In response to Obama’s 12 executive orders, 26 states and the House of Representatives sued the then president and the recipients of the orders, seeking to prevent them from being enforced.

In 2014, President Barack Obama signed 12 executive orders directing various agencies in the departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security to refrain from deporting some 4 million adult immigrants illegally present in the United States if they are the parents of children born here or legally present here, and if they hold a job, obtain a high-school diploma or its equivalent, pay taxes, and stay out of prison. However, for the president Congress had rejected the conditions he established for avoiding deportation. Prominent among these executive orders was the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA was intended to let “dreamers” — undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, who in many cases knew no other home — avoid deportation and get work permits that are renewed every two years. A survey of about 3,000 DACA applicants found the median age on arriving in the United States was 6. Under the program, the Obama administration set forth requirements for qualifying for DACA, including having resided in the United States continuously from June 15, 2007, to June 15, 2012. Applicants also needed to have arrived with a parent and before turning 16, be in school or be a graduate of high school, or be a military veteran and not convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors. Essentially, Obama ordered a program of “prosecutorial discretion” that would not target for deportation of undocumented immigrants who meet these qualifications, but he had said it was intended as a temporary action, pending congressional action. In September 5, 2017, however, President Trump decided to terminate DACA, effective in six months, forcing the problem back on Congress. Among the young dreamers who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children are 200,000 Salvadorans, nearly 60,000 Haitians and others from Central America who have lived in the U.S. legally, in some cases for decades, under the temporary protected status that the Trump’s administration is ending. However, many Democrats—and some Republicans —have criticized Trump’s rescission of DACA. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said in a statement that “people have come to this country from everywhere, and people from everywhere have made America great…Our immigration policy should reflect that truth, and our elected officials, including our president, should respect it,” he said. Trump’s decision was in fulfillment of his 2016 campaign promise and fallout of earlier partisan political reaction to Obama’s signed 12 executive orders by a section of congress members and some states. In response to Obama’s 12 executive orders, 26 states and the House of Representatives sued the then president and the recipients of the orders, seeking to prevent them from being enforced. The States and the House argued that the president effectively rewrote the immigration laws and changed the standards for the deportation of unlawfully present adult immigrants. The states also argued that because federal law requires them to offer the same safety net of social services for those illegally present as they do for those lawfully present, the financial burden that the enforcement of those orders would put upon them would be far beyond their budgetary limits. Moreover, they argued, enforcement of the president’s orders would effectively constitute a presidential command to the states to spend their own tax dollars against their wishes, and the president lacks the power to do that. In reply, the president argued that the literal enforcement of the law creates an impossible conundrum for him. He does not want to deport the parents of American children, as that destroys families and impairs the welfare of children, and he cannot deport children who were born here, as they are American citizens. The case was filed in Texas, where a federal district court judge agreed with the states and signed an order that prohibited the feds from enforcing the president’s orders, pending a full trial. The feds appealed.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans upheld the injunction against the president. In so doing, it agreed with the states that the financial burden on them that would come from the enforcement of these executive orders would be unconstitutional. It also agreed with the House of Representatives that the president exceeded his authority under the Constitution and effectively rewrote the laws. In early April 2016, the Supreme Court heard the feds’ appeal. Because the seat formerly occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for 30 years is still vacant, the court has just eight justices — for the most part, four conservatives and four liberals. A tie vote in the court, which appears likely in this case, will not set any precedent, but it will retain the injunction against the president.Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, says that the most recent time this happened was 1952, when the court enjoined President Harry Truman from seizing steel mills during the Korean conflict. Though the issue here is immigration, the constitutional values underlying the case are more far-reaching. Since the era of Woodrow Wilson — accelerated under Franklin D. Roosevelt, enhanced under Lyndon B. Johnson and brought over the top under George W. Bush — Congress has ceded some of its powers to the president. It has enabled him to borrow unlimited amounts of money and to spend as he sees fit. It has looked the other way when presidents have started wars, arrested Americans without charge or trial and even killed Americans. Can Congress voluntarily give some of its powers to the president, either by legislation or by impotent acquiescence when the president takes them? In a word, no. The purpose of the division of powers — Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws and the courts interpret them and decide what they mean — is to preserve personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in one branch of government.The 26 states and the House told the Supreme Court that the president is enforcing the laws not as Congress wrote them but as he wishes them to have been written, because he actually directed officials of the executive branch to enforce the versions of the laws that he rewrote instead of the laws on the books. That arguably violates his oath of office, in which he agreed that he would “faithfully” enforce all federal laws. We know from his notes that James Madison, when he drafted the presidential oath, insisted that the word “faithfully” be inserted so as to impress upon presidents their obligation to enforce laws even if they disagree with them. During oral argument in the court, there was a bizarre exchange over terminology that the president used in his orders. In a weird series of questions, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked whether the president’s executive orders could be salvaged constitutionally by excising or changing a few words. This was improper because it treated an executive order as if it were a statute. It is not the job of the court to find ways to salvage executive orders, as it is to salvage statutes, because the Constitution has given “all legislative Powers” to Congress and none to the president. Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Executive orders that contradict statutes are presumed to be unconstitutional, and the court has no business trying to save them. All presidents from time to time have exercised discretion upon individuals when it comes to enforcing laws that pose hardships. But none has done so for 4 million people, and none has written substitute laws of his own making. Until now.Prompt:For this assignment, write a four-page argumentative essay in which you present both side of the current immigration debate and then present a compromise. As part of the pre-writing stage, develop three columns; column 1: For Obama’s executive order; column 2: Trump’s Rescission of DACA (Against Obama’s executive order); column 3: your compromise. Under each column, list the claim, the reasons, the evidence, and the objections (refutation). You need to cite at least three journal articles and two books. Paragraph 1: IntroductionTransition to paragraph 2: Paragraph 2: The opposing position (Refutation/Objection)In this paragraph, present and acknowledge the opposing position, provide the opposing claim, reason, and the evidence. You need to cite at least two opposing sources. Then refute this position, arguing why it is not valid by evaluating the weaknesses in evidence.Transition to paragraph 3:Paragraph 3: Your position In this paragraph, present your claim, reasons, and evidence, citing at least two sources to validate your position. Use evidence that suits your claim (fact, policy, value). This paragraph should be at least the size of the previous paragraph or a bit longer if needed.Transition to paragraph 4:Paragraph 4: The neutral position (Compromise) — Argue for impartial advocates who agree with both sides of the equation with a compromise. In this paragraph, present and acknowledge the impartial advocate’s position, provide the claim for compromise, reason, and the evidence. You need to cite at least two compromise sources. Then refute this position, arguing why it is not valid by evaluating the weaknesses in evidence. Paragraph 5: Conclusion