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.
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 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.
When you read the statute, what limitations did you find in it?
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?
It’s not about kicking non-whites out of the country. It’s about adhering to the written law.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
I hope I’m remembering the sequence of events correctly.
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.
for historical reference -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It does not, as shown by polls that have been cited.
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.
for historical reference -
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.