigants and their disingenuous attorneys is to determine whether or not the conservative Chief Justice has the judicial integrity and courage to stand up for the rule of law against a president who has nothing but disdain for the Constitution, for any law which prevents him from doing as he pleases and for any judges who oppose his crimes and misconduct.
Whether Chief Justice Roberts prevents President Trump’s vindictive actions out of a concern about leaving a decent legacy of fairness or because the Chief genuinely wants to be fair and judicial in the finest sense of the word, he must oppose this uniquely un-American president.
5
DACA, like the act of infiltration itself that "necessitated" Obama's order, was an overreach. It's time to rescind DACA and hold law-breakers accountable.
17
@Valery Gomez ….I wonder if a two year old child can reasonably be called a law breaker? Undocumented yes, but a law breaker?
1
The Roberts precedent was a terrible legal idea adopted to achieve a short term good, i.e. the rejection of the census question. It allows, even forces, judges to rule on the sincerity and motives of officials acting within their powers. That should make everyone very uncomfortable when we think of the myriad situations in the future where a court might be called upon to second guess officials. Ruling against the administration here might be good for those affected by DACA, but it will be terrible for the republic and future administrations trying to use their power to make change. Do you really want judges questioning the motives of officials as they implement Medicare for All? I don't think so.
5
@Tom Meadowcroft
It asserts that official lying is not a valid justification for an administrative order. You have a problem with that?
2
@Tom Meadowcroft
that's absurd and you probably know it. if nobody can every challenge reasoning by the executive then there would be no reason for the executive to ever give a reason. absurd
1
A couple of years ago my daughter was admitted to UC San Diego. I was very proud of her, because UC San Diego is a great school. We were not sure what school she was going to attend, but UCSD was on the short list. We are American citizens and long time California residents.
We attended a welcoming reception hosted by the school at a hotel near LAX. There were maybe a thousand kids there in a big conference room. I was astonished when the Dean (#2, at the school) took to the podium and started speaking in Spanish. She went on and on....in Spanish. I heard one father ask his kid: "They are going to teach the classes in English, aren't they?" I was asking myself the same question. This Dean then said some things in English, and one thing I recall is "Don't let anyone tell you that you don't deserve to be here." That really had not been a question in my mind, because my daughter had just about killed herself getting a 4.4 GPA and scoring in the top 1% on the SAT and ACT.
I later caught on: this Dean was referring her comments to the so-called "Dreamers." I have no animus towards those kids and I wish them well. But we just thought that the Dean should have made the American citizen kids feel welcome as well. We felt the overwhelming focus was on the DACA students.
We chose another school, based primarily on the impression we formed that day. I commented on this before online, and was attacked as a "hater" and racist.
DACA and MAGA seem eerily similar.
10
DACA should be resolved as part of a comprehensive immigration reform deal. Sending folks back who have never known another home and were brought here by others is not right in my opinion re others
Any adult who came here illegally either goes back or can work out a path to citizenship. If that means agreeing to a wall and a moratorium on new immigrants or greatly limiting the number as needed that should be agreeable to enough lawmakers to get it done
4
In answer to Ms. Greenhouse's question, "Will the justices allow the Trump administration to toss out the Dreamers?": Yes, because it will pressure the House Democrats to deal in good faith with the Trump administration. DACA needs to be based in law, not a memorandum by the previous administration. There were attempts to do this after Trump's election, but, in my opinion, they failed because too many Democrats in the House chose not to cooperate with the President. If the Court allows the administration to "line 'em up and move 'em out", I am optimistic that the House will cooperate in crafting DACA legislation acceptable to the Trump administration.
4
@Donald Champagne
Every occasion involving attempted legislative action on immigration ,saw the Republicans offering action on DACA in exchange for the wall and other punitive measures. Do you call that dealing in good faith?
Procedural or substantive? If procedural, I don’t see it as arbitrary or capricious; it was deliberately designed to allow deportation based on race, parental national origin. Aka, racist.
I’d argue a deeper wrong. A substantive wrong. These children were, in essence, kidnapped by their parents, other adults, forcibly brought to a foreign country, culture. Raised in this manner, to now deport them for actions not their fault, is to impose cruel and unusual punishment on an entire class of kidnap victims who have had no say in the illegal events that brought them to this moment. You cannot go back and un-raise them. Un-acculturate them. They are, Americans. To take this - citizenship- away, throw them into an alien culture, country- beyond cruel, unusual.
What is the process that is due? A blanket grant of citizenship. Setting a precedent? Sure. If Congress doesn’t like it, let them actually deal with immigration reform laws. Their own abdication of responsibility shouldn’t require the Court to abdicate theirs; justice for these children is citizenship. Do justice.
8
@Jo Williams
If parents rob a bank and give the proceeds to the kids, do we let the kids keep the money? When this country has an elaborate legal immigration process, do we just throw it away for anyone who was "kidnapped" and brought here? And what of the "kidnappers" who are still here?
We should never forget: this issue is a big deal only because law breaking took place over such a long period of time and our Federal government failed to deal with it over a long period of time. There is nothing noble about this issue. It is merely evidence of a very slow, very incompetent government.
5
@Jo Williams
The Supreme Court CAN'T grant them Citizenship. No way No How! It's not within their authority.
3
@Jo Williams
Don't you read your bible? It says in plain English that the sins of the fathers shall be vested on the sons for 10 generations. The DACA kids have 9 more to go.
DACA's very existence is a triumph of branding and marketing. The use of the term "dreamers" was genius.
DACA enrollees, by the way, are a subset of "Dreamers". The latter is composed of every one who entered the country illegally as kids, while DACA is composed of the smaller number of folks in this category who enrolled and were accepted into the program.
For those who have never bothered to look at the requirements for being enrolled in DACA, here is a brief summary, which you can verify for yourself. An enrollee has to be the right age, has to have entered during the right years, has to be enrolled in some sort of school or have some sort of job, and can have a criminal record no worse than 3 misdemeanors. It does not require a clean criminal record, and sanctuary states, such as California, have been pleading arrests down to help maintain DACA eligibility. The bottom line here is that DACA allows people to stay that we would never accept as legal immigrant applicants.
And, don't forget, DACA is a can kick. It does not change the fact that the enrollee is still an illegal "immigrant" under the law. And the parent(s) who entered illegally and caused this whole mess in the first place? Undoubtedly still here.
14
I understand it is all about law, substance, procedure, etc. And I will be the first one to admit I know little about the law and the courts. My field was service-oriented, an RN. But I feel a need to put my two-cents' worth into this discussion. This Roberts' Court has made it very clear where its "priorities" lie. The conservatives specifically feign their adherence to the Constitution. Yet, the glitch is how they interpret it. That to me is subjective, not Solemn-like objectivity. The Constitution was meant to be dynamic, to be read and heeded according to the mores and customs of the times. And our founding fathers did a mighty good job of it, too. What I am leading toward is that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the administration, it is betraying the inalienable rights of Americans including those who were not born here but have proven that they will be upstanding citizens and contributors to a thriving democracy. It all depends on one person, Justice Roberts. What an awesome responsibility. The question is: To whom will he listen?
4
@Kathy Lollock oops..."Solomon-like objectivity..."
"...an odd baseline, since the Administrative Procedure Act was not enacted until 1946..." this is a great point but maybe too understated. Cass wants to pick a point in time and ignore subsequent laws, as the article points out. How people like Cass get through school and subsequently earn enough to feed themselves baffles me?
4
@XTerrestrial conservatives don’t really like the constitution or democracy. They seem to be striving to turn it into an instrument of pain and torture that they inflict on the meekest, most powerless members of our society.
DACA should be tossed for two, crystal clear reasons: Obama's action putting it in place exceeded his authority and Trump, as incoming president clearly has the authority to undo it.
This debate should not be about what DACA is. The debate should solely be over whether putting it in place and undoing it are legal.
18
This is an issue for the legislature. But Congress wants to keep the issue alive -- to raise money -- rather than hammer out a uniform bill with the other party.
So, we rely on our courts to resolve fundamental problems with our congressional system.
No court can fix this.
3
@Occupy Government
Not Congress in general-Congressional Republicans. They can’t win on their guns, racism, more for the rich, nothing for the peeps platform. They have to rev up hate and polarization.
Ms. Greenhouse stands by the theory that programs established by executive order are immune from executive orders modifying or canceling them.
Her argument is far more spurious than anything presented by the Trump administration.
12
@The Owl, she said nothing of the sort.
1
@The Owl Surely not "anything."
@Leonard ...
Indeed it does.
By arguing for the retention of the program "under the law" one has to accept the fact that the DACA program was established, not by Congress with presidential approval, but by President Obama with his pen.
Given that she is arguing that the DACA program was legally promulgated, a serious constitutional question in itself, she cannot then argue that President Trump does not have the authority to change or end the program.
She argues for a desired resolution, not a proper interpretation of the applicable laws.
But such arguments are nothing new for Ms. Greenhouse. There hasn't been an extension of laws by liberal overreach that she hasn't endorsed.
"Or is it the Trump administration itself that is truly exceptional — and if so, what is the Supreme Court going to do about it?"
Unfortunately, I don't think they can do anything. It's not their job to save us from ourselves. We can fix this by voting the republicans out of office.
