Opportunity's Knocking

Today is February 26th. March 5th is next Monday, and is the day that president Trump gave as his deadline for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, more commonly known as DACA, to end unless Congress acted to save it.

Today, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's call for an expedited appeal of the decision to kill DACA. Here's some info from the NY Times.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the administration's appeal was expected, as no appeals court has yet ruled on the issue. The court's order was brief, gave not reasons, and noted no dissents. It said it expected the appeals court to "proceed expeditiously to decide this case." 

...two federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program while challenges move forward, notably by requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew their protected status. The administration has not sought stays of those injunctions.

The Supreme Court's move will, as a practical matter, temporarily shield the young immigrants who already has signed up for the DACA program from immediate deportation, and allow them to keep working legally in the United States. Their status lasts for two years and is renewable.

What was the administration looking for? Well, it wanted the Supremes to step in and review Trump's ending of the program, before a lower court had heard and decided an appeal. Two federal judges - one in California and one in New York, issued rulings that effectively barred the shutdown of the DACA program. Here's a glimpse at what happened in the lower courts, from the ACLU,

Both courts ruled that the administration's rationale for suspending the DACA program - that it was unconstitutional and conflicted with the immigration laws - was incorrect and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a 1946 law that regulates federal agencies and provides judicial oversight over their behavior. The law prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" actions by federal agencies, and provides a safeguard against unchecked power.

So, what happens now? The cases will wind their way through the appeals process - when the Trump administration filed the appeal with the Supremes, they also filed it in the California case, and if they haven't already done so, they'll likely appeal the NY ruling too.

And in the meantime, it's likely that no one will be working on a legislative solution, because the pressure will be off the politicians - but it won't be off the DREAMers. As the Times notes,

The court's decision not to hear the appeal could also relieve the immediate political pressure on lawmakers to permanently address the status of those immigrants, or to deal with the additional one million DREAMers who had never signed up for the DACA program. They remain at risk of deportation if immigration agents find them.

That sentiment is echoed by the ACLU.

The Supreme Court's refusal provides a reprieve for DACA recipients, but it by no means takes away the urgent need for Congress to come up with a legislative solution. even with DACA reviews continuing, nearly 800,000 DACA recipients live in fear the the lives have built in the United States are in jeopardy.

So -- now is the time for a leader or several leaders in the Senate to rise to the occasion and come up with a plan that addresses DACA and other immigration issues, rather than waiting for the eventual court ruling that will make the decision for them.  It was only back on February 15th that the Senate failed to pass an immigration plan.

• The Coons-McCain bill failed, 52-47. This bill had a path for DACA bu didn't do anything about the border wall.
• The Toomey Amendment failed, 54-45. This would have penalized sanctuary cities, but didn't address DACA.
• The Common Sense plan failed, 54-45. This one addressed DACA, included billions for border security, and would have prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents.
• The Grassley bill, which was really the Trump bill,  addressed DACA, covered border security, and ended family reunification/chain migration and the visa lottery system. This failed, 39-60. 

That's right - the president's plan was the least successful of the four considered - so we know that's not what we need. But the others, particularly the Common Sense plan, may not be completely outside our reach, if only someone would grab the bull by the horns and make it their mission to get this accomplished.

Opportunity is knocking. It will be interesting to see if anyone answers the door.