Democrats DOOMED by DACA Damage
The Constitution Speaks!
A key fact that almost never comes up in the immigration debate: the states, counties, cities, and municipalities are in direct violation Constitutionally-mandated federal law!
Article I Section 8 Clause 4 gives Congress authority over all manners of “Naturalization”. In other words, the Legislative Branch “makes the laws”, including Immigration Law:
take our poll - story continues below
Congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.
Article 2, section 1, clause 8 is the Presidential oath giving him full authority to enforce the laws of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress. This includes: the US Military, Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and ICE:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution provides additional Executive powers in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
It is the president, not a governor or an state bureaucrat, who decides who or in what manner the enforcement the laws of the United States shall be conducted. The States gave up their right to have any input on the subject upon the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
Most important in this debate is Article VI, Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause, says in laymen’s terms Federal laws will always trump State and Local laws:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.
If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.
If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.
The State within which such branch may be established cannot, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch.
The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.
Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist:
“Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.”
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Those proponents need to reread the Bill of Rights!
Both Constitutional and legal precedence were clearly established long ago, thus supersede the 4th Amendment, in additional to the established constitutional and judicial precedence voids any 10th Amendment argument. The problem is, these are no longer taught in schools, such topics are no longer debated or discussed because of political correctness, and societal attention spans have dwarfed to 140 characters.
Thus the knowledge is often forgotten, allowing the opportunists to come in and pervert the system.
Then, there is DACA!
A unilateral executive action on the part of the Obama Administration, DACA was an Executive Order, not legislation passed by Congress. The Constitution is clear on how the laws of this country are to be made and how they will be enforced, and it’s not done by the authority of the states.
That was tried under the Articles of Confederation, and it failed.
But Then There Are Lawyers.
This issue has been fought over in the courts time and time again since 2012. The Federal 5th District Court of Appeals tossed out DACA in November 2015.
National Review explains the ruling:
The government had challenged the states’ standing to raise its objections to its changes to lawful status in the form of expanded DACA and DAPA. But the Court rejected that argument because the change of lawful status triggers the granting of state benefits, specifically since Texas law does not issue state-subsidized driver’s licenses to aliens without lawful presence. Enlarging the category of aliens with lawful presence thus imposes a cost on Texas, giving the state a stake in the outcome of the litigation, which is all that is necessary to show standing.
On the merits, the Court’s analysis is workmanlike and tightly-reasoned. Noting that the government doesn’t dispute the nature of DAPA as a “rule,” the Court rejects the Administration’s characterization of DAPA as a “policy statement” not subject to notice and comment. It finds this conclusion by noting that DAPA’s predecessor, DACA, was a nearly-categorical grant of “lawful presence” in which case-by-case discretion was “merely pretext” and officials who disobeyed the policy would face negative consequences. The DAPA memo instructed officials to run DAPA similarly. Thus both the procedural and substantive APA claims were likely to succeed.
The court also affirmed on the alternate ground that DAPA is “manifestly contrary to the [INA].” This section is particularly important because it lays out in gory detail the extent to which DAPA’s reach exceeds the authorities granted by Congress (and even noting that it would fail the Chevron test even if it were ambiguous). There is simply no correspondence between the INA’s provisions and the substantive changes that would be worked by DAPA, so it’s good to see the Court laying it out.
In other words. DACA is an example of executive overreach, and thus is unconstitutional.
Ironically, a former Constitutional Law Lecturer from the University of Chicago once made the same argument:
That former University Lecturer, President Obama would take the case before the US Supreme Court, the ‘once’ final arbiters of all things. The High Court upheld the 5th District’s ruling as CNN reported:
In a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court announced Thursday it was evenly divided in a case concerning President Barack Obama’s controversial executive actions on immigration.
The one-sentence ruling, issued without comment or dissent, means that the programs will remain blocked from going into effect, and the issue will return to the lower court. It is exceedingly unlikely the programs will go into effect for the remainder of the Obama presidency.
The 4-4 split on the court is also more evidence of the long shadow of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death this February.
While Scalia likely would have voted with the conservatives on the court against Obama, resulting in the same overall outcome of the policies remaining blocked, legal experts say the lack of a definitive answer is harmful to the courts.
In a twist of irony, the same CNN article also quoted Obama’s Solicitor General Don Verrilli made the following argument:
…the states didn’t have the legal right to be in court, because the Constitution “assigns the formation of immigration policy exclusively to the National Government precisely because immigration is an inherently national matter.”
He stressed that the guidance from the government does not provide any kind of lawful status under immigration law as the aliens remain removable at any time.
Did you hear that Jerry Brown, Xavier Becerra, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Libby Schaaf, Eric Garcetti, Gavin Newsom?
NOT, The End Of The Story!
January 20, 2017…we all know what happened. America got a real leader.
