Los Angeles Times

Only Congress can fix DACA

-

Predicting how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case based on the questions the justices raise during oral arguments is a fraught endeavor, but the tenor of those exchanges Tuesday morning did not bode well for supporters of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a potential swing vote, at times seemed to give credence to the Trump administra­tion’s argument that President Obama lacked the legal authority to create DACA in the first place.

If the court ultimately finds that President Trump has the authority to end the program regardless of his spurious rationale, it would give the court’s imprimatur to one of the harshest approaches to immigratio­n in modern American history.

DACA, for those who don’t remember, is the process Obama crafted in 2012 to defer deportatio­ns for people who have lived in the United States illegally since they were children, provided that they are employed or attending school and have not been convicted of serious crimes, among other criteria. Yes, it’s true that the 700,000 or so people currently receiving protection from deportatio­n were living here without permission prior to gaining DACA status. But it makes no sense to oust them from the only country they have ever really known, and deport them to countries where in many cases they don’t even speak the language. Remember, most Dreamers bear little or no responsibi­lity for their predicamen­t since they came as children in the care of parents or guardians.

The Trump administra­tion argues that Obama stretched federal immigratio­n law past its breaking point with the DACA order, and in 2017 it sought to kill the program as legally indefensib­le. This gets into arcane areas of authority, but DACA’s defenders argue that the president can’t scrap a program because he thinks it’s illegal; that’s a decision for the courts. A president can end or reverse a predecesso­r’s order because he thinks it’s bad policy, if he sets out a wellreason­ed argument explaining why. With DACA, Trump failed to do so.

Beyond the legal wrangling lies the fate of 700,000 people who currently can go about their lives and legally hold jobs, pay taxes and be openly active members of their communitie­s without constantly looking over their shoulders for Immigratio­n and Customs Enforcemen­t officers. It’s a popular program. An overwhelmi­ng majority of Americans, including Republican­s, tell pollsters they believe the government should leave the Dreamers alone.

Whatever the court decides — and we fervently hope it comes down on the side of the Dreamers — this issue is best resolved for the long term by Congress. To its credit, Congress has tried, sort of, to craft a permanent solution. Even Trump has said in the past he would support legislatio­n helping the Dreamers. But then he erected a roadblock by insisting that in return, Congress must also approve unrelated measures to fund his wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That’s not negotiatin­g, it’s hostage-taking, and Congress was right to refuse.

Congress should pass a bill offering legal standing and a path to citizenshi­p to qualified Dreamers. It’s troubling, not to mention dysfunctio­nal, that a relative handful of xenophobes can block a sensible humanitari­an effort to grant legal status to people the vast majority of Americans think deserve to become fellow citizens.

A pro-DACA decision by the Supreme Court would be welcome. But the Trump administra­tion — or any future administra­tion — could simply go through the correct bureaucrat­ic process and end the protection­s. A legislativ­e solution is years overdue, and if the House and the Senate could come together to achieve this popular end, it could help put the lie to the presumptio­n that our elected representa­tives lack the courage or competence to do the work for which they were sent to Washington.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States