We also need to remember that DACA covers only a fraction of the "Dreamers", there are several hundred thousand more people who were brought to this country as children and who have lived here for decades, who finished school and worked and paid their taxes, and they do not even qualify for DACA because they don't meet many of its conditions. For example the age limit which says they had to be 30 when President Obama enacted the program back in 2012. What will happen to these Dreamers who even DACA cannot protect or help?
What we need is Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform, or at least some legislation to help ALL the Dreamers?
The Democrats offered Trump billions in border security funding in exchange for legislation to help these Dreamers, he was about to agree, but then some hard right wingers called him "Amnesty Donald" and he backed off.
Sadly any hope of legislation these days seem dead in the water, as are any hope for these poor Dreamers.
15
@Abd Raheem
Reagan already granted some Dreamers amnesty. In exchange, he was promised comprehensive immigration reform that never happened.
This would have been nothing but the same mistake twice.
Selective enforcement of immigration laws is unconstitutional and unfair. There's no reason people who can walk to the border should be treated differently than somebody from overseas.
Yet that's what's going on now. Visa overstays are deported. People without proper papers aren't even allowed on flights to the US.
5
I like windmill tilting as much as anyone, but this is a bridge too far. The only thing the Trump administration has to do--if it loses-- is to declare some policy-based reason for rescinding DACA and then its ball game over. Until then, though, have at it all you brave warriors! It's just that dreamers are in for a rude awakening if they think Trump can't obliterate DACA the day after an unfavorable decision (saying that the way he tried to obliterate it the first time was somehow unlawful).
4
@Micah
Exactly. This is why DACA was doubly cruel.
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that outing yourself would protect you from deportation risk indefinitely.
DACA did nothing to put these people out of legal limbo. They can't apply for citizenship. They can't apply for green cards. They can't have access to unemployment benefits, social security, or anything else their payroll taxes paid for.
Brought to the US against their will, knowledge. They cannot be deported. If a Melania can become First Lady, these particular 700,000 young people SURELY deserve a chance at living in the USofA as legal immigrants.
13
Trump or No Trump,
America needs much stronger immigration control.
If Trump gets impeached -- or does not get re-elected --
his actions on immigration will not be the reason.
Furthermore,
a would-be successor has a much better chance
if he/she either advocates stronger immigration control
-- or at least stays away from the subject completely
and talks about other issues.
2
“Mr. Trump was sympathetic to DACA recipients, but also mindful that failing to end the program would be seen as amnesty — a betrayal — by his anti-immigration supporters.”
I am not aware of any anti-immigration supporters of Trump. I am aware of many law-and-order supporters of Trump. It’s just a sensible, straightforward position: illegal aliens must not be rewarded in any way whatsoever. That simply encourages more of the same.
6
@NorthernVirginia …. "illegal aliens must not be rewarded in any way whatsoever."....So someone brought here as a two year old is an illegal alien? And DACA will encourage more two year olds to come, even though the cut off date for DACA is arrival before 2007? That's weird.
7
Trump or No Trump,
America needs much stronger immigration control.
If Trump gets impeached -- or does not get re-elected --
his actions on immigration will not be the reason.
Furthermore,
a would-be successor has a much better chance
if he/she either advocates stronger immigration control
-- or at least stays away from the subject completely
and talked about other issues.
It should have never reached this point. Follow the laws on the books and secure the border. If not why should I follow the law or pay my taxes?
16
IS YOUR COMMUTE TOO LONG? TRAFFIC GETTING WORSE? CONGRESS WILL ADD ANOTHER 75 MILLION PEOPLE THROUGH IMMIGRATION!
The grim reality is more and more Americans face every day into some hard numbers:
• 9 days (225 hours): The time the average American spends commuting to and from work each year -- a new record.
• 4.3 million: The number of Americans with commutes of 90 minutes or more -- up by a million since 2010.
"Relative to 1980, the picture is even more grim: Since then, American workers have lost nearly an hour a week to their commutes, the equivalent of one full-time workweek over the course of a year."
U.S. population, 1980: 229 million
Annual immigration, 1980: 524,295
U.S. population today: 329 million
Annual immigration today (2017): 1,127,167
6
"Compassion"?
Constitution?
Mutually exclusive?
Hardly.
Our Constitution does not prevent "compassion".
Our Constitution merely requires that Americans decide --
through our duly elected Congress-persons --
who deserves our compassion,
and who does not.
Judges to not get to decide.
Nor the would-be recipients of our compassion.
Nor their parents.
Nor their "advocates".
Our Constitution does not give that authority to the President
acting alone -- as Obama did --
except and to the extent that Congress delegates such authority to the President.
And the one area where judges can be involved
is unravelling the often complex Congressional expressions
of delegation of authority.
And even if the judges decide that Congress did delegate
such authority to Obama, as President,
it would be absurd to say that Trump, as successor President,
does not have the authority to make a different decision.
7
Trumps idea of the Lady Justice has her with the blindfold off and the scales containing a hundred billion dollars on one side and a few Trump towers on the other.
We need a fair and strict immigration law,Canada has one, look it up. We don't need to deport young people who are supporting the economy and through no fault of their own, know no other home. Spend time on correcting what is not working with immigration, including solving the obscene caged children problem.Just because Trump is devoid of sympathy, humanity and fairness, does not mean it needs to be the approach style of the rest of us.
6
@joyce
"We need a fair and strict immigration law,Canada has one, look it up. "
You said a mouthful there.
And Canada does not tolerate massive illegal immigration -- not even "children" who are brought to Canada illegally "through no fault of their own".
4
These kids are here illegally. To reward the crime that their parents committed in violating US immigration laws and the laws that the parents continue to commit such as identity theft should not be rewarded. These kids, if they are so exceptional, can prosper in their home countries. So deport these DACA kids and their parents asap. And don't forget to bill them for the use of public services and free schooling paid for by US taxpayers. American taxpayer dollars should be spent on Americans not foreigners.
14
And of course refund to them all the social security taxes they’ve paid but will never be able to collect on.
17
John Smith, totally agree; if SCOTUS allows them to stay, we have millions of others behind them who will also claim this right; it will not end with this group.
Chaos will be instituted as the norm; these Latinos have never respected our laws; they come from lawless countries and expect to continue this form of government.
6
@Brian
"Refund"?
Only after deducting the costs of the free ER services they soak up,
and the costs of public schooling for their kids,
and only after deducting the other bennies they manage to soak up, including the ones that technically they are not supposed to get but which they get anyway via fraudulent IDs and lax government bennies offices,
and the costs of deporting them.
6
For an appointed official at the DHS to be deeply bothered by the enforcement of the law means she’s probably in the wrong job and should be fired.
8
How many of the Times's readers who support the "dreamers" have lost their job or couldn't find work because an illegal (I'm sorry an "undocumented") was willing to work for less? I'd say that number is close to zero,
9
How many vets are we ironically speaking of deporting on this day of honoring our defenders of our liberty. How many teachers, doctors and nurses will we deport. The cruelest of presidents has no charity, no honor and is incapable of truthfulness. Wake up conservative patriots and admit that the drowning in your mistakes has grown unbearable and retire.
6
DACA never should have been propagated in the first place and its renewal by Trump would have rightly been seen as a betrayal by his voters. In addition, it represented an end-run around the authority of the legislative branch on this issue. Its benefits to those who accepted its terms notwithstanding, nothing since its application has disproved the notion that it never should have been put in place to begin with and so its revocation will hopefully pass muster with the majority of justices. The entire notion of temporary protected status should be completely done away with, all it does is falsely encourage a belief by the beneficiaries that they'll be able to use it as an end-run around the regular process of obtaining citizenship.
10
@Shane ….DACA is about morality. Nothing more and nothing less. A law that would deport someone who was brought here as a child and who has lived here for most of their life is immoral. Best be careful. People who support immoral laws make a statement about who they are.
8
@W.A. Spitzer People who support laws with no legal basis in our Constitution are encouraging the worst impulses of plutocrats, as the world is seeing currently.
5
@W.A. Spitzer
Morality?
Most countries have much stronger immigration control the the USA --
both in the law and in enforcement --
including for "children".
Are they "immoral"?
3
How does Trump get the moral authority to hold up or trash anything because it is not according to the law? When does Trump ever pay attention to the law when he wants to do something? Has he ever obeyed the law because it was law? He disobeys the law whenever he feels like it. He cares not a smidgen about the DACA childrens plight, he just wants to get reelected because otherwise he might end up in jail with his co-conspirators.I am sick to death of Trumps and his administrations deliberate ambushes and other corrosive actions. We will have no quality of life left when they get finished deregulating and undoing Obamas legacy. We will just be another sad raped and pillaged third world country.Do they care? They all are blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes. What good is money when the air, the water, the green land, the wildlife, the beauty, the peace, the order is gone, possibly never to return.? Trump says he likes conflict.He enjoys chaos. God help us.
6
Line cutting not allowed, sorry!
10
@NYC Dweller ...Perhaps you are unaware, but to qualify for DACA you have to have been brought here as a child and lived here continuously since 2007. I don't think that DACA qualifiers are line cutting. Now that you know what is required for DACA qualification you might want to change your mind?
3
@W.A. Spitzer
They are cutting in front of the line that includes millions of other children of millions of other people who want to immigrate here but do not cut into line to do so -- and who do not bring or send their children to do so.
3
Their parents cut the line. No, no, no!
2
Can’t bear the read the comments, some of which are from the so-called-Christians who weep for the embryo but are inhumane when it comes to living, breathing humans whose skin is not “lily white”!
Hope that the Roberts Court will uphold the law. Millions of innocent, hard working young people who will make America a better country are depending on you, Justice John Roberts!
24
Blind insistence that DACA residents must be deported because they came here illegally, uses the same blind reasoning that required slaves who escaped to freedom be returned to their masters (fugitive slave act).
22
The current President only has to rescind the earlier (illegal) order by the prior President in order to create the circumstance requiring the deportation of those saved from deportation in the earlier order. No explanation for the change is necessary. Any speculation for the ratlonale would be only that: speculation and both irrelevant and immaterial.
8
@Toni
The whole problem is that the president argued that DACA was illegal, whereas nothing indicates that it is.
That's why until now, the lower courts rejected his claim, you see?
A president is not allowed to rescind an existing executive order claiming that it's illegal when it isn't.
3
@Ana Luisa
Something does indicate that DACA is illegal: the US Constitution explicitly requires that the President see to it that the laws are faithfully enforce. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. You may argue your way around that but it isn’t “nothing”. Your “nothing” indicates either ignorance or dishonesty.
2
Passing DACA will only serve as an incentive for more illegal immigration and under current federal law will multiply the amnesty through CHAIN MIGRATION. Every 2 new immigrants to the United States bring roughly 7 foreign relatives with them through CHAIN MIGRATION, creating an enormous, never-ending flow of family-based immigration.
15
Prominent chain migration case: melania trumps parents. The difference is ......?
6
@getinvolved.....Hello.To qualify for the DACA program, applicants must meet the following criteria:
Have arrived in the United States prior to age 16
Have continuously resided in the United States without legal status since June 15, 2007
Be less than age 31 as of June 15, 2012 and at least age 15 at application (unauthorized immigrants under 15 but in removal proceedings are also eligible to apply)
Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or obtained a general development certificate (GED), or be an honorably discharged veteran
Have not been convicted of a felony or multiple or serious misdemeanors and not pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Since DACA doesn't apply to anyone who arrived after 2007 your comment makes no sense.
3
Melanie is not on public assistance.
To all who cite “the law is the law” or similar arguments, as their rationale keeping or kicking immigrants out, please tell me . . .
How do you feel about POTUS holding up congressionally-approved military aid to a (more-or-less desperate) ally, pending a public announcement by that ally to investigate the actions of a son of POTUS’s likely leading political opponent?
This “the law is the law” stuff kills me because those who spout it most vociferously generally apply very selectively, in self-serving ways.
18
I can on;y imagine what Miller has on Trump since all of his proposals on immigration have run up against international treaties and domestic law - not to mention their inherent and downright cruelty.
12
Elaine Duke, American heroine. Thank you.
16
Overturning DACA now would be like stopping the construction of the George Washington Bridge or Yankee Stadium halfway through completion. It makes absolutely no sense. These people have been here their entire conscious life. They've built a life. You can't throw them out now. It isn't a question of what's legal- its just plain inhumane.
20
You’re correct, but the Trump administration is not humane.
6
@Accordion We are a nation of laws. It IS exactly a question of what is legal and what is not.
4
"Children"?
Even if they are legally innocent,
that does not mean that the USA is obligated to take them in
-- not even if their parents dump them on our doorstep.
The world has nearly 8 billion people,
half of them -- nearly 4 billion -- are "children".
How many are the responsibility of the USA?
Why should those whose parents dumped them on our doorstep have any greater claim to be here
than any of the rest of them?
17
@sam finn
Only the 1 million of those 4 billion who have lived their entire life in the US are "the responsibility of the USA".
And they are because they live here.
Quite simple, no?
12
@Ana Luisa
Simple?
The 1 million -- but only the 1 million --
and not the other 399 million --
our responsibility?
Merely because their irresponsible parents
dumped them on our doorstep?
4
Responsibility? The dreamers contribute far more than they take— both in taxes and economic contribution. Just like my immigrant ancestors (your’s as well), this is a net benefit.
You can be opposed to the policy but understand it first.
2
We need laws that establish who gets to be here and how. They need to be enforced. Birthright citizenship needs to end. Climate change is going to devastate the world. We cannot save everyone.
Trump will win re-election if the left continues to prioritize the world over citizens. DACA, no matter how good, has enticed people to risk their children's lives. Immigration advocates, and the corporations they front for, bear a great deal of the responsibility for the heartache that illegal immigrants go through.
15
Let’s throw out the oldest three Trump kids, send them back to Eastern Europe where their mother was from! The first Mrs. Trump didn’t become an American citizen until AFTER the three kids were born! Oh! And deport Melania, who entered the U.S. under suspicious circumstances!
14
DACA was a bad policy decision by Obama, as President,
and Trump, as President now, should simply revoke DACA.
No need whatsoever to drag in the Constitution.
Even if Obama did act within the Constitution
by promulgating DACA,
he did so solely in his capacity as President,
and Trump would be completely within his own capacity as President now to make a different decision today,
including revoking Obama's decision outright.
DACA is not a law enacted by Congress.
No reason whatsoever that any President should be stuck with it forever just because one President decided to do it.
It is absurd to claim that no Presidential policy decision
can be revoked by any subsequent President,
just as it is absurd to claim that no law enacted by Congress
can be repealed or amended by the Congress itself,
just as it is absurd to claim that nothing in the Constitution
can be amended by a Constitutional Amendment,
just as it is absurd to claim that no Supreme Court decision
can be subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.
Of course, judges like to have everyone genuflect to "precedence" of court decisions--
but, regardless of the "weight" of "precedence" for courts,
"precedence" deserves very little weight when it comes to decisions by Presidents and the Congress.
13
Seems to me that there are at least two members on the Supreme Court who owe Mr. Trump. And Trump will have reminded each of them that they owe him. And if they do not do what he wants he will turn on them with all of his power and the power of the Russian government. DACA is doomed.
5
The surprise for me was realizing that this time Trump was conflicted, but cowardly. Still ints one of the few times that he was caught weighing alternatives, altho choosing the nost expedient is very much of a piece with all of his other behavior.
3
Trump and Republicans have a unique view of presidential power. It can, however, be summed up easily:
Anything a Democratic president does is patently illegal, an overstep of authority, and unlawful. This includes DACA, but all other actions, particularly those under President Obama. All of them need to be canceled, rolled back, rescinded, without exception.
Anything a Republican president does, no matter what, is legal and wise. This includes anything Trump does - Muslim travel ban; taking money from the military under a trumped-up "national emergency"; ending longstanding environmental protections; extending oil and gas drilling on public lands; and most expressly extorting personal political favors from foreign countries to influence our elections. All legal. There are many Republicans who would say that Trump in particular is exempt from all legal consequences of any actions, including the (hopefully apocryphal) "shoot a person on Fifth Ave. at noon" should Trump decide to do that. All legal, no questions (remember "the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.") No matter what, "will not be questioned." The law just doesn't enter into it - all Trump needs to do is say "I am protecting our country." and that is a 'get out of jail free' card, completely non-trumpable.
13
For those that arrived here as young children, were educated in schools paid for by local, state, and federal taxes (ESL program, etc.), and now in their late teens or early twenties (possibly just finishing a state-subsidized college education at a state university, why would we want to waste our investment in this young adult, by sending them back to some other country for their economy to benefit from our educational investment in the person?
17
The most common sense comment so far!
4
@AaronW - And let’s not forget that illegal immigrants pay an enormous amount of taxes.
The secret that Trump, Miller and anti-immigration proponents don’t want known are that undocumented immigrants paid
Immigrants,including those without documentation, pay billions of dollars in taxes to federal, state and local governments every year. Immigrants paid $405.4 billion in taxes in 2017, including an estimated $27.2 billion in taxes paid by undocumented immigrants.
Immigrants have always been, and continue to be vital, to the United States — a country made up of immigrants. Immigrant taxes support local schools, Social Security, and Medicaid, among other programs. However, immigrants are unable to benefit from programs such as Social Security and Medicaid, which are only accessible to permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
8
@OaklandMama
Enormous amounts of taxes? Give me a break! Many get paid under the table.
6
Too bad we don't have an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard for when Trump pulled our troops out of Syria.
3
In reply to Viv,@Reva Cooper, you cite a report written early in the 2008 recession. Given that unemployment rate is so low now, including for black men, I don't believe your citation is valid or supports your argument. The definition of DACA recipients also does not align with your description of those illegally working in the fields. You need a better argument against DACA than this.
5
What Trump and crew doesn’t realize is that many of our children who are 30 and under have now spent most of their school years going to school or now working with these DACA receipants. They are there friends. Who will be voting in 2020? The 18-30 year olds who are horrified that someone would do this to their friends!
10
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, ubiquitously recognized as DACA, serves as a significantly critical protective vehicle for nearly 800,000 individuals in America who were brought here as children, through no fault of their own, by their parents' quest to improve their lives. DACA is intensely excoriated and loudly demonized by the Vietnam War draft dodger and the emasculated Republican Party as defacto means of legitimizing otherwise illegal entry. And, the toxically bellicose chorus emanating from MASWA diehards is that since that action arose by the stroke of the pen held in the steady hand of President Barack Hussein Obama, a significantly important executive order, the act itself was presumptively unlawful. Ms. Elaine C. Duke's determined courage, in the face of persistently extreme right wing, racially charged denigration and acutely xenophobically laden diatribe, basically saved these precious youngsters. The GOP arguments, outlined in their briefs before the Supreme Court, are simply self serving and patently absent of any rational justification. Simply put, advancing the strained desperate contention that Obama had no authority to issue the executive order is an ipso facto void exercise of presidential power, while arguing federal courts have no right to address the draft dodger's executive order repealing DACA exemplifies a double standard. The argument makes no sense. The Vietnam War draft dodger cannot have it both ways. They are boxed in. Race matters.
7
"The administration, by contrast, has argued that its determination that DACA is unlawful could not be second-guessed by the courts."
So, in the post Trumpian world the executive branch rules on the constitutionality of laws not the courts.
Breathtaking.
6
@John
DACA is not a law. It is a President’s order to not enforce the law.
The constitution states that the president shall faithfully enforce the laws.
The Trump administration did rule on the constitutionality of a law. No one is disputing the constitutionality of the immigration law which Obama decided to not enforce.
1
@KBronson …."No one is disputing the constitutionality of the immigration law which Obama decided to not enforce."......The D in DACA stands for deferred. Their deportation was deferred. Do you know what deferred means.
1
Roberts court majority opinion: President Obama’s action on DACA is an egregious example of executive overreach. This opinion shall not serve as precedent on any other matters that come before us because we’d like the option to give Republican presidents more latitude.
4
Elaine Duke deserves a statue in the Capitol Rotunda
7
For a guy who thinks he has "unlimited power" Trump like to poke holes at stuff that his predecessor did under the same authority. Goes with the wacky territory called Trump's brain I guess
8
The President claims to have passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, but keeps Stephen Miller in the White House instead of a dog.
