They are no different than a child living with a parent overseas. If we have no say in our immigration laws we are not a country. They and their parents were not invited here. It is time for them to obey our laws and go home.
4
An illegal executive exercise of power (e.g. choosing to selectively enforce the immigration laws on the books) cannot be overturned for failure to explain the invalidity of the initial action?
Did this judge just sleep through the separation of powers part of con law? A lack of action by Congress in a given area is not an invitation for the executive branch to just make it up as they please—remember when everyone was so upset at W for this same kind of chicanery?
Sorry to bear the bad news, but shining and perfect constitutional lawyer Barack Obama made a mistake. I know, ghastly thought. I’ll see you at the group session.
1
Everyone wishing to be knowledgeable about this issue should get familiar with the truly minimal requirements to be accepted for DACA: age, and age at time of illegal entry, involvement with any kind of work, involvement with any kind of school and, most importantly, a criminal record NO WORSE than a misdemeanor for which up to a year was spent in jail or up to three lesser misdemeanors with jail terms of no more than 90 days each.
Why would we ever make illegal "immigrants" legal with such a low bar?! Every DACA enrollee should be re-screened and only those who would pass muster as legal immigrants should be accepted. We should never accept an immigrant who came in illegally if we wouldn't accept them if they had applied legally. "Through no fault of their own" is hardly a criterion for legal immigrant status!
10
Lol it’s so easy to get arrested in this country that’s why
It would seem not one of the folks posting has read the decision, nor understands how the DACA program change was effected. It did not 'lapse,' it was rescinded. The program was originally implemented by rulemaking; the rescission of the rule, according to three courts that have now reviewed the agency action, was not sufficiently supported by a proper administrative record.
Judge Bates' recent ruling did not determine the substantive wisdom of DACA. It did not decide whether the executive branch has authority to discontinue the current policy of deferral of deportation actions against the affected class of immigrants. It carefully noted that the existing deferral policy does not confer rights on the affected immigrants, such as a path to citizenship. The DACA rules create a mechanism for deferring deportation proceedings for certain 'undocumented' immigrants. Period.
Bates found that a proper administrative record has not been made to support the rulemaking changes that were required to rescind the 'deferred action' policy previously in force. He did grant the Dept. of Homeland Security additional time to provide a proper record. He did, in the meantime, hold the rulemaking change in abeyance. He decided a number of procedural questions, such as the standing of the plaintiffs to challenge agency rulemaking affecting their status.
The opinion is 60 pages long and quite carefully crafted. You really cannot intelligently comment without reading and understanding it.
3
How can a program made illegally by Obama not be rescinded???
6
It had not been yet PROVEN in a court of law that DACA was created illegally. Until then, it is just your ( or someone's) opinion about its illegality.
That is what this case is all about.
2
Is all of this as idiotic as it seems? Our former president created this mess with an executive order because he couldn't get Congress to support it. We have apparently once again created a new "right" that can't be reversed by the same mechanism. To quote the great thespian Damon Wayans. "is everybody stupid around here?"
7
The judge asked to explain what’s unlawful in #DACA. Very simple: American laws don’t give preference to those breaking law over those abiding law. DACA explicitly excludes #LegalDreamers: those came as minor LEGALLY, and ONLY PROTECTS UNDOCUMENTED Dreamers. A girl who came to US as a child, has been living in US for 11 years, has achieved Doctor degree from a highly acclaimed US university is not protected by DACA just for one reason- her parents chose to bring her to US LEGALLY!
Not just unlawful, its un-American
5
An executive order put in place by one president can't be rescinded by the next? This is totalitarian rule by judges.
6
...or a lack of action by Congress.
1
No it is not, not at all. There is a law passed by Congress called APA (Administrative Procedures Act) that spells out how federal government bureaucracy should conduct its business. And one of the things it's spells out that the bureaucrats should act thoughtfully and with good reasoning, and should not reverse the actions by the previous bureaucrats simply because they have a different opinion as people build their lives and invest their money based on expectations of certain continuity of government actions.
If you build your house based on a zoning waiver, you don't want the next zoning commissioner to be able to simply revoke the waiver and order the demolition of your house, do you? The same logic applies to DACA, roughly. This is not really about the Dreamers, but about protecting ALL of us from arbitrary government actions.
3
These DACA young people are living amongst us through no fault of their own. They did not make the decision to cross the border. Now that they are grown and are as American as the rest of us, the solution to the "problem"appears to be their expulsion to lands where they would be foreigners. Immoral and unbelievable!
Let us place the blame for all this where it belongs; our elected representatives who are unable to pass sensible, enforceable immigration laws and secure our borders. Above all, blame all of us who elected them.
2
How is that any different than a child with parents who bring them overseas for work or study? Our reps don't give them amnesty because we don't want it and never did.
The lack of logic here is staggering. It's legal to administratively create a program or policy but it's illegal to stop it? No matter where you stand on the policy you can't square that circle.
6
Amusingly, someone comments here that Judge Bates is a “liberal judge” and an “activist.” Bates was appointed by George W. Bush. Prior to that, he was part of the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. Not a standard liberal-activist résumé.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Bates
The basis for Bates’ decision is simply that Attorney General Sessions’ memo terminating DACA was sloppy—like so much else produced by this administration. Sessions claimed that the Fifth Circuit’s decision about the DAPA injunction would invalidate DACA on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Bates pointed out that in fact the statute cited in the DAPA decision didn’t apply to DACA and the DAPA decision didn’t include a ruling on constitutionality. So Bates gave the administration 90 days to come up with actual grounds for terminating DACA.
The statute cited in the DAPA program required that Obama follow administrative law in ordering DAPA. He did not follow administrative law in establishing DACA, either.
Obama did not follow administrative law in establishing DACA, therefore it is illegal. It doesn't matter whether Obama's order would have been constitutional if he had followed the correct procedure, it still is illegal.
What is extremely telling about the actions of Obama was that he did not attempt to follow administrative law after DAPA was shut down by the federal courts, which does suggest that it is unconstitutional.
2
That's your opinion. I was explaining Judge Bates' opinion, which is carefully reasoned. (He points out that the statute cited in DAPA refers to parents, while DACA applies to children.) Bates may be right or he may be wrong, but people should at least try to understand what he wrote.
This is a joke. The previous president created a law, which he was legally not allowed to do (defined by the US constitution), then the new president undid the mess by letting the non-law law lapse and putting the ball in congress' court. Congress chose not to pass a law pertaining to DACA, literally showing that they do not want illegals to magically gain legal status because their parents hopped across the border. Then a federal judge overstepped his authority and made the non-law a law again... This is so messed up...
4
Maybe if we stopped turning broad swaths of Latin America and the Middle East into shooting galleries with our disgusting drug and/or foreign policies, there wouldn't be so many people trying to flee those regions and settle here.
2
This ruling shows we are still a country of law. President cannot arbitrarily decide and execute something. Lawful procedures must be complied for shutting any existing programs.
This is good to know.
3
Why is it they don't have to obey the law and the President does? This is some shady mess going on with these illegals. Every poor person cannot come to America and taxpayers are fed up with the scams illegals use and these politicians use and fall for.
3
So if Trump goes on an executive order spree enacting or doing whatever, is not it a good idea to be able to easily reverse them later on? Think about it.
Obama's DACA executive order is exactly that. NOT a law in stone.
6
What a business model. Stoke progressive fever dreams with breathless and inaccurate reporting on what the lower courts decide, bring them back to earth when the Supreme Court weighs in and issues a reverse (not even relevant in this case though, since no ruling was made), and then cover the crawl back through related lower court wins on other issues of obsession to the manically depressed left.
Where I come from, taking advantage of the mentally unstable and the excitable isn’t ethical. But the media isn’t my trade, and clicks and ad rev aren’t my goals. But seriously, at what point does consistently taking advantage of people who aren’t that resilient or stable cross the line into unethical behavior? Is the bottom line really all that matters? Do the writers there have so little respect for their readers? Why the need to needlessly spin them up so often? I get that it’s a news outlet, but this is reaching Fox level proportions.
4
When you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.
Thumps up and a big thumbs down to King Trump, or so he thinks he is King. Productive people who put more into the Economy than what they take from it, despite the stereotypes out there.
Immigration is contentious. People of good-will can have different, even wildly different, perspectives on this issue.
The proper place to solve this issue is in Congress through democratically enacted legislation.
The reason why we have not gotten it yet is because the two sides cannot find a compromise.
On one side we have people who want the law enforced- uniformly. This means some very sympathetic people are going to have to suffer consequences.
On the other side we have people who think the US can absorb hundreds of millions of people. They think sad stories negate the law. They think that their compassion and feelings obligate our entire society. They believe that poems, written on statues, are more important than laws and the democratic process.
The pro-illegal immigration groups want to seize power in this country- any way they can. This is a wedge for them- if they can legalize enough people they can get more political power and legalize even more. It is a cycle for them and the DACA 'kids' (many in their thirties) are an emotional power-play for them.
This isn't about helping people (we have plenty of citizens who need help). This is about taking power from current citizens and creating a new electorate. It is about flooding the country to dilute the power of certain constituencies.
12
This would have been relevant twenty years ago when it was time for Congress to act. We are almost twenty more years after that. If this were about "taking power from current citizens and creating a new electorate", then what have we been going for the last two hundred years?
President Trump should embrace this ruling.
