Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Judge strikes daca, sez it's unconstitutional


Recommended Posts

Here:

Quote

A federal judge in Texas on Friday invalidated an Obama-era initiative that provided deportation protections and work permits to some young immigrants, a ruling that places the program in jeopardy.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was unlawful because Congress never gave the executive branch the power to grant mass reprieves to immigrants who are in the U.S. without authorization.

Judge Hanen’s ruling barred the Biden administration from approving new DACA applications, but the judge stayed the immediate effect of his ruling on current DACA recipients.

The program has offered temporary protections to any immigrants in the country without legal authorization who were 30 years old or younger when the program was announced. DACA recipients must have arrived in the U.S. by 2007, before they turned 16, and satisfied other conditions, including being a student or graduate and having no significant criminal record.

The Obama administration created the program to protect these young immigrants, often referred to as Dreamers, after their namesake bill the Dream Act—which would have provided them a path to citizenship—failed to pass Congress in 2010.

See also here:

Quote

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that the DACA program was illegal because Congress never authorized it. Barack Obama created the program via executive action in 2012 after Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act.

“From this date forward, the United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from administering the DACA program,” Hanen wrote.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama exceeded his authority in creating DACA. Prior to creating the program he repeatedly acknowledged that he was constitutionally unable to unilaterally change immigration law. “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen,” he said during a 2010 interview with Univision. “I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws.”

He did not heed his own words.

In September 2017, President Trump ended DACA—when there were roughly 700,000 DACA recipients in the United States—and called on Congress to come up with a solution legislatively. Democrats didn’t attempt to work with Republicans on compromise legislation, and in June of last year, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to end the program, citing procedural issues, effectively reinstating the program.

Boy, it sure would be nice to see our political leaders get together and sort out an ordered and sensible and compassionate way forward.  Instead, we get, well, the above mess.  There are something like 700,000 DACA recipients who are now going to be in for a lot of sleepless nights.

This sort of hits close to home for me since we have a Spanish-speaking ward in our stake, many of whom are here illegally and/or are going to be affected by this ruling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

It is just being used as a political football and talking point. One side didn't want the other to get credit for making it into an actual law, so worked against it in that form. A certain president ordered against it so the Congress would do it's job and make a law, but they preferred to dither and blame.

And in the meantime the people whom it was meant to help get bupkis. They deserve better.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This sort of hits close to home for me since we have a Spanish-speaking ward in our stake, many of whom are here illegally and/or are going to be affected by this ruling.

Almost was off topic to the board, nice save. ;)

Not like we don’t have off topic threads…just teasing.

Quote

They deserve better.

Amen

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

This sort of hits close to home for me since we have a Spanish-speaking ward in our stake, many of whom are here illegally and/or are going to be affected by this ruling.

Almost was off topic to the board, nice save. ;)

Well, I could have added "What do you think Brother Brigham would have to say about this?" ;) 

Genuinely, though, I think this could be quite germane to many members of the Church.  My dad spent several years as president of a Spanish-speaking branch in Orem.  Virtually all of them were here illegally.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This hurts my heart (and makes me angry).

It's a very difficult issue, to be sure.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These are people who have jobs, pay taxes, and most of them have no memories of their "home" countries and don't even know anyone there.  What does it serve to deport them?  Who does it help?  

Part of the problem is that allowing them to stay incentivizes illegal entry, overstaying visas, and so on.

It could also be seen as unfair to those who seek to enter the country legally.

Also, there are all sorts of people who would love to come to the U.S., but have the means to come here illegally.

But then, kids who were brought here by their parents did not exactly have a say in the matter.  And they've often been here for a long time and consider themselves to be American.  And in many ways, they are.

Yeah, it's a big mess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The whole system is broken and instead of trying to fix it, the politicians are too busy arguing and grandstanding to do anything useful or fair

Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them

(Alma 11:20)

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The problem is not with the merits of DACA but with the fact the President lacked the authority to enact it.  The Dems now have the power. Will they do it?   No. 

