Jump to content

DACA ending?


Recommended Posts

Trying to start some individual threads instead of lumping everything into the Trump uberthread. It seems like Trump is likely going to do this, over the protests of Ryan and other Republicans. The question is, are the Republicans really in favor of it, or do they just want to avoid having another issue thrown their way right before an election?

 

And does it hurt Republicans if it is an issue? Anybody who is really paying attention, are there any races that are likely to be really impacted by an increase in Latino turnout?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The program is blatantly illegal. The reason this is happening right now is because a few state Attorney Generals have issued an ultimatum to either end the program or be sued and have a judge end it for them.

 

The Supreme Court already deadlocked 4-4 on DAPA being illegal last year after Scalia died. Functionally, there's no difference between DAPA and DACA. So, Gorsuch would pretty much become the tie-breaker. And that there were four justices that thought it was legal tells you a lot about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't change anything. But I'm not foolish enough to think there's any chance of it staying for long, the only question is when and how, and the politics of it. It potentially hurts Republicans for 2018, although I really don't know how much potential there is. Maybe it hurts them from picking up even more seats, potentially, but I doubt they'll lose anything over it.

 

But getting rid of it helps Trump keep his base energized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Whatever Trump does with DACA, he won't gain Latino support. So, I suspect the way he will look at is more like as an opportunity to appease the far right.

 

My personal feeling about DACA is this: I see no harm in allowing non-citizens, documented or not, to go to school. And really, if someone grew up in the US, regardless of what a piece of paper says about their citizenship, I don't wat to see them deported, if they are otherwise law abiding and a net positive to their community. If a dreamer has the grades and a clean record to qualify, why not let them attend? My issue with DACA is that non-citizens getting in-state tuition, which is cheaper than US citizens from other states, OR being accepted into college over a US citizen who has scored as well or better than them. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

I always thought that the fairest compromise is allowing dreamers to attend college, but the trade off is they have to pay the same rate as any other foreign student. At the very least, have them pay out of state tuition.

 

Now, if someone or an organization wants to offer dreamers scholarships, that's cool with me, too. I just don't want to see a non-citizen dreamer get preferential treatment over a US citizen, or a discount in tuition a US citizen wouldn't get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the answer to immigration reform, I guess. It's not like Congress can do anything. They just like collecting paychecks and giving lip service. Trump doing away with Obama era policies includes ending some flood regulation requirements too which is funny when you look at Harvey...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The program is blatantly illegal. The reason this is happening right now is because a few state Attorney Generals have issued an ultimatum to either end the program or be sued and have a judge end it for them.

 

The Supreme Court already deadlocked 4-4 on DAPA being illegal last year after Scalia died. Functionally, there's no difference between DAPA and DACA. So, Gorsuch would pretty much become the tie-breaker. And that there were four justices that thought it was legal tells you a lot about them.

I keep telling myself not to go down this rabbit hole again, but most constitutional amendments past the initial set are based upon shifting things that were once iron clad laws. Looking them up I was actually shocked how many seemingly no brainer ratifications haven't happen, but the point remains-- through history laws have changed with the times.

 

I used to always argue this with James Madison, if we don't start with protest or measures or policies that challenge laws that no longer work in modern situations how do we progress as a society?

 

Or are you more challenging the idea of a POTUS just pushing things through without due process? Cause to be fair, they all do that.

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple response to that is to ask whether you feel comfortable granting Donald John Trump this same exact power to not only ignore laws he doesn't like, but to unilaterally do the exact opposite of what the law says that you were willing to grant Obama because he was doing things that you favored in the name of progress?

 

We are likely to have a Supreme Court made up of a 6-3 highly conservative majority by the end of the Trump's term once Kennedy and Ginsburg are gone. Given that upcoming reality, are you comfortable demanding that the court interpret the law based on their own personal beliefs of right and wrong and make up some justification or other to get the result they want, or would you like for them to do as James Madison said all along and scrupulously read the law as it is written in order to protect the rights that you hold dear and check executive overreach?

 

We're not living in the world where a liberal Democrat like Obama is in charge anymore and the specter of an equally lawless rightwing figure as a potential bogeyman is some abstract concept. We're there now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple response to that is to ask whether you feel comfortable granting Donald John Trump this same exact power to not only ignore laws he doesn't like, but to unilaterally do the exact opposite of what the law says that you were willing to grant Obama because he was doing things that you favored in the name of progress?

Donald John Trump would never try to push through unconstitutional measures and sanctions!

 

That's sarcasm. You can't possible say with a straight face he isn't doing the exact same thing, with Muslim Travel Bans, Military Service bans against trans people, or whatever else Steve Bannon was trying to push.

 

We are likely to have a Supreme Court made up of a 6-3 highly conservative majority by the end of the Trump's term once Kennedy and Ginsburg are gone. Given that upcoming reality, are you comfortable demanding that the court interpret the law based on their own personal beliefs of right and wrong and make up some justification or other to get the result they want, or would you like for them to do as James Madison said all along and scrupulously read the law as it is written in order to protect the rights that you hold dear and check executive overreach?

I don't think you need me to answer how I feel about a conservative heavy Supreme Court. You know where I stand.

 

I'm not calling into question the interpretations of laws, I'm just suggesting that laws made in previous centuries may no longer have merit. That's not conservatism versus liberalism, that's just the evolution of society.

