The topic of the day is without a doubt Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s announcement that President Trump would end President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals decree in six months, effectively throwing the hot potato into Congress’s lap. That has provoked agonistic responses from the editors of the New York Times:
President Trump didn’t even have the guts to do the job himself. Instead, he hid in the shadows and sent his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to do the dirty work of telling the country that the administration would no longer shield from deportation 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children.
the Washington Post:
The president didn’t have the spine to announce his decision himself. He shuffled it to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an anti-immigration extremist who seemed to relish sticking a knife in DACA. Mr. Trump told reporters Tuesday that he hoped “Congress will be able to help†the dreamers “and do it properly.†But his written statement — “young Americans have dreams too†— was a study in ambiguity. While saying the dreamers wouldn’t be first in line for deportation, Mr. Trump put them on a path to lose jobs, educational opportunities, and the ability to lead open and unafraid lives.
and the Wall Street Journal:
President Trump is taking flak from all sides for ending his predecessor’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, thus putting some 800,000 young immigrants—so-called Dreamers—in legal limbo. Though the President and Barack Obama share responsibility for instigating the crisis, Mr. Trump and Congress now have an obligation to fix it and spare these productive young adults from harm they don’t deserve.
as well as dozens of newspaper columnists and op-ed writers including Paul Krugman, David Leonhardt, Leon Panetta, and scores of others not to mention intemperate blog posts and comments. It was also the topic of this week’s Council forum question.
My predisposition is that Congress should enact some sort of program and that the president should sign it into law. One of my fellow Council members outlined such a plan in a recent post:
First of all, DACA needs to be ended. There’s no question that it’s both illegal and unjust. And even worse, holds people in limbo, so it solves nothing.
Some of the DREAMers could be allowed to stay under certain conditions. They would have to be able to document 10 years residency in the United States from what I call unimpeachable sources; school records, health records, employment records, DMV records if available,tax returns, that sort of thing.
They would be of good character, have committed no crimes, not be members of any questionable groups or organizations, have learned to speak English, and not be on public assistance. They would not be eligible for U.S. citizenship but would receive a special permanent residence permit that would allow them to live and work in America.The citizenship restriction would not apply to illegal migrants who have served in our military and who otherwise qualify.
And it should clearly be understood that this residence permit is a one time act of clemency, not an entitlement or precedent. If necessary, legislation would need to be passed clarifying this.
As non-citizens, they would not be allowed participation in any family reunification program to bring relatives to America from overseas, to hold public office or to vote.
While it might be wise to put a numerical quota on these residence permits, I believe that anywhere from 30-50% of the DREAMers would qualify to stay in America should they choose to. It would mean they have forfeited certain rights given to legal migrants, but that they could continue to live in America.
My view is that the matter should be addressed through the political system using the ordinary legislative process, not bundled into “comprehensive immigration reform”, and not be addressed via presidential proclamation.
The end does not justify the means. President Obama’s proclamation and his subsequent edict which granted similar immunities from deportation to the parents of DACA beneficiaries, an evidentiary “slippery slope”, went far beyond presidential discretion on enforcement, an assessment with which most legal scholars have agreed. We are a country of laws not of men. Action by Congress on this matter is long overdue and should be undertaken and completed with all due haste.
Unfortunately, continued Congressional dysfunction makes it unlikely that a fix to this issue will be passed in the next six months. Obama, prime example of an imperialist president, implemented DACA as a work around a Republican controlled Congress. As it is more important to Dems to destroy Republicans rather than engage in a bi-partisan effort to allow Dreamers (presumably representative of the traditional Democratic base) to continue productive lives in the US. Time for Congress to get to work, on this and a variety of other issues.