Slashdot Mirror
The Trump Administration Has Announced the End of DACA -- Unless Congress Can Act To Save It (recode.net)
The Trump administration said on Tuesday it plans to scrap a program that allows about 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children to stay and work in the country, shrugging off criticism from within the president's own party and prominent business figures. From a report: The Trump administration is essentially leaving Congress a six-month window of time to try to save it. The legal shield is known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and since its enactment in 2012, it has allowed roughly 800,000 undocumented young adults to live in the United States and obtain work authorizations every two years. [...] In practice, implementation is complicated. Those previously approved under DACA, with the permission to work in the United States, can continue to work without interruption until those approvals expire. And those who have already applied for protection or are seeking renewals will still have their applications considered by the U.S. government. For those whose permits are set to expire before March 5, 2018, though, the U.S. government will also allow them to renew their DACA status -- provided their applications are received before Oct. 5, 2017. Currently, there are about 201,000 young adults whose authorizations are set to expire this year, officials at the Department of Homeland Security explained Tuesday.
Tech giants like Apple, Facebook and Google are no doubt going to blast the Trump administration's decision: Last week, those executives joined more than 400 other business leaders in calling on the president to preserve DACA. Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change. Microsoft indicated that about 27 workers spanning fields like finance and sales would be hurt from Trump's move. Zuckerberg said, "This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it."
Tech giants like Apple, Facebook and Google are no doubt going to blast the Trump administration's decision: Last week, those executives joined more than 400 other business leaders in calling on the president to preserve DACA. Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change. Microsoft indicated that about 27 workers spanning fields like finance and sales would be hurt from Trump's move. Zuckerberg said, "This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it."
Change the law.
Simple concept. Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.
The Executive Branch does not make laws. DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers, with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch. Ending it is the right choice.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
cayenne8 stated that President Obama did not have the authority under the US Constitution to enact DACA unilaterally. He says that in order to enact DACA, an act of Congress is required.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Remember, the US constitution lists the limited, enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Govt.
The powers granted to the different branches comes from the constitution.
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Remember in the US government, laws come from congress ONLY. The president does not create laws, but is there to enforce the laws created by congress.
. With DACA, Obama was pretty much trying to create new law where none existed before.
I hope that helps.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Congress creates laws, the President is supposed to enforce them. DACA was the president saying, basically, that certain laws regarding immigration are going to be ignored. The President doesn't get to pick and choose which laws get enforced.
You are looking at the Constitution backwards. It enumerates the limited powers of the Federal government. The question should be "What part of the Constitution gives the President power to change immigration laws?" If no part of the Constitution gives the President that power, then it is unconstitutional.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.
And remember, Obama was called the "Deporter In Chief" for how fervently he was deporting them... More than 2.5 million were removed. He was not soft on immigration.
OF COURSE IT IS OK!!
That's precisely how the US government was set up...that the majority of power was to reside within the States, with only a limited, fairly weak Federal Government.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Article 2, Section 1.
However, if you think that DACA is unconstitutional then why wasn't it successfully challenged? By comparison, the AZ state law attempting to limit DACA got tossed.
Article 1 section 1 was violated. Law must first be enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the executive branch. Good job, you just failed middle school civics.
The similar legislation, DAPA, that applied to parents, was overtuned and the same legal arguments could overturn DACA if it were ever challenged. 10 state AGs threatened to do just that if the White House did not act on DACA before September 5th.
So it's not that it wasn't successfully challenged. It's that it was about to be and the precedents meant it didn't really stand a chance.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Uh those numbers have been flipped:
In 1992 the number of murders was 23,760.
In 2015 the number of murders was 15,696.
The amount reduced!!
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/...
Post a valid link, and assume people won't check it??
I hope Trump gets rid of the Green Card Lottery. I don't understand why we give away 50000 green cards every year to people who may only have a high school degree.
We're not "giving away" green cards. Green cards are not free. The fees are higher than many can afford, and is a source of income. The bare minimum fees are:
- I-485 filing fee: $1,140
- Biometric services fee: $85
- Visum fee (to enter the US in the first place after "winning"): $160
In addition, there are external costs:
- Medical costs for filing a required I-693 form, in the $200-1,000 range depending on whether vaccinations are needed.
- 10+ approved photos.
- Costs of transportation to the US.
- Transportation and accommodation for INS interviews.
- Translation assistance or lawyers as needed.
- Means of living for the couple of years it takes to process the application.
So truly poor people can't afford to "win" a green card lottery.
The "give money to Iran" incident was actually Iran's money that we had put a freeze on. One of the terms of the Iran deal was that we'd release that money if they hit some metrics. They hit the metric so we released the money. This wasn't just giving Iran US taxpayer money (like some try to describe it). It was us following through on a deal. Whether you like the Iran deal or not, once the deal is made you either need to follow through on it or it's worthless. We were following through on it by releasing funds that belonged to Iran but that we had frozen/seized.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
AC wrote:
His name was Barack Obama. Not Barry, you ass.
from the LA Times:
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
It's not "as they see fit"...it's "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Anyway, if DACA had only been "enforcement discretion" you'd have a point. The executive could choose to devote limited prosecutorial resources along lines that would leave undocumented kids alone.
But DACA did a lot more than that. It provided work authorizations, travel authorizations (allowing illegal aliens to reenter the country), and created a self-funded agency without Congressional authorization (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law").
It was shot through with Constitutional problems. That DACA for Parents order was enjoined for just those reasons and the various States threatening to go to court over DACA would have based their arguments on the same reasons and likely would prevail on the same grounds.
DACA as a program, had it been done as an act of Congress, would almost certainly be all the good things people want it to be. But as a whim of Obama's pen, it was always suspect and subject to being undone at the whim of some other President. Indeed, Obama is seeing all his legacy being unwound simply because he spent so much effort bypassing Congress that he built his house on sand.
I suggest you go off and read the US Code as it relates to Aliens.
8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S. Code 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens
None of those say anything about letting the Executive branch hammer out the details. The law provides specifics, when the executive are expected to implement faithfully.
Also consider that when Congress chooses to *not* do a thing, that's doing a thing. E.g., in 2007, when the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was discussed in the Senate, which would have given a path to eventual citizenship to a large majority of illegal entrants in the country, significantly increased legal immigration and increased enforcement. The bill failed to pass a cloture vote, essentially killing it. That's not ignoring the need to do something, that's actively not doing it. Congress spoke and the President doesn't get to just go off and make up his own laws.
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States as they were intended.
Which part? Perhaps we could start with the part where it says that Congress makes laws. Maybe that part.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Apparently the real people they answer to don't care if it costs some Republicans their seats, they'll just replace them with a Democrat. It's pretty clear at this point that Paul Ryan was always the "pretend opposition" for the Obama and the Democrats and has always working for the same people that Obama and the other Democrats are - and I don't mean the American people. The primary thing that differentiated Trump from his GOP primary opponents was his very, very vocal opposition to any sort of amnesty for existing illegals, strong enforcement to keep illegals out, and his advocacy for net reduction in the numbers of legal immigrants we were allowing in.
It's pretty telling that Nancy Pelosi came out and condemned Antifa before Paul Ryan did. It was interesting when Paul Ryan did it, almost as if he got a message to go ahead and condemn them from his handler.