Opinion: Editorial: Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, Congress should make DACA stronger, and permanent - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Opinion Editorial: Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, Congress should make DACA stronger, and permanent

17:21  13 november  2019
17:21  13 november  2019 Source:   latimes.com

Trump Bid to End DACA Puts Supreme Court Back in Political Fray

  Trump Bid to End DACA Puts Supreme Court Back in Political Fray The U.S. Supreme Court is again poised to test the bounds of Donald Trump’s presidential powers, this time in a politically charged clash over the fate of 700,000 people who were brought into the country illegally as children. © Bloomberg Demonstrators sing and hold signs during a rally supporting the DACA program, or the Dream Act, outside the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. in 2018. The case, set for argument Tuesday, will mark the climax of Trump’s two-year campaign to unravel former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Editorial : Regardless of what the Supreme Court does , Congress should make DACA stronger , and permanent . The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Nov. 12 on challenges to President Trump’s efforts to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Children Arrivals program.

What impact will the Supreme Court 's decision to pass on the DACA debate have? This is what you should know. Sean Logan/The Republic. What the Supreme Court did . The Supreme Court 's decision Monday buys lawmakers more time to enact permanent legislative protections for dreamers.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

a large white building with United States Supreme Court Building in the background: U.S. Supreme Court© Dreamstime U.S. Supreme Court

Predicting how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case based on the questions the justices raise during oral arguments is a fraught endeavor, but the tenor of those exchanges Tuesday morning did not bode well for supporters of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a potential swing vote, at times seemed to give credence to the Trump administration’s argument that President Obama lacked the legal authority to create DACA in the first place.

Justices take up high-profile case over young immigrants

  Justices take up high-profile case over young immigrants  The Supreme Court is taking up the Trump administration's plan to end legal protections that shield 660,000 immigrants from deportation, a case with strong political overtones amid the 2020 presidential election campaign. All eyes will be on Chief Justice John Roberts when the court hears arguments Tuesday. Roberts is the conservative justice closest to the court's center who also is keenly aware of public perceptions of an ideologically divided court.

The supreme court has rejected the Trump administration’s unusual request to bypass a federal appeals When the Trump administration ended the Daca program, it allowed Daca recipients whose legal Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants Congress to create a solution for Dreamers, but

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday, the administration’s attempts to end the program protecting “Dreamers” could rest on a top She eventually relented under intense pressure. But her refusal to cite their policy objections to the program is now at the heart of what legal experts

If the court ultimately finds that President Trump has the authority to end the program regardless of his spurious rationale, the damage to the so-called Dreamers receiving protections, and to the communities in which they live, could be disastrous. It would give the court’s imprimatur to one of the harshest approaches to immigration in modern American history.

DACA, for those who don’t remember, is the process Obama crafted in 2012 to defer deportations for people who have lived in the United States illegally since they were children, provided that they are employed or attending school and have not been convicted of serious crimes, among other criteria. It goes without argument that the 700,000 or so people currently receiving protection from deportation were living here without permission prior to gaining DACA status. But it makes no sense to oust the Dreamers from the only country they have ever really known, and to deport them to countries that are not only foreign to them, but where in many case they don’t even speak the language. Remember, most of the Dreamers bear little to no responsibility for their predicament since they arrived as children in the care of parents or guardians.

Supreme Court weighs fate of DACA, 700,000 young immigrants

  Supreme Court weighs fate of DACA, 700,000 young immigrants The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging President Trump’s controversial 2017 decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.The justices will hear oral arguments in a case challenging President Donald Trump's controversial 2017 decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which grants qualified immigrants temporary residency and work privileges.

DACA recipients, and congressional leaders, get a temporary reprieve after Supreme Court ruling ensures program will survive at least through the fall. The uncertainty hovering over the program had left DACA enrollees terrified over their future and left Congress so conflicted that DACA negotiations

They have DACA permits but face ICE deportation. What have they done wrong? Nothing but pursue the American dream in a nightmare time for With the lives of DACA recipients now in the hands of the Supreme Court , we should all call our members of Congress , regardless of political affiliation

The Trump administration argues that Obama stretched federal immigration law past its breaking point with the DACA order, and in 2017 it sought to kill the program as legally indefensible. This gets into arcane areas of authority, but DACA’s defenders argue that the president can’t scrap a program because he thinks it’s illegal; that’s a decision for the courts. A president can end or reverse a predecessor’s order because he thinks it’s bad policy, if he sets out a well-reasoned argument explaining why. With DACA, the Trump administration failed to do so.

Beyond the legal wrangling lies the fate of 700,000 people (including Dreamers who are parents of more than 250,000 U.S. citizens, according to the Center for American Progress) who currently can go about their lives and legally hold jobs, pay taxes and be openly active members of their communities without constantly looking over their shoulders for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. It’s a popular program. An overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, tell pollsters they believe the government should leave the Dreamers alone and that they be allowed to pursue a path to citizenship.

'Historic moment': Young DACA recipients to rally as Supreme Court hears arguments

  'Historic moment': Young DACA recipients to rally as Supreme Court hears arguments "When I talk to my kids or other people in the future about this, I want to be able to say that I did everything I could," a Georgetown student with DACA status says."With DACA, there was an immediate sense of relief, knowing that I'd be able to go to college and apply to scholarships," Gonzalez Porras, a junior majoring in American Studies at Georgetown University, told NBC News. "I remember getting my first paycheck at Georgetown and not having to think twice about inserting a social security number, which was a major consideration before DACA.

The Supreme Court would do well to follow Chief Justice Shaw’s example rather than Justice Story’s. It is no exaggeration to say the Prigg decision was the court ’s darkest hour. Editorial : Regardless of what the Supreme Court does , Congress should make DACA stronger , and permanent .

What does DACA do ? Among other things, it provides protection from deportation and offers work Did the Supreme Court explain the decision announced today? In a brief order, the justices did not Has Congress stepped up to offer any guidance out of this legal standoff which has left the lives of

Whatever the court decides — and we fervently hope it comes down on the side of the Dreamers — this issue is best resolved for the long term by Congress. To its credit, Congress has tried, sort of, to craft a permanent solution. Even President Trump has previously said he would support legislation helping the Dreamers. But then he erected a roadblock by insisting that in return for his support Congress must also approve unrelated measures to fund his wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and make other changes to border security. As we’ve argued, that’s not negotiating, it’s hostage-taking, and Congress was right to refuse to deal.

Congress should push through a clean bill offering legal standing and a path to citizenship to qualified Dreamers. It is an issue of fairness that has broad appeal across the political spectrum except, notably, among Trump’s immigration hard-liners. It’s troubling, not to mention dysfunctional, that a relative handful of xenophobes can block a sensible humanitarian effort to grant legal status to people the vast majority of Americans think deserve to become fellow citizens.

A pro-DACA decision by the Supreme Court would be welcome, but it is not a long-term solution since the Trump administration — or any future anti-immigrant regime — could simply go through the correct bureaucratic process and end the protections. A legislative solution is years overdue, and Democrats and Republicans coming together in the House and the Senate to achieve this popular end could help put the lie to the general presumption that our elected representatives no longer have the courage or the competence to do the work for which they were sent to Washington.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court bench after stomach bug .
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the bench on Monday after missing a day at the court last week due to a stomach bug. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); Ginsburg, 86, took her seat wearing one of her lace collars. The justices were there to grant new admissions to the bar, not to hear arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer was not present because he is traveling.This comes after the four-time cancer survivor missed an argument day last week.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!