The Next Phase of Immigration Reform

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Trump stated that he plans to phase out DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Executive Order which Obama put in to place to help prevent deportations of people who were brought here as children. Clearly, given that they were children they had neither choice nor say in the matter and they certainly didn't understand the (il)legality of being brought here. Protests against this choice are underway at this time.

On the one hand I agree that the law is the law and if these people are not here legally then they should be held to the law even if they graduated high school, went to college, graduated, and now hold jobs. On the other hand, since they have graduated high school and/or college and are now holding jobs these are the last people you want to kick out of the country. These are the sort of (mostly) law-abiding, stable, working adults who are trying to build a future for themselves and whatever family they eventually start. Why would you want to get rid of people leading stable lives? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I would just declare them citizens and be done with it.

[Orlion]

Trump stated that he plans to phase out DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Executive Order which Obama put in to place to help prevent deportations of people who were brought here as children. Clearly, given that they were children they had neither choice nor say in the matter and they certainly didn't understand the (il)legality of being brought here. Protests against this choice are underway at this time.

On the one hand I agree that the law is the law and if these people are not here legally then they should be held to the law even if they graduated high school, went to college, graduated, and now hold jobs. On the other hand, since they have graduated high school and/or college and are now holding jobs these are the last people you want to kick out of the country. These are the sort of (mostly) law-abiding, stable, working adults who are trying to build a future for themselves and whatever family they eventually start. Why would you want to get rid of people leading stable lives? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I would just declare them citizens and be done with it.

What's somewhat upsetting is that Congress had a looong time to make DACA the law of the land, something that the Democrats are scrambling to do right now. This did not have to be the problem it is now.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Agreed. Immigration has been one of the elephants in the room for well over a decade now yet no one ever did anything about the system.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Just days after one Federal Court upheld restrictions on the travel ban, allowing certain people into the country, Justice Kennedy issued a reversal of that ruling, so Trump's travel ban is back in full force as of Monday. The next hearing on this case is not scheduled until 10 October, well past the ban's original 90-day window.

[Avatar]

Flip, flop, flip, flop...can nobody make up their damn minds? Or at least win a lasting solution?

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, because everyone thinks they can just file a lawsuit to stop whatever law they don't like. Also, the typical mode of thinking these people use is "see? this judge ruled in our favor, so that is the end of it" until the other side appeals, wins their appeal, and they also say "see? this judge ruled in our favor so that is the end of it" until the Supreme Court has to roll its eyes and issue a ruling.

Between Executive Orders from the Executive Branch and temporary injunctions preventing laws from being enacted or enforced from the Judicial Branch, the Legislative is being drowned out as a legitimate branch of government.

This sort of "the law is struck down" followed by "no, your striking down of the law is struck down, so the law is back on the books" is what we call "legislating from the bench" and it is getting out of hand. Sometimes, people don't even wait for a law to be signed before they file suits against it.

[Avatar]

Still, the process has to exist, otherwise you'll get laws that are unconstitutional.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It gets worse than that--sometimes we get laws which are unconstitutional even with that system in place. All it takes for an unconstitutional law to remain on the books is a sufficiently convincing legal argument or enough people who are willing to cast a vote to keep it in force.

[Rawedge Rim]

It gets worse than that--sometimes we get laws which are unconstitutional even with that system in place. All it takes for an unconstitutional law to remain on the books is a sufficiently convincing legal argument or enough people who are willing to cast a vote to keep it in force.

Hence Roe v. Wade from the 4th amendment (scratching head)

[Skyweir]

What concerns me is the utter lack of policy direction or certainty. Trumps not clear, no one else is clear. Get all your ducks in a line, workshop the problem to find a workable way forward.

[Avatar]

Hence Roe v. Wade from the 4th amendment (scratching head)

Yeah, that one always confused me as well. Not that I disagree with it, just don't think it needs to rest on such dubious grounds.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

What concerns me is the utter lack of policy direction or certainty. Trumps not clear, no one else is clear. Get all your ducks in a line, workshop the problem to find a workable way forward.

