Should the Supreme Court rule the Obama-era DACA program illegal?Hundreds of students from Garfield High arrive at the Gold Line station in Little Tokyo to take part in a rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times) Supreme Court conservative justices sounded ready to agree with the Trump administration’s position that the Obama-era DACA program is illegal
By DAVID G. SAVAGE | STAFF WRITER NOV. 12, 2019 2:13 PM WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices sounded skeptical Tuesday about the legality of an Obama-era policy that has allowed 700,000 young immigrants to live and work in the United States, suggesting they may clear the way for President Trump to end the program. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose vote is likely to be the deciding one, appeared to agree with Trump’s claim that Obama’s policy of protecting the so-called Dreamers was legally questionable, undercutting the main legal argument used by lower courts and supporters of the program. Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, urged the justices to toss out rulings from three federal judges and allow the president to “wind down” the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. He called DACA a “temporary stop-gap measure that could be rescinded at any time.” He ran into steady criticism from the court’s four liberal justices. But Roberts and the four other conservatives leaned in his favor. At several points, Roberts suggested that the Trump administration may be on firm ground in thinking DACA was illegal. He noted that a similar, more far-reaching Obama immigration order — protecting as many as 4 million immigrants who were parents of some U.S. citizens or lawful residents — had been blocked by the 5th Circuit and then the Supreme Court in a tie vote. “Do you need more than that?” Roberts asked. “Can’t he just say that’s the basis on which I’m making this decision?” At issue Tuesday was an unusual test of presidential power as well as a legal struggle over the fate of hundreds of thousands of young adults who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children. More than one-fourth of them live in California. For two years, Trump has insisted he had to shut down DACA on the grounds that Obama exceeded his authority by shielding Dreamers from deportation and offering them the right to work. Trump lost repeatedly before federal judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. They said Trump was operating on the “flawed premise” that Obama’s policy was illegal, and that the administration had failed to provide any other reasonable rationale for ending the program. Three years ago, Roberts and the court’s conservatives blocked a similar Obama immigration order, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA. Because Justice Antonin Scalia had died a few months earlier, the high court deadlocked 4 to 4 and issued no opinion. But that affirmed the lower court’s ruling blocking Obama’s policy. Roberts’ comments Tuesday suggest conservatives view the DACA program similarly. Ted Olson, who was solicitor general under President George W. Bush, argued for the Dreamers and said ending the program would trigger “abrupt and substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individuals,” including their families, employers, communities and the armed forces. He was joined by California Solicitor Gen. Michael J. Mongan, who said Trump’s proposed repeal was “founded on the incorrect legal premise that DACA is unlawful.” Roberts objected. He said Trump’s lawyers had reason to at least doubt the legality of the program. “Is it enough to say, ‘Look, I’ve got a decision from the 5th Circuit that tells me this is illegal, [and] it’s been affirmed by the Supreme Court by an equally divided vote?’” No, Mongan replied. “It’s not enough to sustain the decision, your honor. Given the nature of this program and the interests at stake, we don’t think that any genuine statement of legal doubt or litigation risk would be adequate.” At another point, the chief justice said Obama’s policy was aimed more at offering work permits, not protection from deportation. “The whole thing was about work permits and these other benefits. Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport the people. So the deferred prosecution or deferred deportation, that’s not what the focus of this policy was,” he told Olson. His comments echoed conservative critics who said Obama’s non-enforcement policy violated the immigration laws because it offered legal work status to people who were in the country illegally. During Tuesday’s argument, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan sounded ready to affirm the rulings by three judges who had blocked the repeal. They said the repeal should be reconsidered by the Trump administration because Elaine Duke, an acting Secretary of Homeland Security, wrote a repeal memo that suggested DACA was illegal, based on the advice of then U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions. “We don’t know how she would respond if there were a clear recognition that there was nothing illegal about DACA,” Ginsburg said. Though some justices questioned whether Trump’s termination of the DACA program was even something that the courts could or should review, Roberts disagreed with Francisco’s claim that Trump’s repeal was off limits to judicial review. The case heard Tuesday is Department of Homeland Security vs. Regents of the University of California. Obama announced the special protection for the Dreamers in 2012, and the policy has gained steadily in popularity. Opinion polls in the last year have found that more than three-fourths of those surveyed — both Republicans and Democrats — support granting legal status to the Dreamers. Trump has said that a court victory that would allow him to end DACA might put pressure on Congress to pass legislation protecting Dreamers. But efforts to find a legislative compromise failed last year, chiefly because Trump and Republicans demanded additional concessions in return for protecting the young immigrants.
