DACA

Trump Will Win on DACA in the Supreme Court. He Should Cut a Deal Anyway.

What one executive does, another can undo.

|

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear whether President Donald Trump has the legal authority to scrap the Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program that allowed unauthorized Dreamers to live in the country without fear of deportation. (Dreamers are folks who grew up in the United States after they were brought to this country without proper authorization as minors.)

Will Trump win? Yes—and not because he has stacked the court with conservatives, although that won't hurt—but because DACA was done through executive action. And when it comes to immigration enforcement, Congress has given the president so much discretion that what one executive giveth, the other can taketh away!

Soon after assuming office, Trump not only eliminated Obama's program handing deportation relief to the parents of Dreamers—the so-called Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals (DAPA)—but also Dreamers themselves.

Getting rid of DAPA was less problematic because it got tied up in court before it was implemented. DACA, however, was different.

Of the 11 million or so undocumented folks in the country, some 5.5 million are Dreamers. And of those, 800,000 had already availed themselves of DACA. Under this program, applicants spent the first two years on "parole." That is, they got an official assurance that, if they lived crime-free, they would not be deported for two years, after which they could reapply for additional relief. Moreover, by law, people who get paroled were entitled to work permits and drivers licenses, so that they could get jobs and drive to them rather than become a drain on welfare. In fact, to obtain and maintain their DACA status, Dreamers were required to be gainfully employed or enrolled in school.

Although Trump scrapped the program, he delayed its termination by six months to give Congress time to pass a bill giving Dreamers permanent legal status. However, he made so many unreasonable demands in exchange for his signature on the bill—billions of dollars in his wall! mandating E-Verify! defunding sanctuary cities! cuts in legal immigration!—that Democrats balked and the whole effort went down in flames.

Meanwhile, two federal courts—the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit—stepped in and barred Trump from ending the program (diminishing pressure on both sides to cut a deal). They also issued an injunction requiring the administration to keep the program intact while the appeals process played out, although they did allow it to stop admitting new Dreamers into the program. The Supreme Court twice declined the administration's request for a review, but finally relented this time around.

The reason Trump is likely to prevail in court is because a president enjoys vast discretion in setting enforcement priorities when it comes to immigration. Although only Congress can offer permanent legalization, the executive can choose whether to throw someone out of the country or hand them temporary parole to live in the country. It is almost entirely up to him or her.

This arguably means that just as Obama was within his rights to hand unauthorized immigrants deportation relief (contrary to the claims of many conservatives, as I wrote at that time), Trump is within his rights to take that relief away. To maintain otherwise would mean that Obama wasn't giving undocumented folks temporary relief but permanent legalization without congressional approval, which doesn't make any sense.

Even though Trump will almost certainly prevail in court, he shouldn't necessarily celebrate. The Supreme Court's ruling is expected in 2020 spring or summer. In other words, just a few months before the November elections. If the court gives him the green light to scrap DACA but he dithers in mass deporting Dreamers, he will lose face with his hardline restrictionist supporters whom he is trying to mobilize to the polls. However, if he does deport, he will inflame public opinion given that Dreamers are a highly sympathetic group. After all, two-thirds Americans support the legalization of Dreamers because they don't want to visit the "sins" of their parents on the children. Rounding up folks who have lived in America all their lives and deporting them to countries that they scarcely know won't make for good optics, to put it mildly.

Trump's best bet would be to cut a deal with Democrats on Dreamers before the court rules.

 

Advertisement

NEXT: Harris-Biden Busing Spat Shows Democrats Can't Have an Honest Conversation About Racial Issues

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cant wait for Jeff’s idiotic views on why trump should lose in court over DACA.

    1. He’s probably too busy right now jerking it to child rape videos. Give him time to recover.

  2. “stacked the court with conservatives”

  3. I appreciate that the Dreamers were popular before, but I suspect their cause has taken a hit with the asylum seeker crisis.

    Here are the numbers for May of 2019 alone:

    People apprehended for illegal entry between checkpoints: 132,887
    Number of those traveling in family groups: 84,542
    Number of unaccompanied children: 11,507

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pressures-mexico-as-second-day-of-border-talks-begin-11559826586

    If that ultimately translates into giving U.S. citizenship to somewhere around a million kids a year, that’s probably not as popular with the voters as it used to be.

    “What one executive does, another can undo.”

    Yeah, but isn’t Dalmia suggesting that what the Supreme Court undoes, another president can do?

    Doesn’t make sense.