Then, in September 2017, President Trump rescinded DACA and laid down a challenge to Congress:
…must continue and those already approved for DACA protections and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled in San Francisco on Tuesday the program must remain in place while the litigation is resolved. The ruling could complicate negotiations between Trump and congressional leaders over immigration reform.
Alsup’s decision follows a number of rulings by other U.S. judges seeking to rein in Trump’s immigration policies, including decisions that limited administration moves against sanctuary cities and narrowed the scope of a ban against travel from some Muslim-majority counties.
Alsup ruled that the federal government did not have to process new applications from people who had never before received protection under the program. However, he ordered the government to continue processing renewal applications from people who had previously been covered.
The plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that the government’s decision to end DACA was arbitrary, Alsup ruled.
Judge Alsup must not have received the memo on the 5th Circuit ruling, or read the Supreme Court decision, nor understood the concept of “transfer of power” in their Constitutional Law class. Even though he admits that the Trump Administration will likely win in the end, Judge Alsup merely provided nothing more than a delay tactic for Liberal Democrats on the issue.
At the very least it is an admission of ‘Legislating from the Bench’; at the very worst it’s a violation of the ‘Separation of Powers Doctrine’ of the Constitution; and thus a violation of his Judicial Oath.
DACA is dead because the Democrats didn’t care or act, and now everyone wants to get onto the DACA bandwagon… No longer works. Must build Wall and secure our borders with proper Border legislation. Democrats want No Borders, hence drugs and crime!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2018
But A Citizenship Path Already Exists!
The cold hard truth is: while Democrats, and Republicans, have handled the immigration/citizenship issue like a political hot-potato; the US government already has a LEGAL path to citizenship already on the books, but ignored by everyone!
Step 1. Determine if you are already a U.S. citizen.
What to do: If you are not a U.S. citizen by birth, or you did not acquire or derive U.S. citizenship from your parent(s) automatically after birth, go to the next step.
Step 2. Determine if you are eligible to become a U.S. citizen.
What to do: Review the naturalization eligibility worksheet (PDF, 301 KB) to help you decide if you are eligible to apply for naturalization.
Step 3. Prepare your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
What to do: Download the form and read the instructions. Collect the necessary documents to demonstrate your eligibility for naturalization. If you reside outside the United States, get 2 passport-style photo taken. Use the document checklist (PDF, 178 KB) to make sure you collect all the required documents.
Step 4. Submit your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Once you submit Form N-400, USCIS will send you a receipt notice. You can check current processing times and the status of your application online or by calling the USCIS Contact Center at 1-800-375-5283 or 1-800-767-1833 (hearing impaired).
Step 5. Go to the biometrics appointment, if applicable.
What to do: If you need to take biometrics, USCIS will send you an appointment notice that includes your biometrics appointment date, time, and location. Arrive at the designated location at the scheduled time. Have your biometrics taken.
Step 6. Complete the interview.
Once all the preliminary processes on your case are complete, USCIS will schedule an interview with you to complete the naturalization process. You must report to the USCIS office at the date and time on your appointment notice. Please bring the appointment notice with you.
Step 7. Receive a decision from USCIS on your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
USCIS will issue you a written notice of decision.
Granted—USCIS may approve your Form N-400 if the evidence in your record establishes that you are eligible for naturalization.
Continued—USCIS may continue your application if you need to provide additional evidence/documentation, fail to provide USCIS the correct documents, or fail the English and/or civics test the first time.
Denied—USCIS will deny your Form N-400 if the evidence in your record establishes you are not eligible for naturalization.
Step 8. Receive a notice to take the Oath of Allegiance.
What to expect: If USCIS approved your Form N-400 in step 7, you may be able to participate in a naturalization ceremony on the same day as your interview. If a same day naturalization ceremony is unavailable, USCIS will mail you a notification with the date, time, and location of your scheduled ceremony.
Step 9. Take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States.
You are not a U.S. citizen until you take the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony.
What to do: Complete the questionnaire on Form N-445, Notice of Naturalization Oath Ceremony. Report for your naturalization ceremony and check in with USCIS. A USCIS officer will review your responses to Form N-445. Turn in your Permanent Resident Card (Green Card). Take the Oath of Allegiance to become a U.S. citizen. Receive your Certificate of Naturalization, review it, and notify USCIS of any errors you see on your certificate before leaving the ceremony site.
Step 10. Understanding U.S. citizenship.
Citizenship is the common thread that connects all Americans. Check out this list of some of the most important rights and responsibilities that all citizens—both Americans by birth and by choice—should exercise, honor, and respect.
“Why ignore the law if its already there” Some may ask? That answer is easy…“Power. Electoral Voting Power!” GET READY for an influx of 1,500 illegal immigrants to arrive on the US/Mexico border to many on the political Progressive-Left are already rolling out the ‘WELCOME’ mat.