DACA is constitutional on the eyes of liberal judges, not conservative ones.

It is all political. In a fundamental level, it could go either way, the constitution does not answer every question, it is all up to interpretation. The constitution is an outdated piece of paper. Yes, the constitution is a really good document, robust, and has done a really good job through times but when it comes to issues such as these, it really does not suffice.


I really believe there is justification to provide lawful presence under the executive powers. So the current Obama view I believe is valid because it does not provide status. The problem is the AG.


I do not think there has been a time where the AG goes against the president's opinion. Clearly here the AG is complicit in all of this and he rejoices at the fact that in his view, DACA is against the law.

It is however important to note that DACA recipients will not be deported, that would go against the government's good faith.

However, the lawsuit could get complicated, because basically they would be saying, enforce immigration law, yet do not really enforce the law.

Get rid of work permits but do not deport. This is where the lawsuit could probably fail... and how it could come on our side.


You cannot demand the law to be executed faithfully for the "public good" (revoke work permits) yet not execute the immigration law which says to deport anyone in the U.S Illegally. Their argument could fall here, since their main argument is the unconstitutionally of the branch to determine who gets deported and who does not. I am sure their rock filled skulls do not fully comprehend this. They are simply going about the hope that Trump will be forced to terminate it on his own to avoid a spectacle.