Staff Reports
The Biden administration, alongside its immigration activist allies, is making a push to keep the Obama-era DACA program alive in a federal appeals court. Their argument hinges on the idea that even if the program raises legal eyebrows, its longevity somehow gives it a free pass to remain in operation. It begs the question: how many laws get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because they’ve managed to stick around long enough?
On the other side of the courtroom is Texas, which seeks to ditch this program, dubbing it illegal. According to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas’s case holds water, but the federal Justice Department, immigrant-rights activists, and a parade of Democrat-led states insist Texas doesn’t have the standing to sue. They claim that even if the court sides with Texas, the program ought to continue in their states because, apparently, illegal immigrants are quite the economic powerhouse in their eyes.
Justice Department asks court to keep DACA in place for illegal immigrant ‘Dreamers’https://t.co/0LgqxP8vmt pic.twitter.com/6XIcAZ7LRK
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) October 11, 2024
Some legal eagles from the left argue that since DACA’s inception a dozen years ago, families have become accustomed to this arrangement that blesses illegal immigrants—dubbed “Dreamers”—with employment permits and delayed deportation. It appears they’ve woven these newcomers into the fabric of society so tightly that pulling the rug out would be a disservice not only to the immigrants but also to their U.S.-citizen children. Consequently, advocating for a law born from executive overreach is bathed in a sobering sense of reliability.
DACA, which extends its reach to those who arrived unlawfully before reaching age 16, has allowed many to work, but it’s worth reflecting on how this program was born. President Obama, after initially asserting that he couldn’t create such a program, reversed course to roll out DACA right in the heart of the 2012 election cycle—a classic case of political pandering that raised more than a few eyebrows. Unlike Obama, President Trump sought to reel the program back in, but he was met with the Supreme Court saying that he played fast and loose with legal procedures, failing to adequately consider the interests of “Dreamers.” So, the judicial ping-pong continues.
As the appeals court deliberates, questions remain about Texas’s standing to even bring this lawsuit and how recent Supreme Court rulings might alter the landscape. Texas claims it suffers legal harm because DACA recipients place a burden on state services. The state suggested that if the program were abolished, many now benefiting from DACA would voluntarily pack their bags and leave the country—let’s not slow clap just yet; that sounds like a theory waiting to be tested.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson, who has made it clear he’s wearing a blue jersey thanks to his Obama appointment, cast doubt on Texas’s claims. Higginson argued that recent Supreme Court decisions might render Texas’s standing irrelevant, raising eyebrows about whether the rules have indeed changed since the previous court decisions. It’s interesting how some judges seem more willing to entertain sympathy for arguments from the left, despite the clear legal issues at hand.
It remains to be seen how this saga will unfold, but if the DACA battle teaches anything, it’s that when it comes to immigration, the law seems an awful lot like rubber—it can be stretched, shaped, and molded to fit almost any narrative coming from the left.