Figure that one out, if you can.
I can’t.
12
Daca like people who over stay their visas or TPS or states like California refusing to make everify mandatory is what makes the need for real immigration reform a top priority. DACA like previous amnesties and birthright citizenship and "refugees" who bring a kid get in free pass and birth tourism are irresistible magnets for illegal or fraudulent immigration. At 330 million plus, the US does not need anymore people from anywhere. Not even Norway. We have plenty of poor illiterate people and billionaires too. It's time to start figuring how we're going to save this country and the planet with the over populated mess we have created here already. We can help people solve their problems at home like we should be doing here. Moving the worlds poor millions here is not going to solve their or our problems. You cannot be for mass immigration and say you care about the environment. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
17
@Al
FYI:
- the only president who managed to get comprehensive immigration reform (including a tripling of border patrol agents at the southern border) through the Senate has been Obama, not Trump
- the only president who supported and signed into law amnesty, has been Reagan
- the only ones interested in and having a plan to "help people solve their problems at home" are the Democrats.
8
@Ana Luisa
FYI
The only immigration reform the democrats have ever worked for is ever higher immigration levels, sanctuary cities and decreased deportations no matter who or why
Reagan signed an amnesty with the understanding that border and immigration laws would be enforced as part of the deal. That never happened. Now the democrats want, surprise!, higher immigration levels, a pathway to citizenship (which just encourages more illegal entry), decriminalization of illegal entry and "free" health care for illegals.
Neither party has acknowledged that the countries of Central America and Mexico, all of whom have seen their populations increase 4-6 x since 1950, that population growth is the biggest cause of their problems and offered to help. Some of us give to planned parenthood here and abroad to give people, especially women, choices. We need national acknowledgement that without a reduction of human numbers our immigration crises (and all our environmental problems) will get only worse as will the conditions in these countries.
4
@Al
With all respect, that's wrong.
- Obama's bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill added 40,000 border patrol agents to the 18,000 already at the southern border - as BP are asking for years already. So the only reason why they still aren't there is because a minority of Republicans in Congress keeps blocking comprehensive immigration reform.
- Obama strongly INCREASED immigration law enforcement, compared to Bush. He was also more effective in doing so than Trump, who ended Obama's Family Case Management program (allowing him to have 99% of those captured and released to show up in court, compared to 60% without that program ...) and instead of signing Obama's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill into law, which including ALL the evidence-based measures that have been proven to increase border security, such as e-verify, drones, tripling border patrol agents etc, Trump did ... nothing, for four long years.
- Obama had programs in place that helped improve the situation for Central American citizens, which reduced the need to emigrate. Trump ended them.
- Local violence, not population growth, has been proven to cause emigration.
- the US has only 6% of the world's population, and yet is responsible for 25% of the world's carbon emissions. So it's not population growth but the American lifestyle that is destroying humankind's planet ...
7
Plainly, Trump and his co-conspirators feel racism is its own excuse, and that calling their wishes 'laws' makes them immune to judgment or questioning. It makes me wonder how deep the disgust and hatred for democracy reaches in these people. Under no circumstances can I call these people or these actions 'American' or worthy of living under. We need to confront these pirates and dispose of them for what they are: Enemies of freedom, of law and of justice. Enemies, in fact, of the very concept of civilization. We are done with them.
7
Time for impartiality from the Court! Big order.
2
This article makes a very strong case that there are many career bureaucrats who constitute an unelected, unaccountable fascist state that substitute their policy preferences for those of the elected government.
The leftist coup continues.
That there is any legal justification for forcing Trump to continue an illegal program is astounding.
Even if the legal arguments made here are valid, the federal government is not the only party to the dispute. The states are also parties to the dispute and their rights also have a bearing on a final Scotus decision.
The solution, which Democrats decline for partisan value, is for Congress to pass a law addressing the issues. Why didn't they do that in 2009 when they had 60 Senate votes? Because they are well aware that their policy is not popular with the voters.
10
@ebmem
FYI: the Dream Act is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Dick Durbin (R), and supported by 80% of the American people, including a clear majority of GOP voters.
That means that it's those who are blocking bills like that who are the "fascists" here, remember?
And once Obama turned Bush's Great Recession around and passed health care reform that saves an additional half a million American lives a decade, he also managed to get bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate (including not only DACA but also a tripling of border patrol agents at the southern border, which studies show is much more effective than building a wall).
And then in 2017, Democrats in Congress agreed to vote for a similar bill, plus FULL funding of the wall.
Who rejected it, at the very last minute?
Trump.
Why?
Because someone named Ann Coulter tweeted that she didn't like the Dream Act ...
Obama got all his major signature campaign promised signed into law, Trump none. Why, you think?
8
I remember the pride that I felt helping young folk with their DACA application. . .thinking to myself that this is what makes America great.
Something broke in America on that election day 3 years ago. I pray that a decision upholding DACA puts on a path to repair and heal the damage this administration is doing to our country.
9
What kind of American citizen feels "pride" about aiding and abetting illegal behavior?
A traitor.
15
A patriot.
7
@BearBoy
Oh, so the DACA people currently serving the country
on the military should be rounded up and removed?
5
Here's a suggestion. Those Dreamers who volunteered to join the military to defend the United States and are currently serving in foreign countries: Why don't we just take away their uniforms, leave them where they are and tell them that they are on their own? Saves us from having to pay for transportation to deport them when they return here.
Are these really American values?
5
@dearworld2
Surprise: There is a provision in the law that stipulates foreigners who serve in the US military become eligible to apply for US citizenship without regard to quotas. Any illegal alien in the US can return to his land of birth and apply to enlist in the US military.
Legal aliens present in the US are also eligible to enlist, like foreign students on education visas, green card holders and H-1B visa holders.
Dreamers currently enlisted in the US military are not going to be deported upon returning to the US unless they have been too stupid to have applied for permanent legal status or if they have committed crimes.
6
DACA is an attack on American citizens. It must be overturned.
16
@John
Let's see ... an "attack" without any casualties ... ?
Not very credible ;-)
Kids who have grown up here and then serve in the military aren't attacking us, they're protecting us.
Conservatives clearly lost their moral compass, in this country.
6
There is a pattern here: Decide you're against something, primarily because it came from your predecessor, try to ram it through without due process, and wind up in the soup.
Trump is lazy and so is his "team."
15
@Mark Paskal
Obama rammed through DACA without due process because Democrats did not want to pass immigration reform that was unpopular with even Democrats.
Obama campaigned in 2008 promising to help dreamers. In 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives. They had 58, 59 and briefly [for six months] 60 Democrats in the Senate. That means Democrats could have passed immigration reform without a single Republican vote.
Obama could not even get 60 votes for Obamacare, so used a parliamentary trick to pass the law with a simple majority in the Senate. Why didn't he do the same thing with immigration reform and global warming legislation?
The reasons are obvious. The American people, Republican, Democrat, or unaffiliated with a party, are not in favor of the policies that Obama and other left wing Democrats pretend they favor. [So Democrats would lose elections.] The other big problem for Democrats and RINOs is that if every illegal alien in America were granted citizenship [or legal status] tomorrow, those people who supposedly do jobs Americans are unwilling to do for what employers are willing to pay would not longer be available as cheap, easily exploited workers. So Democrats would have to figure out how to replace the Americans with new easily exploited cheap labor to work in their meatpacking houses, putting roofs on their mansions or cutting their lawns.
4
@ebmem
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, not Obama.
And there were lots or republicans.
Try changing the channel from Fox News.
2
DACA beneficiaries may or may not be sympathetic individuals but the citizens of the United States whose wages are depressed by illegal aliens working in here are the people who deserve our primary consideration. We don't need unskilled labor. The United States needs to focus on our needs. Immigration laws should be changed to focus on bringing in people who will bring in resources into the United States to make things better for our citizens. A modest allotment for humanitarian entrants would reflect our values but continuation of the flow of illegal aliens is not in our interest.
In the 1920s immigration was cut by 98%. Humanitarian provisions were incorporated into the legislation that helped deserving illegal aliens become citizens like my grandmother. Contemporary immigrants at the time did not expect immigration to continue and recognized that continuation of the levels of immigration was not good for them.
Immigrants in the 1920s knew that they had to assimilate and that there was never going to be communities of different nationalities that would continue into into the future. Many immigrants today believe the same things.
Unfortunately there are political groups and politicians who want to keep ethnic ghettos going. It is time to cut way back on immigration. Assimilation of immigrants will then follow and everyone in this country will benefit.
Teddy Roosevelt was correct when he said that the United State doesn't need hyphenated Americans!
15
The rank ignorance an prejudice about DACA recipients is disgusting. Why don't Fox News denizens bother to inform themselves about the "Dreamers?" These vibrant young people are educated, tax-paying residents contributing to our national economy and cultural life. From comments by Trump supporters one would get the false impression that these are low-wage workers working "under the table." Nothing could be further from the truth, but then Fox News is even further from the truth, and Stephen Miller and his cruelty are way beyond Pluto far from the truth.
11
@Bored
A big difference between earlier years and today is that immigrants did not expect that their children would get a free public education [including one or two free meals] in their native language. Nor did they expect food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies or other gifts from federal, state and local governments. Ethnic groups migrating did get help from their families and friends, like jobs and help in learning the language and from charities and churches.
When citizens sponsored relatives from "the old country," they took financial responsibility for them. Today, relatives entering via chain migration get food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, energy subsidies the moment they set foot in America. Trump's attempt to reduce those bennies has been temporarily stalled by the fascist courts because big sanctuary cities realize that they will lose federal payments for hospitals, schools, food stamps and have to pick up the slack. What a tragedy. The executives of their charity hospitals won't get a big pay raise next year if they have to absorb the medical costs for the poor huddled masses. Superintendents of school districts will have to live with their high six or low seven figure salaries.
9
I suppose All this is a matter more of law and not logic, so time tell what happens.
But if one President cannot do X, I do not see how another President can nullify X. It would be beyond Presidential purview. Period. SCOTUS would be the final arbiter.
It’s my understanding, however, that the Executive DOES have wide latitude when it comes to immigration policy. So let’s say Obama was within his right. But I don’t see how the next President can change DACA retroactively. A President may decide to discontinue the policy *moving ahead*.
All rather tangled and I’d rather Congress have the definitive power. We have had a growing imperial presidency since Post WWII Congress passed on its constitutionally mandated power to formally declare war, relying Instead on squishy police actions, and such.
While I’m being a stickler for procedure, I’d like to see Kavanaugh unseated on the grounds that the Senate illegally refused to advance Merrick for a vote. The Senate could decide refusedto approve the nomination, but I don’t see how the Senate could take a pass on considering the nomination.
Also, it is my hope that every single judge that received the ABA’s Not Qualified rating is impeached for cause. I have not issue with ideologues being nominated to the bench, but they have to be minimally qualified.
6
The whole point of the article is the legal paradox you’re describing.
1
@LMT "A President may decide to discontinue the policy *moving ahead*."
No - a President conferred a benefit on a class of people without Congressional approval, the next President can take it way. An executive order, unlike a Presidential Pardon, is reversible.
"While I’m being a stickler for procedure, I’d like to see Kavanaugh unseated on the grounds that the Senate illegally refused to advance Merrick for a vote. "
I agree with you that Garland deserved a hearing a vote. But that's my opinion. Mitch McConnell was well within his rights to not hold a hearing. The Constitution says that the President shall appoint Supreme Court Justices with the consent and approval of the Senate. The Senate is within its rights not to consent and approve. The remedy for disagreement with Mitch McConnell's decision is not to unseat Kavanaugh, but to vote to establish a Democratic majority in the Senate.
1
@Michael. So you say.
Not holding the hearing is sidestepping the duty to advise and consent.
More here : https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy
1
Wouldn’t it be much smarter to keep talented and educated young people in this country? Haven’t we already made an investment in their potential?
13
Well, I’d certainly suggest that if the Right’s really so flipped out about the damage they’ve done to real Amurricans, it’s already done with, as is their childhood.
1
@Zejee
If that is smart, why didn't Obama and the Democrat supermajority in the Senate vote to do so in 2009 when they had 60 Senate seats?
Granted that correlation is not causation, but Obama declared DACA in 2012 too advance his re-election prospects. It was a direct contradiction to what he had been saying for four years that he lacked legal authority.
From 2007-2012 there were fewer than 100 unaccompanied minors who claimed amnesty under the 2007 law that granted them the presumption that they had been trafficked. In 2013 a flood of unaccompanied minors in the tens of thousands began despite the fact that there had been no change in the political, crime, or climate change between 2012 and 2013.
What did change was that leftist pro-illegal-immigration organizations led Central Americans to believe that not only would their children be permitted to stay in the US but that the parents would also.
Obama precipitated a humanitarian crisis for personal gain. He used dreamers in a way that was not only disgusting but was not in their interests or in the interests of the US or Central America.
What is reality is that when Congress finally gets around to passing new immigration laws for the dreamers, it will not include a path to citizenship. They will be permitted permanent guest worker status as long as they do not break laws or become public charges. They'd have gotten a better deal had Obama used his bully pulpit instead of his pen.
4
Y-y-you mean that the ineptness of some of Donald ‘I’ve Got The Best People’ Trump’s inner circle might have shot their own case in the foot?! This, like most his administration’s fumbling around, would be hilarious if the consequences weren’t so horrific and impactful.
5
I worked since I was 14-in care homes, retail, hotels.
(Then I put myself through law school)
I worked with a LOT of immigrants.
I know first hand that nobody worked harder.
I’ll take an immigrant work ethic any day over that if anyone in the Trump family (not including Barron or Tiffany)
20
@r mackinnon
Yep, 100% agree.
Hard working folks, just trying to raise a family like everyone else.
Americans have no idea how good they have it.
7
the administration’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” an illegal exercise of presidential power ....
Arbitrary and capricious?
But that's the slogan of this Administration.
Why is the Court surprised?
7
It strains credulity to believe that this sociopath hesitated for one moment to end the program.
Consider the people defending it, the character of the Stephen Millers who created it, the abject cruelty to be unleased on innocents, and who will cheer the loudest if it's upheld.
9
Weirdly, the one thing that DJT wants is to be liked and admired. When someone doesn’t offer him the praise and/or deference he feels he’s owed, then he gets nasty. Stephen Miller is a nasty, little man, who, despite that, must stroke Don’s ego as much as possible. So, the Donald ends up torn between picking on people who he really doesn’t have any particular reason to dislike, and making the likes of Miller happy. He also is desperate for continued adulation from his base, and is afraid of doing anything that he sees as damaging that relationship. How do you think Putin manipulates him so easily? The funny thing is, if the Dems could figure out a way to make him feel more liked and supported by their side, he’d probably turn in an instant. He’d still be a stupid, amoral person, who only values himself, money, and power, though, so why they’d want him is really the question. Then they would have to decide if having him in power was worth trying to defend his stupid actions and grift. Better that the GOP suffer for that bargain with the devil.
3
Congress has passed an immigration bill with the support of Obama's WH and the Senate but it was not brought up by Speaker John Bohner of the House for a final vote. So it was the GOP who blocked the bill which could have solve the DACA and other immigration-related problems.
6
@Bruce If the House of Representatives did not act on the bill you are talking about Congress did not pass the legislation. Both the House and Senate have to approve legislation that is identical before it can be sent to the President for him to sign the legislation to make it into law. Besides that, how do you know it would have solved the immigration and DACA problems?
2
He prolly did something un-Trump, like read up a little first.
4
President Obama passed the DACA program in 2012 after congress refused to pass it. Why? He could have stopped this then and there yet he is responsible for this program to have endured. He could have requested that they be deported then along with their parents. They broke the law and now are being rewarded. How many new DACA recipients will there be if this is allowed to continue? It is not being heartless to not reward those who broke our laws. What about those immigrants who came here legally and did not cut in line? This is a crime when you come here illegally but I guess crime pays according to the Democrats.
11
First, the program’s time-limited, and doesn’t take new recipients: hasn’t in a while. Second, the point was to hold off on throwing out a bunch of people who’d behaved well, and acted as good solid citizens: DACA specifically excludes crooks and deadbeats. Third, included in the group you want given the old heave-ho are some veterans, which is appropriate given the holiday, one supposes.
This stuff you’d know, if you’d bothered to check. And some other things too, like trump’s repeated and knowing employment of what you are pleased to call “illegals,” Melania’s very iffy immigration status (she got in on the “Einstein,” program...I mean, come on already), and her promptly applying for and getting “chain migration,” entry for her parents.
This stuff you could have known, if you’d lifted a finger. As for how to make ladling out sheer vindictiveness with one hand and Jesus with the other okay, well, that’s a bit tougher.
11
There needs to be a balancing fo the equities and values.
Perhaps the single most important value here is American democracy. We need to find common ground in conflicting interests and values on the immigration and other issues, if the Democratic Party is going to prevail in controlling the government in the 2020 general election.
I could see continuing the protection from deportation and the right to work here for those who are currently enrolled in DACA, if we also do the following:
1. Issue an identification card to every citizen and legal resident with biometric data and photos that are updated every 2 years. Require that these be used to find employment, open a bank account, or rent an apartment.
2. End all future birthright citizenship for anyone whose parents are in the country illegally or are just visiting.
3. End all government subsidies to the undocumented, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Care Credit. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General found that the IRS had paid $4.2 billion to illegal immigrants in 2010 under the Child Tax Credit. (These are misnamed as ‘credits”. A person need not owe any income taxes to receive them.)
This will encourage self-deportation, and will discourage further illegal immigration.
Using the knowledge and money they have gained while living here, illegal immigrants will make new lives for themselves in their own countries. Many philanthropies (such as the Ford Foundation and the Open Societies Foundation) have been pouring money into the social service agencies that organize the illegal immigrant to make demands of our government. These agencies could now organize these migrants to go home and change their own governments.
10
@ann
That identification already exists. It's a called a credit rating from the 3 credit bureaus. It updates monthly, not every 2 years.
Nonetheless, underground economies exist and continue to exist.
5
Sorry to burst your bubble but birthright citizenship is a ratified Constitutional Amendment. You won’t “change” the 2A and we aren’t changing the 14A.
3
Returning all people who are here in the USA illegally from Mexico may be the only answer to turn around Mexico. Here is how I look at. Mexico is so corrupt so dysfunctional that only a massive infusion of new people educated in the USA like the DACA kids who speak Spanish and English and were educated with higher standards and values could actually fix Mexico. It would be similar to the Jewish diaspora who came back to Judea which was a sad story, and in no time turned it around with spectacular results. I don't thinks it is a tragedy to send back people to their own homeland with a new perspective and experience and with a little help from the US I think they are the only ones who can turn Mexico around. Imagine it!
8
And who will fix our country?
5
@Daniel Doern
How about the people who broke it, i.e. the ones who were born here and have lived here for generations?
4
Would you be comfortable being sent back to your "homeland"? I'm assuming that you're not a Native American. These kids grew up in America. Many of them likely have few or no memories of living anywhere else. USA is, for all intents and purposes, their home and their country.
5
Steven "Nosferatu" Miller is a disturbed human being who has no business being part of this administration, or any other.
12
If there is a universe, please kindly help these kids. Please
11
If Obama did it then Trump must get rid of DACA like he did with everything else Obama did.
That's his MO because of his hatred for our first black president. Let's not forget that Trump was the original birther.
Now let's see if the Supreme Court will
let hatred rule over what is right for our country. If hatred wins at the highest court then we all lose.
5
"... an illegal exercise of presidential power without any legitimate basis ..."
That pretty much sums up the Trump administration in a single phrase. Trump claims that because he's president, "I can do whatever I want."
Not true, because Trump doesn't have policies, principles, or strategies guiding his ever-shifting positions (remember when he pledged to save DACA, before he decided he was against it again?). It always comes down to throwing red meat to his base or, as Speaker Pelosi noted, to Vladimir Putin, the primary beneficiary of Trump-generated chaos.
"Arbitrary and capricious" is the only policy this administration knows.
