Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Sadly, Trump decided to create nearly a million outlaws, when he cancelled the special protection for the Dreamers today.

How is it even legally possible to reverse a previous president's decision like that? Over here all those affected would sue the state and win a case for improper / indecent government (don't know the US legal term, it's mostly used in business, but over here it applies to the state as well.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

DACA is just an administrative policy, so it's even less rigorous than an executive order and is easily ended. Obama created it in the environment of "Congress refuses to do literally anything about immigration policy, so I'm going to make like Nike and Just Do It until they get their shit together". (Spoiler: They never got their shit together.)

There's no reason at all that Trump wouldn't be able to do it. It's like asking why Trump was allowed to order the White House staff to replace Obama's preferred snack (almonds) with Trump's preferred snack (plain Lays potato chips).

[martinuzz]

Doesn't US law have a certainty of law / legal security principle anchored in constitution?

Toying with someone's legal status - to put it simple, today you're considered legal, tomorrow you can suddenly be considered illegal - like that is just unthinkable over here, regardless of whether it is effected by administrative policy or by legislation.


fake-EDIT: oh, I see, in the US it only applies to criminal law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty[/url]]
In United States law the principle of legal certainty is phrased as fair warning and the void for vagueness principle.^[10]
However, in the Calder v. Bull case it was established that in the U.S. the prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to criminal cases, not to civil law.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It'd be arguable even if it applied to civil law. DACA doesn't change people's legal status, not really. It would require an act of Congress to have that much tooth.

Rather, DACA takes advantage of the grey area created by the inherent necessity of enforcement digression. This is just enforcement so very digressive that it comes with a form indicating that the executive agencies are officially ignoring you being an illegal immigrant for the next two years.

[smjjames]

It technically hasn't been cancelled yet since it's on a six month delay. The thing is, as MSH said, it was done adminstratively via executive order and isn't actually set in law, and Congress wants to do it correctly (that is, legislatively). Apparently Trump wanted a way out since it's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, and so, he's basically throwing it to Congress.

Doesn't US law have a certainty of law / legal security principle anchored in constitution?

Toying with someone's legal status - to put it simple, today you're considered legal, tomorrow you can suddenly be considered illegal - like that is just unthinkable over here, regardless of whether it is effected by administrative policy or by legislation.


fake-EDIT: oh, I see, in the US it only applies to criminal law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty[/url]]
In United States law the principle of legal certainty is phrased as fair warning and the void for vagueness principle.^[10]
However, in the Calder v. Bull case it was established that in the U.S. the prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to criminal cases, not to civil law.

The problem that DACA was made to deal with is the fact many kids came over with their parents when the parents came over illegally. So, how do you deal with illegal immigrants who came over as children and didn't (or legally couldn't) choose to come to the US and have been here for decades?

It'd be arguable even if it applied to civil law. DACA doesn't change people's legal status, not really. It would require an act of Congress to have that much tooth.

Rather, DACA takes advantage of the grey area created by the inherent necessity of enforcement digression. This is just enforcement so very digressive that it comes with a form indicating that the executive agencies are officially ignoring you being an illegal immigrant for the next two years.

Which is why it needs to be dealt with legislatively, because DACA is little more than a bandaid.

[scriver]

Was DACA an executive order thing?

Edit: whoops, sorry, you just said it were.

Edit2: I was wondering because I keep trying to explain executives orders to people. I'm probably not the best person to do that, but still.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Which is why it needs to be dealt with legislatively, because DACA is little more than a bandaid.

You're....right, but uh I need to tell you, you see the thing is....about Congress...uh...

I'll...I'll just call you back later.

^{_{Paul! No! No biting your friends!}}

[smjjames]

Which is why it needs to be dealt with legislatively, because DACA is little more than a bandaid.

You're, right, but uh I need to tell you, you see the thing is....about Congress...uh...

I'll...I'll just call you back later.

^{_{Paul! No! No biting your friends!}}

Lol the tiny text, but yeah, I get you, Congress has gotten nowhere in actually dealing with it. Not that there haven't been attempts, just that they keep failing somewhere.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If Democrats under the specter of center-left neoliberal stasis couldn't do it, then my confidence in Screaming & Stabbing era Republicans is...

A number which may be expressed in real terms.

[Helgoland]

Not that there haven't been attempts, just that they keep failing somewhere.

So that's what they call America these days.

[smjjames]

If Democrats under the specter of center-left neoliberal stasis couldn't do it, then my confidence in Screaming & Stabbing era Republicans is...

A number which may be expressed in real terms.

You mean under Obama? The Republicans kept killing it due to their dislike of Obama. Not sure how much work on the immigration system was done under George W. Bush and I don't remember if there was much under Clinton.

Maybe the politicians need the right incentives to get it done? *shrug*

That same 'Screaming and Stabbing era Republicans' is also why I don't have much confidence in getting past the debt ceiling stuff. The Democrats will probably swoop to their rescue at the end of the day though.

[Descan]

Republicans hold the majority, so even if every democrat swooped in, you'd still need, what... 4? 5? republicans to also vote. And that's just in the Senate. I think the math is worse in the House. (I thiiink the debt ceiling shit is house based? It'd be even worse if it was something both chambers need to agree on.)

[Frumple]

Eh. One way or another states have already started piling on with a promise to bury attempts to nix DACA in litigation. Have to see how it falls out.

Really one of those things that hammers in exactly what trump and the GOP are after, though. Just about everything we have says doing that would lose jobs for everyone. Net economic loss, on top of the fucking massive moral failure. So yet again, every piece of shit they squeeze out their mouths about it being anything but racism and/or xenophobia is evidenced to be a complete fucking lie.

[smjjames]

Immigration reform will be contentous for sure, and on top of that, the Republicans have to deal with their own internal divisions. And yes the math is bigger in the house, they'd need 24 or so Republicans to join the Democrats if every Democrat joined.

Eh. One way or another states have already started piling on with a promise to bury attempts to nix DACA in litigation. Have to see how it falls out.

Really one of those things that hammers in exactly what trump and the GOP are after, though. Just about everything we have says doing that would lose jobs for everyone. Net economic loss, on top of the fucking massive moral failure. So yet again, every piece of shit they squeeze out their mouths about it being anything but racism and/or xenophobia is evidenced to be a complete fucking lie.

They see it as unconstitutional because Obama did it through executive order rather than do it legislatively.

[Frumple]

After they jammed their collective thumbs up their asses and sat on a different solution for who knows how long, worked up the states that were attempting a legal challenge, confirmed the xenophobe fuck of an AG that won't attempt a challenge to 'em, and appointed the SCOTUS judge that's putting the issue at risk.

GOP's got a lot of excuses they like to trot out, but they're plain bullshit to an extent you can smell it from one end of this country to the other. Entire reason it's not something dealt with and in a way that wasn't disgusting is caused by shit they've intentionally done. The claim of constitutional concern is bullshit, complete and utter, and there only because they refused to allow anything else (that wasn't a complete ethics abomination, anyway).