Maybe some good news?
This one is huge.
My concerns with their recent pattern of decisions:
1. They vote it unconstitutional, Obama does it anyway. Who needs to worry about how tyranny could be done within the consitutional framework when someone at the top can say we’re doing it our way anyway.
2. They’ve seemed to have rulings where swing voters compromised, I’ll vote this way on this case to mollify liberals if you vote that way so we mollify conservatives. That means the court is totally political, not ruling based on the merits of the law in most cases. And that means their rulings cannot be said to be the final basis on it, since the vote may have differed on another day.
The very title of this illegal piece of garbage is a lie. They are not Americans if both of their parents fell under the jurisdiction of another government.
Article written by one Antonio Cantu.
A common Mexican name. Went to school with a Cantu, nice guy.
If you think there’s an agenda here...you’re right.
If it goes the right way, because they have registered we will have all the information needed to fast track these deportations.
“My son was born in this country. He has a right to be with his parents.”
_______________
They have every right to take their son with them back to THEIR country of origin. The little tyke can come on back when he reaches 21.
Dear Virginia,
Absolutely NO ONE is stopping your son from being with his parents. You are free to take him to your country of legal residence when you leave.
Do have a nice day.
So she and her husband comes here illegally, sire an offspring, and lament that he can't be with his father because he's a criminal. Does that about sum it up?
If he wants to be with his father, go back to his native country and stay with him. It's as simple as that. I got no sympathy for criminals who break the law but demand that they be legally able to keep doing so.
That's how twisted this country has become.
Here’s what’s gonna happen:
The four main issues in the case are:
1. Does Texas have standing to sue?
2. Is the case “justiciable,” meaning, has Congress granted the Homeland Security the discretion to do what it did? (If so, the case is not reviewable).
3. Did Homeland Security exceed it’s authority, or violate the statutory Notice and Comment Rule, when it implemented the DAPA program?
4. Is the DAPA program a violation of the “Take Care” Clause of the Constitution?
Most likely, the Court will split evenly 4-4 all down the line on all four issues. That means the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision remains the law. No nationally binding precedent is created. Since the case is before the court on an appeal from a preliminary injunction, the case goes back to Judge Hanen for a trial on the merits, but with sufficient direction from the 5th Circuit opinion that stacks the deck against the government in the trial.
Except for one wild card: Much of Judge Hanen’s original decision to grant the preliminary injunction and bar the government from proceeding with the DAPA program while the case was in litigation was based on the factual findings from the DACA program, which is slightly older but similar to DAPA. DAPA is intended by the government to be an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is not reviewable by the courts. DACA purports to be the same thing, but the evidence was that the DACA program never exercised that discretion. Everyone who applied and met minimum qualifications was approved. That was the basis of Judge Hanen’s ruling that Texas was likely to prevail on the merits, because there was no evidence of actual prosecutorial discretion.
Judge Hanen’s most recent fights with the U. S. Attorneys office is that they lied about upholding his order barring them from implementing the DAPA program. The purpose of implementing the program in disregard of the Court order was not humanitarian, it was evidentiary. I can guarantee that in allowing about 100,000 people to participate after the Court told them not to, Homeland Security randomly DENIED several applications, therefore creating evidence that prosecutorial discretion was at work, and salvaging their case at trial. That’s the real story behind the ethics case still pending. The question will be whether Judge Hanen allows the government to present evidence they created in direct violation of a court order.
Now, under this scenario, the case goes to trial and then goes back up on appeal to the SCOTUS, where 9 judges decide, the decisive 9th vote being a Clinton appointee. Or, the case is moot and never sees a trial because President Trump rescinds the DAPA program by executive order, and the case is dismissed but Texas, and all of America wins because Trump kills a program that should never have been created.
The other less likely scenario is that you will get a 4-1-3 opinion. Four justices say there was standing, four say no. The 5th Circuit opinion stands on that issue. However, the Justiciability issue is more troubling, and I could see Kennedy switching on that issue and concurring with the other four liberal justices. In that event, five justices say “no case” and the case is dead, permanently, on the spot. It goes back to Judge Hanen with orders to dismiss Texas’ suit, and the DAPA program continues until Trump rescinds it. The Constitutionality of the other issues is not reached.
This DAPA is why there are son many unaccompanied ‘children’ storming our borders. If they get to stay, then mom, dad, granny and grandpa and every cousin can come .......................
Baby Segura can go back to Mexico with his parents, very simple solution.
We have got to end this automatic citizenship to babies dropped in the US by people who are here illegally. And who stick the local citizens with the bill for the kid’s delivery. Does any other country on the planet do that? It makes no sense, but it’s taken advantage of by these illegals.
This sob story also failed to mention that the U.S. attorneys from the DOJ lied to the court about their implementation of the act despite the court ordered hold, and his ordering the entire DOJ legal team (lawyers across the country) to have to take ethics courses to prevent future lying to the court.
Now we will learn if there is any point to having a Congress.
BigEars thinks all you need is a pen, a phone and the Court system
DAPA aka the “get pregnant and walk across the border” EO.
I miss Scalia so much.
Ignorant people, who are also arrogant and criminally bent have a technique that seems to work every time, illegal though it may be.
It's called changing the subject midpoint through a plausible argument.
Yes, the little bastards may be arguably citizens ( a whole different subject) but that's not the key to their fallacious argument.
It is also reasonable for the illegal adults to argue that the little bastards have a "right" to be with its parents, historically a non argument.
But at that point the illegal's argument goes off the rails, Because there are two ways that goal can be achieved : The minor "American" bastards can go back to Mexico and remain with their parents (or wherever,) until they reach a majority and then return to the U.S. or...
They can request to remain in the United states, but that option is not theirs to make. It is made according to the immigration laws of the United States.
The third option is seldom taken : Leave the minor children with a CLOSE relative who is legally in the United states. Except that frustrates the original intent of their argument, which is to skirt the laws of the host country.
If they can be given conditional residence until the child reaches a majority, which would then expire, AND also conditioned on no right to welfare or public assistance of any kind.
I think most Americans would have no serious opposition to that.
But we all know THAT'S not going likely to happen.
Before we know it, there will be a rumor spread through all of the countries south of our southern border stating that Gringos are stealing their children.
...and Gringas.