So I’ve been reading about DACA and everyone seems to be urging the president not to end it. If that is the case, and it is so important and enjoys so much bi-partisan support, why not just pass it as a law before he ends it?
Any immigration legislation has a very tough time getting through Congress, because neither side of the issue has been willing to compromise on any significant proposal.
For example, in 2013, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a large immigration bill with 68 votes, including 14 Republicans. However, the Republican-controlled House totally rejected the Senate’s “comprehensive” approach, in favor of trying to move small bills that were basically each on one part of immigration policy. The Senate backers rejected that approach out of fears that since the Senate bill addressed topics A-Z, passing the House bill on topic A would leave issues B-Z unaddressed. The concern was that if one immigration-related bill passed, the House would say, “We passed an immigration bill, now on to more important things.”
From the House perspective, significant numbers of Republicans didn’t want some of the proposals included in the comprehensive Senate bill, so they preferred their approach of dealing with issues one-by-one.
With DACA, there’s the possibility that the dynamics have changed. It’s possible that the Senate would support a bill to continue DACA with a substantial bipartisan vote. However, many House Republicans would probably choke on an “amnesty” bill, as they see it, without addressing things like the border wall or other enforcement measures.
Just pass a law? If only it were that simple. Suppose, as has been suggested, that some Republicans want to tack on funding for “the wall” to the legislation? Suppose the Democrats want to tack on some provision that the GOP can’t swallow?
Ever heard the phrase: The devil is in the details?
In W’s memoirs he is pretty scathing about Congress’s inaction on immigration. He basically calls them all, Dems and 'Pubs, two faced.
It’s not a silly question, and that’s what will probably have to happen. The problem is that immigration legislation is an extremely tough sell in Congress to begin with (which is the reason Obama acted via EO in the first place). There is also no guarantee that, if such legislation ended up enshrining a DACA-like system into law, Trump wouldn’t simply veto it.
Trump has basically given DACA a six-month clock. If Congress fails to do anything in that time, he gets to blame a lot of immigrants’ misery on them. If they do manage to do something, and he doesn’t like it, he gets to yell “MURICA FIRST!!!11” and rile up his base.
The third option, possible but unlikely, is that Congress votes overwhelmingly in favor of making DACA a law, or even granting DACA beneficiaries a path to citizenship, and overrides a veto. I don’t think Trump would accept a continuation of DACA as it stands. But who knows. The guy is fickle.
And in that case, Trump can still claim that he tried to tighten up the borders, but that the mean old Congress prevented him.
Since this is a political question, let’s move it to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I read today that Paul Ryan is blaming Obama for Trump’s cancellation of DACA.
The reasoning is this: ‘OK, it’s well-intentioned. But President Obama created DACA as an executive order, and it’s the job of Congress to make laws. So President Trump has or end it!’ (Yeah, ‘Congress’s job’. That would be the Congress that refused to do anything positive for the country if the President liked it.)
Not a silly question, there is much about DACA I don’t understand and this thread may help to enlighten me. First of all did President Obama act unconstitutionally in setting up DACA? Doesn’t Congress have responsibility for all such legislation? And if Sessions is right about its unconstitutionality did Trump have any choice but to close it down and give Congress 6 months to come up with something that is constitutional.
NB I have no position on DACA as I lack the knowledge to form a sound opinion. But if you held a gun to my head I’d say I can’t see any problem with the idea at all. It seems a humane and reasonable thing to do.
Ryan voted against the DREAM Act, which would have provided protections and a path to citizenship through legislation for people protected by DACA. DACA was at least in part because of Congress refusing to address the issue. Pardon me if I am skeptical that he is sincere.
There are challenges pending in courts on this question.
As I pointed out in another thread there is also the Hastert rule to consider. If a majority of Republicans do not favor the bill, it will not even make it to the House floor for a vote even if the majority of Representatives do favor the bill.
Obama’s argument as I understand it was that as president he has authority over the priorities of his administration’s enforcement of the laws. Since ICE can’t arrest and deport all 16 million undocumented immigrants some people are going to be allowed to stay, and Obama was just saying we’ll deport these people last (ie never). Its the same discretion that allows me to drive 42 in a 40 mile an hour zone and not be too worried about getting a ticket.
