American Values in the Trump Era

I saw a Facebook post over the weekend, containing the line "What the fuck happened, America?" The post's author didn't specifically state what it was written in response to, but it's not hard to guess.  Over the weekend, the story broke that the Trump administration had directed Customs and Border Patrol to specifically begin splitting up families that cross into America's southern border.  The children are housed in Spartan detention camps, while the parents are presumably deported.

Read that again.  The Trump administration ordered CBP to split up families who cross into the United States from the south.  CBP went right along with it, without hesitation.  And many of his followers rationalized what the administration was doing.  Some even cheered.

"What the fuck happened," indeed.

This policy (it is absolutely NOT a law, and don't believe otherwise) is intentionally cruel and appalling; and if you're not shocked by it, you need to recalibrate your moral compass.  But the truth is, it didn't just come out of nowhere - in more ways than one.  First, the United States government has been party to other inhumane practices, both large and small throughout its history.  You probably know of some of the bigger ones: slavery, the Tuskeegee Experiments, interning Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and the Trail of Tears, to name a few.  As for the smaller ones, the ones that immediately come to mind tend to be more recent.  Camp X-Ray, rendition, and "enhanced interrogation" (AKA torture) desensitized us to the government treating non-Americans cruelly.  The TSA enacted increasingly invasive and unnecessary security measures while providing no mechanisms for recourse or accountability for abuses of authority, and many people shrugged their shoulders and accepted its infringements on all of our rights.  Ditto with the NSA and its bulk data collection.  We largely ignored the Pentagon's 1033 Program, which supplied surplus military hardware to police forces across the nation; and just as the old saying about "when all you have is a hammer..." goes, those police units began adopting more aggressive attitudes and tactics.

The CBP's separation of families is a convergence of all the things I just described: the TSA's lack of accountability, police forces' aggressive posture, and Camp X-Ray's barbaric treatment of non-Americans.  And we - American citizens - kind of let it happen by abandoning our civic responsibilities.  The more often we turned a blind eye, or halfheartedly protested, the more these practices became entrenched.  Acceptable.  Widespread.

But that's only part of it.  Another huge factor, as I'm sure you can guess, is President Trump.  The Trump administration's policy of separating families should not be a surprise, if you paid attention to what Trump said and who he surrounded himself with on the campaign trail.  Remember when Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? That was almost three years ago to the day.  Trump has never bothered to hide his hatred for Latino immigrants or his racism, and now he's pushing policy in line with his attitudes.


As much as Trump is at the center of this, it's not just about him, though.  The family separation policy may have been in the planning for a while, but it was only rolled out recently.  Did you notice how quickly CBP fell in line, though? I don't see many people talking about that, except tangentially.  I've seen a few articles about how indifferent, even cruel, the CBP officers have acted toward the detained children, but AFAIK nobody has asked how they got that way.  Institutional cultures don't shift so radically in such a short time, which means that the CBP behavior we're seeing has been there for a while, just below the surface.  Trump's policies may have drawn that cruelty out, but it didn't create it from scratch.  Regardless, curbing the CBP excesses will be one of many problems this country faces after Trump leaves office.

I often claim that Trump unleashed this country's ugly side.  All the racism, the misogyny, the anti-intellectualism, the corruption and the lying, the obnoxious boasting, and the "burn it all down" style of governing - it didn't originate with Trump.  Like the CBP agents, there were a lot of shitbags who Trump has emboldened.  They will still be here after Trump is gone, and they won't go quietly. The fallout from the Trump administration will shape politics for decades.

Because this is about a lot more than the family separation policy.  It's about Trump's entire worldview, something that informs everything he thinks, says, and does.  Think back to Trump's comments about immigrants being criminals and rapists, and how those comments relate to this current family separation policy.  Now think about other things Trump said during his campaign.  Remember all of his racist and misogynist dog whistles? Remember when he said he'd only acknowledge the election results if he won? Or how he popularized a slogan calling for a political rival to be jailed - and still uses it at rallies and speeches?

Does this mean I think we're on the march toward genocide or a dictatorship? That Trump's going to seize control of the government and declare himself emperor or something, or that we'll be herding immigrants, Muslims, and who knows who else into camps? I honestly don't know, but I'm giving both non-zero possibilities at this point.  I may very well be overreacting, and there's certainly a significant chance I'm wrong.  However, there have been a lot of indicators that Trump wants to do so.  He's installed family members in key posts, centralized the decision-making process, made targeting minorities and other protected classes a common theme of his policies, and fawned over more than one totalitarian despot.  At the same time, the institutional checks meant to keep a president from seizing power are weakened.  The GOP-controlled congress won't stand up to him, because of either cowardice or opportunism - I can't figure out which; and the Democrats suck as an opposition party, because they won't come up with a coherent platform.