10
DACA rescinded would be apocalyptic for us. The backing out of a program of 15 years would be unusually disruptive for 700,000 people who are in the fabric of our nation.
6
@DENOTE REDMOND Program is only be in effect since June 15, 2012
6
@Earl McCreary
2007 bucko.
@DENOTE REDMOND Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.
5
Even Trump’s initial objection was morally superficial and grossly immature: he was concerned that it would seem cruel- that he would seem cruel- not that it WAS cruel!
3
@Stephanie "... morally superficial and grossly immature"
The man or the objection?
1
So Trump himself is not in favor of ending DACA. So who is running the country? Not Trump - he’s just a full time golfer gofering for the likes of the Hope Hicks family, S Miller, Navarro, and Kudlow. Maybe even Giuliani and Rick Perry in the Ukraine and the bobble heads at Fox. He’s incapable of in depth analysis and whatever happened to Kushner’s Mid East policy? The ship of state is adrift - the motley crew either fired or on the run!
6
i think we should go all the way back and find out what families came to America illegally and give the current lineage the old heave-ho. I'm talking about a hundred years or so. That may very well even include some of the commenters here or maybe someone on the Supreme Court or in the White House. If we're going to get really tough, then there should be absolutely no exceptions.
4
The ending of the DACA program has its roots in racism.
9
@Brandy Agun White societies have the right to exist - just like Japanese, Hindu, Israeli, and South-African societies.
6
@Eugene Which white society are you referring to, exactly?
3
Not one of your examples is a “white” society. The most recent I can think of was Nazi Germany. Is that what you mean?
6
Since when did Trump think that something's being "unlawful and unconstitutional" is an objection to it? Please; as his efforts to shakedown Zelensky demonstrate, these are just empty words to Trump. DACA is in peril because the president lacks both a spine and a soul. Just impeach him already!
8
Many here derailing the conversation to matters regarding lowest wage, unskilled labor and the effect these jobs being populated by immigrants from our southern border has on our country.
This discussion is about dreamers.
This issue is about the humanity and common decency of us as a people.
The kids and the adults who have lived here since their youth are, for all intent and purpose, Americans. They work here at many levels, attend or attended primary and high school here and have friends and family that are citizens. They have attended our colleges/universities here and serve in our military and speak English fluently.
They are part of this country
America is more "their country' than the nation from which their parents came. If returned to these places, many would not be able to speak the language, may not have family they can count, on and would essentially be strangers in a strange land.
To rip these good people out of their lives and ship them to a foreign land because their parents fled here to escape crushing poverty and/or horrifying violence is in itself an act of violence against these innocents.
And as a nation our population growth is such that we are barely replacing ourselves, a condition not exactly consistent with the capitalist economic model.
I believe that as Americans we are big enough in heart and size to accommodate people who have been good friends neighbors and citizens of our communities.
18
The nation has already invested a lot in educating the 'dreamers.' Why throw out this investment? The dreamers are contributing their services to the nation and are paying taxes, they are not costing anything. I would grant them citizenship and keep them here.
Law is represented by a blindfolded Lady Justitia. No such blindfolded lady actually exists. A real Justitia would recognize a win-win situation with or without the blindfold.
13
If, according to Trump's administration, Obama did not have the legal authority to start the DACA program, then how does the Trump administration have the legal authority to end DACA and claim the courts have no jurisdiction? That's absurd.
6
It's obvious to me now , that the US constitution was written with the presumption that presidents have basic forms of integrity and decency.
Trump sure has blown that apart.
And making it worse is that so many senators blindly follow along with the destruction.
It's so frustrating for me to sit a watch this happen day after day since he has been in office.
Also, so many important rules being undone that don't make the page.
Really terrible times we're slogging through.
10
Can Democrats or someone Guarantee that there won't be anymore New DACAs or of similar programs in future ?
9
I think DACA necessarily affects people south of our border where crossing can happen on foot. It is a special case in this way as others would have to fly in and that would require going through immigration laws. Here parents may have illegally crossed, but we cannot blame their children for that. But frankly, America is built on the idea of giving reprieve to those who seek relief from violent circumstances or severe discrimination. We are a nation of immigrants. You and I are have ancestors who immigrated to this country.
79
What do you have against immigrants? Where did your family come from?
6
I’m sure you’re asking due to all the Chinese and Russian birth tourists. Hundreds of thousands of them. In fact, Trump properties were some prime rentals for Russians wanting to give birth in the US.
5
The Court’s decision should read:
They are cheerleaders,football players and valedictorians. They trick or treated saw the fireworks and the ball that dropped. They eat apple pie, drive Chevrolets and love their mothers. In short, they walk talk and quack like Americans. And by the power invested in me by the state I rule that they are Americans. I mean, why was this even in question?
8
Can President Trump do ANYTHING that will appease the opinions of this newspaper?
10
@Mark
Yes, he could show some humanity, integrity, compassion and intelligence.
9
It was betrayal of Trump's anti-immigration supporters. Sessions knew it. Ms. Duke knew it and looking for a way out of her personal dilemma was happy to sign off on it. Trump imagined that his supporters would never know that he, too, knew the truth --- happy taking an action he knew all along would not succeed.
2
The Constitution and our body of laws are, on the whole, fine documents that are the legal, ethical foundation of the country. They sometimes omit the compassion and commonsense needed for society to operate in a healthy manner. It is impossible for me to consider the arguments in the DACA case without thinking of the people who are affected; the store clerk who works 40 or 50 hours a week to put food on the table for his family; the production worker in the pig factory in Mississippi; and the dairy herd manager in Wisconsin. I pray the 9 Supreme Court justices will keep these and other Dreamers in mind when they question the lawyers tomorrow. And recall that 'this land is made for you and me' is a big umbrella.
114
@Bruce Kahn If only prayer worked. Unfortunately the Republicans held off filling SCOTUS and other judgeship's off so that they could stock the courts with their brand of christian nationalist judges.. When almost 50% of our population is so lazy that the either don't vote or are angry because the final choices aren't EXACTLY who they want, this is how we end up.
11
@Tim Maybe those "lazy" people who don't vote are too busy working 2 jobs in order to support their family. Or maybe some find it inconvenient, after working two jobs, to travel 30 minutes and then have to wait in line for 4 hours with their kids in tow. But my hope is that you are not too "lazy" to do whatever you can to get unregistered voters registered, as I do, with the League of Women Voters. And yes, even men are out there doing their part. It's always a good rule of thumb not to criticize a someone until you have walked a mile in the shoes of those "lazy" people.
8
I have a simple question. Its been 6 years since DACA was created by Mr. Obama; why haven't any of the DACA people applied for citizenship? The congress has to fix this problem.
4
@E Robichaux probably because there is no legal path from DACA to citizenship. DACA doesn't grant permanent residency, which is the necessary step in order to (eventually) apply for citizenship.
9
How do you know none have applied? Have you ever gone through the process itself? Are you familiar with the requirements? Do you know the cost, lawyer fees, etc, 'cause it's not for free? Do you know how long it takes from start to finish?
YEARS !!!
Please educate yourself on this issue and take a step further - befriend a DACA person, get to know their story, their struggles, THEN post your unbiased opinions.
6
@E Robichaux because DACA does not provide a path to citizenship
7
Unfortunately the President has almost exclusive jurisdiction over immigration policy and is likely to prevail.
7
"the administration’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” an illegal exercise of presidential power without any legitimate basis to end a program relied on by about 700,000 people. "
Absolutely everything as far as this matter is concerned is “arbitrary and capricious” and any decision will be halfhearted, half-legal, and half-acceptable.
US has no common approach to this issue except for loosely saying that the so-called dreamers are sort of ok staying here, kind of, perhaps, probably. And so on for many years. Without any sort of solid solution any time soon.
I do not see how it would be possible to expel those people in the worst possible case for them, that would be an abomination. But I do see, and sort of agree, that their parents are a totally different story, and much weaker.
6
Trump’s Supreme Court will rule the way Trump tells them, and overturn DACA.
Even if we get rid of Trump, his hatred will echo for the next generation through the Supreme Court.
15
Don’t be too sure. Roberts appears to have his own mind and conscience. Thomas and the other GOP nominees, less so.
1
Trump used to care if the American people viewed him as being cruel to children way back in 2017. That seems like a long long time ago. Now days he couldn't care less.
8
Will get worse if elected again
3
Reagan declared a total amnesty for anyone who could prove they had a job and had paid taxes or were the children of such a person. They had a year or two to provide the proof. So even if they we using false papers, they were allowed to stay, get green cards and eventually become citizens. Many of them have gone on to accomplish a great deal. Is Trump going to have that declared illegal and take away citizenship from those people. And we know Melania could be deported if strict rules were followed as so many want done for others.
16
@Susan in NH
Yes he did. However, you leave out the part that Congress promised to enact a more comprehensive immigration policy which of course they didn't.
Without Congressional intervention, this problem will go on and on and on and on with no solution in site. As of now, Congress cannot even agree on who is illegal!
Until Congress actually does their job there should be no further action by either side and no decision on DACA (although I support it in theory).
DACA allows children of illegal immigrants who were brought here to The United States to stay if they were underage when brought to this country without their consent. It does not permit them to apply for citizenship. Congress is responsible for this part.
Congress: Do your job!
10
@Susan in NH - Actually Congress passed a law that granted that amnesty. He signed it. The difference between Reagan and Obama, was Reagan actions were due to congressional action, Obama's was not.
3
@Susan in NH
You've nailed it, Susan: Melania could be deported! Of course! What's the prenup say about being deported??--It's probably much cheaper than another divorce.
I didn't think Donald could be that clever--and all it costs the country is 700,000 educated, hard working, tax paying young people...
1
“'Arbitrary and capricious,” an illegal exercise of presidential power without any legitimate basis" - sounds like the motto for this whole cruel, wretched administration, so intent on harming the poor and vulnerable, and those in need of help to raise themselves and their families to a better life
12
Border between the U.S. and Canada is OK. But why is the border between the U.S. and Mexico not OK?
These immigrants come to the U.S. primarily to escape problems in their native countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) which includes a stagnant economy, high levels of crime, political corruption and widespread drug use. There is a legal way to request a green card to enter the U.S., however unlawful mobs entry is not allowed. Shame and disgrace of all these central American countries and their governments who fail to feed their people, to give them medical care, good housing, and jobs. These central American countries and their governments are the ones at fault.
Sorry that your country does not love you anymore. To find true love you need to find and walk on God’s Holy road which will one day open the gate to His Kingdom in Heaven. The road you are currently walking is man made and will only bring you tears and despair, darkness and regrets.
5
@manoflamancha let me correct one common misconception you and tons of other people have:
"There is a legal way to request a green card to enter the U.S., "
no, there is no such legal way, unless somebody has a lawful basis for requesting permanent residency, like an employer willing you to sponsor for a green card, and a job that is subject to that kind of sponsorship (not all jobs are). if somebody just goes to a US consulate and requests a green card out of nowhere, they will be sent home (and probably also laughed at).
4
And USA props up these governments as long as they protect “American interests “ (Big Business), as long as they aren’t socialists and don’t try to feed the people, provide health care, housing, education.
2
@guillermo
It's like that in other countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that are frequently held up to be examples for the U.S. to follow. We simply cannot let everyone in.
4
I taught most of the DACAs in my county, and they are the kind of people who should be welcomed! They’ve become nurses, talented teachers, pillars of the community.
Let’s get rid of the lazy (trump), who steal from others (trump), who depend on the taxpayers (trump) and keep the hard workers who support themselves and their families!
26
To me, the very bestest part is that the same people who ran around screaming that Obama was a tyrant, and you better watch out for a government that ignores the rule of law, are now at the Supreme Court screaming that Trump gets to be a tyrant if he feels like it, and you better not let anybody who respects the rule of law get in the way.
I particularly admire the guy who calls hisself, “George Orwell,” and bawls that nobody working for Trump gets to have a conscience, offer the tiniest peep of advice or dissent, or try in any way to check an arbitrary and capricious Supreme Power.
The word you’re searching for, fella, is “thoughtcrime.” Kind of a doublespeaky argument, though.
4
This is what happens when a ROGUE PRESIDENT is delusional enough to equate himself with an absolute ruler - a tyrant who makes his own laws and interprets, for himself (in this case by his inept and prejudicial AG Sessions), existing laws, illegally avoiding Judicial involvement.
Well, HERE’S YOUR JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT, you miserable excuse for a sentient being. Your “divine” ruling, a product of your ignorance and prejudice, has already been overturned by courts. The SCOTUS will, with any luck, deal it a death blow.
Granted, Congress should have dealt with this in 2017 when the idiot in the WH began his assault against humanity. Democrats offered many pathways and alternatives to immigration policies but, as always in this feckless administration, Republicans refused to work with them even though they were in the majority - they blindly supported the xenophobia of their demented leaders McConnell and Trump.
Right now we effectively have no functioning government. Trump is useless and unhinged; major Departments have no heads. State is off the rails and Intelligence is soon to follow. The USDA has been destroyed, DOI beheaded and DOD disgraced and running in circles with OUR troops.
There will never be equilibrium or equity with Trump and this swamp of Republicans. They need to go and WE need to elect smart, honest, competent people to govern on our behalf, not would-be tyrants and crooks.
11
When they start locking up Republicans for illegally hiring undocumented workers, then I’ll think these guys are seriously looking to solve this issue. But placing all the blame on people of color is just another gimmick to rile up the racists. Call their bluff! Give them DACA deportations in exchange for locking up people committing employment crimes. Their tune will change.
222
Unfortunately, this is no bluff. It is the new norm and reality.
@EW How about making the employers of undocumented workers pay the workers their back pay (since they don't give them minimum wage) and the appropriate taxes?
8
@EW Give them nothing ! Decency should not have to be bought.
4
Thanks to Elaine C. Duke for submitting a memo that may help courts overturn Trump's decision. By refusing to cite their policy objections, she acted strategically and played a good long game on this.
I don't know what Ms. Duke is doing now, but I hope she feels good about the consequences of her actions.
24
The parents of DACA children were overwhelmingly poor and because of that we paid for their children’s education, medical care and supplemental food. We did that for years.
We owe nothing to them. Their countries of origin owes us gratitude for caring for their citizens.
Having said that, it is heartless to deport them. They should stay as long as their illegal family gets deported immediately. Fair exchange, only the guilty gets punished.
11
We’ve given these people nothing, comlared to the handouts—shovelouts, really—to the Trump family.
13
Yes. We invested in these educated young people. Let’s use their talents.
1
DACA was/is an executive order taken by Obama and is considered, by many, to be an illegal action. Congress alone has the power regulate immigration. Obama's frustration with Congress failure to act prompted the order. Sympathy for the individuals affected by the order notwithstanding, the order remains illegal and should be reviewed by SCOTUS. Those who which to grant the "dreamers" a path to US citizenship should lobby their representatives in Congress to take up their case and pass legislation. Otherwise, they dreamers should be repatriated to their country of origin and the law, such as it is, should be obeyed.
10
@Toni Can we eliminate all the Trump presidential actions then? I might trade one DACA for many, many Trump presidential actions. Or is it OK when Trump does it?
5
@Toni Did you read the article at all, or is your response based on your own bias? Whether or not the original order was illegal is beside the point. You cannot rescind even an illegal order in an illegal manner. The Trump Administration was nor willing to do so because of the President’s abject cowardice and ignorance, and will have to live with the consequences.
1
The executive branch has discretion in how to deploy scarce/finite funds. There was not, and is not, enough money to find and deport every person in this country without proper papers. DACA is an executive determination on how immigration enforcement money should be spent: not on those brought here as children who have kept their noses clean, but on people who broke immigration law of their own volition and also committed serious crimes. It’s an exercise of discretion well within the purview of the executive.
The values of this president and some of his key advisors are clearly on display in the DACA case. Given that DACA, from the start, was defined to affect only a limited number of people, you would think that the Trump Administration would focus on "new" immigrant groups, and not those who qualify for DACA.
However, in Trump's zeal to do away with anything productive that was accomplished under President Obama, he'll continue to be popular with his supporters...but this may eliminate his possibility to earn the votes of moderates and suburban voters. In other words, the president may well be self-destructing.
7
What a President giveth, a President can taketh away: the downside of Presidential administration "by pen and phone." It is not the role of the courts to decide whether adoption or rescission of presidential decisions is wise, because that would turn the courts into a political branch (and our country into a dictatorship, where political decisions are reviewed by non-elected officials). Enough of this sneaking of Rawlsian "procedural democracy" into law- and policy-making.
6
@JOHN No, it is merely the role of the courts to decide if it is legal. Like everything else in this travesty of an
Administration, the DACA recision was accomplished in a slapdash and conflicted manner and now they must live with their own laziness and incompetence.
1
Won't the decision be more based on the limits of executive action than anything else?
From a strictly legal point of view, it seems odd to give what is essentially executive discretion the same standing as US Federal Code (laws passed by Congress and signed into the law).
This is obviously an emotional case, but if you substituted another issue with the question "Does the executive order of President A create binding policy for subsequent Presidents?" do you give lattitude to the existing occupant of the office?
3
@James The key to the DACA case is that it was designed to apply only to a specific group of people, and is not applicable to anyone else (before or after). This is the essence of the Executive Order. The Executive Order doesn't change Immigration Policy (which needs to be updated!) but provides an EXCEPTION to allow this group to remain in the country under certain conditions.
3
Immigration is a very difficult area - especially if we are dealing with people here for decades.
In one sense, Trump was right to cut off new illegal immigration. Though the implementation was poorly planned and execution was even worse, the idea was sound - before we deal with the vast group of illegal immigrants in our midst, we need to stop further inward flow.
DACA is the worst place to start harsh enforcement - even for Trump. Much better that we as a country stop illegal immigration at the border, place a reasonable cap on refugee applications, and then deal humanely with the people here with the goal of expelling all immigrants with violent crime convictions but giving most others a chance to earn the right to live here provided they are not public charges for at least say 10 years. DACA kids appear to be the most compelling group to be allowed this privilege of earning the right to become residents and then citizens. Trump is moving forward with worst possible case against a group likely to make best impression on the public and hopefully the Court.
3
So we have unelected bureaucrats in charge of establishing Executive Branch policy. I’m sure that all you readers will be thrilled when a “heroic” member of the bureaucracy does the same to blunt the will of a democratically elected progressive administration.
And spare me the nonsense about the Administrative Act or any other process argument. The Executive in our tripartite form of government is a “monarch” as it relates to the ministrations of the executive branch of government. Congress can make no law, nor the courts invent powers over the executive that are not specifically granted to those branches of government by the Constitution. To suggest that the President must follow congressional dictates concerning process in carrying out an executive order is ludicrous. I am hopeful and expect that the Supreme Court will rectify this treasonous mess.
4
In which again we find that Trumpists don’t know the Constitution from a hole in the ground.
7
Our Founders were very clear that our country never wanted a monarch in any position. The fact that a presumable Trump supporter would even use such a term shows the Republican Party’s divergence from our history and foundation. No branch and no officer is preeminent over any other except in the very clear and specific circumstances expressed in the Constitution.
3
I think you need to read the Constitution
3
This article is saying that the administration’s position for terminating DACA is based on the weakest of arguments. So if SCOTUS sides with the administration it is providing trump cover in an election year and demonstrating that it is no longer a coequal branch of government.
I can’t think of a scenario where these young adults are actually deported (only Stephen Miller, Junior, and hardcore supporters are that cruel), but by then the president has been re-elected. Mission accomplished. (And the judiciary is just as corrupt as the GOP.)
2
If an immigrant, 18-35, serves 4 years active duty in our military, thereby putting his life on the line, that person should be granted U.S. citizenship!! I am flabbergasted that this is not the case.
17
Whatever the Supreme court may decide, what Obama chose to do was compassionate and moral. What Trump has tried to do is vindictive and immoral. When you chose sides you in effect declare what kind of person you are. I choose to be compassionate and moral. Where do you stand?
8
You know, maybe this ultimately what this country needs, to finally hit bottom.