14 Comments
Jamilet Coronel
11/16/2019 11:46:05 pm
The Supreme Court should not rule the DACA program illegal. The Conservative judges in the Supreme Court are split on the legality of DACA. President Trump solely wants to take DACA out because it is illegal but fails to elaborate plausible reasoning on why the program should come to an end. I believe that terminating this program would destroy the lives of thousands of young immigrants. President Trump neglects to see that the ending of this program would result in the deportation of young, capable immigrants. Many of these young immigrants, or DREAMers, see America as their home. They were brought here at a very young age and in circumstances that were out of their control. One of the many reasons parents brought their children in their escape from their country was to provide them with a new life. The DACA program gave them a new opportunity that if the parents were ever to get deported back, their child would remain safe. They would be able to continue going to school and get a work permit which would let the child be able to sustain themselves if their parents were deported. Sending these DREAMers back to their birthplace would only result in chaos because they are not familiar with the country they were born in. They spent the majority of their growing up in the United States. They have no recollection of their time when they were emigrating to the US. Young individuals are what makes this country prosper, their ideas and actions make this country thrive, and, as stated by John F. Kennedy, this country is a nation of immigrants.
Reply
Simon Robles
11/17/2019 11:33:52 am
The ruling of DACA being considered legal was a well thought out decision. DACA should not have received any backlash in the first place, but president Trump wanted to end it by proving it is illegal. Thanks to Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it is still considered legal. I personally support DACA's cause because of my elders and how I wouldn't be here without them, even though DACA was not around back then. I can relate to these children and the fear they are facing. Their lives are in the hands of the Supreme Court.
Reply
Gloria Kim
11/17/2019 12:23:55 pm
I believe that DACA should continue as a program of helping illegal immigrants, or dreamers, settle in the US. One reason is to benefit the economy. About 690,000 workers are dreamers. If they were to be deported, the US government would lose billions of dollars in federal taxes and have a drastic drop in economic growth. Another reason is its impact on education. With the help of DACA, numerous dreamers have been inspired to excel in academics. They are able to reach high levels of education and become productive and beneficial members of society. Furthermore, ending DACA would decline university populations, as many dreamers have enrolled with the help of the program. In addition, keeping DACA will avoid cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment). Many dreamers have come to the US when they were a toddler. Deporting them back to their country, which is now very foreign to them, is inhumane. Dreamers have already adjusted and grown accustomed to their jobs and communities. If they get deported, they would have to adjust to a foreign area surrounded by unfamiliar people and relearn everything. It is unfair for individuals to be punished for their parents’ decisions. Another reason is the labor market. Generations of dreamers are expanding the labor force and decreasing the rate of unemployment. Without immigrants, companies will go out of business because of the lack of employees. The final reason is the increase in wages. Because of DACA, an average person’s hourly wages have gone up by 40%. Evidently, DACA is also benefiting financially unstable American families by increasing wages. Therefore, ending the DACA program would be more harmful than helpful to America.
Reply
Axel Abrica
11/17/2019 12:49:25 pm
Regarding President Donald Trump’s plans to terminate former President Barack Obama’s DACA immigration policy for undocumented youths, the program should understandably be removed based on the powers delegated to the executive branch by the Constitution. Our founding fathers of America wrote the Constitution with the intent of creating a system of government where power is divided between the executive branch and the legislative branch, with aid from the judicial branch to settle federal disputes, in an effort to prevent any type of tyrannical rule from any one person. DACA was created through an executive order by Obama in 2012 without the approval of Congress, with Obama himself stating that DACA was a temporary solution for the status of undocumented youths while recognizing Congress’ lack of support through their denial of the DREAM Act that would have granted legal status to young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and pursued education. However, based on the Constitution, only Congress is delegated the power to determine our nation’s immigration rules, with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution stating that Congress has the power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” DACA provided a temporary solution that prevented the government from deporting young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, while also providing them with work permits; however, the ability to provide amnesty and government benefits is not within the president’s constitutional authority. To support this, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) - which is essentially the DACA program for the parents of American citizens - on the same basis of unconstitutionality, leading to the Supreme Court upholding the decision in 2016. Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, Donald Trump’s decision to terminate DACA is logical as it is based on the same arguments of unconstitutionality that led to the termination of DAPA. Despite the possible destruction of many of these “Dreamers’” lives, Trump’s termination of the temporarily DACA through Congress is completely justified, and more constitutional than Obama’s issuance of the immigration policy.