Immigration has been a problem that Congress and Presidents have been avoiding for decades. It should have been addressed during Clinton's two terms and, failing that, it definitely should have been addressed during Bush's two terms--he was governor in Texas before being President so he definitely knew what a problem the system was. Obama tried to deal with it halfheartedly--he implemented DACA while also being the President whose Administration deported more illegal immigrants than the three previous Administrations put together.

[Avatar]

Well, he'll probably lose that record now.

--A

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

It gets worse than that--sometimes we get laws which are unconstitutional even with that system in place. All it takes for an unconstitutional law to remain on the books is a sufficiently convincing legal argument or enough people who are willing to cast a vote to keep it in force.

I wonder if this goes to show that the concept of a law being unconstitutional is not well-formed... It reminds me of how easy it is to prooftext from the Bible.

Indeed, if the moral background upon which legal documents (such as the Constitution or SCOTUS rulings thereon) metaphysically depend, is subjective and relative, fluid, then it would be silly to think that America, or any similar country for that matter, actually even has a constitution in the first place. It is not the paper, or the ink on it, from long ago, but the meaning of it; but its meaning is not some once-for-all-time fixed message, but one designed to be amended from the start. So at best, a constitution is a semi-fiction, to say nothing of one so imperfect as the American one.

[Avatar]

I don't have a problem with something like that having the ability to be flexible. I also don't think that the original meaning is as important as the current interpretation.

Things change, our perception of what is right or important also changes.

Of course, that also carries risks.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

On the one hand, I understand that there are many countries who do not have a written Constitution and they function just fine without it. That means only that the vast majority of citizens like their stable status quo (and there is nothing wrong with a stable status quo, I assure you). On the other hand, without a written set of rules the government can decide tomorrow that whatever it wants to do is legal, even if what they want to do violates that long-standing stable status quo. Without a set of rules that say "the government cannot roll tanks down your street and search your house without a warrant" then the government can roll tanks down your street and search your house without a warrant.

On the other other hand, even with a written set of rules in place if the government decided to use the military to do something which violates those rules it will be able to do so because all its guns give it the authority to violate its own rules. At that point you have a choice: comply, be shot, ...or shoot back.

Anyway...back on topic...California is suing the Trump Administration over the DHS's plan to continue forward with "the wall". The crux of their argument is that the DHS is breaking one set of laws by exempting itself from other Federal laws regarding the environment. The Federal Government often exempts itself from its own rules so this is nothing new.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I was gonna say, a written set of rules doesn't stop the government from doing what they want...

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

A new travel ban is set to go into effect on 18 October; this new ban is more restrictive than the current one and will be expanded to include Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. This will, of course, cause a new cycle of lawsuits aiming to stop it but I suppose in the long run it is better to be able to stop potentially bad laws with a quick lawsuit than it would be suffer under some poorly-thought-out piece of crap legislation or executive order.

Eventually, what is going to happen is that a law or EO will be enacted, its opponents will file a suit to get a judge to issue a temporary order preventing implementation of the law/EO...and then the Executive (not necessary Trump, but someone) will proceed to act as if the law or EO is still in force despite the injunction. The Judiciary has no enforcement powers on its own--it has to rely on the Executive for enforcement. If the Executive doesn't enforce a judge's ruling then the judge's ruling is irrelevant.

edit/add

After a lower court had blocked parts of Texas' SB4 (the anti-sanctuary city bill), an appeals court overturned that decision, meaning that SB4 is back in force. Local law enforcement has to comply with ICE requests and municipalities cannot prevent local law enforcement from working with Federal agencies.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Beginning 18 October, the DHS will begin collecting social media content from immigrants--all immigrants, even legal ones--currently living in the United States; the information collected will include screen names, information being shared, and online search results.

This is really dangerous because you *know* that their wide net is going to include not only immigrants but citizens, both natural and naturalized, and will likely capture more than just screen names and search results.

[Zarathustra]

I don't like the idea of them being able to know search results, however, if the other info is publicly available, I don't really see a legal problem. It's still ominous, but if you put that stuff out there, you have to realize anyone can have it.

All immigrants are legal, btw. We have a legal system of immigration; there's only one way to become an immigrant. People who skip that process are illegal aliens.