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."
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.
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/
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.
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?
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???
Unfortunately, even the people who drafted DACA admit that Trump's in a bind here because the order is unconstitutional.
10 state sttorneys general gave Trump a September 5 deadline for ending DACA or they would sue to get it overturned. This same group had DAPA (the parental version) thrown out due to unconstitutionality and the argument against DACA is essentially identical. They would win in court, barring a reversal by the Supreme Court. The SC split 4-4 on DAPA, so the Appeals Court 2-1 against is the law of the land and no one expects that Gorsuch would find DACA constitutional.
Any dispassionate look at DACA sees that it's plainly unconstitutional. Unlike orders that deferred or gave a low priority to enforcement of immigration laws, DACA actually grants (temporary) legal status with no legal basis. Any attempt to find otherwise is really ends-oriented. Plenty of that sort of thing on both sides - but this would be really bad precedent.
The truly sad thing is that the "Dreamers" have supporters on both sides of the aisle - Republicans are pretty sympathetic to their plight as well. But, like anything, politics gets in the way - Democrats want a "clean" Dreamer bill while Republicans want something in return (either wall funding or mandatory e-Verify). Neither side is budging much at the moment (there are a few bipartisan bills out there, but each of the main conferences are waiting).
I don't tend to expect much from Trump (other than crazy uncle-style Tweeting at all hours) but even he seems to want to do something for the Dreamers. Hopefully, a deal can get done soon.
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.........
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?
... 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.
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.
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.
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??
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.........
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'
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.
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.
That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.
The big hole is you are forgetting that Congress can pass a law granting the Executive branch power to do something.
To take this discussion away to a less hot-button-at-the-moment topic, the entire system for handling classified information, and most* of the punishments for breaking those rules, were created by the Executive branch. The Executive branch could do this because Congress looked at the issue in 1947, threw up their hands and said "Hey Executive branch! You do it".
*Espionage has an explicit law. The various forms of mishandling classified information do not explicitly have a law, since "mishandling" is defined by the Executive branch. An EO could say "you have to hold classified with a velvet glove on Tuesdays", and that could be the basis for mishandling. And the most common punishment is entirely meted out by the Executive branch - removal of your clearance, no trial required.
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.
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.
You are right. But it is even worse than that, actually. Because of vagueness of the Constitution, certain wide-ranging and life-altering laws have passed without proper consent of the governed.
And I'm not just talking about Obamacare... Things like military draft, "civil rights", drug prohibitions, "war on poverty", "assault weapons" ban should all have been done (or not done) as Constitutional Amendments — not mere federal laws.
Alcohol-prohibition may have been a bad idea, but we all decided to attempt it — and then reversed the decision. There is no reason, ban on marijuana and other drugs shouldn't have been implemented (or not) through the same mechanism.
The minute details of enforcement/implementation could've been left to Congress, but the general intent — like do we want mandatory conscription at all, or should we limit the breadth of the Second Amendment — should've been decided by the entire nation.
As things stand, Congress supplants the nation the same way President supplants Congress... The decision-making needs to be pushed back a notch.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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."
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
And now we're finally at the real motivation. Despite all the high minded rhetoric about separation of powers and executive overreach, here's the reason.
I eagerly await your demand that no Irish flags be flown on St. Patrick's day. Somehow, I don't think it will be coming.
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???