At 9 00 a. M. , accuracy in media president adam g host we are live outside the Supreme Court today as the justices will hear arguments for and against socalled daca, the Immigration Program that allows undocumented people brought here as children to the United States by their parents to remain in the country. We want to get your thoughts on daca as well as the Supreme Court decision. Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 2027488002. You can also a fourth line for Daca Recipients, 2027488003. You can text us at that number as well with your first name, city, and state, 2027488003. Go to twitter at cspanwj or join the conversation at facebook. Com cspan. We will get to your thoughts on daca and the Supreme Court arguments in a minute. Joining us on the phone is greg, i Supreme Court a Supreme Court reporter for bloomberg news. Remind viewers what this case is about. Guest good morning, greta. The case started in 2012 when barack obama said he was going to give young immigrants, people who came here as children generally with their parents illegally, give them the ability to apply for a shield so they would not be deported and could apply for job permits. That program has been in place for a number of years, about 700,000 people now are Daca Recipients and President Donald Trump two years ago his administration said we are going to rescind this program, wind it down so people can no longer renew their status and that brought immediate lawsuits and we are now at the Supreme Court determining whether President Trumps reasons his administrations reasons are adequate enough to let him do that. Host what are the president s reasons for rescinding daca and how have the lower courts ruled on this . Guest the second part is easier to describe. The lower courts ruled against ruled against the administration. The explanation has evolved a little bit. Reason we are rescinding it is it was illegal the whole time. There was a threat of suit by republican led states and the administration decided they were going to essentially side with the states and say this program should not have been here in the first place, but the reasons have evolved a little over time and they have added additional reasons. Sec. Kirstjen nielsen of dhs put out a memo saying in addition to concern that the program was illegal, we think it is a bad idea, we think it is better to have consistent enforcement of our immigration laws. We think it sends the wrong message and exempting so many people is a bad idea. Now that we are at the Supreme Court, the administration is not quite so say quite saying it was illegal the whole time, but that is one of the reasons they are concerned about the litigation risk if they keep the program in place. Anyone it those reasons could be enough for the Supreme Court to say that is fine. In a sense, the Trump Administration has several arrows in its quiver. Elaine duke and why do reporters supporters point to her in this argument . Guest she was the acting secretary of dhs at the time. There was a story that came out in the New York Times that detailed some of the history of how this program got rescinded. Whowas someone at dhs balked at the decision and was reluctant to go along with it. There is a strong humanitarian concern supporters can point to in this case. This would be a decision if daca is rescinded that would dramatically up and hundreds of thousands of lives, it is not clear how quickly it would be rescinded, but those humanitarian arguments may weigh on the Supreme Court. Host who is arguing on each side . Guest on the side of the administration, the first person to argo argue will be noel francisco. He is who you would expect to argue in this case for the administration. On the others did is a former solicitor general ted olson, a conservative. He is known, for among other things, arguing the bush v gore case, but he is representing Daca Recipients in this case, going to be arguing what the Trump Administration is doing is illegal and in addition, the solicitor general of california, michael will be arguing on that side of the case as well. California is one of the with dacalong. Ecipients host ted olsons cocounsel . Recipient. S a daca i understand he will be at counsel table with ted olson today. Butt be arguing the case, will, just by his presence, undoubtedly have a pretty dramatic impact. I believe it is the first time anything like this has happened that a daca recipient has been one of the council at the table in front of the Supreme Court. Host who will be listening inside that courtroom today . Host many guest many Daca Recipients, i am sure they will have a packed courtroom and there will probably be other top officials. Only fits may be 400 people when it is really packed. Line stretching out the court for several days, there is high demand to get into the case. It is an extra long argument, it will be 80 minutes. Usually Supreme Court are humans are only an hour. Host how do you think the justices could rule on this . Of the different options what are the different options . Guest there are a menu of options for the administration to win. The administration has arguments that start with the courts have no business in this area at all, this case is what we call not justiciable. They could, this seems unlikely, wascourt could say daca illegal from the getgo. Either one of those two options would probably give the administration really brought authority if it wanted to rescind daca quickly, that would be