Let all American voters see the GOP rounding up 700,000 contributing young adults and ship them to countries where they don’t speak the language. Imagine it. Besides the inhumanity and injustice of it, the US will lose any “Greatness” that the world once had associated with it. (Putin would be giddy,)
And ruling in Texas v. U.S. the absurdity that zeroing out the mandate penalty brings down the entire Affordable Care Act, leaving millions of Americans without any health insurance.
Maybe American voters need to see that this is what voting GOP actually means: deporting 700,000 and no health care for 10,000,000.
Maybe we need to hit bottom before the next election.
(Unfortunately, though, being decided by the courts will mean that our third branch of government will forever lose its respect and legitimacy. Another horrible price to pay.)
10
@SRP you got this totally wrong, it’s the other way around: the country already hit rock bottom with Reagan’s amnesty, Flores 1997, Gang of Eight etc., and that’s why Trump came to power in the first place. Trump is the response to open borders and uncontrolled immigration which has been in effect for decades. American voters lived with that reality for a very long time, and now they’ve gradually started gravitating toward populists. We need to get our timeline right.
4
Immigrants are not causing the problems in the USA.
2
Pence is not capable of thinking ahead this much ... "he knew the administration had left itself more legally vulnerable than it should have." ... hes way to shallow for that depth of a consideration.
3
A nation has borders. A lawless place does not enforce laws. We have a choice to make.
8
@JDK …. DACA is compassionate and moral. Ending DACA is vindictive and immoral. We have a choice to make.
10
The cruelty is the point. Trump et al are holding DACA hostage as much as extorted & bribed the new President of Ukraine. We have unprincipled people governing over us & it is heart wrenching to see the machinations, arrogance, arrogance & shallow thought processes that is bringing low our granted, aspirational, experiment of Democracy. Our nation has had many flaws which with determination we have striven to correct or make amens - mostly centered around social issues (slavery, equality issues of women, LGBTQ, POC) & recognition of income inequality. It is horrifying to see these steps forward being dismantled before our very eyes. It has become unbearably sad to see this unfold.
6
Yes it’s sad but now’s not the time for tears. Now is the time to fight. Once impeachment proceedings begin it may be time to have our presence felt in person en masse in DC. Maybe around thanksgiving or after?
A practical question: what organizations generally coordinate the timing of mass rallies like this? I want to get plugged in.
1
The meta-question facing the Court here is, how should this case be decided? If the court chooses to follow their usual path of looking at questions of the law and executive authority, they could rule one way. On the other hand, they could view this as a matter of right and wrong and rule the other.
Notably, their decision last June in the North Carolina gerrymandering case was very narrow. The court said gerrymandering was bad, but declined to rule on the merits on a narrow view of the law and Constitution.
I'll bet on another narrow ruling, which defers to executive authority, in this case, without regard to the Dreamers themselves.
1
@Ken L How can you rationally say that a sweeping decision categorically rejecting oversight of discriminatory legislative redistricting is “narrowly focused”?
It is up to the SC to decide and any comments by anyone are fruitless. Thanks to the wonderful democracy which keeps the country at the same place for 30+ years - no infrastructure, declining in education achievement, fighting among ourselves, out of control federal spending, etc..
To me this is pretty straightforward. The previous President took an action without consent of Congress. Independent of the legality of that action, it sort of strains credulity if the next President cannot simply reverse it. If he cannot do that, why bother going through Congress at all? I fully expect the court to side with the Trump administration. Not doing so would indicate that the court is OK with subversion of the proper legislative process. I am sympathetic to the plight of the Dreamers, but their situation should be address through Congressional action.
15
@Michael Thoughts and Prayers from Republicans. The Pro Life party that locks up kids; takes away school lunches from poor Kids; but is silent when Khashoggi is murdered. Vote out GOP to have any chance of saving America. Ray Sipe
6
@Michael
How many immigration actions executively has trump taken without congress approval? Numerous.
The executive branch has the authority to make changes but its argument is deeply flawed.
3
Did you even bother reading the article? Trump didn’t reverse DACA because he’s too much of a wimp to make the executive decision. He could have rescinded it, but he was afraid it would make him look like he was being mean to children. Instead he took the easy way out and handed the decision over to the courts, so that he can’t be blamed for the decision. Up to this point the courts have rejected Trump’s legal arguments. It’s not at all clear what the SCOTUS will decide, but if they apply the proper legal standard, then it would result in DACA being upheld. I’m not holding my breath, as this court has found ways to make bad decisions in the past.
6
Why have a President at all if all he does is make decisions that will be supported by his base? We could just have a checklist. The President seemed to recognize that ending DACA was not good for the country and those that benefited but couldn’t do the right thing.
8
Obama put DACA in place with no legal authority to do so. No explanation. It was a clear overreach by the executive branch and one that should have been slapped back hard for the long term good of this country and its balance of power between the executive and legislative branch.
Trump should be able to rescind it with no explanation whatsoever. The SCOTUS shouldn't even be considering differing reasons offered for rescinding it, and in the deliberations no consideration should be given to the nature of the program either. The SCOTUS is not the legislature and they shouldn't be acting to enshrine what they think might be good law. It's not their job.
13
@Kurfco …."Trump should be able to rescind it with no explanation whatsoever". ….I agree. But I also know that the action Obama took was compassionate and moral, and what Trump has tried to do is immoral and vindictive. When you choose sides you tell us what kind of person you are. Time to own it.
6
I see we’re following up the “arbitrary and capricious government is just ginger-peachy if my guy’s in charge,” with the good ol’ tried and true, “courts shouldn’t legislate unless I agree with them.”
Hey, could you do the one about how deficits and debts only matter if a Democrat’s in charge? I love that one.
1
@Kurfco Get over it, snowflake. Your man in the White House is just incompetent. And ge has a team of incompetents. It is so glaringly obvious. He has no clue as to how to govern. He has no clue how the law works, what the Constitution says, how our government functions.
See you after court.
3
DACA is a program, not a law.
Ae President has the obligation to give orders and guidance to Federal law enforcement, including on the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Every president provides a lot of such guidance, on many issues in addition to Dreamers. We don't and can't prosecute even 10% of all cases possible. The numbers are overwhelming, and that is as true of tax law, official corruption, bank fraud, and every other issue as it is of immigration.
Obama defined a group of people least deserving of law enforcement coming down on them, and he said to leave them alone. That was proper, it was his job. It was not "illegal" and not even law.
Trump wants to change that? Well, he's now President, so he coldud. But he'd have to do that, have to change it, give new guidance. He hasn't.
He has no new guidance. Instead, he's saying things about how nice these people are, how sad it makes him.
Instead of giving new guidance, a short memo just said the old guidance was "illegal." It wasn't, and that isn't new guidance either.
So pass a bill, as Obama suggested, or at least issue new guidance in a new program. But Trump's Admin does not want to take the political heat for a bill, or even for the guidance that would be a new program.
Hence, they say doing their job is illegal. Nonsense.
17
@Mark Thomason
Except Obama went prosecutorial discretion and gave them work permits which was illegal.
3
@Mark Thomason "Trump wants to change that? Well, he's now President, so he coldud. But he'd have to do that, have to change it, give new guidance. He hasn't. "
Except he has. Read the article. Kirstjen Nielsen said the guidance was the " clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws against all classes and categories of aliens." In other words, enforce the rule of law. Judge Bates' opinion on that memo seems to me an awful lot like judicial activism. I expect the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.
4
Donald a Trump was sympathetic - I don’t think so. It is impossible for Donald John Trump to be sympathetic. He is a paranoid narcissist who doesn’t understand sympathy or empathy. The best he can do is to pretend and he isn’t at all good at pretending.
15
This whole issue is horrendous. To think that a Supreme Court is asked to rule on such a barbarian issue is heart rending. What has happened to the soul of America?
30
Five conservative justices. Trump is likely to win. Not a certainty, but that’s the way to bet. As for the focus on the Administration’s expressed rationale? The conservatives will ignore it. Their rationale will be simple: what one President can do, the next can undo. Remember how Roberts went through gyrations to uphold Obamacare? The conservatives will do the same kind of thing in this case, to the extent they have to, this time to uphold Presidential authority. The article as much as admits Trump had the authority.
5
No, it doesn’t.
9
It continues to amaze how little Trump and Associates understand how much better they would do, by fixing this versus gutting it.
It's very clear that their belligerence, especially that of Miller, blinds and deafens them to any pragmatic policymaking. Belligerence seems to run everything in the Trump WH.
17
If SCOTUS upholds the DACA revocation of Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller and others in this depraved administration the justices will have to share the blame for deporting 700,000 young people who know no other country than the one they grew up in. I cannot believe that even a conservative-weighted court would condone such cruelty.
32
I do not believe that anyone really wants to deport otherwise law-abiding DACA recipients. The problem is the radical left. Solving the dreamer problem cannot be done in isolation, because the left will then have no reason to give up their irrational demands that anyone be allowed to come, and be funded by working Americans. All to pander to "their" voters on the backs of taxpayers.
I support DACA..... once we put an absolute end to chain migration, anchor babies, fake asylum claims and allow immediate deportation of any immigrant who commits a crime- violent or otherwise. Then the law-abiding dreamers, brought here without their consent, can stay and enjoy the USA.
It is that simple.... compromise. Not the "my way or the highway" leftist approach.
13
So tell us how you feel about Mrs. Trump’s parents brought here by chain migration.
50
@Ny Surgeon Stop blaming liberals. 2 years of Republican led congress couldn’t enact legislation. Why? Probably because regardless of your political leanings, most Americans recognize we all got here through immigration. How did your ancestors get here? How would you feel if they could not have come here? Would they have died otherwise? Why do today’s immigrants have less rights or future than your ancestors?
24
@Ny Surgeon …."It is that simple.... compromise"......I strongly disagree. DACA was the moral and compassionate thing to do. Ending DACA is vindictive and immoral. I choose not to compromise moral values. How about you?
2
The land created by invaders from Europe and immigrants from the world over now wants to kick out adult immigrants brought over illegally by their parents. For all Trump's faults, and they are many, the influence of low life advisers like Stephen Miller is most appalling. He is hardly in a position to pass judgment on the Dreamers and other immigrants legal or otherwise. Dealing with the problem by creating the messiest most miserable ineffective "solution" is a sign of ineptitude and evil.
19
In this country we have believed that the "sins of the father" should NOT be visited unto the next generations.....
but maybe "originalism" is selective
7
5 Sept 2017: "I have a great heart for the folks we are talking about, a great love for them," Trump told reporters of so-called Dreamers before a White House meeting on tax reform.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/349295-trump-says-he-has-great-love-for-dreamers%3famp
And how did The Grifting Narcissist express his "great love"? By having Attorney General Sessions END THE ONLY PROGRAM that provided the only status that those childhood arrivals ever had.
Among those in The Party of the Carnival Barker, a majority supports the Dreamers' pathway to citizenship. But, Republican voters are essentially just counted-on for THE WILD ENTHUSIASM for whatever new levers that Family Trump are pushing.
Republican voters don't want to remember Stephen Miller's speech about immigration reform and the issuance of their green card as "the golden ticket". They don't acknowledge Donald Trump Jr. selling condos in India using his WH tie. Real influence in government bureaucracy has been building over time with hiring of Trump loyalists.
Right now, Senate Democrats are being pressed to pass the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 which will advance green cards for applicants from India. Good time to ask: What about the Trump LOVE for the Dreamers exiled into limbo 2 years ago?
The Dreamers were raised and accepted as Americans since childhood - Get your priorities in order, Congress! Freedom Caucus, the President loves the Dreamers!
4
"Arbitrary and capricious." Sounds like Trump.
10
Trump seems to want to destroy anything and everything that America stands for.
He hopes to succeed by dividing the country.
Making anti American values great.
13
Read the book The Ugly American.
1
Article II, Section 2, the US Constitution, provides:
[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Hey, I can read this as meaning that if trump gets impeached, he cannot issue ANY pardons whatever.
And also, that Pence cannot issue any pardons to trump if he gets impeached.
Of course, I am no lawyer,
Could a real lawyer parse it properly please.
You're welcome. Nancy.
5
@Technic Ally
No, this just means that he can't issue a pardon for anyone that has been impeached. Trump could be impeached by the House, and then not convicted in the Senate. If that happens, he could still pardon people all through the end of his term.
I guess one silver lining is that this administration is so incompetent that it is not able to be as mean and cruel as it tries to be.
10
Voters of Hispanic heritage should take note of the contempt the Trump admin has towards Hispanic folks starting with his ride down the escalator denouncing Mexicans as rapists and criminals. Trump had already lied about Obama's birthplace to win approval from the Tiki Torch/David Duke crowd. Trump only wants blonde white immigrants like himself into the country although they clean the toilets at his luxury resorts for the greedy rich as Trump himself his . Trump even cheats on his wife with hookers which won the admiration of the holier than thou evangelicals. A lying demagogue too weak to stand up to the world's dictators is unfit for the oval office and belongs back on tv game shows.
15
Retroactive immigration rules put forth by Hope Hicks, Stephen Miller and Donald Trump. What a disaster for our country.
How is Melania Trump legal?
Should her case be reviewed for its “irregularities”??
14
@ Kay Johnson, yes, Kay, it absolutely should be.
2
DACA is an illegal program set up by Obama. While I feel sorry for the kids it affected, they and their parents should be deported forthwith
13
@NYC Dweller ….Do you remember what happened when you were two? Of course not. Then how can you be absolutely sure your parents didn't come to this country illegally when you were two? Fact is, you can't be sure, because at the age of two you only know what you have been told. How would you like to be deported?
1
A presidential aide's comments will have no effect on SCOTUS decisions. They will interpret the DACA program based on the constitution and precedence. They are highly unlikely to support the lower courts decision that the Trump administration cannot eliminate the program which was based solely because the administration did not adequately explain why they were doing so. The explanation could simply be written to satisfy that requirement. They will be left with one of two decisions. Narrowly approve the administration's move which could then be altered by a future president or congress or approve the move fully, which would prevent future presidents and congress from re-instating DACA. With the conservative majority in SCOTUS, the second scenario is more likely, although the narrow decision is not out of the question.
4
@Jake S. So much for due process. Another Constitutional drop out.
1
DACA was and is only a temporary fix during the Obama administration until there was a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Obama kicked the can down the road and now the can is in the Trump administration. It should be noted, the federal government profits from DACA in that DACA immigrants pay much money in renewal fees.
8
@J Many people don't seem to understand that DACA is a can kick. Everyone in the program remains an illegal "immigrant" under the law. DACA merely protects them from being deported and allows them to work. It's sort of magical that someone can simultaneously be illegally in the country and allowed to legally work.
7
@J DACA renewal fees are $495. That is significantly less than the legal costs incurred by legal immigrants and visa holders.
8
@J Congress kicked the can down the road.
2
Let's rewind because none of this needed to happen. In 2017 there was bipartisan legislation (Graham-Durbin Bill) sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Durbin. It provided $25 billion for Trump's wall and relief for DACA kids. It was a win-win compromise for everyone.
Then extremists like Stephen Miller, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, et al bitterly complained it was amnesty and that Trump's base wouldn't like it. Mr. 'Art-Of-The-Deal' caved to the pressure and walked away, so he has no one to blame but himself.
14
And there was broader legislation in 2013 and 2006; both times, the wacko-birds blew it up.
7
I have meet DACAs. These young capable people live in fear. One I met recently was a college graduate working in a physical therapist office while she waited to go to grad school. I had asked if she had voted that day in 2018 as I do of every young person. She told me she couldn’t vote as she was DACA. She couldn’t tell me where she lived nor most other people because she feared that ICE would take away her mother. This bright young woman worked very hard with 2 other jobs as well. And she lives with fear and anxiety in the only country she has ever known. Even Reagan a Republican helped immigrants become citizens. What is wrong with us that we can’t fully welcome theses accomplished young people to citizenship? Vote 2020 for someone who will help these young people and stop the insanity of the trump Administration.
14
While the current occupant of the White House does in fact have broad discretion over immigration policy, since when did deliberate cruelty become a u.s. government policy? Deporting dreamers serves no end other than for him to stroke his ego and appear tough, and we all know that appearances are everything with this individual
6
Curious why the Supremes even took the case. Sounds like an "activist court" to me. If the ruling goes in favor of the administration, it's just another example of the hypocrisy of conservatives' claims about their disgust when courts go beyond the legal merits to legislate from the bench.
4
The rule of law is so foreign to this President that he can't take the logical route and say Obama's decision was in fact legal and so is my decision to end it as a matter of policy.
If, as appears likely in this case, he is foiled by his own incompetence. it will be the first evidence in quite some time that Bismarck was correct was he reportedly said, "There is a God who takes care of Fools, Drunks and Americans".
What the article did not explain is the likelihood the Supreme Court will extend, as lower courts did, deference to the fact, ignored by the government, that the order to end DACA would cause immense, immediate harm to 700,000 innocent young people who bear no fault for their illegal status.
4
@Eugene
You’re completely disregarding the all the relevant details of my post. Where do I claim that every child who is newly arrived be granted citizenship? I’m addressing a specific situation. There are 700,000 adults who were brought to this country as children at a time when border crossings were not scrutinized as they are today. Americans looked the other way at that time, and welcomed and employed immigrants who settled in this country with children who had no say in the decision making and they have spent their entire lives but for a few years in this country. Believe me the Dreamers are more like me than my own grandmother who arrived legally and to the best of my knowledge never applied for citizenship. She spoke only Italian her entire life, had minimal formal education, never worked outside her home, and had eight children who survived childbirth. I think there are millions of citizens who could trace their family histories back to grandparents and great grandparents who were similarly legal only because somebody casually put a stamp on their immigration papers when they stepped off the boat. So, in the end, I think most of the complaints about immigrants have next to nothing to do with legality. (We already have stricter immigration requirements than most developed countries.) I think it’s mostly about a growing fear that in the not too distant future White won’t make right.
16
WE desperately need talented educated people and we are going to remove thousands? We are going to keep the untalented, ill educated US citizens? The ones who yell and cheer at Trumps rallies?
19
It would not be fair for these kids who were brought to this country by their parents to be sent to foreign homes many do not remember. Many have earned degrees as doctors and teachers. These achievements are a plus for this country and I firmly believe those contributing should remain but no new ones should be allowed.
1
Bizarre. You admit the success and benefit to your country of the Dreamers but then say you don’t want any more. Is the basis for that just pure Trumpist anti-immigration?
1
One can just imagine how all those in the DACA program are feeling right now.
Immigration has been a continuing problem here. Mainly attributable to the inaction and 'do not care' attitude of Congress. While looking at the DACA recipients, we are not saying anything about those millions of others who are in the country, with no proper status. How long has this been? A problem left to fester, continuously, with no solution at sight.
Those in the DACA program need a rescue. Let us hope the SCOTUS, provides that hand. That the SCOTUS, would see this entire case of the 'Dreamers' in a human angle, and not just arguments, for and against legal points. And, look at all sides of the case.
3
As I argued in a prior comment section on this issue, to deport this entire class of DACA recipients is to impose a cruel and unusual punishment on essentially kidnapped children who had no say in their illegal status. They are, were raised, acculturated, as Americans. The Court should grant them citizenship, en mass.
A response to that comment was that the Court lacked the authority to grant citizenship. That comment section closed before I could respond. My response was, the Court had no authority to render it’s historic decision in Marbury v. Madison either. Sometimes, common sense, justice, require a unique decision. That should be the case here.
At the very least, the Court could accomplish citizenship by prohibiting any deportation, discrimination of this class. If the court allows this deportation, it will be saying yes to the cruel, unusual. Torture, by another name.
3
When you write that something is unlawful, it would be helpful if you cite the law violated. In this case I believe it’s the Administrative Procedures Act. I had to look it up. I had this frustration throughout the Mueller investigation with story after story about possible conspiracy. What was the actual law that might have been broken? The news stories rarely cited it.
2
DACA is unlawful. Perhaps there should be protections for "dreamers" perhaps not. But it is not up to the executive or the courts but instead the peoples representatives in Congress to codify those protections.
I agree generally that minors should not be punished for the misdeeds of their parents. But I don't think they should be rewarded either.
Also, if the Dreamers are so great, then why not send them back to their home countries? Why should the US participate in a brain drain of talent from the poorest hardest hit countries, when instead an infusion of talent could be what lifts those countries upward?
