DACA Broke the Law

The Quote Below–More Misinformation from the Media

“Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program despite several years of efforts by the Trump administration to end the policy. . . . Last Friday, a federal judge in Texas sadly took a different route. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen concluded the DACA program is illegal and immediately put a stop to new applications. . . .

“U.S. immigration policy is something of a mess, particularly when it comes to the Southern border, where racism, xenophobia and presidential politics play an oversized role in poor policymaking. . . .

“Judge Hanen’s ruling did not turn on the worthiness of the program. It was not based on the positive outcomes. It was certainly not supported by public sentiment, as polls show about three=quarters of Americans favor legal status for children brought to this country illegally. Rather, it was on procedural grounds. He ruled that DACA did not receive proper procedural vetting. Matters like the ‘notice and comment’ process were not followed to the letter. . . .

“There are any number of ways this unhappy circumstance can be corrected. The best would be for Congress to finally get around to meaningful immigration reform and broaden legal immigration opportunities generally. . . .

“For generations, the nation’s cities have served as a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees, and for good reason: They benefit. Baltimore, too, is improved by the addition of men and women looking to better their lives, to raise families, to work hard and to prosper. . . . Should all cities not aspire to be sanctuaries for the tired, the poor, the ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore?’ If not, why does the Statue of Liberty claim it to be so.  Drawing and retaining immigrants to Baltimore ought to be among the city’s priorities. It worked out well in the 19th century, with the influx of Germans, Irish and other Europeans. . . .“— Baltimore Needs All the ‘Dreamers’ It Can Get (and So Does the U.S.), Editorial Board, Baltimore Sun, 7/19/21 [Link]

Fact Check of Above Quote: The Sun’s editorial board seems quite upset that Judge Hanen didn’t consider the “worthiness” of DACA and its allegedly “positive” outcomes while focusing on its “procedural” failings.” This is something of a valid criticism, but not for reasons that the Sun editorialists claim. The essential problem with DACA is that it is blatantly unconstitutional. Former President Barack Obama simply proclaimed it law, even though Congress had refused to pass it. Under the Constitution, Congress is given power to make laws, not the president. Before he unilaterally enacted DACA, Obama admitted that he didn’t have authority to do what he did. He just did it anyway. Judge Hanen to his credit did express the view that DACA is illegal. It would have been better, however, if he had made this the centerpiece of his objection.

Like most mass immigration advocates, the Sun’s editorialists don’t seem to care much about constitutional principles and the rule of law. They do acknowledge that congressional action is a way to pass DACA, but not that it is the only way.

These editorialists also seem to think that we should consult the Statue of Liberty about immigration policy, as if it were some kind of idol with powers of speech. To set the record straight, the statue was a gift from France in the 19^th century. It represented American liberty “enlightening the world.” It was about America as an example which the world might want to follow, not an invitation for the world to move here. Sometime later a plaque with Emma Lazarus’ poem about “huddled masses” was attached to the statue.

The poetry is not inspired scripture, nor is it law. It offers no practical guidance as to how many “huddled masses” we should admit. Nor does it focus on the plight of huddled Americans who yearn to breathe free from the divisive diversity imposed on them by unending mass immigration. A level of immigration which may have “worked” in the 19^th century may not be what we need in the 21^st century. The maudlin sentimentality of so many immigration enthusiasts is a poor guide to practical, sensible policy.