The Supreme Court affects Donald Trump’s setback

The protection granted to 700,000 young migrants, called “Dreamers,” as part of a program created by Barack Obama, was validated by the Supreme Court on Thursday, affecting a major setback for Donald Trump.

The US Supreme Court joined Donald Trump on Thursday, July 18, by validating the protection granted to his predecessor to 700,000 young migrants he wanted to remove.

In a small majority decision (five judges out of nine), the Supreme Court considered the “arbitrary” and “wasteful” decision of the Republican administration to remove these provisions.

>> Read: End of protection for “Dreamers” in the United States: “This is my life”

Already in 2012, Democratic President Barack Obama lifted the threat of deportation hanging over these “Dreamers,” the nickname given to immigrants under 30, who arrived illegally in their childhood in the United States and had given them a social security number, a key to work, drive or study in the United States.

This program, called Daca (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) made it possible to provide young undocumented migrants, arrived in US territory before the age of 16 and without criminal record, equivalent to a two-year residence permit, renewable.

In 2017, his Republican successor, who made the fight against illegal immigration one of his work horses, decided to end this program and declare it “illegal”.

The government “failed” to provide “justified explanation for action”

The courts urgently seized their decision and offered the “dreams”. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately decided to exclude it for procedural reasons.

“We are not telling ourselves whether DACA or its abolition was a well-founded policy.” The wisdom “in these decisions” is not our responsibility, “wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who passed his voice to his four progressive colleagues.

“We were just trying to find out if the government had complied with the procedural obligations and provided a reasoned explanation for its actions,” he continued. And in this case, “he failed,” he concluded.

With AFP