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."

Comments

Global problem

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:Global problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:Global problem

[Brett Buck]

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.

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:Global problem

[mi]

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?

Re:Global problem

[YouGotTobeKidding]

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.

Re:Global problem

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Global problem

[munch117]

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.

Re:Global problem

[cayenne8]

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.

Is DACA a law or a regulation?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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?

Re:The Republicans own Congress

[computational super]

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.

Re:Seperation of powers

[cayenne8]

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."

Re:Which amendment ?

[vux984]

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.

Dumb move by Cook to admit it

[Solandri]

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.

Congres: DO YOUR JOB!

[jasontromm]

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.

Re:Which amendment ?

[TemporalBeing]

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.