Regarding DACA, what's wrong with asking Congress to do its job?

Congress is controlled by a political party that is currently trying to undo the last 60 years of improvements for the people of the USA. The fact that there was checks and balances in the Constitution means one branch of government was not to derail the country for their benefit. The Congress is in the process of de-fund things for the every-man and putting money in the 1% (the richest) pockets. It is what is on their agenda in Congress that is scary for the non-members of the 1%.

^Mmm hmm…

There’s nothing wrong with asking Congress to do its job. There’s also no evidence of any such motivation behind Trump’s actions regarding DACA. Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution has been completely absent from his campaign rhetoric, his administration’s official statements, and even his tweets. In fact, some of Trump’s own staffers think he may not actually understand what he has authorized.

Telling Congress to get ready to do its job in a tweet is empty rhetoric when it comes with a six month window and no indication that the issue should be given higher priority than other agenda items that will themselves take at least six months to work through. Maybe some other president could have taken the same actions for the reasons you are attributing to Trump, but this one didn’t. He just found a way to sell it to you.

P.S. I think there is a strong chance that the DACA order would be overturned if challenged in court (especially if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court) and that it really is Congress’ job to deal with this issue. But just because I think that doesn’t mean Trump does, too.

P.P.S. Speaking of emotional responses and abuses of power, did you know that it’s apparently illegal to laugh at Jeff Sessions?

The lives of almost a million young Americans are affected by this decision. These people are now left wondering to which country they belong and what language they should speak. They have been plunged into unnecessary uncertainty at a crucial time in their lives. That’s what’s wrong with Trump’s decision.

@flutherother
I already acknowledged there is an emotional argument.
So that point aside…

Well you asked what was wrong and I answered according to how I see this case.

Trump is once again stupidly doing what he thinks will make him popular with everyone, just because a handful of selfish, nasty assholes tell him that’s what they want.

For someone who is obsessed with people viewing him favorably and being popular, he manages to create just the opposite impression, over and over and over again.

The Russian investigation must be making headway. Trump just keeps throw gas on the background fire hoping that people forget his bacon is on the front fire for the Russian connection.

@josie “Like him or not ( I do not) at least the new President is trying to remind people of the lessons they apparently failed to learn in the public education systems Government classes. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, the very first sentences in the Articles, state that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…”

Except there’s been nothing, nothing whatsoever, to suggest that Donald Trump has even a passing familiarity with the Constitution. While I’m fine with a Congressional solution, but we all know that’s not why Trump is doing this. It’s a ploy to garner quick applause from his (dwindling) fanbase with minimum effort. In pro wrestling (a world that Trump is well acquainted with) lingo this is known as a “cheap pop”.

And, as @Tropical_Willie said, to distract us.

There’s nothing wrong with telling Congress to do it’s job. Executive action is a poor substitute for law. That said, it is real and has real effects on people. DACA was only crafted because the last President wanted to address a large problem that affected real people and real economies, but congress wouldn’t allow it, so rather than abandoning the human beings and economies, the President did what he could. Sure it was an expansion of executive power, but this is a dance we’ve done forever. Article I couldn’t hack it, so Article II decided to, and Article III didn’t say no. It’s not perfect, but it is a system.

The problem is that the anti-not-like-me movement is disgusting and morally and economically indefensible, and this is just a play by a wannabe authoritarian to pretend like there’s a legal arguement here, when it’s really just more executive action to play to his base. Congress likely won’t pass anything like DACA in 6 months. If they don’t, Trump, using only executive power, will have effectively forced 800,000 people (plus those who would enroll in the future) into the shadows, which is insane considering they are educated, employed, and integrated by and large. Sure, this isn’t the only possibility, Trump has hinted at changing his mind, but he and the Keebler General certainly haven’t convinced anyone they might do the right thing here.

DACA was a violation of the Constitution and should have been challenged when it was put in place. Again…Congress did not do their jobs. Immigration in this country is a joke. We try to reward those that enter our country illegally (in violation of all our laws for entry), and we make entry through normal means sometimes ridiculously difficult. Our immigration laws need to be looked at and probably streamlined which is the job of Congress. But Congress is too busy playing politics to do the jobs for which they were elected. It’s a perfect argument for term limits, isn’t it? Get rid of career politicians and the efforts they currently put into getting re-elected will shrink, allowing them more time to actually do their jobs.

@seawulf575 How would term limits reduce the amount of money required to run for office? It would just change the faces, not the incentive structure.

^ Term limits would limit the number of times a candidate could run for office which would get us at least ONE term of full service. Additionally, it removes the corrupting factor of career politicians selling their influence for personal gain. It also means that our representatives are more likely to work for what their constituents want instead of what they think they need to support to keep getting elected. Let’s face it…NOBODY is happy with Congress. Yet we keep electing the same people over and over and expect a different result. Time to force a break in that chain. Term limits would be that force.

Interesting arguement, but I’m unconvinced. I’d expect power to shift further away from the elected officials and more into the hand of lobbyists, who get to stick around regardless of elections.

Seems like you’d need to pair term limits with longer terms, at least in the house, to get over the fact that you’ll have a lot of rookies, and “knowing what you’re doing” isn’t a prerequisite for being elected.

My thought with lobbyists is that right now, they buy their elected officials and then don’t have to bribe them as much later on. If you keep changing elected officials, the lobbyists now have to crank out more money for less return on their investment. It takes some of their power away as well. As for learning the job, here’s my thought on that: The career politicians have made “the job” too difficult for even them to do effectively now. Time to change the way things are done. I know this sounds odd, but I really believe that no law should be more than 5 pages long. Many of our rights are described in one paragraph or less. Yet we end up with bills like the ACA which is some 2000+ pages long, totally unreadable, requires a team of lawyers to fully understand it, and yet they pass it as a law for all of us to be bound to. Time to change the paradigm.