# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As political documents, the lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's decision to end a quasi-amnesty program created by the previous administration are effective at stirring protests.

As legal documents, according to several scholars, they are riddled with dubious claims.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced this month that President Barack Obama's administration exceeded its authority in creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and Trump vowed to end it after a six-month transition period. The decision prompted not one, not two, but three separate federal lawsuits.

New York and 16 other states sued in federal court in Brooklyn. Not content to simply join that litigation, California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota filed their own suit in San Francisco. And Janet Napolitano - who created DACA in 2012 as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and now serves as president of the University of California - filed a third legal challenge on behalf of the school's board of regents.

Railing against Trump at news conferences is one thing. Making legal arguments in front of a judge is another. The broad question is whether the executive actions of one president can tie the hands of his successor. Experts contacted by LifeZette said they are unaware of anyone even making that argument in the past, let alone a court's buying it.

Behind generalities, some of the specific arguments are even more outlandish, according to legal scholars. Here are five of the most outrageous:

Rescinding DACA violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the administration acted without giving notice and accepting comments as part of a formal rule-making process. All three suits make this claim, arguing that violating the process prevented plaintiffs from submitting important information documenting the success of the program.

Ironically, this is one of the claims Texas and other states made in successfully challenging the Obama administration's sister program, Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans (DAPA), and an expansion of DACA.

John Eastman, founding director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, said it is particularly preposterous for Napolitano to raise the issue. By arguing that the Trump administration had no authority to end the program without going through the notice-and-comment process, she implicitly acknowledges that she acted improperly in creating DACA, he said.

"The suit is just priceless ... We've got to redo our dictionaries and put [Janet Napolitano's] picture next to the word 'chutzpah.'"

"The suit is just priceless ... We've got to redo our dictionaries and put [Napolitano's] picture next to the word 'chutzpah,'" he said. "The chutzpah of that litigation is just astounding."

That's not to say a liberal judge won't accept the argument. "It's bizarre, but it's entirely possible we might get a lower court, and maybe even the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals], to rule that way," Eastman said.

The decision was motivated by Trump's "animus" toward Mexicans. The New York lawsuit cites Trump's campaign statements about Mexico and notes that 78 percent of DACA enrollees were born in that country. Because of that, the argument goes, Mexicans who had DACA status are especially vulnerable to deportation once it expires.

"It's just a replay of the same arguments in the travel ban case," said attorney Christopher Hajec, referring to the legal challenge of Trump's executive order temporarily barring travelers from seven - and later six - terrorism-compromised countries.

But Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said the president's motive largely is irrelevant in setting policy within the executive branch - particularly when, as in this case, the change returns policy to simply enforcing the law as passed by Congress. Upholding that rationale would mean some presidents would have greater legal authority than others based on the views they express.

Although some lower courts in the travel ban litigation accepted arguments related to Trump's campaign statements, the Supreme Court ruled the administration can bar entry of most foreigners covered by the executive order until the high court makes a final decision on the merits.

The decision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In a nutshell, that clause prohibits the government from treating one group of people differently from another group of similarly situated people.

The New York suit alleges that rescinding DACA would disproportionately and unconstitutionally treat Mexicans differently from other young illegal immigrants. The California suit argues that rescinding DACA is an equal protection violation because it deprives DACA recipients of "fundamental conceptions of justice" by denying them permission to work. All three suits contend Trump's action violates the due process rights of the DACA enrollees.

"I don't think they can claim reliance on it, because it was built on sand to begin with."

Hajec said the premise is flawed since illegal immigrants have no inherent right to work freely in the United States or work freely in the country. Rescinding DACA not only treats its Mexican enrollees the same as recipients from other countries but treats all of them the same as other illegal immigrants, he said.

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, said the New York suit is "utterly meritless." He said the administration has a constitutional duty not to enforce an unconstitutional executive order. The legal rationale for DACA is identical to the DAPA program, which a federal appeals court blocked.

"If DACA's illegal, then the government has to withdraw it," he said. "It can't keep enforcing a law that's illegal."

