DACA the INA and the Constitution

Image provided by Military Hunting and Fishing

Editor's note:  Friend and Constitutional scholar Dan Hunt provides a succinct,
comprehensive and bottom line analysis of the current debate on immigration.


Article VI Clause II states that "this Constitution and all Laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the Supreme Law of the Land"

Article I Section VIII Clause IV states:
"The Congress shall have the Power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization". 

Clause XVIII states:
" The Congress shall have the Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing enumerated Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in nay Department or Officer thereof". 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was established in pursuance of Article I Section VIII Clause IV. It is therefore the Supreme law of the Land with respect to Immigration. It requires all illegal Aliens be deported, no exceptions.

The usurper signed DACA as an Executive Order. DACA is unconstitutional for three reasons:

1. Article II Section I Clause V requires a President be a natural born Citizen:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". 

A natural born Citizen is one born to two Citizen Parents. Obama's Father never became a Citizen. Consequently the usurper has never been a natural born Citizen and never was President. He never had any Constitutional authority. Anything he signed was void as soon as he signed the document, including the DACA Executive Order.

2. Putting aside point #1, the Executive Branch cannot make Law. That power is reserved solely to the Legislative Branch in Article I Section I:
"All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

3. DACA conflicts with the INA which is the Supreme Law of the Land for Immigration. Any act that conflicts with the Supreme Law of the Land is null and void as soon as the act occurs. This concept was established by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #78:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
It was reiterated by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v Madison(1803):

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument"

President Trump issuing another Executive regarding DACA and deferring to Congress to act upon DACA in the next six Months only perpetuates the unconstitutionality of DACA since it was void immediately for the above reasons.

Congress cannot create Legislation that conflicts with the INA. They can only re-write the INA. However if that were to happen, then most likely it will open the door for those classified as illegal Aliens to no longer be considered as such, further threatening our national security and essentially erasing our borders. At that point, we will no longer have a Nation as we know under a Constitutional Republic.