I read your article in the Sept. 15 Dunwoody Reporter (“Dunwoody Dreamer rallies school community”) and I found that it is filled with false assumptions and misleading statements about President Trump’s pending repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The article was void of some facts that would make a more objective, educational and informative article.
You failed to state that the implementation of DACA by President Obama was an overstep of presidential executive powers. The decision introduced by President Obama’s executive order violated the separations of powers principle clearly outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3.
The responsibilities of the three separate branches of our government are explicit and cannot be performed interchangeably. Thus, the Executive Branch cannot perform those tasks designated for the Legislative Branch. Had this been stated in the beginning of your article, your readers would make their conclusion via the prism of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps this would help balance the emotional response to the president’s intentions by framing the correct, factual environment in which it should be examined.
President Trump wants to overturn President Obama’s illegal executive order. Issues regarding immigration are a responsibility of the Legislative Branch, i.e., Congress. Therefore it was illegal (as President Trump states) for President Obama to do what he did. It might help also if you note that President Obama said, on numerous occasions, he did not have the power to suspend immigration law, yet he disregarded the U.S. Constitution and did it anyway.
President Trump’s objective is to provide an environment wherein the protection of DACA recipients can be permanently legalized via the Legislative Branch. Thus, the six-month window proposed by President Trump gives the Legislature sufficient opportunity to show their will relative to DACA.
Is your journalistic practice objective? If you omit facts that would ordinarily clarify the overall framework of an article written for public distribution, I contend you are not being as objective as you should be. Such omissions hint of deliberate deception.
James Smith Jr.