A Blow to Trump
Published in Excelsior
(Mexico) on 21 June 2020
by Gustavo Mohar (link to original)
(Mexico) on 21 June 2020
by Gustavo Mohar (link to original)
Translated from
by Tom Walker.
Edited by Jamye Sharp.
A number of organizations have challenged the president’s decision in court. They were successful in temporarily suspending the enforcement of the decision, thus avoiding deportation of the youth who were affected. The case worked its way through the courts until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
There are few decisions as perverse and racist as the one Donald Trump made when he refused to advance the policy established by Barack Obama in support of millions of young people brought to the U.S. by their parents without legal documentation.
This group of around 700,000 young people who benefit from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, people known as “Dreamers,” wants to regulate their status. They want to have full rights like any other U.S. citizen, and above all, not to be subject to the threat of detention and deportation.
Obama established this program in 2017 by an executive order. He was faced with the impossibility of getting Republican legislators to pass it as a law.
Trump wanted to emphasize his break with Obama by ending this program. It was one of his first anti-immigrant decisions, which was a way for Trump to increase the support of his base of xenophobic voters. In contrast, the decision caused great anxiety for thousands of predominantly Latino families, the majority of whom are of Mexican origin and who are the potential targets of this injustice.
Reactions against this decision emerged on several fronts. And the Republican-held House of Representatives did not support Obama either; they did not advance legislation to provide a legal basis for his decision.
A number of organizations have challenged Trump’s decision in court. They were successful in temporarily suspending the enforcement of the decision, thus avoiding deportation of the youth who are affected. The case worked its way through the courts until it reached to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Few issues are as significant and controversial in the politics of our northern neighbor as the president’s nominations of justices to the Supreme Court.
It is essential to vouch not only for the nominees’ professional qualifications for this position, but also for their verified absolute honesty, their technical excellence and, in my personal opinion, their values, principles, legal doctrine and positions on issues of critical importance to the American people.
The names of the nominees are submitted to the Senate, which subjects them to detailed and rigorous scrutiny in public confirmation hearings that are followed by millions of U.S. residents, lawyers, businesses, the media and politicians.
Because of this, the decision on the “Dreamers” generated a lot of interest. The decision that forced Trump to suspend all action against them was made by a Supreme Court with a majority of conservative justices, which surprised Trump. It was John Roberts himself, the current chief justice, who cast the deciding vote.
This case has produced a number of lessons, including the following:
Trump has suffered a major defeat that demonstrates the independence of the judiciary. Thus, although a majority of the Supreme Court justices sympathize with Republicans, they have dealt a blow to Trump’s initiative, one of the most representative of Trump’s anti-immigration policies.
There are few decisions as perverse and racist as the one Donald Trump made when he refused to advance the policy established by Barack Obama in support of millions of young people brought to the U.S. by their parents without legal documentation.
This group of around 700,000 young people who benefit from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, people known as “Dreamers,” wants to regulate their status. They want to have full rights like any other U.S. citizen, and above all, not to be subject to the threat of detention and deportation.
Obama established this program in 2017 by an executive order. He was faced with the impossibility of getting Republican legislators to pass it as a law.
Trump wanted to emphasize his break with Obama by ending this program. It was one of his first anti-immigrant decisions, which was a way for Trump to increase the support of his base of xenophobic voters. In contrast, the decision caused great anxiety for thousands of predominantly Latino families, the majority of whom are of Mexican origin and who are the potential targets of this injustice.
Reactions against this decision emerged on several fronts. And the Republican-held House of Representatives did not support Obama either; they did not advance legislation to provide a legal basis for his decision.
A number of organizations have challenged Trump’s decision in court. They were successful in temporarily suspending the enforcement of the decision, thus avoiding deportation of the youth who are affected. The case worked its way through the courts until it reached to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Few issues are as significant and controversial in the politics of our northern neighbor as the president’s nominations of justices to the Supreme Court.
It is essential to vouch not only for the nominees’ professional qualifications for this position, but also for their verified absolute honesty, their technical excellence and, in my personal opinion, their values, principles, legal doctrine and positions on issues of critical importance to the American people.
The names of the nominees are submitted to the Senate, which subjects them to detailed and rigorous scrutiny in public confirmation hearings that are followed by millions of U.S. residents, lawyers, businesses, the media and politicians.
Because of this, the decision on the “Dreamers” generated a lot of interest. The decision that forced Trump to suspend all action against them was made by a Supreme Court with a majority of conservative justices, which surprised Trump. It was John Roberts himself, the current chief justice, who cast the deciding vote.
This case has produced a number of lessons, including the following:
Trump has suffered a major defeat that demonstrates the independence of the judiciary. Thus, although a majority of the Supreme Court justices sympathize with Republicans, they have dealt a blow to Trump’s initiative, one of the most representative of Trump’s anti-immigration policies.
Previous article![]( "Stop Burdening Us by Preventing US Military Base Withdrawals")
Next article![]( "AMLO, Trump and Chili Pepper in Walnut Sauce")
