Well Gorsuch may have a record of ruling against the executive branch acting a way that conservatives define as unilaterally, under Democratic party presidents.
I’m not really familiar with Gorsuch’s previous record, besides that weird ruling that was unearthed where he ruled that a worker was in the wrong for literally choosing not to die by disobeying company orders. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that Gorsuch is for the little guy.
We’ll just have to see how it all goes.
Anything is theoretically possible. But in practice it does seem that most of the people who are opposed to DACA are using “executive power” as an excuse. They don’t seem to complain about executive power towards things that they actually like.
That is probably the core of it, whether one wants to admit it or not. There are also the various ignorant talking points about sucking public funds and increases in crime. From legal immigrants its is their disdain that they flouted the law, and that they may achieve what they did through different/cheaper means.
Eh - not a legal expert, but I don’t think ignorance of the law is an excuse. There is due process in processing illegal immigrants. The letter of the law is clear, but DACA was set up because obviously some people thought there should be exceptions.
\
JFC
They’ve been given leave to pick the low hanging fruit. Those working and paying taxes without ever applying for refunds are targeted at workplaces and those who have been here for years, own businesses and began families here. In my area it’s not just brown and black people; for example an Irish man who owned a home and had a successful business, had been here for more than 30 years, was married to a citizen with whom he was raising their children was deported.
They’re going after the most vulnerable.
There was a raid a few months ago on a sex worker advocacy group, aimed at picking off undocumented workers. Plus the early expulsion of non-citizen veterans and newly enlisted in the miltary. And ICE targeting courthouses and protests.
And, as you mention, recent things like this:
https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/953101379941388288
The Holocaust didn’t begin with gas chambers. It began with deportations of the politically/ethnically “undesirable” and the massacre of the helplessly ill.
Niemöller began reciting his poem quite some time ago. That poem isn’t about what the fascists did in the 1940’s. It’s about what they did first.
Really? At the bare minimum, the Beer Hall Putsch was patently illegal, the Night of the Long Knives killings were illegal at the time they were committed, and the early Treaty of Versailles violations were also illegal. 
In the case of the children, I would prefer to treat them as innocent victims of the acts of their parents, instead of willing perpetrators of illegal acts.
Weren’t me that said it, it was Dr King.
The full quote is We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.”.
Taking him a bit less literally: the Nazis rose to power by nominally democratic processes, and successfully held the authority of “legitimate” state power during their reign.
The Nuremberg Laws were laws. Legality and morality are orthogonal.
I agree, but the law currently doesn’t have that sort of distinction.
I’ve always said being an illegal immigrant is the worst crime in the United States.
A two year old can reach into his mom’s purse and shoot her with her own gun and he wouldn’t so much as get arrested, let alone get any jail time.
But a two year old crossing that border illegally will be a fugitive if they live to be 92, always on the verge of being detained and deported with the nothing but the shirt on his back, and many Americans think this is justice.
If an optic offends thee, pluck it out!
Really? You’re ignoring the fact that the entire legal structure of Nazi Germany legalized discrimination on a mass scale to talk about the Beer Hall Putsch? Which happened well before the nazis got into power?
To all those who want to defend President Pigphucker’s decision saying it is simply rescinding an executive order of the prior president:
You guys are malicious d-bags who just want to attack 800,000 people willing to serve our country to earn their place here. There is no good faith argument in defense of this action and for attacks on people who are a net benefit to our nation.
DACA was an immunity from prosecution agreement. These people complied with government requests for immunity from prosecution in exchange for a consideration. Such agreements do not change with a new prosecutor. Attacking it is a violation of due process rights of the “Dreamers”.
Due process rights concerning immigration law are sorely lacking. That is why one cannot use an analogy with criminals to immigration violators. If they were criminals, they would be entitled to far greater due process rights:
Far fewer people would be deported if they were treated like criminals. Immigration violators with counsel are exponentially far less likely to be deported than those without.
If they were treated like criminals, they would have far more due process rights than they have. Plus they would be immune from prosecution for entering a deal with the government.
Of course. The government estopped itself from prosecuting these people by encouraging them to be documented and entering the program. To go after them now is an attack on their due process rights.
These people cooperated with the government in exchange for a consideration. It is the equivalent of an immunity deal. Such things do not change if there is a new DA.
BTW you are avoiding the merits of the action by focusing on the mechanics of it. My statement still stands. It is malicious, counterproductive BS.
Actually its an intent based excuse. One has to be able to appreciate their actions to be able to be prosecuted for certain offenses. This is why there are insanity, (mental) incapacity and infancy defenses to certain crimes. Plus one has to be acting by their own volition. As if they had a choice not to commit the crime. “Coercion” is also a defense.
Am I being chastised for saying that the Nazis were criminals? Their blatantly and brutal criminal behavior, even they reached power, allowed them to suppress any kind of opposition to their program. Rule of law was destroyed when Hitler made himself the “supreme judge of the German people”.
