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."

44 of 817 comments (clear)

  1. Global problem by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how American companies not being able to find enough affordable workers is a 'global problem', yet people not being able to find clean drinking water, enough food to eat, and/or safety from violence and corrupt governments is a 'them' problem.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Global problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are plenty of people for the work corporations require. What there is not is people that will work for the lower pay corporations desire.

      Europe is being destroyed with the race to the bottom, much to the delight of the elite, wealthy, and virtual signalling celebrities in their 99.999% white communities of mansions.

    2. Re:Global problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Getting back to subject.

      This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.

      Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.

      I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.

      If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Global problem by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you think that nobody cares about clean water and food? The problem is a local problem, solved by removing the people involved in preventing these things (which are otherwise easy to provide) from happening.

              If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items. That was the idea in Somalia, and it is the correct and probably only workable idea for accomplishing that. But some asshole on Slashdot would be on whining about "imperialism" or us trying to be the world's policemen, which would eventually stop it.

              Most people I know *do* care, deeply, about these situations, but also know that the things required to resolve them - the real solution, not some idiot idealistic hippie crap about a world without hate - would just bring us a world of grief from the various "more sophisticated" people of the world, who would rather have candlelight vigils and benefit concerts to make themselves feel better, but accomplish nothing.

    4. Re:Global problem by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items.

      Obligatory Monty Python It actually illustrates the point pretty well -- the benefits are beside the point to many.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:Global problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Global problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.

      Actually NO he does not have the choice on whether or not to enforce the law.

      Remember the presidential oath?

      To uphold the US Constitution.

      And well, the constitution says the President will enforce the laws set forth by congress.

      The executive order thing is a bit of a gray area, and recent presidents have really been pushing what can actually be done by presidential decree.

      This is a big check on that overreach of power.

      But no, the President does not have the power to pick and choose which laws he/she likes and will enforce technically. If the president could do that, it would unbalance the checks and balances our federal govt is set up to operate within.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Global problem by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law.

      One's "prosecutorial discretion" is another's "selective enforcement"... Be careful, what you wish for (or defend).

      DACA could be considered an executive action to not enforce an immigration law.

      In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.

      Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Global problem by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Barry had a TERRIBLE record when it comes to the Constitution. He bombed american citizens without trial. He authorized the expansion of the NSA spying on US citizens. He gave exemptions to obmacare to his 'friends'. He gave a ton of money to Iran without Congress even knowing about it let alone approving it. The list goes on and on. He had a 'phone and a pen' and used it with little regards to the US Constitution.

    9. Re: Global problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And tax money isn't an allowance to citizens. It builds things everyone uses and services everyone uses, so pretending that it puts some people in front of others is overly simplistic at best or disingenuous at worst.

      Are you actually saying, that US citizens, with their tax dollars, are somehow obligated to take care of people outside our country with foreign aid before we spend it on ourselves??

      Seriously?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Global problem by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's never as simple as you state. Resources are one limit on enforcing the law. Congress passes a law saying such and such but only funds such, the President has to decide which such to enforce, or in this case, decide which illegal immigrants to prioritize. Then there can be questions such as is it more important to put resources into catching murderers or people sitting in their basement smoking a joint. You even see similar when a cop has the discretion to give out a speeding ticket or a warning, prosecutors deciding which crimes to prosecute and so on.
      One good example are the federal laws illegalizing pot, do you really want the President to vigorously prosecute such laws? Where I am, differently setup Federal system, pot is defacto legal due to the Provincial government (Constitutionally required to enforce laws) not enforcing the Federal (Constitutionally in charge of criminal law) laws. At that it has devolved to the municipalities to enforce the drug selling trade through business license costs and rules like "so far from a school". The cops also have stopped enforcing the laws against shooting up in public/private to a large degree in favour of saving lives. People are a lot more likely to phone 911 for an overdose when they aren't worried about being thrown in jail.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:Global problem by imgod2u · · Score: 1, Insightful

      See, here's the thing. People like to throw out "it's unconstitutional" like the arm-chair lawyers they are. Except of course, if it were, we have a 3rd branch of government to check the executive for this very purpose. And that 3rd branch took DACA into consideration and thought it to be perfectly within the Executive's powers.

