I think if the compromise on DACA where a path to citizenship is given in exchange for border funding and elimination of chain migration is rejected, they should just allow DACA to end and prioritize deporting them. When fair compromise is rejected for the sake of partisanship, you have to allow negative consequences to happen as a result of that partisanship.
He created the problem, something that most didn't wanted him too, including majority of the Republican. He said he would support any bipartisan plan from the Senate. He lied. Now he want a plan that has little support and is supported by the more extreme part of his party. Of all the plans voted on today, none made it to the 60 threshold, but Trump plan received the lowest vote. The bipartisan effort would likely have passed if not for the Trump admin full on effort to derail it. Back to square one. This is fully on Trump. And secondly, it's on the party that hold majority power of Congress. Stop blaming the party that didn't create the problem and has the least power to do anything about it.
The point is that Obama followed the law. Maybe it's all the oppression against white folks who control almost every position in government, CEO's of major corporations, lobbying firms etc. that you are struggling with that is shaking your knowledge of the law in this case.
How exactly did Obama follow the law? His executive order creating DACA was by its very definition unconstitutional. A fact that he admitted himself on multiple occasions.
It's a big problem to point at the H1B workers (legal future immigrants) when discussing education and merit but not use any of the non english speaking illegal aliens "because they aren't immigrants". 1. Your argument here is completely flawed from the beginning because chain migration is DNA based not merit based and 2. The proposal was simply to stop the addition of new applications which would leave a decade plus and millions of people still eligible.
please link me to Obama admitting he passed an unconstitutional executive order. I hadn't seen that. I did find this examination of the claim which shows that it is mostly false. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-hedged-didnt-say-he-lacked-legal-right-daca/
Democrats AND republicans came together to craft a number of bipartisan bills to protect DACA recipients. All were opposed by trump. Heck, Democrats originally pushed for a clean bill that directly addressed DACA protection. Again, trump and right wing members of the republican party blocked that. trump can't even be truthful about what he wants... he certainly doesn't care about DACA recipients, his may goals are to build his trump wall and to limit legal immigration.
President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal authority to implement. How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly. Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works." Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits. And he did this despite the fact that the immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this. Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits. As Attorney General Jeff Sessions pointed out this week, DACA "contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences." Since most DACA beneficiaries are now adults, "it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens," Sessions said. The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change." Under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration. The president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens. The DACA program suffers from exactly the same constitutional infirmities as DAPA. A number of states have threatened to sue the administration to stop the DACA program. In the face of that threat, Trump really had no choice. General Sessions' legal conclusion was that DACA "is vulnerable to the same legal and constitutional challenges that the courts recognized with respect to the DAPA program." The place to have the debate about what to do about illegal aliens who were minors when they came to this country is in the halls of Congress, not the White House. Failure to correct this unilateral, unconstitutional overreach would set a dangerous precedent that weakens our constitutional balance of powers. As law professor Jonathan Turley said, "If a president can claim sweeping discretion to suspend key federal laws, the entire legislative process becomes little more than a pretense." When it comes to immigration, Attorney General Sessions was correct when he said that the "compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness, enforce our laws, and, if Congress chooses to make changes to those laws, to do so through the process set forth by our Founders in a way that advances the interests of the nation." That is essential to preserving our constitutional republic. This piece originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted
Again Obama was saying he couldn't pass a law on his own and bypass congress. He did repeat that over and over again. He was correct It's why he didn't enact a law and bypass Congress. What he did do was within his power as President just as it was within Trump's power to rescind it. The fact that Trump had that power is what makes Obama's actions temporary and less than ideal. It's also why it would be permissible and not unconstitutional.
Still waiting for a quote on where I said DACA is a law... I’ll keep waiting. Obama did not follow the law in creating DACA. That is clear and there is no disputing that based on the court decision against DAPA and Congress’ constitutional authority over immigration policy. I never said DACA was a law and hence your quote to me “DACA is not a law, it’s a policy. You’ve been bamboozled again.” is ignorant and inaccurate and displays either a lack of reading comprehension or laziness in failing to read carefully.
There is a deal of question about saying that Obama broke the law with DACA. Congress passed the laws. Obama didn't change the laws. He didn't enact his own laws.
You are saying DACA is unconstitutional. That has not been ruled by the SC. It's not clear and undisputed - it's your opinion based on no legal expertise, unlike the legal opinion of this group of legal experts that said it is constitutional. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/...dfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf Dear President Trump: As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical ... This letter outlines the legal foundation for DACA 2012 and confirms that maintaining such a policy falls squarely within the Executive’s discretion. The legal authority for the Executive Branch to operate DACA 2012 is crystal clear. As such, choices about its future would constitute a policy and political decision, not a legal one. As the administration decides how best to address DACA 2012, we hope that the legal foundation and history for this policy is addressed wisely and that decisions on the future of DACA 2012 are made humanely.
