A blaring siren’ for Democrats after ruling halts DACA
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Immigrants and advocates are urging Democrats and President Joe Biden to quickly act on legislation to protect young immigrants after a federal judge in Texas on Friday ruled illegal an Obama-era program that prevents the deportation of thousands of them brought into the U.S. as children.
Plaintiffs have vowed to appeal the decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program illegal, barring the government from approving any new applications, but leaving the program intact for existing recipients.
Calling the ruling a “blaring siren” for Democrats, United We Dream Executive Director Greisa Martinez Rosas said they would be solely to blame if legislative reform doesn’t happen.
“Until the president and Democrats in Congress deliver on citizenship, the lives of millions will remain on the line,” Martinez Rosas said.
Hanen ruled in favor of Texas and eight other conservative states that sued to halt DACA, which provides limited protections to about 650,000 people.
The program has faced a roller coaster of court challenges since former President Barack Obama instituted it in June 2012. The Trump administration announced it was ending the program in September 2017, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the administration hadn’t ended the program properly, keeping it alive once more.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a statement Friday evening, vowed that Democrats will continue to push for passage of the DREAM Act, and called on Republicans “to join us in respecting the will of the American people and the law, to ensure that Dreamers have a permanent path to citizenship.”
In Friday’s ruling, Hanen wrote that the states proved “the hardship that the continued operation of DACA has inflicted on them.”
He continued: “Furthermore, the government has no legitimate interest in the continuation of an illegally implemented program.”
Biden has already proposed legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. without authorization. He also ordered agencies to make efforts to preserve the program.
Supporters of DACA, including those who argued before Hanen to save it, have said a law passed by Congress is necessary to provide permanent relief. Hanen has said Congress must act if the U.S. wants to provide the protections in DACA to recipients commonly known as “Dreamers,” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act.
The House approved legislation in March creating a pathway toward citizenship for “Dreamers,” but the measure has stalled in the Senate. Immigration advocates hope to include a provision opening that citizenship doorway in sweeping budget legislation Democrats want to approve this year, but it’s unclear whether that language will survive.
Suing alongside Texas were Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia — states that all had Republican governors or state attorneys general.
They argued that Obama didn’t have the authority to create DACA because it circumvented Congress. The states also argued that the program drains their educational and healthcare resources.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, which defended the program on behalf of some DACA recipients, argued Obama did have the authority and that the states lacked the standing to sue because they had not suffered any harm due to the program.
Thomas Saenz, president of MALDEF, said Friday that plaintiffs will file an appeal.
“Today’s decision then once more emphasizes how critically important it is that the Congress step up to reflect the will of a supermajority of citizens and voters in this country. That will is to see DACA recipients and other young immigrants similarly situated receive legislative action that will grant them a pathway to permanence and citizenship in our country,” Saenz said.
Hanen rejected Texas’ request in 2018 to stop the program through a preliminary injunction. But in a foreshadowing of his latest ruling, he said he believed DACA as enacted was likely unconstitutional without congressional approval.
Hanen ruled in 2015 that Obama could not expand DACA protections or institute a program shielding their parents.
While DACA is often described as a program for young immigrants, many recipients have lived in the U.S. for a decade or longer after being brought into the country without permission or overstaying visas. The liberal Center for American Progress says roughly 254,000 children have at least one parent relying on DACA. Some recipients are grandparents.
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, a progressive organization, expressed disappointment at Friday’s ruling, saying in a statement that DACA has been a big success that has transformed many lives.
“Today makes absolutely clear: only a permanent legislative solution passed by Congress will eliminate the fear and uncertainty that DACA recipients have been forced to live with for years. We call on each and every elected office to do everything within their power so that DACA recipients and their families and communities can live free from fear, and continue to build their lives here,” Schulte said.
Tags
Who is online
379 visitors
Obama expressly stated that, legally, he could not do what he did.
Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."
What is the issue??? He admitted it and the courts agreed.
DACA is against the law.
Looks like Biden forgot that when he suspended most interior deportations.
DACA isn't the problem. DACA, itself, is very narrow in scope and addresses a very limited and specific circumstance.
The problem is that Democrats are trying to expand DACA to become a surrogate DREAMERS Act. That's not Constitutional. DACA can't be made into something more than it is without legislation.
Trump's threat to end DACA was a standard political ploy to force Congress to take up legislation. Congress failed to do anything and the courts prevented Trump from carrying out his threat. But that did not change the narrow scope of DACA. And expanding DACA beyond that narrow scope is still unconstitutional.
The Biden regime is disregarding many laws with its current border actions.
Any President has a lot of leeway concerning immigration. Managing the national borders isn't a states-rights issue so the President does have a little more authority to bypass Congress (which is the states-rights body of government).
Curbing the power of the President to act unilaterally on immigration does require Congress passing legislation. Using the courts to perform the function of Congress is not how the government is supposed to work.
The two party system has so broken our government that now Congress is trying to perform the function of the executive, Judiciary is trying to perform the function of the legislature, and the Presidency is trying to perform the function of the courts and legislature. The three branches of government aren't performing the duties they were intended to perform and that has weakened the checks and balances of the Constitution. IMO the dysfunction of our government was by deliberate design.
I think most Americans favor some kind of compassionate action toward people who were brought to this country as kids. However, it can't be some kind of infinite giveaway of status with no rules and no attempt to stem the tide of illegal migration. It also needs to be done with respect for our laws, including the Constitution.