Was Pres. Trump Right To End Pres. Obama's DACA Program

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (18 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image90
    GA Andersonposted 19 months ago

    It is true that Pres. Trump ended Pres. Obama's DACA program. It is also true that the terminated program could be described as a bandaid fix for a problem that, I think, constitutionally, and realistically requires a legislative fix.

    DACA was a temporary solution from its beginning. DACA recipients, under the program, would always be in a limbo-like status, forever at the mercy of the current president. Forever a non-citizen.

    I think it was our legislator's failure to do their job that created the need for DACA. I think the DACA issue is an immigration issue that should be addressed by law, not the fiat of a current president.

    I think Pres. Trump was right to end DACA - in order to force the legislators to do their job. And ... his words, timelines and offered deadlines, (and extended deadlines),  all support that as the reason he terminated the program.

    Some also blame the current Republicans - who have a majority in both Houses, for not passing a DACA bill. I think that is a debatable issue. Just as debatable as why a DACA issue bill was not passed by a Democrat controlled legislature under Pres. Obama.

    What say you?


    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Agree right down the line.  I don't see Trump as ending the program in order to get rid of the dreamers - I see him doing it in an effort to force congress to do their job.  On the face of it, DACA was illegal from the beginning (Obama did not have the authority to declare that millions of people are not subject to the laws of the nation) and you are entirely correct in that it was a stop gap measure, politically acceptable when our law makers refused to address it with law.  It needs gone.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        I was being both polite and safe when I termed it a temporary action rather than an illegal one. I think there is room to argue that the DOJ, acting on presidential instructions, may have the authority of "prosecutorial discretion"   to order their priorities in such a way as they did for DACA.

        Just saying ... I think that argument could be made.


        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          I agree.  It could be made, and was - I remember hearing about allocation of resources being up to the President.

          But I wonder about a court that would decide that "prosecutorial discretion" would apply to a group of people, millions strong, that will not be required to obey the laws like everyone else will.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      I don't think Trump was necessarily "wrong" to end the DACA program, though I think doing it for the purpose of "forcing" legislators to do something is not a good reason. If you're going to end a program, it should be because you have explored all angles and believe it is best for the people of this country to end the program.  I agree it should be addressed legislatively.  I believe that all legislators share responsibility for addressing it, but that it is natural for those who currently hold the power to receive the blame if nothing is done.  After all, if you have the votes, and you don't use them to create legislation, then you get the blame until the power shifts.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        I understand the feeling you are expressing, but, there is a big basket of "buts" that goes along with the reality of it.

        But, the legislature wasn't doing its job, so how do we get the job done?
        But, the legislators got a pass to play football with the issue - at the Dreamers, and American citizen's expense.
        But, DACA recipients weren't being served by DACA, they may have been allowed to stay, but they were still under the shadow of the non-permanence of that solution.
        But, our faith in our "Rule of Law" philosophy - as a nation - was being subverted, in the open, and  right in front of us

        There are more buts, but, as I see it, your response illustrates that of many others. Your head is saying one thing and your heart another. It takes effort to follow the right path when your passion is overruling your reason. (that's a generic you of course)


      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        The problem, IMO, was that the program - not a law - basically said "You and you and you do not have to follow the law...but you and you and you most certainly do."  It gave a "bye" to millions of people that Obama felt should not be required to behave in a legal manner, and that just wasn't within his authority.  Again, IMO, Congress accepted it (by just keeping quiet) because they did not want to address the issue as they should, but that does not make it right.  As far as being best for the nation, it is never in the best interests of a nation of laws to excuse millions from obeying those laws.

        ??  Trump (very obviously) did not have the votes, yet will still get the blame.  Makes sense, right?  Of course, one could say the same about Obama - he didn't have the votes either so decided to ignore the law yet doesn't get blame.  Makes even more sense, right?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Well, I'm not sure it was or was not in his authority. Has a definite determination been made on that? Was it challenged in court and a decision rendered?  The only court rulings on DACA I'm aware of are rulings against Trump's move to end DACA. Here is the latest:

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 548631002/

          In a scathing 60-page ruling, Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that administration moves to cancel DACA were "arbitrary" and "capricious" because DHS "failed adequately to explain its conclusion the program was unlawful."

          The court gave the Trump administration 90 days to challenge the ruling before reinstating DACA in its entirety.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            As far as I know the president does not have the authority to cancel laws congress has passed, and that's exactly what the DACA program did.  Indeed, the President is sworn to enforce the laws of the nation - Article II, section 3, clause 5 of the constitution that the president swears to uphold is the "faithful execution clause" which says the president will enforce all laws whether he likes them or not. 

            LOL  The judge demands proof that DACA was illegal in order that a president can cancel...the program a president enacted.  Can we all chant "Politics instead of law" in unison?  Only an idiot (low IQ, not name calling) would ever call the cancellation of that program "arbitrary", and "capricious" is just as foolish as the whole immigration fiasco has been under attack for decades - it is certainly not something sudden or unexpected.

            Have to wonder how the court would react to the sudden arrest and deportation of DACA kids, 100% in line with the laws congress passed.  Let the court prove the legality, rather than Trump prove the illegality, of a presidential order to ignore the law.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              So, you are calling three federal judges "idiots"? Has what the Obama administration did been declared"illegal"? No, it hasn't.

              http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … titutional

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                If the shoe fits...  But I didn't see where three judges claimed the action was "arbitrary and capricious", just one.  Perhaps he was lying for political purposes, though, or maybe he doesn't know the definition of those words.  I guess he need not be a true idiot; there are other explanations for such a stupid declaration.

                And no, it has not been declared illegal, although may congressmen/women have questioned it in the past.  Of course, it has never been tested, either...  What THIS court is demanding is that Trump prove unconstitutionality before a presidential order can "undo" a presidential order.  Again, that seems like something only an idiot would require, for no order and no law can ever be enacted that cannot be rescinded, and without being forced to prove unconstitutionality before doing so.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Well, you're certainly entitled to think a judge's ruling is wrong or stupid or politically motivated. Let me correct that, three judges' rulings. Of course, a layman second-guessing three federal judges is not terribly persuasive. To me, anyway.

                  Even so, I do agree that it would be better all the way around if Congress would act upon it and do something.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    PP, if you don't think federal judges are ruling based upon their political ties/connections and their personal social concepts you are very sadly mistaken.  They have been doing it for years and since Trump was elected it has certainly gotten no better.  Why do you think all the suits over travel were filed in courts in very liberal states?

                    But stupid: the stupid referred to a single comment, that Trumps action was "arbitrary and capricious", and I've said that several times.  This I stand by: either that judge was intentionally lying, doesn't know the meaning of the words or is simply an idiot.

                    Yes.  If congress wishes some people to be exempt from immigration laws, rather than those laws applying to everyone as they do now, then they damn well need to change the law.  Not expect a president, current or past, to ignore their sworn duty and decide not to enforce them as inhuman, a hardship for millions of people or just because the president doesn't like the law.

  2. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 19 months ago

    So liberals NOW want to legislate an Obama Executive Order deemed  wrongly applied  by Trump ? The fragile ego of liberals kind of figures doesn't it, Talk about a butt hurt bunch of anarchists  ?


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)