Pelosi Battles Pro-Amnesty Demonstrators At DREAM Act Event
|| Daily Caller
This is What Democracy Looks Like?
“A group of undocumented protesters shouted down House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a community event on Monday for working with President Trump to pass the DREAM Act.
Pelosi responded to the outburst in impolitic fashion, yelling for the protesters to “Stop it!”
Pelosi was attending an event in San Jose with California Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman when a group of around 40 protesters interrupted with shouts of “Let us speak,” and “No lip service.”
San Francisco’s CBS affiliate reported that some of the demonstrators carried signs reading “Democrats are Deporters.”
They appeared upset that Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been negotiating with Trump in order to pass a law that will grant amnesty to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
“We undocumented youth demand a clean bill…We undocumented youth demand that you do not sell out our community and our values…We undocumented youth will not be a bargaining chip for Trump,” the agitators shouted, according to CBS San Francisco.
After the initial outburst from protesters, Pelosi tried to regain control of the event.
“Let me say this, because you’ve had your say, and it’s beautiful to our ears to hear you protecting your self dignity,” Pelosi began.
“No lip service!” the demonstrators chanted.
“Stop it. Just stop it now,” Pelosi repeated over and over.
“Yes or no!” the protesters screamed.
“To what?” Pelosi asked in response.
“We do not owe you nothing,” the protesters shouted, adding: “This is what democracy looks like!”
California Goes Full Sanctuary State With Sweeping Immigration Bill
|| Daily Caller
“California lawmakers punctuated the end of the 2017 legislative season by passing a comprehensive immigration bill that makes the state one of the nation’s most hostile to federal immigration authorities.
In a party line vote early Saturday morning, the state senate passed SB 54, a long-debated measure to shield illegal immigrants from the Trump administration’s strict immigration enforcement.
The bill sharply limits state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevents police officers from questioning or detaining people on civil immigration violations.
Entitled the “California Values Act,” the final version passed the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 27-11. The bill, now headed to Gov. Jerry Brown, is a scaled-back revision of an earlier proposal that would have cut off communication and resource-sharing with federal immigration authorities except in cases backed by a criminal warrant.
Democratic lawmakers amended SB 54 after negotiations with Brown last week to allow immigration agents to keep working with state corrections officials. Legislators also agreed to allow state and local police to hand over criminal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the subject has been convicted of one or more of 800 crimes enumerated in a previous law, the California Trust Act.
California senate leader Kevin De Leon said the changes wouldn’t alter the fundamental objective of the law: preventing law enforcement from aiding the Trump administration’s deportation crackdown against supposedly non-violent illegal immigrants.
“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said according to the Los Angles Times. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”
De Leon introduced SB 54 in December in response to Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. The measure was one of several introduced by Democratic lawmakers to benefit California’s 2.3 million illegal immigrant residents. Other proposals included using public funds for immigrants’ legal defense and expanding employer protections against ICE operations at work sites.
The original draft of SB 54 drew protest from many of California’s law enforcement officials and some Democratic lawmakers, who worried its severe restrictions on cooperation with ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens to avoid detention. De Leon’s compromise with Brown made the bill palatable for California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and moved the California Police Chiefs Association from opposed to neutral, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The amended version of SB 54 still has significant opposition in California’s law enforcement community. In a statement released in advance of Saturday’s vote, the California Sheriffs Association said the bill “goes too far in cutting off communications” with the federal government and prevents notification about the pending release of public safety threats such as repeat drunk drivers and hit-and-run suspects.
The passage of SB 54, which Brown is expected to sign in the coming weeks, will likely worsen tension between California and federal law enforcement officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold certain federal grants from jurisdictions that refuse to honor immigration detention requests or give ICE agents access to local jails. He has singled out San Francisco and Los Angeles as cities whose sanctuary policies run afoul of new Department of Justice eligibility rules for criminal justice grants.
