From Congressman Andy Harris:
President Trump is Rolling Back Obama Overreach on Immigration
On September 5, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of the policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This 2012 policy allowed illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children to request deferred action on their immigration status and seek work authorization for two-year periods. Congressman Andy Harris (MD-01) issued the following statement in support of the decision to end this policy:
“I strongly support President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. The Obama-era policy is a gross overreach of executive power and undermined the authority of the legislative branch. President Trump is returning that power to Congress.”
From the Maryland Office of the Attorney General:
President Trump’s Decision to End DACA will impact over 10,000 Maryland DREAMers
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today issued the following statement in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. There are approximately 10,000 current DACA recipients working and going to school in Maryland. Ending the program would constitute a $509.4 million loss in the state of Maryland’s annual GDP.
“President Trump’s action to end DACA today is a shameful attack on 800,000 young people who have grown up in this country and are making important contributions to our economy, and to our educational and civic institutions. Most recently, many have taken heroic actions as first responders in the recent devastating floods in Texas and are poised to help rebuild the state. Ending this program will break families apart, deprive thousands of the work opportunities and education that will help them support themselves and their families, and rob employers of a diverse and committed work force.
Our country has already invested in these DREAMers – the next generation of teachers, skilled workers, and business owners – and we must find a way to continue that commitment. Turning our backs on them is the wrong choice.
My office is evaluating all potential options to protect these DREAMers and their families.”
Time for you and the Congress to get to work on this issue. The ball is in your court, where it has been since 1984.
Shameful. Like everything else this administration does, it is another decree to overturn something Obama did with absolutely no plan on how to deal with the fallout.
There’s a shocker! Harris doesn’t have an original idea in his head. Just tows the alt-right Republucan line…its what the Koch brothers pay for after all… totally disgusted.
It’s “toe the line” for christ sake.
DACA was a decree by Obama to overturn something congress passed.
What that Congress Passed was overturned?
The law of the land states that immigration outside of the process outlined by congress is illegal. Obama used an executive order to apply prosecutorial discretion based on certain demographic values, not a case by case basis as is the law. That means he quit enforcing a law because he wanted to, that is not overturning a law, but in effect making it void for a certain population.
The ‘D’ is deferred, they always had to go home anyway. Personally, I think that since the DACA folks are so great and we’ve invested in them according to Frosh, we really shouldn’t prevent them from heading back to help their fellow Mexican citizens.
It’s the right thing to do, unless you hate Mexico.
The DACA recipients entered this country under Obama’s directive. They were practically invited. Everyone wants to talk about the DACA Executive order being unconstitutional, yet our government is involved in unconstitutional acts against the citizens of this country all the time. There is no question that DACA is unconstitutional. However, there is no question that our government is illegitimate and unconstitutional as well. Can you say “Patriot Act”? Let those who came under a former president’s directive stay as they are no more a threat to you than the US citizens and government we deal with on a daily basis.
They didn’t enter under his directive. They were already here. This is a very limited group of people covered by DACA and have specific eligibility requirements.
Well, not all of them entered under his directive, but many crossed that border because of that directive. Remember, this article is about the DACA recipients and NOT immigration as a whole. You are right, many were here before the directive. However, many were not….. I firmly believe that the Latin American people have just as much, if not more, of a right to be here in this country as any other nationality seeking to live here. I am only against letting in Islamic refugees from countries that are associated with Islamic Terrorism. So, maybe I am prejudicial about that, but I feel that is an educated choice after seeing the widespread Islamic Terrorism through out Europe. Yes, “Seriously?”, I believe many entered under the Obama Administrations directive….
You realize that the people who came after DACA that are children are still children and they didn’t chose to come. Some one choose for them?
