[anigbrowl]

LEgal change shouldn't be based off specific cases, but under title 8 the attorney-general and his designates has very broad discretion to intervene in individual cases, partly because of the difficulty of crafting one-size-fits-all solutions.

Incidentally, when you hear immigration hardlines talking about how DACA was unconstitutional, I suggest you take that with a big pinch of salt. The previous administration essentially systematized the same criteria they were using for prioritizing individual enforcement decisions and while this was the administrative equivalent of a giant band-aid on an annoying political problem, I don't think there was any legal barrier to their doing so as it did not create any ew powers or positions in the executive branch that would have required congressional approval.

Unfortunately, because immigration law is so complex, arbitrary, and politicized, and because those subject to it are generally ineligible to vote, the quality of information in the media and public debate are abysmal. I don't blame the public for its ignorance of the topic; I've seen practising criminal lawyers' jaws sag open at the discovery that there is a essentially a parallel custodial system whose rules they knew nothing about. Most people aren't aware, for example, that someone picked up on an immigration violation can be detained for up to 6 months without a hearing - and that 6 months is not written anywhere in the law, but was the interim choice of a court faced with a law that doesn't provide for hearings in some cases, and a constitution that requires them.