    The Constitution clearly enumerates the power to set the rules of naturalization to Congress, and Obama didn’t have the authority to give those kids deferential treatment under the law. If and when the Court declares Obama’s DACA executive order unconstitutional, there’s no good reason to believe some future president will reinstate it.

    Dalmia may be hoping for an authoritarian who openly treats the courts with contempt–at least in its immigration policies. That reading is certainly consistent with a number of things she’s written.

    1. I thought DACA was supposed to be for people who had been here a long time and had little connection with their countries of origin. Not so much for any kid who wanders over the border.

      1. It was supposedly for people who were brought here as children–without having much or any say in being an illegal alien. We’re talking about justifications made by politicians for political reasons. I guess if you buy into the politician, you buy into the reasons. The reasons don’t really matter–the executive order does. And the executive order was about protecting people who came here as children. All those kids coming across the border now will become eligible for DACA if DACA somehow becomes the law of the land and they aren’t deported first.

        Meanwhile, the DACA executive order doesn’t have a leg to stand on constitutionally speaking–regardless of its motivation. If you like it, then you need to get Congress to pass it as law. Congress possesses the enumerated power to set the rules of naturalization, but Barack Obama does not. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or whether I don’t. It doesn’t matter whether DACA should be the law or whether it shouldn’t. The fact is that it is not the law. It’s an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.

        1. I don’t disagree regarding the legality of the order.

          I do think it is rather cruel to deport someone who has essentially lived their whole life in this country and has little or no connection to their birthplace, so I’d like to see Congress do something like that. But doing so without incentivizing people to send unaccompanied children to the border might be tricky. Maybe require that they have resided here for some number of years, or attended school or something.

          1. I’m not arguing about whether this is as it should be, but I think the way it is–average people aren’t as sympathetic to plight of these Dreamers as they were before asylum seeking kids were stacking up at the border to get in at the rate of almost a million a year. And people who might have been sympathetic to the plight of older Dreamers has also probably stagnated that that deluge of Dreamers are apparently dying of starvation and exhaustion. The argument that stopping the asylum seekers from ever wanting to come here in the first place may be seen as being as humane as anything else . . .

            . . . regardless of whether that should be the case.

            People think things regardless of whether we like it, and noticing that their minds may have changed due to ongoing events is neither supportive of nor undermining of their ideas. It’s just an observation.

            My observations about people’s changing ideas about climate change have nothing to do with whether they should think something else either. They think what they think regardless of whether I think they should think something else.

          2. Every time we reward illegal immigrants for invading the US, we encourage the next wave of invasion.

            1. It is certainly not unreasonable to suspect that DACA may be the reason why so many children are coming–like they never did before.

            2. “invasion” lol

              1. ChemJeff is an idiot who thinks that calling things by different names changes them fundamentally.

                It doesn’t matter to him if asylum seekers were sneaking across the border at a rate of more than a million a year in May. What matters to ChemJeff is that no one calls it an invasion.

                And that’s because he’s stupid and thinks the stupid people he listens to are smart. If somebody else has a better explanation, I’d love to hear it.

                1. ChemJeff is an idiot who thinks that calling things by different names changes them fundamentally.

                  Nope. But I do recognize what the Trumpists are doing – they are trying to change public perception of the process of migration by applying a derogatory label to it.

                  For example, if one refers to abortion as “exercising the right to choose”, or if one refers to abortion as “killing an unborn child”, the public perception of those two phrases makes a great deal of difference. How one phrases the question influences the responses one will get. See for example:

                  https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/18/politics/abortion-polling-breakdown/index.html

                  So I believe that the illiberal anti-immigration right is trying much the same thing. They are trying to frame peaceful migration in as negative terms as feasibly possible, just as abortion rights people try to frame abortion in as positive of a light as possible, and anti-abortion people try to frame abortion in as negative of a light as possible. Because they want to try to shape public perception of the practice. And I don’t think those of us who favor permissive migration policies should let them get away with such corruption of the language or corruption of the discourse.

                  Peaceful migration is not an “invasion” in any meaningful sense of the word.

                  1. Well, by that logic I guess Europeans didn’t do anything wrong when we simply migrated to North America… Most of the time we didn’t even bother shooting Indians after all. I mean sure SOMETIMES we did, but mostly we just overwhelmed them with sheer numbers to the point where they didn’t even try to resist. We also purchased most of the land legitimately too.