Yeah, well I don’t see them lining up at the border to go back. Do you? What does that tell you? I assumed that it meant they wanted to stay and if someone chose for them, that means they didn’t intelligently or intentionally break the law, rendering them not criminally responsible. If a decision was made by an adult, for a child, then wouldn’t that make the adult’s decision responsible for that child’s entry? Same could be applied to someone who has been deemed incompetent. However, if that adult intentionally broke the law in order to do what that adult thought best for that child, wouldn’t that make them righteous? Persecution of those who are righteous is ungodly and should be considered evil even if not unlawful….
A simple google search to read and learn about the rules of DACA would have removed any reason to just “believe” anything and actually know the facts.
To be eligible for DACA, illegal immigrants must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship,[59] nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.[2]
So, considering that Obama didn’t become Pres until 2008, and DACA wasn’t implemented until 2012, and they must have arrived here prior to June 2007…which was Before Obama was President (and be able to prove that date of arrival)….it’s a long stretch to say Obama encouraged anyone. No one can travel back in time last time I checked, except in movies.
I stand corrected. I was unaware of that rule and recently read the story of a man who reentered this country in 2008 because of the DACA act. He was not in the US for a 5 month time period as he went home and got his family affairs straight after his father died. He was eligible because his absence was brief enough to be considered for the DACA program. MY mistake. However, do you really think the flood of immigrants from Latin America during the Obama administration’s tenure was NOT because these people thought they would be allowed to stay? When Obama permitted those under DACA to stay, a reasonable person would think that to be an invitation to violate our immigration laws and come here regardless of illegal entry. – http://humanevents.com/2014/07/01/obamas-illegal-immigration-invitation/
The Central American refugee crisis has nothing to do with DACA. Those kids aren’t and will never be eligible for DACA.
Once again, do you really think the flood of immigrants from Latin America during the Obama administration’s tenure was NOT because these people thought they would be allowed to stay? When people saw the attitude and trends that were exhibited by the Obama Administration, especially the DACA act, they saw an opening and they took it. If you can not see the correlation to DACA and the increase in illegal immigration, then I can not help you see the truth.
The Central American Refugees had long been considered refugees which actually made them legal under the existing law.
@Cdev – That is nothing but a myth. They must establish a “credible fear” claim to be qualified for refugee status. Furthermore, if they are in the US due to illegal entry that makes them no different than others who have entered illegally and have failed to notify the authorities. The misconception of this treaty is that “refugee” status is granted to any who are fleeing persecution in their home country and that all Central American Immigrants are actually refugees. This is not true. I wonder where American citizens go to seek refuge from persecution here in America? https://qz.com/881275/the-us-has-a-refugee-problem/
These guys have a credible fear just like Cubans had. Getting here was all they had to do.
The DACA folks have entered for many years. Some came here at 4 and are in their early 30’s. They broke no laws. That is the group of people we are talking about.
News flash Andy it wasn’t Trumps decision as usual he was too chicken shit to take credit so he pawned it off on Jefferson Sessions.
The Dagger is censoring the truth again because they don’t like the government being called what it is. I don’t like being censored because I speak the truth. This is a public forum and you are hindering free speech. I didn’t use any profanity, nor did I make any false statements. Either keep this forum open to the public or shut this propaganda machine down…..
We are a country of laws. Congress needs to go to real work and fix the problem. It has bounced around for probably the last 30 years. Get a program going to allow them to get green cards and take the path to become a citizen. Many are working on getting a good education and some have businesses.
They want to make this country their permanent home, so congress needs to do their job and get a bill passed to fix this situation. My other concern with these children brought here illegally is where are their parents. Have they become legal?
Hispanics don’t vote republican so don’t expect the current congress to make it easy for them to become citizens. Any by deporting them it pretty much means for the next 30 years republicans will continue to not get the Hispanic vote.
The parents of DACA people aren’t eligible to stay. So, they’ll be deported. That was one of the points of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). They made no decision to come here illegally. They were too young to decide, had no say in the matter, likely didn’t even understand what was going on.
So Trump has now said if Congress doesn’t act he will revisit this. What does that mean. If he does an EO will it still be overreach and unconstitutional if Trump does it?
The order would be just as illegal if Trump does it. There is no debating that under the current law.