The Trump administration abused its discretion. The Napolitano suit argues that the Department of Homeland Security did not consider "relevant factors" in deciding to revoke DACA and ignored arguments by the previous leadership of the agency and the Office of Legal Counsel as to why the program is lawful.

Eastman, of The Claremont Institute, said the legal opinions of one administration cannot bind the actions of the next. He said the administration can consider whatever factors it wants in deciding whether to maintain or change a policy of its predecessor.

"They're making utter fools of themselves," he said.

Hajec said the Obama administration argued that DACA was not a change in immigration law - which it acknowledged could be accomplished only by Congress - but an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

"Apparently, only the Obama administration has that discretion," he said, noting that this discretion goes both ways.

Hajec added that even the memorandum creating DACA noted that it did not change the immigration status of its recipients and that the DACA status could be revoked at any time. He ridiculed the argument made by plaintiffs that they and the DACA recipients relied on the program, and that revoking it would cause them harm.

"There were no guarantees for anything," he said. "I don't think they can claim reliance on it, because it was built on sand to begin with."

The decision was in response to a lawsuit threat of Texas. The New York suit suggests that rescinding DACA was improper because it came in response to a threat of litigation by a state that has discriminated against Hispanics nine times since 2012.

As evidence, the suit cites unrelated litigation over voter identification laws and legislative redistricting plans.

The civil complaint fails to acknowledged that nine other states besides Texas joined the threat to challenge the legality of DACA. More fundamentally, the record of Texas or any other plaintiff is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether DACA itself is legal.
(photo credit, homepage image: ProgressOhio, Flickr; photo credit, article image: Elvert Barnes, Flickr)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Five Most Outrageous Legal Arguments Against DACA Repeal | LifeZette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As political documents, the lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's decision to end a quasi-amnesty program created by the previous administration are effective at stirring protests. As legal documents, according to several scholars, they are riddled with dubious claims. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced this month that President Barack Obama's administration exceeded its authority in creating...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mr. Erickson admits that the president "probably does not have constitutional motives for undoing DACA." That doesn't change the fact that, according to Mr. Erickson, the program is unconstitutional. And while he supports DACA in principle, he maintains that "the constitution has to override everything else," including his personal preferences. Read more "

_____
Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review: "Trump should do what he should have done his first day in office. He should declare the Obama-administration guidance null and void."
The president has made the DACA problem "more complicated than it needs to be," writes Mr. McCarthy. He outlines a "straightforward" solution that hews to the "limitations of his office." While he helps Congress "hammer out a legislative compromise," Mr. Trump could use prosecutorial discretion - a "resource-allocation doctrine" that allows the executive branch to prioritize which cases it pursues - to protect the so-called dreamers from prosecution. Read more "

_____

From the Left

Mark Joseph Stern in Slate: "Trump will take a lot flack for ending DACA, and he'll deserve it. But the truth is that Republican politicians forced his hand. Republican xenophobia predates Trump, and it'll outlive him, too."
Phasing out DACA, Mr. Stern reminds his readers, wasn't the president's idea. Instead, he writes, "the bulk of the blame for killing DACA will fall on the Republican Party." Spearheaded by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, Republican hard-liners forced the Trump administration to take a stand on a program that it had previously treated as a "kind of institutional compromise: a policy that it wouldn't have implemented but wasn't eager to jettison." Read more "

_____
Leah Litman in Take Care: "Ending DACA is not a principled standard about the separation of powers. Rescinding DACA either caters to a base that wants the United States to be unthinkably cruel to immigrants, or fulfills officials' desire to force immigrants into hopeless, difficult situations."
Arguments that hold that DACA should have gone through Congress would be "slightly more credible if it came from an administration that had not embraced expansive views of presidential authority," writes Ms. Litman. The administration's statements on the travel ban betray a "breathtakingly broad" interpretation of the president's authority in issues of immigration. Moreover, she points out, "Republican legislators voted against doing DACA legislatively," when they voted against the Dream Act. Any claim Republicans make toward wanting to pass DACA through legislation, is "just window dressing." Read more "