He should immediately instruct the EPA, IRS/Treasury, and ATF to “prioritize” its prosecution of environmental, tax, and gun crimes, focusing only on the most significant ones and deferring all others. The deferral will be temporary, subject to periodic renewal by the president. Once a Democrat is back in the White House, however, she/he will then be precluded from actually choosing not to renew the deferral. In short, President Trump can in practical terms create a new law without Congressional approval. Even better, this law will not be able to be overturned except by Congress.
5
NYC has been dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into the waterways and did so during the entire Obama administrations. Obama, using his prosecutorial discretion, chose not to enforce the law, similar with his decision to not enforce immigration law. He waived the fines for NYC, comparable to granting work permits and government benefits to illegal aliens.
What would really be fun is to see the EPA enforce pollution laws in NYC, and see NY sue because not only are they not obligated to comply with immigration law, they are also not required to comply with federal environmental law.
1
Thanks to Judge Bates absurd and dangerous ruling, President Elizabeth Warren will have very limited options in the year 2021 when she tries to reverse Trump's crazy executive orders. Thanks for nothing, Judge.
9
This is why rule by fiat, even if they are called executive orders, is so dangerous. Laws should be made by the legislative branch, not the executive or judicial. If the legislature will not make the laws you like, change the legislature. We vote them in to make laws, let them do it.
5
Can’t see Warren as the arbitrary or capricious type.
Read the decision! It does nothing of the sort. Elizabeth Warren, unlike Donald Trump, is a lawyer; and she will be well aware that to effectively implement rulemaking changes like DACA rescission, she must first lay an adequate foundation for such changes in a well-developed administrative record.
Trump and his crew failed to do that; thus federal judges have consistently held that the attempt to rescind DACA, on a wing and a prayer, subject to Trump's whims, fails even minimal scrutiny under the Administrative Procedures Act.
You can't get things done when you have no clue how to get things done. That's Trump's problem ... not Judge Bates or any of the other Judges who have found his blundering attempts at governance wanting.
1
With the cold wind of impending vacancies on SCOTUS must come surges of Americans at the polls in November. Vote in the blue wave, everyone, to keep Trump inc. from contaminating the court and our future with toxic appointees.
10
California has the highest poverty rate in the United States, thanks largely to mass immigration, legal and illegal
5
Thanks. I will stick to voting RED
3
The article is fundamentally misleading. The judge did not make any final ruling; all he did is give the government 90 days to amend its response to the petition. Everything else he wrote is not binding. The article also fails to acknowledge that at least one other court has upheld the elimination of DACA. Quit cheerleading for positions you favor, and accurately report the news.
29
I read this article completely and I don't see your argument holding water.
The NYT does a good job. Faux News does not.
Thank you for proving my point. You read the article completely and were mislead. The key paragraph is the third one, not the first one. The judge said the government did not adequately justify its position, told it what the deficiencies were, and gave it 90 days to correct those deficiencies, which in all likelihood it will since he told them what to do. Once that is done, he will not rule as the first paragraph suggests. There is no final ruling reinstating DACA at this point.
1
I cant believe the vitriol of some of these comments. The fact is that "the American people" is not a zero sum game. We need these young people and many more as they are our future. Take care of your own children and grandchildren and make sure they get an excellent education as did the parents of the youth involved in DACA.
9
"Take care of your own children and grandchildren and make sure they get an excellent education as did the parents of the youth involved in DACA."
Your notion that American parents can learn from DACA parents is absolutely incorrect. American parents DO "take care of their own children and grandchildren". They do it by paying their income and social security taxes, using their real names instead of fake ones, they drive on this country's highways while licensed and insured - the sorts of things that DACA parents have been thumbing their noses at for decades. They aren't special. They have just been gaming the system.
9
What a weird statement. Are you actually suggesting that Americans should follow the example of people who show contempt for the law, find ways to exploit our social welfare and educational systems, and feel entitled to do so?
If people 'take care of their children' in the way you recommend, it would be giving them a very bad example and a very poor education indeed.
4
California has among the worst NAEP scores in the country, thanks to illegal immigrants and their children and the 'Latinization' of the state.
6
Here is a novel idea: before posting a comment, read the entire decision described in a very short and very incomplete summary in this NYT article. If you are unfamiliar with the APA, it might be a good idea to do a good bit of study of the cases cited in the Judge Bates' decision as well. A few years of law school and a decade or so of federal practice wouldn't hurt.
If you lack the legal background required to understand the Bates decision and the prior case law discussed therein, it's quite possible you should, how do we put this politely, put a sock in it.
And please, cutting and pasting from right-wing propaganda that purports to accurately state the law doesn't do it either.
10
Do we need any further evidence that liberal judges today are nothing more than activists in robes?
If Trump manages to do nothing else, let him succeed in appointing judges who actually respect law and precedent.
These activist judges have obviously decided to destroy democracy in order to save it.
17
Some judges might be actists, Judge Bates seelms to just be just upholding the APA here.
It is sad to read the latent racism and prejudice from some in the comments previously posted. These kids were brought in by their parents, these kids are culturally American in every sense of the word knowing no other country. Many were educated in our schools, and many excelled. A Human mind is a terrible thing to waste.
What Trump never addresses is that most "illegal" aliens came in with valid visas, through air, land or ships, and then overstayed. They have no way to accurately track those who first entered legally. Of course, prosecutions and deportations are geared mostly to the colored folks, crime or no crime...please understand, overstaying or coming here "illegally" is a civil offense, NOT a criminal offense.
8
They could have been as old as 15 when coming here. They are not Americans, period.
5
You are mistaken. The majority of illegal aliens present in the country entered illegally. Entering the country without passing through immigration is a criminal offense, not a civil offense.
Illegal aliens who enter legally and overstay their visas are guilty of a civil offense.
Please understand, most illegal aliens present in the country are guilty of a crime by virtue of having snuck in, in addition to their additional crimes of working off-the-books and evading taxes
3
What Bates is saying is that a rule can be implemented by executive order but may not be rescinded by executive order.
Where is logic in this, Mr. Bates?
15
The logic is clear: if you like a policy it cannot be rescinded and if you don't it can.
Trump could say he hopes the country has a great future and people would be calling for the country to collapse- just to oppose Trump.
3
I believe the logic is that the administration argued that the program was unlawful. Judge Bates is asking, "Show me the law that has been broken."
It may be helpful to distinguish between the illegality of the residents and the alleged illegality of the program designed to make them legal.
A totally one-sided story that begins with the photos and the video. Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Legal Aide Society, National Immigration Forum cited, but no one who opposes DACA because it provides work authorization and other affirmative benefits to illegal immigrants, and circumvented Congress.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that Ms. Jordan is writing her first immigration story, and never hear of journalism's first rule: give equal weight to both sides.
24
Is any judge gonna help spouses of legal immigrants waiting is decades long GC backlog? Trump admin planning to take away H4EAD.
I support immigration but this patchy political oneupmanship has to stop. There need to be some rules which everyone has to follow.
Currently, I get the impression that whoever gets here (legally or illegaly) can stay as long they form a sizebale vote bank. Both parties only use immigrants to fire up their bases, nobody really wants to help.
7
Obama's executive orders are now laws according to the courts. Partisan judicial activism lives! The once-esteemed judiciary has lowered itself into the gutter of cable news partisanship. This only makes the Wall that much more important. If we can't stop illegals from latching on once they cross the border, then we need to defend the border. This won't work for the Democrat open borders club, but it must be done. A $15bn wall in $16 trillion dollar economy to generate hundreds of billions of government expenditures isn't only smart, it's a smart investment. They can find the money for everything else, but not for the Wall. The establishment resistance to the Wall is no more than an attempt to spite Trump and American voters, while currying favor with the Latino vote. Tribalism much?
16
tribalism?
... what about TRULY FAIR
international trade policies,
JUST for a start?
Executive Orders can't be arbitrarily revoked by a new president's EOs. New presidents can properly craft new EOs to revoke or modify existing ones. If the country really doesn't like DACA, either Trump can craft a proper reversal or Congress can supersede it with new legislation - which hopefully would address the whole immigration situation and not just the relatively simple DACA case.
BTW, some facts: 1) At least 40% of current illegal immigrants came here legally and overstayed visas. No Wall is going to fix that. Probably, $billions would be better spent tracking visa holders than building a wall that won't really stop physical border-crossers, because, 2) Desperate people will just find another manner of entry, unless we're going to wall off the entire US shoreline and Canadian border, or find new ways to get past The Wall. 3) Democrats gave Trump up to $25 billion or so for his wall, twice if I'm not mistaken, but he nixed the deals. 4) Lots of Republicans don't like The Wall, too. 5) Yes, Trump won the presidency via the Electoral College during an election where almost half the eligible voters stayed home, but if you want to talk about what Americans want, every credible poll shows they're okay with DACA and with a path to citizenship for its participants - by a large majority.
And about partisan judicial activism: it's been here, otherwise political parties wouldn't be so eager to get picks for president on the basis of who they'll nominate for the Supreme Court!
1
As a liberal who supports permanent DACA protections, I still can't figure out the legal reasoning.
7
How can the Court mandate a program created with fixed conditions such as a maximum date of 2007 now has to be continued and expanded? Isn't the Court creating new law and further saying president Obama's policy can never be reversed by any future president? Are they saying all future children brought to the U.S. illegally are a protected class? Are they saying even Congress cannot repeal DACA? That's it's some new civil right? If so, what's the point of having elections?
I think this is Judicial overreach of the highest order.
15
If DACA is accepted, be prepared for an onslaught of millions more people who will come here illegally with their children. If it is denied, more will stay within their home countries. This issue is being VERY closely followed by those in Mexico and other countries. They are waiting for DACA to be green lighted.
