Supreme Court Saves DACA Dreamers

Em in Ohio

Em in Ohio

Senior Member
Location
OH HI OH
From the Washington Post (edited): The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected attempt to dismantle the program protecting undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, a reprieve for nearly 650,000 recipients known as “dreamers.”

I am impressed.
 

Aunt Bea said:
From what I've been reading it still does not do anything to fix the problem of amnesty or a path to citizenship for these people.

It's frustrating that we spend so much time and money on these issues and get so little in return from our elected representatives.
Click to expand...
Don't despair. A chance for change is just around the corner.
 
Now I'm confused. I thought the supreme court was supposed to rule on matters of law. Am I mistaken that the dreamer clause was done through Executive order and not through an act of congress and therefore can be undone by any future sitting president by Executive order? :unsure: If so, why is the supreme court even involved. This could very well become a double edged sword if, in the future, a president signs an executive order that nobody agree's with, he or she now has a legal ground to make his or her case.
 
squatting dog said:
Now I'm confused. I thought the supreme court was supposed to rule on matters of law. Am I mistaken that the dreamer clause was done through Executive order and not through an act of congress and therefore can be undone by any future sitting president by Executive order? :unsure: If so, why is the supreme court even involved. This could very well become a double edged sword if, in the future, a president signs an executive order that nobody agree's with, he or she now has a legal ground to make his or her case.
Click to expand...
This is why a lot of congress members are telling Chief Justice Roberts that he should resign and run for Congress. He seems to want to make laws instead of adjudicating them. This case probably should never have been heard by SCOTUS. Obama signed it into law using Executive Privilege and Trump cancelled it the same way. This was all completely legal. It seems that this Supreme Court is rewriting the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
After reading up a little on the ruling, I'm convinced that a presidential executive order can still do away with daca. (just have to jump through the hoops)
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. The wisdom’ of those decisions is none of our concern,'” the court said.
The court suggested it would allow the agency to cancel the partial amnesty for roughly 700,000 illegal immigrants if the agency went through the regulatory hoops that were ignored when Obama’s deputies created the program.

I think Justice Clarence Thomas stated it best when he wrote....
"Today the majority makes the mystifying determination that this rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law. On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case.
DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end".
 
Exactly. Roberts wants to make laws and to hell with the Constitution. This is the 4th time that he has done this. The first time is when he cited Obamacare as a tax. That was not his decision to make. He is rewriting the Constitution as a liberal. I don’t like it when anyone in power messes with the rule of law, or the Constitution.

The worse part of all of this is the fact that SCOTUS has free will as they have no term or age limits. To impeach a Justice would take a complete miracle.
 
These people came here as children and had no say in the matter. They became educated and employed. Some started families. I don't understand the rationale to 'send them back where they came from.' Many of them can't even speak the language of the 'home' country. Many families would be broken up by borders. I believe that they deserve an easy path to citizenship. Since they have already lived the 'American Dream,' why alienate them with an American nightmare?
 
Em in Ohio said:
These people came here as children and had no say in the matter. They became educated and employed. Some started families. I don't understand the rationale to 'send them back where they came from.' Many of them can't even speak the language of the 'home' country. Many families would be broken up by borders. I believe that they deserve an easy path to citizenship. Since they have already lived the 'American Dream,' why alienate them with an American nightmare?
Click to expand...

I strongly agree. Almost all of them are contributing members of society or still going to school. Their group contains doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, soldiers, etc. and they are committed to the US. For many of them this is the only home they have any conscious memory of.

It would be an unreasonable act of meanness and cruelty to dump them in countries for which they are ill-equipped to survive. I don't know why some people are so fervent about wanting them out of the US.
 
The DACA executive order should force the congress to take action and craft a law that resolves the issue. After all the hand wringing they will get it done if faced with the alternative.

Actually I think it’s a smart move, craft the legislation and don’t depend on an EO.
 
Butterfly said:
I strongly agree. Almost all of them are contributing members of society or still going to school. Their group contains doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, soldiers, etc. and they are committed to the US. For many of them this is the only home they have any conscious memory of.

It would be an unreasonable act of meanness and cruelty to dump them in countries for which they are ill-equipped to survive. I don't know why some people are so fervent about wanting them out of the US.
Click to expand...
You left out that many of them are also gang-bangers, have committed ID fraud, committed Social Security fraud, have been convicted of being a sexual predator, failed to pay federal taxes and a host of other crimes. They only lose their DACA status if they are caught and convicted of a felony. By allowing them to stay in the U.S., it encourages others to take the risks of illegally crossing our borders with their small children, which is a segue into my next item; that I never understood why people who crossed the border illegally with their small child would put those children at such a great risk. Now, we have to fix this somehow and anytime the government has to fix something, millions and millions of dollars are spent, not to mention the amount of time congress has to use when it could be working on more important issues. For example: How about coming together on a very comprehensive immigration bill that would be satisfying to all parties?

Since they have been educated and speak fluent English, why don't the DACA's go back home and come back in legally? Or do you believe that breaking federal laws are OK in some instances? I think we have about 700,000 DACA recipients who are living and working here in America. Some have very good jobs that could have been done by our legal Americans, including many people of color.

I'm not without feeling. I know that if DACA's were sent back home, it may mean leaving mom and dad behind, unless they went along. But, that's not my doing. As I have already stated, why would parents put their small children into this type of situation to begin with? Go back home and apply for an Immigrant VISA and I would gladly welcome anyone from any other nation, so long as they entered legally.
 
