DACA Executive Order | Research Paper Writing Service

Just like all other governments, the USA government is subdivided into three different branches of powers. Established through the USA constitution, the three branches are: executive, legislative, and the judiciary branch. Each of these branches have separate and independent powers and areas of responsibilities and, which is meant to ensure that the powers of one branch does not interfere/ conflict with the powers associated with the other branches.

 

The Executive wing of the Government administers laws enacted by the legislature. The legislature is a deliberative assembly that focuses on making laws while the judiciary has the powers to interpret and apply laws to certain cases. This custom paper will focus on how executive orders tend to interfere with the powers of other arms of government and what its action say about the powers of the branch.

Executive Orders

During the Obama’s presidency, much was made of his executive orders concerning immigration. These were two varying orders, one touching on children who were brought to U.S. illegally as minors, while the other one touched on adults who were living in US illegally but who had family members who were living in US legally (MPI, 2018). Though the Republicans referred this as executive amnesty, the orders fell short of this. What Obama did was to instruct federal prosecutors and immigration officials to give priority to undocumented immigrants who committed criminal acts over all other groups.

Obama’s directive instructed prosecutors and immigration officials to place the kids covered by the 1storder and the adults by the 2ndat the very back of the line for deportation. Moreover, it was required/mandatory of members of such groups to register for work permits to make it possible for them to work legally for 2 years in US, after which time their status could be assessed again (MPI, 2018). The challenge with Obama’s directive is that they contravene pieces of legislation passed by congress. For instance, existing immigration law orders both directed prosecutorial discretion and the giving of temporary work permits.

DACA, approved in 2016, grew out of policy previously referred to as DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) that was initially proposed in 2001, and would have offered a path to full citizenship for individuals who entered United States of America illegally as children (Hecht, 2017). The DREAM Act floated around Washington without being passed. The program was meant to be part of a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2007, but that Congress did not approve wider law. The closest that the program got was in 2010, about halfway through Barrack’s  first term, when many supported it in both houses, but it failed to garner a clear the 60-vote threshold to pass a Senate filibuster.

Requirements for DACA

  • One was supposed to be below the age of 31 years as of June 15, 2012;
  • One must have entered United States prior to their 16th birthday;
  • One was required to have continuously stayed in the United States from June 15, 2007 until the present time; (Barbero, 2014)
  • One was required to have been physically present in America on June 15, 2012 and at the time when one was submitting their application
  • One is supposed to have arrived in United States without documents before June 15, 2012, or their lawful status expired as of June 15, 2012 (Barbero, 2014)
  • One is presently supposed to be presently studying, or one to have graduated from high school or acquired a certificate of completion of high school or GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or military.
  • One is not supposed to have been convicted of a felony, particular serious misdemeanors (like single DUI), or more than three misdemeanors of any form.

After Obama issued the executive order, Republicans assailed it as an unconstitutional power grab by the executive arm of the government (presidency). They pointed out that the president does not have the legal authority to amend or make laws inside the Constitution without seeking the approval of Congress (Hecht, 2017). Critics of the policy have argued that executive branch was duty-bound to execute immigration laws, and deport people who living in USA illegally unless they were given protection by law approved by Congress. In 2013, the Republican House voted to discontinue the program.

In its defence, Obama’s administration pointed out that the executive wing on the government has a huge latitude when it came to enforcement of immigration. They indicated that since Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not possess any powers, time, or the finances to deport everybody, enforcement would have to by necessity prioritize going after particular immigrants and not others (Hecht, 2017). In his remarks, Obama pointed out that the lack of any immigration action by Congress to rectify America’s broken immigration system, what his administration was trying to do was to channel its immigration enforcement resources in the right places.

In its wisdom, Congress pointed out that the limits of Obama’s actions were wider than the law intended and that the giving of work permits demanded a case-by-case assessment, which Obama’s program did not sufficiently perform. In summary, the conflict over these orders was not about Obama establishing new laws; it all focused on Obama administration and Congress interpreting existing law differently (MPI, 2018).

These executive orders implies/ portray executive orders as examples of president overreaching and attempting to make laws on his own without consulting first with Congress, and it may also imply the use executive orders as the beginning of a dictatorship. The executive orders affects the powers of the branch as given by the Constitution in that it gives presidents powers to do as they please without consulting anyone or congress and which might provide a ripe ground for dictatorship (Jones .et.al, 2015).

The action shown by the executive might affect its relationship with congress in that congress would view this as an act of the executive wing overstepping its mandate and performing roles meant for Congress. It may also affect how the executive relates to judiciary since it was not consulted when it comes to matters interpreting the law. It is based on this that Congress invited the judicial branch to weigh in and settle the issue. The courts sided with Congress’s interpretation of the law and suspended Obama’s order so that it was never executed.

Conclusion

All the three arms of the government have separate powers and each as their own unique roles. However, the other arm can interfere with the actions of one arm of government. These interferences may be to support its actions or prevent it from carrying out certain actions

Research Paper Writing Service from PhD and master’s accredited writers. Original papers only! Confidentiality is guaranteed. Check out for more benefits now! https://assignmentwritingservice.net/daca-executive-order-research-paper-writing-service/