3
@George: The Supreme Court bears the crucial linguistic burden of establishing uniform understanding of the meanings of specific words that appear in legislation.
2
The sentence that struck me was: "The issue is whether the administration handled its termination in a manner consistent with basic principles of administrative law." Has the Trump White House made any decisions that can be considered consistent with the basic principles of administrate law? Especially those coming via a tweet? In this context, it would seem the answer is straightforward and obvious - "No". Let's hope the SCOTUS can see this for what it was...discrimination (and isn't there an amendment about that?).
9
If the case is to be decided on procedural grounds rather than substantive ones, then the original DACA implementation must be examined on these same grounds. Did President Obama follow all the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act? If he did not, then the policy is invalid on the face. If he did, then and only then should the procedures of the revocation be examined.
12
@michaelscody
President Obama followed ALL proper procedures in implementing DACA.
Next.
@michaelscody, has the administration provided evidence to the court to support that reasoning?
1
DACA was going to be challenged has Trump not tossed it, a number of state AGs had already filed suit and were prepared to go ahead. Trump actually potentially allowed it to exist longer in the interim and give Congress a chance to fix it.
DACA is a GOOD thing, but it was implemented in an unconstitutional way. For all those that cry about Trump being an authoritarian and fascist, DACA is a clear overreach of the executive branch setting de facto immigration policy. If SCOTUS allows DACA to not be struck down, look for lawsuits to be filed quickly to dismantle it on constitutional grounds.
Anyone that is against executive overreach needs to take a step back and not look at the policy, but he constitutionality of the Obama administration actions.
DACA is good policy, but unconstitutionally implemented. DACA needs to be fixed and enshrined in law by CONGRESS.
17
Well, I guess this means there's no need for SCOTUS to hear the case.
Seriously though, DAPA and expanded DACA have been successfully challenged (in part based on constitutionality) at state level. DACA was never successfully held as unconstitutional (to date), despite several challenges.
We'll find out what SCOTUS has to say shortly (assuming they don't dodge the core question).
@Marvin, you keep saying that it's unconstitutional, but that hasn't been established yet.
1
Trump framed the issue as one for Congress to solve, which put him on a decent footing, even though we all knew the intent was racist. But, if the Court is simply looking at the procedure, ultimately there is no reason for the destruction of DACA.
5
The gerrymandering decision said that, if the legislative branch did something illegal, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot take action against it unless the legislative branch itself admits its illegality and tells the courts what the legal standard is.
Now, the Court gets a chance to decide whether executive branch actions that are arbitrary and capricious, relative to the law they're supposed to enforce, are okay if the executive branch says they're okay.
If the Court decides in favor of the executive, there won't be much left for it to do with its time, except, I suppose, overrule the one remaining branch's decisions.
Maybe it's all just laziness.
3
@Joe Ryan: Congress is obliged to cite its constitutional authority to enact legislation during its development. This is recorded in the legislative history of the law when it is enacted. Absent that, the Supreme Court may throw out the law.
We are dealing with “ the dreamers “ , real young people ,human beings, more american than most Americans , who love this country and don’t know any other country.
They call the United States of America their homeland , they are patriots, they even serve in the military .
They work , they study , they do their best to be good citizens, even though they have to fight daily challenges due to their “ anomalous “ status .
I truly wish that this Supreme Court, with six Catholics among the nine judges ( most put in place by a Republican President...) will find the moral compass , christian compassion and common sense to allow these young people to become citizens and to enrich our society.
9
@inter nos Courts follow the law, they are not supposed to be activist based upon other factors. DACA is good but needs to be implemented in the proper way, via Congress, plain and simple.
That Congress is not doing it is not a reason for the courts to allow executive overreach, no matter how good a policy is.
8
@Marvin : As a retired Attorney, I hate to puncture your dream but most judges only follow the laws that coincide with their personal, religious and political views. In my many years as an Attorney, I learned to accurately predict a Judges political party by the decisions a judge made. The worst were always the Republicans, who, when necessary make up law to support the Conservative Republican position.
4
@inter nos They are not that kind of Catholic. They are paternalistic, misogynistic, hard right, Opus Dei Catholics who worship themselves and the institutional structure that keeps them in power rather than the ideals that generated the formation of that structure.
1
Trump is on thin ice these days. There is a chance Pence will be President before 2020. But it is the billionaires running the GOP who want to kill DACA. Trump could care less.
So Roberts’ string pullers are the wealthy cabal behind the GOP. DACA is a test of puppetry. Has stacking the Court worked?
2
@John✅Brews A clear majority of folks are for a DACA program, but many want to see it implemented the constitutional way, via Congress.
2
The crime cartels in Mexico are out of control and the President of Mexico doesn’t have the ability to confront it. Therefore, ALL possible security measures should be on the table including physical barriers. Reasonable compromises have been presented by the President.
Pelosi has played political football with these young people’s lives way too long.
Shame on Pelosi for this misstep and her blatant disregard for our safety and the safety of the Dreamers!
6
@Charlie, even billion dollar pigiatura barriers that can be cut through with a $100 tool?
@Charlie Successive Republican Administrations have concentrated on the border fence and refused to do anything about the enormous flow of illegal weapons from the US to Mexico or the drug problem in the US that created the horror in Mexico.
@Charlie, such lies, and after all this has already been discussed by more informed than you or I!
It's almost as if you are willfully ignoring the multiple BIPARTISAN bills from the evil House. The ones "Grim Reaper" Mitch refuses to bring up for a vote at all?
It's almost as if you're just parroting FOXtrump talking points, those old cliches of 'playing football'. Even so far as to link Mexico's failing state with DACA. Pretty weak.
In any case, Democrats are FOR allowing these Americans to go on with their productive American lives, and republicans want to make them suffer. Not much of a national security issue, but you be you with your fantasy of Democrats' disregard for blah blah blah.
The position of the Supreme Court on the Trump administration's arguments in these cases can be summarized as follows:
The four liberal justices: "you can't lie to the Supreme Court!"
The four conservative justices: "we know you are lying, but those lies are fine with us as they advance our common agenda."
Chief Justice Roberts (deciding vote): "I may be willing to accept your lies, but come on guys at least come up with better lies! I have to be able to live with myself!"
16
Unfortunately, what I cannot understand is how an executive order by a PREVIOUS President becomes irrevocable law? President's don't have the right only Congress can pass law I thought. For all those commentating how it must be law & Trump (Who I don't like) can't change it. The PRECEDENT will be established that EO's are irrevocable. Guess what? That means Trump's EO's will also be irrevocable. Are we a nation of laws or not????? Because the law is clear, President Obama had no LEGAL right to grant residency and work status to ILLEGAL immigrants by executive fiat! He could choose not to deport them that's admin. But no where in law did have the right to over ride Congress on the law and grant them the right to residency & work status. So tell me does the President make law or does Congress? Because if the President can impose any law he wants with a Phone & a Pen irregardless of how law is supposed to be written? And Irregardless of congressional dysfunction! Then this NO LONGER a democracy or Republic it's rule by Strong Man.
So tell me folks, does & should the President any President, be it Obama or Trump have the right to create laws on their with recourse to our elected representatives? And should the Court support the right of a President to create his own law? Which is what the Supreme Court legalizing DACA as an IRREVOCABLE EO would do!
15
@Stephan The challenge here is more like if the Trump administration dotted their I's and crossed their T's, no such might what he can do. The bigger picture is that DACA is very likely unconstitutional and several AGs were ready to file suit had Trump not acted when he did.
So, if the Trump action is overturned narrowly, they AGs will file suit and DACA itself will be challenged on a Constitutional basis.
7
If the Supremes destroy these young people it is the end of “ melting pot “democracy and human decency in our Nation.
They all belong here!!!!!!!!
Lawyers have you no shame?
I have attended multiple immigration conferences .
At every meeting the facilitators ; usually faith community leaders ,are stymied by lack of direction ,due to the paucity of certified immigration lawyers able to work a sick destroyed immigration non system. Lawyers !!start committing to this group. Bar Association !!!surely you must provide guidance and staff. Attorney dues are taken for trade organizations they are members of. Do the job. Inundate the courts w the real deal.
IMHO all you do is take desperate immigrants and Dreamers hard earned money and give so much less in return than they all deserve.
This issue should have been solved by Reagan. And subsequent presidents to date.
4
Well if Obama can make illegal immigrants legal with a "wave of his hand", rest assured that Trump can return their status to illegal. Case closed.
14
@Robert ….."Well if Obama can make illegal immigrants legal......The first to letters of DACA stand for Deferred Action. You might want to think about the meaning of deferred action before you claim Obama made illegal immigrants legal.
Civics 101: DACA is not a “law,” as the columnist mistakenly claims. Rather, it was an executive order from the previous president.
12
@Robert true and in response to a Republican Congress that refused to deal with immigration. Even immigration reforms that were bi-partisan.
6
@ND Exactly. SCOTUS can easily decide that DACA stands until Mitch Mcconnell goes and the senate resumes it’s normal function as a legislative body at which time we Americans will have a Congress in which BOTH houses function.
What makes a citizen a "Legal" citizen?
Some here say "go through the process of becoming a citizen!"