      You may personally disagree and Congress-critters may personally disagree. But that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than, say, 8 Supreme court justices (half of which are conservative, originalists when it comes to the Constitution rather than "living document" types).

      It should be noted that when Obama tried to expand DACA, it was shot down and halted by the Judicial. Which seems to indicate the expansion was indeed executive over-reach.

      I'll quote the Supreme Court:

      "[W]e recognize that an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some
      extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch
      not to indict—a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of
      the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the
      Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”"

      A good source on the justification of the Executive (and btw, Deferred Action for immigration goes back to around 1972 and was exercised by just about every Administration since then) authority to pick-and-choose who to prosecute for action can be found:

      https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/s...

      Again. You may not personally agree. But stating "it's Unconstitutional" as if you were some legal authority with vast Constitutional knowledge is fairly ridiculous.

    12. Re:Global problem by munch117 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, bankroll select warlords, flood the place with guns and provide all the necessary items to shatter the local economy. That was the idea in Somalia, and unsurprisingly it blew up in our faces.

      What actually happens when the US imagines itself fixing things at gunpoint.

    13. Re:Global problem by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because he's a racist, a good deal of his supporters are racist, and he wants to remain popular among them. The end goal is to reduce the number of people of Latin American origin in this country. Not to restore a proper constitutional balance. That's only a happy coincidence.

      I don't think that the majority of folks in the US, nor the majority of Trump supporters have a problem with Latin or any other type of immigrants, as long as they are LEGAL immigrants.

      Don't forget, the ones in question here are here ILLEGALLY, and by law of the land as it currently stands, are to be deported.

      I agree that the immigration process needs to be updated and better regulated, and made to not be so $$$....however, that is no excuse not to enforce the currently laws.

      If we don't like the laws on the books, then change them.

      That is where the energy and push should go, not by defending people here illegally, who by definition have broken US immigrations laws and are in criminal violation.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Thank You, Mr. President! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Now get that wall built.

  3. TRUMP FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all those pesky immigrant children out of the job pool I can finally become a farm-hand! MAGA!

    1. Re: TRUMP FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Construction pay up 30% from Trumps policies, sounds like blue collar workers can actually make a living wage from frome their trades without being underminded by under the tanle illegal wages.

    2. Re: TRUMP FTW! by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are basically no more 'skilled trade' jobs near the Mexican border. They aren't actually very skilled, but they work cheap. Which isn't to say the average American 'skilled tradesman' is particularly skilled.

      Megra could fill their deportation pipelines easily by raiding construction sites. They don't, basically never, filing complaints is futile. Construction workers don't bother, for 20 years now.

      In Europe (Germany to be specific) the fines for employing someone without work papers is five figures/illegal, first offence. Plus constant checks for subsequent years. That's what we need, the wall is unnecessary.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. The Republicans own Congress by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and they'll get slaughtered in their primaries if they come to DACA's defense. It's the same problem they had with Obamacare but worse since in that case they could at least try to repeal it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The Republicans own Congress by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even more so: to save the ACA, Republicans can simply do nothing (and they are). To save DACA, they must by means of legislation affirmatively extend it or make it permanent. Not happening.

    2. Re:The Republicans own Congress by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I thought the problem with Obamacare was too many Republicans worried that the will lose the next election because so many of their constituents will lose their healthcare or have costs rocket up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:The Republicans own Congress by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, this Congress seems capable of doing nothing even though the GoP has control of both houses.

      I hear ya...I had thought that the HPA or the Shush Act that would take suppressors off the NFA list and make them easier to attain (without long ATF paperwork and $200 tax stamp) and use by now.

