DACA could have been challenged federally as being unconstitutional. And as such since it wasn't the claim by the OP @davebrewer is false. He claimed that DACA was unconstitutional. So clearly it wasn't unconstitutional if they didn't proceed legally.
"Fair and constitutional" fair and constitutional to whom?
The current immigration status already prefers US citizens above immigrants. (Taxes and others benefits are not included as they are separate from the actual act of
immigrating). To come to the US it's quite difficult and yet to leave, Americans just have to pay 100$ and get their passport easily. One a few months some get approved in a few weeks.
If we want something "constitutional" then let Congress remove barriers to open travel between countries. That is equally as constitutional as more regulations on travel.
What happened to freedom in America? Ideals of freedom are really skewed by the minds of Americans.
No esecholo. Just because it wasn't challenged in court doesnt mean it isn't constitutional.
If you shoot someone you committed murder, no matter whether you go to court or not.
If the President is unilaterally writing laws, then that is unconstitutional, no matter whether it is taken to court or not.
If DACA is such a great law (as written by Obama), why not trust in Congress to write the same law and pass the same law.
If Congress writes and passes a new version of DACA, that is fine. That is what Congress is supposed to do per the Constitution.
In the USA you are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law.
If you shoot someone you can be charged with murder or you protected yourself in self defense. Murder suggests the unjust death of someone else (using law as a basis).
Sorry, but Executive orders and deferred actions are legal unless officially challenged by the court and deemed illegal.
Political science 101
Your opinion of what is legal or not doesn't change the fact of what the government deems is legal or not. Your opinion is 100% irrelevant to reality.
the Constitution says what is legal.. not if it gets to court or not. Only citizens are given the protections of the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights limits what our govt. is allowed to do. The protections (i.e.) innocent until proven guilty, protects citizens not the 3 branches of our government. Political Science 101? please tell me you didn't pass the class with your level of understanding. If the govt. breaks their agreement with the citizens.. they are automatically illegal... the people of the USA have the Bill of Rights - the govt. does not. Please review PS 101
The Constitution suggests what is legal, remember federal court cases of what the Constitution means determines it's legal meaning.
The Constitution is not the end all be all and if it was then I would be free to yell that I have a bomb in an airport terminal and not be charged with disturbing the peace... Look at the regulations for gun rights... The law doesn't end at the Constitution. The Constitution is nothing but a suggestion, it means little to those who are shifting it's meanings.
So yes... The court does determine it. Not the Constitution.
"Only citizens"... Wrong.. any "person" have rights under the Constitution (including illegal immigrants, you can look it up as it seems you do not understand political science in America).
Don't down talk to me when you actually believe the interpretation of the Constitution is not determined by the court. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Our freedom of speech is regulated, our right to privacy and freedom from unjust search, seizure and freedom from cruel punishment is regulated... And most of all the right to bare arms is regulated.
Don't be an uneducated hillbilly with that simple minded reasoning of American political science.
The Bill of Rights is not the Constitution
If you are in the US illegally, you are subject to deportation by the government, subject to the condition that you have constitutional due process to prove that you are in fact in the US legally.
If you are here illegally, you will not be able to prove you are here legally, and you are subject to deportation.
That is the law.
You may not like the law, but that is the law.
Until Obama decided to take it upon himself to rewrite the law and make special exceptions for Dreamers.
Because he chose not to do this through Congress, the Executive Order was always subject to being reversed by the next President, because what Obama did was not passed into law via Congress.
That is how the Constitution works.
In the US illegal immigrants are protected by the constitution and are then sent to court to determine their sentence (hence why sanctuary cities exist, which is legal). Illegals have rights, there is no debate on the subject.
Dreamers was a modern move with DACA but illegal immigrants had rights within the Constitution even before Obama was born.
I didn't take a stand on whether it was constitutional or not, I did try to make the case that DACA is not law. It is a policy implemented by a former administration via executive order. I suspect it would have been challenged if not intended as a temporary solution.
Fair is relative, it's going to be interpreted differently depending on which side of the argument you're on. Constitutionality if questioned can be resolved in the courts.
Seems like the rest of your post is an attempt to compare international travel and immigration. Not the same thing.
I understand your point of EO's.
International travel AND immigration are associated with one another.