Wait a minute...what gives YOU the right to say that? Do you know the process? Have YOU passed the citizen test?
What do YOU bring to our country that "dreamers" cannot?
What gives YOU the right to define what a "legal" citizen is?
When you look at a satellite photo of the planet...do you see any borders?
2
Roberts is grappling with that profound immoral question: How can I create the outcome I want without seeming to bend to the will of the monstrous buffoon who controls the government?
11
America is about 52% Protestant. But the Supreme Court has six Catholic justices aka 24% of Americans and three Jewish justices aka 1.8% of Americans.
DACA extolls the Christian humble humane empathetic virtue of welcoming and loving the stranger as set forth in Matthew 25: 31-46.
About 10% of Americans are agnostic/atheist.
Sonia Sotomayor is the only Justice who shares the ethnic cultural and language heritage of the DACA recipients.
Barack Hussein Obama deported more people than any other American President affer campaigning and promising to enact comprehensive immigration reform during his first term. Obama waited to do DACA until the last two years of his second term as a reversible executive order.
2
DACA is a leg of the four-legged stool known as "Open Borders." The other three legs are decriminalization of illegal entry, free health care for illegals, and a path to citizenship for illegals. The flood of illegal aliens into this country does not benefit American citizens and in fact hurts their ability to get jobs and find affordable housing. DACA should end with the current recipients given permanent work permits and the right to remain in the US without the rights of citizenship.
7
SC rulings have effects on people's lives, a fact that seems to be lost with conservative Justices who wear blinders as they nit pick reasons in the constitution to hurt as many people as possible. When Jews were denied entrance to our country during the final solution with turned our eyes away from them based on immovable quotas. And the Supreme court found nothing wrong in putting Japanese American citizens into concentration camps during world war II. In questions of law when possible the interpretation of laws should fall on the welfare of as many suffering people as fits the case. And ruling in favor of DACA now grown adults who are as law abiding as any American citizen should determine this ruling.
3
Nicely said. These United States are a nation built by immigrants (if Native people may be 'excused' from the equation, however unjust!). And last I checked, the most valuable asset of any country is it's human talent; trying to waste the huge potential of DACA folks is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Could we, Trump and his minions, and the Supreme Court, be this stupid? The best and most expeditious way to solve 'Trump's political travesty', and disallow this injustice from becoming more shameful, is to allow these valuable folks to become citizens...now. Anything short of it is pure 'politicking'. Real 'politics',as everybody knows, is the art of the possible; so, why not do what's right? And decent, if we still recognize it's value?
3
@manfred marcus And many (most) agree with this sentiment by many also feel that it is the job of CONGRESS to make immigration law, NOT the executive branch. Certainly not SCOTUS either.
4
@manfred marcus
America was built not by immigrants - there was no U.S.A. in the 1600s - but by British poor white indentured servants.
@Maggie I stand corrected, the British were not immgrants, invaders instead, colonizers intent in extracting it's resources for naught.
After DACA was issued by Obama, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minor migrants crossed our border illegally every month in 2014 and 2015. It created a humanitarian crisis, and was reported as such by all media outlets, including CNN, that did extensive reporting. Why only children? Where were their parents? If they were running from violence, why would parents send their kids on a 1000 mile plus harrowing journey without them? Because they all thought Obama would let their kids stay. Jeh Johnson is on video begging parents south of the border to stop sending their children, that DACA didnt apply to them. Didnt matter. they kept coming. And since our laws dont allow deporting children, they all got to stay. The adults figured this out, and then recently started coming themselves, by the hundreds of thousands, dragging their kids with them - resulting in the crisis we had on the border in recent months. Of course, Trump got attacked for all of this, as if it was somehow his fault that we didnt allow these masses to cross illegally just because they have kids with them. Amnesty just encourages more illegal immigration. That is unarguable, giving the colossal consequence of DACA that weve seen on thie border the past few years. Want to help out these kids? Ok, then we need to put an end to illegal immigration once and for all. Fund and finish the wall. And it needs to be thick concrete, so you cant saw through it. Enough is enough.
5
The Supreme Court already heard the case and split 4-4 (after Scalia had died). Notably, swing Justice Kennedy voted that DACA was illegal.
There is no point in having a Congress if a President feels that he can simply, as Obama did, simply create his own laws.
It is true that DACA would not have passed Congress. But that is why we have the Congress is that Congress which is elected by the people passes laws.
Just because President Obama felt that Congress isn't doing what he wants it to do, he just can't make up a law and let it stand.
It is for reasons like this that Trump won over "the establishment."
Many, many people were very upset that Obama could simply circumvent Congress and disregard the Constitution. Since Obama was a Harvard trained lawyer who had taught Conditional Law at U. Chicago Law School, this total disrespect for The Constitution was all the more galling.
In addition, during Obama's first two years in office the Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama and the Democrats could have followed The Constitution and passed DACA without a single Republican vote. Instead of working with the Democratic Congress, Obama decided instead to circumvent The Constitution.
10
@David MD, hmm. I don't remember congress passing a law to ban Muslims.
Why bother with a Senate and house when any of 500 unelected so called judges can decide to make up laws as a side line hobby?
The president and hopefully some democrats will will have an attitude adjustment when the courts start overturning liberal and activist abominations like DACA and abortions.
To my liberal friends... you asked for Judicial rule by decree... so now live with it.
1
When children are brought in by adults it is through no fault of their own. Sending anyone back to a country where they do not know the language and did not grow up is simply cruel and unnecessary.
If anyone wants to worry about floods of immigrants that can't be stopped, they should be worried about the effects of climate change, and political instability/violence.
Fixing things before they break is much easier than fixing them once they have broken.
3
Once again, stupid US courts wallow in procedural issues and ignore human issues. 750,000 or so people signed up in good faith for a promised but unspecified path to citizenship. It is inconceivable to me that failure to deliver on it is even under consideration.
5
@Steve Bolger But many feel that it was done illegally by the wrong branch of government. Folks rail on Trump being a dictator and fascist, but DACA itself is just that. The Obama administration pretty much said "Congress is not doing anything so I will."
Doing the right thing the wrong way is NOT what we should be doing. And "Congress is not doing anything" is NOT a valid argument for the executive branch or activist courts to invent new law.
@Steve Bolger
It was a promise Obama had no right to make. Only congress can change the law.
Ms. Greenhouse. Thank you.
The subject here is DACA, or the Dreamers.
Reading today's Opinion, it is not so much DACA, the status of which is at stake. The underlying point at issue or of concern to many is our SCOTUS itself.
We consider the SCOTUS or the Judiciary, as a coequal branch of our government system. Mr. Trump and the GOP, together with the Senate Majority Leader, have shown much interest in appointing justices to the SCOTUS. When that is the case, that is what makes many to ask a question, whether the SCOTUS would act impartially, and instead, be fair and reasonable in their judgement.
The Justices know deep in their conscience that their allegiance should not be to the president or Party. Should not be the way members of the GOP in Congress are behaving today. Instead, they have a duty and responsibility, to safeguard the Rule of Law and the Constitution. This is what will address the fate of DACA next week.
3
"...enforcement of the immigration laws against all classes and categories of aliens"
There's your problem, right there.
Our immigration laws were never intended to deny in blanket fashion, admission to "all classes of immigrants", and certainly not to discriminate based on personal distaste.
In fact, they were carefully crafted to be as rational, as supportive, as welcoming as possible, given national conditions and the personal histories and circumstances of the immigrants applying and their points of origin.
"Hateful" is not the word that comes to mind when one considers the drafters of this legislation.
2
The findings in the recent court case involving the 'conscience rule' for healthcare providers (who object to providing medical treatment that conflicts with their religious belief) won't help. The number of complaints that HHS said were filed by healthcare employees turned out to be much closer to 20, a far cry from the figure of 358 complaints HHS cited for the last two fiscal years.
I suspect the Supreme Court will insist on verifiable data from the Trump administration before reaching a decision in the DACA case, rather than accepting that the data provided by Trump appointees is accurate.
3
I’m definitely no fan of Trump, but I think if the Supreme Court rules against DACA, it’s not going to help his popularity or re-election chances. DACA hardliners are already in his corner, crowded in with the 40% of our fellow citizens who agree that Trump could get away with that Fifth Avenue shooting.
Think of the outcry from the Muslim ban. Now think what would happen if this administration actually forced DACA innocents to leave the country. Trump couldn’t even tell them, as he told the Squad, to go back where they came from. I think there are many in Trump’s administration who would be very relieved if they lose this one.
Maybe the hardliners should have Stephen Miller on TV frequently to defend their position.
4
@John Vasi Trump has said he supports DACA and would certainly sign a DACA law that came from Congress. He has not gone after them for deportation, never planned to.
DACA, as formulated by the Obama administration, many believe is unconstitutional immigration law created by the executive branch.
2
Obama created DACA illegally and stated so more than once. It should be terminated.
10
@Olivia That may very well be, but he did it to address a real harm being done to the people who it protects.
We are a nation of laws, but let us not forget that we used to have a collective big heart.
And people may not realize that their immigrant ancestors may themselves been brought into the country illegally.
This isn't a new phenomena, the Irish were brought over in droves to do the dirty work of the railroads, they didn't come through Ellis Island with documents in hand, they were brought in through ports with no customs enforcement.