Remember we no longer have the rule of law, its now the rule of politics and lies. A representative form of government working for the good of the people…LOL
 
doat said:
Remember we no longer have the rule of law, its now the rule of politics and lies. A representative form of government working for the good of the people…LOL
Click to expand...
You got that 100% right. People have no idea what goes on in Washington. They really don't. It's unbelievable the amount of investigating that goes on. Everyone is investigating someone. I have never seen anything like it. It's no wonder that Georgetown University turns out so many lawyers, who become millionaires within a few years. And, the Lobbyists. OMG!! What a joke. That's the big thing in Washington now. Retiring members of Congress becoming Lobbyists. I think as of now, most members of Congress earn about $174,000 per year. A lobbyist can earn 4-5 times that much. The biggest lie in Congress is that they will tell you or anyone that they never take a dime from a Lobbyist. That's a bunch of malarkey. That's what it's all about.
 
Been There said:
You left out that many of them are also gang-bangers, have committed ID fraud, committed Social Security fraud, have been convicted of being a sexual predator, failed to pay federal taxes and a host of other crimes. They only lose their DACA status if they are caught and convicted of a felony. By allowing them to stay in the U.S., it encourages others to take the risks of illegally crossing our borders with their small children, which is a segue into my next item; that I never understood why people who crossed the border illegally with their small child would put those children at such a great risk. Now, we have to fix this somehow and anytime the government has to fix something, millions and millions of dollars are spent, not to mention the amount of time congress has to use when it could be working on more important issues. For example: How about coming together on a very comprehensive immigration bill that would be satisfying to all parties?

Since they have been educated and speak fluent English, why don't the DACA's go back home and come back in legally? Or do you believe that breaking federal laws are OK in some instances? I think we have about 700,000 DACA recipients who are living and working here in America. Some have very good jobs that could have been done by our legal Americans, including many people of color.

I'm not without feeling. I know that if DACA's were sent back home, it may mean leaving mom and dad behind, unless they went along. But, that's not my doing. As I have already stated, why would parents put their small children into this type of situation to begin with? Go back home and apply for an Immigrant VISA and I would gladly welcome anyone from any other nation, so long as they entered legally.
Click to expand...


I contest your statement that many of them are criminals in one way or another. Perhaps some are, but the vast majority are not. They, more than probably any other group of people, are under constant scrutiny to be sure they conform to the requirements of their having been granted deferred action. They must renew and requalify by filing a myriad of immigration forms and evidence every two years and undergo scrutiny by US immigration, and pay a fee of $495 (but I've read it is going up to $765) for the privilege. If they have committed the crimes you enumerate above, including social security fraud, being a sexual predator, etc., the government would catch that on renewal, if not before, and revoke their status.

Those who do not meet the standards to stay in the US have their deferral status revoked and are subject to deportation. Immigrants are not eligible for DACA if they’ve committed a felony or significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors of any kind. DACA recipients who commit crimes can be stripped of their protections and deported.

As to the assertions that allowing DACA recipients to remain encourages others to bring in undocumented children, DACA is very time bound. You have to have been in the US since 2007 and have entered before you were 16 years old. The immigration service is not taking new applications for DACA.
 
Butterfly said:
I contest your statement that many of them are criminals in one way or another. Perhaps some are, but the vast majority are not. They, more than probably any other group of people, are under constant scrutiny to be sure they conform to the requirements of their having been granted deferred action. They must renew and requalify by filing a myriad of immigration forms and evidence every two years and undergo scrutiny by US immigration, and pay a fee of $495 (but I've read it is going up to $765) for the privilege. If they have committed the crimes you enumerate above, including social security fraud, being a sexual predator, etc., the government would catch that on renewal, if not before, and revoke their status.

Those who do not meet the standards to stay in the US have their deferral status revoked and are subject to deportation. Immigrants are not eligible for DACA if they’ve committed a felony or significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors of any kind. DACA recipients who commit crimes can be stripped of their protections and deported.

As to the assertions that allowing DACA recipients to remain encourages others to bring in undocumented children, DACA is very time bound. You have to have been in the US since 2007 and have entered before you were 16 years old. The immigration service is not taking new applications for DACA.
Click to expand...
Thanks for addressing this - I postponed responding to 'been there' because that post raised my ire and my blood pressure.
 
Butterfly said:
I contest your statement that many of them are criminals in one way or another. Perhaps some are, but the vast majority are not. They, more than probably any other group of people, are under constant scrutiny to be sure they conform to the requirements of their having been granted deferred action. They must renew and requalify by filing a myriad of immigration forms and evidence every two years and undergo scrutiny by US immigration, and pay a fee of $495 (but I've read it is going up to $765) for the privilege. If they have committed the crimes you enumerate above, including social security fraud, being a sexual predator, etc., the government would catch that on renewal, if not before, and revoke their status.

Those who do not meet the standards to stay in the US have their deferral status revoked and are subject to deportation. Immigrants are not eligible for DACA if they’ve committed a felony or significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors of any kind. DACA recipients who commit crimes can be stripped of their protections and deported.

As to the assertions that allowing DACA recipients to remain encourages others to bring in undocumented children, DACA is very time bound. You have to have been in the US since 2007 and have entered before you were 16 years old. The immigration service is not taking new applications for DACA.
Click to expand...
Pros & Cons of DACA

One last thing about this: They will always be illegals. If they want to be a citizen, they will have to return to their homeland and apply for a green card and then come back. Otherwise, they will always be illegals. Legal Entry
 
Been There said:
Pros & Cons of DACA

One last thing about this: They will always be illegals. If they want to be a citizen, they will have to return to their homeland and apply for a green card and then come back. Otherwise, they will always be illegals. Legal Entry
Click to expand...

Not if congress or a future president grants them the right to apply for a green card or citizenship as a part of permanent resolution of the DACA program.

For most of the DACA recipients, they cannot return to their countries of origin and apply, because of the fact that their illegal entry and prolonged stay in the US would disqualify them from doing so successfully.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top