Posted on 09/03/2017 6:32:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- No issue has torn President Donald J. Trump as much DACA -- that is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program enacted by the Obama administration in June 2012 to provide temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. The White House has said that it will issue a decision on DACA's future Tuesday.
As a candidate, Trump had promised his supporters that if elected, he would eliminate DACA on "day one." But after he came into office, the new president could not pull the trigger.
"But the DACA situation is a very, very -- it's a very difficult thing for me," Trump confessed to reporters in February. "Because, you know, I love these kids. I love kids. I have kids and grandkids. And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do."
Trump promised to "deal with DACA with heart."
While candidate Trump pushed for tough enforcement of federal immigration law, President Trump clearly was moved by the same sentiments that prompted Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to argue against rescinding a program that has allowed some 750,000 undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally and apply for work permits.
"Like the president, I've long advocated for tougher enforcement of our existing immigration laws," Hatch said in a statement. "But we also need a workable, permanent solution for individuals who entered our country unlawfully as children through no fault of their own and who have built their lives here."
"These young people are known as Dreamers," 43 Democratic Senators, including Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, wrote in a July 27 letter to Trump. "They came to the United States as children and are American in every way except for their immigration status. We have already invested in them by educating them in American schools. It makes no sense to squander their talents by deporting them to countries they barely remember."
The calendar and a group of pro-enforcement state attorneys general apparently have prodded Trump to make up his mind, rather than allow the program to continue indefinitely.
In 2014 the attorneys general sued to stop the expansion of DACA and another Obama mandate -- Deferred Action for American Parents, which provided legal status for 5 million undocumented immigrants who are related to DACA recipients. The attorneys general prevailed in federal courts and a 4-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld their complaint.
In June the leader for the anti-DAPA attorneys general, Ken Paxton of Texas, wrote a letter that informed U.S. Attorney General Jess Sessions his group would sue to end DACA if the administration did not rescind DACA by Sept. 5, 2017.
"This September 5 deadline is a political deadline, not a legal deadline," protested Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, in a statement. "It was completely manufactured by Texas Attorney General Paxton and other extremists within the White House and the Department of Justice, simply to box President Trump into a corner."
With Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court, Paxton and company are likely to succeed.
Even though he later signed an executive order, Obama understood that unilateral action was highly vulnerable to a legal challenge. In 2010 he was asked why he had not passed legislation to legalize undocumented immigrants. Obama responded, "I am president. I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen."
After Obama signed DACA, he maintained that it was legal because it allowed the feds to exercise prosecutorial discretion by not pursuing undocumented immigrants who came here as children.
Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Brownsville, Texas, however, overturned DACA because, he wrote, "Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits" -- such as work permits.
In December 2010 congressional Democrats tried to pass the DREAM Act, which would have enacted a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants, but the measure garnered 55 votes -- five short of the 60 votes needed to bring it to a floor vote. At the time there were 56 Democrats in the Senate and two independents who caucused with Democrats who voted for the measure. Four Democrats opposed the DREAM Act. Two Republicans supported it. Three Republicans and one Democrat did not cast a vote.
One door closed, another opened. In 2012, Obama authorized DACA, which mimicked provisions of the DREAM Act, unilaterally -- a method that by its very nature left the door open for a successor to end the program unilaterally.
If Trump rescinds DACA, those who applied for temporary legal status likely would feel more vulnerable because they registered with the federal government, say advocates for undocumented immigrants. These organizations have been joined by leaders in tech and big business.
Mark Krikorian of the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies noted that the DREAM Act offered protections for "genuinely sympathetic cases of people who came as infants and toddlers." But, he added, "the DREAM Act itself was never intended to pass on its own -- it was a marketing gimmick to make the case for amnestying all 12 million illegals."
Since Trump first failed to rescind DACA, the smart money has been on Trump reaching across the aisle and passing a measure that protects so-called Dreamers -- who did not choose to come to the country illegally -- but also bolsters enforcement, perhaps by funding the wall.
On Friday House Speaker Paul Ryan told local radio station WCLO he did not think Trump should rescind DACA, as "this is something that Congress has to fix." A "heartened" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi invited Ryan to meet with Democrats to discuss the issue.
But when McClatchy News reported last week that the Trump White House was considering a compromise bill that included Dreamer protections and more law enforcement, Pelosi was incensed. As if to bolster Krikorian's point, she tweeted, "It is reprehensible to treat children as bargaining chips. America's DREAMers are not negotiable. "
He needs to remember the promises he made to his base that put him in the WH.
I think he will exempt those now in the system but block future ones.
I guess it’s not enough the media makes up stories based on “inside sources” and “high government officials” - now they’re able to write stories based on how they imagine Trump “feels” about something.
What a waste of words.
Conflicted!? No, just keep your promise.
The President is in a good position here:
1. Rescind it. This kicks the ball over to Congress.
2. If the RINOs and Dems then want legislation on this issue (as they do and will) veto it unless it is not only very strict on the “Dreamer” issue but also includes full funding for The Wall.
Consider the source.
A #neverTrump “conservative”
Remember promises, YES!
Just as important: Remember THE LAW!
FOLLOW THE LAW
Give them an inch and they’ll steal a mile.
Unless Pres. Trump tweets he is “conflicted”
I don’t believe it.
Now, I am going to enjoy a doughnut.
 |
| You can help: |
| Right-click this image and save it. Post it on your Facebook, Twitter and other social media accounts. Send a copy to your Senators and Reps right now and whenever you communicate with them. When you get fundraising solicitations, include a copy in your reply. Send copies to your friends and family and ask them to do likewise. Spread it everywhere. |
I'd be OK with that IF the WALL worked and the Supremes reviewed and reinterpreted the current faulty view of the 14th that allows anchor babies.
He is not “conflicted.” he is still negotiating.
He should have taken the easy way out on day 1. Stop issuing new exemptions and let the old ones just expire. He could have done it with no fanfare and got on with business. Now he’s under fire from both sides.
Give some of them a legal route/option to make themselves legal and get rid of the chaff...
“He should have taken the easy way out on day 1”
I agree. I think Trump waits on wedge issues as part of his strategy. He thinks it gives the impression that is a well thought out decision. What it actually does is give the opposition time to mobilize and paint him as a monster if he goes the “wrong” way.
I just wonder how a baby who came from Columbia and is 18 now would survive going back to the country of birth. I’m against illegal immigration but is this person at fault?
There is a legal option. Leave and apply from wherever they are to come back in legally.
I would have much preferred that after his installment he had just kept his mouth shut, put his head down, and went to work. He could have accomplished so much more.
The discussion is not about “fault”, rather it’s about bald abrogation of law and process through illegal means to validate an illegal action. It’s a Swiss cheese of invented loopholes that have never been placed into the legislative process for consideration. Rather the appeal has always been to emotion while searching for a false sense of equity.
IOW, illogic piled upon illogic by an administration based upon a lie, leading to those without proper documents excused by one who closed any and all documents that could resolve all doubt on his origin. I hope you’re beginning to sense the irony stabbing liberty in the heart.
I agree completely. I hope that the President doesn't lose his nerve and cave to the liberals on this issue, or allow touchy-feely sentimentalism to stand in the way of law enforcement.
To those who say "It isn't the children's fault that their parents came here illegally," the best response is always this: if you steal a car and give it to your son, who had nothing to do with the theft and didn't even know about it, he doesn't get to keep the stolen car just because he wasn't himself the perpetrator. The same applies to children who are brought to the US illegally by their parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.