# Silly Question on DACA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2017, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549 "2017-09-05T13:59:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/21 "2017-09-06T17:06:18Z")
I think it’s easier than that, I think he wants his wall. And he’s thinks he can get it this way. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/22 "2017-09-06T17:11:53Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > I think it’s easier than that, I think he wants his wall. And he’s thinks he can get it this way. If so, I hope Dems give it to him, to be honest. The wall will probably never be built even if the money is appropriated. Too much difficulty with private property and environmental constraints. But even if they build the thing, it’s not really hurting anyone. It will be some construction jobs for a while, and then when Trump leaves office they won’t finish it, or may even tear it down. In the end, it’s really just a waste of money. Could be worse. If we can trade that for legislative DACA, it’s an easy choice. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/23 "2017-09-06T20:29:53Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Funny, when Trump passed the travel ban the Republican line was that the president had virtually godlike powers over immigration policy. > … The president has such powers because Congress explicitly granted the president (whoever that may be) powers to prevent people or groups of people from immigrating. It is not so explicitly clear that the president has the authority to implement a program that permits certain or groups of people to immigrate. In fact the [Immigration and Nationality Act](https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html) states that " In general.-An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible." That would seem to preclude those who entered illegally from being admitted (getting a visa for residency). There are exceptions, waivers, and points of appeal but the general rule is those in the US without being properly admitted cannot get status unless the law changes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/24 "2017-09-07T03:57:40Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Funny, when Trump passed the travel ban the Republican line was that the president had virtually godlike powers over immigration policy. When you read the statute, what limitations did you find in it? > [@](#): > > Once again, the Dems are off-message and not countering this total BS about presidential overreach. I’m not sure I understand. In the line above, you’re referring to the President creating rules for the issuance of visas, pursuant to an explicit grant of power from Congress. Now you seem to be talking about something else – perhaps the Obama decision to defer deportation of certain individuals? You know that the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, another Obama executive order, was challenged in court, enjoined from implementation, and the Supreme Court did not overturn that injunction, yes? > [@](#): > > Because it’s not about the Constitution or the Rule of Law, it’s about kicking non-whites out of the country. It’s not about kicking non-whites out of the country. It’s about adhering to the written law. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/25 "2017-09-07T12:48:32Z")
Stepping aside from the idea of DACA, which makes total sense to me, I think there are decent questions about how it was implemented. The initial version of the DACA policy was drafted as a memorandum to the Department of Homeland Security explaining how the Government should use its prosecutorial discretion such that if children brought to this country illegally aren’t in any other trouble, they should be allowed to stay. But the memo goes further and sets up a process for vetting these kids and young adults, having them sign up and undergo background checks, at which point they are basically put on a list so that they are able to work and so on without being harassed by immigration officials. When I think of prosecutorial discretion, I think of it as being a legitimate exercise of executive power in deciding not to bother with certain types of crimes. For example, let’s say a locality has an obsolete anti-smut law on the books. If police and prosecutors simply don’t want to waste their time enforcing that law, and focus their resources elsewhere, in a general sense I think that’s okay. Everyone has to make priorities. But if the police and prosecutors started investigating adult book stores for the content of their shelves, with certain standards for those book stores that they won’t bother with and those that they will crack down on, it just seems to me that this is no longer a matter of how to best allocate limited resources. It is spending substantial effort to selectively interpret a law in a way that the law doesn’t provide for. So I think there are legitimate questions about the form of the DACA policy, even though I think it is an outstanding policy. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/26 "2017-09-07T13:03:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not about kicking non-whites out of the country. It’s about adhering to the written law. That’s a matter of opinion. You’ll point to the law, I assume, but the _motivations behind prioritizing how the law is enforced_ could very well be based on matters of race. And frankly, if you’ve been paying any attention at all to this administration, the idea that this is meant to play to racial motivations has to be considered as highly plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/27 "2017-09-07T14:28:47Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That’s a matter of opinion. You’ll point to the law, I assume, but the _motivations behind prioritizing how the law is enforced_ could very well be based on matters of race. > > And frankly, if you’ve been paying any attention at all to this administration, the idea that this is meant to play to racial motivations has to be considered as highly plausible. Was the post to which I replied also a matter of opinion? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/28 "2017-09-07T14:34:36Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Funny, when Trump passed the travel ban the Republican line was that the president had virtually godlike powers over immigration policy. The “travel ban” was about the issuing of visas to enter the US, not about which non-citizens get to stay in the US beyond their legally allowed time. While I think both of Trump’s actions are bad public policy, they are really quite different in terms of presidential authority. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/29 "2017-09-07T15:19:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know that the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, another Obama executive order, was challenged in court, enjoined from implementation, and the Supreme Court did not overturn that injunction, yes? I think part of the motivation for that enjoin-ment (is that a word?) is because the DOJ lawyers lied to the judge trying the case. Also, it did go to SCOTUS, but after Scalia died they were at a 4-4 impasse. I would have loved to see that case actually decided. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/30 "2017-09-07T16:57:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think part of the motivation for that enjoin-ment (is that a word?) is because the DOJ lawyers lied to the judge trying the case. Can you expand on this claim a bit? