• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona challenge to 'Dreamers' program

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,661
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona challenge to 'Dreamers' program

212d26fbd6625a408b648100d3f3a8d7.jpg


By Andrew Chung
Reuters - March 19, 2018

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday required Arizona to continue to issue driver’s licenses to the so-called Dreamers immigrants and refused to hear the state’s challenge to an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of young adults brought into the country illegally as children. The case centered on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created in 2012 under Democratic former President Barack Obama that Republican President Donald Trump already has sought to rescind. Those who signed up for DACA are shielded from deportation and given work permits. The high court refused to hear Republican-governed Arizona’s appeal of a lower court ruling that barred the state from denying driver’s licenses to people protected under DACA. “Arizona’s inexplicable attempt to deny driver’s licenses to Dreamers, pursued by two governors for years, has now failed at every level of the federal judiciary,” said Jennifer Chang Newell, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the immigrants in the case.

A fair decision by SCOTUS.
 
That's a great decision.

Until their fate is finally resolved, and resolved against them, the Dreamers should be able to continue on with their lives. They've been demonized far to much, and used as political pawns - as it is. And demonized for what? Because the came clean of the sins of their parents? And attempted to align themselves with the American system? It would be a tragedy to fail them, and I can't believe the hardened hearts of some of my fellow citizens that stand in their way.
 
A fair decision by SCOTUS.
The court didn't really decide anything. They only agree to hear around 100 of the 7-8,000 filed each term, so this is just one of the 98% that don't get heard.
 
I agree with leave them alone from a state level since the Constitution and federal law make immigration a federal only authority.

However, I think that states should be able to determine who does and does not qualify for a driver's license within their own state. Especially when all it takes to get on an airplane or enter government buildings, is a state issued ID. Not all illegal immigrants are nice old ladies or kids from El Salvador, or hard working, otherwise honest, and great guys from other places south of the border. Some are from places that want to do us harm (like Winnipeg - just kidding), and I think it's less than intelligent for our federal government to aid and abet them by forcing states to give them the official tool they need to get by our first line of defense.

Now, that said, I'm in favor of the "dreamer" folks being allowed to stay here and continue with their lives. I also think that calling them "dreamers" and "kids" is so far from the truth that it could be called a lie. Most are older, some as old as 40 years old by now. So lets call them what they are - illegal aliens that have become a part of the fabric of our society, and as such should be allowed the opportunity to continue to stay here, with certain restrictions (get at the back of the line for citizenship, as an example). I know, it's not politically correct to use the term the Code of Federal Regulations and the US CODE uses - illegal aliens - but the truth is not always politically correct. The term "dreamer' isn't correct either. I dream that I could be rich, but no one is marching for me to get a big check from the government. And that's what this equates to for these folks - the government of the US giving these folks the in-kind equivalent to money, by allowing them to stay here and earn more money in a month than they could earn in their native country in a year. Why is it like money? Because without the government allowing them to stay, they couldn't get that kind of income. Plus, the US social safety net, that equates to money that they wouldn't be able to get if they went back to their native country.

I guess my point is, let's get on with securing our borders first so others won't flood the border when we start this, then give these people what they need to live free from fear of deportation, and then once they've signed the government equivalent of the hotel registry and have officially checked in, then and only then do I think the federal government would have the right to force a state to issue them a driver's license, because they would be protected by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Right now, they aren't even officially here. How can we expect a state to issue a state ID to a person that officially, and legally, isn't even here?

/rant
 
Back
Top Bottom