On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago gave California, and every other state, a temporary reprieve from Sessions’ crackdown. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued a nationwide injunction that blocks the Department of Justice from implementing the new guidelines while Chicago’s lawsuit against the order is is evaluated by the courts.”
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
“The Supremacy Clause is that which derives from Constitutional law and sets forth that three distinct areas of legislation be at the forefront. It states that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties encompass the “supreme law of the land”, therefore making them the highest areas of law possible within the legal system of America. The Supremacy Clause may be found in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
A landmark case representing one of the earliest examples of the use of the Supremacy Clause is that of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland had no legal right to tax the Second Bank of the United States as a Federal entity. This exhibited how the Supremacy Clause called into question the actions of the State, and therefore, made it so that the State could not legally tax the Federal Government.
Another case that made use of the Supremacy Clause in connection with Constitutional law was that of Missouri v. Holland. This Supreme Court case was conducted over the cause of international treaties. The Court ruled that the power of the Federal Government to enforce treaties overrode that of the State’s authority to voice concerns as to the violation of their local rights as prescribed from the 10th Amendment.
This Amendment was used by the Supreme Court following the Civil War and stated that states assumed the rights to powers not already set forth for the Federal Government. This did not last long, however, as everything was shifted to the Government to have vast national power, which meant that the Federal Government could not be subject to State law aside from by its own volition.
In addition, the Supremacy Clause also maintains that State legislatures assume, in one way or another, the guidelines and procedures set forth by the Federal Government. This is due to the presentation of two issues that stem from State and Federal conflict. These include Congress’ surpassing of its original authority as well as its overall intent in going over that of State policy. In both cases, Congress may be acting with the express authority of creating uniformity of legislature. In such a way it may be attempting to enable the coexistence of Federal and State government.
A case that highlighted such issues of Federal law presuming power over State action is that of Pennsylvania v. Nelson. In this case, the Supreme Court instituted qualifications for when the Government does encroach upon the rule of states, even when absent of apparent intent. These include that the Federal law is so extensive that states may not be able to adequately supplement it, the fact of the “Federal interest’s dominance,” and whether “State law” is in so much of a contrast to the Federal administration that it may only do harm to it. Such cases represent the ways in which the Supremacy Clause has been employed.”
Nightmare: DACA Amnesty DREAM Act Will Cost $115 Billion Thanks to Obamacare
“Taxpayers in the United States will face a steep bill if the Trump administration signs legislation to extend legal status to so-called “Dreamers,” the illegal aliens who arrived as children and are now protected under the Obama-holdover unlawful executive order known as DACA.
The cost of a legislation to legalize childhood arrivals is likely to be far higher than earlier attempts because of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies. The Affordable Care Act subsidizes the costs of health insurance for millions of Americans and would likely foot the bill for many of those whose residency in the U.S. would be legalized by the DREAM Act.
The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending.
That may come as a surprise to lawmakers. The last time the DREAM Act was seriously considered, the Congressional Budget Office said that the bill would reduce budget deficits by about $1.4 billion over the following decade. But that bill prohibited those it legalized from receiving subsidies toward health insurance until they became permanent legal residents after ten years, while the current version of the bill does not.
The DREAM Act of 2017, sponsored by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, would extend legal residency and a path to citizenship for at least 3.3 million people, according to the Migration Policy Institute. These include 1.8 million illegal aliens who would be immediately eligible, plus 1.5 billion who would become eligible in the near future by doing things such as enrolling in school.”
These Are The 9 Countries That Send The Most ‘Dreamers’
|| Daily Caller
“President Donald Trump’s order to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive amnesty has created uncertainty about the fate of the program’s beneficiaries.
Advocates for the DACA recipients, who are commonly known as Dreamers, say they could be forced to return to countries where they have no social ties. But where exactly would Dreamers go in the unlikely event that Congress doesn’t work out a deal to give them some kind of legal status?
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data on the DACA population shows that the vast majority are from Latin America, especially America’s southern neighbor. Mexico has contributed more Dreamers than any other country by a wide margin. That’s not particularly surprising, given the country’s deep economic and social ties to the U.S., especially along a 2,000 mile shared border.