I expect they will try and pass this through reconciliation with the infrastructure bill. It’s up to the Senate parliamentarian at this point.
 

But, it should have been a compromise years ago as proposed but the politicians played politics. (No surprise)

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I expect they will try and pass this through reconciliation with the infrastructure bill. It’s up to the Senate parliamentarian at this point.
 

But, it should have been a compromise years ago as proposed but the politicians played politics. (No surprise)

That isn't true.  The GOP opposed it. The Dems were afraid of voter backlash and didn't pass it either. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

That isn't true.  The GOP opposed it. The Dems were afraid of voter backlash and didn't pass it either. 

https://www.kqed.org/news/11881322/can-democrats-immigration-reform-plan-succeed-through-budget-reconciliation

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/562630-budget-reconciliation-is-clearest-path-for-immigration-reform

And I clearly remember an administration trying to compromise. More money and tighten immigration/secure border for legalizing DACA kids. It was rejected. 
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2017/10/09/241234/trump-ties-immigration-demands-to-daca-deal-including-border-wall/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-base-wants-immigration-compromise-11551312588

 

I remember a President not thinking it was legal to change immigration laws by executive order. 
https://youtu.be/E-ssumIZIbY


 

I remember Judge Hanan striking down the expanded DACA program which ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. 
https://cis.org/SCOTUS-United-States-v-Texas-Decision

 

I remember the Supreme Court ruled that an illegal executive order can not be reversed by executive order unless all procedures are followed.

https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/summary-of-scotus-decision-in-the-daca-cases/

 

 


 

 

B00DAF5E-B5C9-45D7-B7D9-06B848BBD7EB.jpeg
*I personally think the two sides need a compromise here but it will not happen. Especially with our current open border policy on the southern border. More border security for DACA. Without legislative action, it could be ruled unconstitutional. I wish we had a better legal immigration system. It’s a complete broken disaster because of entrenched politics.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment

This is a complicated issue. There are millions of people waiting in line to come to the USA legally. Now there are thousands coming across the border illegally, helped by drug cartels. We see now a rising cause of death from Fentanyl, a drug mainly from China smuggled to Mexico and across the border to the US. And of course we have DACA and the dreamers. What to do? Of course, no country can survive with an open border. The heath system, the school system could not cope. Not to mention the housing problem. I believe that Reagan had an amnesty in 1986. It was suppose to be the end all for the problem. And of course 30 something years later, the US is in the same boat again.

I can understand that for the church, Spanish speaking wards are great for tithing and regeneration. Likewise for the catholic church. And democrats see them as democrat voters, except the people who come from Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. But...no country can survive with open borders. There can be another amnesty and then, there can be another one in thirty years since the problem will continue. Such is the cycle.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh I think we can guess.  He was very much pro immigration, anti federal overreach, and I'd bet he'd hate our current immigration laws.

In his time, the USA was a growing nation. And many church members from Europe were being encouraged to come to Zion.  But...the USA is a different country today. We have no idea what he would think today. Of course, no church can be anti immigration and succeed. What would Jesus do would be the refrain. I would think that a well ordered immigration policy would be what he would support. And that is what happened in his time. Remember Ellis Island? It was very well ordered.

Edited by why me
Link to comment
Quote

Part of the problem is that allowing them to stay incentivizes illegal entry, overstaying visas, and so on.

It could also be seen as unfair to those who seek to enter the country legally.

I write my representatives and Senators every year to allow children brought here by parents to stay with citizenship EXCEPT not allowed to sponsor for citizenship their parents or other relatives, or the parents/relatives of any other person like them (so they just could trade around) during their lifetime.   That does make their citizenship (so maybe not citizenship but status that allows everything but that?)  different, but it also removes all of the parental personal incentive to send future children.  

The fact is that we educate these children and it is best that they can live in the light so they can be helpful to themselves and their nation rather than live in the fringes.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...