      But no...damned republicans can't seem to get shit done even with majority in both houses.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:The Republicans own Congress by computational+super · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, what I see are the most gutless of the gutless politicians moaning about how much they'd "really like to save this program and really don't support the president in this" while actually not doing any of the things that are within their power to actually save it so they can try to appeal to both sides simultaneously. In other words, politics as usual. At least Trump has been honest.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  5. Blame it on "Owe"Bama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pesky pen and phone isn't exactly the same as actually passing a law, eh?

    And we won't even talk about the blatant constitutional issues around a pResident implementing a policy that ignores established law.

  6. Is DACA a law or a regulation? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It sounds like DACA was just a regulatory statement from the previous head of the executive branch. If so, it seems the current president can kill it, and is being extra-nice by at least offering a grace period.

    If you want things with the force of law, well then, pass LAWS, right?

  7. Wrong (stereo)typing by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's because Trump is representative of the dying breed known as the 'Great White Male',

    You seem to be confused. The real "great white male", the real dying breed is the typical imperialist liberal who wants government control over everything...

    Trump represents the insurgence of the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of all races and backgrounds that are tired of inept government controlling everything, to ill ends for the people as the aristocrats on top get ever weather and more powerful.

    It's ironic that in the end, the biggest symbol of the dying "Great White Male" was really Obama... Trump is just trying to reverse some of that damage.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Wrong (stereo)typing by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you understand the point of separate governments between the state and federal if you think the position is "federal == bad && state == good". Hint, power corrupts which causes tyranny. People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out. The federal government on the other hand, by it's nature represents a diverse set of ideas and politics and compromise is very hard. That means federal tyranny is harder to undo.

      In addition, the role of the federal government should only deal with matters that deal with the states as a whole not the individual citizens. However, the state government will be closer to the citizens so should handle the more direct laws affecting the citizens.

      Your straw-man is a tired and overused trope.

    2. Re: Wrong (stereo)typing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out.

      That was the theory. In reality, since the late 1800s it became easier for trusts, megacorps, and billionaires to buy overwhelming influence in state governments. So in the Progressive era, people started looking to the feds to protect them from that corruption.

      But as the rich got richer, they just bought out the federal government too.

      In a society suffering from an L curve as severe as ours, the balance of state and federal power doesn't matter. It's all the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  8. "factual" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How funny you claim something is "factual" with no proof behind it - at this point people are pretty used to liberals simply lying about something that want to be true but is the opposite of what they say.

    In the end, the lies you tell and believe yourself hurt you more than anyone else...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. DACA isn't a law or even an executive order by SensitiveMale · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obama simply said "We're not going to prosecute these people." That's a huge Constitutional overreach.
    If Obama & the Democrats wanted to make this permanent, they would have made it a law. But Obama & Democrats didn't care enough to make it a law. Obama wanted the political win without having to expend political capital & the Democrats in Congress didn't want a public vote.

  10. Congress has had five years ... by thrillseeker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... since this was enacted by Administrative decree, and they sat on their ass about it the whole time. And now they want to "do something" to prove their relevance? Yeah ... no.

  11. Re:Seperation of powers by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is not allowed to create or write laws, and he must enforce them without choice, this means a president has no power at all. Why do people keep saying he is the most powerful man in the world then?

    Precisely!!

    I"m guessing from your post, you're not a US citizen....but yes, the President is supposed to be a somewhat weak office within the triumvirate that is the US Federal government (executive, legislative, judicial).

    The say he is the most powerful man in the word, in on respect, because his *is* commander in chief of all the US armed forces. This is to keep a civilian in charge of the military, and ensure that no one person keeps that power for too long.

    But yes, when you wield what is pretty much the most powerful armed forces i the world, you are often thought of as the most powerful person in the world.

    But in the US, the constitution was set up to ensure that ALL power was not in one place, to prevent a dictatorship, etc.