Cementing DACA will encourage endless, unfettered immigration.
19
They need to go back to their countries and GET IN LINE, then maybe ask their parents why they put them in this illegal position.
16
This is their country.
And funny/sad that those so concerned about Legal Migration support a President who has employed thousands of illegals, and is married to an illegal.
I share sentiments ( surprisingly against the judge) expressed below.
Our constitution created this third branch of the government to ensure separation of powers between the first two - the Congress and the Executive.
It is to these two branches was given the power over public policy. The job of the third branch, judiciary, for the most part is to ensure this separation between the first two is maintained.
Nowhere in the constitution or over so many years of our republic was public policy the purview of the judiciary.
Not any more as it increasingly appears.
This ruling is just a blatant power grab by this branch.
Th. Jefferson lost many battles to the Chief Justice who was appointed by his then hated predecessor, John Adams.
After yet another loss, Mr. Jefferson is supposed to have remarked, "well, Mr. Marshall has ruled, now let him go enforce it."
Perhaps another Marshall moment has arrived.
We are a nation of laws as passed by the Congress and signed in by a POTUS - yet, we are becoming a country of fiats issued by an unelected judiciary.
Sooner or later, something is going to give - and for the worse.
Our current Chief Justice has famously called their job "calling balls and strikes."
The Chief may want to remind his inferiors of this rule and further instruct them not to send in plays.
Enough is enough of this lawless judiciary.
9
Regardless of what either Trump or the court says, the right thing to do is to make the DACA people citizens. After that, end the program, and if we want fewer immigrants, go after the companies that profit by exploiting the cheap labor of non-citizens. They are coming here because they want work, not welfare. Also, end the "genius" program that allows Slovenian "genius models"(?) to come here and bring their families through chain migration, and end the visa lottery.
3
Good news, everyone! We don't need Congress any more! The president can just roll out executive orders, and various judges will say whether they think they like the explanation given for each executive order! So it's all good!
13
For those of you who keep harping on DACA being Obama's executive order and not a law--good point, but do you know why Obama had to issue an order in the first place? He issued orders when he could not get Congress to talk with him about anything. Anything at all. Let alone compromise or the needs of this country or even to allow his chosen Supreme Court nominee to be heard or interviewed. He was isolated, vilified, and did what he could legally. But issuing executive orders is a tactic both sides can use, and Trump has been using it "liberally." His entire presidency has been about cancelling Obama's place in history, mostly by executive fiat. And granting pardons to anyone who might threaten his own historical place (!). Yeah, maybe the judge in this case misstepped. As did the Congress in denying a voice to this nation's president at the time. This ridiculous division has been worsening more or less since Nixon. The mighty white right will never forgive the rest of us (a majority) for that debacle.
4
Uh, tough. Just cuz you can't get congress to pass a law doesn't mean you can create a permanent EO.
BTW Dems controlled the House in 2010-2012, why didn't they push thru amnesty then?
2
This is a moral issue. The DACA participants have played by the rules. I know several who have participated in community projects, excelled in school, and are contributing to society bringing diversity and insight into the problem of immigration. For the most part, their parents came to the U.S. to escape persecution in their native countries (making them refugees), lured by industries promising opportunities in agriculture, construction and other industries that "make America great." The existing DACA participants should be allowed to stay and find a quick path to becoming "legal" citizens. They have earned it!
Congress must find and craft legislation if they wish to cancel the program going forward, but to suggest deportation for these folks, who have been doing exactly what was required is immoral and unjust.
6
You make very sweeping characterizations of a population of some 700,000 DACA participants. How many do you personally know? I’m guessing less than ten, maybe it’s more. Be that as it may, how do you extrapolate from your limited knowledge to such a wide group?
3
Thank goodness. What a waste it would be to kick out so many talented and hard-working young people who have known no other country. What is taking Congress so long in finding a more formal solution?
4
OK, DACA stays in place. I say give these DACA recipients citizenship, but after that no more concessions, reform immigration, end sanctuary cities, and build the Wall. Thank you.
6
The undocumented are organized by social service agencies set up and/ or largely funded by American philanthropies, such as the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation. The philanthropies are using tax-free money in an attempt to re-engineer our society. They have not asked us what we want. They have decided on their own what would be best, and are attempting to ram this down our throats.
The social service agencies organize the undocumented to protest for U.S. citizenship. They are not satisfied with citizenship for only DACA recipients. As soon as President Obama proclaimed the establishment of DACA, the agencies complained that DACA did not cover enough people. They wanted the parents of DACA eligible migrants to also be covered. The President buckled to their pressure, and tried to institute what he called DAPA, giving the parents the right to work here.
The media has carried numerous reports on how DACA recipients are displeased that DACA does not cover all of their relatives.
We are naive to think that offering citizenship to DACA recipients would solve the problem of illegal migration. The social service agencies know how to organize to get what they want.
4
Are you a parent? How effective has it been when you said to your child: "And this time I mean it, I really MEAN it"?
3
That is what democrats promised Reagan when he signed off on the last amnesty. Instead they gave us statuary cities. I am not going to fall for the "I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today" again.
I support finding a pathway for DACA recipients...only after democrats and republicans pass a mandatory eVerify with serious fines and jail time for violators.
Which is to include the cutting of all federal funding to any state that doesn't actively support such law, or provided government assistance to illegals...with those in government facing the same punishment as an employer that violates the law.
Only then will I push my congressman and the senators of my state to allow DACA recipients to legally stay. The ball is in the democrats court. There is no way republicans will support a separate and clean DACA bill without making it part of an overall immigration reform, that is if they want to be reelected.
Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me.
2
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a web page, dated 5/11/16, titled "Weekly earnings by educational attainment in first quarter 2016” which says "Full-time workers age 25 and older without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $494 in the first quarter of 2016. That compares with a median of $679 for high school graduates who never attended college and $782 for workers with some college or an associate degree. Median weekly earnings were $1,155 for workers with a bachelor's degree and $1,435 for workers with an advanced degree—a master’s, professional, or doctoral degree.”
This underlines the message that a person needs education beyond high school to make a decent living in today’s economy. Despite this, the Obama Administration made the educational criteria for DACA quite low. One need not have even graduated from high school or have a GED to qualify. All that is necessary is to be currently enrolled in school. The Obama Administration let those who were enrolled in an alternative elementary school or in an English as a Second Language Course apply. This criteria is too lax. It makes people who have not yet graduated from elementary school eligible for DACA. A high school diploma should be the bare minimum to qualify.
6
I cant believe this. DACA was an executive order that Obama started using just his power as president. That power is supposed to be weak and yet now this judge says DACA has the same force as a law passed by Congress would have?!
I'm really surprised by this outcome. Do executive orders now have the force of Congressional Law? Is it just that Obama executive orders have the force of law? What happened here?!
12
Seems to me like Congress isnt necessary at all to make laws that cant be undone. Maybe we should just have a dictator and the Supreme Court is all that you need now to make laws.
2
Surprise me! I am very old and have always believed that judges at all levels should uphold the law........changing any laws merits doing by our legislative branch, according to our constitution. But who pays attention to the constitution anymore? Just ask any member of our so-called Congress, mostly absent, for an interpretation of law. They are gone astray for some reason unknown to me and most Americans, and we are now under the control of a Dictator ruling with Tweets......Amazing, America !!!!
4
Also amazing: Trump's Presidential Library will likely fit into a briefcase, and the library itself (if there is one) will fit into Pruitt's phone booth.......
The wise thing to do is to be aware of putting oneself in either of the two extreme beliefs: immigrants take all the jobs from citizens so they must go back to their respective homelands OR open arms to all and sing love. Obama created the DACA program based on the belief that immigrant children should be considered low priorities for deportation. That seems like a judgment made on a well-balanced, thoughtful reasoning. Unless Trump can provide valid and reliable data, not an arbitrary and capricious reasoning, to explain his decision, a complete shutdown of the program won't be so easy despite his position of power.
1
Three federal judges have ruled against Trump and his racist executive order to undo DACA. Trump has put zero effort in getting legislation passed to address this but every effort to hurt 'brown colored" people.
1
It’s only a matter of time that the swamp of the Obama administration and some political hack judge, administrating from the bench, will be cleaned up. When this is overturned, NYT will have it on page 16. Congress, do your job, pass a law.
5
This judge should be removed from the bench. Obama had not right to create DACA and the recipients are still illegal aliens who should be deported. The lawsuit against DACA should go forward in Texas. DACA must be made illegal and the recipients return to their illegal alien status and deported.
Obama is the main criminal for instituting an executive order dealing with immigration which is the prerogative of Congress. Appreantly this just is too biased to understand the Constitution. THis is an an illegal action and SCOTUS MUST STRIKE IT DOWN.
9
It's always delightful to see the courts prevent Trump from turning the U.S. into a bigoted dictatorship. Hope this trend continues, and I hope that the Republicans lose power in Congress, so that Congress may also start to hamper Trump's idiotic policies.
2
It would help if NYT would explain to the anti-immigration commenters that DACA was not an "executive order," but based on an actual, detailed legal determination by the Dept of Homeland Security that it is consistent with existing law. Trumpy and his band of dimwits can't just say "It's not! It's not! It's not!" a thousand times and revoke it; they have to provide EVIDENCE that it's not consistent with existing law. They didn't, so they can't ... yet.
