Republicans are so void of compassion they fail to see DACA's Constitutionality

[Deb]

DACA is a form of child protection. We physically protect children in other countries and help them financially, surely that is a precedent for DACA's legality. I am speechless

Can anyone fill me in here?

[atreides1]

1. Sure!!!

The US protects children in other countries, except when the US is dropping bombs on their villages, or helping US allies to drop bombs on their villages, or looking the other way in order to get access to resources!!!

Maybe we can get some testimony from Iraqi, Afghan, and Yemeni children on how much protection they're getting, from bombs and drone fired missiles!!!

[Deb]

2. Yes but that realization doesn't help me understand DACA

[marylandblue]

4. The unconstitutional part is that DACA gives them semiofficial status

through executive order. It's questionable whether Obama actually had this authority. Even worse, the executive order can easily be undone by the next president, as just happened. Of course, the obvious solution is to make it official through Congressional action, but that would mean they actually did care about these people.

[gratuitous]

5. They didn't bring a court challenge

Remember, Republicans are the ones who challenged the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion in the ACA. What state would deprive its citizens of coverage? Turns out a lot of them, all controlled by Republicans. They purposely made their own people sicker and liable to die younger just to score political points. They didn't challenge DACA in the courts; why not? I say it's because they didn't have a legal argument that would prevail, but a troll on another message board claimed Republicans didn't mount a court challenge because they knew President Trump would nullify DACA. It's mind-boggling to contemplate the cruelty and heartlessness involved in making that argument, let alone that decision. But the white power pepes are just fine with that level of callousness as long as you don't call them racist.

[marylandblue]

7. I think they didn't bring a challenge because

at the time they were still trying to appear compassionate to immigrants. They later challenged the similar DAPA and got 4-4 decision, leavong appeals court ruling against it in.place. Had Scalia still been there, it would have been 5-4 against.

[Deb]

8. I see it as a child welfare issue not immigration for the children already here

If a person votes to get rid of DACA would they not also be guilty of advocating child neglect?

[marylandblue]

9. Morally, yes, but legally, probably not

[Doreen]

3. You have to remember that the trump

goons have been taking aid away from those children in other countries also. They started with that first so what is so surprising that they are attacking our children?

[sarisataka]

6. the constitutionality excuse is a fig leaf

A very very small fig leaf

First the executive branch does not determine constitutionality the judicial does

Second no one has challenged DACA in court yet

Third if Republican states carry through on their threat to challenge it in court it would still be in place and Congress could work on a permanent change to immigration law while the Court decides how much is constitutional and how much is not

Last, and most importantly, there is no reason Congress cannot do their job and make a change to the law while the DACA is in place. Once Congress passes the law and it gets signed the executive order becomes moot.