Tag Archives: DACA

Toddlers are ‘criminals’?

I continue to grapple with the “logic” — and I use the term as loosely as is humanly possible — that those who come to the United States illegally as children should be treated as lawbreakers.

They are those who come here as children living with parents who sneak into the United States without proper immigration documents.

They live here under an executive order signed by President Barack Obama that grants them temporary permission to live in the United States. Foes of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals call it “amnesty,” which it isn’t.

Obama is now out of office and Donald J. Trump is pondering whether to rescind the former president’s action and order the deportation of those DACA residents back to their country of birth.

I cannot think of many more inhumane reactions to a standing U.S. policy than that.

Yet, many anti-DACA proponents suggest that those who were brought here — perhaps as infants or toddlers — are “criminals,” that they need to be treated as lawbreakers. I certainly get that those who come here illegally aren’t following the law; they should face potential deportation if they are discovered by immigration and customs officials.

Their children? Those who arrived here under their parents’ care and who’ve grown into de facto Americans and carved out productive lives? Should we treat them that way, too?

I just cannot fathom why we would do such a thing to these individuals who’ve known no other country than the United States of America.

The events of the past few days on the Texas Gulf Coast and the possibility of rescinding the DACA order that affect so many displaced residents — who fall into that category of “illegal” immigrants — might make it tremendously more difficult for the president to make good on his campaign threat.

Someone, though, will have to explain to me — in language I can grasp — why those who come here as children need to be manhandled as if they broke the law.

They did no such thing. They deserve the chance to continue living here and they need protection so they can do what’s right: seek to become U.S. citizens or obtain permanent immigrant status — that makes them legal residents of the only country they know.

DACA decision now looms even larger for Trump

Americans very well could learn quite soon whether Donald Trump’s display of compassion and good will along the Texas Gulf Coast was a mere show or whether it reveals a side of him few of his believe existed.

That revelation could occur when the president decides whether to repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival provision.

DACA has become a kind of shorthand for immigration reform.

My hope is that the president — having visited Houston, Corpus Christi and Rockport — understands this point: Many of those families affected by Hurricane Harvey’s devastation involve DACA residents, individuals who were brought to this country illegally while they were children.

I should add, too, that DACA residents helped build those devastated neighborhoods along the Gulf Coast and are going to help repair them.

These Americans had no say in what their parents did. They have grown up in this country, which is the only country they have known. Rescinding DACA status for these individuals would send them back to the country of their birth — and would deprive them of the only life they have experienced.

Against that backdrop, we know that many DACA families are suffering in cities such as Houston, which has a huge population of residents comprising those who came here as youngsters.

This isn’t entirely about the Texas Gulf Coast suffering. It’s also about whether the president is going to continue to appeal to his Republican Party “base,” which detests DACA provisions; the “base” wants DACA residents booted out, no matter the circumstance.

Donald Trump has a serious choice to make: keep pleasing the “base” or finally — finally! — reach out to millions of Americans who do not favor repealing DACA status for American residents.

It’s not an “amnesty,” as candidate Trump called it during the 2016 campaign. DACA provides a path toward citizenship or permanent legal residence.

Which side of the president will present itself when he announces his DACA decision? Time will tell. I’m hoping the “better angels” have seized Donald Trump’s attention.

Let the ‘children’ stay in U.S.

DACA is on the table now for the president of the United States.

Donald Trump should do the right thing and leave it alone. He shouldn’t axe it. He shouldn’t send U.S. residents back to somewhere they’ve never known.

DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

There’s news that Trump is preparing to make a decision on DACA and on whether he’s going to order the expulsion of undocumented immigrants. Don’t do it, Mr. President. It’s not the right thing to do.

DACA covers those who came to this country as children of undocumented immigrants. They were in some cases infants and toddlers. They grew up in the United States. They were educated here. Many of them have grown into responsible adults and have been hired to do important work.

Do we now toss them out because of something their parents did and committed an illegal act over which these children had zero control?

The president is trying to shore up his Republican Party base and a decision to toss out the DACA residents would surely please the 30-percent base of Americans who still endorse Trump’s agenda.

Trump campaigned for the presidency pledging to toss aside DACA. He calls it “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. It is no such thing. DACA gives these individuals a path to citizenship or to achieve legal immigrant status. That’s it.

Maybe he should ask his secretary of energy, Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas who has supported allowing these residents to remain in the United States. Indeed, Perry knows the impact that these individuals have on a state’s economy and the value they bring to society as responsible adults. Perry’s support of DACA echoes the belief of another former Texas governor, former President George W. Bush.

There’s also another political calculation that Trump needs to ponder. He continues to poll miserably among Hispanic Americans. To be candid, I don’t give a damn if he finds a way to please that demographic group. If he does take that into account and he scraps the notion of tossing out these U.S. residents — these de facto Americans — he’ll do far more than please a voting demographic he needs while angering the “base” that’s been with him all along.

The president would be doing the right thing.

Karma might have struck once again

Oh, the irony is too rich to ignore.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is going to hear a case involving a young man who says heĀ is beingĀ deported illegally by the federal government.

Judge Curiel isn’t just any ol’ federal jurist. He happens to someone whom presidential candidate Donald John Trump slammed for being of “Mexican heritage” while he was hearing a case involving the defunct Trump University.

Curiel now gets to hear a case regarding the deportation of Juan Manuel Montes. He got the assignment by luck of the draw, it turns out. Montes, who’s now 23,Ā is one of those “Dreamers” who came here when he was 9 years of age and had obtained DACA status.

Why is this case so tantalizing? It’s because Curiel is an American; born in Indiana and educated in the United States. He is a fine jurist. He’ll now get to hear a case brought by a young man who contends that the federal government didn’t provide sufficient documentation requiring him to be sent back to Mexico.

Judge Curiel’s citizenship didn’t stop Trump from defaming him during the 2016 presidential campaign by alleging that his Mexican heritage disqualified him from judging the Trump U case fairly. Trump, you’ll recall, opened his presidential campaign by declaring his intention to build a wall across our southern border to keep all those immigrants who were coming here to commit heinous crimes.

Stand tall, Judge Curiel

The wall? Blocking immigrants from Mexico? The judge’s parents are of Mexican descent? Why, of course he cannot judge the Trump U case fairly and without bias, according to Donald Trump.

As it turned out, Trump settled that matter with a $25 million payout to those who complained about the “education” they received. The president didn’t admit to any wrongdoing … quite naturally.

How will Judge Curiel do with the Montes deportation case? I am confident he’ll judge the case the way judges are supposed to judge such matters.

If the case goes against the federal government, though, expect the president to launch yet another tweet tirade.

Don’t you just love it when karma bites back?