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/31 "2017-09-07T17:08:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you expand on this claim a bit? There was a thread where this is discussed a little more than a year ago. [Post #79 here:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19372546&postcount=79) > [@The President … shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/79): > > Some interesting developments ahead of an expected opinion later this month. > > The original judge at the district level has just [issued sanctions](http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/texas_order_20160519.pdf) against the DOJ based on the fact that DOJ lawyers apparently lied during proceedings of this case. The [DOJ has responded](http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/DOJ_TEXAS_20160531.pdf) here. > > The gist is that during the proceedings DOJ lawyers said that they were not in fact already engaging in the challenged conduct [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)]. But the DOJ lawyers knew that this was not true and there were in fact deferrals already approved. Somewhere to the tune of 100K incidents. > … I hope I’m remembering the sequence of events correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/32 "2017-09-07T18:38:51Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > 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. I think the portion of DACA that is encapsulated in the “setting enforcement priorities”, meaning the decision to order ICE not to go after these people, was constitutional under the executive’s power to manage/direct broad prosecutorial resources. Obama’s decision to issue work permits to them probably goes against the plain letter of the law and the President doesn’t really have the constitutional power to issue something that is a legislative construct (a work permit) in a manner that contravenes the underlying legislation. If the President can just interpret laws to mean whatever he wants, he is functionally limitless in his power. That obviously isn’t the case, nor desirable. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/33 "2017-09-08T04:36:16Z")
for historical reference - > [@ishamael69](#): > > 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? > [@Ravenman](#): > > 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](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. Did you read the OP? The premise there was that everyone seems to be urging the President not to end DACA, and that DACA enjoys so much bi-partisan support. If that were true, DACA would have had no problem being passed by Congress. Then or now. I question the assumption that “everyone” is urging the President not to end DACA. I also question where such an assumption might have come from. Simply being “popular” is not the same as “everyone urging”. “Everyone” (legislators and constituents) are not urging the President not to end DACA. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/34 "2017-09-08T05:31:43Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Thus, the Trump move can be interpreted one of two ways; > > 1. It is an attempt to force Congress to act > 2. 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? Seeing that the President can also propose legislation, and he has (again) failed to do so makes 1 even less likely than already mentioned. If he really wanted something for the DREAMers, he could have had his team draft something for Congress to debate, pass, modify, and/or reject. That he hasn’t says something. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/35 "2017-09-08T20:44:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Did you read the OP? The premise there was that everyone seems to be urging the President not to end DACA, and that DACA enjoys so much bi-partisan support. If that were true, DACA would have had no problem being passed by Congress. Then or now. The _concept_ of allowing Dreamers to become citizens, or at least not be deported, enjoys broad support. The _mechanics_ of it, not so much. Indeed, partisanship is now such that I am not wholly convinced legislation could be passed on any contentious issue even if most of Congress agreed on the mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/36 "2017-09-08T22:40:43Z")
We should adopt **doorhinge** ’s logic on other issues. If a border wall were a good idea; it would exist already. If cutting taxes were a good idea; the cuts would already be law. If conservative jurists belonged on the Supreme Court; they would already be there. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/37 "2017-09-09T01:13:58Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > 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.) Well, I said in another thread that if the Legislative branch fails to do its job, then it shouldn’t bitch and moan too loudly if the Executive branch steps up and does something. Look, I’m overall in favor of a more rational border/immigration policy; we simply cannot economically sustain “open borders.” BUT! Uprooting God-knows-how-many kids and college students and working stiffs and shoving them over the border just because their Mom and Dad brought them here decades ago is NOT a solution. It is, in fact, morally reprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/38 "2017-09-11T17:54:20Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The _concept_ of allowing Dreamers to become citizens, or at least not be deported, enjoys broad support. The _mechanics_ of it, not so much. > > Indeed, partisanship is now such that I am not wholly convinced legislation could be passed on any contentious issue even if most of Congress agreed on the mechanics. I believe that the concept of dreamers getting in line with all of the other applicants does enjoy broad support. The dreamers haven’t done anything that should allow them to move them to the top of list. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/39 "2017-09-11T17:58:49Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I believe that the concept of dreamers getting in line with all of the other applicants does enjoy broad support. It does not, as shown by polls that have been cited. > [@](#): > > The dreamers haven’t done anything that should allow them to move them to the top of list. In your opinion. But in most people’s opinions, having been brought to this country as children, and having been raised as Americans such that the United States is basically the only country they know, means that they should not be treated the same as older people who decided to violate our immigration laws. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549/40 "2017-09-11T18:14:47Z")
for historical reference - > [@ishamael69](#): > > 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? > [@Ravenman](#): > > We should adopt **doorhinge** ’s logic on other issues. > > If a border wall were a good idea; it would exist already. > > If cutting taxes were a good idea; the cuts would already be law. > > If conservative jurists belonged on the Supreme Court; they would already be there. And you would right for the wrong reasons. 🙂 When people say “everyone” seems to be urging the president not to end it (DACA) that simply isn’t true. Everyone isn’t urging the President not to end it. Assuming/claiming that “everyone” wants something done when that is obviously not the case leads to frustration for the person making/believing the assumption/claim. How can this bill (DACA) not pass when “everyone” is in favor of it? The answer is simple. “Everyone” is NOT in favor of seeing this bill/law/EO become/remain the law of the land. -Obama screwed up by failing to arrange a consensus in Congress. -Obama screwed up by issuing an EO that could easily be overturned by any future President. -The dreamers screwed up by believing Obama. -The protestors in the street do not have the impact on legislation that constituents have by calling/emailing/snail mailing/visiting their elected representatives. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-question-on-daca/795549.md?page=3)