The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On 12th Anniversary of DACA, President Biden To Announce New Executive Action For Spouses of U.S. Citizens
Parole in Place for Spouses -- Call it PIPS?
DACA was announced in June 2012. At the time, there were no meaningful legal challenges to the policy. Indeed, as hundreds of thousands of people received benefits under the policy, it became clear that the courts would not let it be halted.
DAPA was very different. By late 2014, the Republican Attorney General Machine was operating at full steam. Attorney General Abbott challenged the policy in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. The brainpower on that case was staggering. Among others involved were Andy Oldham (5th Circuit), Jimmy Blacklock (Supreme Court of Texas), Brantley Starr (NDTX), Cam Barker (EDTX), Scott Keller, and more that I'm forgetting. This case innovated the "Driver's License" theory of standing, which has formed the basis of countless challenges to immigration non-enforcement. I filed an amicus brief back on behalf of the Cato Institute. (No, Cato would not file such a brief today.)
The DAPA challenge was successful, in large part, because a preliminary injunction was obtained before anyone was able to sign up for it. DACA, by contrast is still on the books. Even after President Trump tried to rescind DACA, Chief Justice Roberts made up some convoluted test about reliance interests to ensure people could keep their deferred action and work authorization.
That brief history brings us to the present. Last week, there was a report in the New York Times that President Biden was thinking about some new executive action to provide a pathway for citizenship for certain alien spouses of U.S. citizens. When the press reports that some policy is under consideration, that almost certainly means the policy will be issued. Indeed, I thought this pro-immigration policy would be used to offset the President's unpopular-on-the-left asylum policy.
The Times offered this description:
The president would exercise his authority to grant the undocumented spouses "parole in place," a designation that would permit them to remain in the country, work legally and gain access to a pathway to permanent residency.
I've been poking around to find some detailed analysis of the policy, but I was unsuccessful. What will this policy be called? Parole in Place for Spouses--PIPS?
Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Biden will announce the spouse policy, tomorrow, Tuesday.
President Biden is expected to announce a new immigration program Tuesday that would provide a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the country illegally who are married to U.S. citizens, according to lawmakers and others familiar with the matter.
Biden plans to make the announcement at the White House alongside members of Congress, immigration advocates and U.S. citizens who, because of arcane immigration rules, haven't been able to sponsor their spouses for green cards.
The program has the potential to benefit immigrants who have been living in the country at least a decade, offering them work permits, deportation protections—and a route for them to apply for green cards, which is the pathway to citizenship. The application process is expected to open by the end of the summer, an administration official said.
Much like with DAPA, this policy will not go into effect right away. There will at least be some application process.
I would expect legal challenges from Texas and all the usual suspects. The theory of standing will be the same as the theory of standing with DACA. If and when we get an OLC opinion, I will write about it. I made the same request on PBS a decade ago with regard to DAPA. I'm having serious deja vu to 2014. My hair was much shorter and I talked much faster.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How proud you and your friends are of the undeserved harm you've caused in some people's lives and the harm you intend to cause in the future.
who and whose friends for what?
Every time a parent robs a bank, and you take the money back, and throw them in prison, you 'harm a child'. So, is the rule that if parents commit crimes, they get to keep the loot if they pass it on to their kids?
In illegal immigration, the loot is presence in this country, a valuable good they took illegally. Can you name another crime where the child gets to keep the loot their parents stole?
A cruel, twisted analysis, oblivious to a child's life and the pain caused by forcefully taking them away from all that they know and love.
So, what you're saying is, you've got nothing? Can't think of a single crime where the child gets to keep the parent's loot?
My point here is that any claim they are legally entitled to this consideration is a complete non-starter.
As an act of mercy, duly authorized by as yet nonexistent legislation? Maybe we could discuss that. With enough safeguards to prevent future repetition, it might be possible.
But, how do we get those safeguards, and how can they be taken seriously, when immigration laws are not enforced? New legislation wouldn't be enforced, either, so long as a Democrat was in the White house.
Once you establish the law won't be enforced, how do you expect to negotiate new laws? Bargains presuppose adherence to bargains, after all.
Your point starts from an analogy between illegally crossing the border and a felony.
That this is not analogous has been pointed out to you many times. You still love to use it.
Why would you use something that's wrong? Well, one clue is how you use it to argue illegal aliens have a propensity towards criminality.
Your reasoning is not based on truth, but some pretty vile bigotry.
You know, if you shoplift something cheap enough to be a misdemeanor, you still don't get to keep it. Misdemeanor, felony, they're both crimes.
Like I've said to Nige, calling people who dare to disagree with you "bigots" is just a pathetic rhetorical tic. You shout the word like you think it wins the argument, but it just shows how bankrupt your position is, that you call people names instead of advancing actual arguments.
What's "bigoted" about insisting that the privileges of citizenship be reserved for citizens? Insisting on laws being enacted, rather than the executive simply adopting policies of systematically not enforcing them?
Brett, argue that illegals have a propensity for criminality once they're over here.
That's bigotry. Full stop.
Not a rhetorical tic, it's knowing the definition of the word.
