Just to agree with **Okrahoma **for a change, the official line on opposition to DACA isn’t that it is a bad idea, it is that it is outside presidential powers (and IANAL so I’m not going to pretend to know the strength of argument on each side).
Now, I know that many of the opponents to DACA think that those people should be deported, but at least the official line (and what Trump appears to be proposing) is not unreasonable. Except for the idea that Congress could actually act on it in 6 months, but again not really Trump’s problem.
Totally chickenshit. Trump wants to suck up to his base, who will only hear “Trump ends DACA!” And he’s willing to screw the Republican Party into the ground to do it. The Congressional roster of furious debate is already crammed full, he has been told that. The two chances of getting this done and done reasonably and humanely are slim and none. He is going to let Congress worry about the Hispanic vote, he doesn’t have to!
Now thousands of young people will spend the next six months worrying about their very lives. Those who arrived from Mexico have a lot to worry about, those who arrived from Central America have much, much more to fear. Fear they do not deserve and cannot effect. Cruel punishment for a crime they did not commit.
Are all the “bad hombres” gone? Can we reasonably expect that these people will be welcomed home with open arms? Or will they be regarded as “gringos”, privileged Americans? Who don’t speak the language and have no idea about how to “fit in”?
Even if they new policy is the same as the old one in every jot and tittle, he can still use the talking point that Obama was improperly acting like an Imperial God-King Grand High Panjandrum while he himself was properly acting like a humble servant of The People[tm].
Your rule of thumb only works because you know the rules for plural possessives already: the reason the -s is voiced in “Congress’s” is the spelling, not the other way around! /tangent
Vox’s “The Weeds” podcast did an episode on DACA last Friday that laid out some of the historical context for DACA quite well. iTunes link: Deferred action podcasting - Explain It to Me - Apple Podcasts
In brief, we got to this situation in large part because border enforcement became stricter back in the 90s, changing illegal immigration from something working-age men did for short amounts of time into a permanent one-way trip for entire families. This created a class, the “Dreamers,” that are American in all but legal status, and deporting them is, most of us would say, not really a viable solution.
The knotty problem is that they’re a smallish (though especially troubling) symptom of a much larger policy problem. DACA and DAPA were Band-Aids, not solutions.
Look, if Trump/Congress can legislatively pass a change in the rules that just replicates DACA, then
they will have accomplished something Obama didn’t, and deserve credit, and
I will eat a MAGA hat. No, I won’t really eat it, but I’ll buy one (and give it away).
It is preferable to deal with this legislatively, if only for the certainty that provides. So more power to them if they can do it. I just don’t see how this Congress/President will come up with something humane that will pass both houses and get signed right now. Trump has zero interest in making policy except as it benefits him politically, and a compromise involving Democratic votes in Congress hurts him with the last deplorables that still like him. And Ryan/McConnell have to make a similar political calculation. It won’t happen – I’ll stake a MAGA hat on it.
I’m fine with appeals to change policy based on principled stances about constitutional interpretation. It’s important to stand up for important principles against the gradual erosion or slippery slope.
But:
These kinds of issues are inherently contestable. We have a Supreme Court for a reason, and it overrules or significantly amends its own precedents fairly often. One person’s “overreach” will be another’s reasonable executive action. These judgements gain validity through consensus, not an appeal to abstract ideals. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
We shouldn’t let principled arguments serve as window dressing for bad policy. If Trump seriously thought DACA (or something broadly similar) is good policy, just executed unconstitutionally, he’d be speaking and behaving very differently than he is now.
Pragmatically: if a 6-month deadline is unrealistic, the President shouldn’t impose it. We’re not playing “bluff the other narcissist” with NK here; we’re communicating life-changing policies to nearly a million Americans. Many leftish people have used “hostage-taking” as a metaphor, and I think that’s pretty fair.
Let’s hope there is some serious pushback from the business community. The economy is already at full employment. Also, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of a company having to re verify all of their workforce hired after the implementation of DACA.
Here’s my question, well, probably more of a comment
Everyone’s been talking about the 6 month delay in terminating DACA. Even after JBo’s speech they were taking about a 6 month delay.
But Sessions never said anything about a 6 month delay. I listened to the speech and checked the transcript.
Nothing about a 6 month delay. Just that he was going to begin an orderly wind down
He did say something about an orderly wind down that would give Congress time to act “if they choose”. No amount of time was mentioned and the order is being rescinded immediately.
Want to bet they start deportations before the 6 months is up?
The business community will follow, not lead, in any fight here. For example, Tim Cook of Apple tweeted something over the weekend about how 250 of his “coworkers” (!) would be affected, but his company’s willingness to do business in China doesn’t give me much confidence in Apple’s willingness to stand up for principle against a government that’s determined to oppose humanitarian values.
Apple could and would replace those 250 Dreamers at the drop of a hat. They’re not taking a stand because replacing those workers would be hard/expensive; they’re taking a stand because this policy change is deeply unpopular with their customers.
Totally agree! Just don’t count on these fair-weather friends to remain on our side in a pinch, is all I was saying. They need to sense the popular political pressure – or they’ll just adapt to the new circumstances.
(As long as they’re on our side, they’re powerful allies, potentially – they’re just not reliable.)
Another stupid Republican issue. They claim the problem was Obama acting by executive order, something he’s entitled to do, and they could put an end to it by passing legislation if they don’t like it, but they won’t because they don’t believe in it. Trump is being a coward and trying to put this on congress, and congress has no intention of changing this policy, if anything they’ll codify current policy.
Q: “Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students?”
Obama: "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
Am I wrong to think that, if a DACA bill does pass, it would pass by a fairly large margin? If the Republicans follow the Hastert Rule, it follows that any bill put to vote will have a majority of Republican votes. And I imagine most Democrats would support it.
Unless Republicans bundle it with other conservative issues like the Border Wall to make the bill palatable to Republicans… OK, so maybe I just answered my own question…
The point is that DACA and other Obama immigration EOs were a blatant executive overreach. Even according to Obama himself. So the overreach is removed now, as it should be. The decision is in Congress’s hands, as it should always have been.
They need to sense the popular political pressure – or they’ll just adapt to the new circumstances.