ShareThis Page
The DACA debacle: A better solution |

The DACA debacle: A better solution

Getty Images
Immigrants and supporters gather across the street from the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Las Vegas earlier this month for a 'We Rise for the Dream' rally to oppose President Donald Trump's order to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (Photo by Ethan Miller | Getty Images)

Something quite positive could, and should, emerge from the firestorm over President Trump’s decision to rescind his predecessor’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). And that would be a legal, permanent pathway to citizenship for children whose parents brought them to this country illegally.

Under Mr. Trump’s time frame, Congress has six months to correct that which is inherently wrong with President Barack Obama’s DACA executive order, which granted temporary amnesty to an estimated 1.5 million children who were already in the U.S. illegally.

Aside from the quandary that Mr. Obama created by, in effect, issuing an immigration law when Congress wouldn’t — one that may well go down in flames in a Supreme Court challenge — DACA is at best a Band-Aid. Those who meet DACA’s criteria for deferred deportation can reside in the U.S. for only two years, after which they have to apply for a two-year renewal (provided they have no criminal record).

Clearly, “No one can live a productive and meaningful life if he or she has to plan it in two-year increments,” writes Helen Raleigh for The Federalist.

What’s needed from Congress is a DACA solution that’s part of a broader immigration-reform package, one that provides a more substantive pathway to citizenship that’s fair to the so-called Dreamers and those immigrants going through the legal process to become citizens.

We are, and remain, a land of laws — not of executive fiats that over time go flat.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.