Still, when compared to other countries, the number of Mexican nationals in the DACA program stands out. Of the nearly 790,000 Dreamers, about 618,000 — 78 percent — are originally from Mexico. In other words, about four out of every five illegal immigrants who received deferred status under DACA are Mexican nationals.
By comparison, the immigrants from the other countries on the list represent tiny fractions of the Dreamer population. Second place El Salvador has sent about 28,000 DACA recipients, or 3.5 percent of the total. Guatemala and Honduras, which along with El Salvador compose the violent “Northern Triangle” countries of Central America, each contribute 20,000 and 18,000 Dreamers, respectively.
South American countries round out the rest of the top nine, with the notable exception of South Korea, which is the only East Asian country that has sent more than 1,000 Dreamers. About 7,200 South Korean nationals are DACA recipients — just shy of 1 percent of the total.
Here are the top nine nationalities in the Dreamer population:
Trump Praises DACA Recipients Serving In Military, But Only One-Tenth Of A Percent Are In Service
|| Daily Caller
“President Donald Trump drew attention Thursday to the illegals currently serving in the military as a reason why they should perhaps not be deported, but just 0.11 percent of DACA recipients are actually in service.
In a series of tweets Thursday, Trump appeared to completely reverse his stance on DACA, tweeting: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!…..”
“…They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age,” Trump added. “Plus BIG border security.”
Although Trump expressed astonishment that the American public would want to send DACA recipients back to their respective home countries because some serve in the military, the Pentagon recently told The Daily Caller News Foundation that fewer than 900 DACA recipients out of a total of 800,000 are currently serving in the military, which amounts to 0.11 percent. In other words, about a tenth of a percent of DACA recipients are serving.
“There are less than 900 individuals currently serving in the military, or have signed contracts to serve, who are recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) authorization,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Haverstick told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement last Wednesday. “These individuals are part of the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) Pilot Program. The Department of Defense is coordinating with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security (DHS) regarding any impact a change in policy may have for DACA recipients. The Department defers to our colleagues at DHS on questions related to immigration, naturalization, or citizenship.”
The MAVNI program opened to DACA recipients in 2014. MAVNI was initiated in 2009 during the Obama administration, but was put on hold in September 2016 over security concerns. The program was suspended in part because reviews showed that some of the illegal enlistees represented “a significant counterintelligence threat.”
California’s Sanctuary State Law Is Moving Forward
|| Hot Air
“Monday California Governor Jerry Brown reached an agreement with California Senate leader Kevin de León which will make California a “sanctuary state.” The bill, known as SB54, is designed to create a legal wall of sorts between illegal immigrants and U.S. immigration authorities.
s originally submitted by de León earlier this year the bill would have prevented ICE from interviewing people about their legal status in the state’s jails and prisons, even if they had been arrested for a violent crime. However, strong opposition from state law enforcement officials had an impact. In March Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones told reporters, “If SB 54 passes, it will allow dangerous, violent career criminals to slip through the cracks and be released back into our communities.”
Governor Brown apparently heard those complaints and convinced de León to water down his original version of the bill in exchange for his guarantee he would sign it. The Mercury News reports on what the bill does and doesn’t allow:
The latest version of Senate Bill 54 would allow federal immigration officers to interview people in custody — though they can no longer have permanent office space in jails, according to information provided by Senate Leader Kevin de León’s office, who wrote the bill. The changes also would exclude state prisons from many of the requirements and would expand the list of crimes that would be exempted from some of the bill’s key provisions, amendments sought by some law enforcement groups as well as Brown…
SB 54 still prohibits law enforcement officers from asking people about their immigration status, participating in border-patrol activities, arresting people on civil immigration warrants, or acting as deputized immigration enforcement agents.
It still would restrict the ability of California law enforcement officers to notify federal immigration agents about the immigration status of some detainees or to transfer some inmates into federal custody. But in a concession to law enforcement, a longer list of crimes would be exempted from those restrictions, such as felony assault convictions within the previous 15 years.
