DAPA Argumentative Analysis

633 Words3 Pages
The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans is an executive action President Barack Obama plans on implementing in order to try and control illegal immigration. Its main goal is to deport illegal immigrants back to their home country who have a criminal history while providing those with a clean record an opportunity “to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation” (). A way to be more conducive to an effective change in immigration policies would be to change the acceptance date to January 1st, 2000.
DAPA, or also known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, is an initiative requested by President Barack Obama that “would provide approximately 5 million illegal aliens access to work permits and social security cards”
…show more content…
Obama’s executive amnesty, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), in the upcoming Supreme Court case” () United States v. Texas. DAPA was put on hold back in February of 2015 due to having 26 states “filing a lawsuit against the executive action” (), Texas being one of the states. The lawsuit began with “former attorney general Greg Abbott, who is now the governor for the Lone Star State, but it remains alive under current Attorney General Ken Paxton” (). Paxton was able to get support from “Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit” () which put DAPA at a standstill “preventing the federal government from implementing the program” (). Solicitor General Donald Verilli plans to use the argument that DAPA “goes against Congress’ framework that determines who may enter and stay in the country” (). The Fifth Circuit Court has said that “DAPA would affect more than just immigration enforcement but would actually change the status of illegal aliens” (). The Supreme Court will begin to listen to all disputes on the United States v. Texas case starting April 18th, “and is expected to give a ruling by the end of June” (). If for any reason the Supreme Court cannot come to a conclusion and end the voting at a tie, 4-4, the decision made by the previous court will

More about DAPA Argumentative Analysis

Open Document