Is there no one in this administration who knows how the United States legal system works? It's hilarious how many of their attempted totalitarian revocations of earlier programs and protections are being wiped away by the courts, in no-brainer decisions. The last one just recently was Zinke's attempt to squash a limit on methane releases from hydrocarbon drilling on public lands, failing on the same basic rationale as all the others -- there are legal processes to follow; this is not the dictatorship you think it is.
2
But blockhead doesn't get it! Will it ever dawn on him? Well maybe, just maybe, when he is impeached.
1
Contrary to what most people seem to believe, Presidents do not have the liberty to change federal regulations at any time just because they want to. (For a perfect example, see Scott Pruitt's struggle in undoing environmental protections.)
That the executive branch can make rules with the force of law at all was decided by the Supreme Court in 1928, where it was deemed constitutional for the Congress to delegate its legislative power to the Executive branch as long as it provides "intelligible principles" to guide that power. This is why the FDA, EPA, IRS, FAA, etc., are allowed to make up rules based on the principles laid down by congress. These rules are subject to judicial review just as if Congress themselves had spelled them out. Executive orders are just a special case of such rules, and are subject to the same review.
I support DACA for this select specific group of "dreamers". My concern however is immigration laws in general, and does this set a precedent for illegal immigration going forward? I consider myself a progressive on many issues; but I also believe in rule of law and I think a country that doesn't have a strongly enforced clear immigration policy risks economic and environmental decimation. What is the point of citizenship if anyone can come in and stay and receive the same benefits? How can we afford to fund that? This morning I listened to a piece on NPR re the CA census and how CA is worried about under-representation and lower federal funding due to illegal immigrants not answering census. I don't understand CA's position on this? Why shouldn't federal funding be predicated on citizenship or at least being in the country legally?
12
The vast majority of Central Americans and Mexicans, who have come here, without documents, have no more than a grade school education. And, many have less.
Once they dropped out of primary school or graduated from it, they went to work. Some had children, in or outside of marriage. In their eyes, and in the eyes of their rural communities, they were already adults. It was as adults that they decided to follow others from their communities to the U.S., often for promised jobs.
They were not carried here, as toddlers, to grow up and attend school. They came, on their own initiative, to make money for themselves and their families.
As long as they say they arrived here before turning age 16, and they now enroll in an English as a Second Language class (that could lead to employment or to a job training program) or in an alternative educational program (even an alternative elementary program for adults), they will qualify for DACA.
DACA does not cover just those who were brought here as youngsters, and who have now graduated from high school. It covers anyone who came here before turning 16, regardless of their education, as long as they will now enroll in an ESL class or an alternative education program.
See the Department of Homeland Security’s page where it addresses frequently asked questions about DACA (question #33).
If allowed to remain here, virtually all of them will be heavily dependent on government subsidies for the rest of their lives.
19
This makes no sense whatsoever. This was an executive order from Obama that can be ended at any time. Its absolutely ridiculous.
46
DACA is not a law. It was an executive overreach by Obama. It has the force of whim, not law. It should never have existed. It can be ended by the next president. How this judge determined that an extra-legal policy must be continued is unfathomable. One more example of judicial branch lawmaking that must be slapped back.
43
The judge’s ruling is simply unbelievable. DACA was created by executive order and has no legitimacy in law yet this judge is treating it as a law he can rule on. Only the congress can write laws and commit resources and funding and that has not happened. President Trump is fully within his authority to eliminate the program and throw it back to congress, yet the judge sees fit to interfer in a decision he has no authority over. Long past time to end judicial activism.
39
So one more progressive judge makes a ruling adverse to the interests of this country ..nothing new here.
33
Bush 43: Widely known for his tendency to appoint progressive judges?!?!
1
Donald Trump is learning (is this possible?) that the judiciary is in place to check the excesses and arbitrary whims of a half-baked executive.
President Obama did not write a law protecting undocumented children; it was an executive order. And anyone with a functioning brain knows that the current awful president isn’t interested in Mexican children—he’s fixated—unhealthily—on all things Obama.
To the (W.-appointed) federal judge’s credit, he’s giving DImwit Donnie until midsummer to tighten up his (and Jefferson Davis Beauregard Sessions III) racist temper tantrums to see if they can possibly square with—you know—actual law, a concept so beyond this administration’s reckoning as to be absurd.
The genuine immigration problem has been shunned by Congress for so long that it’s now the province of the hard-right, a crown jewel in their enduring culture wars.
15
The rule of law will ultimately supersede the judge’s ruling. Obama choose to rule by edict not by law. What we’re seeing now is the reversal of the liberal policies that not all Americans supported.
6
Just because Stephen Miller has withdrawn his creepy face from our gaze does not mean his fingers are not stirring the racism in our culture. Suddenly you don't see him, Kirshner, Franklin Graham etc much. Why have they submerged?
They've replaced the hated 'swamp' with a cesspool of hate and division.
7
George Borjas, a Harvard economist, has found that undocumented workers decrease the wages of our lowest paid citizens (of all races) by 8%. His research also revealed that the rate of Black employment decreases as the number of undocumented workers increases.
The undocumented are negatively impacting our own citizens, of every race.
10
This is going to be a very interesting country when the white people become the minority, which will take place in less than 25 years. They might think this through before further tormenting the various races because there will be retribution. By the way, I'm white.
11
Why is the enforcement of a country's immigration laws always construed as being racist?
Mexico has no problem enforcing their immigration laws and deport thousands of Latinos annually. So are they racists?
2
Another reason why it will be difficult to pry the 30+ weapons each from frightened white male hands....
Wally Wolf, the people that are really going to have it tough are black Americans, many immigrants, refugees and undocumented immigrants don't like black Americans.
4
Hooray for basic common decency!
11
Democrats might want to be seen on the side of Americans, as well as potential Americans. Just a thought.
Should probably stop betting the house on a majority-minority America, too. Look at the data. The rise in White Hispanics (today's Irish/Italian 'non-white') means the much-vaunted decline in White (and Republican America) is a mirage. By 2049, with White Hispanics as 'white' that population will be 73%. Hardly a change from now.
Listen to Mark Lilla!
8
The implementation of DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Obama implemented it with his pen and phone, Trump can terminate it the decision will not be held up on appeal.
The "progressives" in powerful positions in government are determined to marginalize white voters.
20
I definitely agree with your statement, although Judge Bates is Republican. about whites being marginalized especially when their motivation is that they think that white's rule and hate is the basis of their actions.
Yes I agree , in that case, they should be checked.
I'd say they're doing a pretty good job of marginalizing themselves.
1
The self-appointed emperor/president is saying that the previous president acted beyond his station as "a non-white person". And of course this self-appointed emperor/president doesn't need an explanation.
6
Maybe, someday, we can start talking about ways to help citizens.
29
Since when does a Federal Judge get to make immigration policy...or any policy....in this country? Judge Bates is out of line, but in line with the villains of our democracy....far-left democrats and liberal judges. Illegal immigrant activists demand that Judge Bates use the MSM /liberal "chosen" word "undocumented" instead of "illegal." This offensive wording is incorrect as ALL humans are DOCUMENTED in their birth country. Any person who is here without papers is an "illegal alien." The majority of Americans, I believe, are OK with CURRENT DACA recipients receiving legitimacy, but I also believe that most Americans are drawing the line on opening up DACA to anybody. End DACA NOW for all illegal aliens, no matter where they come from and why.
25
At the earliest opportunity we must secure citizenship for these DACA recipients. Never again should we allow a vicious racist the oppportunity to throw them to the wolves to appease a bloodthirsty base.
This is a war for the heart of America, and the GOP and it’s allies, drifting to ever more extremes, have made abundantly clear they will lie, cheat and steal at almost any cost to secure victory.
Progressives must look to grant statehood Peurto Rico, Washington DC. Providing amnesty to peaceful and productive migrants, and stopping the programs of voter disempowerment that the GOP self-servingly push. We win by expanding democracy and the ideals of a aspiring immigrant nation. Progressives must seIze the mettle to do so, and understanding the brutality of the stakes if we do not.
6
I would add statehood for Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The US taxpayer is funding these countries and absorbing their excess population as well without the benefit of their spa e or natural resources. Add Mexico as well.....why should the US taxpayer not benefit from the land and resources of Mexico bit have to pay up via wage suppression and benefits for the excess Mexican population?
2
The Judges are saving Democracy and our Republic during this Administration. Thank you!
7
“Arbitrary and capricious” Perfectly describes Trump’s personality, as well as his domestic and his foreign policy thinking.
5
The Supremes will put the kibosh on this.
13
As well they should
1
CAN JUDGES BE REMOVED FOR INCOMPETENCE?
IMMIGRATION: REQUIRED READING FOR ALL
The DACA Program is an Obama Administration Executive Action and is not the law!
Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.
Deportation: Deportation refers to the official removal of an alien from the United States. The U.S. government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens admitted under the INA that commit an aggravated felony within the United States after being admitted. An alien's failure to register a change of address renders the alien deportable, unless the failure resulted from an excusable circumstance or mistake. If the government determines that a particular alien gained entry into the country through the use of a falsified document or otherwise fraudulent means, the government has the grounds to deport.
Congress (Legislative Branch) has complete authority over immigration. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration
21
I am neither a Trump lover or Trump hater, but i believe in the Constitution and Rule of law. The original executive order and mode of operation by the Obama administration was arbitrary but legal. Trump has the right to issue new executive orders that counter Obama's, so long as they are not arbitrary, racist, and capricious. Trump's administration justification is to protect the borders from illegal border entry. Secondly to prevent convicted criminals and thugs from entering and endangering Americans. Nothing wrong here.