Yes, I argue that a group of people defined by demonstrated illegal behavior will have a higher than average propensity to break laws. Maybe you could explain why you think this reasoning fails, rather than just engaging in name calling?
Even if your analogy were true (it is not), propensity evidence is not probative because what that results in is collective guilt i.e. bigotry.
So, evidence isn't probative when it indicates something you don't like. Gotcha.
Bigotry is treating people according to irrelevant considerations. Illegal presence in the country isn't an irrelevant consideration.
Your evidence is not real evidence, Brett. It's you making shit up.
Making things up to justify prejudging a group of people. Prejudice they call it.
That is bigotry. Textbook. Might as well join Roger in pollution of the blood.
Hahaha what? Propensity evidence is extremely probative—if it weren’t, there wouldn’t need to be a special rule against it. A rule which, of course, applies only in court proceedings, and which is itself subject to exceptions everywhere precisely because the evidence is sometimes so probative.
I’m not sure I agree, Noscitur. Something can be more prejudicial than probative and the FRE still makes a bright line rule about it.
Like hearsay’s issue is that it’s of questionable truth value, but there is still special rules against it beyond 403.
Though I'm open to being set straight if you have detail otherwise; I trust your authority as a practitioner and general fact-based individual.
When unable to offer a substantive response, you resort to name-calling. That is hardly convincing.
Is it still bigotry if the collective guilt is assigned to White people because of their Whiteness?
Of course not, right?
Don, I know you love to knee-jerk call me out, but you really should read Brett's claim about illegals having a tendency towards more criminality before you jump in to defend him.
It goes against actual statistics about crime rates, and is based on some pop-psychology and nothing more.
And I did give reasons before I called him a bigot: "Making things up to justify prejudging a group of people. Prejudice they call it."
As a matter of evidence law, the traditional justification for a rule against propensity evidence is that it’s too probative: i.e. that a defendant won’t have a fair chance because the evidence will be too overwhelming. The more nuanced (and in my view, more persuasive) argument is that jurors aren’t likely to overestimate how probative it is, and give it more weight than it logically should have. But as I said, every jurisdiction has always allowed some form of propensity evidence regardless, because the way someone has tended to act in the past is circumstantial evidence of how they are likely to have acted at the time at issue. For instance, criminal defendants are generally allowed to show evidence of their good character to show that they are less likely to have committed the charged bad behavior, as reflect in modern Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(A). In a self-defense case, both prosecution and defense could traditionally offer evidence of the defendant’s and the victim’s character for violence or peacefulness as circumstantial evidence of who was more likely to have been the initial aggressor. And of course most (all?) jurisdiction today have special rules allowing propensity evidence in sexual abuse and domestic violence cases.
So no, I don’t think the rules of evidence reflect a belief that propensity evidence isn’t probative, much less that people shouldn’t consider it when making out of court decisions.
"It goes against actual statistics about crime rates, "
No, actually it doesn't. We went over this just a few weeks ago, when Somin started harping on already debunked crime statistics.
"So no, I don’t think the rules of evidence reflect a belief that propensity evidence isn’t probative, much less that people shouldn’t consider it when making out of court decisions."
In the immediate instance, though, we're pointedly NOT discussing its use in a trial, but instead what it indicates about desirable public policy. So the reasons for not admitting it in a trial are inapplicable.
Which is... exactly what I said, isn't it?
Your argument is belied by logic. And experience.
I know lots of illegals and they are careful to follow the law. They keep their head down. It just stands to reason.
It fails, as a general proposition, because there is a strong dependency between the type of previous illegal act and the likelihood of future lawbreaking.
Did the civil rights demonstrators prove to be more criminal than non-demonstrators?
You are playing a category trick. Your proposition holds, probably, for some illegal behaviors, but then you try to lump illegal border crossing with bank robbery, which is complete bullshit.
I will gladly admit that illegal immigrant status probably is more associated with some crimes than others. It's likely very highly associated with crimes such as use of fake ID, or driving without a license/insurance. Less so with violent or property crimes, though the statistics for Texas show that association is still significant.
It is true = ...calling people who dare to disagree with you “bigots” is just a pathetic rhetorical tic. You shout the word like you think it wins the argument, but it just shows how bankrupt your position is, that you call people names instead of advancing actual arguments.
The progs don't have reason, they don't have logic; they emote. All I want is they be directly exposed to the fiscal and social consequences of their policy choices (i.e. sanctuary city).
The onus is on Congress to change the law, not on POTUS
ObamasBiden's executive branch bureaucracy to make new law. There will be an APA challenge, I am sure.OBAMA IS BEHIND THIS.
The convergence of Trump voters to delusional MAGA continues.
CAPS do not constitute a rational argument.
In contrast, Captcrisis offered a subjective but rational response.
Commenter offered no evidence, just a cutsey ref. to Obama.
I called him out on it.
captcrisis has not replied to Commenter's comment.
You’re really bad at reading where I’m involved.
The progs don’t have reason, they don’t have logic; they emote.
Oh fuck you.
Writing a sentence like that demonstrates that you have neither reason, nor logic, nor facts - just MAGA brain.
Says the guy whose worldview is controlled by belief in fairy tales. Superstitious nonsense. Rejection of the reasoned, reality-based world.