the biggest option for the Supreme Court. Do court could also something a bit more narrow that said as long as you have given us some reason you think it is a bad idea, we will defer to the administration. It would leave the administration with how quickly we want to move to start rescinding daca. It doesnt have to happen immediately. More likely, it would be a wind down and there could be renewed negotiations. Could say we think the administration possible reasons are inadequate and that would kick the case back down to the lower courts and it is theoretical theoretically possible the administration could come up with a different explanation, one that did not rely on daca being a legal, something that shows we think it is a bad idea more fully than the administration has done before. Whether the administration would have time to do that before the election, that is more of an open question. If President Trump wins reelection, his administration would have a lot more time to daca. Ate host which justice watching today . What kind of questioning are you listening for . Guest the key one to watch is it so often is, chief Justice John Roberts and that is in part because we have seen in two cases that bear some similarities with the Trump Administration, the case involving the travel ban and the Citizenship Question to the census. In both of those cases, the chief justice seemed to play the pivotal role and there is a good chance he will do that today. The second justice i will be watching is brett kavanaugh. Both of them often ask questions of both sides. Their questions dont reveal their final vote, especially the chief justice. Sometimes his thinking seems to whene from the argument to the decision is issued. We know his votes have changed behind closed doors after the argument in the past. Listeningng to be very closely to the two of them, but also with a grain of salt knowing this is just the argument and a decision very likely as not coming down for 6 or 7 months. Host our viewers can listen to what the chief justice has to say and other justices when we air the oral arguments this friday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern time on cspan 2. Stohr, thank you greg stohr, thank you for your time. The center for American Progress is holding a discussion on daca at 8 30 a. M. Eastern time on cspan 2. California attorney general heavy air becerra along with becerra is going to speak. It is your turn to tell us what you think about daca. Samantha in washington, d. C. You are up first. Caller good morning. I am praying the court will uphold daca. Especially based on the many acts that are a regular and immoral and meant to hurt people the Trump Administration has pushed forward, especially in light of the very fact that there are many discrepancies evenive to his family coming into this country. There are laws that say if you lie on the application to come here, you are to be removed and you are not supposed to ever be able to come back and history here, you are toshows his famils ancestor to come here claiming they were from sweden and also changing the name. Host democratic caller, what do you think about daca . Caller good morning. First of all, if these people were from europe and not from Central America or other nations , we would be having a much different conversation. As long as america has an appetite for cheap labor, you are going to have this situation. These people have paid taxes, and listed in our military, fought for our country and they earned the right. Look at the first lady of the United States, she is basically an illegal alien as well as her family. The problem is republicans are the complexion of this country is changing and that is what bothers them, dont get mad at the immigrants, get mad at Corporate America who need cheap. Ater labor these people are being persecuted on the basis of their race. It is rooted in racism. Host take a look at what migrationpolicy. Org put together. These are the country of origins for Daca Recipients, largely coming from mexico, guatemala, el salvador, hon doris, peru, and brazil make up the largest population. You noted cheap labor. Fromupreme court heard more than 140 companies that sided with the daca program in the Washington Post this morning. Lets listen to what president obama had to say when he announced his executive action on daca in 2012. [video clip] effective immediately, the department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to National Security or Public Safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. Lets be clear, this is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets our lets us focus our resources while giving relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is the right thing to do. Host that was then president obama announcing his executive action on daca back in 2012. Certain people who came to the made requests for deferred action for two years subject to renewal. Statust provide lawful as the president said back then. These are the guidelines of the criteria for receiving daca. The United States before ir 16th birthday, physically present in the and at on june 15, 2012 the time of making your request, no lawful status. Obtained a ged or honorably discharged veteran of the armed forces of the United States. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, do not pose a threat to National Security. Those are the guidelines for Daca Recipients. We are getting your thoughts on the program. Lets go to mike in wyoming. What do you think . Think caller i host we are listening, mike. Inler those people belong this country. They grew up here and they are highly intelligent, hardworking people. I dont get this wall or any of that stuff, this country does not stand for that. Keeping people out is not going to make us better, that is what i have to say. Host patrick in arkansas, what do you have to say. Children should be granted citizenship. When they are, they take the two much just like every person that and we shouldzen welcome them with open arms. Host richard, a republican. Caller good morning. And to me, i feel if they were born in this country, that is fine. If they came in illegally, they have to go back. They should have to follow the law, that is the law of the land. I dont care if they have been here for 20 years. If they came here illegally, they have to go back and do what it takes by the law to get back into the country. Host it is a rainy morning in washington, d. C. And the line, as greg told us, is stretching around the Supreme Court, people started lining up over the weekend to get one of those coveted seats inside the Supreme Court, they only have a limited amount of seating and typically they rotate the public in and out and so those folks in line hoping to hear a little bit of todays oral argument. That will air at 8 00 p. M. Eastern time friday night on cspan 2 and you can listen to what the arguments were for and against what questions the justices had to ask. Richard in indiana, a republican. I am sorry, let me move on so i can get another voice and. He party democrat, so i am very conservative and i want to remind your viewers the executive is not an emperor and that branch has become much too powerful and this is an example of the legislature relinquishing its power. I dont recall one judge in 8 years stopping anything that obama considered to be an executive order and yet everything this current executive does seems to be halted across the entire nation anone federal judge and executive order cannot be released by another executive for a subsequent one is preposterous. Legislatures legislate and if i was arguing to the court in , i would call it a tax then Justice Roberts would pass it like he did obama care. Host vincent in pennsylvania, republican. Caller good morning. Caller. With your last how folks that understand it works understand the tax system and how it got through. I am finding myself this morning realizing this is not the daca fault, not our current president s fault, it might not even be obamas fault. If we are a nation of laws, this should have never been an excuse to have folks 10 years old now old enough to vote. People say children they are now young adults. This should never happen again and if we are a country of borders and laws and celebrating veterans day, we should be celebrating veterans day, not excuses to let folks in charge of our laws put them aside and conduct what they want to do as far as excuses to let folks in who do not have citizenship. I dont know how they are going should neverbut it happen again. Host many of the people in daca no longer very young are far from angels. Some are tough, hardened criminals. The Supreme Court remedy was overturned, a deal will be made with democrats for them to stay. That is what the president said on twitter. This is what Jeff Sessions in 2017 had to say when he announced the administrations decision to terminate daca. [video clip] i am here to announce the program known as daca effectuated under the Obama Administration is being rescinded. The program was and plummeted in 2012 and essentially provided a legal status for recipients for a renewable two year term, worker authorization, and other benefits including participation in the Social Security program to 800,000 mostly adult illegal aliens. The policy was implement it unilaterally after congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of illegal aliens. In other words, the executive sought toiberately achieve what the legislative branch refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Circumventionnded of laws was an exercise of authority by the executive branch. Host Jeff Sessions arguing against president obamas decision to implement this program. Numbersy put some daca togethers. This is the average age of the dreamer is 25 years old. 6 is the average age when they first enter the United States. They also report 97 of recipients are working or enrolled in school, 900 recipients are serving in the military and. 2 of and rowleys had their status revoked because of criminal or gang activity. Greg in pennsylvania, what is your opinion on this debate . My opinion on this debate my opinion on this debate is the last three collars are exactly correct. Hewas a selfprofessed did not have the authority to pass the law. This was a shortterm measure that he and plummeted. He implemented. If Donald J Trump had done this, what would your callers from democratic and independents program . T this would that have made a difference . Of course it would have. Everything is so polarized right now. I am lawyer for 41 years and i am a vietnam that vet. I know he was correct when he said he did not have the authority to do it. He could not get it through congress. He did what he thought he should do for his own political benefit and the future of the Democratic Party. I am not sure it worked out that way, but that is why he did it. It was an overreach by him. Who is the current executive