They need to, quickly; and they need to fight to win with everything they've got. (Everything legal, of course.) Because if the Trump administration is separating immigrant families today, what will it be doing tomorrow? Will it move on to some other group next after it's done with immigrants, Muslims, or transgender people? As I already said, I don't know.  Nobody can predict the future.  But that's why it's important to smack down any authoritarian policies early, because by the time people are getting marched to the gas chambers, it's too late.

This isn't a debate about policy any more, it's about morality.  Right and wrong.  Trump, the members of his administration, his Republican enablers in Congress, and his supporters - they're all embracing a very immoral and un-American set of values.  History will someday judge them as villains - IF the rest of us do something about it.  Vote, protest, call your elected reps.  Do what you can to render the Party of Trump ineffective as a political movement.  There should be no place for their ideas and policies in American society.

Because history will judge you too.

ICE's Push for a Seat at the Intelligence Community's Table

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Commander Adama, Battlestar Galactica

In December of 2002, a militia operating a checkpoint in Khost Province stopped a local taxi driver in his early 20s named Dilawar.  The militia turned Dilawar and his three passengers over to US personnel, who incarcerated the four at the Bagram Collection Point.  However, Dilawar and his passengers were detained solely on circumstantial evidence: the militia discovered items in the taxi and on the passengers which could have theoretically (but unlikely in reality) been used to conduct a rocket attack on Camp Salerno which had occurred earlier that same day.  Those items were the entire basis for detaining Dilawar and his passengers.  Additionally, US officials began to suspect the commander of the militia that had captured Dilawar and the others was actually behind the attacks, and had been covering his tracks by accusing innocent Afghans of his own crimes.  I brought up this story because it serves as an illustrative "absolute worst case" example of what can go wrong when the line between intelligence collection and law enforcement gets blurred, and it's relevant now because a recent news article has reported that Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) wants to become a part of the US intelligence community.  The article isn't clear on exactly what kind of role ICE envisions for itself, so there's a lot of room for interpretation; however, in most scenarios it is an awful idea.

I didn't know a lot about ICE or what it does, beyond the vague opinion I formed based on news stories about it.  So, I went to its official website to learn more about it, and from what I can tell, the organization's core mission is to investigate any and all individuals and goods that have entered or exited (but mostly entered) the country unlawfully.  That's a pretty broad mission, and it covers these things, among others: immigration (obviously), human trafficking, gangs and organized crime, worker exploitation, fugitive extradition, drug smuggling, illegal weapons and ammunition, black markets, and of course, antiterrorism.  ICE's workload practically guarantees that it needs access to at least some of the intelligence that agencies such as the CIA and NSA collect and disseminate.  There are already (or should be) processes in place for that kind of thing, though.  For example, if the CIA comes across something that the DEA might need, there is most likely a DEA liaison working at a CIA office somewhere; all the CIA has to do is redact the intelligence so that anything the DEA only receives what's relevant to its specific mission.  Most intelligence and law enforcement agencies, if they're smart, have coordination offices set up to handle this sort of information-sharing.  I don't really have a problem with that kind of cooperation, but that's the best-case scenario.

A second scenario that I consider to be likely is that other agencies provide ICE with intelligence it shouldn't see, in ways that violate individuals' rights.  That's not so farfetched.  There's a shady-as-all-hell technique called "parallel construction", in which law enforcement officers conduct investigations and make arrests based on unlawfully-obtained intelligence (say, an NSA intercept), then fabricate a legal rationale for the investigation or arrest to conceal the fact that the intelligence played a role in the process.  According to TechDirt, the DEA has been using the practice for quite some time; and if ICE gets a place at the intelligence community table, it will very likely start doing the same thing.

