No, the story here is not that Congress is attempting to lame-duck a DACA "fix" in legislation. That's what CNN and the rest of the media would like you to believe.
The story is this:
Most recently, a federal appeals court largely upheld a lower court ruling finding the program unlawful and sent the case back – renewing urgency in addressing the population.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin – an Illinois Democrat and longtime advocate of Dreamers – said he supports the framework from Tillis and Sinema.
“As the author of the original Dream Act more than 20 years ago, I applaud every good faith effort to give these deserving individuals a path to citizenship. I’ve been in touch with my colleagues and will carefully review their proposal,” Durbin said in a statement. “I am determined to do everything in my power to help deliver a Christmas Miracle for Dreamers.”
Dick Durbin couldn't pass the original Dream Act.
So Obama did it anyway, knowing it had no justification in Congressional action, that is, with every expectation it was not lawful.
It was unlawful.
It was done knowing it was unlawful, with near-certainty, and with the intent of forcing codifying said unlawful act retroactively by more than a decade. There is no means in United States law to redress this and we have repeatedly seen this sort of insult over the last number of years from both Democrat and Republican administrations.
It may well be that the only way to stop that sort of chicanery is for the courts to issue binding, immediate rulings irrespective of how many people get impacted as a means of forcing political retribution upon the members of either Congress, the Executive or both when they do this sort of thing.
Note that it was Trump's CDC that issued the illegal rent moratorium despite having no reason in the law to believe it was lawful; it clearly impacted the "major questions" doctrine and the CDC's authority was limited to quarantining or ordering destroyed things; nowhere was it given power to allocate private property to another person, in this case a rental residence.
In the case of the CDC's moratorium it can be argued monetary damages could be reasonable compensation. That amount might be much larger than the unpaid rent, since the landlord was compelled to continue with the costs they had to maintain the property (e.g. property taxes, in some cases utilities if they were included in the rent, upkeep and similar) but it can certainly be argued that in the specific case of the CDC's moratorium money damages can remedy the issues in question.
This is not true in a situation like DACA, especially when the administration crafts the policy in such a fashion as to render the harms diffuse and thus destroy standing to bring a suit in the first place. That is a taxpayer has no standing to sue on the diffuse and non-particular injury that adding such people to the nation, complete with their costs for schooling, health care and similar which may wind up being borne by society at large, imposes. The same problem applies with so-called "college debt forgiveness" which is no such thing -- it is forcing the taxpayer generally and on a diffuse basis to pay a privately contracted debt many years down the road and for that reason is wildly unconstitutional.
This has to be stopped in some fashion and those politicians who do so are not generally subject to ejection by their constituents since by the time the case becomes ripe they've left office. This is one of the primary reasons the Executive can act only within the boundaries of the Constitution or specific delegation by Congress, since by the time you can bring the case through the system the President is no longer President -- but in most cases many of the members of the House and/or Senate are still subject to losing their jobs.
There is talk of some sort of "bipartisan" act in this regard. That's unacceptable, especially in the lame duck, since the courts have ruled that the policy had no legal force in the first place. Yet here we are a decade down the road and two decades from when Durbin began trying, without success, to pass this through Congress with a President who illegally created a million-person strong cudgel -- without a scintilla of legal authority.
However you might feel about immigration this sort of lawlessness, which is practiced by both sides, must not be rewarded.