13
Many dreamers don’t even speak the language of the country that they were born in. I’m a nurse, and it’s unfortunate that many Filipina nurses in the States didn’t use their great skills at home, but if this great nation deported every nurse from the Philippines hospitals would close.
2
An overriding reason that the current occupant is against DACA is because it was started by Obama. Give it a different name, say that he created it, and he will declare it "beautiful, perfect" and go along with it without resistance.
8
@BigFootMN -- Yes, probably.
So why haven't we done that?
I suspect that now very many more people are manipulating this issue, using the Dreamers for their own ends, and so there are not enough people really interested in something that would duck the problem and make it go away.
1. I guarantee this goes Trumps way. Have you forgotten he has stacked the supreme court?
2. I also guarantee if these daca recipients were white Europeans Trump would have never attempted to rescind daca.
8
So Obama can create from whole cloth an arguably illegal program providing legal protections to one group of persons who entered the US illegally, but Trump’s termination of the program (not a law) is problematic because he did not provide enough justification for doing so? I don’t think that will fly at the Supreme Court.
21
Obama created the deferral for excellent reasons despite the political hassles; Trump blew off compromises and ditheringly chose to end it in order to please idiot bigots, and has toddled off to court with the flimsiest possible legal case.
I suggest reading the article, and finding out what, “arbitrary and capricious,” means. Here’s a hint: the phrase is in most labor contracts, and it means, “The boss can’t just do whatever the heck he feels like for no reason at all.”
4
Obama’s measure was a stop gap until Congress passed a full immigration policy. But you Mitch wasn’t going to let that happen. Congress still can’t get themselves together. And if the house passes one, Mitch wouldn’t hear it. Like the hundreds of other House passed bills that the Senate isn’t vote yes on. Swamp meet stasis.
The court will decide whether or not DACA rescission is legal; perhaps it is, I really have no idea. The more important issue is that it is cruel and also against the wishes of most Americans.
Legal or not, why is rescission being attempted, and why do so many Americans continue to support a president who pursues such a vile policy?
20
@Neil Grossman
Maybe because they wasted tens of thousands of dollars and sacrificed to immigrate legally?
Maybe because they see their communities decimated by desperate people willing to work for less than minimum wage and not complain about labor law violations? You think those conditions have zero impact on the labor force and employer standards?
8
You mean mowing lawns and dishwashing? There aren’t even unions for the jobs these people take, which aren’t jobs most people want. Please cite exactly how communities are being “decimated.”
7
@Reva Cooper
Last time we checked, most people take the jobs they can get, not the jobs they want.
As for "mowing lawns and dishwashing"? Perhaps you forgot the favored narrative that these are smart people working as doctors and teachers.
The negative impact on wages and working conditions of Americans has been well documented for quite a while. Here's a Congressional report on how illegal immigration negatively affects the wages of Black workers and other minorities. https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf.
It's very easy to say that Americans "don't want" certain jobs, when the fact is that they want to be compensated fairly for doing those jobs.
Nobody "wants" to work in the fields 10+ hours a day without regular breaks for less than minimum wage. Plenty of people want to work in the fields if the conditions are more humane and pay a fair wage - see Amazon warehouse workers.
If you don't believe that communities are decimated by influx of desperate, illegal labor, I invite you to go apply for those jobs yourself. See how far you get being considered, as a white lady, to work in minority-dominated workplaces doing grunt work.
My bet is that you have zero idea what that's like because you've never been financially desperate enough to even try - unlike many of your fellow NYC denizens.
51
These clowns in this misadministration make the Keystone Kops look like Einsteins. Thank God for their incompetence or imagine how much worse things would be right now for our country. #ETTD #RESIST
9
The dreamers; children brought into this country by their parents should all be processed as Asylum seekers. The United States offers the legal paths of marriage to an American citizen; an employer or family sponsorship, which are a non starters for this group; and the green card lottery, which excludes Mexicans and family petition. And soon, the 14th amendment is going to have to be revisited if we are serious about solving the immigration issue.
2
Dreamers (DACA) should be enabled to proceed to a legal pathway to citizenship for to do otherwise is immoral and cruel. Of course, being "cruel" is an essential element of Trumpism both domestically and internationally. Now let us assume all the DACA childhood arrivals were from Norway, then what? Ah!
11
We Need these young people regardless of where they are from. Who is going to replace us with our declining birthrate adn keep innovation moving? I hope the courts can see this is a bad deal for everyone.
10
So another civil servant that put aside her personal politics to do what she was hired to do.
It's the civil servants, not the political appointees that may be the saviors in the Trump era.
11
“Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs . . .?” That tweet does not sound like President Trump. It does sound like private-citizen Trump whose properties employs hundreds of DACA recipients.
2
My daughter’s business partner is a DACA recipient. He has been in the United States since he was 6 years old, having arrived in California with his family from Mexico. They are now all in Tampa operating several restaurants. I have never seen such hard-working people in my life. To think that this family could be deported is truly heartbreaking.
19
trump skirts the law.
4
DACA and ACA, two great examples of Obama’s ability to kick cans down the road.
8
@John Doe
Better than the GOP. Conservatism means do nothing about any problem and give huge tax cuts to the rich. That is not hyperbole, that is their record.
4
@John Doe
Like the national debt the GOP was so fixated upon when there was a Democrat in the White House?
2
I know! They could have tried the Republican method of doing absolutely nothing instead! Too bad they actually cared about the people they were serving and tried to help. The nerve /s
2
What a ridiculous story!
Her objections are completely irrelevant.
4
Obama admitted he didn't have the authority to do DACA but he did it anyway. Only Congress may change immigration laws that would affect such a large populations. The Supreme Court will strike it down, with the caveat that all current Dreamers be moved to the head of the line for green cards. This is the only fair way to uphold the rule of law and respect reality of the Dreamers.
5
@Jon Galt
The GOP had legislation that could help the problem. The GOP had legislation under Boehner and Ryan. It would have passed the House, but not without Dem votes. It violated the Hassert Rule, so it was never brought to the floor. Obviously, Obama's fault.
3
This is an opinion piece at best. I read all of the DACA briefs filed at the Supreme Court yesterday. Just because Duke, an acting secretary decided she did not want to deport people, does not mean the US will lose at the court nor does it mean the bureaucrats can do whatever they want. The law is in the side of Trump, like it or not. Congress has the sole authority to fix this and it must do so.
17
So how does the fact that immigration in the Constitution is plainly a state's rights issue. Is the SCOTUS going to overturn the Constitution? It is written in very simple language. Trump made it a security issue so he could get in the act. However, it may well have been ill conceived. So sanctuary cities are not against the law as far as the Constitution is concerned. Today, anything can happen and the White House is never concerned with the content of the Constitution. Do I have this wrong?
@CARL E
You do have this wrong. Immigration is very much not a states' rights issue.
We can't have 50 different states each with its own immigration policy. Besides, DACA is federal polciy not states, so that is what is at issue here.
5
As the new book by Anonymous explains, the president told people to forget about congress and do what he wants. "You have my permission."
Add to that hubris the assertion that the executive is beyond the reach of the courts and the congress, and we are left with a lawless government, in stark violation of the Constitution.
The flurry of excuses for Trump's foreign policy actions are equally destructive of his ends and our constitutional structure.
We are left to hope the process will work. We must believe the good guys are winning. But are they?
2
One of my favorite moments of Obama's presidency was when he addressed the nation on immigration. He looked directly into the camera and told the Republican congress loudly lamenting immigration problems to
"..Pass a bill."
The directness and fierceness in how he delivered those three words was spot on.
The Republicans of course didn't pass a bill. And the chaos of the border and the mess Trump is in right now is a part of the overall dysfunction of the party. It's a delicious irony that in their refusal to legislate they have set up Trump for a major failure. It's one of the great tragedies of the nation that dreamers are in the crosshairs of these ridiculous debates over immigration.
But, alas, anti-immigrant xenophobia and racism in immigration is as American as apple pie.
Will SCOTUS deliver the obvious verdict?
Don't hold your breath.
8
The rights of immigrants are civil rights are human rights are our rights. Conservatives have already begun talk of repealing naturalized citizenship. If we do not fight for the rights of these immigrants, how long before the Trump regime starts coming for everyone else who opposes them?
It’s not a slippery slope fallacy. It’s just a slippery slope. We’ve seen this before in other countries before things get REALLY bad. We need to stop it before it gets that bad. And now is the time!
6
The fault lays with the parents who chose to illegally enter this country and illegally bring their children into or Nation. Our Nation was compassionate enough to give them the best opportunities offered to our own citizens. Now that they have benefited from our compassion and generosity, it is time for them to go back to their country of their citizenship. On their way home, they should give thanks for all that we have done for them instead of whining and complain about our lack of compassion after offering them something that their own nations will not offer. Most of all, don't try to manipulate our laws try to convince the SCOTUS that somehow they are entitled to stay in our great Nation.
9
We don’t punish children for the sins of their parents. That is a fundamental value of modern society, not just America.
3
The idea that Dreamers are taking jobs away from Americans is the weakest of all the rationales used to justify attacking DACA. We are living in a time where we have insufficient people to perform the jobs we have and an economy that is throttled back as a consequence. And the Dreamers, of course, are not just producers, they are consumers who add to our consumer-driven economy. They are farthest thing from the rapists and killers that then-candidate Trump claimed were being sent here by Mexico. And they weren’t sent here at all - they were brought here by their parents.
We should face the facts: Even though the Dreamers are not on a pathway to citizenship and are not part of the broader demographic changes among American voters, their presence as law-abiding, productive immigrants offends the Stephen Millers among us. Unfortunately, one of those Stephen Millers has had the ear of weak-minded president who has demonstrated time and again that he will make policy decisions based on the last conversation he had.
5
The Trump administration is awful, but you have to give it political credit for playing a a shrewd game on the DADA issue. They all know that deporting DACA folks is extremely unpopular with the large majority of the American public. On the other hand, they have to appeal to the immigration hardliners.
Trump doesn't want to take political blame for deporting DACA folks, and so he was unwilling to simply state that his administration was changing policy. Administrations do this all the time, when a president comes in and changes an executive order of a prior president.
Instead, his administration put forth a bogus legal argument that they know has a high chance of being shot down by the Supreme Court. In that event, everybody wins. DACA recipients can stay, the public will think this is fair, and Trump can deflect criticism from immigration hardliners by blaming the courts.
2
What misses from all the outrage is what is the Democrats plan from preventing every South American with a child to move to the US illegally if the presence of a child shields them and all kids are granted status? They are against the wall and for sanctuary cities.
6
DACA does not shield the parents. To get DACA, a child had to be here by 2007. So, no “new” illegal children will qualify.
2
You’re thinking this person wants to have a reasoned argument. I’m afraid you overestimated him.
Such niceties such as a weak legal position are of no moment to the Roberts right wing cabal currently in the SCOTUS majority, who are all about exerting raw political power shaping decisions. See, eg., Citizens; Shelby County.
If all the Dreamers were white, of Northern European descent, they’d already have been awarded citizenship. Congress should enact laws that let these folks a path to citizenship. They’re as American as you and I.
8
How much time should he serve?
Let me count the counts ...
1
Ummm, I’m not buying the line that the legal case may be eroded until the Supreme Court says so.
3
@stevevelo
You can be sure 5 of them are on speed-dial for many.
1
@Technic Ally - I’m not sure about that at all. I’m simply saying that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or unconstitutional, not The New York Times newsroom.
1
The issue is whether an executive order to rescind an executive has the same weight as one that has been issued and complied with for years. If the Congress wished to rescind the executive order, it would have done so. If the circumstances surrounding those who are affected by DACA had measurably changed, then there would be evidence for the executive branch to rescind it. Rescinding an executive order just because it's an executive order would be as "illegal" (in Sessions's memo to Duke) as Trump's order to rescind it, unless there is some clear and compelling interest in evidence to do so. Trump and Sessions's "acute case of the contraries" toward Obama is not enough reason to deny the Congress its voice in the matter. The Congress approved of DACA by not making laws against it.
2
@Max And Max
//If the Congress wished to rescind the executive order, it would have done so
By the same token, if Congress had wanted DACA they would have voted on it and passed it in the first place - eliminating the "need" for an executive order altogether.
Problem is, nobody wants to admit they support DACA because they know their constituents don't.
8
@Viv
The way the US Constitution works is that it places restraints on the Congress. ("Congress shall make no law...."). We're presumed to be free, unless a law says differently. The Congress created policy when it did not reverse DACA and the People authorized Congress by not requiring them to rescind it. What Trump and Sessions have done is to bypass both the voters and the Congress. There are those who would agree that the voters and the Congress are wrong and need to be protected from their mistakes with an "I alone" executive branch. The SCOTUS will decide if "I alone" authority trumps We The People authority.
1
If what is reported here is true, that Trump has conflicting feelings about deporting the dreamers, he should resort to what he has repeatedly said is how he operates: he should rely on his gut feeling--which is clearly telling him that ending DACA is wrong and mean. That he has chosen instead to rely on the advice of the bigoted "powerful" Stephen Miller only reinforces the impression that Trump is ill-equipped to be president. His judgment about people is spectacularly terrible.
10
Luckily for the DACA kids,Trump and his administration have become so repugnant to the majority of American voters that he will be replaced by someone else in 2021. Judging by how incompetent Trump has been so far it is unlikely that he will be able to do anything horrible to the DACA kids before he is turned out of the White House in 2021.
4
DACA highlights the distinction between morality and legality. Obama made a moral, yet possibly illegal decision. Trump and his xenophobia may win a legal battle, but he and his supporters will always lose in the court of morality.
3
@Daniel B
What makes it moral to force geographically disadvantaged people to follow immigration law?
Geographic proximity should have no bearing on whether anybody should follow immigration law, yet in practice it does.
4
So even Trump was uncomfortable deporting DACA young people as a policy decision, but he felt he had to do it to please his mean base and likely Stephen Miller, who never misses an opportunity to be wrong and/or cruel.
For once, Trump's inclinations were right that this would be a bad policy decision that even Trump felt uncomfortable doing.
1. Bad policy: From a policy and practical standpoint, deporting DACA people creates a nightmare. The stupidity and cruelty of the policy is mind-boggling. The DACA children did nothing wrong; they were born here in the US. What countries is our government supposed to deport each of them to?
2. Unpopular policy: According to polls, only 15% of respondents favored the deportation of DACA youth.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/poll-trump-deporting-daca-dreamers-242343
3. Bogus legal argument: So the brilliant Sessions grasped at the idea that DACA was illegal, and that is what Trump did. But that was a stupid thing to do because that argument has no real legal support.
Question: On what grounds could the Supreme Court upheld Trump's DACA decision? It was bad policy, unpopular, and without legal justification.
Unless: partisan justification is to replace legal justification on the Trump Court as the principal basis for judicial decisions. If so, then America, as we knew it, is over.
1
I understand the impulse to have compassion for young people who are in this country only because of the actions of their parents. But one has to ask: if legal exceptions are made for this group of people, where does it end? Next the Democrats will seek amnesty for some other class of undocumented immigrants. There is also the problem that the DACA program will encourage other parents who have yet to immigrate to continue to bring their kids into the U.S. without authorization in the hope that they too will one day receive amnesty. I agree that immigration, in general, is good for the U.S.; as the son of an immigrant I know that most are hardworking and law-abiding. But the truth is that the U.S. cannot simply let in everyone who wants to come. There are simply too many desperate people in the developing world. We must follow the law to the letter to ensure that the U.S. does not become overwhelmed by undocumented immigrants.
13
If this was you or your son or daughter, would you still feel the same way? I seriously doubt it. Besides, DACA only applies to people who arrived here before 2007. So, your argument is moot. That is why the lower courts have rejected the administration's reasoning for ending DACA.
3
In citing only flawed legal reasoning for ending DACA, Trump ironically did a bigger favor for the Dreamers than the Democrats have done in their "resistance." How soon we forget Nancy Pelosi's 8-hour speech in the well of the House extolling the virtue of the Dreamers in the 2017 budget fight, only to refuse to whip her caucus to vote against the budget compromise that left off DACA because the corporate donors were complaining a govern,ment shutdown would be "bad for business." If Trump manages to win a second term next year, a large reason will be the Democrats' belief that they can rely on "messaging" rather than fighting on principle. The electorate has noticed.
3
I am a 53 year old dreamer ...... made legal through the actions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. May the young people affected by DACA be given the same opportunities that allowed me and millions of others to become tax-paying productive members of society (that will forever have empathy towards the less fortunate)!
6
"The administration argued that its determination that DACA is unlawful could not be second-guessed by the courts."
Eh? If that notion had been upheld, where would it end?
2
Who cannot possibly understand the racist intent that is the raison d'être of the Trump administration's desire to end DACA?
The two foci are race-based: (a) Donald Trump's hatred of Barack Obama and (b) his hatred of Hispanic people.
The 45th president claims, without persuasion, to be deeply worried about being seen as "mean" but then, in the same breath, he signed on to Jefferson Davis Beauregard Sessions and Stephen Miller's argument that the program was "unlawful" without any legal vetting. And Kirstjen Nielsen's three-page nonsense, in an attempt to force people to equate oranges (immigration) with apples (DACA) was certainly a last-minute act of desperation for a president who is concerned, first to last, with appeasing his "base."
My worry is that the John Roberts Court, seeing the legal rationale of the lower courts in rejecting Donald Trump's arguments that DACA be eliminated, will bend toward the president's will. The Court has lost all credibility as an institution for which the average citizen could expect an honest decision--like the result or not--a verdict that would be based upon law and not upon Republican orthodoxy.
It says here that Chief Justice John Roberts and his four Republican associates on the Right (Clarence Thomas; Samuel Alito; Neil Gorsuch; and Brett Kavanaugh) have far less interest in the law than they do in forming a bayonets-out circle in their denial of and attacks on judicial honesty, in obsequious servitude to the current president.
3
Comments reveal that many people think the “Dreamers” would have to leave the country if the DACA program is ended. That’s unlikely. The most likely outcome is that Democrats and Republicans would compromise and pass a comprehension immigration reform bill. The bill would give the Dreamers citizenship or permanent legal resident starts in exchange for measures that would reduce future illegal immigration and replace family-based immigration with merit base immigration.
8
@William Case
No one is interested in passing a comprehensive immigration bill that values merit instead of family and geography.
If there was such interest, there would have been no need for DACA.
The fact is that DACA itself is discriminatory in not treating all illegal immigrants the same. It just isolated a cohort and said those people are somehow more deserving than others. Why? Nobody really said.
7
@Viv
Lots of people are interested in merit-based immigration.
Doubtful. Republicans controlled both houses during the first two years of Trump’s presidency and couldn’t get comprehensive immigration reform passed then. They couldn’t even agree what they meant by immigration reform.
The truth is that Republicans don’t want to resolve DACA or immigration reform, in general. They know that non-resolution translates to an angry and energized Trump base.
So if SCOTUS rules against DACA, rather than initiate mass deportations, they will stage token deportations and complain about deep state opposition to broader action. They’ll propose punitive measures in Congress and Trump will continue issuing executive orders that hurt DACA recipients, only now he can blame SCOTUS for the new policies.
1
The only reason DACA has to go, under the Trump administration's thinking, is because it came about under Obama. Trump has driven by that one cause - undo whatever Obama did, period. Unfair to thousands of young people who have grown up Americans and contributed to our society? Too bad.
7
Donald Trump has yet to explain why his administration wants to end a program that is beneficial to those it directly affects and to the American government that has already spent tax dollars educating these kids and to the economy to which they are contributing. The only reason for ending DACA is because Stephen Miller and a bunch of mean spirited MAGA-hat wearers paint DACA as a form of illegal immigration. Trump could have solved the DACA problem within the last 3 years if he worked on a bipartisan immigration plan that included DACA. But Trump is more interested in political nonsense than in real legislation. SHAME ON HIM!
5
I bet SCOTUS punts this because rightly so this needs to be worked out by the legislative branch. Depending on your viewpoint, DACA was either an end run around Congress or a temp fix to address this issue of minors being unlawfully present in the US via their parents' actions. Executive Orders live or die by whomever is occupying the office.
