Here Are the Ways DACA Violates the Rule of Law
President Trump’s decision to end the unlawful DACA program shows he’s a faithful defender of the Constitution and a true protector of the rule of law.
He’s also saved precious Judiciary resources. We at the Immigration Reform Law Institute been sitting on a giant legal challenge against DACA ever since the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court injunction against its near-identical sister program, DAPA. Thankfully, it’s a case we no longer have to bring.
Below is a summary of our lawsuit’s claims, which we hope serves as a reminder to the American people of the outright assault President Obama committed against the Constitution when he unilaterally decreed DACA amnesty in 2012. With its repeal, President Trump has made a giant stride in restoring constitutional order to the nation.
1. DACA conferred amnesty and federal benefits under the false pretense of “Prosecutorial Discretion.”
“Prosecutorial discretion,” insofar as it is permitted by federal immigration law, is by definition the exercise of discretion not to remove; it is not the conferral of a benefit such as work-permit.
To the limited extent that any “prosecutorial discretion” is permitted by federal immigration law, such discretion is closely detailed in the immigration statute and its underlying regulations. For instance, based an illegal alien’s “extreme hardship,” ICE can seek the cancellation or withholding of a removal. There’s also Temporary Protected Status, Humanitarian Parole, or asylum, all of which are granted based on a number of factors that have been set in statute for years.
The exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” does not permit any DHS employee or officer to grant unlawfully present aliens amnesty and work-permit benefits in the manner attempted by the DACA Directive. No doubt most anti-borders advocates know this by the simple fact that if such executive authority has always existed it would have been used before.
2. DACA expressly violated federal statutes which require the initiation of removal proceedings.
As critics warned at the time, our first experiment with mass amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, led to a giant increase in our illegal alien population far higher than before it took place. In response, President Clinton created the Commission on Immigration Reform, led by civil rights-icon Barbara Jordan, to study the issue and make recommended policy changes. The Jordan Commission’s findings formed the basis of what became true comprehensive immigration reform: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That legislation sought to foreclose attempts by the executive to apply amnesty by fiat, which the executive had done in years previous to small groups through administrative tools such as the parole power and extended voluntary departure.
In response to the Jordan Commission’s report, Congress made it clear that those here without our authorization would be placed in removal proceedings. They amended into Title 8 of the U.S. Code section 1225(b)(2)(A), which reads “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”