The Hill adds that the bill “would also require California schools, hospitals, libraries and court houses to restrict enforcement of federal immigration laws on their premises.” All of this is being done to block what is seen as increased deportation activity by ICE under the Trump administration.”
San Diego Hepatitis A Outbreak Deaths Reach Sixteen To Date
|| Union-Tribune San Diego
“San Diego County’s hepatitis A outbreak shows no signs of slowing, according to the latest update released Tuesday by the county Health and Human Services Agency.
The outbreak’s death total rose to 16 — one more than last week’s total. The number of confirmed cases reached 421, up 23 from last week. The number of hospitalizations also pushed higher, reaching 292 from 279 the week before.
New numbers came one day after a city of San Diego contractor began a new sidewalk and street cleaning campaign that has workers using high-pressure sprayers to scour sidewalks with bleach-infused water capable of killing the hepatitis A virus.
The county declared a local public health emergency on Sept. 1, enhancing an ongoing vaccination campaign with the installation of hand-washing stations in locations where homeless residents, who have been hit hardest by the outbreak, gather.
Hand hygiene is a focus of the public health effort to stem the outbreak because the virus can spread when people don’t wash their hands well enough after going to the bathroom and then share food, drink, drugs, have sex or other close contact with an uninfected person.
In recent weeks, public health officials have said that, because the incubation period for hepatitis A ranges from 15 to 50 days, it may take several more months for any positive effects of the current sanitation campaign to be obvious.
The symptoms of hepatitis A infection, which do not appear in all cases, include: fever, fatigue, nausea, loss of appetite, yellowing of the eyes (jaundice), stomach pain, vomiting, dark urine, pale stools and diarrhea.
Infection can be prevented through vaccination. Though most recover with little or no treatment, a hepatitis A infection can be fatal for those with pre-existing liver damage and other health conditions.
On Wednesday, Mayor Kevin Faulconer has scheduled a news conference to give details about locating multiple large tent structures that could give temporary shelter to hundreds of people living on the streets.
The industrial tents will include beds, showers, restrooms and hand-washing stations.
The mayor’s morning news conference is schedule for the parking lot next to Father Joe’s Villages, which provides services and indoor shelter for the homeless in downtown San Diego. It is unclear whether the parking lot will be a site for one of the tents or how long it will take the city to get the tent program up and running.
The idea of the tents was pushed by San Diego Padres Managing Partner Peter Seidler and chain restaurant operator Dan Shea. They announced in July that they had raised enough money to secure at least two tents, which could accommodate 250 people each.
The city in past years erected temporary tent shelters for the homeless, but that program was abandoned in favor of getting them into permanent housing. That effort has lagged because of a lack of affordable housing and various individuals and groups have urged the city to again provide more temporary shelter until the “housing first” model picks up steam.
A January count of homeless people in San Diego found the population had reached 9,116, a 5 percent increase from last year. Of those, 5,621 were unsheltered, an increase of 14 percent.
The unsheltered population downtown jumped by 27 percent.”
SCOTUS Sides With Trump on Travel Ban over 9th Circuit & other Federal Judges
“The Supreme Court handed President Trump a win Tuesday when it upheld his ban on refugees from six Muslim-majority countries. The ruling blocked a lower court decision.
Trump’s travel moratorium, which temporarily bars visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, stirred protests across the country earlier this year when it was first implemented. In airports from JFK to Dulles, activists charged the White House with discrimination. The airports themselves were overwhelmed because they were not properly prepared. In its second try, the Trump administration offered more guidance, took Iraq off the list of banned countries and assured those with visas that had already been approved that those documents would not be revoked.
The court will consider the travel ban again on October 10.”
Cuomo assigns ‘gang prevention’ cops to Long Island schools where MS-13, others thrive
|| NY Daily News
“ALBANY — Calling schools “the breeding ground” for dangerous gangs like MS-13, Gov. Cuomo on Wednesday announced state police will be going into schools to combat the problem.