But even if ICE doesn't start engaging in its own parallel construction, there's a good general reason why it should be kept at arm's length from the intelligence community.  The process of intelligence collection is vastly different from a law enforcement investigation.  Collected intelligence isn't required to meet legally-mandated standards for admissibility in a courtroom, nor is there a defense counsel to attack the prosecution's argument.  Concepts like "fruit of the poisonous tree" and "unreasonable search and seizure" don't constrain intelligence collection the way they do law enforcement investigations.  And while good intelligence is provable, it doesn't need to be.  Fairly often, the acceptable standard for intelligence is that it's plausible: the source is reliable, the intelligence has a ring of truth, and it dovetails with other available information. Intelligence-collection procedures don't transfer very smoothly into the law enforcement world, though; and that's by design.  When you receive tactical intelligence about an enemy tank battalion half a mile away or that a terrorist group wants to blow up a crowded concert venue, you don't evaluate it as if it needs to withstand scrutiny in the legal system. That's why there needs to be a very high wall dividing the two fields of intelligence collection and law enforcement.

ICE's current conduct is another reason to be uneasy about this push to join the intelligence community. ICE ultimately answers to the president, so its aggressive anti-immigration stance are meant to reflect the current president's political views.  That's normal in any boss-subordinate relationship.  However, rounding up individuals who have been upstanding and productive members of society, such as highly-educated chemistry teachers and combat veterans, shows extremely poor judgment and is obviously a way to pad ICE's productivity numbers, therefore making it appear useful.  These people being apprehended and deported are threats to nobody, and the country would be better served by ICE targeting the hardened criminals; but ICE is sucking up to the "boss" and also taking the lazy route.  Additionally, Congress still retains authority over ICE in a few important ways.  It ultimately approves or rejects ICE's budget, and it is responsible for crafting any legislation that would allow ICE to join the intelligence community.  Now, Congress is currently controlled by the GOP, so ICE's hardline stance is likely a reflection of that; however, the Democrats seem poised to retake at least one Congressional chamber this fall, so if ICE's aggressive stance is meant to curry political favor, it had better hope that Congress passes favorable legislation very soon. (Seeing how the government seems to be shutting down every other day lately, I wouldn't count on that happening.) It's such a shortsighted move that from a political perspective I'm surprised ICE is doing this.

The bottom line is that intelligence agencies operate without having to consider things the rule of law mandates, because their work rarely sees the inside of a courtroom.  That's necessary, considering an intelligence collector's mission. But when a law enforcement agency, which is duty-bound to respect the rights of the accused and obey laws concerning evidence collection/discovery and due process, wants to move closer to a world with a more permissive set of rules and norms, it is disabling a vital mechanism for accountability.  That should raise a serious red flag, especially after ICE's heavy-handed methods of late.

ICE doesn't need to build ties with the intelligence community beyond the intelligence-sharing relationships that already exist.  Period.

Shutdown Winners & Losers

The US government has shut down for who knows how long, so I thought I'd do a post-shutdown recap of the last 24-48 hours.  I'll look at the key parties one by one, and give my $.02 on how they fared.

President Trump: Trump would have gotten a boost if he had allowed Congress to do its job, but (like he has before) he shot himself in the foot.  He nearly had a bipartisan deal ready to go, but his "shithole" fiasco threw a wrench into that.  Now, instead of a modest legislative victory and a probable popularity boost, Trump has a shutdown taking place on his watch.  He also has done very little to resolve this issue, other than rant on Twitter. So this becomes another item on his list of failures and screw-ups as President, but it won't cost him much in terms of popularity: he's gone about as low as he possibly can, and his remaining supporters are unshakeable.

House of Representatives: On one hand, the House passed the measures necessary to keep the government running.  That's a plus.  On the other hand, House Republicans tried to force a choice between CHIP (health insurance for children) and DACA (a provision allowing children of immigrants to remain in the United States.) There's a special place in hell for any group of politicians who try to force this kind of Sophie's Choice.  People don't expect much from House Reps anymore, though.  The House lost a bit of prestige, but not much.

Senate Republicans: Moderate losses for the Senate GOP over this shutdown.  They, along with Trump, precipitated this crisis - first, by defunding CHIP in September for use as a bargaining chip in the future, and spiking the pre-shutdown negotiations by adding several last-minute provisions to the deal. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be occupying that perch in hell, next to the House Republicans. Besides being unspeakably immoral, it was also bad politics on McConnell's part.  He tried to create a false dilemma that would cause the Democrats to fold, and it backfired badly.  Maybe he should have been tending to his own party members, because four Senate Republicans voted against the bill; those four would not have been enough to pass the bill, but they do make it harder for Trump and the GOP to lay blame entirely on the Democrats.  Harder, but not impossible - because they are already making that case in the court of public opinion. It's not entirely unexpected, since they tried it before when public opinion turned against them after the last shutdown. However, they do have an easy time framing negative stories in ways that cast them in a positive light.

