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.
Yes, the memo to cancel needs to be clearly written, not just some incoherent scribblings with 'covfefe' typos etc in it.
It goes without saying Trump needs to find someone else to articulate it.
Yup. Apparently Jeff Sessions wasn't up to the job, his memo meets the definition of arbitrary & capricious. It's like they don't even care to make an effort? All it succeeded in doing was prolonging the issues. I don't understand why this administration often seems to be just 'flying by the seat of his pants'?
If so, cannot any succeeding President and their relevant Director (Homeland Security in this case) issue a new directive which merely cancels that former directive?
If so, cannot any succeeding President and their relevant Director (Homeland Security in this case) issue a new directive which merely cancels that former directive?
That is what was attempted by the Trump administration. After many legal challenges ...
Quote:
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to hear three cases related to the DACA, consolidated into one, in their term starting October 2019; these three cases include Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Docket 18-587) originally heard in the District Court of Northern California, Trump v. NAACP (Docket 18-588), originally heard in the District Court of the District of Columbia, and McAleenan v. Vidal (Docket 18-589) originally heard in the District Court of Eastern New York. All three cases challenge to the DHS's authority to wind down the DACA program after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Texas, arguing the decidie violates the Administrative Procedure Act and due process of the Fifth Amendment [86]
It's worth noting some of the legal challenges, suing the trump administration to preserve DACA, were the University of California, labor unions & Microsoft Corp, which expressed concern its own employees would be affected. Additionally various states sued to preserve which made it more likely to be taken up by SCOTUS.
Why not provide a fuller explanation for its action?
It clarifies nothing. That "analysis" is the precise point behind my question. I'm well aware that judges think they have the final say on everything. Where in the Constitution does it obligate the executive branch to justify it's decisions and processes to the judiciary branch, when the constitutionality of them is not contested and the judiciary acknowledges that the executive has the authority? Where does it give the judiciary any oversight on an decision by the executive branch to end a policy created by the executive branch, even if the executive branch's reasoning was simply "because we felt like it".
Does Congress not have the authority to pass a law? The House sent over a bill to raise federal minimum wage to $15/hr. Were they duty bound to post a notice, address public comments, and provide a justification to the satisfaction of a court? I think not. In both cases, the executive and the legislative branches have the authority to exercise the powers granted to them for good reasons, bad reasons, silly reasons, or no reasons at all. It is up to the voters to issue judgment on their actions.
Why not provide a fuller explanation? Maybe politically they should. But that's a different matter than being required to. Besides, the reasons have been stated many times over an over. Posters here have stated many of the reasons. One of them being, by not enforcing our immigration laws on DACA it encourages more to violate our immigration laws. The executive is not implementing a new law. It is deciding to renew enforcement of an existing law.
Actually, no, as it was followed by Congress passing the following Federal Law which was never challenged as being unconstitutional:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
People need to keep in mind there are different forms of jurisdiction. There is territorial jurisdiction, which gives a government authority to enforce the laws of a given territory on any persons physically within that territory. That is a jurisdiction that every government exercises and nothing unique to the US. I don't think that's the kind of jurisdiction the founders had in mind because it always exists and would not have to be specifically included.
There is also nationality jurisdiction, which gives a government to exercise legal if not physical authority over it's citizens. "The nationality principle holds that the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. For example, U.S. citizens are still required to pay federal taxes to the U.S. government when abroad and may be prosecuted for a failure to do so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person..._United_States
Now if an illegal returns back to his home country, does the US have nationality jurisdiction over him and can still require him to file a US tax return?
Ah, Trump-facts No, not since 2014. They have doubled since Trump took office. Your hero admits the situation under him is WORSE THAN EVER. In the 1980s we had with 1.6 MILLION, and Trump is quickly headed back toward those numbers.
Obama reduced it to a trickle, and Trump managed to get you to believe it was a huge problem, and it got much worse as soon as he started running things.
Border apprehensions have doubled since 2014. You can't see that on the chart? Yes, the situation has worsened in the last 5 years but how is Trump responsible for that? You haven't answered that question, why is that? Yes, it did peak in the 80's and 90's but so what does that prove? Perhaps, the fencing erected back in 2006 helped drop those numbers also. All the more reason to reinforce them and build more where they are feasible. How did Obama reduce it to a trickle? It's never been just a trickle.
Border apprehensions have doubled since 2014. You can't see that on the chart? Yes, the situation has worsened in the last 5 years but how is Trump responsible for that? You haven't answered that question, why is that? Yes, it did peak in the 80's and 90's but so what does that prove? Perhaps, the fencing erected back in 2006 helped drop those numbers also. All the more reason to reinforce them and build more where they are feasible. How did Obama reduce it to a trickle? It's never been just a trickle.
Thank you. The chart proves what I said. Doubled since he took office (550K in 2016, and about 1 M in 2019).
And somehow this equates to him having fixed the problem. The mind of a Trump loyalist it a mysterious place
You may return back to topic now.
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.
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.
Yes, the situation has worsened in the last 5 years but how is Trump responsible for that? You haven't answered that question, why is that? Yes, it did peak in the 80's and 90's but so what does that prove? Perhaps, the fencing erected back in 2006 helped drop those numbers also. All the more reason to reinforce them and build more where they are feasible. How did Obama reduce it to a trickle? It's never been just a trickle.
