DACA is illegal

[Orrex]

So says Mark Krikorian of the euphemistically-named "Center for Immigration Studies," which claims to be pro-immigrant yet somehow never quite says anything that isn't directly in line with the xenophobic Republicans' lilly-white doctrines of purity.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has argued that the group's founder John Tanton has ties to white supremacy groups and a eugenics foundation. The fact that a "eugenics foundation" even exists makes me kind of sick, to be honest.

Anyway, on NPR's Morning Edition, Krikorian repeatedly stated--unchallenged by the host--that Obama acted illegally when he put DACA into effect, so that Trump is doing the right (indeed, the better) thing in calling for a legislative solution. The unsubtle implication is that Trump is the better president when it comes to managing immigration.

Never mind the fact that Obama acted because McConnell expressly refused to do anything about immigration; Krikorian framed it as though Obama was some lawless rogue running roughshod over the American Dream of racial purity.

Krikorian grudgingly acknowledge that the children affected by DACA are a unique case, but he cautioned against any sort of amnesty because of its potential negative effects "downstream." He used that word--downstream--several times without actually explaining what those negative effects might be, and of course NPR's helpful commentator didn't call him on it or ask for clarification.

So the message is this: Trump is better than Obama on immigration, and Obama acted illegally to create DACA by fiat.


Everybody up to speed?

[Not Ruth]

1. Something is only illegal if there is a law against it

Since I doubt that there is a law against DACA, it cannot be illegal. One will find that very little in this world is illegal.

[Orrex]

4. The claim is that Obama acted illegally in creating DACA

Therefore, they claim, DACA itself is illegal, even if there's no law specifically against it.

[Not Ruth]

5. That is not illegal

and it could never be prosecuted successfully

[Orrex]

7. Look, I'm not going to defend the claim made by these racist assholes

I have repeated their claim here, and they will repeat it everywhere. You can argue the point to me, or you can try to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you.

They are the ones seriously claiming that it's illegal, not me. And they mean "illegal" as in "unconstitutional," rather than "they're going to throw him in jail for this."

[no_hypocrisy]

31. An executive order that isn't unconstitutional is temporary.

The only ways to extend an EO enacted by one administration is for 1) Congress to codify it into a statute, or 2) a new administration to extend it.

Unfortunately a new administration can nullify/void a prior EO whether constitutional or not.

[FBaggins]

30. Not quite how that works

There are generally accepted to be three types of "law". Legislative, constitutional, and rules/regulations.

If the executive order was inconsistent with the Constitution (i.e., if it exceeded the President's executive authority), then you could correctly say that DACA was "illegal".

"Needs to be a law against it" more properly fits claims that something is criminal.

[haveahart]

2. "downstream" means there will be more non-whites than whites. And that is never going to change.

So suck it up Krikorian.

[Orrex]

3. Speaking as a generic white guy...

that day can't come soon enough for me!

[dawg]

6. So was the underground railroad.

[Orrex]

8. Of course, they'd have eliminated that as well, given half a chance

They're nothing if not consistently racist.

[yardwork]

20. They started a civil war to eliminate it. So, yeah.

[Orrex]

23. No way! It was the tariff!

THE TARIFF!!!!!!!!!!1!

[yardwork]

26. Right! It was all about freeeeeeedom. Well, freedom for some.

Freedom for some people to own other people. That kind of freedom.

[sharedvalues]

9. NPR is complicit. They let liars lie unchallenged

The media is hurting the country by failing to report the truth and instead giving liars air time.

[Orrex]

14. I understand that they can't always fact-check in real time...

but I frequently hear Republican guests spewing absolute bullshit--easily disproven claims and nonsensical arguments--while the host sits by in polite silence.

I know that they're well-funded by corporate sponsors, and they're perpetually terrified of the dreaded "Liberal" label, but come on! If they're going to claim to be journalists, they should at least occasionally try to, you know, do journalism!

[rurallib]

18. And the interviewer could prepare for an interview by becoming familiar with the subject

Seems like when NPR interviews some high powered spokester it comes off like a college professor speaking to a a first grader.

Sadly NPR is about the only alternative to corporate crazy right wing radio in most places.

[Orrex]

22. Exactly

If I can shoot down the talking points while I'm driving on the highway, you'd think that a paid professional journalist could manage a more informed response than "thanks for your time, Senator McConnell."

I don't have satellite radio, so NPR is effectively the only game in town. Happily, much of their other programming is excellent, but Morning Edition and All Things Considered too often demonstrate that their idea of due diligence is "whatever you say, Mr. Republican"

[rurallib]

32. I have been known to scream at NPR while driving.

[sharedvalues]

41. In 2012 I woke up to Romney lying on NPR and haven't listened since

We all know that Obama is center-right on a world stage - he's right of Merkel, for example.

On NPR in 2012, Romney was saying, in summary: "Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist Obama socialist". The rest of the words didn't matter, Romney's goal was to associate Obama falsely with socialism.

NPR completely failed to correct the record. They just played Romney's words unchallenged by any truth.

I turned off NPR that morning and have never intentionally listened to NPR again.

[sharedvalues]

40. NPR is nauseating.

Remember when even the NYT (after all the 'emails') finally decided to use the word 'lie' when Trump lied, and NPR said no, they would not use 'lie'?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511503605/npr-and-the-l-word-intent-is-key

[barbtries]

19. NPRR

national public republican radio. their political coverage sucks.

