An explanation of Crane v. Johnson, DACA & DAPA

An explanation of Crane v. Johnson, 2015 WL 156621 (5th Cir. 2015), advantages of #DACA & #DAPA

We all may agree that the United States immigration needs to be overhauled. There is just no consensus as to how to get it done. I am not sanctioning that individuals should break the U. S. immigration laws to gain entry into the U.S.  However, a problem exists that needs attention. A prosecutor (state or federal level), broadly speaking anyone who is empowered to administer the laws of the U. S., has broad discretion as to how the laws are implemented. The U. S. President has the power to implement the U. S. Immigration laws. Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, *** [says that] The Congress shall have Power *** to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ***. i.e. States cannot author immigration laws. In #Crane v. Johnson, Crane and others brought an action to challenge the President’s as to how he implemented the U. S. immigration laws. The Crane Court held that Crane and others did not have standing to challenge the grant of #DACA. “Standing” means the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. If Plaintiff does not have standing, it naturally follows that the court does not have jurisdiction. “Jurisdiction” means the origin of a court's authority to hear the case. The Crane Court, in a 3-0 decision, determined that Crane and others did not have standing, so the court dismissed the case. On April 17, 2015, the 5th Circuit hears oral arguments on a similar case relating to #DACA and #DAPA. State of Texas v. United States. We wait to see the outcome in that case.  

#DACA & #DAPA allow the recipient to obtain a SSC, work lawfully, and obtain a driver’s license. Some individuals may get a scholarship to attend college.