Carry on, clingers.
The progs don’t have reason, they don’t have logic; they emote.
Where is your reason? Your logic? Biden's policy is legal, so why do you oppose it? What are your moral judgments?
Mine are simple. It's wrong to break up families just because one of the spouses is here illegally. The cost is tremendous, the benefits, if any are trivial at best. You want to call that "emoting," go ahead. I don't care.
Your views are no less the result of moral and financial judgments - pretty odious ones IMO - than mine.
'Misdemeanor, felony, they’re both crimes.'
There is a tendency to treat one with more leniency than the other, of course. Brett, who is voting for a felon, and therefore happy to hand over the loot, ie power over the entire country, to reward a felon.
His reason is based on truth.
If you break the law to provide a benefit for your child, then the law will typically reverse that benefit when you are caught.
Otherwise, some will simply break the law and take the consequences to provide the benefit.
The Varsity Blues scandal is a good example. Many parents bribed college coaches to get their kids into college. The kids never knew. When the parents were found out, they were caught in criminal prosecutions. But the kids....they lost their places at college.
If you break the law to provide a benefit for your child, then the law will typically reverse that benefit when you are caught.
Your typically isn't supported by your single example about middle class college admissions this one time that made national headlines.
The national headlines were caused by two famous celebrities being involved.
That is ALSO not the norm for these issues.
Logically speaking, examples do help prove the concept.
Can you come up with examples of criminal behavior by parents to benefit children, where the law lets the children keep the benefits? Any examples? Remember to provide links.
Logically speaking this is called a "counter example". You haven't provided any.
Anecdotes do not help prove a generality.
I do not need a counterexample because you're provided no evidence.
But an obvious one would be theft by the parent to feed or clothe the child. Restitution may be required, but the child is not going to be starved or reduced to rags.
Wasn't it more of an illustration of the concept and not anecdotal evidence?
The antisemite is wrong.
"If you break the law to provide a benefit for your child, then the law will typically reverse that benefit when you are caught" is not a concept, it is a factual postulate. One that is not supported.
"Anecdotes do not help prove a generality. "
Oh dear. An admission against interest.
That's half your argument style.
Feel free to call me out if I try to do that.
But I know you'll just make insinuations around the edges about me; that seems your new jam.
"Feel free to call me out if I try to do that."
I have, I do, and I will!
No, you don't.
You make unsupported accusations that I'm lying.
Not the same thing.
"You make unsupported accusations that I’m lying."
How do I support an accusation about an unsupported anecdote? Its unsupported all the way down.
"I am correct because I have spoken to a group of unidentified people who agree with me" is not the winning argument you think it is.
"But an obvious one would be theft by the parent to feed or clothe the child."
Do you have any links that demonstrate this is true?
That if a parent steals a large quantity of expensive clothing for a child, the clothing won't be repossessed by the authorities?
Any cases? At all?
large quantity of expensive clothing
No new goalposts.
Families do benefit when parents are treated leniently for non-violent low-level offences. It's one reason FOR leniency.
What a surprise. No counter examples.
Read better.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/17/on-12th-anniversary-of-daca-president-biden-to-announce-new-executive-action-for-spouses-of-u-s-citizens/?comments=true#comment-10607018
He asserting something, but didn't provide any evidence for it.
He assumed you could steal a fur coat, give it to a child, and the cops wouldn't take it back.
Me...I'm pretty sure the cops would take it back.
Logically speaking, examples do help prove the concept.
No they don't.
Showing me a black dog does not help prove that all dogs are black.
Counterexamples can disprove the concept, but that's a different thing.
I don't believe this dithering corrupt clown cares about the law. Where would lawfare be if the reptile actually cared about faithfully executing the laws?
Amazing how you and Brett are such hardasses about enforcing the laws when the "criminals" are people who immigrated illegally, even if that happened years ago. You are all too happy to ruin the lives of people who have done the country no harm - who have in many cases actually benefitted it - out of no honest motive at all.
But enforcing the law against Trump and his cronies is a terrible thing to do.
He's got "WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!?!?!".
Next up is "Das Raaaaayyyycist!" or " You're a BIIIIIGGGGOOOTTTT"
Seems to me, leniency for non-violent misdemeanours and other low-level crimes, such as possesion of small amounts of marijuana, is a good thing, and the argument that harshness damages families and lives is compelling. 'All crime is crime' is hilarious coming from Trump voters.
Well, that's the whole basis for your objection to reparations for slavery and Jim Crow: Yes, white people effectively received stolen property off the labor and economic injustice perpetrated against blacks, but it was long enough ago that their descendants should get to keep it. It's more a question of how much time is long enough to let it go than it is a difference of principle.
Now, that's actual bigotry: Thinking that you can impose costs on the basis of somebody sharing the same coloration as some long dead guilty person, rather than having to establish particularized guilt on the part of your designated fall guy.
The objection to reparations is that the people who owed and who were entitled to them have been dead for generations, and you're just proposing to make transfers between people who happen to cosmetically resemble the long dead parties, but other than that often have no connection to them at all.
