U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, has made it clear: Immigration reform must be executed in Congress, not in the courts. Until that happens, however, thousands of people who were brought into this country as children and are Americans in every way except birthplace remain in limbo, subject to the whims of judges who have demonstrated wildly different, and personal rather than legal, views on those foreign-born Americans and on immigration in general.
That’s the unfortunate fallout of a large stable of judges who have taken the bench in recent years — including some Supreme Court appointees. In throwing out the centuries-old principle of stare decisis, or respect for previous court decisions, we have lost legal consistency in many vital areas of U.S. law and policy.
One of those is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a Barack Obama executive order that protects this group from deportation and enables them to pursue education and obtain jobs legally.
The order affects hundreds of Rio Grande Valley residents whose parents brought them to the United States as children and couldn’t, or didn’t, secure legal residency for them. But it also affects the Valley as a whole, as these Dreamers, so called because of the DREAM Act that first sought to help them obtain legal status more than two decades ago, have contributed to our communities in many ways, from the friendships the forged in our schools to their community involvement and economic benefits they have given us as workers.
This issue shouldn’t be so difficult; 75% of Americans, representing liberals and conservatives alike, support legal status for Dreamers in public opinion polls.
DACA, which now is more than a decade old, has faced dozens of legal challenges, leading to differing court decisions. One of the most recent, from U.S. Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, allows DACA to continue, but continues a restriction that allows people already in the program to remain and renew their status, but prevents any new registration.
This is unacceptable. If DACA is permitted for some childhood immigrants, then it should apply to all. Our Constitution, our nation’s highest governing document, mandates equal application of the laws, and Hanen’s restriction clearly violates that mandate.
It’s understandable that Hanen might not want to issue a final decision, assuming that no matter how he rules the issue eventually will be decided by the Supreme Court. The high court has rendered decisions regarding some aspects of the order, always returning the cases to lower courts.
Congress has come close to codifying DACA into law. One pending bill has passed the House but awaits action in the Senate. The fate of this effort likely will be determined after the Nov. 8 election and whether Congress is willing to address the issue before the newly elected lawmakers take their oaths in January.
In the meantime, Hanen should recognize the injustice brought upon people who are eligible for DACA in every way except the age of their birth, and allow new applications to be processed.