24
Trump actions and statements in the past have alluded and show a bigoted contempt for people who are not white in species. That is why the administration is being told to justify there actions in 90 days. Stop following the fables of Fox News and READ about WHY this happening.
1
So, now, Presidential edicts are the law of the land.
This is disgusting to me.
Does that mean Trump Executive Orders are going to have the force of law in the future?
What a short-sighted precedent- one that will further embolden the right.
Trump won because of immigration. While I have sympathy for the DACA 'kids' the solution to this problem lies with the Legislative branch of our government- not by Presidential fiat.
The rule of law and its equal application is by far more important to this country than meeting the personal needs of foreigners here illegally- no matter how sympathetic they are.
30
Soon to be gone, thank Goodness.
2
Most Americans want DACA enrollees to stay, but are reluctant to grant another amnesty because they know open border advocates will work to thwart efforts to stop future illegal immigration. So, they want to extend citizenship or permanent legal resident status to DACA enrollees as part of a comprehensive legislative packages that discourages future illegal immigration.
The Trump administration wants to end DACA so it can use the promise of permanent amnesty for DACA enrollees as a “bargaining chip” in its push for enhanced border security and comprehensive immigration reform. This is a legitimate political objective. The vote on the packaged immigration legislation most Americans want would have taken place in March if federal judges had not issued injunctions blocking termination of the DACA program. The judges are playing politics. This is not a legitimate judiciary function.
11
Most Americans do not want the DACAs to stay and most would like to end anchor babies as well.
8
KR,
We must end the lunacy of Birthright Citizenship. Illegal "immigrants" and tourists can't legally work in this country. No matter how our immigration system evolves, no matter what party is in power, it is inconceivable that illegal "immigrants" or tourists will ever be able to legally work. How can it possibly make sense that kids born here are citizens if it is illegal for their own parents to work to support them?!
3
The moment we legalize the Dreamers there will be several more million people (child human traffickers) who will cry about how unfair everything is.
If we will accept almost a million illegal immigrants why not accept another couple million?
And if we accept those couple of million why not a few million more?
This is not going to end well for working class citizens in the United States.
35
Repeating nonsense does not transform it into sense. Repeating propaganda does not transform it into truth. Straw men do not transform into real boys, merely thru wishing very, very hard.
1
You mean the WHITE working class don't ya? The same working class that refuses to even educate themselves or expand beyond the horizon finding blame in everything NOT of Mayberry.
1
@Bill Lutz,
I care about all citizens- regardless of race.
I oppose all illegal immigration- regardless of race.
1
I remember when most liberals thought Bush was the worst President in American history and his judicial appointments were a threat to the foundations of American democracy. Now over the issue of illegal immigration those same liberals have reversed themselves and embraced the Bush legacy and appointments. Be honest, you don't care about the Constitution or the law but simply don't want American immigration policy to be tightened. Migrants fleeing violence in Central America should be applying for asylum in Mexico. They continue to the United States because in reality they are seeking economic opportunity. Opponents to Trumps efforts to tighten immigration enforcement simply support a continuation of the mass migration of Latin Americans, Asians, Eastern Europeans, and Africans coming into the United States. To the degree racism is involved, it is on both sides. If you really care about the Constitution and the rule of law, the United States should enforce our current immigration laws and all illegal immigrants should be deported in a timely and systematic manner.
19
I can see how a ruling that helps to maintain ones undocumented status is useful to those who are undocumented. Nothing like resolving matters. A fragmented society only stands to gain from one more class.
3
The argument that issues like DACA should be addressed by Congress is certainly correct. Also, going back at least to Reagan, presidents have used signing statements to point out parts of legislation they disagreed with. George W Bush holds the record I believe. Obviously, any items the president disagrees with are not going to be aggressively enforced. Between this and the increased use of executive orders the executive branch has been blurring the separation of powers. If a president disagrees with anything in a bill it should be sent back to Congress to fix and similarly executive orders should not be used to fix deficiencies in legislation. Of course bipartisanship in Congress died out not long after rotary phones and Congress is now effectively dysfunctional. Oh well...
2
My father's family immigrated here from Argentina in the 1950's. He put himself through two degrees at NYU working evenings as an electrician. His sister then came over and their kids are now a pediatrician, a history professor and a Fulbright scholar. My siblings are a teacher and an architect. The list goes on and on and on for all the immigrants in this great nation of immigrants. Let's never forget their contributions.
4
That is a good argument for more immigration.
Is your father's family part of the 56,000,000 foreign born citizens who entered the US legally and proceeded to gain citizenship by abiding by the laws of the US, or are they part of the millions who have entered the US illegally with no intention of becoming citizens? The issue is not about immigrants or their contributions to the US. After all, the Cosa Nostra are immigrants just like your father. The issue is the Rule of Law.
5
The beneficiaries of DACA deserve a path to citizenship. But then again, I have a heart and empathize more than just people of my socioeconomic class and race.
4
DACA is not a law. It wasn’t created by a presidential executive order or a proclamation. The DACA policy was established by a Department of Homeland Security memorandum. The department exercised its prosecutorial discretion by offering temporary immunity to childhood arrivals. President Obama described the policy as a “temporary stopgap measure.” The DACA memorandum was issued without consulting the federal judiciary. The federal judiciary did not require the Department of Homeland Security to justify its DACA memo; the notion that it must justify its recension is bizarre.
18
The court does not have jurisdiction to decide the "reasons" for removing the law, only the legal ability.
They even stated that the President failed to adequately explain why the program was unlawful. The president, simply doesnt NEED to explain anything to remove it as it is NOT a law.
A PRESIDENT implemented it without congress, and thus is not "law"ful as it was never a voted upon "LAW"!
Thus, its unlawful... literally.
So I really don't think the court has any jurisdiction on revoking a system that isnt a law. Its a presidential order, not a law.
15
Only the Judge's opinon on the law matters.
"..they (Congress) want to be able to do something and do it (immigration) right." said Trump on September 5, 2017.
"And really we have no choice. We have to be able to do something, and I think it's going to work out very well. And long-term it's going to be the right solution."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-he-has-love-drea...
So, yesterday was Judge John D. Bates CORRECT IN EXPLAINING the Trump administration's DACA phase-out as “arbitrary and capricious"?
Yes, that's "judge talk". It can be translated to "The President says 'We love the Dreamers'; then he holds them hostage to the passage of Congress' evolving immigration bill; and when The 'Beloved' Wall isn't funded, Trump proclaims "DACA is dead".
And responding yesterday, "the Justice Department said that it would “continue to vigorously defend” the legality of its decision". It can be translated to "All we have left is - the Democrats don't care."
2
There is a lot of confusion surrounding DACA. The participants are workers or students who came as children, are succeeding in our society, have paid a fee, passed a background check and are productive and contributing to our country. Mr. Trump tried to end the program to give himself thousands of hostages to hold for a ransom which included support for the ridiculous wall and an immigration program that would only allow the rich, like those who invest in his real estate companies, or who could compete with and undercut employees in high tech industries. He wanted to change America so we were no longer that beacon of hope. He wants to turn off the lamp beside the golden door!
5
There are rules of order in place in order to keep the government from spinning off its axis.
Although DACA was an EO issued 'theoretically' by one person (Obama signed the order but it was a policy crafted by countless others), it put in place a massive policy involving tens of thousands of DHS employees.
We elect a new president every four or eight years. If every new president had the unfettered ability to upend every EO issued by his/her predecessors on a whim then our massive bureaucracy would crash and burn.
What the courts are saying in these cases is not "you don't have the right to issue your own EO" it is rather "in order to make such a massive change to our operationally massive government you either need a crucial, crucial reason for doing so or a better plan moving forward".
In other words, you have the power to make whatever changes you wish ... but do it sensibly so our government can function.
That makes perfect sense.
5
I don't recall the courts ruling that Obama had "a crucial, crucial reason for" signing the DACA EO that made "such a massive change to our operationally massive government". In effect, Obama rewrote our immigration laws. He didn't consult the courts or the congress. He acted unilaterally. All Trump is trying to do is restore the balance of powers ordained in the Constitution. Congress legislates - not the Courts or the President.
10
No, actually it doesn't. Witness the overseas abortion funding bans or releases. When a Democrat is elected, he removes the ban on US funding of abortions overseas. When a Republican is elected he reinstates it. And it's been going back and forth like that for decades. And that's hardly the only policy.
I think the key point here is that the Courts are claiming that Trump has to justify his removal of Obama era policies to their satisfaction. That is a new, different and dangerous standard. Given that Trump will have an outsized impact on the federal judiciary, once Trump leaves office, do we really want his judges preventing a Democratic President from making policy changes?
I don't.
Elections have consequences. What was imposed by one man's choice can be removed by one man's choice. Most of the time when conservatives claim judges are acting as super-legislators I think they're acting in bad faith. But with these immigration issues it really does seem as if judges are seeking to impose their preferred policy outcomes above all else. That's not their purview.
4
The judicury does not rule the United States, while it has an important role it remains one of the tree branches of our government. DACA was an executive order made by a former President that has been revoked by the executive order of the current President. The current President is clearly within his rights as President to revoke an executive order. Instead one judge is now making nation law out of politics. It is past time for the Supreme Court to rein in the district courts.
16
Though less often, we have here an example of ignoring party politics and using the law to make decisions. This Judge is not partisan and our country is greater because of it. Perhaps Trump's judge appointments will come back to haunt him after all. We can hope.
