Omar Bennett
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been a source of controversy and debate in the United States, with some questioning its constitutionality. DACA provides temporary protection from deportation and permission to live and work in the country for certain individuals who came to the United States as children. While the U.S. government has successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges, there are still concerns about its legality. This article will explore the constitutional protections, if any, that DACA offers and the legal arguments surrounding it.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Lawful | Yes |
| Constitutional | Yes |
| Ultimate legal authority | Article II, Section Three of the U.S. Constitution |
| Protection from | Deportation |
| Who is protected | People who came to the U.S. as children, pass a criminal background check, and meet educational and other criteria |
| Period of protection | Two-year, renewable basis |
| Expansion | Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- DACA is a form of temporary protection from deportation
- DACA is constitutional as it falls under the executive branch's discretion
- The U.S. government has successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges
- DACA expansion and DAPA
- DACA recipients' constitutional right to equal protection under the law
DACA is a form of temporary protection from deportation
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has defended DACA against constitutional challenges, arguing that it is a lawful and constitutional exercise of executive branch discretion over immigration enforcement. The ultimate legal authority for DACA lies in Article II, Section Three of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This includes deciding who should be targeted for deportation and who should be allowed to stay.
The ACLU has also challenged attempts by the Trump administration to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority, to accelerate mass deportations and sidestep the protections provided by DACA.
Permanent Residents: Constitutional Protections for Americans?
You may want to see also
DACA is constitutional as it falls under the executive branch's discretion
DACA is a lawful and constitutional program that falls under the executive branch's discretion. It is a form of temporary protection from deportation known as "deferred action". Deferred action is one way in which the executive branch has historically exercised discretion over who should and shouldn't be deported from the United States. DACA specifically grants people who came to the United States as children, passed a criminal background check, and met educational and other criteria permission to live and work in the country on a two-year, renewable basis.
The ultimate legal authority for DACA lies in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Carrying out immigration laws involves deciding who should be targeted for deportation and who should be allowed to stay. Congress has given the executive branch discretion over "the administration and enforcement" of immigration laws. The Supreme Court has recognised that "a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials".
The U.S. government has repeatedly and successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges. In 2014, President Obama announced an expansion to DACA and a new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). This action expanded the population eligible for DACA and extended the period of work authorisation and protection from deportation for DACA recipients from two years to three years.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the president's expected unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The lawsuit charged that President Trump intended to invoke the centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law.
Florida's Constitutional Protections: Business Rights and Freedoms
You may want to see also
The U.S. government has successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges
The U.S. government has repeatedly and successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued that DACA is a form of temporary protection from deportation known as "deferred action". This is one way in which the executive branch has historically exercised discretion over who should and shouldn't be deported from the United States.
DACA grants people who came to the United States as children, passed a criminal background check, and met educational and other criteria permission to live and work in the country on a two-year, renewable basis. In 2014, President Obama announced an expansion to DACA, extending the period of work authorization and protection from deportation for DACA recipients from two years to three years.
The ultimate legal authority for DACA lies in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This includes deciding who should be targeted for deportation and who should be allowed to stay. Congress has also given the executive branch discretion over "the administration and enforcement" of immigration laws.
The ACLU, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the president's expected unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The lawsuit charged that President Trump intended to invoke the centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law.
Trade and Constitution: A Protected Alliance?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
DACA expansion and DAPA
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organisations have argued that the DACA program is lawful and constitutional. DACA is a form of temporary protection from deportation known as 'deferred action'. Deferred action is one way in which the executive branch has historically exercised discretion over who should and shouldn't be deported from the United States.
The ultimate legal authority for DACA lies in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Carrying out immigration laws involves deciding who should be targeted for deportation and who should be allowed to stay. The U.S. government has repeatedly and successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges.
In November 2014, President Obama announced an expansion to DACA and a new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). This action expanded the population eligible for DACA and extended the period of work authorisation and protection from deportation for DACA recipients from two years to three years. DAPA made certain parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents eligible for deferred action and employment authorisation, provided they met the eligibility criteria.
The ACLU and other organisations have also challenged Arizona's denial of driver's licenses to DACA recipients, arguing that the ban violates DACA recipients' constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
The Constitution and Illegal Immigration: A Complex Relationship
You may want to see also
DACA recipients' constitutional right to equal protection under the law
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued that the DACA program is lawful and constitutional. DACA is a form of temporary protection from deportation known as "deferred action". The U.S. government has successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges. The ultimate legal authority for DACA lies in the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This includes deciding who should be targeted for deportation and who should be allowed to stay.
DACA specifically grants people who came to the United States as children, passed a criminal background check, and met educational and other criteria permission to live and work in the country on a two-year, renewable basis. DACA recipients have challenged bans on their right to a driver's license, arguing that this violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
The ACLU, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over the president's expected unlawful and unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The lawsuit charged that President Trump intended to invoke the centuries-old wartime act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law.
Whistleblowers: Constitutional Protection or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, DACA is a lawful and constitutional form of temporary protection from deportation.
DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
People who came to the United States as children, pass a criminal background check, and meet educational and other criteria.
DACA protection is granted on a two-year, renewable basis.
Yes, the U.S. government has successfully defended DACA against constitutional challenges.
