While there are serious arguments that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is completely constitutional, the program has always felt like a bit of a kludge that Obama felt the need to create through executive fiat due to repeated inaction and arm-flailing whenever Congress got close to any sort of immigration reform.
Trump’s action, on the face of it, is probably the least-worst thing he could have done (aside from leaving DACA alone): freezing further applications (while allowing for renewals), and setting a time frame of six months before the Administration starts to consider people in the program (whom they happen to have records of, conveniently enough) fair game for deportation (and illegal to work any longer).
That gives Congress time to tackle putting the program back in place as actual law, which is generally preferable. The question is, will Congress (who has failed to pass similar programs previously) actually, finally, do so. If you’ve listened to the GOP congressional rhetoric — with the exception of xenophobes like Steve King — it sounds like it should be a slam-dunk, with numerous GOP congressfolk telling Trump that DACA is good and should be left alone. Or maybe they were saying that to avoid having him put the hot potato in their laps.
Of course, in the meantime, those people in the DACA program — who were brought to the US by their parents illegally, but while they were still minors, and who have been acting as productive members of society — are now in limbo, not sure what their status will be come next March (not unlike transgender troops). And while Trump said in his statement that current DACA individuals will not be particularly targeted, he’s also said that ICE has been focused on deporting hardened criminals when we’ve seen multiple stories of ordinary folk being dragged off by the agency.
And even if Congress does pass law to reinstate the program, there’s no guarantee that Trump will sign it, given some of his rhetoric in his announcement.
Only by the reliable enforcement of immigration law can we produce safe communities, a robust middle class, and economic fairness for all Americans,” Mr. Trump said, calling the DACA program an “amnesty-first approach.”
Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers, and job seekers,” the president added.
The implications that DACA folk are making America unsafe, or that they are taking jobs away from Americans who otherwise would be able to have them, manages to be both insulting and slanderous at the same time (and goofy as well, when you consider that these folk are parts of American families, and are taxpayers).
And another factor is his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who has never liked DACA, and is now clucking sadly that we can’t have the program because “We cannot admit everyone” (and he’d clearly prefer to admit no one). Trump may well be setting up Congress for a contentious fight over legislation that he has no plans of accepting anyway.
Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act
Administration officials said the roughly 800,000 current beneficiaries of the program will not be immediately affected by what they called an “orderly wind down” of the policy.
A multitude of mixed messages – Trump wants Congress to act, but doesn't say how; he's praised the DACA people and simultaneously tweeted about putting Americans first; and the announcement was made by AG Sessions, who (as you note) doesn't like DACA at all.
The fate of the DACA people depends upon whether Ivanka cries at the correct time, or Bannon publishes at the right time. Very much up in the air.
+John E. Bredehoft It's too soft a message to appease the nativists, too harsh a one to appease the "Um, we really need to start gaining Hispanic votes sooner rather than later" Republicans.
As much as it targets the DACA folk, it also is a shiv to the GOP Congressional Leadership who have been once more tossed a thankless task from the White House, one sure to fill their town halls with screaming mobs (from all sides), encourage primary challenges, and make them look like heartless savages, all of it ironically distracting from that whole tax reform thing Trump keeps saying he wants Congress to do, too.
And, of course, now all that "confidential" data the DACA applicants provided will become non-confidential to ICE.
https://www.wired.com/story/daca-trump-dreamer-data
Is being an illegal resident a federal offence which the President can pardon? Just a thought. By the way, is Joe allowed to run for sheriff again now?
+Travis Bird A pardon removes all civic penalties related to the crime, so, basically, yes he can.
And, yes, the President could pardon (or commute the sentence) the federal offence of illegal entry into the country.
+Dave Hill Would that immunise against deportation? If so, there should be 'Pardon the Dreamers' rallies starting about now.
+Travis Bird Interesting question. It should immunize against deportation — but only if deportation is seen as a punishment. It would also leave unresolved the various other features of being in the country illegally (e.g., even if pardoned for illegal entry, it wouldn't necessarily mean that someone could lawfully gain employment).
Hmmm. There's also a weirdness here about being pardoned for a crime "committed" as a minor. I suspect it's not as simple as it sounds.
Not that I would expect Trump to ever pardon these folk.
+Dave Hill Definitely one for the lawyers.
+Anne-Marie Clark, care to try your wits on this one?
'Respect the law'.
America supports Donald Trump
+gruver310 Really, not so much.
(It might help if Trump showed respect for anyone or anything, including the law.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
Regarding the President's pardon power, remember that President Carter pardoned (on his second day in office) all people who failed to register for the draft, and all people who left the country to avoid serving. So President Trump could issue a blanket pardon to the Dreamers, although as noted above such a pardon would have to be specific regarding what laws were violated.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/carter-pardons-draft-dodgers
Oh, and by the way, the President was asked to pardon the dreamers.
Except that it wasn't President Trump – it was President Obama.
And questions were raised about whether a pardon would actually work.
= = =
A White House official signaled late Thursday that the administration was not considering a pardon for those registered under DACA because it believes a pardon would not allow them legal status.
"We note that the clemency power could not give legal status to any undocumented individual. As we have repeatedly said for years, only Congress can create legal status for undocumented individuals," an administration official said.
= = =
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-democrats-ask-obama-to-1479410268-htmlstory.html
A dissenting view:
= = =
Some analysts maintain the President [Obama] cannot pardon the DREAMers because immigration violations are civil matters, not federal crimes as described by the Department of Justice as a prerequisite for pardons. But Yale Law School lecturer Noah Messing has made a strong case that presidents may indeed pardon civil offenses. Messing notes that what we now know as civil offenses were criminal offenses at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, or simply went unpunished. So it was not the Founding Fathers' intent to restrict pardons to federal crimes.
= = =
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/opinions/obama-should-pardon-the-dreamers-reyes/index.html
+John E. Bredehoft I think the issue is less pardoning a crime ("You will not be sent to jail for illegally crossing the border [as a 2-year-old]") but the status that leaves them in. Clemency powers can remove criminal penalties, even fines, but cannot grant a particular status ("citizen").