Reply
Andrew Islas
11/17/2019 01:46:01 pm
The Supreme Court should rule the DACA program as illegal. The main issue of the program is the fact that our 44th President Barrack Obama used executive orders to determine who could or could not stay in the country. He completely ignored the need for congress's approval,and therefore acted as a dictator. It is congress who has the power to determine such laws, as said in the U.S constitution (Article 1,Section 8). Another argument could be that many of the dreamers who will eventually have children will use the medical and financial benefits of their citizenship. As illegal immigrants,dreamers do not have direct access to public assistance that are granted to citizens of the United States. However, if they do have children, Dreamers could have indirect access to programs like medicare and financial aid due to their children's citizenship. Furthermore, once the children become 18 they can grant full citizenship to their parents, giving them access to all of they benefits they previously didn't have. DACA is giving access to illegal immigrants, going against the constitution, and showcasing a dictatorship. If we want this country to prosper we must stick our morals and our constitution, if we don't the type of future that will lay upon us will be one of chaos.
Reply
Ethan Williams
11/17/2019 02:55:20 pm
President Donald Trump's plan to end the DACA program issued by former president Barack Obama should pass the supreme court because the plan does not infringe upon applicant's rights. The DACA program was an executive order from the Obama administration that would give a work permit and protection from deportation to applicants. Applicants must have arrived in the United States illegally prior to their sixteenth birthday and under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. This was not an illegal action for the Obama administration to take; however, Donald Trump could also legally stop the program without help from Congress as well as revoke existing work permits given by the organization. A common argument in favor of the program is that the applicants are protected by the fourteenth amendment. While these immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the United States and provided equal protection of the law, DACA applicants are not given amnesty and therefore not citizens of the United states. As they are not citizens, the rights to work in the United States and to live in the country are not inalienable to the applicants, which allows president Trump to terminate their work permits. Overall, because there is no law or constitutional rule preventing Donald Trump from refusing renewal of DACA applications or rescinding the executive order issued by former president Barack Obama, the sitting president could end the program.
Reply
Michelle Tran
11/17/2019 04:39:34 pm
DACA is a policy launched by President Barack Obama to protect undocumented young immigrants and be able to receive a renewable period of time to live in America and become eligible to work and continue their education. President Donald Trump and the Congress has been wanting to rule DACA illegal due to the believed relayed message of encouraging immigration. Nevertheless, I believe that DACA should be allowed to continue because of the benefits of the policy towards the economy. This policy has allowed 700,000 young immigrants to work which boosted the US economy and helped Dreamers/young immigrants. By ending this program it would be letting down the many changed lives for the better. Justice and fairness should be served to everyone alike including immigrants. This can be supported by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which is used to support the regulation of justice and protecting the fairness in the administration in the courts. Critics of DACA believes that increasing immigrants would steal jobs from native-born people. In contrast, research has shown that allowing undocumented immigrants into the workforce would actually enhance the economic growth. DACA has also made an impact in education by a part of colleges and universities population. By making DACA illegal and deporting back immigrants it would decrease the populations of colleges and universities because of the many immigrants enrolled in the schools. All in all, by making DACA illegal would actually be a disadvantage to America but be beneficial as a whole to America if permitted to continue.
Reply
Jaylen Gomez
11/17/2019 07:52:12 pm
In reference to Trump’s desire of repealing the immigration policy made by the Obama administration, the U.S Supreme Court should rule the DACA program legal because removing DACA could tremendously affect the nation’s economy. There are about 700,000 immigrants who have been under the Dream Act since 2012. 700,000 immigrants who have careers in medicine or are nurses assisting in clinics in diverse communities, or immigrants who have careers in education and are teaching K-12. Some Dreamers however, are in the process of getting their college degrees and if this repeal were put into action, the removal of Daca Recipients would affect the class size of courses, and some courses will be dropped. Many of these dreamers own homes, apartments, or businesses, the economy will be affected drastically if this program were removed. Dreamers’ earned wages contribute immensely towards tax revenue, and if they get deported after this program gets ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, the amount of time for President Trump and Republicans to decide what DACA should be replaced with will be questionable. The repeal issued by the Trump administration should be reviewed by them, since their claim ,made by Department of Homeland Security’s secretary Elaine Duke, was that DACA was illegal, however their argument is made to be fallacious because of the fact that there is no particular harm that the DACA program is doing. Therefore, the Supreme Court Justices had no reason to review this case.
