Supreme Court Fails Immigrant Families

Supreme Court Fails Immigrant Families

Split decision on ruling of DAPA/DACA+ programs

On June 23rd, a Supreme Court tie decided the fate of millions of U.S. immigrant families. Because of the split decision in the United States v. Texas case, it was ruled that programs such as DAPA and DACA+ would not go into effect. These programs would have protected 4.5 million immigrants from deportation (x). The case has no chance of receiving a verdict until after Obama is out of office. This leaves the lives of 4.5 million immigrants in the hands of the next presidential candidate.

DACA+ was meant to be an extension to the already existing DACA program which was initiated in 2012. In 2014, Obama announced his plans to get rid of some requirements such as age and year of arrival in order to make more people eligible for the program. He would also increase the longevity of the program to three years instead of two (x). With the original DACA program, a little over 700,000 young immigrants were granted temporary protection status through DACA. Obama’s other plan was to grant temporary relief from deportation to parents (living in the U.S.) of legal residents. In total, these plans would have helped 4.5 million immigrants who have been living in the shadows their entire lives.

With these upgraded programs, Obama sought to prove he was pro-immigration and he wanted to demonstrate that he was only deporting convicted criminals. However, it has been reported that the Obama administration has deported more than 2 million immigrants with 80,000 of them being undocumented parents with resident children (x). Basically, he planned to give parents temporary relief from deportation only until their children turned 21 and could apply for their parents’ residency. DAPA/DACA+ were meant to go into effect February 2015. However, just as the government was about to accept applications, 23 states along with four republican senators, issued an injunction which stopped the continuation of the new programs.

The tie indicates that the court could neither agree on the legitimacy of the case nor the lawfulness of the Obama Administration’s actions in conjuring up DAPA and DACA+. However, the case still stays in this sort of limbo until a final ruling is made. Many pro-immigration groups have threatened to start a new case in which states that are also pro-immigration would sue to go ahead with the programs (x). At the end of his term, Obama will have deported more people than he has protected and will be leaving these 4 million immigrants in the hands of the future presidential candidate. Presidential nominee Donald Trump has said several times that he plans to do away with DACA within his first few days in office while opposing nominee Hilary Clinton, has promised to continue Obama’s immigration policies and will seek a new way to implement DAPA/DACA+.

What some officials do not realize is the extent to which programs like DACA benefit our economy as more and more people obtained higher paying jobs which contributed to our economy because of higher tax revenue. Also, more people are attending college and building careers with DACA. “DACAmented” people can also obtain driver’s licenses which means there are less unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road (x). With DACA, we have access to health care that we would not otherwise have. DACA creates professionals and paves the way for millions of immigrants to have the life they thought was impossible. However, on Thursday June 23rd, 4.5 million people awaiting the decision that would change their lives, were let down.

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

5 Perks Of Having A Long-Distance Best Friend

The best kind of long-distance relationship.

Sometimes, people get annoyed when girls refer to multiple people as their "best friend," but they don't understand. We have different types of best friends. There's the going out together best friend, the see each other everyday best friend and the constant, low maintenance best friend.

While I'm lucky enough to have two out of the three at the same school as me, my "low maintenance" best friend goes to college six hours from Baton Rouge.

This type of friend is special because no matter how long you go without talking or seeing each other, you're always insanely close. Even though I miss her daily, having a long-distance best friend has its perks. Here are just a few of them...

1. Getting to see each other is a special event.

Sometimes when you see someone all the time, you take that person and their friendship for granted. When you don't get to see one of your favorite people very often, the times when you're together are truly appreciated.

2. You always have someone to give unbiased advice.

This person knows you best, but they probably don't know the people you're telling them about, so they can give you better advice than anyone else.

3. You always have someone to text and FaceTime.

While there may be hundreds of miles between you, they're also just a phone call away. You know they'll always be there for you even when they can't physically be there.

4. You can plan fun trips to visit each other.

When you can visit each other, you get to meet the people you've heard so much about and experience all the places they love. You get to have your own college experience and, sometimes, theirs, too.

5. You know they will always be a part of your life.

If you can survive going to school in different states, you've both proven that your friendship will last forever. You both care enough to make time for the other in the midst of exams, social events, and homework.

The long-distance best friend is a forever friend. While I wish I could see mine more, I wouldn't trade her for anything.

Cover Image Credit: Just For Laughs-Chicago

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The Crimes And Misdemeanors Of A Sitting President

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is: Can this nation survive any more division?


Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is; can this nation survive any more division? Is Nancy correct in her comment, "He's just not worth it?" Impeachment should not be used as a political tool to remove an unwanted government official out of office. Its purpose is to bring charges against a government official and once the official is impeached then the legislative body can impose judgment which could ultimately remove the official from office.

Moreover, in the past, this country has impeached two sitting presidents and neither ended with his removal. According to, the definition of impeaching is "(a) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor, specifically: to charge a public official before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. (b) to remove from office especially for misconduct, and (c) to bring an accusation against."

So how many cases of impeachment has the United States experienced with sitting presidents? According to, eight U.S. presidents have faced impeachment, but with very different results. John Tyler was the first president to face impeachment proceedings in 1843. Representative John Botts of Virginia filed claimed Tyler conduct of the U.S. Treasury although the House of Representatives voted Botts' claim down.

Andrew Johnson was the second sitting president to have impeachment proceedings filed against him. In 1868 President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and according to Congress, the president violated the Tenure of Office Act. Even though Johnson was impeached the Senate would not confirm his removal from office and he finished his term.

With the exception of Grover Cleveland, the twentieth century gave way for many calls for impeachment beginning with Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and ending with George H.W. Bush. None of these presidents were subjected to the process as the claims never had the votes to call for a hearing on the committees.

There were three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, however, he resigned in 1974 before any of the proceedings could take place. In 1998 Bill Clinton was impeached over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the Monica Lewinsky case. In Clinton's case, the Senate acquitted, and he finished his term in office just like Andrew Johnson.

President Trump is under scrutiny for some of the very reason's other presidents have had impeachment proceedings. He has proven to most American's that he is a danger to our democracy. Trump has snubbed his nose at the foreign emolument clause, creating an open way for foreign powers to pressure our president to stray from his constitutional obligation to the United States. The firing of the FBI Director James Comey and fulling admitting on national television to Lester Holt that he did because of "this Russia thing." This is "obstruction of justice," and other presidents have been charged with this article of impeachment. However, Nixon resigned, and Clinton was acquitted.

So why is he not worth it? First the truth, he won the election. Unless there is proven evidence that he colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 presidential election reversing this fact will drive this new faction of voters back to the polls to elect another under-qualified candidate. In addition, the Republican Party will use the impeachment as a platform in the upcoming election. Citing the Democrats stole the White House from them.

Second, is the nation ready for even one year of Mike Pence as president? His record as Governor of Indiana is the only evidence needed. He banned Syrian refugees, he reinstated mandatory minimum sentences and authored a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't take to Twitter, has the political knowledge, and is waiting his turn to strike like an incurable virus.

Third and even more disturbing is the Republican Party and their efforts to gloss over his crimes and misdemeanors and cite the economy, and jobs. Many won't vote against Trump because of his base; cannot afford to have to explain their decisions to his base voters in 2020. Most fear they will have to go through a primary. Even though if they removed Trump and put Pence in his place they could have during their two-year reign and most American's civil liberties would be a thing of the past.

The voters gave their voice in 2018 and Congress is working, unlike the previous Congress. They have a lot of work to do and spinning their wheels debating the crimes and misdemeanors of the sitting president is counter-productive. History will repeat itself and he will be acquitted.

Related Content

Facebook Comments