Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2018, 05:49 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 606,371 times
Reputation: 307

Advertisements

http://http://www.foxnews.com/politi...ding-daca.html

Judge rules against Trump administration on rescinding DACA

Edmund DeMarchejust in
Griff Jenkins reports from Washington, D.C.Video
A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from turning back the Obama-era DACA program, which shielded more than 700,000 people from deportation, Reuters reported.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, an appointee of Presidennt Bill Clinton, ruled that the program must stay intact while litigation is played out.

Alsup ordered that until a final judgement is reached, the program must continue and those already approved for DACA protections and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire.


As I made very clear today, our country needs the security of the Wall on the Southern Border, which must be part of any DACA approval.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2018
Dreamers who have never received DACA protections, however, will not be allowed to apply, Alsup ordered. Trump last year ended the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He gave Congress until March to find a fix.

The Department of Justice said in a statement that the ruling does not change the department's position on the facts.

President Trump is expected to make a decision on the fate of Obama-era immigration Executive Order DACA. But what is it?
"DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DAPA," the statement read.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge after 26 states filed suit against the federal government and challenged the effort's legality.

Trump said he was willing to be flexible on DACA in finding an agreement as Democrats warned that the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants hung in the balance.

“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting with a bipartisan group of nearly two dozen lawmakers.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Trump appeared optimistic that Congress could reach a decision on the program.

Trump ended DACA in September. Immigration advocates estimate that more than 100 people a day lose the protected status because they did not renew their permits before the deadline, The Journal reported.

Trump is using border security—including a border wall-- as a bargaining chip and Democrats want to use their sway on the spending bill to protect immigrants under DACA.

The plaintiffs in the suit included, among others, attorneys general from California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and the University of California

Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, filed a motion seeking the preliminary injunction in November, saying that the move is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and causes “irreparable” harm to DACA recipients.

Becerra said in a statement late Tuesday that the ruling is a “huge step in the right direction.”

“America is and has been home to Dreamers who courageously came forward, applied for DACA and did everything the federal government asked of them,” he said. “They followed DACA’s rules, they succeeded in school, at work and in business, and they have contributed in building a better America.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2018, 05:51 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 606,371 times
Reputation: 307
So what I take away from this is that timelines and what the President decides means nothing. DACAers can now renew their work permits for another two years and wait out resolution. How does a federal judge have more power than the president?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:07 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
We don't need the wall and we need to decide how we are going to deal with those who are here illegally. We can not deport them all even if we wanted to. That said, the judge is wrong. The entire action on the part of Obama was unconstitutional brought on by the lazy actions of Obama.

Presidents don't get to just make up laws because they are too lazy to do things right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:08 AM
 
Location: Central Mexico and Central Florida
7,150 posts, read 4,908,767 times
Reputation: 10444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlily87 View Post
So what I take away from this is that timelines and what the President decides means nothing. DACAers can now renew their work permits for another two years and wait out resolution. How does a federal judge have more power than the president?
Please read the Constitution, specifically checks and balances. Pretty rudimentary stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:10 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,576,036 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We don't need the wall and we need to decide how we are going to deal with those who are here illegally. We can not deport them all even if we wanted to. That said, the judge is wrong. The entire action on the part of Obama was unconstitutional brought on by the lazy actions of Obama.

Presidents don't get to just make up laws because they are too lazy to do things right.
I can have them all deported with minimal cost and effort
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:11 AM
 
5,731 posts, read 2,195,632 times
Reputation: 3877
California judge, 9th circuit again? They do the democrats bidding, probably an attempt to thwart the wall. Good luck
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:12 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 606,371 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist View Post
Please read the Constitution, specifically checks and balances. Pretty rudimentary stuff.
Right, but the program itself expired, did it not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:13 AM
 
11,404 posts, read 4,089,994 times
Reputation: 7852
I am all for legal immigration and giving people the opportunity to become legal citizens. But I also heavily support illegals being deported and keeping them out of our country.


Wouldn't just a few billion dollars for border protection agents for new vehicles, technology, weapons, additional manpower, etc be a much more efficient use of taxpayer dollars than spending a whole $18B on actually building an enormous cement wall?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:14 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 606,371 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We don't need the wall and we need to decide how we are going to deal with those who are here illegally. We can not deport them all even if we wanted to. That said, the judge is wrong. The entire action on the part of Obama was unconstitutional brought on by the lazy actions of Obama.

Presidents don't get to just make up laws because they are too lazy to do things right.
I agree that Obama dropped the ball with this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 06:15 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 606,371 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty View Post
I am all for legal immigration and giving people the opportunity to become legal citizens. But I also heavily support illegals being deported and keeping them out of our country.


Wouldn't just a few billion dollars for border protection agents for new vehicles, technology, weapons, additional manpower, etc be a much more efficient use of taxpayer dollars than spending a whole $18B on actually building an enormous cement wall?
I agree that manpower and enforcement is the better way to handle things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top