11
@Olivia No, wrong.
5
@Olivia There is a difference between "illegal" and "wrong". Creating a program that helps those who are stateless my be illegal, but it is not wrong. Terminating a program that helps individuals make a meaningful contribution to society is not illegal, but it is wrong. It is not enough to passively "Do No Harm". You must actively "Do No Harm".
1
The key to understanding this issue is the much misunderstood concept of Prosecutorial Discretion.
We can't and wouldn't try to prosecute everyone who goes half a mph over the speed limit. That would be nuts.
Once you get inside the system, you see we prosecute only a tiny fraction of all the things we could possibly prosecute. We have so many laws, and prosecution requires so many resources, that there is just no other option.
This is how the Broken Windows theory of policing becomes racist and abusive. Discretion becomes: prosecute the black guy. Stop them all and frisk them all and bust ever possible one of them.
Applied to immigration, we just CAN'T prosecute millions upon millions of people coming in a flood. Choices must be made. Obama just put a name on one system of choices.
Even Trump at his most vile just can't prosecute any more people. The system was overflowing under Obama.
The question then becomes how to stem the flow before it gets here.
Obama and others (like me) suggest helping them where they are, make their current homes livable.
Trump suggests deterrence, deter them by abusing them. It is deliberate abuse, done as a calculated system of terror.
Yes, terror. When you target their kids like that, it is just to terrorize. When you confine everyone to near fatal conditions, that is terror. When you sweep away water in the desert to ensure they die out there, that is terror.
52
@Mark Thomason "Applied to immigration, we just CAN'T prosecute millions upon millions of people coming in a flood. "
We needn't coddle them either. Unauthorized aliens should be barred from receiving driver license, professional licenses, supplemental assistance, mortgages, free education, free medical care. etc.
2
@Mark Thomason "Obama just put a name on one system of choices"
No, Obama created de facto immigration law, which is outside of his constitutional boundaries. THAT is the problem with DACA. Not the intent, which is great.
Heck, Trump even stated he supports the DACA concept and will sign any bill that makes it to his desk. Congress is the culprit here.
1
Dreamers remain today because their status was made legal by notice-and-comment rule making. Reversal would be legal under proper procedure AND reasoned explanation supported by discernible fact. Trump’s ogres attempted repeal based on a written record of suppositions that the plaintiffs did not find credible. Plaintiffs went to court to prove the suppositions were not credible.
The true reason for the change is that the Administration does not “like” dreamers in their midst, and does not want to look at them. They cannot offer this rationale in court because it provides no public purpose to ruin lives of people who have done you no direct harm. This would be arbitrary and capricious and the rule ending DACA would be vacated by the court.
If there was a good public purpose to expel them, the defendants would have stated it. So while the “Dear John” letters purport to be of higher purpose, they are merely high-sounding language defending the right of future administrations to fabricate pretty-sounding rationale to rationalize arbitrary actions, in this case, ethnic cleansing.
18
@Revoltingallday "The true reason for the change is that the Administration does not “like” dreamers in their midst"
That is absolutely false. Trump has stated he supports a DACA like program and that he would sign a DACA bill. Thus far, Congress has failed to put one on hid desk.
Had Trump no rescinded DACA, the next week several AGs were going to file a suit to strike it down based upon it being unconstitutionally created. It could very well be completely gone right now instead of in a holding pattern.
On the face of it, many would say it is clearly de facto immigration law created by the executive branch and should be struck down on that basis. It NEEDS to be recreated by CONGRESS.
1
I am sorry but nothing Trump says can be taken as how he thinks or feels. However...
We can take his actions at face value: incessantly demonizing immigrants, advocating a wall, mass deportation sweeps aimed at Latinos, criminalizing crossing borders outside of entry points then reducing access to those entry points, virtually ending refugee and asylum entry, and directing legal action against people with SUSPECTED birth certificates that were falsified. Ending extended visas for victims of natural disasters...I cannot even name all the actions they have taken.
Weigh the scale - empty words or a smorgasbord of policy and action? Which should anyone believe are his true intentions?
John Roberts has often referred to his interest in Court legacy and legitimacy. My hope is that he reads Linda Greenhouse's column.
15
@Nancy Lederman
Keep in mind that John Roberts is a Republican, and established himself as a florid caster of lies during his own Stare Decisis-fest of a confirmation.
The man may wish his legacy would be pleasant enough, but he puts that on you. Think well of me and my court, he says, or you are a fool. Which, apparently, would make him sad.
He has yet to lift a finger to re-establish confidence in the probity or fairness of his court. Nor will he.
2
@Nancy Lederman Congress should read this and act. Trump has already said he supports DACA like programs and will sign it when it crosses his desk.
Roberts, et al, need to base their decision on the law, not on what is or is not good policy.
A good policy done in an unconstitutional manner is NOT how we should run our contry.
1
I hope it's terminated because only then will Congress finally act. Pelosi threw the dreamers under the bus when she chose to stonewall a wall. Court interventions have only made things worse.
Democrats must make a deal with Trump. It's long overdue, and he has stated many times that he was open to such a deal. Let's hope it's not too late. Democrats' impeachment zeal could have killed any cooperation they might have had.
3
@AACNY -
Trump has too many times backtracked on his agreements for Speaker Pelosi to fall into that trap of trying to make a deal with Trump on immigration. The House put together a bill that would deal with Dreamers early on in Trump’s time in the White House, taking into account what Trump said he would support. It almost passed the Senate, before some tiny devil (cough, Miller, cough) whispered in Trump’s ear, “Nooooooooo”. Trump then threatened to veto it, and McConnell pulled the bill from consideration
4
@AACNY
You're talking like a Democrat. Stop it.
First, you actually wish to express confidence in any Trumpish deal you may obtain?
We're way, way past "...shame on me".
Second, no. This program is correct and good in many ways important even to our conservative brethren. They cannot see past their hateful prejudice. We must help them. With a hammer, if need be.
Destroy the legislator to save the soul, as we said in Nam.
The USA can’t have weak immigration laws that allow people to just walk in for a better life. It can’t have laws that block people who have beliefs at odds with Mr. Miller’s supporters. It can’t be cruel to innocent children who walked in holding their mother’s hand years ago. It can’t have a Supreme Court that can’t figure this out.
1
The Court's decision on DACA may affect another important immigrant restriction currently being pursued by the administration.
The motivations behind both the census question and the attempt to end DACA are similar in that their effect will be to identify and intimidate immigrants, asylum seekers, and others who the President thinks should "go back where they came from."
These policies--and the white-supremacist actions that they unfortunately feed--are also dangerously expressed by the Department of Justice proposal to require that the DNA of all men, women and children who pass even briefly through US border detention have their DNA forcibly taken and placed in the FBI's National Criminal Database.
If this new policy is allowed to become law it will in effect become a tool for identifying, intimidating, and excluding all immigrants from pursuit of the American dream.
If this attack upon the constitutional right of privacy is approved, it will threaten as well the privacy and security of every American--taking us one step closer to the kind of stigmatization, discrimination, and eventual violent scapegoating that characterized the 1930's in parts of Europe.
The DNA proposal--so similar in intent and irrationality to ending DACA and adding an immigrant status question to the Census--is still open to comment on the Federal Register. Hopefully the Court’s opinion in the DACA case will have the effect of stopping the DNA proposal before it can be started.
4
@SA No, the reason given was legit, that DACA is likely to be declared unconstitutional. Had Trump not struck it down several AGs were going to file suits against it the next week. That was all out in the open.
Trump gave Congress time and a window to create DACA as it should have been created, by Congress. Congress has failed.
2
@Marvin
You are right. Congress has failed. So has Trump, by accelerating the ruining of so many thousands of young lives--young people who have already and could continue to enrich life for all of us.
1
The Roberts court will lay to rest the notion that the Judicial branch of government is not partisan. The Republican members of the court were selected for their allegiance to Republican ideology. There is no reason to expect that they have the intellectual or moral capacity to do other than blindly inflict that white nationalist, authoritarian ideology on this country.
13
@White Eider Uh, DACA was implemented by authoritarian ideology in the first place. That is why it was being challenged in the courts.
The 5th circuit has already stated it is illegal but declined to put an injunction in place.
If SCOTUS reverses Trump, it will soon see a lawsuit on the Constitutionality of DACA. And by law, most would agree it is illegal the way it was implemented.
1
i grew up with the faith in the idea that my country in the end would do the "right" thing and that our reputation of being the good guys would be maintained. Not so much anymore.
The problem i have as i write this is how to express my disgust with the trump administration and his gop minions without using the profanities they so richly deserve and would leave this with no opportunity to be posted.
13
@tom
Agreed, Tom. I have always been proud to come from the land of the good guys. As you say, not so much anymore.
How can one be proud of putting children in cages? Of brutal racist comments about Islamic and black members of Congress? Of a man who is elected by people who seem to be hypnotized into voting for someone who brags of assaulting women? He is diminishing us.
Perhaps the answer is that those who vote for him are not proud of America the Beautiful. They are mean and greedy and glad the so-called president is trying to get rid of those brown people who are the ones who truly see America as great. That's why they came here--to be American and to help keep America great. Immigrants are the true patriots, citizens or not. Trump voters? Ugly, stupid, greedy, and probably not all that successful. Whose fault is that? Not Miguel's or Jose's.