Cuomo during a Long Island appearance said “gang prevention officers” from the State Police will be posted in the 10 Suffolk County schools believed to have the highest incidents of gang-related activity.
Suffolk County has been ravaged murders and violence committed by the Central American-based gang. The situation even resulted in a visit recently by President Trump, who vowed to “destroy the vile cartel MS-13.”
Cuomo said he considers MS-13 “domestic terrorists.”
“They are thugs,” Cuomo said. “They are thugs that have to be stamped out.”
Cuomo said school teachers are not equipped to deal with gang violence, which reinforces the need for a police presence that can work with educators to identify early warning signs of gang activity, interact with students, instructors and the community, and serve as a needed resource.
The State Police will also release a gang awareness curriculum, Cuomo said.”
Executive Authority: How Presidential Statements Could Undermine Both Sides In The Litigation Over DACA
“Below is my column in USA Today on the role that statements from both President Barack Obama and Donald Trump could feature greatly in the unfolding litigation over the rescinding of the DACA order. Ironically, it will be the opposing sides relying on the respective statements from these presidents.
Here is the column.
For Justice Department lawyers, this week must have a maddening familiarity.
The lawyers are in court defending President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. They are also looking at a challenge by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and others to President Trump’s rescission of DACA.
Key to both cases is the doctrine of the separation of powers. Tuesday, the administration staked out the position that DACA was constitutionally flawed as a circumvention of the legislative branch. However, that position was less than 10 hours old when Trump posted a tweet that directly contradicted the legal position of his own administration. Trump suggested that he might reissue DACA or a similar program if Congress does not act — effectively same position as Obama.
It was an all-too-familiar position for the Justice Department. Earlier this year, presidential tweets and comments directly contradicted arguments being used to defend Trump’s immigration ban in court. Those tweets were then used by various courts in rulings against the administration.
However, there is a twist this time. The expected litigation over DACA’s rescission could feature not one but two presidents as witnesses against their own positions: Trump and Obama.
After Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted from my prior work on the separation of powers in his announcement rescinding DACA, I have certainly heard from many angry people who were aghast that my work would support such a result. It does. As a Madisonian scholar, I believe strongly in clear lines of separation of powers and the need to restore legislative authority after years of unilateral presidential actions. I also happen to support protections for “dreamers,” whose parents brought them here illegally when they were young children. In the end, it was not the merits but the means behind Obama’s program that ran afoul of the Constitution. Regardless of how one feels about amnesty programs, Trump returned DACA to the place it should have remained: in Congress.
Sessions laid out that principled position in favor of the legislative process mandated by the Framers. Yet no sooner had the attorney general explained that position when the president tweeted, “Congress now has six months to legalize DACA (something the Obama administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”
The tweet was widely interpreted to mean that Trump is prepared to do exactly what Sessions said was unconstitutionally done by the Obama administration: Issue an executive action to protect DACA immigrants.
It is hard to see how “revisit” does not mean “reissue.” If so, the tweet undermines the position of the administration in court over DACA and takes away constitutional high ground claimed by Sessions. In the pending litigation, plaintiffs can now argue that DACA is not really dead, and that the president was not serious about leaving it entirely to Congress.
Likewise, any challenge by Schneiderman and others can now cite the tweet as evidence that the separation of powers concerns were not the motivation for the president. Rather, they will argue that Trump, like Obama, has suggested that he could order the same relief if Congress does not yield to his demands.
The tweet also undermined the legislative strategy of the administration. The pressure to get Congress to act seemed to be working after Sessions’ announcement. Many Republicans saw the political costs of the termination of DACA as worse than the costs for passing some protection for these individuals. As soon as that pressure seemed to be motivating members toward action, the tweet reduced that pressure by suggesting that Trump would not allow the program to truly die.
