DACA has been held hostage to the budget by Trump throughout the year. Now, POTUS is using DACA to justify getting rid of birthright citizenship with an executive order. These Dreamers were brought into the U.S. by their parents at a young age; and they are contributing to society in ways that should make us proud. #Immigration has become a cornerstone of Trump’s rhetoric, so it’s worth understanding what the Clean Dream Act that Obama enacted means.
President Trump told reporters Wednesday that if President Obama could “do DACA, we can do this by executive order,” referring to his plan to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for immigrants who are not permanent residents of the U.S.
Between the lines: The Trump administration has railed against Obama for using an executive order to implement DACA, which protects unauthorized immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation, calling it unconstitutional and working to overturn it. But now Trump is using it in defense of his own planned order. Most scholars believe such a move would require a constitutional amendment — not executive order — to change birthright citizenship. –Axios
U.S. wants ruling on ‘Dreamers’ in Supreme Court’s current term–October 17, 2018
Lawmakers may get another shot at the issue after the Nov. 6 congressional election. Congress will have to consider spending proposals, and some leading lawmakers have suggested that funds for a wall along the border with Mexico could be passed in conjunction with wider immigration reform.
A nine-month lease on life for DACA might not sound like much. But because DACA is valid for two years after a renewal, it could make a big difference for hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, who are trying to stay protected for as long as possible.
A federal court in San Francisco was the first to rule that the government acted illegally in trying to shut the program down. The government appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on May 15.
In a letter to the appeals court, Justice Department lawyer Mark Stern said if there’s no ruling by Oct. 31, the government will ask the Supreme Court to take the case anyway.
“The district court’s injunction has now been in place for more than nine months and, unless either this court or the Supreme Court promptly intervenes, it could remain in force for at least another year, given the Supreme Court’s argument calendar,” Stern wrote.