This is the same as the trucker example. If the parents leave Mexico, they’re not violating Mexican law. If they don’t bring their children, they might be violating Mexican law by abandoning their children because technically the neglect couldn’t occur if the children didn’t stay there and so jurisdiction may reside in Mexico. Due to an extradition treaty because the United States and Mexico, if the children didn’t go with their parents, the Mexican government could extradite their parents right back to Mexico to face trial for neglect. If the children do go with their parents, then the children are in trouble. Moreover, bringing your children here violates U.S. law because you’re knowingly putting your children in harm’s way by forcing them to break the law and forcing them to end up in jail. That could be depraved indifference or neglect or something else. What matters is that it’s an impossible choice. More specifically, the laws themselves make it impossible for the children to follow the law because they make it impossible for the parents to follow the law. The parents will be charged for bringing their kids, and it’s impossible to NOT bring their kids because they’ll be extradited back to Mexico if Mexican law says you can’t leave your kids behind.

It all rests with the parents. The kids have no way of being on the right side of the law. As such, the laws themselves putting the kids in a situation they can’t follow the law encourages a departure from the plain meaning rule. Since laws must be followed, there must be an ability to follow them. If the laws don’t provide an ability to follow them, then the absurdity clause applies. As such, the courts need to interpret the law. You could call it a loophole. I don’t know. I just know that the kids that were absolutely and immediately dependent on their parents everyday of their young lives had to go with their parents, which means they had to violate the law. The laws didn’t have to consider those kids because they hadn’t been here yet, but as soon as they crossed, they were in our jurisdiction, and as such, our laws must allow a way for them, and everyone, to follow our laws. Given that no such specificity exists, the courts are required to fill that loophole themselves. Given the separation of powers, it’s the courts job to to do this. They must do this. It’s not the executive branch’s job, and even the legislature can’t technically interpret the law for laws that have already been violated. They can rewrite laws, but they can’t be applied retroactively.

In short, the Executive Branch is interpreting the law where the law is not clear, and this is a violation of the separation of powers.

This whole debate about ethics, morality, and the conflict between the rule of law and being a nation with open arms is irrelevant. You can scream about it if you want to, but when it’s time to get something done, the protocol is clear. If you want the DACA kids to leave, you can enforce every law, and you’ll find out that they’re not actually responsible for their actions. Therefore, they can stay. If you want the DACA kids to stay, you can sit back and watch the other side spin their wheels, waste their time, and eventually realize that our laws don’t indicate that they should be kicked out. Therefore, they can stay.

It’s really amazing that there’s so much debate and yet it’s all right there.

That concludes the naive portion of this post. Please continue reading to see what will actually happen and what we can do about it.

13 comments

  1. Hi, Times of Resistance, thank you for your support in following and liking my posts earlier this year. Thank you!
    ashes4him

  2. I’m unsure on the exact objective of this post. For the record I do support allowing DACA kids to stay and so does President Trump for that matter. I have not read all your posts to know exactly where you stand but I’m guessing you’re not a Trump supporter?

    I think you were right on point when you wrote above, “We’re all hung up on the morality of the issue, and we’re missing the fact that there is something already on the books that tells us exactly what to do.” I would call this, “Rule of Law” … we are a Nation of Laws not of ideals of the majority. DACA was an attempt to undermine rule of law because it felt like the right thing to do.

    Obama himself said this was not possible on many occasions but went ahead and did it anyway, creating a false sense of security for these already troubled community. This was a travesty and Trump promises to fix it.

    The issue of concern for many Americans, that was grasped by President Trump early on, was “The Wall” … the Resist Movement does not seem willing to support a border wall. Do you see supporting a wall as a legitimate trade-off for DACA?

    Millions of Americans believe a wall is required to provide security and validity to our sovereignty as a Nation. Trump won the Election running on that issue. So resisting the wall is an attempt to ignore the voters and those Americans who believe our core values as the land of Liberty is being undermined by ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

    There is a purposeful deception driven by the resist movement to blur the lines between immigrants and illegals, a distinction understood with total clarity by informed Americans. I hope your resist efforts are to resist the ideologues who will kill DACA in an effort undermine American Sovereignty by refusing to support a Wall.

    The wall issue has won the political argument on many occasions, but has yet to manifest. This link may prove helpful in learning more about this nuanced and yet highly emotional subject. https://www.usamnesty.org

    I hope this comment makes sense and I am eager to get your feedback too. Thanks!

    1. Thank you, Jay. I appreciate your comment. While I understand your point of view, please note that the rule of law does not match a crime with a punishment. It matches a criminal with a punishment.