It's long overdue for Congress to get a bill presented to deal with this border. Open borders is untenable and closed borders are impossible. Somewhere in the middle Congress needs to meet.
9
I detest Trump, and I don't think discontinuing DACA was wise. But I also recognize that one administration should not be able to implement policies that the following one is powerless to undo. And I don't believe that the people suing the Trump administration are suing so that he ends DACA with a different rationale. They are are trying to forbid him from ending DACA, let's be honest.
14
I don't understand this contrived search for reasons to end DACA. The reasons couldn't be simpler. DACA is a magnet that brings in more and more immigrants that the US never officially sanctioned (similar to the Amnesty of the 1980s), because people know that all they need is to bring a small child who will then provide a pathway for the rest of the family, similar to the Flores Agreement of 1997. In this way, the country is being blackmailed into accepting immigrants it never signed up for or approved, against its own interests. It's understandable that people sympathize with children, but children are being weaponized here. My feeling is the country is being taken advantage of and it can't come up with a coherent way to defend itself.
13
@Eugene
Yes, especially since people like Bernie Sanders have undocumented DACA people advising him on IMMIGRATION issues. Non-American citizens are vying to be in charge of our immigration policy. NO COUNTRY WOULD OR SHOULD ALLOW THIS! You cannot govern a nation through a policy of “compassion”. The second our power or prosperity fail then that compassion will disappear in a heart beat. It’s easy to feel magnanimous when all is going right with the world but the world order is rapidly changing and not in our favor. Sometimes you have to hunker down to come out with a new game plan. America needs to close the doors so we can become a unified whole or else we might as well call it a day and continue to sort ourselves into our respective tribes.
6
@Eugene DACA is not a "magnet" because it's essentially closed:
Here's a summary:
"To be eligible, recipients must be present in the United States unlawfully after being brought in as children before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not currently provide permanent lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid."
The Roberts Court is well-known for deciding policy questions in favor of its preferred policies rather than adjudicating the actual cases it is supposed to be considering.
2
Wasn't the dream act set to pass with bipartisan support, before John Boehner used a rule only republicans follow that was named after a child molesting fellow republican, which states that a bill won't be voted on by a republican majority house, unless the majority of republicans favor the bill?
See, the bill would have passed the house with BIPARTISAN support, but republicans are "party before principle," the bill was withheld from being voted on BY REPUBLICANS ONLY.
7
This case is not only important for DACA. It will also demonstrate if the Court's originalists, who insist on following details to the letter and discounting underlying intent, see things the same way when their politics lie elsewhere. Like those states that cried "States' Rights" when it suited them and now seek federal laws to overrule states on differing paths, we will see where the conscience of SCOTUS lies.
4
It seems obvious that there's a certain mind-set, shared by Sessions, Miller, and Trump: Barack Obama, being a Black Democrat, lacked legitimacy and true executive authority. Donald Trump and his administration, being White Republicans, possess the authority to nullify his predecessor's attempt to benefit Brown young people -- who, sad to say, were not born here and can never be true Americans.
8
If I understand correctly, most of the Dreamers have been educated in the US. The US has made a big investment in them. It does not make economic sense to send them away.
6
Trump's behavior is antithetical to the Rule of Law and to Democracy itself.
To Republicans supporting Trump - you have been "entitled" to destroy your own party ever since endorsing the former "Dean" of Trump "University" (who avoided going to jail for fraud by settling those 3 class action lawsuits out of court, and if any of you had an intellectual curiosity - let alone a concern for our country - to read the evidence files, you'd be aware that he was as guilty as sin)...
... but you are not entitled to destroy our country.
Your excuses and backpedaling in support of this felon are indefensible and DISGUSTING.
4
My hope is that The Supreme Court does not Legalize Hate. The Dreamers deserve a chance at The American Dream. Children go where their parents take them and therefore should not be punished just because their parents (in hopes of giving their children a better life) entered the Country illegally.
5
DACA is an executive branch memorandum from Barack Obama. As such, it seems clear that it may be rescinded by the current chief executive, so Trump will probably win his case. However, even those of us who favor a strong immigration stance can not favor the deportation of minors to a country to which they have as few ties as any American citizen.
7
Folks bare something in mind, If Obama's executive orders hold the force of law and has my fellow commentator's seem to believe are Irrevocable! Then so too are Trump's executive orders, you can't have it both ways. I personally find the precedent of irrevocable executive orders very very bad.
Secondly Obama had the legal right to defer deportation but deferred has a very specific meaning. And I'm pretty sure it isn't you get to stay forever.
Lastly I'm pretty sure the right to work ISN'T administrative it's a matter of LAW. Law is for Congress NOT the President. The president may have had the right to DEFER their deportation but he had no legal right to grant them work permits.
Note under law the Beneficiary of crime doesn't get the benefit of a crime. Which simply put means irregardless of how old they were when they got here, the DACA recipients have NO RIGHT to citizenship, & NO RIGHT to stay. We may choose to let them stay should we choose. But they have no inherent rights to US residency or Citizenship. Are we a nation of laws or nation ruled by a pen & a phone?
9
DACA, LGBTQ rights, Roe v. Wade, voter suppression laws via redistricting/gerrymandering, environmental regulations, individual rights and liberties are all issues that will test whether it is the Supreme Court rather than the occupant of the Oval Office that is eroding.
The high court has veered farther to the right while the lower federal courts are being packed at a record pace with unqualified judges selected primarily for the purpose of hastening right-wing, mole vision ideology codifying the Federalist Society's goal of creating a monopolistic plutocracy in America.
Senator Mitch McConnell is the most powerful politician in the country. He has held the entire country hostage to the whims and erratic tweets of the president by ramming through judicial nominees with a bare 51% majority.
That fact was underscored by the addition on the Star Chamber Supreme Court of the lying-under-oath sexual assaulter Brett "What goes around comes around" Kavanaugh whose prior record and legal opinions are grounded in expanding the chief executive's authority and the dubious claim that the president cannot be charged or indicted for crimes committed while in office.
If the five activist, partisan ideologues on the high court expand the executive powers that, as Trump bloviated months ago, Article II of the U.S Constitution, permits him to do anything he wants then we will have, as Thomas Paine warned in his treatise Common Sense, not a Republic but a Monarchy.
8
If the Supreme Court finds the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious because the rescission memo cited a flawed legal justification without policy justifications, the Department of Homeland Security could issue a new rescission memo that includes policy justifications. The president could also end DACA by executive order.
The Homeland Security Department should have issued a new memo that cited policy justifications when the first memo was challenged. The justification could have been that U.S. immigration laws call for the removal of persons residing unlawfully in the United States. This would have spared the administration a long legal battle.
However, the court might agree with the memo’s assertion that DACA is unlawful. It might find that the department’s decision to abide by a federal district court’s opinion was not arbitrary and capricious, even though other federal courts subsequently disagreed.
1
The only hopeful thing is that the case is unlikely to be decided before summer 2020. With a great deal of effort by voters and luck, the Democrats will win the Presidency and control of both the House and Senate. I see no other way to prevent the enormous suffering sure to be inflicted if this administration continues.
2
Isn’t this reminiscent of the early 19th century argument that slaves should be set free and then deported back to Africa or to any country outside the borders of the United States? Lincoln supported the idea until Frederick Douglass pointed out that most slaves had either been born in the United States or had lived here most of their lives. In short, he persuasively argued that this is their only country.
The idea, at this moment, that a 40 year old who was brought here, say, 37 years ago needs a path to citizenship is absurd. We don’t need a birth certificate purity test for people whose lives pass every other existential test of citizenship. They were educated in American schools, work for American companies, pay their taxes, and raise families here. In the past they served in the military and President George Bush even made it possible for immigrants to pursue an expedited path to citizenship by enlisting and serving. That path has been removed by President Trump.
The Dreamers pose no threat to America. They are Americans caught up in our current xenophobic madness. Fix it. Vote for reason and compassion in 2020.
12
@Richard Frank This is absurd. According to your argument, any random person from around the world, like India or Africa or China, can come to the US with a small child and then rely on that child to claim permanent residency and even citizenship in the US. If that were to happen the US would lose control of its government and all the foundations of a country and its institutions. Open borders (including by virtue of blackmail) are anarchy, and no human society is anarchical.
6
we continue to wrestle with our most inspirational document.... the declaration of independence. all men are created equal and certain inalienable rights..... no mention of a border and its effect on these inalienable rights. if we truly believe all men are created equal and have these inalienable rights and that we are a nation of laws? the law must bend to the rights of the people no matter where their origin.
1
@coale johnson In other words, open borders. Thanks for clarifying your true intentions.
4
@coale johnson No, you got that wrong: The US was dedicated by the Founding Fathers to "ourselves and our posterity," which is a clear contrast to something like "the whole world."
2
"But her refusal to cite their policy objections to the program is now at the heart of what legal experts say is a major weakness in the government’s case"
You think she did not know that would happen?
You think she was the only one in DC who did know that would happen?
You think it was wild mischance that this hot potato landed in the lap of a woman who volunteered her time off to help those very immigrants? Nobody knew that?
Trump had no team when he started. He hasn't much of one now, and never has.
Trump talks, fills the news, and people all around him go off and do whatever they like. If he somehow insists, they sabotage him to the point of stealing papers off his desk in the Oval Office.
As this happens, I think Obama did the right thing with DACA.
The point of this comment is that it wasn't just chance that Trump's move was sabotaged. It was how his Admin has been run on all matters all the way along. It is what you'd expect when you bring in a backstabbing back room power game guy like John Bolton as if he'd fix problems.
3
trump’s immigration assertions about Obama's efforts re: immigration reform are just a pack of lies! It clouds the real truth where procedurally Obama focused considerable effort on this matter resulting in the senate preparing a comprehensive immigration bill and actually passing it. But house leader Ryan, leading a deliberate GOP obstructionist effort, refused to even table the bill in congress. Then when McConnell became leader of the senate he abruptly killed it.
2
If they served in the military, or graduated college and have no criminal records they should be fast tracked to citizenship. This is the country they know and love. They deserve it as much as any Trump who never served the country.
5
trump asserts "hate has no place in this country". It sure has a place at trump rallies! It sure has a place in immigration policy espoused by trump's senior advisor Steven Miller who is the instigator of the cruel travesty on the south border .
7
The Trump administration eroded its legal case on DACA by presenting an inhumane, barbaric and evil position before the courts...oh, and...one that simply could not stand legal muster:
There must be more than "I DON'T WANT UM HERE-CAUSE OBAMA DID."
4
It's very simple. The entire legal, bureaucratic, educational and journalistic establishment supports illegal immigration; therefore, no actions to deter illegal immigration can be legal or justified.
The Obama administration creating DACA out of thin air is by definition legal, since it supports illegal immigration. By contrast, the Trump administration cannot be permitted to do anything that would curtail illegal immigration, since countless left-wing judges oppose this and deem it to be illegal.
The law is simply whatever liberals would like it to be; nothing more, nothing less.
20
Yes, for every problem there is an analysis that is simple, neat, and wrong.
4
@JasonM
What would Trump OR his supporters know about the law. I suspect they both obtained their fake certifications from Trump University.
4
@JasonM
I wouldn't worry so much. The cruelty and xepnophophia in this country is quite strong and resilient.
I could be wrong in which case you do have something to worry about.
1
You have just described a deep state actor in action. From your own report, it is clear that Ms. Duke did everything she could to frustrate the electoral mandate won in 2016 and then planted something akin to a land mine in her unwilling execution of sworn oaths; an act which some might regard as sabotage.
This is almost everything that Mr. Trump campaigned and won on. Should he relent and soften his stance on DACA recipients now, his supporters would not have any reason to vote for him in 2020. If he was muddled in his view before, it should be crystal clear to him now what he must do. It is DACA or 2020 for him and I have no doubt what he will choose.
Even if the Supreme Court found against the original order to rescind DACA, it would make clear that the President has the authority to amend or abolish the program but that an acceptable rationale beyond the arguments already provided has to be furnished. Given the stakes for his Presidency, do you really think that he will just let it be?
I pity the DACA people, most of whom are in their 20s and 30s, not because they face the prospect of deportation but because they are being used in a nihilistic political game where they are guaranteed to lose. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not prolong their agony. These people were used by Obama to win in 2012 and now they are being used again by both sides for 2020.
Uphold the law and stop toying with people's lives.
9
The spectacle of tens of thousands of young people who have been contributing to our country faithfully and being transported out of the country through no fault of their own is horrifying. The countries that they will be sent to are often dangerous and unknown to them. Where is our heart as the GOP does this this only to make a heartless point?
463
@just Robert
Why are there so many people pushing this narrative? The probability of someone that qualified for DACA being deported without it is still extremely low since getting arrested would take away their DACA status anyway and is also the primary method used by ICE to find illegal immigrants for deportation.
6
@just Robert : They will trow anyone under the bus who may not vote GOP. A WaPo article over the weekend showed how much immigrants have shaped the changing politics in the past 19 years by flipping formerly strong GOP districts in major Southern cities into Democratic districts. Anything to win, the amoral GOP cares nothing about these kids if there's one scintilla of them voting Democrat, which is highly likely.
42
@just Robert Where are the parents of these illegal immigrants(the kids)?
9
How fitting on this day of 11/11 that Americans — including these ‘want to be American DACA Dreamers’, who aspire to the real American Dream of democracy over Empire, rather than the sordid American crony capitalist nightmarish false dream of money-power and Empire over democracy — are carrying an American flag to both honor the ending of the First World War of Empires, “Making the World Safe for Democracy”, and now beginning to publicly ‘expose’ and remove America’s first Emperor — Emperor Trump — who was for the first time this Sunday on the aptly named national TV program “Face the Nation” called-out for what he actually is, by no less than Jeffrey Goldberg, when he awakened ‘we the American people” by shouting-out the alarm, like a modern day Paul Revere rallying the people, patriots, and Minutemen along battle road from Boston, through Lexington, to “that rude bridge” in Concord:
“If there's one person, one person with influence in the Republican Party on the Hill who says, you know what, the EMPEROR REALLY DOESN'T HAVE HIS CLOTHES ON". [CAPS ADDED]
2
Suddenly our president becomes terribly concerned about adhering to the law. We have seen him ignore such things as emoluments , extortion, collusion, and it does not seem to concern him. But when we have a law implemented by Obama, it must be overturned. All things Obama has done, such as his health care plan, fall into the same category: elimination. We should also consider that law be tempered with mercy and compassion. And we may ask ---"have you no decency?" Where is your humanity, Mr. Trump?
16
Thanks for the insightful analysis, NYT. But even if the Supreme Court rules the Trump administrations' previous rationale unlawful, can't Trump simply turn around and cancel DACA as a policy decision?
7
It would indeed seem that way. And indeed it is surprising, if true, that Trump has some sympathy for the Dreamers, where so many other pro-Trump commentators do not.
Guess what? DJT is mean as is evidenced by his words and deeds every day! No need for him to worry about appearances.
5
@Blueinred/mjm6064
Blue, aren’t all EMPERORS, as you say, “mean as is evidenced by his Imperialist words and deeds every day”?
‘We the American people’ desperately need to fire a; loud, public, sustained, ‘in-the-streets’, but totally non-violent “SHOUT (not shot) heard round the world” to ignite our essential Second American people’s peaceful completed “Political/economic & social Revolution Against Empire” and as Bernie started in 2015 a “Political Revolution” to:
DUMP
EMPEROR
TRUMP
because, as all Americans, since 1776 know:
“We can’t be an EMPIRE”
1
I am getting tired of these dreamers.
DREAMERS CAN BECOME US CITIZENS, IMMEDIATELY , BY SERVING OUR COUNTRY
I arrived in 1966 as a legal - not illegal - immigrant. I had four weeks to sign up with the draft. In 6 month I was in Vietnam.
==========================================================
If you enlist in the U.S. armed forces during wartime, you can apply for U.S. citizenship after as early as your first day of service. (See I.N.A. Section 329, 8 U.S.C. Section 1440.) Various periods of wartime count, including the time that began September 11, 2001 and will end whenever the U.S. President announces a cease to the hostilities.
4
@Lars
absolutely not true any more. There are Dreamers whose enlistment has been turned down just to keep them from serving to become citizens.
See, eg
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-pn-immigrants-military-20150514-story.html
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/daca-recipients-who-dream-of-military-service-are-stuck-in-limbo
2
Knowing he would be even more hated for his obvious abuse of children, trump relied on his most racist advisors to craft an order that would shield him from insult and still allow his racist base to thrill at the idea of harming immigrant children. Now caught, only Stephen Miller is willing to publicly say that once his ancestors arrived safely in the US, fleeing certain persecution, no one else should be allowed in that he doesn't personally determine is worthy.
7
Trump isn’t that smart
2
Bottom line, trump's decision on DACA was based on what would benefit him.vs.what would benefit the country (and support the Constitution).
Now the Supreme Court must decide the same.
7
@marathoner
I almost agree but I don’t believe the Donald thinks past what is best for himself. However, I will concede he believes what is best for him IS best for the country.
In most cases this highly political court seems to reach the “politically correct” result and then cooks up a plausible reason for reaching the decision which favors the position of their party. That makes it easy to predict that the Trump position on DACA will be upheld. You fill in the blank for the reason they will provide. Almost any reason will do.
5
It’s your Court to lose, Justice Roberts. First do the right thing, legally and morally, and then to protect whatever integrity and legitimacy remains of the bench you lead.
28
Rookie mistake or bureaucratic pushback, but by the argument offered here, the day after an unfavorable DACA decision President Trump can re-issue his reversal of President Obama with slightly different language. But I doubt he will have to. There is no separation of powers question here, quite the contrary. President Trump’s reversal of another president’s executive order is in fact consistent with the will of Congress on that issue. Congress will have to speak on the issue.
6
"He wanted to appear tough to his voters, but he was anxious about being seen as mean to young people."
Notice that notions of right and wrong played no part in this. Only politics.
23
Not soon enough, but eventually Trump will be out of office. Cleaning up his multitude of poorly thought out or unjustified or racist or environmentally dangerous executive decisions will take years of sustained effort. We will need to elect an activist, progressive Congress ready and willing to assume the responsibilities and oversight of an effective. co-equal branch of our government.
The Senate, in particular, will need extraordinary efforts and wise leadership to re-assume a thoughtful, productive legislative role. To produce constructive results, it will need a new Senate Leader with the political talents of a Lyndon Johnson, or more recently of a Speaker Pelosi.
We voters have the electoral power to make this happen. A more effective, responsible and wise legislative and executive functionality would be a wonderful counterpoint to a likely series of ongoing court cases and criminal charges against a disgraced Donald Trump. Our democracy, our Constitution and the rule of law will prevail!
6
@Ron Adam Please don't think for a moment that whoever follows Trump won't pursue the same policies. Trump is merely a symptom of the gathering clouds of nationalism. Since you live in Spain, are you aware that Catalonians want to secede from Spain, and are organizing violent protests? If the Catalonians don't even want to live with people who are their genetic cousins (Spaniards!), why do you think Americans want to live with Guatemalans or Mexicans?
1
Trump's and Stephen Miller's hubris is on display here. Trump thinks he can sit on a throne and issue decrees without any need to pay attention to legal niceties. He also now believes that every illegal thing he does will be ratified by his Gorsuch/Kavanaugh SCOTUS. I still hope that the justices have a modicum of legal ethics left in them.
11
In the event, not completely unlikely, that an ideologically split court upholds the government’s position, the forcible removal of this highly attractive and sympathetic group of young people is going to be one of the great PR disasters of all time. When ICE comes for soldiers, lawyers, and people who work for Microsoft and takes them to countries where they have no roots or ties, the optics are going to be even worse than small children in cages. And how on earth is this vacillating President ever going to justify it in the middle of an election campaign?
5
@GeoFfrey James
There are no plans to deport any of them. The probability of an illegal immigrant being deported without a run-in with law is very low and significant run-ins with the law were also grounds for losing DACA status so not much will change really except they won't have work permits, which Obama lacked the authority to issue in the first place.
6
Let's put this back into context for a moment.