3
This is going to be overturned eventually. It's absolutely nuts that individual circuits of the federal courts can dictate immigration de facto policy for the entire country. Obviously liberals are happy because they like the outcome, but the precedent is really problematic. Whether DACA itself is an unconstitutional overreach is a fair question. Whether it is the law of the land and has to be upheld by future administrations is not. The fact is, Obama passed what is in essence a law without congressional approval; may have been an ok bandaid given the situation of no action on the part of congress, but it clearly should not bind future administrations. Think the federal circuits have become even more political than usual, and before you go applauding this individual outcome, be advised that this same line of thinking will be applied in myriad ways you won't like down the road.
12
DACA was established by executive order. It is contrary to the laws established by Congress regulating immigration. Indeed, Congress considered passing a law embodying this program in 2013 and rejected it. Obama, in direct rejection of Congressional intent, established it by executive order anyways.
I see nothing in the Constitution that permits the Executive to nullify laws, or create laws Congress has not passed. In this case, Congress explicitly rejected creating such a law.
DACA, "childhood arrivals", are not undocumented immigrants. By Federal law, they are "illegal aliens." Indeed, even the term "arrival" is a euphemism; they didn't magically "arrive" but were brought here illegally. They are, perhaps, refugees, but that designation is normally reserved for those fleeing persecution and having no alternative. DACA members have homelands -- countries of citizenship -- and, in most cases, parents back there that they can return to.
I am not a Trump supporter. I am not anti-immigrant. I myself immigrated to the US, and became a proud citizen as soon as that was open to me. Not a refugee, fleeing oppression, but from a modern, stable, flourishing country.
I want to keep America in that latter category.
24
This is not a case of the courts substituting their judgment for that of the President. It's a case of the courts saying that the President did not follow the law when he took rights away from hundreds of thousands of people. The President can end DACA anytime he chooses - he just needs to follow the proper legal procedure. Courts insisting that the other branches of government follow the law are not "activist" courts. Those courts are doing what they are supposed to do - upholding the law, which is more important than ever with a President that has repeatedly made statement showing he thinks he is above the law.
11
DACA did not change the law. Anyone enrolled in it is still an illegal "immigrant". And DACA is not a law. Presidents in this country have no lawmaking power. It is an executive branch administrative policy, at best.
8
DACA may well be illegal. President Obama probably overstepped his authority in imposing “deferred action,” but, regardless, President Trump acted within his Presidential authority in his order instructing the government to enforce the law.
The timing of the judge’s ruling was propitious, as SCOTUS is today hearing arguments on the president’s travel ban. Both cases present a similar, important issue: do Federal district judges have the authority to overrule the president on a national level, as he carries out his duties. SCOTUS most likely has this authority, but District judges should not. There are over 670 District judges; if they are all allowed to issue rulings that apply to the entire country, the result will be anarchy.
SCOTUS should definitively rule on this issue, and the travel ban provides them the opportunity.
The merits of the case are separate from the important legal issues. Compassion suggests we should allow the DACA folks to remain. It was their parents that broke the law, and for many, this is the only country they know. But it’s far more complex than this. There are countless other children and young adults in the home countries who would like, and who deserve, to settle here. But their parents chose to obey our laws. These people are less visible to us, but also deserve compassion. We cannot accommodate all who wish to come, but a powerful argument can be made that we should act within our immigration laws to do the best we can.
16
Congress creates laws, not the White House. The courts interpret and enforce the laws. If someone is doing something illegal (a member of executive branch, for example, attempting to nullify existing laws or create new ones without going through the legislative branch), then the courts are doing their jobs by performing the necessary checks and balances against the other two branches. This is how our government was designed to function. Just because Trump wants to rule like a dictator and do whatever he wants, doesn't mean he can legally do so. There are checks and balances for a reason. Thank God (for the time being at least) they still work.
President Obama knew what he was doing and DACA has never been found illegal. That is because law enforcement is allowed some prosecutorial discretion. A police officer can decide to not ticket a speeder, and to go after a more reckless driver. President Obama chose to go after gangs and violent criminals. To change this Mr. Trump needed to follow the administrative procedures act, which he didn't. We need better people in the White House, Mr. Trump is destroying our country.
4
I dont know what are you talking about, saying illegal. Last president did it within his authority discussing it with people in congres and senate lawmakers. They are the law, not you. Another greedy american with dinosaur size ego.
"arbitrary and capricious because the department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”
Arbitrary capriciousness is the story of Donald's life. He would never understand why that's a negative. That's the only criteria he's ever used for decision making.
30
He wishes to be America’s first dictator and the republicans are pretty happy to allow him to set that precedent for them.
1
With no involvement from Congress, If DACA was initiated by executive order, how could it not be legal, to end it by executive order?
32
Of course. DACA was no more than executive lenity, that is a policy instituted not through a rule subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, but simply by executive fiat. I don't see how that locks in the policy so a successor executive cannot change it. But then again, I am not a result-oriented federal judge in a liberal district.
17
Because the Department of Homeland Security issued regulations to implement the executive order (as agencies generally do to implement executive orders). Eliminating those regulations is subject to greater scrutiny than the mere elimination of the original executive order, because those regulations are in fact subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
9
Jay65: You still have to have a viable reason to revoke or supersede, especially something so far reaching that affects 700,000 to perhaps 1.8 million people directly and millions more legal citizens indirectly. The judge said merely claiming "unlawful" is not enough - you have to prove that. Opponents had since 2012 to challenge legality in court. If the outcome is so obvious, why hasn't that been done? The USA is not a family business - you can't change things just because the head of the business doesn't like them.
Also, your claim that DACA is not subject to the APA is spurious. In fact, the rulings blocking Trump's revocation are based on DACA's adherence to the APA (and Trump's non-adherence). I think I'll take a judge's opinion on that above yours, until a judgement from a superior court rules otherwise.
2
Trump can keep issuing executive orders following the right legal and regulatory framework and procedures until he gets one through. I do not believe that an executive order issued by Obama that starts with "Deferred" cannot be overturned by any future president.
13
When the appeal is made to the Supreme Court, the decision will be that the Trump administration was correct to end DACA. You can't have foreigners just walk into your country, or violate the terms of their visas and expect to stay.
34
It won’t be heard by SCOTUS now that three federal courts agree that the administration is in the wrong.
1
So does that mean that all the colonialists who marched here hundreds of years ago, need to pack up and go? All the Europeans that emigrated here in the late 1800's without papers and/or passports need to go back? "You can't have foreigners just walk into your country…" really a fantastic statement. I wonder what the Native American's think of this fabulous piece of diatribe?
2
Thank you wise judges.
Thank you checks and balances.
20
No grounds stated for the termination of DACA? As I type this comment, Miller, Kelly, Nielsen, Sessions, and others on this Administration's top bench of immigration eliminators are secretly huddling to invent, ad hoc, some creative reasons to satisfy the federal court.
In this period of heightened interest in tracing one ancestral roots, wouldn't many of these Dreamers want to return "home" to reconnect with long lost relatives...and simply remain there? Or, then there's the passion to go back to their country of origin to assist in a spontaneous, Peace Corp-like humanitarian program, only permanently. The possibilities to undergird the goal of eventual deportation are endless. MAGA.
1
If they wanted to go back, don't you think they would of done so already?
Interesting. I’m sure some native Americans would like to see you repatriated to Europe. But only to MAGA...
Good news for the Harvard medical residents and other medical students across the country who can now complete their medical training and become doctors. We have a doctor shortage so this move by the judge will help put more clinicians across the country.
17
Only about 3% of all DACA grantees have graduated from college. The doctors you speak of make up an exceedingly exceedingly small proportion.
9
Good news for MS13 they can continue their murder and terrorizating of immigrant communities. I would bet the farm there are a magnitude of order more criminal illegal immigrants than there Harvard medical residents.
4
The MAGA crowd doesn’t understand that most of us and quite of few of them depend on foreign born doctors from all those “‘terrorist “ countries...
1
I just love the Trump team's reference to "the rule of law."
These the Wonderland people who assert that the law "means whatever I mean it to mean."
Looks like the courts don't agree.
There is something here about Article I, methinks. There was a reason the legislature came ahead of the executive in our constitutional structure.
18
GCM,
You must believe that DACA is a law. It is not. And presidents can't make law. DACA was put in place by Obama and Obama, as president, could not make any laws.
6
Maybe despite our loathsome leaders there is decency and efficacy in our system after all. It hasn't stopped our war crimes from occurring, jailing the poor for petty crime, surrendering the economy to Congressional bribery, ignoring the accelerating growth of poverty, or the increasing burden of education cost, but it may at least be a glowing ember of hope for the future.
9
DACA just makes sense. Children brought by their parents did not commit any crime. They did not enter the country illegally as they were brought here through no choice of their own. The courts must do their jobs and stand up for the rights of these people and the legislators need to do their job by fixing the laws that govern immigration. Congrats to the courts on this one.
21
Immigrating to the United States is not a crime, even unauthorized overstays and unauthorized permanent immigration. No country can take every person who wishes to enter, but when an ugly mob of ignorant racists is incited to revile brown-skinned immigrants, our country suffers. We need immigrants to perform all manner of work that our native-born people are unwilling to perform as welel as highly skilled work that foreigners are much better trained to undertake (e.g., work in maths and sciences at our universities and hospitals).
The United States was built by successive waves of immigrants. Some of their descendants are insufferable dolts who don't understand their own history.
1
Mike,
Boy we're getting strict about who we admit as an immigrant! Any old warm body, brought here by someone, is worthy?
