Darrell Castle explains DACA and discusses Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ defense of the rule of law and how it applies to the ending of DACA.
Transcript / Notes
Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, September 15, 2017, and on today’s report I will be discussing DACA, which stands for Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals. In June of 2012, President Obama, after Congress repeatedly denied his request for Congressional implementation, decided to take legislative action on his own authority, by executive order.
President Trump campaigned on a promise of ending DACA “on his first day in office.” It took more than eight months but he finally got around to withdrawing President Obama’s executive order. Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions was sent out before the cameras to make the announcement that DACA would be ending. That, in and of itself, is probably significant because President Trump is usually not shy at all about the limelight, but it is through Attorney General Sessions’ remarks that we will approach this discussion because his remarks contained as fine a description of why the rule of law is important that you will ever hear or read.
He said that to have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. Therein lies the rub, because so many Democrats and Republicans consider their own interests and the interests of their Party’s leadership, but not the national interest.
DACA was a program that provided a legal status for recipients for a renewable two year term, as well as work authorization, and participation in the social security program. These benefits went to about 800,000 illegal aliens who were supposed to be exclusively children but apparently were also a lot of adults. Notice I used the term “illegal aliens” to describe these people because that is the description in America’s immigration laws, and it is the description used in his announcement by Jeff Sessions. It is more accurate than the politically correct “Dreamers” that is in vogue today.
Jeff Sessions described for us what President Obama did in implementing DACA.
“In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”
He then went on to give a description of why the rule of law is so important especially with regard to immigration.
“We inherited from our founders—and have advanced—an unsurpassed legal heritage, which is the foundation of our freedom, safety, and prosperity. As the Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and the Constitutional order is upheld.
No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed. Societies where the rule of law is subject to political whims and personal biases tend to become societies afflicted by corruption, poverty, and human suffering.
To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. That is an open border policy and the American people have rightly rejected it. Therefore, the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means all cannot be accepted.”
Well, Amen Attorney General Sessions, I could not have said it better myself.
DACA is sold to us as a system of compassion. It would not be compassionate to take away from these “children” who were brought here by their parents or others but not by their own rational choice, the legal rights once granted to them. I would point out the rights once granted under DACA were unlawfully and unconstitutionally granted so how can they now be lawful and constitutional. Nothing in the law has changed since 2012.
As Jeff Sessions pointed out, enforcing the law saves lives, protects communities and taxpayers, and prevents human suffering. Failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and even terrorism. The compassionate thing is to put an end to lawlessness and enforce the law and if Congress, through lawful process, chooses to change the law then so be it.
President Obama’s attempt to make immigration law by executive order was unconstitutional and could not be allowed to stand. Presidents cannot be allowed to do this, and President Trump was right to end it. The President has the right, according to the Supreme Court, to exclude aliens. It is a fundamental act of sovereignty inherent in executive power.
However, President Trump came out a day after Jeff Sessions’ defense of the rule of law and announced that he wanted Congress to revisit DACA and pass some legislation to deal with it. Well, what could that possibly mean? On the one hand it could mean that he wants the law to come from Congress as the Constitution requires, and that would be a good thing. On the other hand, he said that if Congress does not act by April of next year, when DACA finally expires, then he would revisit it himself. That sounds very much like he is considering reinstating DACA. That would mean he does what his Attorney General criticizes Barack Obama for doing. He has also started using the term “Dreamers” a lot. “We love our “Dreamers”. Who I wonder, is “we”‘. His administration, I suppose, or perhaps he uses the royal we.
Those who favor a reinstatement of DACA, and further debasement of the rule of law, can take heart. Yesterday the results of President Trump’s meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer was made public by the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi said that President Trump agreed to sign a new version of DACA, which Congress would soon pass and immigration would be revamped minus his hated wall. If she is correct and he did agree to that, he has thumbed his nose at every American who voted for him. He says that he didn’t agree to those things so who knows. It’s conceivable that Ms. Pelosi got it wrong through misunderstanding but I doubt it. Chuck Schumer was overheard on a hot mike saying “he likes us”. No, it sounds like Donald Trump, the master dealmaker, sees the rule of law as just another deal. The Republicans won’t deal with him so he goes to the Democrats. That’s what you would expect from a man who seems to have nothing that he believes in enough to go to the wall for it.
If Donald Trump wants to see DACA unconstitutionally reenacted then he is not the only one. All of our old CEO friends want it too. I guess they really need that cheap labor out there in Silicon Valley. Literally every CEO of an IT company is on record as condemning the end of DACA. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, had three DACA recipients over to his mansion for dinner. That’s pretty impressive isn’t it? He and his wife actually sat down to eat with three immigrants. Wow, I’m floored by his inclusiveness and willingness to put aside his condescension long enough to sit with the illegal aliens he chooses to call “Dreamers.” These super wealthy people know that they are insulated by wealth from the policies they espouse. It’s for us not for them.
If Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, George Soros, the Koch Brothers, and many other super billionaires, were anything other than total hypocrites they would do something other than dinner for third world immigrants. They could put together tens of billions, not just the price of dinner, and build factories in Mexico and other places so these people would have work. In fact, they could build whole Refugee Cities where there would be free economic zones set up in immigrant countries. I am personally acquainted with someone who is currently involved with Refugee Cities and could make this happen. That might help with some of our immigration problems but it would not solve our Democrat voter and cheap labor problems.
Finally folks, the jury is still out on Donald Trump, but there aren’t many ways to look at it. Either he has concluded that he has to get along by appeasing his enemies, or he doesn’t understand who the enemies are, or they are not enemies. Keep in mind that the Republicans do not have to cooperate with the Democrats at all. No Democrat legislation should be passed with Republican majorities in both houses. I’m afraid they are the same in both Parties and in it together.
At least that’s the way I see it.
Until next time folks,
This is Darrell Castle,
Thanks for listening.