The order isn’t illegal. It is DEFERING action until later and dealing with more pressing cases. Deportations were up under Obama!
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If it is Unconstitutional, it is illegal…..
The statute gives the president the authority to prioritize.
There is no statute, it is an executive order. An executive order always has a duration because it’s not law, it is an usurpation. This usurpation is gifted to the elected so called leader of this country and is supposed to be followed by congressional action either approving or disapproving the usurpation. The usurpation allows an elected president authority to deal with immediate crisis without congressional approval until congress can act on the order. An executive order that carries over to a predecessor either stands because the next agrees or wishes to continue the delay in action until congress takes action. In most cases, these carry over orders are because congress intentionally did nothing to validate or invalidate the order, normally for political reasons. Executive orders have been and are being used by presidents, for a long time, even though there is no constitutional provision or statute allowing it. Executive orders are illegal and unconstitutional….. The only reason executive orders exist is because of an attrition of lawmakers defense (or understanding) of the constitution. That’s right, executive orders only exist because the people you voted for lack the understanding of the constitution, especially the rights of the people.
The Statute is the immigration law which the president is free to prioritize whom is being deported and that is what DACA did!
I see where your coming from. I thought you were saying an executive order is law. Clearly it is not. I do believe ICE always had the power of deferred action. DACA was just a policy. Furthermore, DACA recipients who have children while in the US are then eligible for DAPA.
@ Clarifier – seems you were wrong earlier in DACA recipients having to be here since June 15th 2007, as it was changed to January 1st 2010 way back in 2014. Because of this I will now reiterate that DACA was an invitation to illegal immigration….
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration
P.S. Don’t Google go to duckduckgo.com
I didn’t make the later claim but the policy was announced around 2010
I understand what you are saying. However, when Obama announced DACA under certain rules and then announced that those who had entered 2 and a half years later were also included under the deferred action, that would give the impression of you better get to America fast because they are letting us in to stay. Furthermore, the DAPA program made it so any illegal who entered and had a child on American soil would also receive deferred action. In all reality, you could say that the deferred action allowed them to stay temporarily and then all those under DACA needed to do was breed to stay indefinitely. Yet all anyone ever had to do was become a parent of an American citizen to stay. Ending DACA will just encourage the illegals to have children on US soil.
Remember it is only deffered until it get’s undeffered.
Who’s going to reverse it? If you get rid of DACA, the political party responsible will look very bad, especially to those in the generation that DACA impacted. All those potential voters will look at that particular party as the ones who forced their friends and family members out of the US because of a decision those being deported may not have made or had control of. Furthermore, if you get rid of DAPA, just imagine the political alliances the children of the deported DAPA recipients will make. I’m sure they will vote for the party that made their parents leave the country and forced them into foster care. Ending either is political suicide and it took a nut farmer like Donald Trump to attempt it. Even he says he will revisit it in 6 months if Congress takes no action.
Take a drive through the East Baltimore communities such as Highlandtown, Greektown, etc. and tell us what you see. Many of these people do not work. There is a community center whose role it is to “integrate” these people. They and their children receive welfare and free healthcare. Who do you think pays for that? There are educational centers that provide parenting classes, free meals and home visiting services. I’m really tired of subsidizing other people who don’t want to work and are here because they know they can get free benefits.
What does that have to do with DACA?
And how do you know what the people you ‘see’ as you drive along are receiving? How do you know that they don’t work? Not everyone works during the day. No one here illegally is eligible for govt benefits. If charity orgs want to help others, why do you care?
That’s not true, lots of illegals receive benefits by way of federal money supplied to states in block grants. The states then give out that money, people that apply for said monies do not have to prove citizenship (the states don’t ask).
They also use forged documents and stolen SS#s to receive benefits.
Some even just apply and “hope for the best” and many receive said benefits because our system of check and balances is broken.
I’m just surprised that Andy actually disagreed with Trump.
He didn’t disagree with TRUMP.