Discussion
  • Read More
    StartingOverAgainMonique Judge
    9/07/17 9:34am

    “Ending DACA, whose participants are mostly of Mexican origin, is a culmination of President Trump’s oft-stated commitments — whether personally held, stated to appease some portion of his constituency, or some combination thereof — to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots.”

    All true, but the problem is that you could substitute [A collection of things that the DHS just up and decided to start doing one day] for DACA.

    The grim reality is that for DACA to be more defensible, it needs to be enshrined in law. I actually think you could get enough Senate Republicans on board to do something, but I’m not sure that Paul Ryan is going to be willing to ally the moderate Republicans with Democrats to get something done in the House.

    Reply
    • Read More
      citecheck2StartingOverAgain
      9/07/17 10:30am

      “The grim reality is that for DACA to be more defensible, it needs to be enshrined in law.”

      You hit the nail on the head. While I have always found the arguments that Obama didn’t have the constitutional authority to issue DACA to be bullshit (DAPA is a bit more murky, but DACA was clearly within executive power), DACA’s problem has always been that, as an Executive Order, it was always subject to repeal by subsequent Presidents. That of course doesn’t excuse Trump’s decision to repeal it/pass the buck over to a feckless Congress who has enough to deal with at the moment, giving them a made-up deadline to get it done, but DACA was never going to be a solidly permanent solution without something getting passed in Congress.

      My biggest problem with Trump’s decision is the timing. There was no reason to issue this EO now except that a bunch of racist troll governors from red states issued an ultimatum. There is also no reason to give Congress only 6 months to handle this. I agree that the votes are probably there to get this done, but Congress has so many other things on its agenda that are going to be difficult to pass, and if they don’t pass, do you really think any Republican is going to want to say to their voters that well we didn’t get rid of Obamacare, we didn’t cut taxes, we didn’t build the wall, but hey 800,000 immigrants get to stay here! I would be shocked if the assholes that control the Republican party ever let this get to a vote within the 6 month deadline. They care more about their partisan base than they do about doing the right thing.

      Reply
    • Read More
      RumHammeredStartingOverAgain
      9/07/17 11:41am

      Senate GOP were part of the problem with the DREAM act.

      Reply
  • Read More
    cdwag14Monique Judge
    9/07/17 10:43am

    When the business community comes for Donald Trump & they’ve already started to that is when this ugly experiment. his presidency will come to an end. To be blunt, this fat fuck is bad for business. Period. It’s funny to hear people claim the DACA participants have stolen jobs from good ol white people. It’s funny because none of these dumb ass pieces of white trash are qualified for these jobs. The amount of entitlement in these inbred assholes is simply stunning.

    Reply
  • Read More
    hocuspocusoctopusMonique Judge
    9/07/17 11:29am

    Weren’t many defenders of this trash pile of an administration saying that he had to do something because he was being sued by a dozen AGs? Well, jokes on that dumb ass, mostly because the joke is always on him.

    Reply
  • Read More
    citecheck2Monique Judge
    9/07/17 11:42am

    It’s going to be a really hard legal argument to make if they are only going on animus against Latinx people. The biggest problem is that since DACA was originally implemented by an EO, it was always subject to being rescinded by a subsequent President’s EO. Also, while DACA affects more Latinx people than those of any other group, there are plenty of Black, Asian, and White immigrants who will also stand to lose their status. While decisions showing racial animus don’t necessarily have to only affect that racial group, it makes the bar to demonstrate racial animus more difficult.

    Honestly, I think a more effective argument could be made on due process grounds. Through DACA, these young immigrants have reorganized their lives by attending college and taking on debt and/or buying homes and moving to places where they now are able to legally work. Not to mention that all of them were assured that they wouldn’t be punished for coming out of the shadows and identifying themselves to the government. Trump’s EO rescinding DACA provides no details on what will happen to DACA recipients in six months when this feckless Republican-led Congress fails to legislate to protect them. Will their status be immediately revoked and will the government start deportation proceedings (something tells me that even though DACA recipients would have been low on the prosecutorial discretion food chain without DACA, the newly emboldened ICE won’t be able to resist such easy to find targets)? What sort of process are they going to receive now that they are left vulnerable to the whims of Trump’s administration?

    Of course the due process arguments probably aren’t ripe enough to be litigated until DACA is officially rescinded, but I think it would be a more effective means to challenge the rescission in the courts than racial animus (which is a high bar, given the facts at hand).

    Reply