            3. There never was any “invasion.”

    2. The Constitution clearly enumerates the power to set the rules of naturalization to Congress, and Obama didn’t have the authority to give those kids deferential treatment under the law. If and when the Court declares Obama’s DACA executive order unconstitutional, there’s no good reason to believe some future president will reinstate it.

      Perhaps I’m in error, but DACA strikes me as something akin to prosecutorial discretion given finite law enforcement resources. “Okay, as long as you keep your nose clean going forward, we won’t charge you with this law you’ve already violated.” It seems to me that such action (or inaction) can fall under the purview of the President. By the same token, of course, any subsequent president can rejigger the priority list regarding which laws will be most stringently prosecuted.

      1. Actually, the Constitution doesn’t give the authority to make those calls to the president on the issue of naturalization, and no law that Congress passed gave him that discretion either. I’ve never seen it argued before the court that expediency was a sufficient justification for violating the separation of powers. It’s just like when Obama attacked Libya without justification.

        If want to argue that you just don’t give a shit about the separation of powers, why not just argue that? The Supreme Court isn’t about to buy that argument, but at least you’ll come across as honest to other people. I feel the same way about hate speech laws and forcing bakers to bake against their will. If people want to say that they’re against the First Amendment, why not say so? Why tie yourself in a pretzel to pretend you support something you obviously don’t?

      2. DACA went further than “we will not deport you if you keep your nose clean” – i.e. using discretion on where to expend enforcement resources.

        It created a formal new class of immigrants. Members of this group, allegedly, were immunized them from being subject to following certain laws for some time in the future (almost like a proactive pardon) and employers were similarly immunized.

        Could the President create a new class of business people, say “Billion Dollar Stars”, and issue them cards, and promise that the federal government would not prosecute them for federal tax fraud or for lying to federal investigators for the next, say, 50 years? I.e., allow them to circumvent laws passed by Congress for the rest of their lives?

    3. Your “suspicion” has no basis in reality. The fact that you think there’s even a prospect of the Court declaring DACA to be unconstitutional proves you live outside of reality.

  4. Here is the deal:

    1. Abolish the existing asylum laws that treat Central Americans as special snow flakes. Treat them just as we do Mexicans and Canadians.
    2. Make legal immigration based on needed skills in the US. Look to Canada’s immigration system for a good model.
    3. For this, establish legal residency for Dreamers and give them a path to citizenship. Prioritize those Dreamers meet item 2.

    1. That seems like a reasonable and practical way to do it.

    2. Make legal immigration based on needed skills in the US.

      Right, so we we should let the market (read: individuals and businesses) decide whether it wants to hire more people from abroad, with the only restriction being on security risks and criminality. Couple this with a strict system to enforce who gets welfare, and I think that would be fair(er).

      1. Given that Americans cost the government on average $20000/year, that means that we should not let people immigrate unless they pay at least $20000/year in taxes. Subject to that constraint, we can let the market decide.

        But if you let in people who pay less than $20000/year in taxes, you are forcing US tax payers to subsidize cheap foreign labor, and that’s neither acceptable nor sustainable.

        1. Do Americans cost the government that much, or does government just spend that much per capita? I think that’s a distinction worth making. A lot of government spending doesn’t really scale with population changes.
          In other words, does each new immigrant actually lead to an additional $20k in government spending? I don’t know. But I suspect a lot of immigrants who actually come to work and don’t have kids here are not adding to government budgets and are probably net tax payers.

          1. Do you know how many children such immigrants have on average? A lot more than Americans do.

            Unless somebody is making $50-60K a year, they’re generally a net negative tax payer according to studies I have seen. So if somebody doesn’t have a profession that will net them in that range, they can piss off.

        2. Given that Americans cost the government on average $20000/year, that means that we should not let people immigrate have children unless they pay at least $20000/year in taxes.

          There, FIFY

          1. But they can wander in here at will and use our tax dollars, right Pedo Boy? All power to the illegals, shit in the citizens.

            If there is any karma, you WILL be raped to death slowly by illegal cartel thugs.

            1. You wouldn’t want them in here even if they weren’t using tax dollars. So what does it matter to you?

              “But they’re taking all muh welfare” is just a pretext – you don’t want the brown people in here because you think they will corrupt the purity of essence of America.

              1. You wouldn’t want them in here even if they weren’t using tax dollars. So what does it matter to you?

                It’s impossible for them to come to the US without “using tax dollars” because the economic opportunities they are coming for have been created through massive government spending on infrastructure, the legal system, the education system, the administrative state, etc.

