ADVOCACY 2
In challenging legislative laws regarding DACA in a court of law as an advocate, I would
present submissions of how DACA legislation violates the Rule of Law. Under the American
Immigration policy, minors who got access to the United States without the legal procedure
enjoyed renewable periods of two years under a deferred action plan awaiting deportation to their
home countries (Hing, 2017). At the same time, there was a provision to allowing them to be
eligible for a work permit. By the year 2012, close to a million individuals were subscribed to the
program courtesy of DACA. However, the program violates the law in a number of ways.
As an advocate, I would first challenge DACA legislation from the fact that it conferred
amnesty and other federal advantages based on the misleading pretense provided under
Prosecutorial Discretion. Federal immigration provisions permit Prosecutorial discretion through
the definition of discretion exercise “not to remove” but not to confer a benefit such as a work
permit. Since the federal immigration legislation permits prosecutorial discretion, such discretion
is detailed closely under immigration statutes and the regulations governing it (Hing, 2017).
DACA legislation thereby violates the constitution because prosecutorial discretion does not give
a right to any DHS officer to legally grant immigrants work permits or amnesty.
I would also challenge DACA legislation as it expressly contravenes the federal statutes
requiring admission of removal proceedings. Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986, massive increase of immigrants in the U.S took place. The U.S president then formed a
taskforce which developed Commission on Immigration Reform and recommended changes.
When Congress took up the matter, it was unanimously agreed that individuals who had no legal
authorization in the country be placed under removal proceedings. This move saw the repealing
of U.S Code Section 1225(b) section 2(A) that read as follows. “if the examining immigration
officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to