6
“incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decision making process.”
Chief Justice John Roberts is not a stupid man and one can understand why W. Bush appointed him to lead the Court. But this Chief Justice is ideologically hidebound to defend "conservative" principles regardless of the motivations of politics. He should certainly be able to see that the Trump administration disrespectfully views the Court as its own. This must sting the Chief Justice personally as well as professionally.
But let's cut to the chase, shall we? Donald Trump, as president, wishes to deliver yet another death knell to one of the kindnesses of President Barack Obama. The big blowup over the census question was also tied up in Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's furtive and sneaky attempts to add it next year, a ruse quickly seen through by the Chief Justice.
My question is this: if Chief Justice John Roberts is left in no doubt as to the motivations and intentions of this current presidential administration--law aside--why can he not persuade his four horsemen of the apocalypse (Samuel Alito; Clarence Thomas; Neil Gorsuch; Brett Kavanaugh) that, at bottom, this administration is less interested in the law, per se, than it is in wielding power for inappropriate ends? Surely the coming public disaffection with a pro-Trump ruling must disquiet the Chief Justice, if not his fellows on the Right.
The Chief Justice needs to address the evil underlying all things No. 45.
7
Who runs the Administrative branch, now the Supreme Court? Do we now have only two branches of government?
This is ridiculous. The brief Ms. Greenhouse describes is exactly right. Does SCOTUS now peer into people's minds and souls for "motive"? I thought we were done with that after the Spanish Inquisition ended. So Pres. Obama can do an executive order to establish DACA, because his motives were pure, but the next president can’t undo it because his motives are not sufficiently pure? And the decider is a single individual?
Can't wait for another vacancy on SCOTUS so Justice Roberts will not be able to win thin majorities by creating capricious decisions.
2
@John Xavier III
It isn't "motive". It's justification based in reason. A country's laws and regulations should be based in sound reason, not bigotry and bias and "capriciousness", the essence of what we see with trump.
Obama had a reason--we can't deal with everyone, so let's look at the problem people and leave young people who cause no harm alone. I.e., a reasonable allocation of resources. trump's reason? "Get those brown kids out of here. Now." Not exactly "reasoned analysis".
So this is no Star Chamber situation. The Courts are NOT part of the Executive branch, they don't rubber stamp a king's edicts (the way the current Attorney General seems to want to do) and they need to see the rationale for a regulatory change when it is challenged.
1
@John Xavier III Disagree. We should not be asking the SCOTUS to do any mind reading. Mind reading is impossible. But that's the point. The court is legally bound to ask for a rationale - from both sides - and if the one given by the administration is irrational, without basis, or unsupported by a clear chain of reason, not independently verifiable, then the administration must have some other reason for its decision, which it is unwilling to give to either the SCOTUS, or to the COTUS - Citizens Of The United States.
1
If SCOTUS tosses out the dreamers I would like the next Democratic government to toss out SCOTUS by enacting term limits for all the justices.
6
@Christy How about you vote to toss out Congress and elect folks that will create a solid immigration policy, including DACA. You know, create immigration law the right way.
8
In the 1980s President Reagan and Congress came to an agreement ... A one time amnesty for illegal aliens in return for a fix of the flawed immigration policy ... Reagan held up his end, Congress did not.
Decades pass with politicians promising to fix the immigration problems but never did.
Obama comes into office promising the same and when he cannot come to an agreement with Congress he enacts through an executive order the DACA program and attempts to enact the DAPA program.
More time passes and Trump comes into office promising to get the flawed immigration policy fixed and here we are today awaiting a SCOTUS decision not for fixes to the immigration policy but to make sure "i's" were dotted and "t's" were crossed when Trump decided to end Obama's EO created DACA program.
Congress still has not come to any agreement on fixing the immigration policy problems almost 40 years since Reagan's amnesty deal ... expecting the Senate or President to agree to the House's over-reaching blanket amnesty and ridiculous 'practically open borders' laws is just NOT going to happen ... so stop complaining Mitch won't bring it for a vote.
A country needs borders and a way to vet those who wish to enter and/or stay in the country. Anything less is not worth discussing ... people have front doors to their homes with locks on them for a reason ... a country needs the same.
When the House presents reasonable fixes they will become law until then we are where we were 40 years ago. Nowhere.
3
@vw
During the George W. Bush administration and during the first two years of the Donald Trump administration, the GOP had control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. If this is a problem caused by the Democratic House, then why didn't the Republicans prioritize and pass immigration reform during one of those periods?
4
will they follow rule of law?
are we allowed to have rules for immigration, like every other country, that insists on legal immigration? Legal immigration...hmmm.... what a concept.
That seems reasonable, though fashionably politically incorrect these days.
4
If the Court finds executive orders unconstitutional there are a lot of Trump orders that will also be unconstitutional.
I'm not fond of government by presidential order, but given our dysfunctional Congress executive fiat seems to be the only way anything gets done anymore.
The real problem is our presidential system. We desperately need to rewrite our Constitution and restructure the government in a form that will work for a modern nation. But we probably can't and won't do that. So the slide into dictatorship is almost inevitable.
More on our awful Constitution here:
https://medium.com/@r.s.lewis.jr.1960/the-constitution-isnt-the-solution-it-s-the-problem-8364fb70c3b4?source=friends_link&sk=2637a714cdb6021e7b1946f389b3ee1f
2
@617to416 "but given our dysfunctional Congress executive fiat seems to be the only way anything gets done anymore. "
But we cannot allow this to happen. The courts cannot allow this to happen. This is NOT a justifiable reason for bypassing our separation of powers.
It's getting downright scarier when you listen to some of the folks like Sanders and Warren saying what they intend to do with executive orders.
And BTW, nothing getting done is okay. Better to not get things done than to ping pong back and forth with uni-party decisions. We need to force congress, via elections, to get things done that we consider important.
@Marvin
I agree that executive fiat is no way to run a democracy. I don't agree, however, that getting nothing done is okay. Government is important and we need one that functions well.
I don't think our current governmental structure works. Congress isn't dysfunctional just because we have bad congresspeople. It's also dysfunctional because the structure of our government and our electoral system tends to make our government ineffective and unresponsive.
Read the article I linked to if you're interested. It's a fuller explanation of why the current system just doesn't work for a modern national government that has a large and necessary role in setting and executing domestic and foreign policy.
If you apply compassion and common sense, it’s a no-brainer. Let the kids stay. If you apply confusing, up-to-anybody’s-interpretation legal gobbledygook, who knows what will happen. We are a country of laws, but ones that derive from the Preamble to the Declaration. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Let’s act that way.
6
@Cloud 9 "If you apply compassion and common sense, it’s a no-brainer."
But you can't, the courts are for law. Your answer is the same, however it is CONGRESS that needs to create this law.
If you believe in the Laws of our Nation, this is a pretty easy decision for the court to make since they already made the decision with DAPA.
We are either a nation of laws or we're not.
I don't have to stop at that red light if I determine it's inconvenient..just like these people didn't seem to think it was convenient to register for asylum or emigration to the U.S. in their home country before hopping our border.
I will..however..offer you a political compromise.
They can stay and have permanent residency but can never ever ever become U.S. citizens and can never ever vote in a local, state or federal election.
Deal?
I know they'd take it in a heartbeat..too bad Democrats wouldn't allow it..since this has nothing to do about fairness and everything to do with capturing raw political power while using these DACA kids as pawns.
3
What I see here is an opportunity for a person running for president to get real close to immigrants by stating that they would give a pardon to all DARCA recipients that have not committed any felonies while here. That is if the supremes vote against them.
1
@oscar jr Probably no legal, again you could call this de facto immigration law. Reagan got away with it, somehow, but I don't see it happening again.
What you need to do is vote for congressmen that will pledge to pass comprehensive immigration law, including DACA. But that means passing on hardline left and hardline right candidates and voting for moderates across the board.
In this climate it means producing comprehensive immigration and border security bill.
The acting directors in trump's show should not be deciding rules of law any more than the Supreme Court should be legislating from the bench.
Congress is the place to hash out the DACA issue, except that Congress has broken off relations with both the White House and the voters.
Until the current crop of obstructive leaders waddle off into the subset, nothing will happen that's any good.
1
Ironic that a Trump-justifying amicus pleads that it's trying to PROTECT the separation of powers that Trump has been attacking since the day he took office, and that the 115th Congress and now the 116th Senate is rolling over to allow.
If there's one thing Trump wants to destroy it's that very separation of powers that renders the courts and the Congress independent and co-equal to his Presidency--he wants to be Supreme above all, and unquestioned.
Do Trump's lawyers really think the Justices won't see the obvious contradiction in their argument that DACA is both illegal and simply an administrative decision, when it cannot be both? Maybe they can fool the "low-information voters" who only watch Fox but the CJ, and the 4 other conservative Justices are very well educated men, despite their leanings.
And, to my knowledge, NO justice EVER likes to be taken for a fool!