Democrats: They aren't entirely blameless because they were playing a game of brinkmanship over DACA; however, as I already stated, it takes two to tango.  The GOP is culpable for how they framed the DACA vote, and Trump takes some responsibility for derailing a bipartisan deal.  While I personally approve of renewing both CHIP and DACA, I don't approve of the Democratic Party's methods; they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.  And while I would like to see the Dems play hardball more often, I think what they're doing now sets a bad precedent.  We already have one major party that obstructs and employs scorched earth tactics.  We don't need two.

In the final analysis, I put the bulk of the blame on Trump and the GOP.  I think 70% to them, and 30% to the Democrats is a fair distribution.  A lot of this hinges on whose policies are taking a hit.  As I already stated, I support both DACA and CHIP, so part of me wants to see the Dems dig in and fight.  I also don't agree with how the GOP has governed, so I enjoy seeing them be on the receiving end of the same tactics they used.  I know it's corrosive for the country in the long run, though. The 2013 shutdown cost the country a lot, in terms of both treasure and prestige.  This one could do the same if it continues for very long, and at this point it's anyone's guess as to how it ends.  It also makes undoing the climate of hyper-polarization harder.

The "Ugly American" in the White House

You know what an "Ugly American" is, right? Here's a quick primer, just in case.  Want to guess who acted like an "Ugly American" this week?

President Trump's boorish behavior made headlines again this week.  This time, it was for "allegedly" characterizing most of the rest of the world as "shitholes."  Having spent various amounts of time in a handful of those so-called "shithole countries", I feel somewhat qualified to add my $.02 to the discussion.  I've lived downwind from power plants that burned dirty coal, and the waste products vented into the atmosphere gave me headaches almost every single day.  I've drank only bottled water, sometimes for several months, because the tap water wasn't fit to drink.  I've seen sidewalk and roadside vendors selling fruit that looked like it had sat in the back of the fridge for weeks.  So yes, some countries have areas with sub-par living conditions, such as polluted air and water, or inadequate power grids, or massive poverty/disease/malnutrition, or some form of civil strife such as war or insurgency.  Most likely, a combination of these things.  But while those countries have areas that are not-so-well-off (maybe even large areas), those regions do not represent the entire country.  The countries Trump labeled as "shitholes" have produced their share of top-notch athletes, scientists, scholars, activists, and artists, and the countries themselves have much to contribute in terms of culture, history, trade, and natural beauty.  In short, they may have have some derelict parts - like any other country - but they are not shitholes.

It takes an incredibly spoiled and privileged person to call those places "shitholes." Like, say, someone who was born into wealth and likes to flaunt it in ostentatious ways (such as gold-plated sink handles on a private jet), and who has never experienced anything less than a 5-star existence.  It would be inappropriate even if Trump were still a private citizen; and it is absolutely beneath the dignity of the office to say something like that when he's the leader of the free world.  As president, Trump will likely have to interact with the heads of state of many of those countries, so it's pretty damn bad when word gets out about how Trump really views those nations.  And before you go trying to tell me that the "shithole countries" remark was taken out of context - that it was a momentary lapse in judgment brought on by frustration or anger - go do some research on Trump's past.  He has a pattern of racially-charged statements and actions, so him labeling African and Latin American countries as "shitholes" isn't out-of-character for him; it IS his character. 

In case it's not clear: the President of the United States is a racist.

Here's something else to think about: if President Trump looks down on those countries and their citizens, how do you think he views the people of this country who aren't doing so well? There are parts of the United States that suffer from the same societal ills as the so-called "shithole countries" do.  Parts of major metropolises like Detroit, Denver and Baltimore, as well as medium-sized cities and countless small towns.  There's even one just a few miles from the White House and the US Capitol Building, a section of the DC Metro area called Anacostia.  Do you think a president who looks down on entire populations is going to give a single rat's ass about fixing any of this country's problems? Homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, the opioid epidemic? Or do you think it's more likely he treats the people suffering under the weight of those burdens with utter contempt?

Once again, Trump has shown he's completely unfit to serve as President.  This may be one of the most glaring examples of his unfitness, in fact.  In one statement, he has revealed his undisguised disgust, not only for the rest of the world, but by extension, a significant portion of the population he presides over.  He's embarrassed the United States yet again, while his policies inch the United States closer to the dystopia he imagines many non-European countries to be: rolling back environmental regulations, chipping away at minority rights, exacerbating economic inequality, dividing the country, and gaming the government to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies.

