DACA is illegal because it created a legal status that didn’t exist prior. It isn’t just prioritizing who not to deport, it granted illegals under DACA a legal status that the President has not authority to grant. It isn’t really that difficult to understand if you apply reason and logic.
[quote=“justamarine, post:21, topic:61725”]
DACA is illegal[/quote]
That is nothing more than a statement of your opinion. The legality of DACA has never been challenged in court. The Supreme Court split 4-4 on a legal challenge to DAPA but did not address the legality of DACA because that issue was not before the Court.
1 Like
Donald doesn’t give a shit what congress does, he just wants to be able to blame them if the outcome is bad.
Gotta keep all options on the table. I won’t tell the enemy or the friend (whichever they are, not sure) what I’m going to do. Because I have no idea and no principles on which to base a decision. We’ll see. Stay tuned.
It is illegal because the DOJ determined it to be illegal which is why the President rescinded it. DAPA and expanded DACA was determined to be illegal by Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and upheld by the 5th Circuit Court and would have been upheld by the Court if there were 9 Justices instead of 8 at the time it was before the Court.
[quote=“justamarine, post:25, topic:61725”]
It is illegal because the DOJ determined it to be illegal[/quote]
That is not the role of the DOJ. The DOJ enforces the laws, it does not determine their legality or constitutionality.
[quote=“justamarine, post:25, topic:61725”]
DAPA and expanded DACA was determined to be illegal by Judge Andrew S. Hanen[/quote]
That case and decision have no bearing on the legality of the original DACA.
That makes you 0 for 2. Care to try for the trifecta?
I will believe what trump does, not what he says. He said he “loves dreamers”. His actions loudly say otherwise.
<<<That is not the role of the DOJ. The DOJ enforces the laws, it does not determine their legality or constitutionality.>>>
DACA is NOT A LAW but an executive order. The DOJ has determined that this Executive Order is Unconstitutional therefore it is being ended. That is why you don’t govern by Executive Orders. If you claim it is a LAW, then you just proved my point about the President not having the authority to create laws.
Furthermore, the DOJ has already stated they would not defend DACA if and when it was challenged. So how do you think DACA was going to hold up in court when the very party being sued wouldn’t show up to defend it?
No, it did not. You keep saying that because it’s been drilled into your gullible head by places like Faux News, Breitbart and Daily Caller. It did not such thing. It created preconditions for people to qualify for not being an enforcement priority, i.e., categorical checkboxes for LAW ENFORCEMENT to understand as the conditions that a person must meet to be placed on the non-priority list. You can mischaracterize it by repeating your programmed robotic talking point until you’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the fact that it was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and well within the POTUS’s constitutional powers.
The “tell” is that you have no working comprehension of how the order actually works and have been completely unable to offer a coherent explanation why and how the manner in which it functions creates a magical new “legal status”…starting first with a definition of what constitutes a “legal status” in the first place. Instead, you sim[ply regurgitate the conclusion that was fed to you by the conservative propaganda machine over and over and over and if just saying that “this is so” makes it so.
1 Like
And that’s setting aside that Hanen is a complete ideologue kook who they shopped for hardcore. His decision made zero sense and was the product of a mind clearly warped by WND and InfoWars…and a healthy dollop of white nationalist cultural resentment.
No, it gave certain ILLEGAL immigrants legal status without statutory authority to do so.
Educate yourself without relying on Talkingpoints,Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc…echo chamber
This is why DAPA was smacked down and it would be the very reason DACA would have been smacked down as well.
I know you won’t bother reading it so the BLUF: DAPA, DACA allowed illegal aliens to receive certain benefits, like Social Security Numbers, certain federal benefits, work permits, etc… which is in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, so it isn’t just that you are deferring deportation but the EO grants privileges to illegal aliens for which they are expressly prohibited to receive under Federal Law.
So now it is OK to attack Judges? I thought Judges were above criticism and to criticize a Judge was an attack on the foundations of our democracy? Or is that only when Trump criticizes a Judge who rules the way you want them to? I believe that Judge Hanen’s decision were upheld by the courts, not like the out-of-control judges who’s decision were smacked down by the Court.
How many times do you have to be corrected before you learn anything?
You just linked the decision regarding DAPA. Moreover, it is merely the interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction, not a ruling on the merits.
DAPA, not DACA.
DAPA was blocked as unconstitutional.
DACA was not ruled unconstitutional and was still in effect…or do you think we’re all having this conversation about Trump ending an executive order and “program” that wasn’t even doing anything because it was illegal for it to operate?
I’m a fucking attorney, you nitwit. I’d already read it. You clearly don’t understand that decision is limited entirely to DAPA. It does not automatically extend to DACA and some white nationalist prick would have already gone through those motions if it was even remotely possible. You’ve got nothing.
1 Like
Really?
Of course DAPA and DACA are different, but the underlying law is the same. Why is that so hard to understand? DAPA was struck down because it grants benefits to illegal aliens for which current Federal Law explicit prevents them from receiving.
If you are a fucking attorney, then I doubt you are a very good one.
DACA has not been challenged but it will be challenged. Those who will challenge DACA will use this very decision to build their argument for DACA being found to be unconstitutional just like DAPA was, especially when the defendant, the U.S. Government, has already stated they will not defend it in court.
So, Mr. Attorney, who prevails when one side doesn’t show up to court?
Who said that? I certainly never did. Attacking a judge for his ethnicity like Trump did is certainly an attack on the foundations of our democracy…as is pardoning a dyed-in-the-wool racist fucknut who disobeyed direct court orders to stop violating peoples’ constitutional rights by singling them out for random “stops” just because they were hispanic and he thought it was a grand way o “fishing” for illegals. THOSE are attacks on our democracy.