3
@Dadof2 "Ironic that a Trump-justifying amicus pleads that it's trying to PROTECT the separation of powers that Trump has been attacking since the day he took office,"
While Trump has done some of this, many of Trump's actions have been rolling back Obama policies that have encroached on the separation of power. DACA is certainly one of them.
Many folks here support the concept of a benign authoritarian. That is, if you like the policy, you support the breach of powers.
Those of us that lean Libertarian suffered through 8 years of Obama abusing this line and now through 4 years of Trump. Though again, Trump has actually rolled back, or tried to roll back, a number of Obama overreaches before they got to the courts.
So, don't act like this is Trump only thing. The Obama administration was one of the worst in history when you look at SCOTUS decisions against it, many 9-0 or 8-1. And they are still coming.
No country can afford to have people come in uncontrollably. Those caught crossing borders avoiding any contact with immigration should be sent back and told to apply at the border.
There is however a large population that has no legal status and has been in this country for decades, some have never known any other country. The latter are in limbo for no fault of their own and deporting them may not be an illegal act but would be a humanitarian crime and on top of it economically indefensible. Anybody with any conscience would see it as deliberate cruelty serving no purpose. To claim it necessary to discourage illegal immigration is in the same category as separating young children from their parents. It is immoral to use innocents to punish behavior we disapprove of.
151
No. Getting away with a crime for a long period of time does not absolve it. Deport them all. Now.
26
Unbelievable. They did not commit a crime. Their parents did.
It is apparent that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to stop illegal immigration. The Reagan era idea to make illegal immigration unattractive by controlling employments opportunities makes more sense today than ever, since we have much better databases today.
But like I said, in reality, no politicians, including tRump, really wants to stop illegal immigration. And by the way, building a wall has nothing to do with controlling immigration.
9
@DRS
There are arguments that say the DACA people broke immigration law by coming to the US. True that may be. But do we treat 12 year olds that shoplift a candy bar the same as we treat a burglar? Of course we don't. Adult punishments are not suitable for children. Deportation is an adult punishment.
Many if not most of the DACA people unknowingly broke the law. They were accompanying their parents and likely were unaware of the laws. Even if they were aware of the law, you can argue that they were effectively coerced (harsh word for your following your parent's orders, but that's sort of what it is) into breaking the law. Do we punish someone who at gunpoint (or other coercion such as a relative being held at gunpoint) robs a store the same way we would punish someone who willingly robs? Of course not. If anything we most likely do not punish the person coerced at all.
To argue that DACA people should be punished the same way as adults who illegally immigrate denies all sorts of precedents when dealing with lawbreaking by juveniles. Whether DACA was the right approach I won't weigh in on, but it certainly was a more reasonable approach than "Deport them all".
23
I have said many times that the Administrative Procedures Act is our strongest bulwark against the excesses of the Trump administration.
That said, the conservative justices seem to have a dilemma. Chevron v. EPA established that where there is a question of interpretation of the law, the courts defer to the agency's expert judgement, as long as they provide a reasonable explanation. Conservatives - notably, J. Thomas - have long chafed against Chevron deference because it allows the administrative state to accumulate too much unchecked power.
Wouldn't overturning DHS' DACA order as arbitrary and capricious undermine the conservative project of chipping away at Chevron?
1
@Anon Chevron is not really a conservative issue, it is more a Constitutional and Libertarian issue. Conservatives also like to use executive powers when it suits them.
Gorsuch hates Chevron and Kavanaugh is not a fan either. Which is why many view them not as conservatives but constitutionalists. We have already seen both cross over with the lefty block on such issues in 5-4 votes.
Folks need to remember that you can be pro-DACA yet think it was set up illegally. You can be pro-choice yet think Roe-Wade was an out of line activist decision. You can be pro-Obamacare but believe that many parts of it are unconstitional. You can be pro-climate and pro-environment and believe that the EPA should not be able to create outsized impact laws without Congress being involved.
At one point in the Obama years, there were 19 SCOTUS decisions, many of them 5-4. I think they trended a bit towards "conservative wins" but the real winners were the Libertarians. CATO Institute was 18-1 in the amicus brief support at that point.
The motivations behind both the phony census question and the attempt to end DACA are also similar in that they aim to identify and intimidate immigrants, asylum seekers, and others whom the President thinks should "go back where they came from."
These policies--and the white-supremacist leanings that they feed--are even more dangerously expressed by the Department of Justice's current proposal to require that the DNA of all men, women and children who pass even briefly through US border detention should have their DNA forcibly taken and placed in the FBI's National Criminal Database.
If this policy is allowed to become law it will in effect become a tool for identifying, intimidating, and excluding all immigrants from pursuit of the American dream.
If this attack upon privacy is approved it will threaten as well the privacy and security of every American, taking us one step closer to the kind of stigmatization, discrimination, and eventual violent scapegoating that characterized the 1930's in parts of Europe.
The DNA proposal--so similar in intent and irrationality to ending DACA and adding immigrant status to the Census--is still open to comment on the Federal Register. It should be stopped before it can be started.
3
Let's get real. Do you know why DACA kids exist? They were brought to the US by their parents as children and had no path to citizenship by themselves. The only way for them to become citizens is marriage. Then DACA came along to give them a work permit to at least earn a living wage so they can eat and pay bills. DACA kids do not get health benefits or loans or any federal aid. Most of them are educated here and either studying or working or otherwise contributing members of society. Who's loss is it to throw out 700,000 capable people while you still have millions of undocumented here who, not to compare, are probably not accomplished? A lot of the people thrown out are the same as those the US wants to bring in through merit-based immigration. Legalize the people who have DACA currently and then phase it out. Then have Congress pass immigration reform and the court can press that by saying they will not consider such immigration orders which should be decided by congress.
3
@Ray
They are adults and not kids. They all could've applied for citizenship more than a decade ago but haven't.
I strongly favor DACA on both moral grounds and practical ones. You don’t visit the sins of the father on the child, and we already educated or are educating these kids, may as well put them to work.
However, I also think that anything one president decrees, another president can un-decree, or decree something different.
Thats why we Dems need (among other reasons) to get the presidency and both Houses. Change the laws.
5
Roberts sided with Trump in the case limiting immigration from Muslim countries. He swallowed the argument that Trump acted to protect national security, even though Trump repeatedly made clear both as a candidate and as president that religious animus was his motive. Because national security is a matter on which the courts give the President great discretion, it was not surprising that Roberts decided to ignore the evidence that Trump was lying to the Court. The citizenship case had nothing to do with national security and sent the signal that the administration had concluded it could lie to the Court and get away with it. Roberts swatted that down. If Roberts does not continue to draw that line in the DACA case, he allows Trump to undermine the rule of law itself by sending the signal that facts don’t matter. If he takes that step, history will never refer to the Roberts’ Court. It will always be known as Trump’s Court.
36
The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to make laws but today we are largely governed by the Executive Branch , acting by agency or presidential rule making or the issuance of binding , and almost non reviewable interpretations of laws so vague that they are not much more than Congressional sentiments. The DACA case and others coming up for review may get the Judicial Branch to start policing the boundaries of the separation of powers.
9
Although I find it repugnant, I suspect the Supreme Court will rule for the Administration. After all, the fact that this administration's decision is clearly based on racial bias didn't stop the court in the Muslim ban case.
The interesting question, then, is what becomes of the DACA and TPS populations? Will Congress finally get off its rump and extend amnesty to these people? Or pass a law granting them permanent residence? Or will the Republicans join Stephen Miller in rubbing their hands in glee while these contributors to our county are deported?
While this might thrill Trump's supporters, I think many more people will find it impossible to vote Republican in 2020. It would be a terrible way to get there.
14
"Or the notion that with a wave of a hand, the president or the henchmen who do his immigration handiwork can eject some 700,000 productive young people from the only home most of them have ever known? "
Yes. That's why it is so important to pack the courts with people that share that sentiment, and have the will stand up against all that sentimental egalitarian, altruism, humanitarian, fairness, do no harm, stuff the left is always uses to fog up the courthouse.
Putting 700,000 innocents in harms way, by sending them to countries where they will have little or no standing as citizens, little knowledge of the culture, and possibly the language, harmonizes US cruelty with that we see so much of in the Middle East forced evacuations and relocations.
14
The Roberts Court had better watch where they step. Should the Democrats take control of the Presidency and Senate in 2020, the option to expand the Court and redress the wrong done by Mitch McConnell will be on the table. Roberts can invite it or he can hold it at bay. Abortion will be the key decision, but others may also factor in.
8
Chief Justice Roberts is the most important person in the country at the moment. Will he uphold the rule of law or the rule of partisanship? Will he rule on the side of compassion or hate?Will he uphold the independence of the Supreme Court or allow it to become the judicial arm of the Republican party?
In sum will he be John Marshall or Roger Taney? Our nation's future depends on Justice Roberts being the former.
13
@Chuck I don't he should rule on compassion or hate.
IF you want to make that the "new rule of law" then how about we tell Adam Schiff to knock it off with Trump since it shows plenty of hate and little compassion for what 63,000,000 voters decided on 11/8/15?
I'd prefer my judges to look at facts and let Justice be Blind.
The odd thing is you can bet your bottom dollar the Libs will vote in lock step with each other.
There's never been an issue where they haven't voted in unison showing their independent legal thought.