                The only way they could come to the US without “using tax dollars” is if the US were actually transformed into a small government, libertarian society with freedom of association and respect for private property. At that point, I have no problem with open borders.

          2. Given that Americans cost the government on average $20000/year, that means that we should not let people have children unless they pay at least $20000/year in taxes.

            I see you’re operating on the theory that since you’ve maxed out one credit card, you might as well max out all the others. All that tells me is that you’re a fool.

            For better or for worse, we are subsidizing irresponsible reproductive choices through theft. Now you advocate subsidizing irresponsible immigration policies through even more theft. How do you believe that’s going to work?

    3. 1. Abolish the existing asylum laws that treat Central Americans as special snow flakes.

      This would mean tearing up an international refugee treaty. You sure you want to do this?

      2. Make legal immigration based on needed skills in the US.

      Okay, I believe a “needed skill” for an immigrant is the ability to mow my lawn. Sound good to you? Oh wait that’s not what you meant. What you mean is,

      “Make legal immigration based on what bureaucrats and politicians and corporate cronies in DC decide on who should come here, regardless of skill or merit”

      Exhibit A: H1B visa abuse.

      1. 1. No, you stupid pedo, it would not.

        2. As usual Pedo Jeffy, you’re a moron.

      2. We are not party to any treaty requiring us to accept refugees from third countries. We are not party to any treaty requiring us to accept economically motivated migrants as refugees.

      3. This would mean tearing up an international refugee treaty. You sure you want to do this?

        No, it wouldn’t. The US is under no obligation to take refugees who enter from a safe country, and Mexico is a safe country.

        However, if doing the sensible thing would mean “tearing up an international treaty”, we should do so. International treaties are not sacrosanct.

    4. Here is the deal:
      They have to go back.

    5. They ARE treated the same as people who come from any other country. Asylum laws don’t give any special treatment to Central Americans.

  5. Oh come on, you know Trump will win exactly because of flipping SCOTUS from centrist to solid conservative (minus Gorsuch’s excellent Crim law libertarian streak). This will be decided 5-4 on a strict conservative/liberal vote with one side finding it’s not arbitrary and capricious, the other that it is. And really, if this isn’t arbitrary and capricious, then nothing is.

    1. If it’s “arbitrary and capricious” for the President to enforce the law as written, then what the fuck is the appropriate term for the President inventing an entire program allowing a politically-favored group to ignore the law?

      1. “an act of love”

  6. So, Trump is going to get what he wants without a deal.

    So he should make a deal?

    He should.

    He should offer the same deal he offered before–with ecoli’s additions.

    Take care of the Dreamers and see to it that we don’t find ourselves doing this again in twenty years.

    1. Yep. That worked out great for Reagan.
      Never make a deal with a democrat. They lie.

      1. Oh, don’t give the Dreamers any protection until the Dems deliver on their side. Trust buy verify and all.

      2. +1000

        Never trust Democrats and make deals with them.

        Trump has American support, so he should do as much as he can in the 8 years as President.

        1. They have to go back.

  7. So the lower courts were abusing their authority to block the policy on grounds that have no basis in law? That is a startling case of corruption in the federal judiciary.

    1. It may be startling to you; not so much to me.

      1. Judicial authoritarianism has been the go to tactic of the Left for almost a century now.

  8. I see, Shikha: when people like me come here legally as kids and our visas run out, then we must leave or the full might of the US government should stomp down on us. But when your favorite ethic groups come to the US illegally, well, they should just be forgiven, given the red carpet treatment, and given free education and healthcare.

    DACA is an insult to legal immigrants, and it is blatant racist pandering by Democrats. And the fact that you support it, Shikha, just shows that you are another bigoted authoritarian yourself. I suppose given your background, we shouldn’t be surprised.

    1. DACA is an insult to legal immigrants

      The entire immigration system is an insult to immigrants everywhere. I’m sorry you had to endure a broken and unfair immigration system. But just because you suffered through a broken system does not mean that everyone else must endure the same injustice that you did.

      1. oops, that should be italic, not strikethrough
        You get the idea

        1. We get it that you are a piece of shit.

          No explanation needed by you.

          1. He’s a pedophile too. Probably why he wants all those little brown boys here. So he can shake his u holy thirst for them.

            ‘You gotta pay the troll toll if you want inside this boy’s hole’.

            -Words Pedo Jeffy lives by

            1. Oh fuck you. I’m not a pedophile. You must enjoy spreading filthy disgusting lies about people you don’t like, that is when you’re not inciting violence against Democrats.

