U.S. court orders Trump administration to fully reinstate DACA program

[rooster59]

U.S. court orders Trump administration to fully reinstate DACA program

By Andrew Chung

 

FILE PHOTO: Activists and DACA recipients march up Broadway during the start of their 'Walk to Stay Home,' a five-day 250-mile walk from New York to Washington D.C., to demand that Congress pass a Clean Dream Act, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., February 15, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration must fully restore a program that protects from deportation some young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children, including accepting new applications for the program.

 

U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., said he would stay Friday's order, however, until August 23 to give the administration time to decide whether to appeal.

 

Bates first issued a ruling in April ordering the federal government to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, including taking applications. He stayed that ruling for 90 days to give the government time to better explain why the program should be ended.

 

On Friday Bates, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican, said he would not revise his previous ruling because the arguments of President Donald Trump's administration did not override his concerns.

 

Under DACA, roughly 700,000 young adults, often referred to as "Dreamers", were protected from deportation and given work permits for two-year periods, after which they must re-apply to the program.

 

The program was created in 2012 under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

 

Two other federal courts in California and New York had previously ordered that DACA remain in place while litigation challenging Trump's decision to end it continued. Those rulings only required the government to process DACA renewals, not new applications.

 

Another lawsuit in a Texas federal court is seeking to end DACA.

 

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice said on Friday that the government would continue to defend its position that it "acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner."

 

Congress so far has failed to pass legislation to address the fate of the Dreamers, including a potential path to citizenship.

 

Friday's ruling came in lawsuits filed by several groups and institutions, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Princeton University.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-04

 

[jackh]

Trump better launch an appeal quick and get this DACA off the books ASAP!

[ToddinChonburi]

The program had expired. 

[Tug]

Poor Donald what’s a despot to do can’t even destroy helpless kids anymore my god he might be forced to be charitable to a helpless child holey cow the devider in chief might even have to support an American ideal

[attrayant]

7 hours ago, jackh said:

Trump better launch an appeal quick and get this DACA off the books ASAP!

 

Using what justification?

[Bluespunk]

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration must fully restore a program that protects from deportation some young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children, including accepting new applications for the program.

Excellent decision. 

 

Well done that judge. 

[ChouDoufu]

poor decision.

 

daca was not a law passed by congress.  it was merely an executive order.  program can be ended by executive order.

 

a proper decision would have been for the original daca program to be ruled unconstitutional, as obama exceeded his authority.

 

it's the responsibility of congress to write immigration law.  congress needs to change status of illegals legally.

 

 

[Credo]

DACA needs to remain in place.   Children should not be held responsible for decisions which they may have had no part in.   Children who were brought to the US wouldn't even necessarily know if they were legal or not.   It was not their decision and they should not be held accountable.

 

If a parent takes their 10 year old out and lets him drive a car, the child does not get in trouble, the parent does.   The same is true if a parent gives a child drugs or alcohol.   

 

It is an extremely sad commentary on a country that this even has to go to court.

 

 

 

[Trouble]

Trump offered the Dems basic amnesty for the Dreamers in exchange of other immigration reforms but the Dems refused.  The Dems just don't seem to want to do anything about the immigration issue.  Nothing will satisfy them.  Wish some Dems would just tell everyone what they will accept besides open boarders, etc. I have no clue where they stand on immigration reform because the party is so splintered on most things. 

[Credo]

1 hour ago, Trouble said:

Trump offered the Dems basic amnesty for the Dreamers in exchange of other immigration reforms but the Dems refused.  The Dems just don't seem to want to do anything about the immigration issue.  Nothing will satisfy them.  Wish some Dems would just tell everyone what they will accept besides open boarders, etc. I have no clue where they stand on immigration reform because the party is so splintered on most things. 

DACA recipients and immigrant children are not bargaining chips.   The one who keeps flip-flopping is Trump.   One day he wants them, the next day he doesn't; rinse and repeat.

 

The big stumbling block is Trump, who wants his wall.   The one that he said Mexicans would pay for (but won't).   It's a boondoggle and will not achieve it's stated aim.   It's hugely expensive an unnecessary.   