THAT..should scare you more than anything else in this nation right now...even Trump being POTUS..for that will change in 2024.
1
In its simplest form, this issue, as has been true for many reflecting the efforts of right-wing conservatives but is especially true of the Trump presidency which nakedly and persistently continues its drive to accrue unfettered and unquestioned executive power while fundamentally reshaping and redefining the Republican party, is whether or not one of its own will succumb to the pressures of party or tribal loyalty if not fealty. Chief Justice Roberts now bears the full weight of the campaign to "get in line," to effectively demonstrate his solidarity with a party's agenda and in the process perhaps surrender his integrity, or to assert both his and the Supreme Court's independence and objectivity. For his and the country's sakes, I urge him to take the latter approach.
2
I'll say this - while I am not a Roberts fan, it cannot be in the least gratifying to end one's career as Chief Justice with the likes of this administration in power. Seemingly every case involves a clear choice between principle and political ideology. I long for the days when the two were more aligned.
2
A number of commentators here argue that DACA is "illegal." Well, the administration has put forward no substantive argument that the administrative relief granted to these young people is contrary to laws enacted by Congress. Requirements for eligibility under the rule are very specific. I would like to hear from the commentators why they believe the Obama administration's decision was contrary to law.
23
That can be answered by a simple question: did these folks enter the country legally?
The only thing that legalizes their presence in the US, for the time being, is a presidential memorandum. A memorandum that was not required for clarification of existing law, but was a policy that contradicted existing law. There was plenty of time and ample opportunity for new laws to be enacted to protect the DACA people. Nothing happened.
These people are in the country illegally and should be removed.
5
@EMiller Why don’t you ask Obama? He was the first to say this action was unconstitutional. By the way, the congress is the body that passes laws governing immigration, and a presidential order is not a law. You could also look at the oath given to Trump by Roberts, where Trump promises to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States, not the detailed rules in an executive order by the previous president. Then there is the “Chevron” precedence that says that agencies can interpret laws differently, and write rules contrary to previously ones used. That would be based on the existing laws, not the presidential order.
2
@Joe C. To extend your "reasoning" here, children who are not buckled into car seats should be fined; 1st graders who are consistently late to school should be expelled, children who eat all their Halloween candy deserve to be sick. Do you really believe these young people had a choice of staying in their home country alone? Regardless of what you might think of the actions of their parents, the Dreamers do not deserve punishment due to the incompetence of our political leaders.
5
Ms. Greenhouse writes, "Shortly after taking office, President Trump assured DACA recipients that they could 'rest easy' because his policy was going to be to 'allow the Dreamers to stay.' [But] [i]mmigration hard-liners in the administration got to him."
Ms. Greenhouse should not take anything that Trump says at face value. We have no idea whether his assurance was truthful, or even whether he knew what DACA was. But both possibilities--dishonesty or ignorance--seem more likely than truthfulness.
7
The Chief Justice has a very momentous year ahead. This decision effects more than a million people residing in the US while working, receiving a higher education and building families. Should their lives and others around them be forever disrupted or should a humane outcome be sought?
In addition, the Chief Justice will preside in the trial in the Senate of the cruel and arbitrary law breaker in chief very soon.
17
In a perfect world, the answer to the Dreamers is obvious, but this is not a perfect world and as we all know, "People Game the System". "People who knowingly cheat" understand (whether they admit it or not") there is going to being ramifications for their actions and this is at the heart of the matter.
5
@Mark Isn't the entire point of the dreamers that they were brought here as young children and had no choice in where they grew up? By definition, they've stayed on the right side of the law and are trying to work within the system of the only country they've ever known. You can argue for deporting them on policy grounds, but why mischaracterize their motives and disparage them?
10
@Mark . . .in what way were young children who were brought here, gaming the system or knowingly cheating? Are they to be punished for a decision they could not make? This may not be a perfect world, but we can respond with compassion perfectly whenever possible.
13
@Mark
These are the children of those who "cheated". They had to be under age 16 when their parent or guardian brought them to the U.S. to be considered Dreamers. Some were infants. They grew up here and learned to speak English at school. They made lives here and have families here and some served in the U.S. armed forces. Some have little or no connection to their country of origin and may not be fluent in their parents' language. They could be very vulnerable if deported to a country where they have no connections and no idea of the social rules and precautions one would have to take to be stay alive in what is, to them, a foreign country. To deport them after all this time would be cruel and unusual punishment for those who were simply collateral to their parents' infractions.
2
Ms. Greenhouse,
There is one issue that is unclear in your article - is DACA illegal, as claimed by the administration, and by some commenters to your piece?
And, if the SCOTUS decides the issue on the administrative decision, does that imply that DACA is legal?
Secondly, if I may, you suggest that CJ Roberts is looking for "reason", I think he is looking for plausible pretence, which the administration seems to have difficulty in coming up with.
4
@Marc Ms. Greenhouse made it clear that the question of DACA's legality is not before the Court. Because that issue is not presented to them in briefs the Justices cannot officially rule on it.
1
@EMiller
Daca will be invalidated by the SC. They deferred ruling on it for one reason only, that was to give the Legislature time to act. They declined to act so now it is the hands of the SC. It will not survive and the Dreamers will have to go back, unless Congress acts and they are not willing to. That is the gamble Pelosi made and it is the one she is going to lose. Too bad for the DACA 'kids' but that's how this cookie is going to crumble.
5
@EMiller I believe if you read the article closely, it states that constitutionality was briefly mentioned, and added as a reason in a lower court by The Department of Homeland Security.
1
Labeling them Dreamers in an essay about the law undermines the credibility of the legal analysis. All of us are dreamers of one kind or another. But the label Dreamers is not only misleading, but intentionally misleading. Enforcement of the law regularly results in harsh consequences for citizens. The dependent family members of a man who loses his job because of a drunk driving will suffer, as will the young children left without a mother jailed for shoplifting or other crimes. The left wants voters who will help them accomplish their reshaping of America, plain and simple. And allowing illegal immigrants to enter and at some point granting them amnesty is one of their cynical—not compassionate, ways of doing so.
30
@ehillesum The eligibility requirements for people benefiting from DACA's administrative relief are very specific, very strict. While you are correct that illegal acts have unintended consequences for innocent people that does not legitimize those consequences. Indeed, there are instances where innocent people are compensated when they are hurt, even indirectly, by the illegal acts of others. Insurance compensation is just one example. Wrongful death claims is another. DACA is a reasonably fashioned fix for a difficult problem.
10
I find it interesting that you think Dreamers would necessarily be democratic voters. It suggests that the cynicism rests on YOUR end and that you are too apathetic to embrace these people into the Republican Party.
4
@ehillesum
They're called "Dreamers" because the DACA was adopted in response to the Dream Act.
The fact that you base your argument on the acronym is rather silly, don't you think?
3
DACA is definitely a one-off, a necessary nod to humanity for children following the direction of their parents. Republicans have repeatedly told us those who seek entry to the United States must be subjected to "extreme vetting".
What more extreme vetting is there then the consistent demonstration of fealty to this country through advancement in education, military service and hewing to the laws of the land shown by the Dreamers?
Dreamers should not just be left in limbo or offered tantalizing hopes for a green card. They should be welcomed as citizens without further delay.
They Congress needs to work on meaningful immigration reform for all who are now here or those seeking entry to escape an impossible existence elsewhere.
83
@Doug McNeill The Reagan amnesty was supposed to be a one-off, and now here we are again. No one believes that this will be the last time, and until there's demonstrated commitment from the Democrats to enforce immigration law going forward DACA should be ended.
6
@KM
We can always change the law. Immigrants made this country. What changed?
3
This is bizarre. A president changes immigration law by executive order and the next president has to get the Supreme Court to OK his decision to rescind what was an illegal usurpation of Congressional authority?
The Executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws, not make the laws. That's the job of Congress. Just because Congress is too divided to change the law doesn't mean the president can do so unilaterally. If the Court rules that Trump can't rescind DACA, just wait for him to follow Obama's precedent and unilaterally change any law he doesn't like. Perhaps his first action will be to stop enforcing environmental laws.
31
@J. Waddell
You have a point. However, as Greenhouse explains in the article, this case is about the process by which Trump rescinded it (and ostensibly about his motivations for doing so, i.e. potentially rooted in discriminatory animus).
8
@J. Waddell His administration has stopped enforcing environmental laws.
14
@J. Waddell
He’s doing that now.
4
Those 4--4 and a half? 4 and three quarters?--judges will be around long after Trump et al. are long gone.
2
The reason proclaimed for DACA was that congress refused to act on immigration reform. Obama stated over a dozen times this type of presidential order was unconstitutional. During his Administration, he obviously had the authority to direct law enforcement to not use resources to deport these people. That’s far different than giving legal protection through executive order. Trump wanted a compromise. Democrats wanted the whole loaf. Ruling DACA unconstitutional would force congress to do their job. If not, presidential orders will take the place of bipartisan legislation, and change at the whim of the next president, or become law, which is an absurd result. I think this will be a 7-2 vote, with Ginsburg and Sotomayor voting to keep it.