_____

And Finally, From the Center:
The editorial board of USA Today: "The right approach is to just leave the program alone, acknowledging that it works and that 800,000 people should not be cast into exile or used as pawns in a political chess match."
USA Today's editorial board argues that 'dreamers,' "more than any other immigrant group," are well assimilated into American culture. Their departure would be "disruptive" to their communities and for the economy: "Many have become small business owners or have highly coveted job skills." Read more "

_____
"For months, some pro-immigrant groups have warned against sending in new applications for the program, saying that the detailed information given to confirm eligibility could be used to deport enrollees or family members in the future."
Even if Mr. Trump decided not to do away with DACA, writes Ms. Barry-Jester, damage to the program - and re-enrollment rates - has already been done. While she acknowledges that polling of undocumented populations is notoriously unreliable, the best available data shows that a substantial proportion of those protected by DACA are hesitant to reapply to the program for fear that their personal information will lead to deportation. Read more "

_____
Ben Smith in BuzzFeed: "President Trump, cornered, weakened, and apparently unable to get his hands on the usual levers of presidential powers, has adopted pretty much the worst possible strategy for someone trying to wield the power of the most powerful job in the world: He's shooting the hostages."
Mr. Smith points out that the president has made a habit of squandering any political leverage he has for no tangible returns. It's one thing that contributes to the "surprising weakness of his presidency." Rather than using DACA as a bargaining chip in exchange for a larger, more nationalist immigration bill, President Trump will spend more of his political capital only to, possibly, become a "sulking bystander" if Congress restores the program. Read more "
(We previously listed Mr. Smith in this article under the left section, but he took issue with that categorization.)
_____
Want the Partisan Writing Roundup in your inbox? Sign up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter or the What We're Reading Newsletter. Have thoughts about this collection? Email feedback to ourpicks@nytimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mr. Erickson admits that the president "probably does not have constitutional motives for undoing DACA." That doesn't change the fact that, according to Mr. Erickson, the program is unconstitutional. And while he supports DACA in principle, he maintains that "the constitution has to override everything else," including his personal preferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rule of law is all about deterrence. So when we fail to follow it, we squander its deterring effects. With President Obama's DACA program apparently still up and running (handing out amnesty, work permits, etc.), it's sincerely hoped this most basic of principles hasn't fallen victim to the left's emotional blackmail campaign.

Ending DACA and turning off the amnesty-magnet is now more important than ever.

Obama created DACA in reaction to Congress's "gridlock" over the DREAM Act, an amnesty bill for illegal aliens under 30 rejected no less than 24 times since 2001.

DACA replicated the main elements and criteria of the insipidly titled act, from its sentimental focus on "children" to the requirement that applicants have a GED.

While the DREAM Act granted "legal status" or permanent legalization, DACA purports to offer "legal presence", or "temporary" legalization. The distinction's without a difference. Obama's strategy with the program, to use a phrase from George W. Bush about Israel's West Bank settlements, was to create "facts on the ground" and make it as difficult as possible to reverse course in future.

When you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Following Obama's DACA announcement, radio and print ads began appearing south of the border selling the services of cartel-controlled "coyotes" to teenaged would-be illegal aliens. In a matter of months, the thousand or so apprehensions of unaccompanied juveniles we'd previously been seeing every year surged into the tens of thousands.

A year later, the surge reached the hundreds of thousands (not including an equal jump in "family units"). Despite Obama's efforts to divert the flood by creating a program to fly alien minors straight from their home countries, the level of illegal entries failed to taper off and it remains at record highs today.

Now, thanks to DACA, taxpayers spend hundreds of millions annually to reunite the ( mostly) uneducated minors with their ( mostly) illegal alien parents in the U.S. That's money that should have gone to support schools, hospitals, and job-training for American youth.

Should the new administration signal that it too is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws fairly, equally, and without an ageist-bent, the flood over our borders will become a torrent.