Criticizing an ideologue judge like Hanen for his poorly crafted decisions and obvious activism from the bench is not an attack on our democracy, it’s a defense of it. The GOP/conservatives have been trying to pack the benches across this country for decades and they just played their biggest gambit ever with Garland…and that was after 8 years of record obstruction…both outright filibusters and even delays in allowing a hearing…for almost all of Obama’s judicial nominees, leaving people without even the courtesy of a hearing for MONTHS. The GOP/conservatives have no business talking about respect for the judiciary after the shit Trump pulled with Arpaio.
And Hanen, his decision you linked is garbage and the only reason the SCOTUS was evenly split on the issue is beacuse the GOP was in the process of unfairly blocking Garland, throwing the entire social contract known as the Constitution into the trash because they wanted to keep the SCOTUS seat for themselves if they could. Hanen is blatantly and demonstrably a white supremacist Bush appointee and outright activist from the bench. He is the worst of the worst…one of the single worst judges in the country/…he has a crystal clear ideological agenda and the kind of overreaching willingness to abuse his power that could only come from being a devoted activist and megalomaniacal jackass:
On May 19, 2016, while the case was awaiting decision at the Supreme Court, as a lesser alternative to entirely striking the government’s pleadings, Hanen demanded that some 3,000 Department of Justice lawyers in 26 states take ethics classes, and ordered other sanctions for those who argued Texas v. United States, involving President Obama’s immigration executive actions.[8][9] Hanen did not explain why he extended his sanctions to attorneys who had no involvement in the case.[10] Hanen accused Justice Department’s lawyers of lying to him during arguments in the case, and barred them from appearing in his courtroom.[8] He accused the department of “a calculated plan of unethical conduct”.[11] Hanen also ordered Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint someone within the department to ensure compliance with his order.[11]
Hanen also ordered U.S. immigration officials to turn over, within weeks, the names and addresses of 50,000 people who received deferral under the expanded deferred-action initiative.[9] The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrants’ Rights Project, and the ACLU of Texas petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to vacate the order or postpone the deadline.[9] Separately, the Justice Department argued in a filing in the district court than Hansen’s ordered sanctions “exceed the scope of [the court’s] authority and unjustifiably impose irreparable injury on the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and thousands of innocent third parties.”[10][12] The Justice Department also argued that additional ethics courses could cost up to $7.8 million over five years.[9]
On June 7, 2016, Hansen stayed his order requiring ethics courses for federal attorneys and requiring U.S. immigration officials to turn over the names and addresses until August 2016.[9]
Yeah…someone got sick of drawing attention to himself as a racist white nationalist conservative activist in a robe. Let’s see what he comes up with next, shall we, because you and I both know, he’s the TX government’s favorite judge to shop for when they need an anti-immigration, anti-minority decision.
Dude, again, that decision is not a decision on the merits of DAPA. It was an interlocutory appeal on the merits of granting a preliminary injunction against it. The entire issue is going to be over soon anyway with either legislation or riots in the streets, so let go of your hopes that someone is going to sue their way to unwinding both DACA and DAPA retroactively to the point where we’re rounding up the innocent brown people it helped and throwing them on a plane to Mexico.
And please do keep in mind: the demographic shifts are inevitable. At best, all you and your ilk are managing to do is delay it slightly while making yourselves pariahs.
Riots in the street? We heard about demographic shifts in 2016, which is why Trump had no path to 270EV. Of course rioting in protection of illegal aliens will help the Democratic Party in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Florida and the 209 counties Obama won in 2008/2012 that Trump won in 2016, but keep thinking that. It worked so well in 2012.
So, what happens if Congress doesn’t pull together an alternative to DACA? Or if they do, and Trump decides to veto it for “Constitutional” reasons?
Do those 800,00 Dreamers get deported?
Don’t see that happening. Not when money can be made off them.
Would Mexico and other countries accept such a huge and sudden influx of unwanted immigrants, many of whom don’t even speak the language? Not likely.
But, “Oh, we HAVE to arrest them,” will say Jeff Sessions and his ilk. “It’s the LAW.”
But if other countries won’t accept the Dreamers, where would they be put?
In prisons.
In private prisons.
Or maybe they’d just be called “holding facilities”. But probably not what they’d actually be: “concentration camps”.
The private-prison industry has been losing contracts and numbers the last few years, so yeah, they’d definitely want to grab as much of that sweet incarceration money back as they could. I expect the PP corporations are preparing lobbying campaigns at this moment. Ka-ching.
Besides the per diem per prisoner the PPC’s would receive, they’d also have an 800,000 strong force of young, strong people that could be rented out to work for private industries for pennies-per-hour. Ka-ching.
And hey, maybe Trump could set up a government office to oversee the treatment of DACA prisoners. Joe Arpaio would be a likely candidate to head such an office, what with his experience. (Pink underwear! Chain gangs! 120-degree+ living quarters! Arpaio would jump at a chance to bring back his Good Ol’ Days, only bigger.)
And Trump would deny any blame for any of it:
“I had to start arresting Dreamers when Congress didn’t pass a bill/passed an unacceptable bill! It’s the LAW!”
“I had to set up the camps when other countries wouldn’t take the Dreamers. I couldn’t just let criminals run loose again! I had to put them somewhere! It’s the LAW!”
“Look how many prison guards the camps have had to hire! I’VE CREATED JOBS!”
(I wish I could say I was just being overly cynical in these predictions. But I don’t think it’s possible to use “overly” and “cynical” together any more.)