All MY ancestors entered this country after the civil war, my wife is from the Philippines, what does my son owe some immigrant from Senegal?
Brett has been reduced to arguing sins of the father is fine, just don't go back too many generations.
And what is your argument to that aside from a snide remark.
Brett made a bad argument, full of inconsistencies and unsupported fuzzy line drawing so he can be against reparations but in favor of some generational punishment (except when he says he's not in favor of that).
That's my point.
It's still odd you think I need more than pointing out flaws in other people's arguments.
Right, Brett, your argument is that no white person alive today had anything to do with slavery or Jim Crow. Assuming that to be true, it is also true that no child of an illegal entrant had anything to do with the illegal entry. As Sarcastro points out, it's a question of how much time has passed.
And it's a fairly sleazy trick for you to say "no, you're the bigot" whenever there's a discussion about an appropriate remedy for racial injustice.
Sarcastr0, what part of "My ancestors weren't even in the country at the time" did you miss? You can go back as many generations as you like, and not find a basis for that debt.
And, yes, I do think that at some point you have to let the past be the past. But in this case you don't even demonstrate any concern about whether it's actually the past of your designated fall guys, it's just enough to share the same skin color. And THAT is genuinely bigotry.
Krychek_2, it's quite true that illegal immigrants who were brought here as children are not personally responsible for their illegal presence. So I wouldn't punish them for it. This doesn't change the fact that they don't have any legal entitlement to be in the country, they are merely benefiting from a systematic failure to enforce the law.
I'm not objecting to changing the law to benefit them, as an act of charity, assuming it's done carefully so as to avoid encouraging future illegal immigration. I'm pointing out that the systematic failure to enforce the law isn't the same as the law being different, and should Trump win, he would be entirely on solid legal grounds in deporting them. Live by discretion, die by discretion.
First, wild you talk about particularized guilt but also illegals' propensity for criminality. You do know we can read what you say in other comments, right?
Second, your argument above was not about your ancestors, it was about generations: "The objection to reparations is that the people who owed and who were entitled to them have been dead for generations."
"I do think that at some point you have to let the past be the past."
Sure, and I'm not for reparations myself. But redlining was going on up till the 1980s so 'it was so long ago' isn't a great argument to stand on.
I’m not objecting to changing the law to benefit them, as an act of charity
Yes you are! You want no changes to immigration law unless you get a bunch of harsh enforcement stuff included!
You are all over the map in just this thread. On changes to the law, and on particularized guilt.
Brett, the purpose of reparations isn't punishment either; it's to make whole for past wrongs. It's to disgorge a benefit to which those descendants are not entitled.
And just to be clear, I don't support reparations either for other reasons than the ones we've discussed. I just think it's curious that you're so quick to bury the past when it involves reparations but not when it involves the children of illegals.
"Brett, the purpose of reparations isn’t punishment either; it’s to make whole for past wrongs. It’s to disgorge a benefit to which those descendants are not entitled."
From the Oxford dictionary: "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged."
Note that it is the one who did the wrong who makes the reparations, to the one who the wrong was done to? Not their descendants? Not people who happen to look a bit like the actual parties?
See, this is why the whole concept creates such animosity: To demand reparations from somebody is to accuse them, personally, of perpetrating the wrong. Naturally people who know damned well they aren't guilty are going to get pissed off at such demands.
Now, when it comes to the children of illegal aliens, you have to distinguish between the ones born here, who are birthright citizens, and the ones brought into the country, who are themselves illegal aliens, albeit not personally guilty if they were minors.
Restricting ourselves to the illegal aliens themselves, when we talk of deporting them, we're talking about deporting the people who actually ARE the illegal aliens, actually illegally present in the country TODAY, not people who just happen to look a bit like past illegal aliens.
And, in terms of the minors, have I not repeatedly approved of some charitable accommodation for them, so long as it was done LEGALLY, rather than by Presidential fiat? I'm just pointing out that until that legislation gets enacted, there's no real legal basis for such accommodation, and the next President would be perfectly legally entitled to throw them all out on their asses.
Maybe you should be taking more seriously the need to stop relying on executive fiats?
Reparations is a particular program in this context. Resorting to OED is using semantics to deflect from what we're actually talking about.
so long as it was done LEGALLY, rather than by Presidential fiat
You don't know the statue enough to say what's legal for the President to do, so quit pounding the table.
To Brett's point about reparations, this is for people who were actually wronged. Reparations have been done legally (and recently), see 1988 Civil Liberties Act.
Illegal aliens are not entitled to reparations.
Reparations are not about wrongs they are about unjust enrichment. I’m not for them but I’ve at least put in the effort to understand what they are.
Illegal aliens are not entitled to reparations.
Has anyone come within a thousand miles of making that argument?
Scroll up a bit and you’ll see reparations came up from an argument that the implications of Brett’s logic about how to characterize the wrongs done *by* illegals proved too much. Not sure I agree with the argument, but at least I’m following it.
I’m pointing out that the systematic failure to enforce the law isn’t the same as the law being different, and should Trump win, he would be entirely on solid legal grounds in deporting them.
And you would be right there cheering him on, in between attending church services.
