In the end, though, the question of whether DACA or DACA 2.0, whatever it looks like, amounts to a violation of norms has to be a subjective one. Douthat seems to agree: He says he can’t pinpoint the moment at which that line would be crossed. Similarly, while I’m more sympathetic to DACA 2.0, I wouldn’t want try to locate that line until I see what Obama proposes. I don’t know where the line is, either. But perhaps the above offers a framework for evaluating whatever Obama does do. I suspect, though, that it will be hard to disentangle such evaluations from people’s policy inclinations. If you’re inclined against comprehensive reform, you’re more likely to see trappings like work permits as dramatic departures. And yet some who are inclined towards comprehensive reform also seem inclined to believe Obama can do very little without crossing that hidden line. So, as Brian Beutler does, I’d invite them to consider the broader policy dilemma. Why should we only consider one set of consequences (DACA 2.0′s alleged impact on political norms)? Shouldn’t those who acknowledge presidential authority also weigh another set of consequences, i.e, of failing to exercise it and maintain the status quo (lack of uniform policy; more deportations of longtime residents we already agree can be deprioritized; failure to extend them work authorization, which arguably has economic benefits; and failure to bring them out into the light, which helps law enforcement)? If people do accept such prosecutorial discretion as legitimate, why do efforts to improve its implementation constitute an unacceptable affront to political norms, given that they confer a shift only in temporary work status — which Congress has authorized the executive to provide — and fall well short of new immigration status, let alone a suspension of enforcement of the law?
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:24:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015