Don't let Trump get away with his latest racist dog-whistle, and don't let him dismantle the things that make the United States great.  You've seen his self-serving agenda, so push back against it.

Frogs and Boiling Water: Trump's Incremental Swing toward Authoritarianism

Feel great yet, America?

We've all heard that folksy wisdom about the frog and the boiling water, or about glaciers moving slowly.  Each piece of wisdom has essentially the same take-away: that we can overlook incremental shifts if they occur slowly, until enough increments have accumulated, and we're in an entirely different situation.

It's been almost a full year into the Trump presidency, and if you look at the long-term view, there's been a noticeable shift toward authoritarianism.  It's not a major shift, but it is a noteworthy one, because any movement toward authoritarianism is noteworthy.  So what has this administration done so far that has nudged us toward authoritarianism? Here's a list of the most significant things it's done:

• Floating the idea of privatizing intelligence collection
• Publicly disparaging the judicial system, the FBI, and the media - all key democratic institutions, in their own way
• Moving to centralize decision-making among his inner circle (AKA family members)
• Establishing an commission to investigate the overhyped voter fraud problem, likely intended to disenfranchise millions of voters
• Expressing admiration for brutal despots and heavy-handed law enforcement officers and harsh tactics
• Hinting that thousands of Americans are under surveillance (while his administration's lawyers have argued they can continue a controversial surveillance program even if Congressional authorization expires)

Feel great yet, America?

There are two ways to look at this.  On one hand, a lot of this is just posturing - a mix of blustery rants, fueled by Trump's anger and frustration in reaction to policy defeats, and him being a masterful showman and playing to the crowd.  Trump hasn't taken many concrete actions to translate his words into policies.  On the other hand, it's probably not a coincidence that authoritarianism is a recurring theme in Trump's words and opinions.  Any tendency that surfaces so many times is a sign of a belief a person holds.  When Trump remarked that he'd only acknowledge the election results if he won, maybe he was joking - but there was a grain of honesty in it.  On some level, Trump was giving us a glimpse behind the curtain. 

There are also many parallels between Trump's words (and deeds) and things both past and present authoritarian regimes have done.  Sarah Kendzior (among other journalists) has made a career researching authoritarian regimes, and she has been sounding the alarm about the Trump administration for months.  She has written some truly amazing articles.  When I first discovered her writing, I thought she was being too alarmist; but she has been well ahead of the curve in predicting Trump's next moves. And even if it's just talk, the president's words send a message of what's acceptable to all the subordinate Executive Branch agencies.  It's not a coincidence that ICE methods have gotten harsher since Trump took office.  Things like these are more like small steps than giant leap, but even small steps deserve pushback.

In my lifetime, I've never doubted that a president would step down once his term was over - until now.  This is why Trump's statements can't be written off as harmless jokes.  When he made the remark about honoring the election results, it was like saying "bomb" in an airport.  It may be said in jest, but it's not something to joke about.  And Trump has said a lot of things that could be interpreted as signs he might not step down.  Additionally, Trump enjoys a lot of legal advantages and protections he didn't get as a private citizen - which will become more important to him and his inner circle as the Mueller investigation closes in.

And even if Trump does leave voluntarily, what about where we are as a country?

Because the truth is, Trump's campaign rhetoric had a grain of truth to it: DC is a swamp that needs draining.  The politicians and wealthy donors take care of each other, while they put on a show of holding those who step out of line accountable.  Remember General Petraeus? He would be in jail for the rest of his life if he'd been a junior enlisted without the right political connections.  How about GWB and the Iraq War architects? That got swept under the rug, and nobody was held accountable.  Same thing with the Wall Street banking CEOs who crashed the economy in 2008 - nobody went to jail for that.  People see all of that, and it feeds a narrative that the government is neglecting average Joes and Janes - and perception creates reality.  Right now, that perception/reality is feeding a lot of frustration with the status quo.

Feel great yet, America? You should; because as bad as things have gotten, there's a glimmer of hope on the horizon.  People are getting more politically active.  A record number of women have filed to run for office, Paul Ryan is facing a credible challenger to his House seat, the Virginia election was a kind-of referendum on Trump's performance, and the Women's March drew one of the biggest crowds in US history.  For the most part, our institutions are holding, too.  Trump is stocking federal judge positions with ideologically similar candidates, and that goes in the "loss" column; but the victories outweigh that. 