Conversely, Schneiderman and the challengers have their own inconvenient presidential statements to contend with. Some expect challengers to bring a case under the Administrative Procedure Act as a “substantive” (or “legislative”) rule requiring a notice-and-comment period. Putting aside that the rule does not require such a process for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” Schneiderman and his other challengers never went to court to challenge DACA itself on the same grounds. DACA notably did not go through notice or comment.
Finally, not only can the Justice Department argue that the procedural rule does not apply to a president as a non-agency, the memo creating DACA stated, “This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”
Likewise, where Trump’s tweets and comments are likely, again, to feature prominently in litigation, Obama’s statements are likely to be equally problematic for challengers. Some challengers are suggesting that DACA may be permanent because of the “estoppel doctrine” — arguing that dreamers relied on the government promise that they could remain.
However, in his issuing of the DACA order, Obama expressly stated that it is “not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.” Obama also said he could not change federal immigration law through his executive orders.
Thus, Obama and his administration are on record undermining claims under both the procedural rule and estoppel. Ultimately, the challengers will be in the unenviable position of arguing that Trump’s rescinding DACA requires notice and comment when Obama’s implementation of DACA did not.
Moreover, challengers are suggesting that Obama had inherent presidential authority to bar the enforcement of federal law, but that Trump cannot use the same authority to enforce it. Finally, they will have to argue that people already in this country unlawfully have an enforceable promise despite Obama saying that he could not change the law or make any permanent promises.
The deepening uncertainty over presidential statements and the status of DACA only reinforces the wisdom of the Framers in forcing such major decisions into the legislative process. What we need is additional legislation, not proclamations. Otherwise, the upcoming litigation is going to get awfully confusing.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.”
University Of California President Sues Over DACA Rollback
|| Daily Caller
“The University of California became the first college Friday to sue the Trump administration over its decision to rollback the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
UC president Janet Napolitano, who helped form the DACA program in 2012, filed the lawsuit in a federal court, alleging that the Trump administration’s decision violated the rights of the students who participate in the program, reports KTVU.
“Neither I, nor the University of California, take the step of suing the federal government lightly, especially not the very agency that I led,” Napolitano said. “It is imperative, however, that we stand up for these vital members of the UC community. To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy.”
Napolitano was serving as the secretary of the Department of Homeland during the Obama administration when she helped form DACA, which gives children brought to the United States illegally two year work permits to stay in the country. The Trump administration announced Tuesday that they would be rescinding the program with a six month delay in order to allow Congress time to act if they want.
Napolitano’s lawsuit argues that rolling back DACA will harm the University of California by taking away productive students and that the Trump administration did not take the proper steps when deciding to cancel the program.
“The University has constitutionally-protected interests in the multiple educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. If these students leave the University before completing their education, UC will lose the benefits it derives from their contributions, as well as the value of the time and money it invested in these students,” the lawsuit says.
There are currently 800,000 illegal immigrants who receive DACA in the United States. Approximately 4,000 illegal immigrant students attend the UC campus, a good portion of which are students who are on DACA.”
“The point I’m trying to illustrate here is that fairness in immigration policy has to be understood in the context of scarcity. The demand for U.S. residency, given how wealthy the country is, vastly outstrips the supply of immigration spots that America offers or can realistically offer. Moreover, no country on earth has a fully open-borders policy as a matter of law.
The question of justice that arises, then, is this: Is it fair to all those people who want to come to the U.S. but cannot (owing to oceans and immigration laws) that people in violation of U.S. immigration law are allowed to stay? You might say that the fact that DACA-eligible individuals were brought as children defeats these considerations of fairness. But what of the millions of Bangladeshi children, many of whom have nothing but a sweatshop to look forward to? They would have loved to grow up in the U.S.
And what of the children who were brought into the U.S. legally? DACA offers no protections to such individuals. Many of the visas the U.S. offers, including the F-1 student visa and the H1-B, are temporary, and many children are brought to the U.S. as dependents by parents who have such visas. Such a child can be in the same situation as a DACA recipient: She grew up mostly in the U.S., but would have to leave once her parents’ visa runs out.”