      Given that the Dreamers were forced to come here, they are not criminals. No crime was perpetrated by them or against them. They’re displaced, and we’re settling them here because they want to be here. If they didn’t want to be here, maybe another country would accept them.

      This is how our country was founded.

    2. That’s a different analysis. I don’t know whether each party can come to a compromise. Compromise, indeed, is something of a taboo in some cases. If you ask me, I’d like compromise.

      I don’t want a wall, but my only concern in that regard is the cost. I don’t think the wall will do anything, and I’d like to save money for something that might work.

      In the interest of brevity, I’ll be straightforward: no, I don’t think we’ll get a wall as part of DACA Reform. I think we’ll continue to get nothing for quite a while.

    3. Thanks for the follow-up comment. Compromise has become a naughty word as we become more and more polarized. I am very happy to hear you’re open to compromise to advance the DACA decision. I will be very upset if Democrats hard-line resist on this important issue that needs compromise or if the Republicans hard-line against DACA.

      I am a centrist and more pragmatic than the extreme positions taken by both sides of the isle in the establishment of Washington DC. Our forefathers set up our system to be difficult to change. Requiring compromise or genuine innovation that is supported by the majority, who are willing to work the system over time to create the progress we demand as a society.

      I do understand your concerns about costs on the wall. But I also think a wall is a reasonable compromise because it will slow down Illegal crossings and drug trafficking, and it will deter future administrations from pursing an open boarder policy by undermining enforcement as both the G.W. Bush and Obama Administration did.

      Clinton was a much better leader on the immigration front. I believe the majority of Americans will support a compromise. I am hopeful that Trump and the Democrats can make this happen and not be thwarted by either side because of politics.

    4. DACA is unrelated to the “wall”.

      If the author doesn’t mind be jumping in here; in response to “Millions of Americans believe a wall is required to provide security and validity to our sovereignty as a Nation”.

      Possibly, but that doesn’t imply much of anything. What is meaningful is that a substantial (63% +) majority of Americans adamantly oppose the wall. It’s nothing more than a grossly expensive red herring meant to continue Trump’s unfounded, xenophobic dogma.

      Trump didn’t win the election solely upon “the wall”, rather an entire collection of ultra-conservative rhetoric and stated “positions”.

      We are indeed a nation of laws and we can both agree that we must have law to continue as a society. However; laws without mercy and with blind obedience/intolerance is life in nothing more than an authoritarian, fascist state. “Authoritarianism refers to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state”. Law must be merciful, which is precisely why the courts/juries are given latitude in decisions and findings.

      Blindly enacting laws is just as dangerous as blind adherence to law. When we seek and reach that state, we’re no longer remotely qualified to be the moral leaders of the world, or even to be considered humane.

      Blind adherence to the law is not always the right path to take, and in the case of DACA, “right/decent” is not turning our backs on people who had no choice in their circumstance, sending them to a world completely foreign to them, one they know little, if anything about, just to satisfy over-zealous adherence to the law.

    5. Bob says 63%+ “adamantly oppose” a wall. According to whom? I’ve also seen polls that say 80%+ strongly support a wall. Unless you’re polling the entire nation, election night 2016 should have taught us that polls from either side are at best a springboard for discussion. Polls, just like statistics, can very easily be made to lie.

      As for compromise, it’s good TO A POINT. There must be some things in life we aren’t willing to compromise. For Americans especially, that list should start with the Constitution. The fact that politicians of both parties now, and other parties previously, and all three branches of our government, have so willingly twisted and distorted the Constitution for their own gains and desires is one of the main reasons we find ourselves in the predicament we’re in.

  3. As we know that Trump is Bussinesman. The way of his thinking is just like Bussinesman. He will considered whether profitable or not. As Simple as like that. Best regard from Indonesia. Alllow me introduce myself, My name is Zaki

  4. You are so right on about this. It’s not the children’s fault that their parents came here illegally . We don’t know what they went through in their own countries to make them risk every thing to come here. As for Trump, doesn’t he look in his mirror. He married two women who may or may not have come here legally and had children by them. Are they going to be sent back to Slovenia and the Czech Republic ? Just asking. Excellent post.

    1. Thank you for comment. When I’m not blogging, I’m working on a couple different books, and one is fiction. Even with a fiction writer’s mindset, I can’t come up with any scenario in which the vast majority of these children could’ve stayed in their home country without their parents. Trump can talk all he wants, but these kids need our help, and they are welcome to stay with me if they’d like.

      I’m glad you liked my post. I hope I added value to your day, and I hope you pass that on to others in your life.

Leave a Reply