The battle to undo Trump's damage and set things right will not be easy, but the end result will be worth it. 

Feel great, America.

DACA, Congress, and Separation of Powers

I knew I'd eventually write something that would infuriate my (very small) audience, and based on the posts I'm seeing in my Facebook feed, this post could very well be the one that does it.  Don't worry, I've picked a last meal and I've got a cigarette and a blindfold - just in case.

Okay, so DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  That's the current Divisive Issue of the Week.  I'll start with a little quick-and-dirty history on DACA before I discuss the recent developments.  DACA was President Obama's 2012 executive action on immigration, which partly resulted from repeated Congressional failures to pass its own piece of immigration reform, known as the DREAM Act.  Remember, executive action.  That will become important later.  I'm not sure how DACA meshes with the proposed DREAM Act, or with Congress' 2013 immigration reform act (S.744), and that's further down the rabbit hole than I plan to go.

That's DACA in a nutshell.  Now, as anyone who has followed the news recently knows, President Trump announced that he plans to roll back DACA, along with a complementary program called DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans).  His reversal will be delayed for six months, to give Congress time to act (presumably to craft its own legislation).  Okay, unpopular opinion time. . . Constitutionally, Trump is doing the right thing here.  Congress is the lawmaking branch of government, and it has the duty to come up with immigration laws.  Yes, Obama faced an extremely stubborn and unruly Congress (it absolutely lived up to it's nickname of "The Party of No"), but that's how the framework of government is structured.  The Founders assigned lawmaking authority to Congress; that duty was never granted to the President/Executive Branch.  I can understand Obama's frustration and desire to get something done - Congress was doing its best to block him at every turn, and nobody would stand for that.  It's human nature to push back against another person or group of people preventing you from accomplishing anything.  Maybe one person in 1,000 could resist that urge.  But the president was (is) supposed to resist that urge.  It's one of the core principles of the federal government - the president does not craft legislation.  There's no "except if Congress won't cooperate" loophole.

Not that Congress is blameless.  I'm not giving Obama a pass, but I understand why he acted the way he did.  He stepped in to fill a vacuum that Congress created, and he saw the obstructionist Congress as an obstacle to overcome.  It had six years and change to craft decent legislation, but instead it grandstanded with stunts like trying to repeal the ACA over fifty times - a task Congressional Republicans knew they couldn't achieve, but did anyway to keep their voters energized - and when the GOP gained a unified government in the 2016 elections, it had nothing prepared.  The GOP railed against the ACA for six years, and evidently put zero effort into writing a better piece of legislation.  Congress didn't govern, it obstructed and it abandoned its responsibility.

Now, the immigration issue is back in Congress' court, where it should be according to the legislative process.  Well, the CATO Institute predicts that rolling back DACA & DAPA will have a high economic cost:

"We estimate that the fiscal cost of immediately deporting the approximately 750,000 people currently in the DACA program would be over $60 billion to the federal government along with a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade."

Those are massive economic consequences, and if Congress was smart, it would vote to keep DACA in place, or at least craft some nearly-identical legislation.  This should be an easy decision.  However, Trump is still popular with the GOP base, and they want to see DACA repealed, in addition to being anti-immigrant.  One of Trump's key campaign promises was stricter immigration reform; and while he's a terrible statesman, he knows how to court public opinion.  Basically, Congressional Republicans are in a bind: rescind DACA and take a huge economic hit or preserve it somehow and enrage their base.  I predict Congress will let DACA lapse, because the Trump cabinet confirmation hearings and the ACA/BCRA fiasco showed that many Congressional Republicans will still vote along party lines, even if that vote carries serious economic consequences.  I do not trust Congress to make the smart decision here.

Even though I think Congress would be making a huge mistake by reversing DACA, it is Congress' mistake to make.  Trump is actually doing the right thing by rolling back an executive order and putting the responsibility on Congress.  Is repealing DACA cruel, foolish, and petty? Absolutely.  But we have to see beyond the immediate policy outcome we want and look at the long game.  No single official or branch of government should have too much power, and there is a convincing argument that the Executive has concentrated too much power over the past few decades.  Curbing that power will cause pain sooner or later - if not DACA, it will be something else.  But it needs to be done.

A few additional links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/349148-daca-debate-turns-toward-congress
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301