    Those old guys in powered wigs in the 1700's actually were pretty bright, and its sad so many today in the youth seem to be set on breaking down the very things that mad the US a great nation to date.

    As the saying goes..."Yeah, it sucks here, but it sucks a lot less than everywhere else in the world."

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  12. Re:Which amendment ? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DACA wasn't law. It was "policy".

    You know, the same way there is a law against speeding, and then a myriad of policy that goes into enforcing it. Where I live the law says speeding is exceeding the posted speed limit. In practice, the usual policy is not to stop anyone within 10km/h. And in practice the police only selectively enforce it -- high traffic areas, accident prone areas, some might point cynically at areas where the limit is set to low as 'revenue generating' areas. (I KNOW this is a real issue in some areas, im less convinced it is a significant motivation locally.) Meanwhile, in practice the police are mostly enforcing the cellphone ban, because that is what they have been directed to focus on that. So speed traps are rare right now, but cell phone traps are all over the place. They'll still bust you for speeding if you are obvious / dangerious / etc but that's not what they're looking for.

    DACA was kind of the same thing... basically it was policy directing immigration to be lenient in specific cases (like not enofrcing a speedlimit if you are 1km/h over -- even though the law says that is illegal) and directing officers not to bother even looking for those cases, and to focus on something else instead.

    THAT is well within the purview of the executive branch of government. Enforcment policy, and enforcement priorities is WELL within the purview of the government.

    Did DACA overstep the bounds of policy into creating new law? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, given that it has survived plenty of constitutional challenges already... e..g http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/op...

    Personally, think DACA should be ended in favor of real legislation that does what DACA does. However that is not what the Trump administration is doing. They're just ending the policy because they want to, not because of any constitutionality. And that's fine, that's the new administrations prerogative; I don't agree with it... but the Trump administration has the same authority to set policy as Obama did.

  13. Oh boy, where to start by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Grandparents point is valid and you're missing it. There's a powerful global apparatus for getting shit done, and it only seem to move when it benefits big business. Clean food and water aren't a local problem for people born in places that can't sustain the population. Which to be honest is most people. You benefit from them having these things though. You benefit from global stability. It's a lot cheaper to drop food than bombs.

    The left whines about imperialism because 99% of the time that's the only thing that moves the US. We prefer dropping bombs to food. Trump's biggest bump in numbers was when he dropped a $20 million dollar bomb on about 500 angry Afghani goat herders with Soviet Era weapons.

    We already know the things required to solve these problems. Food, education & birth control. Warmongers don't want to give out food and our religious nuts don't care much for education & birth control. Sure, it's only 20% of our populace, but they _vote_.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  14. Re: Seperation of powers by backslashdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The president is an executive, any executive has a right and responsibility to decide which enforcement should be prioritized and how to go about with that prioritization. There aren't enough resources to enforce every law, and so you need the executive (who is usually elected) to decide which ones should be prioritized. Otherwise you would have police chiefs that devote all the police to enforce speeding tickets while rape and murder go unsolved? Or do you put all your resources into solving murder cases while robberies and rape go unsolved? Or you can be like Sheriff Arpaio who didn't bother with serious violent crime but spent most of his resources trying to arrest illegal farm workers.

  15. Dumb move by Cook to admit it by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment.

    The DACA wasn't a law. It was just the Obama administration saying they wouldn't prosecute for violations of the actual law which mandates fines for hiring non-citizens without Federal work permits. The law is still there, and Cook has now admitted in public that his company is knowingly in violation of it. If he'd kept his mouth shut and only expressed an opinion, he could've feigned ignorance and kept the affected workers in Apple's payroll. But because he tried to publicly use their plight as leverage, he's now put himself into a position where Apple has to fire them or face fines and imprisonment.

  16. Re:Which amendment ? by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I think it is still the law of the land that if you are caught and found to be here illegally, then you are to be deported.