What are the time bounds on racial injustice?
Like when is the beginning point, and how long is the window of guilt?
I mean, are these guiding principles that could be generally applicable or are they motivated cherry-picking to achieve some particular political agenda?
And that is one of the reasons I don't favor reparations; it's not quantifiable in either time or amount of damages. Any numbers or dates picked would be wholly arbitrary.
But assuming some rational basis did exist, my point in raising the subject here is to show the double standard -- Brett doesn't care about the punitive consequences for the children of illegals who had nothing to do with the fact that their parents entered illegally; he cares plenty about the punitive impact on himself and his children if we're discussing reparations because he had nothing to do with the wrong that was committed. That's the double standard that concerns me for the limited purpose of this specific conversation.
Did you read The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates?
To me it looks a lot more like it lays out the case for a truth and reconciliation process more than reparations. But it makes some great points.
Plus Coates is one of the best wordsmiths in the biz; a pleasure to read. I miss him and his blog.
No, I haven't, but on your recommendation I will.
And I think a South Africa-style truth and reconciliation commission might not be a bad idea, except that the people who need to be honest the most would be the ones likely to refuse to participate.
"Coates is one of the best wordsmiths in the biz"
He fulfilled his destiny writing comic books.
Plenty of very good writers in that medium.
Snobbery does not become.
This white, male blog champions (wingnut) comic books.
I sense most of its operators and fans were immersed in comic books when their peers were learning about social interactions through social interactions.
"Snobbery"?
I'm probably the least snobby person here.
I loved The Haunted Tank and Sgt. Rock when I was a kid.
Then you should know better than to use comic book writer as an insult.
Mine too. But I don't know if any of them profited from the African slave trade when they were elsewhere or more generally from slavery in the United States. I do know that they became United States citizens, which put them on the hook for a share of existing US debt they did nothing to incur.
"descendants should get to keep it"
None of my ancestors owned slaves are even lived in the South. My dad's parents were both Poles born in Russia.
If you feel guilty about your ancestors, you can give your own reparations.
But you are part of the United States, which is the corporate entity responsible for a significant chunk of the damages.
Suppose I am a shareholder in a corporation that gets sued and has a million dollar judgment entered against it. Shall I be able to argue that I bought my shares after the tort was committed and therefore my dividends should not be affected? Same principle.
The United States that fought a war to end slavery?
The Civil War destroyed the South's wealth by the way. Nobody inherited it.
Your corporate judgment analogy is just dumb. A judgment for something that ended over 160 years ago?
Jim Crow ended 160 years ago? Redlining ending 160 years ago? Sharecropping ended 160 years ago?
One can argue, with some force, that fighting a war to end slavery was the reparations. Or one could argue that it is mitigation of damages since the United States allowed slavery to continue for 75 or so years.
60 years for those things. None of which were caused or encouraged by my ancestors. I guess yours did.
BTW, there were plenty of white sharecroppers too. Reparations for their descendants?
It is also a fact that only 2% of Americams alive at the time owned slaves so even those who had ancestors in the USA are very unlikely to be descendents of slave owners.
They didn't "take" anything. Them being here harms nobody and takes nothing.
Biden is poisoning the blood of America. This will include same-sex couples. We need to have some reasonable limits on immigration, and not just accept those who come here illegally.
Note the imagery, poisoning the blood - pure Goebbels. The random bigotry - same sex couples. The futile attempt to drag in "reason" on the unreasoned desire to trash the lives of millions of ordinary people trying to live reasonable lives.
Modern fascism.
Whoa! Easy on the Nazi references. You'll get all the rubes here unnecessarily excited.
Juvenile flippancy in the cause of casual cruelty. As the Court noted in rejecting Trump’s attempt to rescind DACA (summarized today), there was no attempt to deal with the harm caused. Cruelty seemed to be the point.
Yes. The reformed human being Charlie Sykes often says the same: Cruelty is the point
That some Executive Orders are superior to others should be terrifying for people.
You never seem to think that your beliefs will not be the ones in power.
If it was so damned important --- Obama did have a super majority in the Senate for the majority of his first two years. He had plenty of time and opportunities to do it.
He had a super majority for about four months. He spent that short time energetically getting the ACA passed. Time well spent.
And in doing so, lost his majority. Actually, lost it part way through the process, which is why the ACA ended up so messed up.
But you'll recall he actually came right out and said that DACA was unconstitutional to do as an executive action, had to be legislative. Before doing it the unconstitutional way anyway, when Congress didn't enact it for him.
He said that DACA was acceptable as an executive order but making it permanent required Congressional action. He had taught Constitutional Law at the most prestigious law school in his state (like Clinton before him) so he knew what he was talking about.
Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall
"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
Obama made many statements in this vein, before he up and decided to do it by executive fiat anyway.
He was a summer adjunct who did a handful of seminar classes.
If he was a Constitutional Law professor at the most prestigious law school in IL, then he’d have a publication track record. It would be required of his professorship. Obama doesn't have a publication track record.
He studied the Constitution the way exterminators study entomology.
