Why Rescinding DACA is about the Constitution

It’s the law, that’s why!

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which was intended to protect young illegal immigrants who arrived in America as minors from deportation, has been in the news lately, as President Trump has promised in six months to end the program, which was unilaterally and selfishly enacted by ex-President Obama. According to Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional law attorney and professor at George Washington University (GWU), however, Obama’s action with DACA usurped the power of Congress and violated the Constitution in a way that was illegal and that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. would have labeled tyrannical.

As Democrats see it, Obama enacted DACA because Congress was “failing to act” on the issue of the hundreds of thousands of young illegals who would have qualified for federal Development, Relief and Education for Minors Act (DREAMer) status and who otherwise might have been forced to leave the country.

But these Democrats are ignoring the fact that DACA is blatantly illegal as it was ordered by Obama (who even later admitted as much). This is because a president can’t confer benefits to aliens without the authority of Congress. In fact, most legal experts agree federal courts would eventually strike DACA down if President Trump chose not to withdraw it.

Trump’s decision to kill DACA pending further Congressional action is simply following what’s legal and Constitutional, and Republicans are now having an “oh no!” moment as they come to grips with the fact that something they’ve opposed for so long is now within their power to reject once and for all. As with Obamacare, the public outcry around DACA has given Congressional Republicans enough pause that many are urging the president to reconsider his decision, all matters of legality aside.

While it’s true that DACA and its elimination are emotional issues, Trump is merely following the Constitution as the Founders saw fit to draft it. If the public really wants DACA preserved, it should be protesting to members of Congress, not the president.

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a statement regarding the policy change, he quoted the legal explanation of GWU’s Professor Turley, who explains the matter personally in this clip from Fox and Friends.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More