DACA - Is it time to stop "deferring?"

I used only two keywords or terms for this blog. DACA and illegal immigration. 

The current argument has never been about immigration, although there are needed changes to be made in the American immigration system. The discussion needs to stay laser focused on DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and ILLEGAL immigration. 

Illiberals (yes, it's a word, I do not care what spell check warns) have tried and, at times, succeeded in muddying the waters between immigration and illegal immigration. There is a huge difference. 

To quote President Bill Clinton's, January 24, 1995 State of The Union address, "We are a nation of immigrants. But, we are also a nation of laws." He went on to commit to attacking the problem of illegal immigration because failure to do so was "ultimately self-defeating." 

He was, and is, correct. But, here we are twenty-three years later with the exact same set of issues. 

So, in advance of my discussion of the subject (don't worry, if you miss, or missed, it I am quite sure the topic will be around for another two decades) I want to offer a couple of thoughts. 

First, when President Obama signed DACA into existence I zeroed in on one word..."Deferred." The first word in the bill suggests action will be taken, just not right away. It is  the "Deferred Action" bill which denotes a time when delaying the following of the law will end. 

Have we reached that point and is that what President Donald Trump, in fact, is pushing toward? An end to a Washington, D.C. epidemic - kicking the can down the road. Here's why he did it according to one article

And what about sanctuary cities (and states for that matter)? 

It turns out the U.S. Constitution has some very direct and unambiguous things to say on the subject. I will offer you this article to chew on regarding the subject. Here's a spoiler alert - elected officials can be thrown in prison and never allowed to serve in office again for defying the U.S. Constitution. 

OK, a third point. If a foreign diplomat and his wife (or her husband) have a child, born in the USA, the child is a citizen of the nation from which the diplomat was sent. For example should the Australian ambassador have a kid the kid is an Aussie. 

Why is it children of people who entered this country illegally are automatic citizens and not citizens of the country where the parents originally called home? There is evidence in previous SCOTUS (Supreme Court) rulings to suggest those children are not American citizens. 

Sadly, most all of this will have to find a way to the Supreme Court. 

Preston Scott

Preston Scott

Want to know more about Preston Scott? Get their official bio, social pages & articles on 100.7 WFLA! Read more


Content Goes Here