Take Mexico's poor economic prospects. Average wages in that country are a mere 10 percent of American levels, a gap that's likely set to jump. Why? Mexico's rapidly dwindling Cantarell oil field, traditionally the source of 30 percent of the country's total government expenditures. Once classified as a 'supergiant' alongside Saudi Arabia's Ghawar deposit, the Cantarell field, and the well-paid union jobs it supported, is credited with finally establishing a Mexican middle-class.

But with production declining from 2.5 million to 400,000 barrels per day over the last decade or so, Mexico's biggest GDP-contributor is no longer oil exports, but US-based remittances.

Assuming the economic effects to Mexico of Trump's promised NAFTA readjustments turn out to be banal (some critics say it's actually been a net negative to Mexico's poor), the drawdown of Mexican oil revenues will almost certainly push up its levels of illegal economic migration.

As for the main source countries for "unaccompanied alien minors" - El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras - development economists have all but given up on understanding why they can't even come close to the achievements of neighboring Nicaragua, Belize, Costa Rica, and Panama. Without shutting off the magnet of amnesty, their mass illegal entries will also stay at flood-levels.

Instead of demanding that the federal government assist these countries with better tailored aid and grants conditioned on rooting out corruption, open-borders activists simply call for more amnesty and more illegal alien "rights." Their lack of systematic analysis is stupefying.

While "protecting" illegal aliens from the consequences of breaking the law may make them feel good and virtuous, if they get their way on DACA the incentives for further law-breaking at our border will only increase. Economists call this the "moral hazard" problem.

Given the economic and social pressures here and across the border, we need to ensure against amnesty and the moral hazard it creates, now more than ever.
Dale Wilcox is executive director and general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative and predatory effects of unlawful immigration and ungoverned legal immigration. The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rule of law is all about deterrence. So when we fail to follow it, we squander its deterring effects. With President Obama's DACA program apparently still up and running (handing out amnesty, work permits, etc.), it's sincerely hoped this most basic of principles hasn't fallen victim to the left's emotional blackmail campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DACA is a discretionary remedy that provides a stay of deportation from the U.S. for a period of two years and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that will allow DACA Recipients to work legally in the United States. DACA is renewable if the renewal qualifications are met. Lawful Permanent Residence is not provided for DACA holders, meaning DACA does not provide a pathway to legal residency in the United States.

If DACA ends, there is no guarantee that the U.S. Government will not use the information provided in the DACA Program to institute removal proceedings against DACA Applicants, Recipients, and their Family Members at a future date.

Personal Information STATED IN THE DACA APPLICATION Could Lead to Deportation

USCIS does not share a DACA applicants' information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless there are Fraud, Public Safety, or National Security Concerns. Meaning, entering the U.S. on fake documents, could disqualify a DACA application and renewal. False documents are a common example of fraud; however, a DACA Recipient must have proven their identity in order to receive DACA. If those application documents were fake or stolen, then Deportation is a probability.

Undocumented Immigrations (With DACA or Without) who have past criminal offenses may not only be ineligible for DACA, but are also at risk being placed into removal proceedings if they submit a DACA initial application or renewal application.

If a family member is deemed a national security or public safety threat, the information listed on a DACA application may be shared with certain branches of government for detainment, prosecution, or deportation.

DACA Is Not an Amnesty OR FORGIVENESS

DACA does not provide forgiveness or amnesty for any immigration offenses committed in the past. Prosecutorial discretion is equivalent to the government "pausing" their enforcement of immigration law. Such discression does not forgive or waive an undocumented immigrant's past.

DACA's AUTHORIZED EXITS FROM THE U.S. COULD LEAD TO REJECTS Upon THEIR Return to the U.S.

DACA does not, in of itself, permit travel in and out of the United States. The "Advance Parole" process, better known as a travel document from USCIS, may be granted for humanitarian, work, or school purposes. However, USCIS authorization to re-enter the U.S., does not force U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to admit the DACA Holder upon their return. In essence, CBP is separate from USCIS, and CBP may re-determine whether an undocumented immigrant should be allowed back in the U.S.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call Fickey Martinez Law Firm at (910) 526-0066 or email us at attorney@fickeymartinezlaw.com.