    Pretty simple actually.

    It's simple in a pithy statement on Slashdot. However actually implementing it is not.

    Congress did not want to bother figuring out implementation details, so Congress did what they have done for more than 80 years. Pass a law giving an extremely vague goal, and authorize the Executive branch to figure out the details.

  17. Congres: DO YOUR JOB! by jasontromm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically everybody is getting upset with Doland Trump for ending DACA, but that's not what he's doing. He's saying, "Congress, DO YOUR JOB!" Obama's executive action was unconstitutional. 'Repealing" DACA is completely legal.

    --
    "Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
  18. Re:Hands tied? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Neither party wants to stop illegals.

    Which is one of the things that got _Trump_ elected.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. Re:Seperation of powers by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're talking primarily Mexico right now...

    *facepalm*

    No, no we're not. We're talking about Mexico, all of Central America, and much of South America. And also Canada, India, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, and lots and lots of other countries.

    Again, pretending this issue fits on a bumper sticker is why we are in this mess and why Congress has spent decades abdicating its power to the Executive branch.

    And when exactly did our treaties change with them on deporting back to them?

    The treaties didn't. You being unaware of the relevant treaties did. And treaties are only one small aspect of the foreign relations involved in deporting people.

    For example, we are not allowed to leave someone "stateless". If we want to deport someone to Honduras, and Honduras says "Nuh uh! Not ours!", we are not allowed to deport them thanks to a lengthy list of treaties and agreements. Instead, we are required to give this person something functionally equivalent to a green card.

    As another example, we are not allowed to deport someone to a country where they will be shot by death squads. We have to treat them as refugees. We frequently ignore this because people pretend it's only about Mexico, resulting in us shipping people off to die.

  20. Re:Seperation of powers by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're assuming consistency on the people arguing about this.

    When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.

    Now that the Trump administration does not want to continue DACA, they are arguing that they have absolutely no power over immigration.

    That 180 degree flip-flop makes the issue pretty easily confused. Especially when it is the exact same people and supporters making both arguments.

    In reality, the power of the US President is in getting other people to do what he wants. Most commonly called "the bully pulpit". The US President has (one of the) largest megaphones in politics and international relations, and frequently can use that to get Congress and other countries to do what he wants.

    LBJ's large part in passing the Civil Rights Act was not because he was in Congress. It was because he could bully Congress into passing it.

  21. Re:Which amendment ? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With DACA, Obama was pretty much trying to create new law where none existed before.

    It was more of a "We're not going to enforce the law under this narrow set of circumstances, which we can justify because aside from anything else we don't have the power to fully enforce the law against everyone, and we have quite a bit of discretion."

    One note: part of the reason why there's no law explicitly protecting Dreamers is that Congress is completely dysfunctional, and while there was a majority (inside Congress and with the public in general) in favor of, say, what Marco Rubio was trying to do, there was no practical way to get it passed. There's talk of another attempt to do so, but tying it to something utterly poisonous to Democrats (say, Wall funding), which will again ensure it's sunk.

    Trump is but one horrible character in a cast of Washington's worst. If you want to get this fixed, it's probably time to lobby Congress, but don't expect anything to actually happen.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  22. Re:Seperation of powers by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Fuck'em...its not our problem.

    If their country sucks so badly....they should fix it there, rather than come here, get mad at our country's culture and protest, waving the flags of their country of origin at the damned rallies.

    Its a tough world, but it really isn't our problem.

    We have plenty of problems with our own true citizens we need to address and take care of first.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  23. Re:Which amendment ? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Not quite. Yes, the Executive Branch is the enforcer and executor of the Laws passed by Congress. Guidance (e.g Executive Orders, Regulations, etc) are required to be within the written (Statutory) laws.

    DACA was an Executive Order from Obama, however, it contradicts the written laws passed by Congress. DACA explicitly prevents portions of the government from doing their job according to the written law passed by Congress.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)