DACA program should be fully restarted, federal judge rules

[jg121783 3,908]

It's real simple. One president signed an illegal EO and the next president got rid of it. Just another judge trying to legislate from the bench that will have their ruling overturned by a higher court.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

19 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

I'm not sure what to think about this website overall (didn't look beyond the piece below), but we're required to supply links to quoted pieces, so here:

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/06/04/the-modern-civil-war-is-being-fought-without-guns-so-far/

 

A non-VJ pal sent this to me.

 

The piece in the link talks about other things, too, but a couple of paragraphs a bit past the middle precisely deal with the topic of this thread.  I can't disagree with the idea of a double standard.

That was a really good thought provoking read. Thank you for that. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

That was a really good thought provoking read. Thank you for that. 

I just read it . Spot on

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I just read it . Spot on

Much like your positioning of periods, I'm sure😀

[Ironclad43 131]

Trump does not need to provide a legal basis to end DACA just like Obama didn't have to provide legal basis to start it. Executive Orders/Actions have legal limitations and DACA legally expired long ago. Trump pleaded with the Democrats to make it law and improve border security at the same time, but there was no payoff from Amnesty if Trump also got what he wanted. Their voting base would cease to increase due to immigration (legal and illegal) and they would have to put effort into winning elections instead of relying on demographics.

 

Ending DV, chain migration, building the wall, the entry-exit system, are all good things that every other country is exercising and enforcing. (Mexico included)

 

I don't see why the US can't have border security.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

19 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

Trump does not need to provide a legal basis to end DACA just like Obama didn't have to provide legal basis to start it. Executive Orders/Actions have legal limitations and DACA legally expired long ago. Trump pleaded with the Democrats to make it law and improve border security at the same time, but there was no payoff from Amnesty if Trump also got what he wanted. Their voting base would cease to increase due to immigration (legal and illegal) and they would have to put effort into winning elections instead of relying on demographics.

 

Ending DV, chain migration, building the wall, the entry-exit system, are all good things that every other country is exercising and enforcing. (Mexico included)

 

I don't see why the US can't have border security.

Multiple judges have said that Trump needs a legal basis, though.

So I guess your word and against a sitting judge's. 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

16 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Multiple judges have said that Trump needs a legal basis, though.

So I guess your word and against a sitting judge's. 

 

Bah... So I guess its your word versus a sitting judge's. 

[Ironclad43 131]

Judicial review of executive orders is only limited to the extent of whether or not they're constitutional or are against established statutes. It is constitutional to both have DACA, as the President is the Chief Law Enforcer, he can choose to defer action on certain laws being enforced, like Obama did, and it is also constitutional to end DACA, as Trump chooses to stop deferring action against a certain class of illegal aliens. 

 

So far no judge has cited a single legal reason for DACA to stay, only that Trump's "intentions" are bad, or that he posted racist things on Twitter (during the 2017 rulings) and right now they're saying that Kristjen Nielsen didn't give valid enough reasons to rescind the programme. This will go to SCOTUS and unlike in 2016, there will be no deadlock. 5-4 will rule DACA ended when it was supposed to end, or they will rule it illegal to begin with. 

 

You do not get to keep the proceeds of your parents' crimes, be that a bank robbery or illegal entry into the US. The only action that needs to be "deferred" is any consequences of that illegal entry pertaining to seeking re-entry, and that's being generous.

 

[Dashinka 23,320]

1 hour ago, Ironclad43 said:

Judicial review of executive orders is only limited to the extent of whether or not they're constitutional or are against established statutes. It is constitutional to both have DACA, as the President is the Chief Law Enforcer, he can choose to defer action on certain laws being enforced, like Obama did, and it is also constitutional to end DACA, as Trump chooses to stop deferring action against a certain class of illegal aliens. 

 

So far no judge has cited a single legal reason for DACA to stay, only that Trump's "intentions" are bad, or that he posted racist things on Twitter (during the 2017 rulings) and right now they're saying that Kristjen Nielsen didn't give valid enough reasons to rescind the programme. This will go to SCOTUS and unlike in 2016, there will be no deadlock. 5-4 will rule DACA ended when it was supposed to end, or they will rule it illegal to begin with. 

 

You do not get to keep the proceeds of your parents' crimes, be that a bank robbery or illegal entry into the US. The only action that needs to be "deferred" is any consequences of that illegal entry pertaining to seeking re-entry, and that's being generous.

 

This is why I asked the question earlier about the judge's knowledge of the Constitution?  It seems clear the judge has some political activist bias, but I guess that is for SCOTUS to sort out.  Good thing Trump was elected when it comes to SCOTUS.

[Chris Duffy 1,256]

2 hours ago, Ironclad43 said:

 

I don't see why the US can't have border security.

Seems so simple doesn't it?

 

We can't even get the police to arrest or even question an illegal alien in Texas regarding their immigration status.  And I suspect this is the same all over the USA.

 

 

[Ironclad43 131]

That's absolutely appalling. Here in Bulgaria if you do not have valid photo ID (which every citizen is required by law to have past age 14) you can get detained indefinitely until your identity is established, let alone legal status. 

 

We always see news about how the US is becoming a police state, but you can't get questioned about your legal status or required to have photo ID at all times.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

23 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

That's absolutely appalling. Here in Bulgaria if you do not have valid photo ID (which every citizen is required by law to have past age 14) you can get detained indefinitely until your identity is established, let alone legal status. 

 

We always see news about how the US is becoming a police state, but you can't get questioned about your legal status or required to have photo ID at all times.

The far left news such as CNN and MSNBC love trying to play up the part that the "USA is becoming a police state, and Trump is taking away everyone's freedoms". When in reality the exact opposite is the case. 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

27 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

That's absolutely appalling. Here in Bulgaria if you do not have valid photo ID (which every citizen is required by law to have past age 14) you can get detained indefinitely until your identity is established, let alone legal status. 

 

We always see news about how the US is becoming a police state, but you can't get questioned about your legal status or required to have photo ID at all times.

The US is not bulgaria.

And the problem with questioning an  "illegal" is the harassment from racial profiling. 

 

 

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

24 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

The far left news such as CNN and MSNBC love trying to play up the part that the "USA is becoming a police state, and Trump is taking away everyone's freedoms". When in reality the exact opposite is the case. 

I don't think the country as a whole is becoming a police state, but there are places in the US that choose/chose to test our limits. 

 

New York and my home city Baltimore , a couple of good examples.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I don't think the country as a whole is becoming a police state, but there are places in the US that choose/chose to test our limits. 

 

New York and my home city Baltimore , a couple of good examples.

I think New york had stop and frisk ?   Big no no in my book