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

1. 87

   GA Andersonposted 7 years 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?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 7 years 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.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         GA Andersonposted 7 years 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.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 7 years 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.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 7 years 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.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         GA Andersonposted 7 years 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)
         
         GA

         replyreport
      2. 76

         wildernessposted 7 years 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?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 7 years 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.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 7 years 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years 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

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 7 years 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 7 years 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           wildernessposted 7 years 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              A cursory look finds that the third judge to rule against Trump's rescission of DACA was appointed by GWB. I don't know about the other two. I suppose their decisions could be politically motivated, but do you have any evidence to support your judgement, that this is the case?

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Why do you think all the suits over travel were filed in courts in very liberal states?"
                                 
                                 As far as this specific case, I cannot imagine what those judges are looking when they demand that the Obama policy to ignore the law be proven illegal before a sitting president can change it.  That's beyond reprehensible, but DOES fall into line with the liberal attitudes on immigration.
                                 
                                 PP, you, I and the rest of the world can almost guarantee what a judges decision (in the high courts of the land) will be based on their political leanings.  It works nearly every time and is the sole reason that such a furor is raised over which president gets to pick judges.  That alone makes it obvious what is going on, and it has nothing to do with the constitution, existing law or anything else but the liberal/conservative split in our country.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yes, liberal and conservative presidents appoint judges based on the legal bent of their prior decisions, but that, to me, is different from being "politically motivated." Judges can lean toward rulings in favor of big business over consumer protection, for example, which would be considered a conservative bent.
                                    
                                    If a judge bases his/her decisions upon legal precedence but has a tendency to lean conservative or liberal, I don't consider that to be politically motivated. If, however, they are ignoring or circumventing precedent or law to support a president or party line, then that would be politically motivated. Since I am not a legal scholar, for me to believe a judge has gone against his/her ethical and legal obligations, I would need to hear a significant amount of criticism from other legal scholars. Has that occurred?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 76

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       If politically based decisions are not expected, why does it matter which way they lean? 
                                       
                                       Our legal system of laws is so complex and convoluted that almost any decision can be made in many circumstances - all one has to do is spin it just a little, twist the reasoning just a small amount, refuse historical precedent because the circumstances weren't identical...all of these things are commonly done.  I may be remiss in using "political motivation" rather than "ideology", though - it isn't so much politics as the ideology of the judge in question.  It does seem a little odd that the ideology conforms so well to the party that appointed the judge...
                                       
                                       As the ninth circuit's decisions are commonly reversed by SCOTUS, I'd have to say it does occur.

                                       report
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years 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  ?

   replyreport