Univ 112

My blogs and other Univ things

Unite Two Op-Ed

Katherine Ramos

Univ – 111

Professor Galligan

1 November 2018


Writer’s Memo


Writing this Op-ed, I spent weeks working on the revision process, I kept searching for better sources that could be incorporated into the piece. I spent most of my time after class researching this topic to become an expert. I decided on this topic a few days before the proposal was due, I researched a few of the topics and the one that interested me the most was the DACA policy. I rejected the topic of asylum seekers because it wasn’t as appealing to me. The topic of DACA was incredibly broad so I narrowed it down to if the policy is constitutional.

The feedback I received from my peers helped to improve my piece. They made comments about what could improve rather than correcting my grammar. Lee gave comments about where I could add more information what good the policy really does. I chose to take Lee’s comment because I didn’t realize before that I lacked information of what the policy does to add pathos into the piece. I added more information about the policy to the end of my essay, to make it flow better. I rejected to use comments made about my hook and conclusion sentence, I believe that I have a strong beginning and end. The effects I believe made my op-ed stronger and persuades the targeted readers more.

The global aspects I am most confident about is the focus of the paper, it is clearly stated, and I have presented several cues and connections to what it’s focus is. The purpose and audience I think are directed, I introduce the policy to the audience in a broad summary and I don’t walk them through a topic they have previous information on. I am most concerned about the organization and the content, the DACA policy is something that I did not have previous information about. I am worried that when the op-ed is read the reader will have leftover questions or are unable to understand the topic. The organization for this essay was difficult compared to other papers so I am not as confident on if executed it correctly. Grammar and spelling errors are what I am least concerned about for local aspects. I am most concerned on my sentence structures and the repetition of words in my essay. I can tell when I was writing this a lot of the words were repeated even if it wasn’t on purpose.

With more time on the essay I would change the wording and organization of this essay, I think it might be confusing to the reader and needs improvement. To correct these two aspects, I would need at least one more day to fully feel confident with my work and changes. I would like some feedback on my topic and if I executed my opinion in a positive way and if the organization of my piece was choppy or okay. Comparing my essay and effort to the rubric I think I would receive a B for this Op-ed because I think there is room for improvement in my essay.




Katherine Ramos

Professor Galligan

Univ 111

1 November 2018

Is the DACA policy unconstitutional?

There are more than thirty-seven million undocumented immigrants in this country, there are about 700,000 immigrants that are in the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This policy was established by Barack Obama in 2012, it took years in the making. DACA helps children that came into this country receive basic human rights that are given to any other citizen in the United States. Unfortunately, there has been a change when President Donald Trump came into office in 2016, Trump’s administration has tried to get rid of the policy. The DACA program was sent to the Senate to see what kind of compromise they could settle on about the policy, whether to change it, cancel it, or to keep it. The Senate could not compromise and since November of 2017, the DACA program has been in limbo. The recipients (as known as dreamers) and citizens of the United States have no idea what will happen to the DACA program, there has not been any new information about the program.

The reason many conservatives want to remove DACA is because the recipients of DACA are still undocumented, they are breaking a law and any recipient under DACA should not be given an okay for that. There is a concern with the DACA policy, that it exceeds the constitutional bound of prosecutorial discretion. By exceeding the constitutional bound of prosecutorial discretion refers to when the president chooses how someone who has broken the law will be punished. The rebuttal to is that the president never changed legal status for the recipients they were never given amnesty or citizenship. DACA never promised any deportation for the recipients, the policy follows guidelines where if a recipient were to break them they would be deported. Another reason why the policy may be constitutional is because the United States immigration law lacks specific guidelines. There aren’t exact guidelines that are followed which makes this policy difficult to criticize. There are places where this policy seems to be in a grey area, there is confusion and uneasy approaches to the policy. For example, when the Senate passed the policy, the house failed to pass by 12 votes, but the Senate had 68.

The arguments that DACA is unconstitutional is hard to back up with facts, there are many other factors that are contributed in this. Trump’s administration never presented a solid reason why DACA is unconstitutional and why they wanted to end the policy. Barack Obama introduced the policy with executive action and without congressional approval, this action has been seen controversial and is one of the reasons people may believe DACA crosses the line.