1. The Dream Act is a bipartisan bill, introduced in the Senate in 2001 by Orrin Hatch (R) and Dick Durbin (D).
2. 80% of the American people, including a majority of GOP voters, continue to support the bill until this day.
3. A minority of Republicans nevertheless blocked it in Congress, which meant actively using the government to keep illegals hidden and illegal, all while living in the US. As that didn't make any sense, and knowing that the American people reject it, Obama worked very hard to get bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform done, including a version of the Dream Act.
4. He managed to get exactly that through the Senate, with a super-majority of 68 votes. The bill also TRIPLED the number of border patrol agents at the southern border (as asked by BP agents, and as studies show is much more effective to increase border security than a wall).
5. The GOP House then refused to even allow a vote on it.
6. That's when Obama installed DACA - also supported by a vast and bipartisan majority of ordinary citizens.
7. Candidate Trump promised to get immigration reform done, including taking care of Dreamers, and building a wall.
8. When in 2017 Congress modified Obama's bill to add a FULL funding of the wall, and both parties supported it... Ann Coulter started attacking Trump with anti-DACA tweets. Result? Trump immediately gave up on building a wall and getting immigration reform done altogether.
Truth matters.
37
@Ana Luisa
5. The GOP House then refused to even allow a vote on it.
6. That's when Obama installed DACA - also supported by a vast and bipartisan majority of ordinary citizens.
That’s the crux of the legal issue.
6
Since the Supreme Court has routinely ignored the blatantly discriminatory reasons for this administration's actions (Muslim ban, non-emergency wall, cake baker's' right to discriminate ), I doubt the Supreme Court 5 will have much trouble finding that this travesty is legal. Robert's legacy will be one of cruelty and political fealty.
3
SC already deferred ruling on this to give Congress time to act. Congress has Chosen not to act. You won't buy another brexit like delay with this kind of flimsy argument. It will be invalidated and Congress will Have to Act or see the 'dreamers' deported. That means they will have to compromise and, gasp, maybe even give the President a 'win' on something. Or, keep playing hardball partisan games while you wave goodbye to your favorite dreamer.
2
The birth rate in the United States is about 1700 per 100,000 women and it takes a birth rate of 2100 per 100,000 for the United States to maintain it current population levels.
This means, as the Baby Boomers die off, population levels will decline without immigration.
This matters, because as a population declines, the average age of the that population will increase and that causes a decline in productivity.
The truth is, we need DACA. They are young, educated and productive. Exactly what the nation should welcome.
22
@Tahuaya Armijo
Our environment needs a declining population though. We desperately need to figure out how to make the economy work with a stable or declining population. The species survival depends on it.
10
@Tahuaya Armijo
That isn't the 'truth' at all. The TRUTH is Americans have been told it is Immoral to have children before they are able to provide support for that Child. They are then presented with an Economy that does not provide that Opportunity, because of the flood of cheap labor from other places. They defer having their families, in the hope that Their Government will care about Their welfare, but instead it is the Other who the politicians have become enamoured with. We do not need even ONE of them. They Need US.
7
@Tahuaya Armijo
Maybe, maybe no. As immigration drops the native birth rate will very likely increase due to increased opportunity (lack of money/uncertainty are big drivers of low birth rates). Plus at some point the US population has to level off anyway or we are heading for a very dystopian future.
6
I find it ironic that the president bellows from his bully pulpit about DACA and immigration when right under his own nose his wife was/is also an immigrant. You would think that fact would have enlightened and softened him to this subject. Apparently what is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander....
8
@Mimi H and his mother is an immigrant and according to trump so is his father - born in a ‘beautiful’ town in Germany. Or was it Sweden?
@AnneEdinburgh They are legal immigrants not illegal like the DACA kids and millions more that the democrats support.
2
@Jeremy Coney they were kids. You must be a believer in the sins of the fathers ( and mothers). And trump has reduced legal immigration to a trickle. Certainly his mother, an uneducated woman who worked as a maid, would not get in under any sort of required talent scheme. Even if she did do well financially by marrying the ‘right’ person. Who, you are aware, was born in NY? Making his son a liar about his own father’s place of birth? But hey, what’s one lie when there are 13 thousand plus to choose from?
Please, can we melt down the Statue of Liberty now? It has become an embarrassment.
2
As a naturalized citizen I am conflicted on the issue of immigration. I understand the argument that any country can't accept anybody who shows up at the border. On the other hand, the US is built on immigration. To wit Steven Miles the young ardent foe of immigration from the south is himself a product of immigration. His boss is and has been married two immigrants, one with questionable path to citizenship.
Trump could have carved himself a place for a great president had he developed a humane, comprehensive and operationally feasible immigration plan. Instead, his action has been impulsive, unreasonable and at times draconian. We can't ignore the antiques in the Oval Office as child's play and look fir an adult in the room to bring order. The policies promulgated have great impact on thousands of lives. Republican leaders in the Congress have surrendered their authority and moral sense reminiscent of beginning of any autocracy. Autocrats can't function without their enablers. Now we wait how Robert's Court can bring some sanity in our country or push it further to an abyss.
5
After Kavanaugh's appointment went through and the release of the Mueller Report was released, I became fearful of counting on anyone of so-called stature to pull us back from making more egregious blunders nationally and internationally.
In the last couple of weeks the most positive thing to happen has been the emergence of whistleblowers and members of the State Department and National Intelligence coming forward to speak truth to power. It's been a very positive display of courage from within our government. Sometimes the unexpected becomes the Greatest Show on Earth.
8
@furnmtz
Not even bothered a little bit by the Smear that preceded Kavanaugh's appointment going through. Falsely accusing a sitting Federal Judge of Sexual Assualt didn't even get on your radar?
4
DACA should be a path to citizenship for all. What is wrong with this administration and all its supporters. Immigrants made this country. I wouldn't be here if they were never allowed in. Perhaps Trump ought to stop listening to Stephen Miller. My only hope for all of this is that Trump gets removed from office because he is unfit and has broken the law many, many, many times. Wake up America. Get rid of this guy and his minions.
53
@Peggy I would like to know more about actual paths to citizenship! The article says that DACA is actually not a path to citizenship: "The status lasts for two years, allows recipients to work legally and is renewable, but it does not provide a path to citizenship."
After nearly three years of watching this administration shoot itself in the foot time and time again, I just hope that eventually it aims higher.
91
@BKLYNJ Pretty sure that manipulating US foreign aid for personal profit will hit a higher target
6
Trump team says amnesty for DACA is “underserved”.
Respectfully, the “genius visa” that non college grad Melanja got seems “undeserved“.
As does the expedited citizenship, via the much maligned by Donald “chain migration“, bestowed upon her non Einstein sister and her retired parents.
The administration has ZERO sense of irony.
127
“Look, your honors, I know it is pretty arbitrary and dumb to have educated thousands of kids who had no say in what their parents did and then throw them out of the country they grew up in. But my ‘base’ hates these brown people, so I want to give them this. I personally don’t care one way or the other, but I want to keep my base angry at some people and happy with me, so the kids get the heave-ho.”
“OK, Mr. T. Whatever you want. By the way, you look especially good today.”
We already know what trump is made of. But where is the Supreme Court in this day and age?
43
@Rockaway Pete When you scrape away all the legal mumbo jumbo to justify ending DACA that's basically Trumps motivation. And I have zero faith that the Supreme Court will do the just thing instead of the political thing. I never would have imagined my country would come to this.
7
Trump playing to his racist "go back to your country" crowd. I googled that phrase on NYTimes and found an article about 16,000 people who were told that-- by Trump's Native American followers I presume.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/reader-center/trump-go-back-stories.html?searchResultPosition=6
2
I believe this are the issues summed up: executive orders by a president must be based on "policy" considerations. This is especially true when those executive orders affect the civil rights of people in this country. Whether Obama's DACA order was legal or not, Trump is not a federal judge and, as such, must decide whether to revoke the DACA order based on policy considerations. The opponents of Trump's revocation executive order argue that Trump's decision must have been based on policy considerations (weighing the harms and benefits to our country) consistent with the federal Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). Trump's decision was seemingly based on a conclusion that DESPITE the fact that DACA was good for people, it was illegal. But opponents' argument is that was not for Trump to say. A President cannot go around acting like a judge and striking down otherwise beneficial regulations and executive orders based on a belief that such regulations/orders are illegal. Rather, before overturning such orders and depriving people of rights with which they've been vested, they must have actual policy reasons for doing so. The issue for this Supreme Court (that supports expensive executive branch power) is agreeing with Trump could set precedent that weakens the executive branch's power by subjecting their administrative acts to not only a policy test, but also an administrative "legality" test.
I don’t understand why the fact that someone’s parents violated immigration laws to bring you in should entitle you to an immigration benefit. The fix for this is through Congressional action which includes tight border enforcement - not the action of a President now not in office.
12
@Michael DACA doesn't "entitle" anyone to anything. It merely grants work authorization and deferred deportation if an applicant meets very stringent conditions including the same background check that green card applicants are subject to. There are 700,000 folks who have qualified for this meagre benefit; there are hundreds of thousands who do NOT qualify and/or are too afraid of giving their information to DHS to apply.
15
DACA recipients are actually subject to more stringent background checks than almost all other immigrants. The criminal history standard for them is almost zero tolerance
4
@Michael
My father got his citizenship in 1944 by putting his feet on US soil, going straight to an Army base and enlisting.
He left Guatemala secretly -- their government would not have let him leave, and the US was not admitting Jews. I doubt he had a visa. He served his new country as a soldier and later reservist, and became a scrupulously law-abiding productive citizen.
Deporting young veterans who put their lives on the line for this country -- which is the only one they've ever known -- is a shame and dishonor to the United States.
3
Deporting Dreamers is more than a policy decision about immigration or whether the President has the right to make it. It is about establishing NEW principles in our laws: that minors can be held be accountable -- and punished -- for the illegal actions of their parents. That is what the supreme court is really asked to decide. And, further, that the President can change such a fundamental principle of law through executive action, thus over-ruling Congress and the will of the majority. If immigrant-children (now adults) must bear the brunt of unlawful actions taken by their parents, then should we punish every person who is the beneficiary of law breaking by his/her parent? Should we now stop distinguishing between minors and adults in our criminal law? This is about more than providing policy rationales (e.g., Steven Miller's fact free assertion that it would serve to deter illegal immigration by sending signals to people considering breaking our immigration laws). It is about overturning the principles by which we -- as a democracy -- live.
538
@reju lavtok this is backwards logic. Minors are not being punished. Rather, a benefit conferred upon them by the illegal actions of their parents is being reversed.
16
@reju lavtok "It is about establishing NEW principles in our laws: that minors can be held be accountable -- and punished -- for the illegal actions of their parents." Excellent point. IF this would be the new law, then for instance, Trump's kids have to give back ALL the wealth that their father obtained through illegal means & go to jail for the actions of their father (tax fraud, probable money laundering, etc.); and there are plenty more like them. That would be equal to taking away from dreamers the only life they've known and dropping them in a country they don't know, with no support.
@Michael : "Minors are not being punished. Rather, a benefit conferred upon them by the illegal actions of their parents is being reversed." You don't think it's punishment for the dreamers to be kicked out of the country because they were brought here as young minors who were dependent on their parents & had no control over their parents actions?
58
@reju lavtok
If the DACA programs ends, DACA enrollees would not be punished for crimes; they would simply be removed because their presence in the United States is no longer authorized. Ending DACA would not "over-rule" DACA was created not by Congress but by a Department of Homeland Security policy memo. Congress has rejected proposals that would have give DACA enrollees citizenship or permanent legal status.
12
I have no faith that legal argument will win over partisanship. I believe the Supreme Court will grant Trump unlimited discretionary power to act. Just as the justice department now acts as his personal legal team, Trump has ensured, through his appointments, that unrestricted authority will be granted him by his Supreme Court, just as complete immunity from prosecution will be given later in the Court's term. Trump has arranged the Court in a way that will secure him what he has wanted all along: the power to do exactly as he pleases, free from limitation or restraint.
6
@Ms. Pea While I don't totally disagree with what you're saying, don't forget that the Supreme Court slapped Trump down on the Census question.
4
DACA recipients were brought when they were too young to make their own decisions, in addition to the fact that they could not be left alone at the mercy of gangs and/or extreme poverty. The magnet to attract immigrants is the wonderful image of America The Beautiful among the people of many nations including Russia and China. DACA is a humane law, designed by human beings.
33
It is not a law. That’s the whole issue. If it was a law, there would not be a Supreme Court case.
8
DACA should be the law. Unfortunately, a president cannot unilaterally say that he doesn’t like a law that was passed by Congress and signed by a predecessor. Which is what DACA does to federal immigration law. A sane nation would be able to easily pass a law to not punish children for being brought to our nation. Both parties are at fault here for conditioning passing DACA on other priorities.
26
@Jake The law wasn’t passed by Congress, it was an Executive order.
4
This is one more example of how career civil servants working for any administration are deeply concerned about what is right and what is wrong and mostly focus on the policy issues in spite of elected officials interfering in arbitrary and capricious manner.
What makes this and other cases more troubling is that the elected official who acts capriciously and out of malice is none other than the POTUS.
45
There is only one constitutional issue involved: Did then President Obama have the legal right to create a law for immigration policy. That question was answered by the liberal SCOTUS when it advised him that he could not grant a path to citizenship when he subsequently tried to do so. All the sentimentality is a sidelight typically raised by liberal thinking. Reviewing the history of the case proves that at no point did President Trump threaten to remove DACA recipients who meet the requirements stipulated in Obama's executive order. So all the hand wringing about being deported is irrelevant. The SCOTUS is likely to declare DACA unconstitutional, but that's because it is not because the court is now more conservative than it was during the Obama administration.
17
@Kenneth Cowan based on your logic, Obama was wrong and Trump is right? Is that a good conclusion?
@Kenneth Cowan, I would respectfully ask that we all refrain from using conservative vs liberal in defending our positions as it has a tendency to get in the way of intelligent discussions turning what could be meaningful dialogues, into a food fight. And all the "sentimentality" and "hand wringing aside" by "liberal thinking" voters, will not have an effect on the Supreme Court's decision to whether or not declare DACA unconstitutional. The court does indeed lean towards a conservative ideology and those justices are eager to perform and please their audience of one; DJT.
@Kenneth Cowan
I respectfully disagree. To be precise, the issue involved in the present case is whether the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act in the manner in which it rescinded DACA.
That is, the Supreme Court is not being asked to consider whether the substance of the DACA program is constitutional. The Court is not being asked whether President Obama acted within the law in implementing the program.
The question (as framed by the Supreme Court in its order granting review) "whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful."
So the questions of whether DACA is good policy or bad, or constitutional or not, are not before the Court. The sole question actually before the Court is whether the manner in which the Trump administration acted in rescinding that policy was legal.
1
The tragedy here is that we're focusing on law over good governance. Our borders are pourous. So we have a generation of people who mostly only know the US as their home. They're patriotic, educated and hard-working. How do we recognize their rights? They came here as children. Why can't we fully welcome them?
35
In nutshell Trump contends that the exercise of presidential power, executive action by himself is okay, but the exercise of presidential power, executive action by Obama wasn't.
Or am I missing something?
785
@James K Griffin
On the other side of your “nutshell,” are you saying a President can’t reverse a prior president’s policies? If so, why hold elections?
21
@James K Griffin He is arguing that, if Obama could implement DACA without following the Administrative Procedures Act, then Trump may terminate DACA without following the APA. I agree that we need a solution to allow upstanding people brought here as children to have a path to permanent residency. But many people commenting here may not realize the implication of their argument that a subsequent president can't undo what his predecessor implemented via executive fiat. Apply that rationale to things Trump has implemented; your position means that he may handcuff his successors.
35
@James
You jerked the words from my mouth!
Time for Congress to take responsibility for DACA and write some law beyond that on immigration.
27
One of the lawyers presenting the case before the Supreme Court to uphold DACA is a Dreamer: Luis Cortes.
42
If this isn't the epitome of showing how productive the Dreamers have been in American society, then I don't know how we as a country can look at ourselves in the mirror everyday and still call America the Land of Opportunity.
8
The Supreme Court throughout American history has hardly been a bulwark for the rights of people of color, immigrants, or the poor. Expect nothing good from a political legal culture that has always been too self-congratulatory, backing white power, and done next to nothing to make freedom a reality.
5
@PAUL NOLAN Hardly a bulwark, true, but to say the Court has done "next to nothing" for the poor and minorities ignores the entire history of the Warren court and a more modern series of cases upholding rights for the LGBT community, among other things.
1
@PAUL NOLAN
In fact , the exact opposite is true. Over the past 50 years SCOTUS has protected the constitutional rights of the oppressed much more than Congress. The Miranda decision is but one example.
1
This is the most unbelievable defense of a presidential action I've ever heard. By saying that DACA was created unlawfully by presidential (Obama's) executive action, the administration is undermining the authority of its own president who issues executive actions like Halloween candy on a wide variety of controversial issues--all in an effort to bypass Congress.
The entire case shows how little principle this president has when it comes for tough decision making: he loves it when his advisers give him a "legal out", a way to have his cake and eat it too by shifting the responsibility to another branch of government.
Who cares if the case is based on irrational reasoning, if it placates this president?
13
That reasoning actually makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t imply that all executive actions are unconstitutional (but I believe that many are). All it says is that DACA is, and there is a strong case that the administration is correct.
9
@Jake: if the Supreme Court rules DACA is unconstitutional, I would submit that many of the president's other edicts on immigration are also. For decades, due to the laziness and irresponsibility of Congress who should be legislating immigration overhaul as is their job, issues of immigration have ended up in the executive's hands, to do what he or she will based on their personal views of immigration. If ever it were time for SCOTUS to rule on process--and the division of labor and authority across co-equal branches of government, this is it. I find it hard to believe that an Obama Executive Order on immigration would be illegal, while a Trump Executive Order always sails through. Both either have jurisdiction or don't and at this point, it's sad that the Supreme Court, an increasingly partisan body gets to determine which part of our history as expressed in the Constitution will prevail..
3
Equally important to the decision will be whether Trump will abide by it. Face facts, he successfully co opted Justice, the Senate is stuffed with Trump toadies, witnesses flagrantly ignore subpoenas from congress, the FBI no longer investigates so who will enforce an SC decision Trump doesn't like?
In three years Trump has made a banana republic out of America. Also, you can be certain that if he continues to slide in the polls, there won't be an election.
Welcome to Bolivia.
4
@Wally G. Your phrase "Welcome to Bolivia" is more accurate as a description of what will happen to the US if things like DACA are allowed to stand.
1
If it was created by executive order it's hard so see why it can't be rescinded by executive order.
25
@J Read again. It is not the elimination of the program on its face, it is the rationale, the justification.
2
If you sometimes feel as if this circus is all politics and you can ignore it, remember DACA. This is an administration and an entire GOP that wants to deport almost 700,000 American kids who happened to be born in foreign, mostly brown, countries. Kids that have grown up in America and have, in most cases, no connection with the country they were born in. Kids who have not committed any crimes, pay taxes and, in some cases, actually served in the Military -unlike Trump, his entire family or Stephen Miller. How does someone remotely claiming to be “evangelical” or even a decent human, even ponder supporting Trump or the GOP? Hypocrisy.
167
The authors are way overthinking this. The is the same Supreme Court that allowed the administration to implement openly racist and discriminatory immigration policy against Muslims. So long as a (Republican) president's decisions are within the scope of their discretion, the reasons don't matter - even when those reasons are expressly prohibited by law.
This, of course, is selective conservatism, and has been SCOTUS policy since Scalia. But selective conservativism is the law of the land, whether anyone likes it or not.
5
The shame of it that Obama’s intentions were good but the way he went about it was faulted. He would never have gotten support from Republicans for this idea.
It’s to bad that congress wouldn’t make this permanent because of their hatred of Obama.
19
The supreme Republican court will do whatever Trump orders it to.