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Trouble said:

Trump offered the Dems basic amnesty for the Dreamers in exchange of other immigration reforms but the Dems refused.  The Dems just don't seem to want to do anything about the immigration issue.  Nothing will satisfy them.  Wish some Dems would just tell everyone what they will accept besides open boarders, etc. I have no clue where they stand on immigration reform because the party is so splintered on most things. 

Trump and the Republicans have a majority in both houses!

 

Quit blaming the Democrats.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Using what justification?

Hate.

[JAG]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Using what justification?

Justification? Why, it was a programme introduced by President Obama. What further justification could possibly be needed? 

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

poor decision.

 

daca was not a law passed by congress.  it was merely an executive order.  program can be ended by executive order.

 

a proper decision would have been for the original daca program to be ruled unconstitutional, as obama exceeded his authority.

 

it's the responsibility of congress to write immigration law.  congress needs to change status of illegals legally.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it is legally not as simple as you portray.

[Benmart]

9 hours ago, Tug said:

Poor Donald what’s a despot to do can’t even destroy helpless kids anymore my god he might be forced to be charitable to a helpless child holey cow the devider in chief might even have to support an American ideal

 I have difficulty reading your run-along sentence, devoid of punctuation and so forth. Your thoughts may have merit, but your post is otherwise.

[Scott]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I'm pretty sure it is legally not as simple as you portray.

There was an attempt to pass the Dream Act which would have provided a pathway toward citizenship for many who now fall under DACA.   It was the subject of a filibuster by the Republicans.   It did pass one house, but not the other.   As a result, the program was created as an Executive Order.   Part of the reasoning was a Supreme Court ruling in the Plyler vs. Doe case.  

[stevenl]

55 minutes ago, Scott said:

There was an attempt to pass the Dream Act which would have provided a pathway toward citizenship for many who now fall under DACA.   It was the subject of a filibuster by the Republicans.   It did pass one house, but not the other.   As a result, the program was created as an Executive Order.   Part of the reasoning was a Supreme Court ruling in the Plyler vs. Doe case.  

The poster I reacted to claimed it is unconstitutional, I said it is not that simple.

[ChouDoufu]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

I'm pretty sure it is legally not as simple as you portray.

actually.....it is.  you gots your basic constitution with three branches.

 

legislative branch....legislates.  (means they writes the laws)

executive branch....executes.  (means they enforce the laws)

judicial branch....judiciates.  (and that means they interpret the laws)

 

pretty simple.  and here interpretation has two main purposes with regards to

legality:

1.  ensure that laws conform to the constitution.

2.  clarify unclear portions of conforming laws.

 

judges may strike down unconstitutional laws, and then congress may pass an amended version.  problem comes when judges decide based on "feelings."  

 

daca is not a law.  congress had already passed an immigration law.  obama (constitutional scholar! 5555!) decided if congress won't act, he would.  by that he meant, if congress won't change the law to his liking, he'd do it hisself.  not quite constitutional.  by NOT changing immigration law, congress DID act.

 

this executive order thing is nasty bit of extraconstitutional corruption.  if you think it's just peachy for obama to rewrite laws because the vile republicans don't care about illegals, just wait....

 

trump has a few more years to pack the courts with his type of judge.  another year and he'll be able to forum shop (pick a court or judge that trump approves of) to get a favorable ruling.  aaaand he's likely to get another one or two supreme court judges.  sweeeet!

 

so what's to stop trump from issuing an executive order banning gay marriage or abortion or equal rights for women?  trump can say.....since congress has again failed to act to uphold the sanctity of the divine natural order, he will right the wrong with an executive order.  it was okay when obama did it, right?

 

for now, there are enough obama and clinton dead-ender judges to prevent that.  but soon there will be enough judges willing to decide based on their alt-right "feelings."

 

how will you feel about constitutional restrictions on executive powers then?

Edited August 5, 2018 by ChouDoufu
stupid formatting!

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

actually.....it is.  you gots your basic constitution with three branches.