Disclaimer: This Blog is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DACA is a discretionary remedy that provides a stay of deportation from the U.S. for a period of two years and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that will allow DACA Recipients to work legally in the United States. DACA is renewable if the renewal qualifications are met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump is reportedly considering a repeal of "DACA," the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The immediate pressure: a threat of legal action by a number of states to end the program, which sets a Sept. 5 deadline for the White House to act.

As the president of one of America's leading technical universities - an institution built on intellectual excellence, a meritocratic openness to talent, and a long tradition of national service - I believe repealing DACA would be a mistake. Repeal would be no more than a rejection of a policy and of thousands of human beings. Repeal is not, however, a solution for the country or for the young people directly involved. I strongly urge the president and Congress to find a path that better serves us all.

Created in 2012 by executive action, DACA addresses the problem of young people brought to this country without documentation when they were under 16, a group sometimes known as Dreamers. DACA invites them to declare themselves openly to the government. In return, provided that they meet strict criteria, such as having earned a high school diploma, being enrolled in higher education or engaged in the military, and having committed no serious crime, DACA allows them a Social Security number, a driver's license, authorization to work - and perhaps above all, relief from the fear of being deported. DACA is not a path to permanent citizenship; it grants a temporary but renewable opportunity for a normal life. And it applies only to the fixed pool of those who were brought to the US as children before June 2007.

Repeal would run counter to our national interest in at least two ways. First, it would remove productive workers from our economy, while costing the US government tens of billions in lost future tax revenues and the direct costs of deportation. And because Dreamers are, by definition, products of the US education system, driving them out would be throwing away a tremendous national investment. We should treat these educated, English-speaking strivers not as a burden, but as a resource.

Repeal also strikes me as a violation of deep American principles. The plight of the Dreamers presents a profound question of fairness. Often starting from harsh personal circumstances, these young people have done what any American family might dream of for their child: Study hard, aim high, and earn a degree or a place in college or the military, on the road to a productive career. They are undocumented through no fault of their own. And when offered an opportunity to come out of the shadows, they did - because they trusted that our government would not punish them for it.

Could we ask for more, from any American?

Yet, as we see at MIT and at campuses across the country, the threat of DACA repeal is subjecting these young people to brutal uncertainty. Now, because of decisions made for them when they were children, they fear losing the opportunities they earned, the communities they think of as home, and the nation they love.

The surest way to provide the certainty these students deserve is for Congress to pass legislation protecting these Dreamers. As many polls have found, the vast majority of Americans oppose repeal of DACA. And many members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have proposed humane and sensible legislative solutions.

So I ask, in this urgent moment, that we unite as Americans in calling on Congress to bring a bill to the floor as soon as possible - and calling on Trump to allow Congress the time to get this right.

I came to this country 43 years ago. The US immigration system worked well for me. It granted me a student visa and eventually a green card. Years later, on a beautiful day that I will never forget, I became an American citizen. I have the particular patriotism of an immigrant, rooted in deep gratitude and appreciation for a country founded on a dream of fairness. I urge Trump and the Congress to find a sound, stable legislative path to keep that promise of fairness for the Dreamers, too.

L. Rafael Reif is president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump shouldn't repeal DACA - The Boston Globe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump is reportedly considering a repeal of "DACA," the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The immediate pressure: a threat of legal action by a number of states to end the program, which sets a Sept. 5 deadline for the White House to act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To the Editor:
Re " Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act" ( nytimes.com, Sept. 5):

The abolition of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, would be the cruelest measure of many cruel measures adopted by President Trump since he took office. A six-month delay is a joke, and a way for Mr. Trump to ease the incredible pain he will cause.

Immigrants have made America great, and the children of immigrants, legal or illegal, have contributed mightily to our greatness. To abandon more than three-quarters of a million Dreamers simply because their parents entered this country illegally would not only be a travesty, but also a sapping of one of our greatest potential resources.

