The Biden government is trying to keep the Obama-era DACA program alive in a federal appellate court along with its immigration activist partners. Their case rests on the premise that the program’s endurance somehow qualifies it to remain in running order even if it generates legal questions. It raises the issue of how many laws receive a get-out-of- jail-free card merely because they have stayed around long enough?
On the opposite side of the courtroom is Texas, which calls this program illegal and wants to abandon it. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Texas’s case has validity, but immigrant-rights activists, the federal Justice Department, and a parade of Democrat-led states maintain Texas has the standing to sue. They argue that even if the court rules with Texas, the program should keep running in their states since, evidently, illegal immigrants are rather the economic powerhouse in their perspective.
Some legal eagles from the left contend that families have become used to this arrangement that honors illegal immigrants—dubbed “Dreamers”—with employment permits and avoided deportation since the establishment of DACA twelve years ago. Pulling the rug out seems to be a dishonor not just to the immigrants but also to their U.S.-citizen offspring as it seems they have braided these newcomers into the very fabric of society. As so, supporting a legislation spawned of governmental overreach is cloaked in a grim sense of dependability.
Though many have been able to work because to DACA, which covers those who arrived illegally before turning sixteen, it is important to consider how this program came to be. Originally claiming he couldn’t design such a program, President Obama changed direction to unveil DACA right in the middle of the 2012 election cycle—a classic case of political pandering that drew more than a few questions. Unlike Obama, President Trump aimed to pull the program back in, but he was greeted with the Supreme Court ruling that he mistreated legal processes carelessly, therefore neglecting the rights of “Dreamers.” The court ping-pong therefore keeps on.
Questions about Texas’s position to even pursue this action and how recent Supreme Court decisions might change the scene linger while the appeals court muses over it. Texas argues it suffers legal damage as DACA holders burden state services. The state proposed that individuals now benefiting from DACA would willingly pack their bags and depart the nation should the program be canceled—let’s not slow clap just yet; that sounds like a theory ready to be tested.
Texas’s assertions were called into question by Judge Stephen A. Higginson, who made it plain he is sporting a blue jersey because of his Obama appointment. Higginson contended that recent Supreme Court rulings might make Texas’s position useless, therefore casting doubt on whether the laws have truly evolved since earlier court rulings. Though the obvious legal concerns at hand, it’s intriguing how certain judges seem more open to show compassion for left-leaning arguments.
Though the course of this story is yet unknown, if the DACA struggle teaches anything, it is that the law appears to be nearly exactly like rubber—it can be stretched, molded to fit almost any narrative coming from the left.
About The Author