I consider it hilarious, in a dark way, that a bunch of law professors created the "Take Care" blog in response to Trump's anticipated lawlessness back in 2016, and then shut it down when Biden took office, on the implicit theory that HE was going to be faithful about taking care that the law be executed.
Biden is demonstrating that our legal system really has no effective response to a President who doesn't intend to let a law be enforced, and doesn't give much of a damn about whether people know it.
You are not an immigration expert, that much is clear. The INA has a ton of discretion in it and you have no idea if this is legal.
But then you are think Camp of Saints is predictive so your take on illegal immigration is pretty wrong off the gate.
Great, you're just going to love it when Trump goes all discretion on you. You don't seem to grasp you're rejecting the rule of law in favor of dictatorship, essentially. The law means nothing, the will of the executive everything.
A system of lawful government presupposes that the executive will enforce the law. That exceptions will be exceptional, not routine.
What’s actually happening here, Brett, is you’re the wannabe authoritarian. You’re taking what you want to be true and insisting that’s the rule of law, and anyone who disagrees wants dictatorship.
What you want has nothing to do with the law, I don’t care how dramatic you get about things.
Trump’s tried to use his discretion to take away DACA, but it turns out you can’t just take stuff away from people arbitrarily even if they’re not citizens. I know this pisses you off, but that’s because you’re not a fan of the rule of law even as you invoke it over and over again. Because what you’re really invoking is a tantrum the law isn’t what you want it to be.
2. Discretion is not a dictatorship, and your ignorant-but-confident act doesn’t change that. You want a law to be simple that very much is not.
You don’t know shit about the INA Doesn’t stop you from deciding it requires a lot of things it does not. I’ve worked with USCIS on talent retention enough to know enough that there is discretion in allowing a path to citizenship, though not in the absolute number of greencards available.
And when it comes to spouses? It’s even more complicated between visa and work and home stay requirements and whatnot.
I don’t pretend to know if Biden has the specific authority to do this, but I also don’t know he doesn’t. That’s because I have the humility to not replace this rube goldberg area of the law with whatever I want, and instead deal in reality.
You should do the same. You won’t though. Because it’s quite clear from other threads you really fucking hate these people.
And I will continue to point out your affection for Camp of Saints (prophetic I think you called it) because it shows where you really come from.
"Discretion is not a dictatorship"
Like I said, you're going to love it when Trump goes all "discretion" on you, and you need to explain why only Democratic Presidents get to exercise it.
What the hell makes you think that there's a hard and fast line between "discretion" and "dictatorship"? They are, in fact, the exact same thing. Executive fiat replacing rule of law.
You love yourself a bit of dictatorship, if you like what the dictator is doing. You're going to hate it when the dictator isn't your guy.
You yell about rule of law when you don’t know the law in question. That means you don’t give a fig about rule of law.
What the hell makes you think that there’s a hard and fast line between “discretion” and “dictatorship”?
Living in America which has lots of discretion and not a lot of dictatorship.
Just ignoramuses revealing how much they would abuse discretion if they had it.
You love yourself a bit of dictatorship, if you like what the dictator is doing
No, Brett. Unlike you, I’m an institutionalist. That means having the humility to accept decisions I disagree with, and working to change them.
I don’t like our immigration system. But I accept it’s legitimate. You, on the other hand, can’t seem to deal with things not being just how you want it (see: BrettLaw).
That’s because you’re an authoritarian who can’t deal with stuff not being how you think they should be.
I’m nothing like you and your broad swath of illegitimacy applying to everything you don't like. That seems to be very hard for you to understand.
What you're accepting as legitimate is Biden's policy of not actually enforcing our immigration laws. You're going to sing a different tune if Trump gets elected and starts enforcing them to the fullest measure of the existing law.
I accept *our institutions* as legitimate. I accepted our immigration laws as legitimate under Trump as well even as I railed against their cruelty.
Your hypothetical hypocricy is based on assuming I'm like you. I am not.
But your assumption says a lot about you. Will you be cool with discretion if Trump starts using it?
I mean, you're lying about the enforcement thing. You just want people rounded up into camps and families seperated and children sold off for Christian white people to adopt. Becuase that's, um, legal?
Guys, cool it.
"Trump’s tried to use his discretion to take away DACA, but it turns out you can’t just take stuff away from people arbitrarily even if they’re not citizens. I know this pisses you off, but that’s because you’re not a fan of the rule of law even as you invoke it over and over again."
Dude, how on Earth is it "Rule of Law" for a previous president's executive order bind future presidents?
When has that ever been part of our norms? A previous Congress shouldn't be able to bind a future Congress, just as a previous President shouldn't be able to bind a future President.
When Biden walked into office and erased dozens and dozens of Trump EO's, where was the Rule of Law then?
Dude, learn about procedural due process and get back to me. It's been a norm since the 1960s. The law, even.
Most EOs are reversible; those that create a reliance interest are not reversed so easily.
Ignorance followed by outrage is becoming the right-wing legal two-step.
The law means nothing,
It sure doesn't mean much to you when Trump does something illegal.
Only someone who WANTS authoritarian rule would justify it this way.
I was unaware spouses of US citizens had difficulties coming in. This must be similar to the impulse to kick babies born here out, rather than be proud of a nation that is so attractive to that.
