[ad_1]
President Donald Trump says if the Supreme Court's decision confirms his choice to end Deferred action for child arrivals, with the program providing legal protections for unauthorized immigrant youth, canceling the program, Congress will intervene to protect it.
On Friday morning, Trump began tweeting about the case, which the court will hear in November, in response to comments from Christopher Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, an organization that seals the case. opposes unauthorized immigration. Hajec said the judges should consider whether the DACA is legal rather than probing Trump's decision to end the DACA.
Trump announced that he was terminating DACA in September 2017, arguing that former President Barack Obama did not have the necessary legal authority to create the program by relying on an action of the executive and had admitted. Until now, the courts have kept the program alive, protecting approximately 800,000 unauthorized immigrant youth who arrived in the United States as children from deportation and allowing them to keep their jobs.
In November, the Supreme Court will assess whether Trump's decision to terminate DACA was legal, although a final decision is expected before 2020.
DACA will appear before the Supreme Court. It is a document that even President Obama did not consider legally entitled to sign. He signed it anyway! Rest assured that if the CS does what everyone says it must do, according to the law, a bipartisan agreement will be reached for the benefit of all!
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2019
Although the protection of the recipients of DACA enjoys substantial support from both sides, further debate in Congress This is probably a stalemate at the moment, and there is no guarantee that Congress will take the issue head-on if the Court decides that Trump's decision to terminate the program is legal. After much deliberation, Congress had tried and failed to pass compromise legislation last year. Democrats in the House passed a bill to protect DACA recipients in June, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would probably not pass the bill to a vote.
It is true that Obama himself has repeatedly expressed his doubts as to the unilateral suspension of evictions by the action of the executive before creating the DACA anyway. Asked about his immigration reform goals in an interview with Univision in 2010, Obama said he needed congressional support: "I'm president, I'm not king", has he declared. "I can not do these things alone."
The following year, Obama said that he was "just not the case" to be able to suspend deportations by decree. When he announced the DACA program in 2012, Obama acknowledged that this program was only intended to be an "interim measure" and "not an amnesty".
"This is not a path to citizenship. This is not a permanent solution, "he said.
Seven years later, the program has clearly become more permanent than Obama wanted, but only because Congress was unable – despite the support of some Republicans – to enact legislation codifying the protections afforded to recipients. from DACA. As polls have repeatedly shown, an overwhelming majority of voters support the permanent protections afforded to DACA recipients, or "dreamers."
But last year, Democrats and Republicans failed to find a compromise on the DACA bill during a public debate in the Senate, despite McConnell's blessing. A compromise bill that would combine border security funding with protections for the Dreamers seemed to be the most likely to be passed, but support was defeated when Trump threatened to veto it.
Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court, Congress could choose to maintain the status quo or resume the debate. If the judges rank on the side of Trump, the Republicans will have much more weight to offer the Democrats DACA protections with funds for border security and anything that might be on their immigration list. But if the judges overrule Trump's decision to end the program, Democrats may not need to lobby for a bill to put these protections in the law.
[ad_2]
Source link