2
Illegally entering the US is a criminal offense. Overstaying a visa is a civil defense, and carries a penalty of deportation. Falsifying documentation to live or work here is a criminal offense.
Saying illegal immigration is not a crime is correct only that it is not a criminal offense. It is, however, illegal.
1
The ability to accuse Democrats of favoring immigrants over Americans is more valuable to Trump and his Republicans than any solution to the DACA "problem" could be. Keeping the controversy alive in the courts is good for them - They can act tough, because the base loves it, and the courts keep them from having to deliver, which everyone knows would be a disaster. Why would they want to resolve this before the 2020 election? What possible resolution could be more to their benefit than the current situation?
17
This shouldn't even be an issue. These children, brought here as children are Americans In culture, language and in residence. They should be recognized as American citizens immediately and without conditions.
28
They are not Americans. They are foreign nationals and pretty pushy ones at that. If we grant them citizenship more and more people will enter illegally until this country is indistinguishable from their "unpleasant" homelands. No thanks.
5
@Jgrau, But the problem is that they are NOT American citizens nor should they be rewarded with citizenship just because their parents smuggled them over the border.
2
DACA is an acronym which encourages an objective debate about immigration. The video puts a human face on that debate. I look at that video and I see my fellow Americans.
12
The ability of the president to use the Dreamers as a bargaining chip or “hostages” in order to get his wall has failed. The Democrats in an attempt to keep the Dreamers here, gave the president what he wanted, a useless wall. But he wanted more and the deal fell apart. Mr. Trump has never wanted to keep the Dreamers, as his base is adamantly opposed to these kids staying here. What should be done by congress is to let them stay here and give them a five year pathway to citizenship. These kids are smart, productive and want to be Americans, so what is the problem. They just happen to be brown, and that’s not a color that the president likes. The republicans have lost the Hispanic vote for a generation if not longer because of positions like this that this administration has taken and continues to take.
10
So far the debate is heated for DACA and against DACA but nowhere is there intelligence being employed to address the long term prospects of the existing Dreamers or stem the inflow of new undocumented. The program has merit protecting children of illegals from deportation to countries where they have no roots. However, it doesn't provide limits to how often they can renew or firm directive for dreamers to apply for citizenship by certain age. Essentially, if left as is, dreamers can renew every 2 years for the rest of their lives. There are limits for collecting unemployment so why not have limits on renewing DACA safety net. Potentially, set the limit at age 30 and if one can't complete the citizenship hurdle by then they get relocated. And it's up to them to figure out who's going to watch their American born kids or take them with.
3
This title is misleading, as the judge’s action is stayed for 90 days to provide the administration time to respond. I believe it’s likely the administration will respond in some manner, and there is still a high probability that DACA will end or just continue to go back and forth. It’s a playing card in the overall immigration debate that will be played at some point to gain other immigration restrictions. Personally, I look askance at companies that support illegal immigration.
7
Trump said he was in favor of helping the Dreamers. That was before he was against helping them. Trump doesn't know what he thinks from one day to the next. That makes many of his pronouncements empty and self-contradictory. No wonder judges want to hear some actual reasoning for the president's executive orders.
14
It is really an interesting precedent that a judge can order the current President to keep the previous President's executive orders.
I wonder if we will will still have this "rule" past 2020 or 2024.
I am betting not.
Presidents reverse their predecessor's policies all the time. As long as the administrative "i's" are dotted and "t's" are crossed it's really not the judge's call as to whether such decisions are good policy or not. I didn't and won't vote for Trump but it's not hard to see that stuff like this is part of why he was elected. It doesn't matter if the judge doesn't share Trump's aversion to DACA. The only question is does a President have the right to cancel his predecessor's executive order/cabinet decision. The answer is yes.
45
Lilo: You say "Presidents reverse their predecessor's policies all the time. As long as the administrative "i's" are dotted and "t's" are crossed it's really not the judge's call..."
Ahh, there's the rub. The judge is saying the i's and t's are not dotted and crossed. You just made a great argument in favor of this decision. Let Trump dot and cross, then his order will be fine. Until then, it's unlawful.
7
It has nothing to do with 'being allowed to reverse policies" or "ordering current presidents" to do anything. It's a question of whether it can be legally reversed under the guise of it having been 'illegal' with no factual evidence to back it up. I, for one, am happy to see the justice system tell this administration to go stick it unless they can actual provide Americans with a factual basis for their seemingly-random assertions.
5
Lilo,
And all a president needs as justification for reversing a previous president's executive order is to wake up one morning, scratch, wipe sleep out of eyes and mutter "I don't wanna anymore".
4
Usurpation of congress by executive degree and judges. I guess this is a good thing since congress seems useless in anything accept getting themselves elected. However no matter how feel about DACA there will come a day when this same scenario plays out and you don't like the results. While this will go to Scotus it still is bad policy.
22
The courts have decided that foreigners who enter our country illegally have more rights that citizens.
It has been decided: all who enter may stay. Anyone who has a problem with that can eat dirt.
Elections don't matter. Voter preferences don't matter. Presidents can make long-term policy based on whim- and those policies cannot be changed even if elections show they are not popular.
In another twenty years the US will be a third-world nation where life is cheap and a prosperous future is out-of-reach.
But, while we struggle to feed our families, our hearts will be filled with warm feelings of self-satisfaction for helping the world. Our children will be hungry and have no future but, at least, we can all be hopeless together- in multicultural bliss.
48
I wonder where your ancestors immigrated to the USA from and how the Native Americans whose lives and cultures were destroyed by European immigration to the US felt about your relatives' arrivals.
2
Like Canada?
1
Will: this is not the fault of DACA children. You want something real to blame: blame big companies for sending jobs overseas where there are lax environmental laws and labor that gets paid $1 an hour. The parents of these children come here to find a better life.
1
Was there ever a definitive ruling on the legal challenges to whether or not Obama had the authority to enact DACA without legislative action by Congress? If he did not have such authority, the program would be invalid and there would be no standing to insist on its continuance. If it were found that he had the authority, why wouldn't there be comparable executive authority to end the program as well? Started on a whim without statutory basis, ended on one?
10
This article doesn't give much insight into the legal bases for the judge's decision, which is unfortunate. Taking a look at the decision, I see there's a law called the "Administrative Procedures Act", which evidently requires that procedural changes by regulatory agencies be fair and reasonable, and this is the law upon which the judge rests his decision. Good for him. Our country has invested millions or billions of dollars in the education of Dreamers. It is breathtakingly stupid to want to throw them out.
76
There is no statute or federal regulation underlying DACA. That's part of the issue. It's unclear why the APA would apply if there ARE no regulations or statutes involved.
6
Those billions of dollars in educational investment could have gone towards providing a better future to millions of poor, and struggling, citizen children.
But they are citizens- unworthy of our support or concern. 7 billion foreigners need to take priority.
12
We have plenty of money to invest in the kids you describe. We just don’t chose to use it in that way. We seem to be more interested in giving tax breaks to people who don’t need them and investing in a war machine at the Pentagon.
4
The DACA isn’t a law. It’s an executive order. We have one person in Obama making what now looks like a law. And now we have one person in a judge that says the law can’t be changed. It’s like two people running the country. Why have congress?
65
Jim, the law hasn't changed because only Congress can do that. But the administration has the right to prioritize law enforcement resources. DACA is a set of enforcement guidelines, just like how your local police do not pull over and ticket every traffic infraction they see.
8
That would be three judges (not just one) who say the law can't be changed for the reasons the president has stated.
Why have Congress? Ask Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They have refused to deal with this issue.
13
Because Congress acted in 1986 on immigration and it should have acted again in the late nineties. This issue has been politicized to the point of paralysis. We have been reduced to executive actions and injunctions. It's on all of us to get Congress to move on this. Meanwhile, we are missing billions in tax receipts, growth in GDP, and we are continuing a contrived and wasteful "us & them" narrative.
11
I am so glad to read this article and still mad
at the Democrats for using DACCA for their
own propaganda, I mean the corporate
Democrats, not the true progressive
ones who will not take big donor bucks
and do their bidding. In spite of the
corrupt Democrats not standing up
for DACCA when they had the leverage,
We have Judge Bates and the other
judicial figures not letting trump over
ride the rule of law in this country.
6
Once again, this president who would be king is put back in his place by the rule of law, and by a Republican judge, no less. His own waffling on loving, then later dismissing the Dreamers has come back to hurt his agenda and disappoint his base. His lame use of the term "unlawful" was another coded message to keep brown immigrants from coming to America.
This ruling is strike three against the president. He has no other reason for wanting to end the DACA program other than to roll back another of his predecessor's policies.
69
He likes to destroy people's lives, especially people of other nationalities with skin pigment.
1
Perhaps the judge should read the Constitution. The legality is simple: immigration is a legislative function, and DACA is an example of a power hungry despot usurping Congress' legislative role because Congress would not do what he wanted.
37
Perhaps you should read the Constitution, Everett. The President has the right to manage operations of the federal government via executive order carrying the weight of law including prosecutorial discretion. If the Republicans in the Congress had done their jobs instead playing political games it wouldn't have been necessary for President Obama to issue the order.
4
Everett: by a power hungry despot, I assume you mean Obama, who usurped the power of congress in issuing DACA..
2
The only despot we've seen in the White House in the modern era is the one currently occupying it.
3
Thank God for our judicial branch of government.
21
ICE has already reportedly detained Dreamers. In fact, we see some kind of outrageous behvior on the part of ICE in the news every week.
Does anyone know if ICE has an Inspector General watching them? I applaud the judge's decision, but I question whether ICE will change their behavior toward those people who have grown up here, been educated here and know no pother country.