To be clear, this is a program for spouses who are here illegally.
Then there is the regular program to bring foreign spouses here: https://www.uscis.gov/family/bring-spouse-to-live-in-US
And, "If you are a U.S. citizen, once you file Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative), your spouse is eligible to apply for a nonimmigrant K-3 visa. This will entitle him or her to come to the United States to live and work while the visa petition is pending."
This isn't about US citizens who marry abroad. We have a regular process for dealing with that, as I can well attest to. (Though my wife came in by fiancee visa, as we'd determined the wait that way was a bit shorter.)
It's about illegal aliens who marry citizens as a form of defense against deportation.
1. Not if they're undocumented
2. Not neccessarily if their spouse is nationalized while they are still a noncitizen
3. The work permit isn't nothing either. You know how much it sucks to be able to stay here but be forbidden from working? We lost plenty of talent to that stupid requirement, as they go elsewhere to do research so their spouse can work.
1. It's "Illegal", not "undocumented". We're not talking about people who had their wallet pickpocketed, so they've lost their visa or green card. We're talking about people who are illegally present in the country.
2. My wife actually came here legally by financee visa, so I am well familiar with the fact you don't have to be a citizen to legally work here, a green card is enough.
3. I see no reason to give work permits to people who should, properly, be immediately deported. The need for work permits is itself a product of the refusal to enforce the law.
1. Waaaaank.
2. Did you ever consider that your experience may not apply to everyone? Look up an O3 Visa.
You are ignorant of the law, but that does not stop you from yelling about rule of law it seems.
3. If all you have is begging the question, you don’t have much.
1. Continuing your pattern of thinking shouting random words is an argument.
2. Continuing your pattern of conflating illegal immigrants with legal ones. O3 visas are only available to the families of O1 and O2 visa holders, who are legally present in the country, and the moment the primary visa holder loses their visa, the O3 visa evaporates.
3. "The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it." Not doing that here.
You and your wife’s experience is not generalizable even for legal immigrants, Brett. It’s a complicated system and your navigation of one corner of it does not make you an expert.
This is you begging the question: “people who should, properly, be immediately deported.” You're too blind to is/ought distinctions to realize it, however.
The is/ought distinction is actually central here. "Is" is objective. "Ought" is subjective. But you keep grounding your arguments, to the extent you even bother arguing rather than uttering random words, in "ought", with no seeming recognition that people are free to disagree with you opinion of what "ought" to be done.
Haha no, Brett, your opinion is not objective truth. Never has been never will be.
Your rejection of the legitimacy of our institutions means you end up leaning on your own authority as though it was objective truth. But it's not. No one's got an inside track to the truth.
And the fact that what the law *is* to you aligns precisely with what you think the law *ought* would raise alarm bells to anyone with a modicum of self awareness.
You are area man passionate about what he believes the Constitution means. And now you're pulling the same thing about the the INA which you have very clearly never read a word of.
Brett, just remember....you're arguing with a government bureaucrat, armed with a social sciences degree, who argues with a certainty only a progressive can muster. They are so right about everything...just ask them! 🙂
XY,
There is hardly a human being on earth who is more certain he is right about everything than Brett Bellmore. Maybe Joe_Dallas is his equal.
Commenter, above I said: "I don’t pretend to know if Biden has the specific authority to do this, but I also don’t know he doesn’t. That’s because I have the humility to not replace this rube goldberg area of the law with whatever I want, and instead deal in reality."
I say that a lot - pointing out that someone is speaking from ignorance while noting that I also don't know for sure what the right answer is.
Whoever you're describing, it's not me.
Contra bernard11, there are very many leftist commenters here who are more certain they are right than Brett is. Gaslight0, bernard11, Nige, M4e, the list goes on and on.
It’s about illegal aliens who marry citizens as a form of defense against deportation.
Mind-reading.
Classic Bellmore. Anything he doesn't like is the result of bad faith actions. No possibility they just met, fell in love, and decided to get married. Not in Brett's mind.
It’s about illegal aliens who marry citizens as a form of defense against deportation.
No bigotry there, nosiree. Object to the label all you like, but here you are, making unfounded accusations against an entire group, and refusing to give them credit for being decent people.
I'd call that bigotry.
I can be proud that people want to buy stock in my corporation without offering new stock issuance of unlimited shares for $0.00 per share.
I'm impressed, Blackman. You were able to limit yourself to only two (2) self-references of your past derring do's. Your posts/resumes never fail
While I appreciate the effort by President Biden it is not a real resolution of the country's immigration problems. Congress needs to get in the game and enact immigration reform. Children, undocumented or not should be accepted and have paths to citizenship. The same with spouse who have been in this country for long periods. This is all common sense, something in real shortage in our political class.
If Democrats did not have a history of not abiding by immigration law agreements, they'd have an easier time.
They have broken their side of the agreement more than once. Republicans would be absolute morons to give them what they want. Force the Dems to do their part FIRST before giving into anything,
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suggest you also have no idea. How many bipartisan immigration bills have been put together only to be shot down at the last minute. Last one only a few months ago. Shot down because Republican don't want to see border condition improve before the election.