Mr. Trump is obsessed with Barack Obama, and instead of governing, he has set out to destroy everything Mr. Obama put in place. Leave the children be, Mr. Trump. You have already caused more harm to our nation than anyone thought possible.

HENRY A. LOWENSTEIN, NEW YORK
To the Editor:
My family and I had the opportunity to host several Dreamers for the weekend so they could visit New York City for the first time. Rather than immediately going off to see the sights, as I suspect my own college-age children would have done, they pulled out their laptops and studied for an exam the entire evening before touring New York the next day.

These bright and motivated young women were completely dedicated to their education and eager to be part of the American dream. What possible benefit could be achieved by ending DACA and subjecting these "incredible kids" (as President Trump called them) to potential deportation when they have so much to offer our country?

LAURA LEVINE, LARCHMONT, N.Y.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | President Trump, Don't Forsake the 'Dreamers'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To the Editor: Re " Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act" ( nytimes.com, Sept. 5): The abolition of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, would be the cruelest measure of many cruel measures adopted by President Trump since he took office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was Mr. Trump, too, who had placed those young immigrants in jeopardy of deportation last week, when he had his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, announce an end to President Barack Obama's five-year-old executive order - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - which let them live, work and go to school in the United States. Almost immediately after Mr. Sessions denounced these "Dreamers" as job-stealers and potential gang members, Mr. Trump seemed to shift, amid a wave of outrage at the administration's cruelty.

On Wednesday night, Mr. Trump had dinner with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, who later announced that the president had agreed to their proposal "to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly," along with border security measures, but no border wall.

What followed the next day was the now familiar ping-ponging of tweets and contradictory assertions from Mr. Trump and others that threw Congress into chaos, as Republicans tried to parse what the president meant. There would be a path to citizenship, or there would be no such path? The wall was being built, or the wall would be built later?

Conservatives erupted. Ann Coulter, author of "In Trump We Trust," unleashed a stream of protests, demanding that he be impeached.

Of course, Mr. Trump always saw the wall as more of a campaign slogan than a possibility. Even congressional Republicans are balking at handing him billions for a quixotic project that won't be completed for years, if ever.

Amid Thursday's uproar, the conservative Never-Trump stalwart William Kristol had sound advice on dealing with Mr. Trump.

"To liberals, centrists & conservatives," he wrote, "work for good policies during Trump's presidency; never lose sight of his unfitness to be president."

No one should cheer Mr. Trump's latest moves as a pivot toward principles. So far, his main operating principle seems to be service to himself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Morality Is Negotiable for Mr. Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was Mr. Trump, too, who had placed those young immigrants in jeopardy of deportation last week, when he had his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, announce an end to President Barack Obama's five-year-old executive order - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - which let them live, work and go to school in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Daca Dream turns into a Nightmare

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!

# data[].attributes.body
Arguing for DACA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump has a litany of demands in order for his administration to extend a program that protects certain young undocumented immigrats from deportation - known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

The president's requests include stronger crackdowns on so-called sanctuary cities, building his oft-promised border wall and overhauling the country's green card system.

"This plan will work. If followed it will produce an immigration system with integrity and one in which we can take pride," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "Perhaps the best result will be that unlawful attempts to enter will continue their dramatic decline."

But the administration's proposals have already angered key Democrats who met with Trump last month.

"This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a joint statement Sunday night.

"We told the president at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures ... but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable," Pelosi added.

The Trump administration officially announced its plan to end the DACA program - which provides a level of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, many of whom came to the U.S. as children - with a six-month delay for current recipients earlier this year.

With the delay, the solution for protecting young immigrants from deportation is punted to Congress, with only a few months to pass immigration reform legislation.

Read on for a look at how the DACA program works and why the administration disbanded it.

What is the DACA program?

The DACA program was formed through executive order by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and allows certain people, called Dreamers, who come to the U.S. illegally as minors to be protected from immediate deportation. Recipients are able to request "consideration of deferred action" for a period of two years which is subject to renewal.

"Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states. "Deferred action does not provide lawful status."
TRUMP EXPECTED TO DECIDE SOON ON FATE OF DREAMERS
Individuals are able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and have continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007.

Individuals must also have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients cannot have a criminal record.

It does not provide "legal status."

How many people are affected by DACA?

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth are under the program's umbrella.

Thousands of people could lose their jobs should Trump decide to phase out the DACA program, according to a recent study by the left-leaning think tank, the Center for American Progress.

"As leaders of communities across the country - individuals and institutions that have seen these young people grow up in our communities - we recognize how they have enriched and strengthened our cities, states, schools, businesses, congregations and families."

Nearly 2,000 leaders have signed a letter asking Trump to protect the Dreamers, including eight governors.

"As leaders of communities across the country - individuals and institutions that have seen these young people grow up in our communities - we recognize how they have enriched and strengthened our cities, states, schools, businesses, congregations and families," the letter said.

Why did the Trump administration dismantle it?

During the presidential campaign, Trump referred to DACA as "illegal amnesty." However, he seemingly signaled that he had softened his stance on the program in April when he told the Associated Press that DACA recipients could "rest easy."

Yet the administration announced its plan to dismantle the program in September.
MOTHER OF TWO AT CENTER OF DACA DEBATE IN KENTUCKY
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke said that while DACA will be phased out for current recipients, "no new initial requests or associated applications filed after today will be acted on."

Republicans - and some Democrats - opposed Obama's order from the start as a perceived overreach of executive power.

"The point here is ... the president does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air," Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said at the time.

King has remained a stalwart Republican against the program; he suggested in August that DACA recipients should turn their parents in to federal immigration authorities.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions blasted the Obama administration's "disrespect for the legislative process" in enacting the 2012 policy as he revealed the Trump administration's decision. He also argued that the "unilateral executive amnesty" could have been struck down by courts had it remained in place.

"Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch," Sessions said.

Obama spoke out on social media after the Trump administration's announcement, stating that it's "self-defeating ... and it is cruel" to end the DACA program, and questioned the motive behind the decision.

Ahead of the decision, some Republicans stressed the need for protections offered from DACA and urged lawmakers to quickly pass immigration legislation.
TRUMP WILL ALLOW IMMIGRANTS TO OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP THROUGH MILITARY SERVICE
Daniel Garza, president of the conservative immigration nonprofit Libre Initiative, told Fox News that DACA offers a "reprieve from a life of uncertainty for innocent kids who didn't break the law."

"It's rather disappointing to think they could return to a state of anxiety and fear," he said.

House Speaker Paul Ryan and a handful of other Republicans had urged Trump to hold off on scrapping DACA to give lawmakers more time to come up with a legislative fix. But after the decision was announced, Ryan, too, blamed the Obama administration for a "clear abuse of executive authority, an attempt to create law out of thin air."

"It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the president's leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country," Ryan said.

Congress has repeatedly tried - and failed - to come together on immigration overhaul legislation, and it remains uncertain whether the House would be able to pass anything on the divisive issue.

After the announcement, Trump said people should not worry about the decision.

"For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about," Trump tweeted. "No action!"

One thing to consider - the decision to end DACA could toss a wrench into Trump's other immigration plans, including securing the border wall, Capitol Hill aides told the Washington Examiner.

Do any DACA recipients serve in the military?

Dreamers were eligible to serve in the U.S. military since 2014 when the Pentagon adopted a policy to allow a certain amount of undocumented immigrants to join.

In the fiscal year 2016, 359 DACA recipients had enlisted in the Army - which is the only branch to accept immigrants of this category.

A Department of Defense official said in April that the military would continue to accept noncitizen recruits, but it is unclear if that will continue to be the case now.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter @K_Schallhorn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is DACA and why is the Trump administration ending it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump has a litany of demands in order for his administration to extend a program that protects certain young undocumented immigrats from deportation - known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The president's requests include stronger crackdowns on so-called sanctuary cities, building his oft-promised border wall and overhauling the country's green card system.