 

legislative branch....legislates.  (means they writes the laws)

executive branch....executes.  (means they enforce the laws)

judicial branch....judiciates.  (and that means they interpret the laws)

 

pretty simple.  and here interpretation has two main purposes with regards to

legality:

1.  ensure that laws conform to the constitution.

2.  clarify unclear portions of conforming laws.

 

judges may strike down unconstitutional laws, and then congress may pass an amended version.  problem comes when judges decide based on "feelings."  

 

daca is not a law.  congress had already passed an immigration law.  obama (constitutional scholar! 5555!) decided if congress won't act, he would.  by that he meant, if congress won't change the law to his liking, he'd do it hisself.  not quite constitutional.  by NOT changing immigration law, congress DID act.

 

this executive order thing is nasty bit of extraconstitutional corruption.  if you think it's just peachy for obama to rewrite laws because the vile republicans don't care about illegals, just wait....

 

trump has a few more years to pack the courts with his type of judge.  another year and he'll be able to forum shop (pick a court or judge that trump approves of) to get a favorable ruling.  aaaand he's likely to get another one or two supreme court judges.  sweeeet!

 

so what's to stop trump from issuing an executive order banning gay marriage or abortion or equal rights for women?  trump can say.....since congress has again failed to act to uphold the sanctity of the divine natural order, he will right the wrong with an executive order.  it was okay when obama did it, right?

 

for now, there are enough obama and clinton dead-ender judges to prevent that.  but soon there will be enough judges willing to decide based on their alt-right "feelings."

 

how will you feel about constitutional restrictions on executive powers then?

If it were that simple it would have been done.

[vinegarbase]

9 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

actually.....it is.  you gots your basic constitution with three branches.

 

legislative branch....legislates.  (means they writes the laws)

executive branch....executes.  (means they enforce the laws)

judicial branch....judiciates.  (and that means they interpret the laws)

 

pretty simple.  and here interpretation has two main purposes with regards to

legality:

1.  ensure that laws conform to the constitution.

2.  clarify unclear portions of conforming laws.

 

judges may strike down unconstitutional laws, and then congress may pass an amended version.  problem comes when judges decide based on "feelings."  

 

daca is not a law.  congress had already passed an immigration law.  obama (constitutional scholar! 5555!) decided if congress won't act, he would.  by that he meant, if congress won't change the law to his liking, he'd do it hisself.  not quite constitutional.  by NOT changing immigration law, congress DID act.

 

this executive order thing is nasty bit of extraconstitutional corruption.  if you think it's just peachy for obama to rewrite laws because the vile republicans don't care about illegals, just wait....

 

trump has a few more years to pack the courts with his type of judge.  another year and he'll be able to forum shop (pick a court or judge that trump approves of) to get a favorable ruling.  aaaand he's likely to get another one or two supreme court judges.  sweeeet!

 

so what's to stop trump from issuing an executive order banning gay marriage or abortion or equal rights for women?  trump can say.....since congress has again failed to act to uphold the sanctity of the divine natural order, he will right the wrong with an executive order.  it was okay when obama did it, right?

 

for now, there are enough obama and clinton dead-ender judges to prevent that.  but soon there will be enough judges willing to decide based on their alt-right "feelings."

 

how will you feel about constitutional restrictions on executive powers then?

Exactly, the wacked out people in the USA cheer illegal executive action to create laws that override existing laws yet when Trump who has full authority to cancel previous executive orders tries to then he is not allowed? Corruption at it's finest. I would love to see the type of immigration laws enforced in the USA as they do here in Thailand. But I guess only Asian countries are allowed to enforce their immigration laws.

[attrayant]

44 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

so what's to stop trump from issuing an executive order banning gay marriage or abortion or equal rights for women?  trump can say.....since congress has again failed to act to uphold the sanctity of the divine natural order, he will right the wrong with an executive order.  it was okay when obama did it, right?

 

That you think these things compare to the DACA executive order tells me only one thing: You apparently started drinking heavily first thing in the morning.

[ChouDoufu]

5 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That you think these things compare to the DACA executive order tells me only one thing: You apparently started drinking heavily first thing in the morning.

why would you say that?  of course they would compare, if enacted by executive order instead of through legislation.