Do they still call it “The Hastert Rule”? Given, you know…
Bear in mind we’re at the tail end of two two-term Presidents - that’s 16 years - trying and failing to get solid immigration reform passed. That’s one President, from each party, trying to work with Congresses controlled by one or both parties, and consistently failing. Both Bush 2.0 and Obama wanted this fixed, and Congress just would not do it. Bush’s frustration on the subject is well documented, of course, and eventually we’ll read the same story in Obama’s memoirs.
The reasons why are myriad and complicated but the long and short of it is that getting Congress to do something is a failed strategy. You’d think this issue was a no brainer, but apparently not.
Thus, the Trump move can be interpreted one of two ways;
- It is an attempt to force Congress to act
- It’s a bone thrown to his racist supporters, and to increase the size and power of ICE.
Given Trump’s track record in terms of his charity, understanding of the political process, and intellectual curiosity, possibility 1 seems quite remote. It also sort of defies strategic sense; if his plan was NOT to hurt immigrants but to force Congress to act, why not give a timeline of when he plans to do this? “I’ll stop this in six months, so get your asses in gear” would make sense if you’re trying to pressure Congress.
Congress will punt on DACA because they first, can’t agree what should be in it, and second, are afraid that anything they pass will result in criticism from Thrump, his base and most of the rest of the American public, most of whom are happy with DACA as it stood. Why change it?
Congress is actually pleading with Thrump to tell them what must be in the DACA legislation. That doesn’t sound like a group who have a clue how to handle anything except the routine and necessary, like debt ceiling extension. Wait…can they? Tax reform…will they? ACA repeal and replacement…nope, no joy there. Face it, they will be criticized for either doing something or not doing it. Thrump, too. Democrats, too, unless they find a way to agree that it is more important to gain congressional power than to argue about how badly HRC treated BS, and vice versa. Even then, once in power, Thrump would, if not usurped, veto anything rational they pass.
Face it, we are well and truly fucked.
(underline added)
Who is this “everyone” you are referring to?
If DACA actually enjoyed so much bi-partisan support, or “everyone” actually was urging the President not to end it, DACA, or a new and improved DACA, would be on the President’s desk within a week. Since that is obviously not the case, you might want to question why you believe that DACA has such wide spread support. Who, or what, provided you with evidence that “everyone” seems to support DACA?
Obama could not get such a bill passed. That’s why he chose to subvert the authority of the legislature by issuing this particular EO. Congress could not get such a bill passed, then or now. The voters did not elect a majority of pro-DACA legislators. It does appear to me that the lame stream media has been championing the idea that DACA is extremely popular.
Funny, when Trump passed the travel ban the Republican line was that the president had virtually godlike powers over immigration policy.
Once again, the Dems are off-message and not countering this total BS about presidential overreach. And I’ve been watching the right-leaning talking heads and a lot of them are talking about how these kids are all gang members who tricked the Democrats and well, if they DO have jobs it’s because they stole them from real Americans. A lot of blather about REAL Americans coming first.
Nothing’s going to get passed and all these young adults will be deported. In watching the news, I get the impression that they could get enough votes to pass it a clean stand-alone bill tomorrow- so it will never be allowed to come to a vote until they poison it. Because it’s not about the Constitution or the Rule of Law, it’s about kicking non-whites out of the country.
As a factual matter, the general idea behind DACA does seem to have widespread support among the public. A recent poll found that 58% of Americans support Dreamers being able to stay and get citizenship, and another 18% think that Dreamers should be able to stay and get permanent residency. Only 15% want Dreamers to be deported.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/poll-trump-deporting-daca-dreamers-242343
Your logic that if DACA were popular it would be law already is a fallacy. Virtually everyone in the U.S. supports Congress passing budgets on time, but it never happens. Popularity alone does not guarantee congressional action.
I with the lawsuits from states would proceed so the issue could be ruled on with finality.