SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Advocates for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program held a protest in San Francisco in September of 2017. (Photo: Pax Ahimsa Gethen/Wikimedia/cc)
DACA Immigration Protections Must Continue for Now, Judge Says
While the ruling provides temporary relief as debates in Congress continue, advocates wary of long legal and legislative battles ahead
Jan 10, 2018
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but immigrant rights advocates warn the ruling is no cause for celebration, with long legal and legislative battles ahead.
San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled (pdf) on Tuesday night that the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA--which granted work permits and relief from deportation to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children--"was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law." He issued a nationwide injunction requiring the administration to immediately start accepting renewal applications again while his ruling makes its way through the federal courts.
Despite Alsup's decision, advocates remain concerned about the lack of a long-term solution. "This is not a win for us," Camille Mackler, the director of immigration legal policy at the advocacy group New York Immigration Coalition, explained to the New York Times. "We're obviously glad that this is going to provide some relief, but what we really need is a clean DREAM Act," or legislation that would make DACA protections permanent without adding enforcement measures that Trump and congressional Republicans are demanding.
While Democrats have been more supportive of the so-called Clean Dream Act--the solution that advocates want--Republican lawmakers and the president have said they will only support DACA legislation with concessions to increase immigration enforcement, including Trump's long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In statements to the press and on social media this week, the president has maintained his position that a wall "must be part of any DACA approval."
Alsup's decision came only hours after a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers and Trump to discuss immigration legislation that would include protections for DACA recipients. Following the ruling, a spokesman for the Justice Department said in a statement that the agency will "continue to vigorously defend" Trump's position. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the ruling "outrageous," while the president turned to Twitter Wednesday morning to attack the 9th Circuit Court and Alsup's ruling.
Meanwhile, advocates--who were also quick to note that the ruling could be overturned by a higher court--urged caution and called on lawmakers to keep up their efforts to pass legislative protections for Dreamers, a term inspired by the DREAM Act that's used to describe those who are eligible for the program.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but immigrant rights advocates warn the ruling is no cause for celebration, with long legal and legislative battles ahead.
San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled (pdf) on Tuesday night that the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA--which granted work permits and relief from deportation to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children--"was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law." He issued a nationwide injunction requiring the administration to immediately start accepting renewal applications again while his ruling makes its way through the federal courts.
Despite Alsup's decision, advocates remain concerned about the lack of a long-term solution. "This is not a win for us," Camille Mackler, the director of immigration legal policy at the advocacy group New York Immigration Coalition, explained to the New York Times. "We're obviously glad that this is going to provide some relief, but what we really need is a clean DREAM Act," or legislation that would make DACA protections permanent without adding enforcement measures that Trump and congressional Republicans are demanding.
While Democrats have been more supportive of the so-called Clean Dream Act--the solution that advocates want--Republican lawmakers and the president have said they will only support DACA legislation with concessions to increase immigration enforcement, including Trump's long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In statements to the press and on social media this week, the president has maintained his position that a wall "must be part of any DACA approval."
Alsup's decision came only hours after a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers and Trump to discuss immigration legislation that would include protections for DACA recipients. Following the ruling, a spokesman for the Justice Department said in a statement that the agency will "continue to vigorously defend" Trump's position. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the ruling "outrageous," while the president turned to Twitter Wednesday morning to attack the 9th Circuit Court and Alsup's ruling.
Meanwhile, advocates--who were also quick to note that the ruling could be overturned by a higher court--urged caution and called on lawmakers to keep up their efforts to pass legislative protections for Dreamers, a term inspired by the DREAM Act that's used to describe those who are eligible for the program.
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but immigrant rights advocates warn the ruling is no cause for celebration, with long legal and legislative battles ahead.
San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled (pdf) on Tuesday night that the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA--which granted work permits and relief from deportation to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children--"was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law." He issued a nationwide injunction requiring the administration to immediately start accepting renewal applications again while his ruling makes its way through the federal courts.
Despite Alsup's decision, advocates remain concerned about the lack of a long-term solution. "This is not a win for us," Camille Mackler, the director of immigration legal policy at the advocacy group New York Immigration Coalition, explained to the New York Times. "We're obviously glad that this is going to provide some relief, but what we really need is a clean DREAM Act," or legislation that would make DACA protections permanent without adding enforcement measures that Trump and congressional Republicans are demanding.
While Democrats have been more supportive of the so-called Clean Dream Act--the solution that advocates want--Republican lawmakers and the president have said they will only support DACA legislation with concessions to increase immigration enforcement, including Trump's long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In statements to the press and on social media this week, the president has maintained his position that a wall "must be part of any DACA approval."
Alsup's decision came only hours after a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers and Trump to discuss immigration legislation that would include protections for DACA recipients. Following the ruling, a spokesman for the Justice Department said in a statement that the agency will "continue to vigorously defend" Trump's position. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the ruling "outrageous," while the president turned to Twitter Wednesday morning to attack the 9th Circuit Court and Alsup's ruling.
Meanwhile, advocates--who were also quick to note that the ruling could be overturned by a higher court--urged caution and called on lawmakers to keep up their efforts to pass legislative protections for Dreamers, a term inspired by the DREAM Act that's used to describe those who are eligible for the program.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.