Thread by @HNIJohnMiller

You know what, I'm just going to put this out here now because this is going to come up and I'm getting ahead of the curve:

DACA 👏 IS 👏 NOT 👏 AN 👏 EXECUTIVE 👏 ORDER

Obama did not write DACA.

Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, did dhs.gov/deferred-actio…

'On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”'

IT WAS A FUCKING MEMO.

It was NOT an executive order. As such, it carries no legal weight.

'But Kyle, why didn't it get challenged in the courts?' Because suing the government to stop a policy requires you to show direct harm by a policy. Simply being unconstitutional would not qualify.

It doesn't matter if a DACA recipient drives drunk and kills your whole family. DACA didn't do that directly, so you can't sue the government for allowing an alcoholic shitbird to get a work permit and a license for 8 years.

DAPA, thankfully, COULD be stopped in the courts because it put undo burdens on the states to manage the massive number of suddenly quasi-legal adults that DAPA would have created. DACA, unfortunately, could not, but it was a stepping stone towards a DAPA-like policy.

So why couldn't DACA be stopped by the courts before, but the ending of DACA can be stopped by the courts now?

B/c, and behold the biggest fuckery of this whole shitshow, you can't claim harm by childhood arrivals turned degenerate MS-13 fucks being allowed to stay in the US...

... but THEY can sue, despite most of them not even qualifying under DACA's own provisions (but being allowed to continue on as if nothing happened thanks to zero enforcement) b/c THEY are harmed by the policy ending.

Which is how the case has made its way to SCOTUS.

Yeah

/end