21
@Jay Given that Trump and the Republicans' whole legislative agenda has bee accomplished by executive orders and rule changes by fiat, the argument that radical change by executive order is unconstitutional could effectively cripple all of their work. Their real position is that it's fine to radically change or ignore laws by executive order, it just has to be a change they like. For once the Supreme Court five should respect the rulings of lower courts and let this challenge fail.
8
@Eero "The Supreme Court Five". I admire the sound of that. Kind of like "Moscow Mitch."
2
@Eero The Supreme Court’s job is to enforce the constitution, not to defer to lower courts.
I would like to be optimistic that Roberts will do the honorable thing, but his comments on gerrymandering suggests he will punt and declare that it is Congress, and not the SC who should decide the future of DACA.
16
@DonD There is nothing honorable about illegal immigration or the smuggling of minors.
1
If immigration laws are optional, then people should rightfully interpret all other laws as optional. I suspect paying income is an unpopular one.
10
I support the policy represented by DACA but I am 100% opposed to DACA because it is a very dangerous unilateral assertion of raw presidential dictatorial power.
The fact that Trump is president should apparent how dangerous such unilateral dictatorial power can be.
Changes in our immigration laws should come only from Congressional action, not the dictates of a single person no matter how well intended that president may be. When presidents fail to secure the Congressional action they desire, they must not be permitted to become dictators that impose the law they sought. If such dictatorial power exists, then it will be available to all presidents, the well intended as well as those bent on evil and everywhere in between.
41
@Errol If the implementation of DACA by executive action was executive overreach, it's the rescinding of it seven years later by executive action also executive overreach?
One complaint against the King in 18th century America is that he sometimes vetoed laws duly enacted by colonial legislatures years after they went into effect on the ground that the colonial legislatures had exceeding their proper limits.
11
@Bejay
If both presidential actions are exercise of dictatorial power, then the Supreme Court should overturn both actions. But upon the first dictatorial action being overturned, then the second dictatorial action would become of no consequence, therefore moot and Court action regarding it unnecessary.
6
@Bejay. It is overreach but because it simply takes us back to the legal status quo that was in effect prior to the 1st illegal exec order, it is the right thing to do.
2
Justices won't 'allow' the Trump administration to 'toss out' the Dreamers. What they will do is, in the vacuum created by the unwillingness of Congress to act with Legislation, is to acknowledge that failure by invalidating the Executive Order that took the place of that legislation. The SC, nor the Trump administration are not the parties responsible. It is the do nothing Congress to blame.
5
"It’s hardly a surprise that the administration’s brief barely mentions the chief justice’s census opinion, cherry-picking a few quotations that, lacking context, appear to run counter to the opinion’s ultimate conclusion."
I wouldn't want to be a lawyer for the Trump administration. Surely, his desired goals lead the administrative legal team devise "jump through hoops" logic and reasoning that defies credulity.
That said, I think the case grow harder, as with the Trump tax release case where the administration argues that the president is responsible for everything but responsible for nothing legally while in office.
The coyness with which Trump wants to appear supportive of DACA so he can blame a desired outcome on the courts is typical of the venality with which this adminstration operates.
Yes, the president is exceptional--exceptionally devious.
41
From what I read here the issue being decided is not if DACA is legal or not but if the trump organization can just act on a whim and then cover its tracks with hot air. Obama did it because congress refused to act and they still refuse to act. I believe Moscow mitch is sitting on a immigration bill passed by the house. Come on mitch, have the courage to hold a vote! As for the issue of hot air and trump, I say hot air looses.
154
@Thomas Renner
There are a lot of things that McConnell is sitting on, some of them not mentionable in polite company.
7
@Thomas Renner “Hot air and Trump.” Actually, it’s the law and Trump. Obama created DACA with an executive order which he stated more than once was illegal. Up until 2012 he said he would not do it and then he did.
4
@Thomas Renner Congress "refused" to cater to Obama's agenda and therefore that gave the Chief Executive the right to circumvent the rule of law?
9
For years, President Obama insisted that he lacked the legal power to enact DACA. He said an executive order could not override the clear statutory requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That's why he supported the DREAM Act, to change those requirements by legislation.
And I may remind you that President Obama has a background as a professor of constitutional law.
President Obama suddenly reversed himself in 2012, and enacted DACA by executive order -- something he had spent years saying he could not legally do.
DACA is illegal. No administration can nullify legislation by executive order. Congress is the only body that has the constitutional power to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Supreme Court is likely to say exactly the same thing Barack Obama said for years prior to 2012.
38
@James Ribe And I fervently hope you are right. If the Supreme Court doesn't strike down DACA, what remains of our already pitifully inadequate immigration law enforcement efforts? Failure to end DACA is tantamount to an invitation to all who may wish to enter the US, especially minors, regardless of US immigration laws.
18
James, your argument is specious. DACA didn’t nullify any laws. It applied the law appropriately under rules of executive and administrative discretion. On top of that, Obama didn’t argue it “wasn’t” permissible, he stated that it “may” not be. He wanted to give Congress the opportunity to fix the problem. The GOP did not, so he used his legitimate discretionary powers to do so.
If the Trump administration is going to end DACA, it has to use the correct procedures, no ifs, ands, or buts.
6
@James Ribe Obama was never a professor. He was a senior lecturer.
1
I find both subjects matters of the heart vs the actual law/precedent. Historically the citizenship question on the census was routine. People may find the administration's reasoning for the question faulty but so what, nobody ever objected to it prior to the arrival of President Trump. We all know DACA is unconstitutional put in place by Obama. Trump comes along is unsure as to how he wants to handle it but eventually decides against it. By law his decision must be enforced but again it is Trump so it must be opposed. Sooner or later this country will just follow the law as written and ignore to feelings of those against whomever is in the WH.
10
@Donald Historically, there has not been a citizen question in the census.
15
There used to be a citizenship question on the census, but it hasn’t been asked since 1950.
5
Trump's decision to end both DACA and TPS is as "arbitrary and capricious" as the attempts to insert a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement & the Iran Nuclear Deal, ending the ACA, the "public charge" test for immigrants, & the most recent "Conscience Rule."
Simply put, all of these policies have been proposed as a means to satisfy his "base" and/or to overturn Obama-era policies. and do not have the weight of legal precedence and Constitutionality to support them.
If the SCOTUS sides with Trump on DACA and TPS policies, we will witness yet another dangerous "deconstruction" of the principles on which our nation was founded. Trump's constant attempts to supplant democracy with authoritarianism is infuriating.
It is clear that Trump's intention is to make our revered institutions subservient to his will (e.g., DoJ, FBI, CIA, DHS, & the State Department). Trump's simultaneous attempts to override the power of Congress in the Impeachment Investigation is another threat we currently face.
The most alarming & frightening aspects of these attacks on the Constitution is that it will take years to undo the damage that Trump has already done to our country.
Article III of the Constitution states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The SCOTUS must reinforce its power, rather than shrink from it.
20
@wysiwyg
DACA itself does not have the weight of legal precedence and Constitutionality. Thats why Obama said for years that he couldnt do it, until he did it anyway.
Of course motives count. Many criminal laws are premised upon "intent" - i.e., motivation. When legislation is scrutinized for constitutionality, the intent of Congress (or a State legislature) is examined. Why should the motives of the executive branch be insulated from this inquiry?
29
If DACA was a one time fix for those brought here as minors when the federal government by its own willful negligence did not enforce immigration laws and led these people to believe there would be no consequences for their open violation of duly passed laws, then I would support the program.
But its not. DACA is demonstrably responsible for the now dangerous mass migration of children being brought to the border by adults who may or may not be actual loving family.
The promise of DACA and no doubt future actions like it is actually endangering children. That those currently in the DACA program arrogantly insist that their law breaking parents be rewarded for their actions makes its termination so much the more so.
30
@CNNNNC IT is a one time fix. You have to had been here since the age of 5 and been 30 or below before it was enacted. Anyone not under the parameters cannot apply. That means it will only apply to a certain part of the population and not forever, because people wont' fit into the age parameters.
20
@CNNNNC
Very well said.
2
@CNNNNC But it's not a one time fix (and never was intended as such). It's a deferment. It was just supposed to buy time for Congress to get its act together.
Want to know why Congress hasn't done anything on this since even before DACA was signed? It's because Republicans benefit politically from letting this issue perpetuate. You can claim overreach all you want (it's a point worth debating, but not as clear cut as many on either side want you to believe). However, the fact is that Congress is using this as a political MacGuffin, because keeping their base emotionally locked on issues like this were prime fuel to some of their biggest congressional and executive election wins over the past decade.
Co-equal or not, the judicial branch frequently must assess intent to determine legality.
Saying otherwise is as specious as anything the WH has come up with on its own.
14
I always appreciate a column by Ms. Greenhouse. I usually find them difficult to read, to say the least. This one, about the fate of DACA residents, was a lot simpler for me to understand, except for that first sentence in paragraph 14. I look forward to what the decision will be, probably to be revealed at the end of the term next spring. There may be more changes by then.
1
The last paragraph says it all. Will SCOTUS, led by Roberts, continue to insist that government agencies, at the direction of Trump, base policy on rational arguments within the context of the law? Or will Roberts allow SCOTUS, as has largely happened with the Justice Dept under Barr, to become another one of Trump’s henchman?
157