Bush-appointed federal judge rules Trump's DACA rescission was 'unlawful and must be set aside'

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
but Obama broke the law creating this in the 1st place ... or am I confusing this with Dreamer s
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
:bonk:

EVERYTHING THE LEFT DOES IS LEGAL!!!

EVERYTHING THE CENTER OR RIGHT DO IS ILLEGAL!!!

Geez. :rolleyes:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal authority to implement.

How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."

Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.

And he did this despite the fact that the immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this. Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions pointed out this week, DACA "contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences." Since most DACA beneficiaries are now adults, "it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens," Sessions said.

The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."


broke the law / Unconstitutional



but yet now Trump 'lacks' authority to undo this illegal / unconstitutional action :confused:
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Great, another crooked judge. Bought and paid for.

Not sure why you felt the need to mention he was a Bush appointment. Are conservatives supposed to bow down and think he's "one of us"?

Bates' decision does not hold that the Trump administration lacks the authority to rescind DACA. Rather, it holds that the administration's justification for ending the policy is insufficient under the Administrative Procedure Act, which states that courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Gobbledygook. Trump is President of the United States and he indeed has the authority to rescind DACA, AND his reason is sufficient. DACA is a policy, not a law. Trump can get rid of it any time he pleases for any reason he wants. If the progs want it to become law they need to petition their Congresscritters to introduce it then wait 8 years for them to get around to voting on it.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal authority to implement.

How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."

Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.

And he did this despite the fact that the immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this. Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions pointed out this week, DACA "contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences." Since most DACA beneficiaries are now adults, "it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens," Sessions said.

The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."


broke the law / Unconstitutional



but yet now Trump 'lacks' authority to undo this illegal / unconstitutional action :confused:

Obama never said it was unconstitutional.

And the courts seem not think so either.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The most obvious problem with DACA is that it is illegal. By unilaterally issuing work permits and deportation relief to a large class of illegal immigrants, President Obama effectively rewrote immigration law. Take it from a knowledgeable source:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. . . . The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. . . . There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

That statement comes from President Obama himself, one year before he reversed course and instituted DACA. His new justification was that the executive branch would merely be exercising “prosecutorial discretion” in whom it chooses to deport, but — as Obama himself had said — there must be limits to such discretion. Imagine that President Trump becomes frustrated that Congress will not lower the corporate income tax. In response to congressional inaction, could Trump simply announce that the IRS will no longer punish corporations for tax evasion?


https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/obamas-illegal-amnesty-trump-should-end-daca/


In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined that DACA was implemented “without proper statutory authority” and that it was an “open-ended circumvention of immigration laws.” Not only was this policy a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but it was “an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” He reaffirmed his “duty to defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress.” Sessions added that the “proper enforcement of our immigration laws is, as President Trump consistently said, critical to the national interest and the restoration of the rule of law in our country.”

Sessions’s analysis was premised on a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which two years earlier had ruled that DAPA was unlawful. As I noted on NRO in May 2015, in halting DAPA, the Fifth Circuit assumed the program would be implemented in a way similar to how DACA had been: as a blanket measure akin to legislation, not a case-by-case exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This opinion strongly suggested that DACA, which was not being challenged, was illegal as well. As even Judge Alsup was forced to concede, “at least some . . . [of the Fifth Circuit’s] reasons for holding DAPA illegal would apply to DACA.”

Indeed, DACA’s legality was on an even shakier footing than DAPA’s, because Dreamers did not need to have any familial relationship with an American citizen to receive lawful presence. Unlike DAPA, DACA could not be justified as a family-reunification measure, but could only be defended on what the Obama administration described as “humanitarian concerns.” (See pages 116–119 of this article.) This is no doubt a legitimate policy argument, but in no sense is it a binding command to the Trump administration. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the justices split 4–4 following Justice Scalia’s passing. Had Justice Scalia been on the bench, I am confident Texas’s challenge would have prevailed.

Again, in a normal world, it would be entirely rational for the attorney general to wind down DACA, which was the model for DAPA, based on a ruling against DAPA by a federal court of appeals, combined with signals that the Supreme Court would agree. (I would be willing to bet that Justice Gorsuch would cast the fifth vote to invalidate the policy.) Not so for Judge Alsup, who insists that “the DAPA litigation was not a death knell for DACA.” For example, he writes, “there is a difference between 4.3 million and 689,000.” That is, because fewer people received DACA than DAPA, the former policy is on a stronger legal footing. Yes, the two numbers are different. But so what? Breaking the law with nearly 700,000 aliens is still illegal.



https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/daca-court-ruling-trump-cant-end-daca/
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Obama never said it was unconstitutional.

And the courts seem not think so either.

Three judges. I wouldn't call that "the courts". And I'm not sure how three activist judges can set US policy. We the People didn't elect them to do that.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Three judges. I wouldn't call that "the courts". And I'm not sure how three activist judges can set US policy. We the People didn't elect them to do that.

Well, it's every court that has addressed it so far so, for now, it's "the courts".
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Well, it's every court that has addressed it so far so, for now, it's "the courts".

Probably because judges who understand how government policy works in this country aren't going to address it, don't you think?

Three judges do not make immigration policy for the United States. The end. If they want to be President or Senator or Congressman and make immigration laws, they can run for office.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Probably because judges who understand how government policy works in this country aren't going to address it, don't you think?

Three judges do not make immigration policy for the United States. The end. If they want to be President or Senator or Congressman and make immigration laws, they can run for office.

Well, these three judges are certainly making immigration policy. At least for the moment. Judges make decisions on the cases brought before them. And, yes, our history is full of examples where courts decisions have determined policy. Marbury v. Madison, Sheldon v. Sill, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade. Just to name a few.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Probably because judges who understand how government policy works in this country aren't going to address it, don't you think?

Three judges do not make immigration policy for the United States. The end. If they want to be President or Senator or Congressman and make immigration laws, they can run for office.



I think you need to go back to high school and take a few classes on how government works. You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Well, these three judges are certainly making immigration policy. At least for the moment. Judges make decisions on the cases brought before them. And, yes, our history is full of examples where courts decisions have determined policy. Marbury v. Madison, Sheldon v. Sill, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade. Just to name a few.

Those were Supreme Court decisions.
 
Top