Reply
Ivan Binet
11/17/2019 09:02:05 pm
I believe Donald J. Trump is right to call out DACA in terms of its legality, since it was passed through executive order more than six years ago. The huge task of creating DACA should not have been able to be passed through just an executive order because it gives the executive branch too much power. No one man should be able to allow so many people to legally live in a country without going through congress. Since DACA was a temporary fix, it makes sense that the politicians come up with a more permanent fix. If people really believe in DACA, they should just get it passed as a law through congress. If DACA were to continue like this, it may send the wrong message that bringing kids to the U.S. is likely to get them in a program similar to DACA in the future, so it is likely that people seeking to live in the U.S. ,ignore the fact that it is a crime to do so. The U.S. should end DACA and allow all members to take a citizenship test, so that there is not a large backlash from immigrants and their supporters. If they make it clear that this was a one time exception and become even more stringent with immigrants, they will be able to show that breaking the laws is no longer acceptable. The Supreme Court should rule DACA unconstitutional because of how big it was, and how it never even went through congress. If DACA rules it legal there is most definitely some loose interpretations among the justices of the Supreme Court, who follow their ideals instead of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the president allowed so much power. If the president is able to pass an executive order that the next president can not repeal, then Andrew Jackson is gonna be rolling in his grave.
Reply
Robert Fuller
11/17/2019 09:07:49 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court should rule that the DACA program can stay in place for several reasons, including but not limited to, the amount of workers leaving the country if the program gets shut down, the hit to the education system, and what will happen to people that get thrown out of the country. First, the DACA program has 700,000 applicants in the program, with most going to college or are currently working and supporting themselves. The DACA members make up a decent amount of workers in the southern California area and overall help the economy. These people are hard working members of society and the President want to throw them all out, because of a decision that the people did not even make themselves. Next, the hit the education system would result in a shortage of teachers in areas close to the border. If DACA was to get shut down, 20,000 teachers would have to leave the country and leave many public schools with a shortage of teachers. Finally, when we send all of these people back to Mexico, what will they do? Most of the people in DACA have never been back to Mexico since they left when they were a child. They likely know no family or friends in Mexico, where will they go, where will they get a job and restart their lives? The truth is we don't know and it's inhumane to do this to hard working people. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme court should continue to allow the DACA program exist and let the members of the program stay in the United States.
Reply
jocelyn estes
11/17/2019 11:31:20 pm
In reference to President Trump’s plan to end DACA because he believes it to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court should not rule the program illegal. President Trump has only cited that DACA should be disbanded because it is unconstitutional, stating “ ...the program is unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court.” Instead of justifying as to why former President Barack Obama's DACA immigration policy is illegal, Trump has instead given his opinion with no information to support it. If President Trump were to repeal DACA, he would likely be violating the Administrative Procedure Act which requires that a person or organization prove that its actions/policies are not based on personal impulses. Since Trump has not yet given a justifiable reason as to why DACA is illegal, DACA must remain in place until there is a true reason to terminate it. Next, Trump alone can not repeal DACA as it is an executive order. Only Congress has the power to overturn an executive order, because of the system of checks and balances in place. If President Trump were to repeal DACA himself, it would be a gross misuse of presidential power. Finally, DACA has allowed nearly 700,000 immigrants to stay and make a life for themselves in the U.S. A staggering 97% of DACA recipients are either working or in school, with not a single one having a felony charge. If DACA ended the U.S. gross domestic product would be brought down by an estimated $433 billion over the following ten years. Revoking DACA should not be permitted not only because it would harm the nation’s economy, but due to the fact that rescinding it without cause would not be appropriate. Thus, DACA’s illegality should only be questioned once there is a valid reason to question it.