      2. But just because you suffered through a broken system does not mean that everyone else must endure the same injustice that you did.

        There was nothing “broken” about the immigration system as applied to me personally: both the US and I acted in accordance with the laws. There is nothing wrong about telling people on non-immigrant visas to leave, nor is there anything wrong with immigration taking a decade or two.

        The only thing that is ‘broken” is that progressives want to give certain groups special treatment and undermine the rule of law because of their racist and socialist ideologies.

  9. Trump will push forward because the Lefties have lost on every front.

    The Lefties know that they have lost, so now they want to compromise. Fuck that and deport every last illegal including DACA kids.

    Then beat Democrats in election 2020. Then amend the Constitution to gut the Socialists ability to usurp this Constitutional Democratic Republic.

    1. Then amend the Constitution to gut the Socialists ability to usurp this Constitutional Democratic Republic.

      What is the proposed text of this amendment?

      1. “They have to go back”

  10. “Trump Will Win on DACA in the Supreme Court. He Should Cut a Deal Anyway.”

    Reasons recommends that the Right should always lose, even when they’re going to win.

    We voted for Trump because we’ve had quite enough of that.
    #winning

  11. “The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected in 2020 spring or summer. ”

    Demonstrating that the judicial authoritarians effectively negated much of what the peasants voted for in the 2016 election, forcing an illegal whimsy of Obama on the country for 4 years of the Trump Presidency.

    Trump should have told the judicial authoritarians to pound sand.

  12. Maybe the smart move is for POTUS Trump to let SCOTUS rule that he has the executive power to end DACA (which I believe they will eventually decide). And then end it, in toto.

    Why do I say this? Quite simply, to force Congress to do their job. Our immigration laws need an update, bigly :-). We need computer programmers, physicians, biologists, physicists, and every manner of STEM graduates; lawnkeepers and dishwashers, not so much. Our economy today is not what is was a century ago. Then, we needed a massive infusion of unskilled labor. Times have changed. Our laws need to reflect the changed reality.

    As for asylum, it is clearly being abused. I think pretty much everyone understands this, Democrat and Republican alike. Perhaps the answer here is to end asylum claims until Congress updates those laws as well. Return the illegal aliens to their country of origin and that is that. That is a tougher problem. We want to protect those who are persecuted, but how to do so when the law is so abused?

    The problem here is not POTUS Trump. The problem is that Congress is not doing it’s job. And the unfortunate consequence is that we literally have millions of illegal aliens who should be deported ASAP.

    Why is Congress taking a recess? To me, that is just nuts. If I could address the Congress I would simply say: Will you please stop acting like spoiled toddlers and just get something useful done?

    1. Aye
      Well said

    2. We need computer programmers, physicians, biologists, physicists, and every manner of STEM graduates; lawnkeepers and dishwashers, not so much.

      Who is this “we” that you speak of?

      Perhaps someone needs a physicist. Perhaps someone else needs a dishwasher. Why should the state, or anyone else, decide that one person’s need is “legitimate” but the other person’s need is not?

      The asylum process is being abused because the legal immigration system is so fucked up. If it were legal for migrants to come and go as they please, after passing a simple instant background check, then there would be no need for so many of them to make bogus claims of asylum in order to come here. Make it easier to come here legally, and people will stop exploiting the loopholes to come here.

      1. after passing a simple instant background check

        No such thing when dealing with foreign countries. Hell, getting a background check from some US Territories is neither simple nor instant.

        1. So multiply ‘complex, time-consuming background check’ by about a million per year and get back to me on how not fucked up it would be to process people efficiently.

        2. Well then maybe the government should be focused on developing a more robust international data sharing service instead of building pointless walls.

          1. YAH MEBBE CONGRES CAN PASS A LAW FORCING FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO SHARE CRIMINAL DATA BETTER HUH EVER THINK OF THAT LIBERTARIAN DUM DUM NO I BET NOT LOLZ!!!

            Holy shit, maybe you’re as stupid as everyone says.

            1. He’s not stupid, he’s just an Open Society fetishist that thinks mass migration doesn’t cause any problems whatsoever.

    3. The POTUS manifestly does not have any authority to “end asylum claims.” No matter how much you think the asylum process is being abused, as a matter of law they have the right to apply for asylum.

  13. Only reason DACA got sympathy is because people didn’t actually entertain the consequences. Now that people know that legalizing even one of them brings another 10 over, there isn’t a chance in hell for amnesty ever again.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.