Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Patine

The Legal Issue With a DACA Repeal Few Seem to Have Thought Of

Recommended Posts

There is a certain legal catch for the Trump Administration. Whereas, for illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in their lifetimes, deporting them to their nation of origin is not so much a big deal by this standard I'm about to bring. BUT, the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. (or in transit to the U.S.) would not be legally registered as citizens, permanent residents, or really anybody, legally speaking, in the nation of their parents' origin. Thus, this would mean forcibly transporting them to that nation is, legally, not deportation, but using U.S. funds, agencies, and capabilities to commit a serious international crime recognized as a major crime by U.S. criminal codes and international treaties signed (and many authored or co-authored) by the U.S. government, and a crime traditionally promoted strongly for enforcement and punishment of by the U.S. government - human trafficking and smuggling of illegal immigrants from one country to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DACA applies to children who were brought here by their parents when they were young.  Technically children born here to illegals are American citizens (however, this could potentially be challenged in court).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

DACA applies to children who were brought here by their parents when they were young.  Technically children born here to illegals are American citizens (however, this could potentially be challenged in court).

Doubt it. It would require a rethinking of the 14th Amendment. 

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, There is no issue with ending DACA beause it's unconstitutional to begin with, It was created by executive order and it was outside Obama's authority. The MOST (and this is really pushing it) that Obama could have done by executive order is order ICE not to deport dreamers.Work permits and such he can't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Actually, There is no issue with ending DACA beause it's unconstitutional to begin with, It was created by executive order and it was outside Obama's authority. The MOST (and this is really pushing it) that Obama could have done by executive order is order ICE not to deport dreamers.Work permits and such he can't do.

But, I'm referring to the children of illegal immigrants who were not born in their parents' home country and are not legally citizens' there either. Moving them from the U.S. to their parents' home nation in that case is, legally, not deportation but using Federal funds and assets to commit the international crime of human trafficking and smuggling of illegal immigrants from country to another. The Constitutionality of DACA within the U.S. itself is not what I'm bringing up here, just to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

But, I'm referring to the children of illegal immigrants who were not born in their parents' home country and are not legally citizens' there either. Moving them from the U.S. to their parents' home nation in that case is, legally, not deportation but using Federal funds and assets to commit the international crime of human trafficking and smuggling of illegal immigrants from country to another. The Constitutionality of DACA within the U.S. itself is not what I'm bringing up here, just to clarify.

OK in that case you have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:23 AM, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Doubt it. It would require a rethinking of the 14th Amendment. 

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

 

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the key phrase which could be challenged.  Depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court, this could be argued to not include children of 2 illegals.  However, I will admit that it is a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the key phrase which could be challenged.  Depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court, this could be argued to not include children of 2 illegals.  However, I will admit that it is a long shot.

Well, since the vile "Citizen's United" ruling, the current U.S. Supreme Court has reached a VERY low ebb in terms of credibility and ethics as far as I see things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, since the vile "Citizen's United" ruling, the current U.S. Supreme Court has reached a VERY low ebb in terms of credibility and ethics as far as I see things...

Money is political expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Money is political expression.

Bribery and graft SHOULD remain crimes. Wealthy corporations, donors, and lobby groups should not be able to just "outbid" the interests of an elected official's very constituents. That is an outright attack on the very principal of a representative electoral system, which is one of the basic foundations of the U.S. (and many other countries') governing systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Bribery and graft SHOULD remain crimes. Wealthy corporations, donors, and lobby groups should not be able to just "outbid" the interests of an elected official's very constituents. That is an outright attack on the very principal of a representative electoral system, which is one of the basic foundations of the U.S. (and many other countries') governing systems.

Well if I give a million dollar check to the Institute for the banning of abortion or whatever it can be assumed I'm expressing my support for the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Well if I give a million dollar check to the Institute for the banning of abortion or whatever it can be assumed I'm expressing my support for the group.

The United States is a republic, BUT it is not the old Venetian, Genoan, or Florentine Republic, where plutocracy was ingrained into the very system, even de jure and in the highest legal theory. Any elected official who chooses to heed the wishes and agenda of a small number of wealthy donors over the majority of their constituents has abdicated and betrayed their duties in office and is no longer is deserving or worthy of holding that office anymore, or ever again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the key phrase which could be challenged.  Depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court, this could be argued to not include children of 2 illegals.  However, I will admit that it is a long shot.

The problem is- while I see what you are arguing- the unintended legal ramifications if we modify the 14th Amendment? What constitutes as the proper basis for citizenship? 1 parent native to the US, two? How many generations should that family be in the US for them to be considered "American"? And would this revision change the meaning of the phrase, "natural born citizen" that is in our Constitution. 

Granted this is one hypothetical in a topic about DACA; which I am very curious how the SCOTUS will rule. While I have my bias on the case, I am curious if the executive office has supreme power regulating immigration. Or is it a privilege reserved for the Legislative branch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×