2
Donald Trump's signature anti-immigration policies reek of "abuse of power" as noted here and in the unnecessary government shutdown to extort funds from Congress to build his wall to abject cruelty and probable "crimes against humanity" in his family separation policy that has placed children in inhumane "concentration camp" like facilities resulting in numerous deaths. These policies alone would merit impeachment in any nation that claims to defend the principle of tolerance and human decency. It, like our internment of the Japanese citizens in World War II, will be a lasting stain on our democracy.
6
This administration has a phobia against immigration, which is what really made this country great. I have met these DACA people and it would be horrible to send them back when they are good citizens and educated.
15
@Soo In the US, whites have a lower birth rate than hispanics and blacks, and all of them are below replacement rates. In a country with high immigration rates, both legal and illegal, that inevitably leads to whites becoming a minority. That's what drives conservative policy - loss of their position on top.
Stopping abortion is intended to produce more babies. Locking up minorities is intended to produce fewer babies of the wrong color. Stopping immigration of any kind that is mostly not white is obviously part of this.
Stephen Miller, with no legal background whatsoever, is wholly unqualified from being an architect for any legally workable policy. He is an angry provocateur who thinks only about garnering a negative reaction. That Trump relies on him is telling as to the ineptitude of this administration.
That Trump had a Republican majority in Congress for two years without accomplishing a bit of legislation to address immigration reform, is equally telling about his endless incompetence. And, still Trump supporters will complain.
896
@Suzanne Moniz
Yes, it is important to realize that immigration only became a "crisis" once the 2018 election gave the House to the Democrats. Suddenly a target to blame became available, and the rhetoric got hyper-inflamed.
51
@Suzanne Moniz And it speaks to the fact that congressional republicans have absolutely NO plans for solving our most pressing problems. This lack of legislative purpose combined with trump's laziness and ineptitude insure that action on immigration, health care, climate change etc will have to wait for the blue wave to sweep them out of office.
92
@Suzanne Moniz
He stopped supporting bipartisan immigration reform when Congress was on the verge of passing it in 2017 - including full funding of his wall - simply because Ann Coulter attacked him on Twitter, claiming that signing comprehensive immigration reform that included DACA would destroy his presidency.
Instead of signing the bill, he then decided to no longer pay border patrol agents for an entire month, to then simply go back to the status quo.
This president is utterly incompetent (and unmotivated) when it comes to REAL negotiations - even with his own GOP.
That's why the exact same thing goes for his 2nd major campaign promise: repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a bill that would "take care of everyone".
3 years after he became president, it's still ONLY Democrats who have plans about how to achieve this, whereas Trump never even came up with a plan, let alone tried to get it through Congress.
This president isn't interested in getting things done at all. All that he needs to keep his voters fired up is to watch Fox News half of the day, and then use childish and repulsive language retweeting the most controversial FN lines of the day, combined with once in a while taking highly controversial executive action.
As long as he likes doing this AND accepts to sign pro 1% wealthiest bills into law and add regulations that actively distort markets in favor of the 1% (which is what the GOP calls "deregulating"), the GOP leadership will support him.
126
I told my DACA friend and his mom not tell ANYONE their status.
And that they can hide in my house if ICE comes after them, and I will protect them as best and as fiercely as I can.
Why does this feel like Germany 1938......
161
I too volunteer to support a DACA family. Anyone else?
6
@r mackinnon bless you! Thank you. As a parent I can only say bless you for your kindness, on behalf of all parents everywhere.
4
This is just one more example of how this president has squandered yet another opportunity to demonstrate true leadership. Instead, under the skimpiest legal rationale, the true spirit of this administration is displayed in all it's shame: cruelty, racism, illogic, xenophobia, senseless destruction of purposeful lives, and willfully inflicted economic harm to the country. The sheer evil and incompetence of this administration has no historical precedent. It doesn't help one bit that the formerly great Republican party is now reduced to lickspittle status, nothing more than a cult of personality.
32
This is the work of one person, Steven Miller who has from day one vilified and targeted people of color. To end a program that promotes The American dream is horrifying. Mr. Miller is the face of evil and his efforts will live and infamy.
141
Washing his hands of guilt for the fate of 700.000 Dreamers to satisfy the roaring crowd of his anti-immigrant supporters sounds oddly familiar.
73
Calls to mind Pontius Trumpet.
2
Stephen Miller is profoundly cruel. What kind of human being enjoys destroying others while basking in luxury? A sociopath, that's who. As this administration brags and punishes, it is creating a network around the world of people who will be determined to have retribution. And frankly, one can understand why. This will be a true test of the Supreme Court's legitimacy and let's pray they get it right.
61
"He rejected the new rationale, calling it “too little, too late.” And too much hate!
7
These people did not break the law, their parents brought them here. To deport them when birth rates are so low is not only cruel and capricious but pointless.
This will destroy jobs, not create them. The Obama economy is almost gone now.
8
has anyone figured out who paid off kavanaugh's debts? bc whomever it is kinda owns him so...
29
President Obama, faced with over ten million undocumented immigrants living in America and more crossing the border all the time, decided he would use his enforcement resources to focus on immigrants engaging in serious crimes and those caught crossing the border and not yet settled into the American economy. Doing this he deported far more people than George W Bush had. At the same time, he saw that there were many people living here peacefully, productively and felt no reason to waste time pursuing them. Among those many millions, he recognized a small group, who would become known as Dreamers, that deserved special protection because they had been brought to America as young children, grown up knowing America as their home, studying and working productively. This was a clear policy choice balancing the use of limited enforcement resources and a persuasive humanitarian goal.
290
@Michael
Nice try, but Obama changed the definition of deportation to include people turned around at the border which was a large part of why his deportation numbers where so high. Also, he tried to do DAPA as well which would have been about 5 million people. And neither were simply prosecutorial discretion which was already being used and still is. He gave them work permits which he did not have the authority to do.
18
@Keith And why would people the Obama admin turned away at the border not count as deportation? Because they never got in the country? Isn't that precisely what the Rs wanted and continue to say they want, although the R controlled congress refuses to take up any legislation on the matter? Isn't that what Trump is doing now by not letting people in now, making Mexico deal with it?
15
@Former repub
I didn't say it was bad that it was happening. Just that Obama used that to inflate the numbers to make it look like he was being much tougher on immigration than he was. I do think he actually did a relatively good job on the issue until he implemented DACA and then DAPA.
2
The no-later-than-2007 date that the Dreamers had to be in the US is/was significant because the five year statute of limitations that applied to federal non-criminal cases had gone by when Obama announced DACA in 2012. Trump’s decision of DACA should be stayed until Congress passes a law on how the statute of limitations applies to deportation cases.
8
@Goose
It has nothing to do with criminal cases. Deportation is not a criminal punishment it is a civil action taken against inadmissible aliens (illegal immigrants) in the country. Plus, DACA includes much more than deportation protrection.
5
@Keith "DACA includes much more than deportation protrection." Like what? It only gives DACA recipients a couple years not to fear deportation for being brought here as children (no free will). They could petition for renewal after the initial period. So what else, pray tell?
@Former repub
Like the ability to work.
The facts of the case don't matter. The Court is already stolen. We've already lost.
My condolences to any American whose case is appealed to it.
65
@SR Yes. Whatever will the Supreme Court do? The Federalist Society majority has to really grapple with their business masters (who want DACA to remain) and their culture war masters who want it cancelled.
My vote is on the culture war masters. They don't view brown people as part of the American experience.
7
@SR I love America, but as a scientist about to finish his PhD in a year and a half, if very large systemic change doesn't start happening, I will leave. I have little hope for America in the long term.
5
@SR
To some degree, Congressional Democrats gave the Court to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. If you watch the hearings, overall, Democrats were not tough enough on the nominees. Yes, the Republicans had the majority for votes, but when an appointment is this important, you need to be screaming from the rooftops.
2
The DACA program is in direct violation of existing statutory law which law can only be changed by Congress. Obama stated on numerous occasions that he did not have the authority to reverse or ignore statutory law but he did it anyway in an effort to appease his base. DACA will be reversed.
34
@Gustavo
And I hope that makes you happy, sir.
6
then why would trump have that power?
15
@ Gustavo
"The DACA program is in direct violation of existing statutory law which law can only be changed by Congress."
It seems that this convoluted sentence could have been written by none other than The Chosen One and self declared genius.
14
Our current Supreme Court is partisan. Clarence Thomas should have been removed from the bench years ago for his egregious and flagrant ethical violations.
Hopefully Justice John Roberts will care more about retaining the courts power and equality with the other coequal branches of government then running down the rabbit hole after this administration’s incoherent and incompetent policy decisions.
194
@Cyn Clarence Thomas should never have been on the Supreme Court. He's there because of the ability of Joe Biden to "work across the aisle," cutting deals and cutting corners to get him appointed. He railroaded Anita Hill and four other women who were ready to testify against Thomas. Never Biden. Ever...
4
@Cyn I humbly disagree. I opposed his appointment. I disagree with almost every opinion he writes. He is a brilliant Justice. I was a corporate bankruptcy partner for 30 years for three of the largest law firms in NYC. He has written some bankruptcy opinions which have left me in awe. He is a very strong defender of a free press in my opinion.
Perhaps more importantly during an impeachment trial, as the senior justice on the Court, he becomes the effective chief justice, because Roberts cannot be in two places at one time.
I learned a long time ago not to bite the hand that feeds you. Please moderate your comments about the Justice. You should instead direct your ire at Biden who made it all possible.
Let's hope the court is really supreme.
7
My friend has been here since he was three. (now he's 25). He attended university (with honors) and now works full time.
(Unlike Trump, he pays taxes. )
How exaclty is Team Trump planning to implement mass deportation of young people like my friend?
How much tax money will that cost ?
Who is going to take over the skilled high-tech job my friend wil have to leave ?
He has never been to the nation of his birth and has no conections there.
Or does none of the above matter ?
This is stupid and mean-spirited and smacks of racism.
798
@r mackinnon
When you say the attempt to end DACA is “stupid, mean-spirited, and smacks of racism”, your basically describing the President. I doubt believe Trump ever had any moral qualms about ending DACA and was likely only concerned about appearances.
175
It doesn’t smack of racism so much as provide a very clear example of it. Trump can’t stay in office without kowtowing the the Stephen Miller School of Racist Thought. If there’s a choice between losing power or doing the worst possible thing, Trump will always choose the latter.
183
@r mackinnon
We have MANY underemployed college graduates. I’m glad someone admits that illegal aliens are not just taking “unwanted” jobs away from citizens.
22
This is not a surprise: stupid is as stupid does. That is the Trump administration. Trump may be the second or first most reprehensible president, but it is not worth arguing about who is first--Nixon or Trump. But Nixon was a very stable genius compared to Trump. And the nation is paying a much higher price for Trump than for any president in its nearly 250 year history. When will it end?
223
If DACA recipients were from Norway, Trump would have personally granted all of them immediate citizenship.
370
@Demosthenes Russia too.
34
literally similar thing has happened. they had a fancy oval office swearing in party too
11
Or if they were rappers.
1
If Obama had the right to do it (he didn't) then Trump has the right to undo it.
It seems obvious that DACA is toast.
25
@RP Smith Yes, but he must do it the right way - with the right reason. That’s the point made in the article.
8
You apparently didn’t read the article.
Even the groups bringing suit acknowledge outright that the president had the authority to create DACA and to rescind DACA. To terminate DACA, all Trump had to do was declare a new — but ugly and unpopular — policy that DACA participants would henceforward again be subject to deportation.
Trump wants the courts to declare DACA illegal so that he can end it without taking responsibility for ending it.
7
Your argument is flawed - in two ways.
1: If what you said about Obama were true (he didn’t have the right), then Trump’s administration would have pursued that path and undone it.
2: If it’s true Trump has the authority to undo it, then it’s also true Obama had the authority to create it in the first place.
3
This sounds potentially disappointing...won’t Trump just start the rescission all over again, this time without the legal imperfection?
3
@jake i think it's too late. once motives are set and public, you can't really put the toothpaste back
1
@herbie as with the citizenship question? they may decide to twist like pretzels and give him a second bite of the apple.
A souless president and his corrupt Administration have eroded American greatness.
214
Obama knew it was not a legal order and stated that several times. Obama’s order is illegal today as the day he ordered it
28
@Jimd
Cite one sentence where President Obama 'stated' even once that his executive order was illegal, dear.
12
@jimd not having legal footing and being illegal are two different things
7
He never said that. Every court has also upheld DACA as legal.
It’s fine if you don’t like the policy. But if you want to make your case on legal grounds, you’ll have the same problem Trump is having: there are none.
7
One day Donald Trump will no longer be President and, in the aftermath, our country will have to contend with a new and unfortunate manifestation of his tenure: the federal judiciary flagrantly "resisting" the legitimate exercise of Presidential power. This will not be pretty; nor will it benefit our nation.
The DACA case is simple. Recall that Obama, the father of DACA, spent years of his presidency openly saying that he lacked the authority, without legislation, to simply grant amnesty or the rights of citizenship to some general class of illegal immigrants. Ultimately, the political apparatus within the White House persuaded him that he could do so as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, aka prioritizing his use of enforcement resources. If DACA was an act of Presidential discretion and prioritization, so is ending it.
The argument endorsed in this article is that the President's authority to make discretionary determinations of policy is tempered by the judicial branch's ability to vet his rationale. The goal here is frustrate the exercise of presidential power simply because we don't like person exercising it. That view elevates the power of the judicial branch well beyond its Constitutional frame.
I can't wait to see liberal reaction when some item in the progressive agenda is frustrated by a Republican appointed judge who claims such power and issues a nationwide injunction to block the President's action.
10
@AR Clayboy DACA isn't a broad grant of amnesty and provides no grant of citizenship.
4
@NER EXACTLY! DACA purports to systemize the President's discretion. If that discretion, in fact, exists under the Constitution, Obama had the power to exercise it in one direction and Trump had the power to exercise it in the other.
It is not for the courts to determine how a President exercise power, but rather to determine whether the President has the power to exercise.
1
This is as much a test for Trump’s two appointees to the Supreme Court, as it is a test of the administration’s (MIA) arguments for issuing a blanket recession of DACA.
Gorsuch & Kavanaugh both have the opportunity to come down on the side of the rule of law, by rejecting the thin, incoherent and weak basis claimed by the White House for eliminating DACA.
32
Like so many of DJT’s decisions, another one ( DACA ) based on the flimsiest of reasons. In reality, the attempted overturn of this executive decision is yet another attempt to rescind Obama’s legacy, and show us again how mean, cruel, inhuman and legally challenged this administration continues to be.
Here we have young people who have conducted themselves in the most honorable ways since they have been in America, doing everything we expect a good citizen to do from becoming educated, serving in our military, possessing good jobs, paying taxes into our coffers and leading a lawful life.
So many of them shine brightly and they and their future families will add much good to our American experience.
More than I can say for many citizens supporting this asinine attempt to send these young people back to somewhere they don’t remember.
79
@It's About Time
Many DACA recipients may be great people, but that does not mean that a president can just "make them legal" immigrants. They are pawns in a negotiation of an immigration process.
6
@Ny Surgeon please read the actual DACA law before commenting.
2
@coale johnson
I fully understand the law. And what the liberal "courts" have said is that they are effectively legal residents now- untouchable by immigration law.
1
Trump's revocation of DACA is one of the most savage acts taken by any US president since Andrew Jackson. The United States does not need to create trails of tears leading to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Taiwan, China and Ireland. I wish I had the optimism to believe that the Roberts Court had the decency to rule against Trump.
1038
@Mon Ray You realize your comments about open borders have nothing to do with the comment you are responding to? And that thee issue at hand also is not about open borders? And that most Democrats do not espouse open borders? Your post is factually incorrect on so many levels it is hard to address.
97
@Mon Ray
This has absolutely nothing to do with open borders. Stick to the point.
I'm also very confused why you think the U.S. needs to "afford" these immigrants. They're working members of society. They contribute as much as U.S. citizens, while not being granted the benefits of being a citizen (like welfare and social security). Your argument makes no sense.
70
@Mon Ray huh? so you just copied and pasted your comment to answer this post?? or is it the other way around? again, I hear your anger at somebody, poor brown people, getting over on the great USA..... what IS your viable plan? truth is you do not have one and neither do republicans. DACA was the best Obama could do to actually deal with problem in the face of republican obstruction.... you don't like it? then tell your leaders to figure it out and spare us your repeated comments.
46
I reject the assertion that lower courts ruled correctly that POTUS cancelled the program only because he called it illegal.
If POTUS had changed this or annuled this program as part of policy decision - the lower courts would have still ruled against him.
Recent history of lower court's ruling against him and then SCOTUS upholding POTUS is telling.
And the story includes this quote:
"..The court also questioned “the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties.”.."
This court question validated that either way POTUS would have been blocked.
If reports are to be believed, even Obama had wondered if his DACA action was really legit when Congress had expressly refused to pass the bill.
I think SCOTUS must rule that original DACA went way beyond executive authority and usurped that of Congress.
It has nothing to do with policy but only with law.
9
@Neil ok. let's say you're right..... you still want to deport all of these people? some children? many very productive? easy to throw lightening bolts not easy to actually deal with a problem. immigrants are not going to quit coming and they are not going away.... what's your plan? preferably not one that involves sticking our heads in the sand.....
1
I reject the assertion that lower courts ruled correctly that POTUS cancelled the program only because he called it illegal.
If POTUS had changed this or annuled this program as part of policy decision - the lower courts would have still ruled against him.
Recent history of lower court's ruling against him and then SCOTUS upholding POTUS is telling.
And the story includes this quote:
"..The court also questioned “the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties.”.."
This court question validated that either way POTUS would have been blocked.
If reports are to be believed, even Obama had wondered if his DACA action was really legit when Congress had expressly refused to pass the bill.
I think SCOTUS must rule that original DACA went way beyond executive authority and usurped that of Congress.
It has nothing to do with policy but only with law.
2
Once again we see "The Administration that Could Not Shoot Straight."
But as all parties to the case agree, if the Supreme Court strikes down the repeal of DACA, all that Trump has to do is to invoke "executive discretion" and repeat the rescission. And, if he wants to make it look less harsh (but with the same result), he can provide that each affected individual can ask for a specific exemption based on "extraordinary circumstances."
4
As a lawyer in my fourth decade, I do have a fear that the current polarization of our country along political lines will be exacerbated by a Supreme Court systematically stacked with political ideologues.
The dark money Republican political machine learned the lessons of the appointments of Republicans Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, and developed a farm system of more reliably conservative appointees.
If, as I anticipate, there will soon be a backlash against conservatism due to the disastrous legacy of President Trump and the gross economic disparities produced by an oligarchal system that brought us the Citizens United decision, and America enters a progressive era, it will inevitably and repeatedly clash with an ultra-conservative Supreme Court.
The resulting erosion of public confidence and support for the judiciary will not be good for the country or the rule of law.
The Court's decision in the DACA case, I sincerely hope, will prove me wrong, and one or more conservative members will pull it away from the precipice, but do not be surprised if it delivers for the handlers and bundlers who have shaped it for decades to come.
897
@Didier
The only 'legacy' of Trump will be that he had sown chaos, not only in the US but also abroad.
He trusts American foes more than its allies.
105
@Didier
One way to get over the "it can't happen here" attitude towards the U.S. Supreme Court is to look at the Court in the Taney era or the Lochner era.
17
@Didier very good points. I hope your pessimism about the SC is wrong.
The only recourse is to vote Democratic and make sure your kids vote to ensure such a majority that SC may be cowed into recognizing that ‘humaneness’ matters. It worked when we protested the first two Muslim bans, and against the attempts to overturn the ACA.
47
As Trump pondered the destruction of DACA he was concerned how it might appear to young people. Any person under forty who still supports Trump after what he's done to the environment, the consideration of climate change, LGBTQ, immigration reform all those matters that effect the future of our nation and its values needs to have their brains checked.
186
@Michael Kelly I'm 70 and I am appalled about the self destruction of the Republican Party, let alone the Dream of America.
4
So, the Trump administration started down this rabbit hole 2 years ago.
Has anyone in the administration been working on a backup plan or a new policy ready to implement (regardless of how the SCOTUS rules) or, as with Obamacare, are the flamethrowers in the White House only interested in “burning down the house”?
113