[sharedvalues]

42. +1

[GoCubsGo]

10. The courts say otherwise.

On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. The court’s unanimous ruling in that case, Crane v. Johnson, is ominous for those who turn to the courts in a last-ditch attempt to block the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, immigration policies announced by President Barack Obama in November....

The rest here: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2015/04/15/111196/federal-appeals-court-dismissal-of-immigration-lawsuit-has-significant-implications-for-the-dhs-immigration-policies/

[Orrex]

11. You're correct, and your point needs to be repeated as often as possible

I am just about certain that Trump's racist co-conspirators will be out in force to drive home their bogus claim, repeating it until it becomes true.

NPR was this morning, but by that time I'd already seen it three separate times on social media.

[tom_kelly]

12. Was just listening to MJ and

that Tom Cotton continue to repeat the "illegal" action of Obama on DACA.

[kentuck]

13. How come no one challenged it in court ??

If they thought it was "illegal"?

[Orrex]

15. GoCubsGo made this point upthread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9560338

Having lost in court, the understand that their only recourse is to repeat their bullshit claim until it's true. And NPR is happy as always to help them catapult the propaganda.

[n2doc]

16. Only people of color are subject to America's laws

Or so goes Rethuglican Judicial Theory.

emoluments, anyone?

[IronLionZion]

17. Plenty of white supremacists are pro-immigrant

as long as the immigrants are of European descent. Which is why people are often assumed to be American even if they are citizens of a European country, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. And brown people are assumed to be foreigners or immigrants even if born and raised in the USA.

The "negative effects downstream" are diversity making it harder for white supremacists to tell who's an American vs a foreigner simply by skin color but they will continue to do it anyway.

America is way too diverse for people to continue to assume that American people are white, but they do it anyway because it benefits whites.

[benfranklin1776]

21. Contact NPR

Demand they put on someone who can defend the eminent legality of the order else this shit goes unchallenged and people start to believe it.

[Orrex]

24. They won't give a shit about what I have to say

At least, they haven't in the past. At most, I get an auto-generated email allegedly from the ombudsman to assure me that NPR is dedicated to showcasing different opinions.

[sharedvalues]

44. Bothsideism will be the death of America. And NPR is complicit in that.

[Duppers]

25. +100

[CrispyQ]

27. But their current argument is

That if the prez does something, it's not illegal. So which is it, repubs?

[Orrex]

29. If the white Republican does it, it's legal

If the Democrat does it, it's a crime, especially if the Democrat is non-white or non-male.

[Freethinker65]

28. So when Trump says he will revisit DACA in 6 months

If congress does not do its job, and signs his own executive order effectively extending DACA, what will these same people say?

Those truly against the potential legality of the executive order process must come back and speak out as loudly as they are now, the others must forever be labeled as the disingenuous hipocrites that they are and ridiculed endlessly.

[WestMichRad]

33. "Revisit DACA in 6 months" is meaningless

This is a sound bite intended to make the president sound compassionate and deliberative…. Just like “drain the swamp”. “…will revisit…” could mean that he takes some action to reinstitute some provision(s) of DACA. Or it could be that he may say “Congress has reached no agreement in the past 6 months, so we’re going to start deporting these people who are here illegally.” Given the history of his actions, not his words ('cuz he'll say anything), my money is on the latter.

In my view, a consequence of the Feds no longer protecting DREAMers who voluntarily gave their status information to the federal is that government would be a clear demonstration that the government cannot be trusted. Consequently, the American people should not cooperate with them on future. How could people NOT reach this conclusion? (other than by not thinking, of course). Nice job, Rethugs!

[Freethinker65]

36. Exactly. I want those supporting Trump's reasoning to be ridiculed and exposed as frauds

I am well past blaming these horrendous decisions on Trump alone. Trump's enablers need to be called out and exposed. I caught a bit of the Democratic Press conference and it appears the Democrats are directly calling out enablers such as Sessions and Kobach. We at DU know these miserable pathetic names, many Americans do not.

[PatrickforO]

34. Negative effects downstream?

Does this mean the little person of color grows up to be an adult person of color, gets married and has children?

This is a white supremacist talking point. These people need to be challenged every step of the way.

[awesomerwb1]

35. I heard that this morning

I was fuming. It's unreal how much visibility these f-ers have been getting in recent years. So many articles about immigration written by Krikorian and his ilk from the CIS, FAIR, and numbersUSA.

When did they become credible sources? It's ridiculous.

[Orrex]

39. On a tangential note...

Their organization is the main reason why I don't really like the term "cisgender," because that term is often abbreviated as cis.

[Lee-Lee]

37. One problem with doing things that can be challenged in court like this

Is that if that challenge works is entirely in the hands of the Attorney General who would defend the policy in court.

So one administration can defend a policy vigorously and win. Then the next one can refuse to defend it and say it's bad policy and lose by default.

That can go both ways. It worked in our favor here in NC when we took the governors office and the governor and AG refused to defend the voter ID law in court. But it can go the other way too- this DACA action was pushed by states threatening a new lawsuit that Sessions and Trump would have had to defend it or change policy they couldn't just let the status quo stand anymore.

[eleny]

38. Wait till Congress fails to act and Trump reverses his decision in 6 months

[Nevernose]

43. There are three branches of government: the legislature

Which writes the laws, the executive which decides how to enforce the laws, and the judicial, which interprets the law...

This shit is sixth grade social studies. It's not hard.

Unless you're a racist, on the Fifth Circuit, or just plain dumb.