When did We, the People, decide to abandon our representative government and bring up every decision the government makes to a country-wide vote?
At the individual level it’s certainly a bad thing. As a matter of policy it’s more complex.
Except that DACA wasn’t enacted by our representative government (Congress), it was done by one president.
So you are claiming:
- The President of the United States is not part of our representative government, and thus,
- All of her/his decisions should be put to a national vote?
The President has enumerated powers. One of which is decidedly NOT “Congress won’t do it, so I will do it myself.”
Separation of Powers.
I wish they still taught Government/Civics in school. 
In answer to the OP: I hate to say “it depends,” but it depends. It depends on the person, it depends on other factors. I wouldn’t accept every Dreamer, and I wouldn’t turn away every Dreamer. Count that as a “yes” or a “no” however it is to be counted.
There are 6-year-olds who are doing that? Maybe young adults who were once 6-year-olds living illegally in the US, but not kids who are currently 6.
But that brings up another point, just FYI for folks posting in this thread: DACA isn’t about children, really. It’s about folks (older teens and young adults) trying to get into college or work. You have to be 15 years old even to apply under DACA (or, you had to be when DACA was in force).
We’re not really talking about young children here, but young adults up to about age 30 (when you look at all the qualifications you need to meet for DACA). That is not to say that young children are not deported, but if parents are here illegally with 6-year-olds, I don’t personally think there is much of an issue that if the parents are deported, the kids should go with them. I think it becomes more problematic as the kids get older, and a major issue when we’re talking about 16-year-olds or 25-year-olds who grew up here and are trying to finish their education and get jobs.
Thank you for clarifying that. I was just coming in here to do that, this isn’t like taking in an infant or young children. I am good friends with a DREAMer who is 31 now and of course he could stay with me. One of the happiest text messages I’ve ever gotten in my life was when he finally got an Illinois state ID after the DACA executive order.
The president is an executive and has the power to act as needed in the running of the government. The legislature can do something about that if they don’t like. Nowhere does the Constitution say the legislature should pretend to oppose executive orders which they intend to enact into law eventually anyway after they finally fumble the political football.
No. The executive is charged with, you know, faithfully executing the law. Not making it up with his pen and his phone.
Luckily, we have courts to deal with such disagreements. That internet person named D’Anconia says the President can’t do something isn’t exactly binding. If the courts have not determined that DACA was illegal, then DACA has not been determined to be illegal.
Its predecessor, DAPA, was enjoined from being enacted, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Can you explain how DACA is any different?
DACA has not been enjoined from being enacted.
That’s how it works. Your opinion might be that it violates the Constitution. But who cares about the opinion of random internet dude? If the courts haven’t said it’s illegal, then it’s not illegal. Maybe they will in the future, or maybe they won’t. Right now, it’s factually false to say that it’s illegal. That’s something that can only be determined by our judicial system.
First of all, President Obama himself said it was illegal (but he did it anyway).
The courts ruled against DAPA, how is DACA any different?
Won’t someone think of the children? Is that your argument?
It is not a “betrayal;” there was never a specifically formulated policy. Years (decades!) of government neglect allowed tens of millions if illegal immigrants into our country; by geographic proximity, the vast bulk of them are of Hispanic origin, giving opponents of a more rational border/immigration policy handy fodder for cries of “racism!”
Then one president came along and said, essentially, "Fine! If Congress won’t address the issue, then I will!" :whips out pen, signs Executive Order: “There! Issue dealt with!” Good for Barry O. No, seriously, I mean it: good on him for at least addressing the issue.
IMO, if the Legislative Branch abdicates its responsibility on an issue, it really ought not to bitch too loudly when the Executive Branch “steps up.” All the bitchin’ and moanin’ now is from Congressional a-holes (sadly, most of whom I identify with to some extent politically; but the times, they are a-changin’) who would not deal with the situation then, wanting to address it now that it’s not going their way.
Should DACA be repealed/amended? I think not. Show me petition against repealing DACA, and I’ll sign it. Put it to a vote, I’ll vote against repealing DACA.
But if DACA is repealed, I will not break the law of the land on “conscience;” after all, there are more than this issue that people hold near/dear to their heart(s); and if we all just up and decide to pick-and-choose what we’re going to do, what laws we’re going to follow (and which we are not) like a Legislative Buffet, we aren’t a country anymore.
And Civil War II will make the first look like a kindergarten picnic.
I don’t think that’s what he said (not that it matters for this disagreement – what matters is whether the courts have determined if it is illegal).
The courts haven’t ruled against DACA. That’s different. There are probably other differences that have lead to the courts not ruling against it, but that they haven’t ruled against it is the only important distinction for this disagreement.
No.
I find your argument by assertion that DACA is illegal because D’Anconia says it’s illegal less than convincing.
I would and I will.
But I don’t have a “conscience”.
No. I’m not in the position where I’m allowed to break the law for political reasons. But more practically I’m not bringing a stranger or even an acquaintance into my home with my children.
It’s not that I say it’s illegal, the Constitution prevents any president from enacting laws on his own.