Reply
Matthew Dick
11/17/2019 11:36:37 pm
In regards to DACA’s legality, the Supreme Court should rule the program made by President Barack Obama illegal. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is a U.S. immigration policy that allows children that were brought to the U.S. illegally to apply for and if approved, receive a two year period of deferred action from deportation. In addition, DACA allows those who are approved to become eligible for a work permit. Barack Obama announced the creation of this policy on June 15, 2012 where the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began to accept applications two months later. Obama passed DACA through the use of an executive order, which does not require the approval of Congress, as a solution for the status of undocumented children. Obama also passed DACA after the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act to provide a temporary program to defer deportation for eligible individuals who do not prove to be a risk to the national security or public safety. With the intent of creating a government with divided powers among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, the U.S. Constitution was written by our founding fathers. A system of checks and balances was instituted in the Constitution as insurance to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. According to the Constitution, Congress, consisting of the House of Representative and the Senate, must pass a bill or law by majority vote where it will then be sent to the President for a signature. In the case of DACA, this process was never followed as the policy was never approved by Congress but rather passed directly by the president. DACA provides amnesty and government benefits to those illegally brought to the U.S. as a child which is not a power given to the presidency by the Constitution. The Constitution also does not explicitly state the president’s power of executive orders. Based upon this, Obama’s use of an executive order to pass DACA was unconstitutional. Therefore, the Supreme Court should rule DACA illegal as the process of which it was passed was unconstitutional.
Reply
Lisa Sim :/
11/18/2019 12:00:58 am
The DACA Program established by former President Barack Obama should be declared illegal by the Supreme Court, based upon principles of constitutionality and the checks and balances imposed by our founding fathers. The DACA program was instituted through executive action despite Congress’s rejection of the legislation at hand. This was a transparent circumvention of immigration laws and an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch. Within Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, it is stated that the president “...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” In translation, it is the Executive’s sole and main responsibility to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, whereas it is specifically listed that Congress has the ability to establish rules of immigration and naturalization (Article 1). The immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the power to enforce DACA. Alongside this, Trump’s rescinding of the DACA program is analogous to the 1850’s Know-Nothing Party, whose supporters held a strong anti-immigrant sentiment due to the economic threat posed against native born Americans. Similarly, most DACA beneficiaries, who have grown into adulthood, have contributed to the large surge of unemployed American citizens. Furthermore, the unconstitutionality of Obama’s actions is highlighted in Obama’s attempt to implement a similar program, DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans), which would provide amnesty to certain illegal aliens. The DACA program suffers the same constitutional flaws which resulted in DAPA’s ultimate dismissal. Therefore, it is only logical that DACA be ruled illegal due to its similar premise and overreach of the executive powers. A humanitarian approach cannot be allowed to influence a decision in terms of legality. Despite Obama’s altruistic intentions, President Trump holds every right to overturn DACA, as Obama’s use of executive action to bypass Congress is inherently unconstitutional. Several bills have been proposed by Congress to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, including the Migration Policy Act. In contrast to the implementation of DACA, such procedures of altering a law through congressional decisions epitomizes the democratic process set forth by our founding fathers to advance the interests of our nation.
Reply
Zinnia Escobar
12/1/2019 06:34:10 pm
To Impeach or Not to Impeach, that is the question! The fact that we have to consider impeaching a president is something that should not be taken lightly. We are at a pivotal point as a citizen, to consider what we will tell own children what we stood for during this important moment in the history of our country. I consider the fear I saw in Fiona Hill's eyes, when she explained that she "was afraid!" A president who does not respect the law, who uses his position to bully not only American citizens but a nation like Ukraine who is fighting Russian Bullies for his own personal agenda by using American tax payer money to manipulate a future election for his own personal gain. With this being considered, I look at the future and what that look likes for us as a country. What our reputation as a world power will look like, there is no coming back from Trump and the damage he has done to our reputation as a country. The wake of his choices and his haughtiness as a person who leads our nation. In my opinion, the process has to be followed through to its entirety and let those who are charged with making those decisions do what they think is right. As for me, I can not say, as a citizen that I can condone the President's behavior and what it has cost our nation's reputation as a world leader. Let the courts decide, that is what they are paid to do. I will wait to see what they decide but it it was up to me I know how I would vote.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Article Archives: |