ICE has terrorized many people across the country for spite and yes, acted like Trump himself, capricious arbitrary and cruel. Racists must never run our immigration naturalization system.
23
Yes I know it's horrible that ICE is actually doing its job of identifying, detaining and removing foreign nationals who are marching around waving flags, making threats and claiming that this country is theirs. My heart bleeds.
3
Don't want to be apprehended by ICE? Then simply don't enter our country and stay illegally. Especially if you are a criminal felon who is illegally here. We don't need or want them.
2
Where were all the Federal Judges when DACA was initiated? I do not remember them offering opinions in that case.
29
It has to be brought to a court. Republican governors were constantly bring suits against President Obama.
2
rexl: "Where were all the Federal Judges when DACA was initiated? I do not remember them offering opinions in that case."
What case? No viable challenge in the courts to DACA as a legal executive order was mounted, even though opponents had since 2012 to do so. A viable challenge to Trump's "trumped up" EO was mounted, and easily upheld. Congress was controlled by Republicans since 2010; where was the legislation to supersede DACA and finally put some stability and common sense back into our immigration policies and operations? Obama saw a mess and tried to make some sense out of a piece of it, since that's all he could do by EO. He asked Congress to do more. Or SOMETHING. They did NOTHING. Sadly, even with a Republican president, they've done NOTHING.
4
Were they asked to?
1
Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on the adminstration's decision to terminate the DACA program, "(IT) was based on the “virtually unexplained” grounds that the program was “unlawful.”
Trump's decision to eliminate the DACA program is based on his xenophobic view and to offer some talking points to rile up his base.
20
Virtually unexplained? There were numerous lawsuits explaining. It is contested whether the President could create an immigration benefit without Congress enacting legislation. Many have asserted that there was no legal authority for the creation of the program.
5
Good to know that all Executive Orders being signed by Trump cannot be rescinded by a future president.
33
This case certainly doesn't imply that a future president cannot rescind any of Trump's orders as long as he goes about it properly. He just can't use an anti-Muslim undergraduate term paper by Steve Miller as his basis.
4
Except with cause.
2
I'm not sure this sets that precedent. If Trump signed an Exec Order that a future president/administration was able to *prove* was harmful to the US, then it could be rescinded. The takeaway here is that the Trump administration has not been able to *prove* that DACA is in any way harming the US.
2
Thank God for Federal judges!
18
I have great sympathy and support for DACA recipeints.
That being said, the program was founded via an executive order.
This ruling sets a precedent that an executive order by a previous president cannot be overturned unless it is found illegal.
It sets a precedent that judges decide immigration policy.
This is dangerous stuff.
62
Think of it as contract law. The nation, via president, made a contract with Dreamers that cannot be pulled without cause. Using them as a bargaining chip to get a wall built is not a just cause.
7
Look, DACA is not *immigration policy*; it's about how to enforce or implement the law -- in this case, to make deportations of people brought here illegally when they were children a low priority. The criteria the judge set for was a legitimate rationale or explanation for ending the program. That doesn't necessarily mean that the order has to have been illegal. Obviously the Trump Administration has no reasonable explanation -- they couldn't even convince a Republican-appointed judge. So you're wrong about both the program and the ramifications of the judge's decision.
8
This is the opposite of "dangerous stuff." It is nothing more than holding the president to a minimum standard, the same standard that prior presidents have met in all of their valid executive orders. If we were to give Trump's entirely pretextual executive order a pass simply because it issues from the throne of Dear Leader, then we'd be in "dangerous stuff."
4
The reality, which Trump's supporters will never recognize, is that the administration's position that the program was unlawful was "virtually unexplained".
As a ruling, it is completely reflective of the chaotic, inexperienced sycophants that are running the show. These people forget time and time again, that they're running a country with laws based on the Constitution, not a reality show that's selling advertising.
48
The DACA of which you speak of as law was only put in place by Executive Order it was bypassed by Congress. Which means it can be overturned no? It's not set in stone.
6
It is not set in stone, correct. But as explained above, to end it requires justifiable cause, not the capricious whim of a manchild who would be king if he could.
Apparently the administration has been unable to explain its position on the legality of DACA in court since the stay is still in place in at least one other jurisdiction. The trump administration's attempt to eliminate DACA, like so much else it has done, is arbitrary and capricious. Once put in place by Obama, dreamers had the right to rely on it. Republicans in Congress have been equally stupid about it. Thank goodness the judicial branch is still limping along. How long that will last given trump's determination to appoint bad judges is anyone's guess.
71
It's not arbitrary/capricious. It is deliberately aimed at dividing Americans against each other, using fear of darker people to rouse white resentment.
I agree with others who say thanks to the founding fathers for a strong judicial branch, and thanks to the many fair judges who wield that power.
4
Can you explain what other Obama era policies are hereby prevented from elimination of modification by Trump?
And why do we bother to have elections if Presidential executive orders can never be changed? DACA itself was arbitrary and capricious, as President Obama said many times before he changed his mind.
What is created by executive order can be destroyed by executive order.
9
Do you know what the words arbitrary and capricious mean? Trumps actions were neither. Eliminating DACA in a two year phase out is systematic. Ending DACA and enforcing the written law of the land is not arbitrary.
1
At least, we have one functional branch of the Government.
100
The reason to cancel it?
To have later as leverage for “the wall” and any other thing Miller/Trump wants
33
And it's already worked, given that Schumer was quick to feed the troll by offering the bigotry monument in exchange for DACA. The troll being a troll, he refused the deal anyway.
Needed a scapegoat given his party's majority, after all.
4
Who rules here? The President or the Courts?
12
The President and the legislative branches.
Unless they do something illegal, in which case the Judicial branch will overrule them.
That's why the Trump administration is having so many problems, you can't implement illegal policies, if Trump was a bit brighter and listened to qualified advice, he wouldn't look so stupid in front of the entire world.
41
The former President, of course...the sane one.
11
It's called checks and balances.
19
Thank heavens for another Republican judge pointing out that Trump’s decision to phase out DACA was “arbitrary and capricious,” which describes much of what this joke of a president is doing in the White House. We need more judges to keep reminding this buffoon that we are a nation of laws, laws that apply to him as well as the rest of us.
123
That's what we discovered here in Canada, after former conservative PM Harper appointed his choice of conservatives to our Supreme Court. Good judges put the law and justice first.
To the surprise of many (not me), those who love the law so much that they study it and pledge to uphold it (not to mention, understand it SO much better than politicians), are not about to throw away their reputations by letting political considerations sway their legal reasoning.
You can't obey the law and play funky to an ignorant nutcase like Trump.
That's why the quality of his legal representation is, shall we say, wanting.
Good to see that one branch of our government seems to be doing its work.
38
THIS is the essence of our Constitution! All refugees MOST be allowed a quicker process to citizenship, and the Dreamers have been vetted so much they should be handed citizenship. Contrary to Trump, the vast majority of refugees are not rapists, killers. The represent the same process as the vast majority of our forefathers did, paid their dues and gained citizenship. The current rethoric is useless, and only causes unnecessary strive, and infighting among ourselves. The “funny” part of all this is the people who constantly bicker over this would drop it in an instant in times of disaster, and come together to support each other regardless of color of skin, language barrier, or handicap. Why? Because we’re ALL Americans.
54
Beautifully expressed. I especially agree that those who have been vetted extensively and shown that they contribute to our country should be given citizenship immediately.
Because of inaction and incompetance by congress, we have a broken immigration system, which has forced or allowed many foreigners to live here under uncertain conditions for years. While we're waiting for the system to be fixed, let's look around and see which of these people have PROVEN their worth by their actions--it's a much more accurate method of assessing them than new "in-line" immigrants get. If they've been here and contributed, vet them again if necessary, and then give them a green card. It doesn't matter if they were admitted as refugees, temporary protected status people (Nepalese, Haitians, Sudanese, etc.), or asylum seekers. And DACA kids, already vetted and contributing, should get citizenship immediately.
2
The minute we start passing out citizenship to anyone with enough courage to break our laws the millions we see today will turn into tens of millions.
We do not have endless resources to absorb the worlds excess population. I refuse to trade the future prosperity of my family because of 'the essence of our Constitution'- which is about the most silly, meaningless, phrase I have ever head.
7
The first sentence is wrong. The rest is 110% correct
I believe that this court, led by a Republican appointed judge, is sending a very tough rebuke to Trump.
Let Trump swallow this;
"Judge Bates, who was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2001, described the Trump administration’s decision to phase out DACA as “arbitrary and capricious because the department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”
Donald, the sooner you are out of the office the better America will be for the future of millions of Americans. I am 3rd generation American. Our great grandparents came here penniless, speaking little English and with only the clothes on their backs. From the 2nd generation forward our family members have become professional, educated and successful citizens. The generations that followed served in the 1st and 2nd World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. They attended and graduated from American University, The University of PA, Harvard, Temple, The Beasley School of Law, Penn State, Towson, Berkley, Boston and Arizona State universities. They are teachers, chemists, lawyers, speech pathologist, dentists and communication and computer specialists. They worked for it.
Immigration is the backbone and foundation of America.
I am extremely pleased and proud of this court and this judge's ruling. God bless our immigrant heritage. Let it continue for many more generations.
210
Jay, you said it all. I could not agree with you more. I am reading this news (and your comment) with tears in my eyes. May Lady Liberty continue to hold her torch high and welcome those who come to our shores seeking freedom from poverty, despair and persecution.
4