 

Do I really need to roll out founding father edicts that talked about who could own land, vote, etc.? Obviously we've changed as a society. Why is challenging a law so bad? I'm not proposing anarchy, I'm prosing a change. Just leaving things the way the were doesn't make a difference if it doesn't solve the current issue.

 

We're not living in the world where a liberal Democrat like Obama is in charge anymore and the specter of an equally lawless rightwing figure as a potential bogeyman is some abstract concept. We're there now.

On that we agree. Trump IS a rightwing specter that thinks he's above the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Donald John Trump would never try to push through unconstitutional measures and sanctions!

 

That's my point. One president can't be omnipotent just because you like him and the other restrained by these old laws because you don't. Either these checks are robust for everyone, or they're robust for no one. In Obama's case, DAPA was stopped by the courts as were several of his other unilateral actions.

 

 

 

That's sarcasm. You can't possible say with a straight face he isn't doing the exact same thing, with Muslim Travel Bans, Military Service bans against trans people, or whatever else Steve Bannon was trying to push.

 

I can say with a perfectly straight face that both executive orders seem perfectly legal and within the president's Constitutional and statutory powers.

 

Noted sarcasm aside, interestingly enough, Trump's really not done all that much other than rescinding a bunch of stuff from Obama as far as unilateral actions go. He hasn't made an attempt to expand the power of his office, which is surprising considering his autocratic instincts. As far as it goes, the system is working in terms of keeping Trump in check. I'm not sure if that frustrates him, or if he's just happy as long as he can insult people on Twitter to cover up just how little he's accomplishing.

 

If he keeps it up, he'll be the first president since Ford to see a shrinking of the power of the executive branch. Which probably isn't the result anyone expected.

 

 

 

I'm not calling into question the interpretations of laws, I'm just suggesting that laws made in previous centuries may no longer have merit. That's not conservatism versus liberalism, that's just the evolution of society.

 

Sure. I questioned the president's pardoning power just the other day. We question and change laws all the time. We've got five separate Amendments and multiple Voting Rights Acts that expand the franchise and the Fair Housing Act for your concerns about the Founder's flaws.

 

I'm curious what current laws from the 18th century you have a problem with. Because it seems more that you complain they don't expand the rights far enough. As far as it goes, there's really not much left other than the basic framework of government and, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, a list of cherished and universally accepted rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to derail things by going to the 18th century. I'm also not saying everything Obama did was just or perfect.

Trying to stay on topic, you said DACA was blatantly illegal. Current immigration statutes need to adjust with the changing world, DACA is a step in that direction. Right or wrong, it was an attempt to a solution. Sometimes laws can no longer be followed to the letter and need reform.

Personally, I support that. Practically, I don't think any politician should get to skirt the system on a whim. I get that is somewhat paradoxical, but at the end of the day, I'm all for helping people, which I get is some hippie commie stance, but to me that's more important.

But that's kind of a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals.

 

Not to say all conservatives don't have a desire to help people-- I just rarely see it in a political arena without some sort of qualifications.

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're never going to agree on this. On the D&D alignment scale we are pretty much diametrically exposed.

 

dnd_alignment_chart_by_nederbird-d6fe4d8

 

You're lawful evil, and I'm Chaotic Good. We're never going to agree.

 

...Okay, maybe you're between lawful evil and lawful neutral, and I'm between chaotic good and tempered good...

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites

Poe's likely right: if Trump doesn't end it, someone else, like the Supreme Court, will. Congress needs to act and make it a law rather than a worthless piece of paper from a president. Trump's plan to end it but not enforce the change for six months is probably the best you're going to get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Star Wars terms, I'm Ahsoka and he's Dooku.

Poe's likely right: if Trump doesn't end it, someone else, like the Supreme Court, will. Congress needs to act and make it a law rather than a worthless piece of paper from a president. Trump's plan to end it but not enforce the change for six months is probably the best you're going to get.

Wouldn't the best case be Congress doing something?

 

Wait-- I see the problem. Congress would have to do something.

Edited by Driver
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like they're in a place where they have to. They may have even done so before DACA, but the Republicans weren't going to hand a victory to Obama. Now they have a chance to add some of their agenda items, and the Democrats have a much harder time saying no than the Republicans. They need it almost as much as the "Dreamers"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump might say that, and it might happen, but I don't know that even he would be willing to veto the bill just because it doesn't include his pet project.

 

Although out of all the things coming up, I would rather he fight that battle on a theoretical DACA bill rather than the debt ceiling or keeping the country running.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, it's gonna be ugly. Trump is going to want to tie any congressional fix to the Great Wall of America, and that's going to be a poison pill for some people.

Well, tough luck. It's called compromise. Both sides want something, they each give up something they don't necessarily like, but can live with, and we move forward.

 

Used to be that's how things got done in Washington.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Used to be that one side didn't ask for stupid things just to keep the government running. As soon as the evangelicals became an important base for the Republicans, compromise became a dirty word. You can't compromise when you're doing God's work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad how Constitutionally backwards everyone has that that whole concept. Last I checked, you're supposed to have both Houses of Congress and the president agree on something in order for it to be funded. Instead it takes a super majority and the presidency for anything Democrats want not to be funded. Otherwise they blame Republicans, the media and pavonis listen, Republicans cave because they've been conditioned to fear the words "government shutdown" since 1996, and people like me just shake their heads.

 

But, yeah, lets all blame it on God for some reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...