Yes, it's true that there have been a lot of immigration bills negotiated between outlier Republicans and mainstream Democrats, which fell apart as soon as the details became public. That's what happens when you negotiate a 'bipartisan' bill with people who aren't representative of the opposing party, you know.
But this is distinct from the Democrats' history of not upholding their end of immigration deals that actually became law. Dating back to Reagan's amnesty deal of 1986, trading an amnesty for existing illegals, (Fewer than Biden admits in a single year!) in return for enhanced enforcement that never materialized.
The system is broken. Brett never wants to fix it unless he can get everything he wants.
In the meantime, he will pretend he has everything he wants and yell about rule of law when reality doesn't comport with his ignorant take on the INA.
Outlier Republicans, you mean conservative Republicans. Today's MAGA-RINOs have turned their back on the conservative traditions. Not that long ago George W. Bush was courting the hard-working conservative immigrants coming into this country. That all fell off and now the MAGA-RINOs say that the immigrants are dark skinned masses poisoning the blood of our country.
It's literally what Brett thinks is happening, and that Biden is doing it.
I don't care whether immigrants are dark or light skinned. Heck, I just got back from visiting my inlaws in the Philippines, and they're all darker than your average illegal immigrant. I care whether they're likely to contribute to the country, or drag it down.
As a statistical matter, illegal immigrants tend to be on the dark side only because you can't walk here from Europe, you can from central America. But if some college educated guy from Honduras wants to legally immigrate here, and they have a clean record and English literacy, cool, I'm all for that. I don't care what color the cream we skim is, I just care that it be cream and not whey.
Just don't get Brett started talking about culture and race.
Right, because you want to pretend I care about race, you hate me pointing out that it's actually culture I care about.
But you won't accept that the US has inherited a culture of racism from the massive racism inherent in its history.
Yeah, I'm not going to pretend that the whole country is guilty of what only some people are guilty of. If anybody is perpetuating a culture of racism today, it's the left; The general population is over racism, the left clings to it.
It's not about systematic racism, nor cultural racism (which to be fair I think is a pretty amorphous subject).
Brett thinks black people have an intelligence problem but it's probably cultural not genetic.
He believes in the Bell Curve, and all the debunkings he discards as liberal motivated reasoning.
It acts exactly like racism except it allows it might not be genetic.
Your projecting again.
“But you won’t accept that the US has inherited a culture of racism from the massive racism inherent in its history.”
Let’s say that’s true, can it be simultaneously true that the US is the least racist (and most diverse) place on earth?
"Brett thinks black people have an intelligence problem but it’s probably cultural not genetic."
Huh? No, I do not think black people, in the US anyway, have "an intelligence problem". In Africa, where malnutrition and parasitic disease is endemic, sure. Not in the US.
There's some evidence that the average IQ of blacks in the US is a bit lower than that of whites, just as whites are on average a bit stupider than Asians or in turn Ashkenazi Jews, but I wouldn't characterize that as "an intelligence problem", given that the overlap between group IQ distributions is so extensive.
I do think that there's a culture problem in the US, which blacks are disproportionately harmed by, though, and that's rather more significant. As Jurgen observed, cleverness may be admirable, but it's not at the top of things, and never has been. That position is occupied by diligence, not intelligence, and diligence is very much cultural.
So blacks are a bit dumber than whites, but that's fine. But *culturally* they tend to be *lazier*.
Glad you clarified.
That's not better.
You know what they say: Reality doesn't care about your feelings.
Indeed. Spoken like a true race realist.
Culture??
WTF are you talking about?
You want people with initiative, intelligence, willing to take risks to improve their lives. That's what you're getting.
No, I want people who obey reasonable rules.
The immigrants who really benefit this country enter lawfully.
No, I actually mean outlier Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, whose immigration positions are more representative of the Democratic party than the Republican.
It's not shocking that you could get Graham and a few other similar Republicans to negotiate an immigration bill you like, but neither is it shocking that, as soon as the details become public, it dies on account of most Republicans not liking the bill.
"MAGA-RINOs say that the immigrants are dark skinned masses poisoning the blood of our country."
Not true but if it was, why are more and more Latinos trending GOP? Voting in south Texas, ground zero for illegal immigration, has been showing this for a few cycles now.
Many hard-working conservative immigrants don't like the current influx any more than Brett.
I have a little hint about the Latino shift. One evening I was on my apartment balcony in Houston and a bunch of young Latinos were on theirs. I hear one male exclaim:
"Man, fuck the democrats. They always saying we poor. They always comparing us to the niggers. Man fuck Joe Biden!"
Cool story dude.
Maybe Democrats should stop saying 'Black and Latino Voters' this, and 'Black and Latino Voters' that. It appears no one wants to be associated with the blacks...including most blacks.
That's literally what Roger S. in the comments on this very post!
outlier Republicans , which apparently describes those who disagree with Brett.
"all common sense,"
Funny how "common sense" always leads to the results the speaker wants.
"Children, undocumented or not should be accepted and have paths to citizenship...This is all common sense"
Common sense is open borders for children? Encouraging even more trafficking of children here? Hard to imagine this level of stupidity.