The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

DACA survives on technicality

by Rachel Lynn Aldrich
Posted 6/18/20, 03:12 pm

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to uphold Obama-era legal protections for immigrants who illegally entered the United States as children. President Donald Trump’s administration argued that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was illegal and the courts had no authority to review its decision to end it. The program provides legal shelter for about 650,000 immigrants.

What was the reasoning? Roberts’ opinion said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the authority to end the program. But in doing so in 2017, it violated procedure and “failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan agreed the evidence showed no intentional discrimination against the immigrants. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying the protections were illegal in the first place, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued the Trump administration rescinded the policy properly.

Dig deeper: From the WORLD archives, read Marvin Olasky’s article on why Congress needs to resolve the DACA problem.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Rachel Lynn Aldrich

Rachel is an assistant editor for WORLD Digital. She is a Patrick Henry College and World Journalism Institute graduate. Rachel resides with her husband in Wheaton, Ill.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • JerryM
    Posted: Thu, 06/18/2020 05:50 pm

    Please explain "retain forbearance "?

  • OldMike
    Posted: Sat, 06/20/2020 05:07 pm

    It appears to be Lawyer English for "to continue not doing something one has a legal right to do."  

    Interestingly, I ran across a blog from a law firm, apparently supporters of DACA, that quoted the very Supreme Court opinion containing this phrase, without comment or explanation. So maybe lawyers commonly use the phrase.

    Also, the blog made this unsupported assertion:  "This decision is a major victory for the over 700,000 DACA recipients residing in the U.S., many of whom are medical professionals working on the frontlines of the COVID-19 response."  
    What exactly does "many" mean?  In this quote, the implied meaning is "you who want to send those dreamers home are so stupid, cutting your own throats, because those people are vital to your health!"

    There are about 700,000 enrolled in DACA (another 1,400,000 may be eligible) and I found that 27,000 or 29,000 of them (2 different sources) work in healthcare.  That's slightly over 4% of the dreamers.  Many?

    Typical of liberal arguments, a misleading statement has been thrown out to bolster their position.  

    But:  For the record, I am not opposed to immigration, and I am not opposed to immigration from our Latin American neighbors.  What I oppose is illegal, undocumented immigration.  Also, I believe we have plenty of room and opportunity for a lot more immigrants than what we've had coming in legally. We do badly need to reform our immigration laws.