This is my third article concerning the subject, which is worrisome for me. I had certainly hoped my first would precede a more victorious one. It is of utmost personal importance, however, that I continue to write about it, lest we become desensitized to how pressing the issue remains.
Thus far, bipartisan negotiations concerning immigration have yet to be resolved, and the January 19th funding deadline quickly approaches. As has been the case for the past few months, the fate of Dreamers hangs in the balance. To summate once more, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), protected roughly two million eligible immigrant youth that entered the country as minors, ensuring that they could work and would shield them from deportation so long as they were students, high school graduates, or veterans, and maintained a clean record.
On Tuesday, January 9th, Judge William Alsup of California issued a nationwide injunction ordering that the program is started up again. He defended the legality of the program and insisted that protected Dreamers be allowed to renew their status. His ruling did not, however, extend to those unprotected and seeking protection from DACA.
President Trump took to Twitter to argue, "It just shows everyone how broken and unfair our Court System is when the opposing side in a case (such as DACA) always runs to the 9th Circuit and almost always wins before being reversed by higher courts."
Democratic lawmakers have joined in increasing numbers to agree that they will not support a spending bill that does not secure the fate of DACA recipients. Their goal, however, is to address the spending bill while also finding measures to address border security; a concern that, if addressed, might bolster the support for their overall effort. President Trump, for example, has explicitly voiced his insistence on the inclusion of funding for the “wall” in the bill. While Democrats vary in their treatment of the funding for a proposed wall, it is evident that finding some means of compromise might best ascertain the safety of DACA without forcing a government shutdown.
On Tuesday, January 9th, a bipartisan meeting did little to resolve the disagreements that had already been in place; top Republican leaders opposed additional immigration provisions to the spending bill. While the Republicans have majorities in both chambers of Congress, they do not have the Senate ‘super majority’ necessary to acquire the votes needed for a major legislation to be passed. A spending bill of their proposal would require the support of at least nine other Senate Democrats.
It is important to recall that Judge Alsup’s ruling, however briefly remedial, is just that- brief. The urgency with which DACA recipients are fought for should not be dismissed.
