Allan
Thank you. That is not code.
DACA has a set of rules. Isn’t that codified. Or did some just make that ■■■■ up.
Allan
Do you really not know what “codified” means?
To put the law into code.
Allan
It was reported on NPR this morning that Trump said he’d work with Democrats to pass a law if DACA gets overturned. Yeah. I’ll believe it when I see it.
It isn’t a law. And what is the “code”?
I will bet dollars to dog nuts that this lie is being whispered in Trump’s ear by Stephen Miller.
Anyone that commits a crime is immediately dropped from the DACA program. The President should know this.
1 Like
From Trump’s own federal website:
#7 “Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.”
Criminals aren’t eligible for DACA status.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
There are likely 5 votes to uphold President Trump’s action.
In this case, I believe the Supreme Court should uphold the President’s decision.
The issue is NOT whether DACA is either beneficial or wrong. Not whether it should be kept or dismantled on its merits.
The issue is whether a single President’s act of prosecutorial discretion is binding on future Presidents. Clearly that is not true. Trump clearly should be able to undo a previous President’s act of prosecutorial discretion.
If a Democrat wins in 2020, he can reinstate the program. But he would be better put in trying to get Congress to enact DACA legislation, thus taking the decision away from the President for good.
I actually do support DACA (with the caveat that it comes with increased border security so that we don’t end up with FUTURE dreamers). But even though I support it to a degree on the merits, that is NOT the issue before the Supreme Court. The issue is what I stated above and like it or not, President Trump has the constitutional and lawful authority to end the program.
4 Likes
I’m sure most wont agree with me, but as far as I’m concerned, they should still be eligible.
I know of a child who immigrated to the US with her mother as a young child when her mother married a service member. She was under 4 or 5 at the time. She entered here on a permanent resident status. it was over 30 years ago when she moved here with her mom and her American step dad. She doesnt remember any of the language of her birth country. She grew up in an inner city and got involved with drugs and has a felony conviction. To me, she should still be allowed to get her citizenship. America is the only country that she has any memory of ever living in. I do not believe she should be subject to deportation.
I would feel the same way towards children who come here as children under age eight or so. If they were educated in American schools and English is their only language, they should not be subject to deportation as far as I am concerned.
You are correct. Laws are made by congress. However it is a program and it does have rules.
Allan
Only until the administration issues a new directive.
That of course is not the question. The question in front of SCOTUS is whether the program is constitutional or not.
If it is, it makes the DHS arguments moot.
The trumps admin wind down (6 months) was due to their thinking it was unconstitutional. 4 cons think it is, 4 libs think it is not, so once again it comes down to the CJ.
Allan
Actually, no.
There is a separate case working its way through the Federal Courts regarding the constitutionality of DACA, but that is NOT this case.
Docket for 18-587 (Supreme Court docket #18-587)
There are two other consolidated cases, but only linking the lead case.
Issues : (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Those are the two questions under consideration. While reference is made to the case regarding constitutionality, the constitutionality of DACA is NOT under review with this case.
Link to transcripts of today’s oral arguments.
1 Like
1 Like
Oh? Was that codified too?
No … he had Pelosi’s and Schumer’s deal early on and he walked away from it.
So do I under that caveat, but the point here is really whether Obama had the authority to implement it in the first place. After repeatedly stating publicly that it was unconstitutional for him to do so (which I agreed with) he went ahead and did it anyway. Article One is not the least bit vague about where the authority to make law lies. If DACA is to exist, it must be enacted by Congress.
Regulations must be consistent with the law that authorized them. DACA is not consistent wth the law. Obama attempted to circumvent that by Executive Order, but EOs must also be consistent with the law.