In an open letter to president Donald Trump from law professors and scholars, they express their opinion on why the policy is unconstitutional. They state that the policy does not cite any legal authorities behind the deferred action and that the policy is unsound and unclear. They express that this policy conflicts with lawful presence, they cannot find one lawful thing about it. The law professors believe that the former president, Barack Obama did not have the power to establish this policy but rather the executive order has the power to do so. Even the Senate in 2017 could not come to a compromise on the topic of DACA. It has been hard to come with a conclusion on what to do with DACA, but now it is up to the supreme court to come to a decision.

The DACA policy should stay, it shouldn’t be eliminated. The children, young adults, and adults in the policy came into the United States with no prior information on the world. They were escaping countries full of war, violence, and gangs for a better life in a safer environment. It has been a year since a last update on the policy and all recipients are in a state of anxiety. The last update any recipient of the policy has received is that President Trump wants to remove the policy, leading to the deportation of the recipients. There has been no new updates and a lack news coverage because of this no one thinks that DACA is an issue now. The entire world is focused on other disasters, cases, and gossip. The recipients of DACA only know the United States as their home, their entire childhood has been in this country. When they are simply told that they need to go back to their home country, they only remember their “home country” through pictures they see online.



The DACA policy assists young adults to receive their driver’s licenses, achieve higher education, and work legally in the United States. The recipients of DACA live all across the United States, they grew up in this country, went to school, made relationships, and work. The recipients of go through a process of renewal and applying, there are several background checks and security checks to ensure the individual is not committing crimes and whom they say they are. Dreamers are like any citizens, they pay taxes, contribute to society, and have made their lives in this country. The recipients can’t do anything but wait for the supreme court ruling, all they know is this country. How can the Trump’s Administration take away everything the dreamers know and deport them to a country they don’t recognize?

























Works Cited

Activistnyc. “Activistnyc.” Activist NYC, 6 Sept. 2017, activistnyc.tumblr.com/post/165031042893/defenddaca-donald-trump-announced-that-he-is.

Konopasek, Seth. “Examining the Constitutionality of Executive Orders: DACA, DAPA, and the Take Care Clause.” Examining the Constitutionality of Executive Orders: DACA, DAPA, and the Take Care Clause, vol. 32, 2018.

“Letter Pro Letter DACA Final .” 14 Aug. 2017. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf

Ting, Jan. President Obama’s “Deferred Action” Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional .

Dec. 2014, cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/ting-plan-unconstitutional_0.pdf.



Summary & Analysis


This article was written about a year ago, so it is very recent and updated. This article is very organized and clean. They do not add their own opinion with this article and added resources to the end of article. They address many of the concerns that many have about DACA being unconstitutional. They make clear points and add more concerns about DACA. They made it clear at the end of the article that DACA never effectively altered the existing law. The DACA policy does not pardon the immigrants in the United States, it does not promise their immigration status to be changed or change it in any way. There are consequences for the recipients if they break any laws they can be forced to be deported, DACA does not promise no deportation.  There isn’t bias in this article to be seen, they speak on why DACA is constitutional and unconstitutional. Their main point on the policy is that it has not broken any laws so there is nothing that can be said to make it unconstitutional.



This article was written in December of 2014, written two years after the DAC policy. This was relatively new when the DACA policy was established. This was written by Jan Ting, a professor of law at the Temple University Beasley School of Law. In his article he has written why he sees that the Deferred Action is unconstitutional by using five key points in his article that is written in a professional manner. Ting does not walk the reader through the information he is presenting, a reader like me that has no prior knowledge of law was confused while reading this article. It took some time for me to clearly understand what he was trying to get at. There were several sources cited at the end of his article that were reliable and reflected his opinions. There was a grey area where his reasoning for DACA being unconstitutional was biased, “The President’s “Prosecutorial Discretion” Claim is plainly specious.” The author clearly put his opinion into this article instead of education the reader clearly. But there were good points about how the president did exceed the constitutional bounds of prosecutorial discretion.



In this open letter the President Trump written by scholars and law professors around the United States was written last year when President Trump attempted to remove the policy. They addressed several concerns why the policy does not follow the guidelines of the constitution. This source was the easier source to understand but you would need prior knowledge to be able to fully understand this open letter. The main point given from this open letter was that former President Barack Obama make the executive decision for the DACA policy and not congress. They argue that the policy is in a way pardoning the undocumented immigrants in the United States under this policy with providing them with a series of benefits.


© 2020 Univ 112

Theme by Anders Norén

Privacy Statement