DACA at the Supreme Court

[Safiel]

@Samm

@Safiel

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.

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.

That question is being considered in the other case working through the Federal Courts.

There is an argument to be made that it could be considered prosecutorial discretion. But there are also compelling arguments to be made that it goes to far to fall under ordinary prosecutorial discretion. It will be interesting to watch that other case proceed that will answer that quandary.

[tnt]

How was there deal different from what was just suggested?

[WuWei]

@Safiel

There is an argument to be made that it could be considered prosecutorial discretion.

Hard argument to make, since they aren’t prosecuting any of them.

[Axxowiz]

Obama had it right the first time when he said he wasn’t a king and it’s up to congress. You know it’s bad when SNL makes a skit slamming a democrat for bypassing congress.

[DougBH]

@tnt

How was there deal different from what was just suggested?

If I recall, the Democrats refused to consider an end to chain migration of families because it would return legal immigration levels back to those under Bill Clinton.

[Mountain_Soldier]

Why isn’t DAPA law?

[Mountain_Soldier]

Yep. DAPA and then DAFEDRA.

[Samm]

@Safiel

@Samm

@Safiel

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.

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.

That question is being considered in the other case working through the Federal Courts.

There is an argument to be made that it could be considered prosecutorial discretion. But there are also compelling arguments to be made that it goes to far to fall under ordinary prosecutorial discretion. It will be interesting to watch that other case proceed that will answer that quandary.

I agree, but the Executive Order did not spell it out as prosecutorial discretion and the regulation does not read that way. As issued and implemented it was effectively a change to the law. But yes, it will be interesting to see if the Court goes along with what on its face appears to violate the usurping of Legislative power. Howevr, if they do say Obama was within his rights to make the change, they pretty much have to say that Trump had the right to change it back.

[Samm]

@tnt

How was there deal different from what was just suggested?

No wall and no end to chain migration. That was the deal breaker.

[Samm]

@Mountain_Soldier

Why isn’t DAPA law?

Because Congress has never enacted it.