With DACA looking illegal, Apple and other large U.S. corporations launch ‘Dreamers’ ad campaign

Apple and dozens of other Fortune 500 companies launched an ad campaign Thursday to push the U.S. Congress to pass a new law that would protect the children of illegal aliens known as “Dreamers,” part of a last-ditch effort to save “DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protections as federal courts seem likely to rule Obama’s 2012 executive branch memorandum illegal a decade or more after the fact.

Apple and other large U.S. corporations launch 'Dreamers' ad campaign

Julia Ainsley, Sahil Kapur, and Julie Tsirkin for NBC News:

The ad, running in The Wall Street Journal, The Dallas Morning News, and The Charlotte Observer, warns congressional leaders that ending DACA would hurt the economy.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that DACA was illegal but allowed more than 600,000 current DACA recipients to keep their status while a lower court reviewed a new DACA rule the Biden administration put forward.

Last Friday, the judge in the lower court, Andrew Hannen of U.S. District Court for Southern Texas, asked for more information from both sides. He is predicted to rule against the new DACA rule ultimately, because he found its previous iteration illegal.

The case may ultimately go to the Supreme Court… Legal experts believe the court, now more conservative, will ultimately rule that DACA itself is illegal, particularly because it allows for work authorization for undocumented migrants.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said: “Dreamers are an essential part of the fabric of our nation. They make our communities stronger, they make our companies more innovative, and they deserve a right to live in America with dignity. I stand with the bipartisan majority of Americans who agree that granting permanent protections for Dreamers is the right thing to do. It’s time for Congress to act.”

[A] Republican aide said there is “zero” chance to pass immigration legislation while Joe Biden is president. “Now, no one trusts Democrats of the Biden administration to actually enforce the law and crack down on illegal immigration. Until that changes, there is no deal to be had,” the Republican aide said.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote nearly half a decade ago:

A permanent legislative solution would benefit everyone involved.MacDailyNews, December 8, 2017

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!

Shop The Apple Store at Amazon.

28 Comments

  1. First secure the border and pass an ironclad law that requires all, especially Democrat, federal administrations to enforce border security.

    Then, since there’s no way to deport so many people, congress can start the children of illegal aliens on a path to obtaining legal status that’s not based on an unconstitutional executive action.

    “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”
    ― Ronald Reagan

      1. Agree on the sensible part, but disagree on the intolerable inference of the past.

        Lefties hate rules and constitutionally conforming to social norms they disagree with, unless it is their special forced brand of intolerance, cancel culture and worshipping at the altar of woke socialist religion.

        Firsty continues fine work as a good Patriot protecting our country, while the extreme Left works every day to TEAR IT DOWN. I for one, will do my small part to aid in the effort. USA! USA! USA!…

        1. “Social norms are not necessarily law.” Never said it was, but agreed. What the Constitution protects us from is the radical extreme left that would prefer to rewrite it or tear it up…

        2. AC let’s start with forced Covid vaccines for government workers, unions, military, etc. and no religious or conscientious objector exemptions. Then move on forced abortion medical plans for catholic hospitals and institutions. Not to forget forcing public schools to allow t-males to compete in women’s sports and use their bathrooms and religious Bakery to bake a cake for gay couples. I could go on, but suspect you could not care less…

        3. No one was forced to get a covid vaccine. No one jailed, no one tied down and jabbed. It was a vaccine or testing mandate, that was knocked down by SCOTUS. They did however permit a mandate for health care facilities receiving federal money.

          Oppressive? I suppose yes, but it was also a state of emergency. It’s not like forcing you to wear a helmet or seat belt, which isn’t a contagious danger. It’s also time limited.

          Then we come to LGBTQ as a protected group. Bad behavior required this. Bathrooms? Should they have their own? I can see either gender objecting, but in the overall scheme of things, this is a bullshit issue, for both D and R. Some NYC restaurants have unisex bathrooms. Who cares?

          Sports? I truly don’t give a crap. Make a Unisex league and let the best players play. Keep cis females in their own league. But still that’s below bathrooms for me IMO.

          A digression… teaching tolerance in schools is important. Even indoctrinating tolerance if you refer to say that.

          Churches are employers. Should they be allowed to discriminate non-clergy positions? All others have to abide by the rules. Bakeries…? Again LGBQ is now protected due to prejudice and bias. What about the PUBLIC clerk that would not register same sex marriages?

          I will give you this… sometimes (so called) liberals argue wrong. In the case of same sex marriage, under the law, I would have made all marriages civil unions, and left the marriage title to the religious bodies. The “marriage” title would then be a religious distinction, while civil unions (for ALL) would be under the law. Simply change the Marriage License to a “Civil Union License”. Would have saved a lot of aggravation, been Constitutional, and avoided any religious interference.

    1. Sure we can deport ALL of them. The only thing we may lack is the political will and the good graces of the left. But the left is a prime reason we should send them ALL back. It will take constant and perpetual vigilance to secure our borders from now on!

      1. As you use them, there are NO universal human rights. To heck with the UN, and the “Christian” thing to do is not so “blatantly obvious” and it is not letting them have and do whatever they want! The inability to manage one’s affairs does not entitle one to another’s affairs and resources. As you use it there are no universal human rights!

  2. Tim Cook said: “Dreamers are an essential part of the fabric of our nation.”

    What a crock! Here’s a challenge to everyone who supports open boarders and jobs, free education, free healthcare, and a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who come here illegally, I challenge you to illegally enter any country you’d most like to live in other than America and see what happens to you. Try it! I dare you to do so.

    You’ll will not get jobs, free healthcare, free education, nor will you get a free pass to citizenship. What you will get is a free pass to jail. In some countries you’ll get something worse.

    Tim Cook, we the shareholders of Apple Inc. don’t want your political opinion on anything. We don’t care about your political beliefs anymore than you care about what we believe on politics or any social issue. Just as you don’t ask us or seek out our opinion on these important matters so we don’t want to know what you think.

    At the end of the day as the CEO of Apple you have one job, see to it Apple continues to make insanely great products. Anything else you want to do, do it on your own time as a private citizen.

  3. Tim Cook is a privileged old white guy.

    Because he has a lot of money and heads up a successful business that someone else built, Tim thinks he can tell everyone else how they should live and what they should believe.

    What hubris!!

  4. How an insecure border is desirable, is befuddling. It always relates to a basic thinking process in my mind…

    Do you let anyone/everyone in your house?
    Do you let your children mingle with anyone other than those deemed safe and likely to be a positive influence?
    Barring true oppression/danger in their country of origin, why is it considered racist to prevent danger, expense, non-productive people from entering one’s country?

    The logic is akin to “excellence” being white privilege, consequences for law breaking is bigoted, and adherence to the Constitution is, or likely domestic terrorism.

Reader Feedback (You DO NOT need to log in to comment. If not logged in, just provide any name you choose and an email address after typing your comment below)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.