 

what would stop trump from issuing any executive order he thought needful, especially as he is now busy filling the federal benches with like-minded judges, and with possibly two supreme vacancies upcoming.

 

or are you hoping the resistance will get him impeached?  hahaha!  good luck with that!  you think trump is bad, wait until you get an evangelical, fundamentalist, dispensationalist, rapture me pence in office!

[jackh]

On 8/4/2018 at 11:07 PM, attrayant said:

 

Using what justification?

My God! Are you that ill informed? DACA was illegal from the minute it was signed.

 

[bristolboy]

On 8/4/2018 at 10:32 PM, ChouDoufu said:

actually.....it is.  you gots your basic constitution with three branches.

 

legislative branch....legislates.  (means they writes the laws)

executive branch....executes.  (means they enforce the laws)

judicial branch....judiciates.  (and that means they interpret the laws)

 

pretty simple.  and here interpretation has two main purposes with regards to

legality:

1.  ensure that laws conform to the constitution.

2.  clarify unclear portions of conforming laws.

 

judges may strike down unconstitutional laws, and then congress may pass an amended version.  problem comes when judges decide based on "feelings."  

 

daca is not a law.  congress had already passed an immigration law.  obama (constitutional scholar! 5555!) decided if congress won't act, he would.  by that he meant, if congress won't change the law to his liking, he'd do it hisself.  not quite constitutional.  by NOT changing immigration law, congress DID act.

 

this executive order thing is nasty bit of extraconstitutional corruption.  if you think it's just peachy for obama to rewrite laws because the vile republicans don't care about illegals, just wait....

 

trump has a few more years to pack the courts with his type of judge.  another year and he'll be able to forum shop (pick a court or judge that trump approves of) to get a favorable ruling.  aaaand he's likely to get another one or two supreme court judges.  sweeeet!

 

so what's to stop trump from issuing an executive order banning gay marriage or abortion or equal rights for women?  trump can say.....since congress has again failed to act to uphold the sanctity of the divine natural order, he will right the wrong with an executive order.  it was okay when obama did it, right?

 

for now, there are enough obama and clinton dead-ender judges to prevent that.  but soon there will be enough judges willing to decide based on their alt-right "feelings."

 

how will you feel about constitutional restrictions on executive powers then?

You list only 2 reasons for judicial interpretation neither of which has to do with executive orders. Then you engage in a whole discussion about how the judicial branch deals with executive orders. Confused much?

[attrayant]

8 hours ago, jackh said:

DACA was illegal from the minute it was signed.

 

 

It has passed judicial review TWICE now.  That means your statement is false.

[ELVIS123456]

Trump's executive order will trump Obama's executive order, and the Supreme Court will agree - especially once Kavanaugh gets appointed in Oct.

Things are coming to a head nicely - just in time for the November mid-terms.

Dems think the people will vote for them because rtyhey agree with liberal/socialist policies- but I think the People will smash the Dems in both Houses.

Obama opened a can of worms by using the Executive Orders - Trump is using the worms to catch lots of fish.

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[simple1]

On 8/6/2018 at 10:54 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

Trump's executive order will trump Obama's executive order, and the Supreme Court will agree - especially once Kavanaugh gets appointed in Oct.

Things are coming to a head nicely - just in time for the November mid-terms.

Dems think the people will vote for them because rtyhey agree with liberal/socialist policies- but I think the People will smash the Dems in both Houses.

Obama opened a can of worms by using the Executive Orders - Trump is using the worms to catch lots of fish.

 

Obama issued a lost less EO's in comparison to other recent Presidents, even though Republicans blocked a number of legislation efforts. However trump is known for getting push back for a number of reasons for his EOs. i.e..

 

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution

[bushdoctor]

On 8/4/2018 at 2:27 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump and the Republicans have a majority in both houses!

 

Quit blaming the Democrats.

 

The way Congress is set up, a simple majority is not all that would be needed. It would require at least some Democratic support. 

[Credo]

15 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

The way Congress is set up, a simple majority is not all that would be needed. It would require at least some Democratic support. 

Then make sure the bill is written so that it is attractive to some democrats.   DACA has broad support among the populace of the US.