The constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been in question for years. The Obama-era program established criteria for illegal aliens who entered the U.S. as minors to be shielded from deportation if meet all the requirements. For $495, an illegal alien, if granted a deferment, could then be eligible for work and study permits. The renewal process is every two years. To obtain a deferment, DACA applicants need to provide sensitive information, along with document proving that they’re here illegally. It was suppose to be a stopgap measure, albeit one that looks a lot like something Congress should have passed. Concerning its legality, even Democrats, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) think the whole executive order under Obama is on legal shaky ground.
[Relevant portion begins as 3:55-mark]
The California Democrat admitted this point to NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Tuesday. When asked by Todd if she felt DACA was legal, Feinstein said, “DACA was executive order. Legal is the law of passage of something; I—you know there are ten attorneys general that are prepared to sue. I don’t want to get into that. The point is DACA is here, and we’ve got 800,000 young people who depend on this.”
“Well, your answer indicates, though, that it’s on shaky legal ground,” replied Todd.
“It is. That’s why we need to pass a law, and we should do it,” said Feinstein.
Frankly, this is how it should have gone if Obama wanted to do this the right way, but you know, in liberal land—he just had to do it. And now that Trump is doing exactly what Obama did to rescind this constitutionally questionable executive action, everyone is losing his or her minds. Granted this is another headache for Congress that’s already trying to figure out Harvey aide, the debt ceiling, a continuing resolution to keep the government open, and now this DACA issue.