Posted on 06/13/2017 10:21:46 AM PDT by sickoflibs
I think the argument is that Obama wrote an order and the INS skipped over some of the conditions in the order.
Not that Trump cant issue his own, at least not yet. But he hasn't on DACA yet.
We will still be over 800,000 illegal aliens being given permission to stay by the end of the year.
Doing nothing is keeping the illegal program going and growing.
DACA must be ended.
The Dream act is an end-run scam to provide all-out amnesty.
Judges have the power of a dictator, can rule every aspect of our lives.
The only people on earth not covered by America’s Constitutional rights are Christians born and currently residing in the United States.
DACA is NOT an Executive Order!
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2014.html
It is a product of Obama’s 2014 “Immigration Accountability Executive Action”
No, Democrats garnered enough votes to change the game and they did so by patience.
This judge is taking the heat off of Trump for not rescinding DACA......
>Republicans have been using that for years. It’s how we got here.
Your inability to wait 6 months will be the death of us.
REPLACE DACA first needs a cool name.
Double Dream act is a cool name.
Then DEPORT them all, including all Soroses.
The swamp has not been drained. Not winning. Sad!
> erode public support against illegal immigration.
> Americans are very much against illegal immigration but for DACA.
Nonsense. All we have to do is enforce existing law.
BONKERS = EVIL
That too...
“:^)
Trump should have shut down new applications day one.
Aren’t you being overly optimistic with that 800k ?
Looks like 1.5M, give or take.
Obama issues edict.
Trump and company cancel the edict.
Judge says Trump should follow policy, but makes no mention of Obama not following policy.
B O N K E R S
RESPONSE To: 1
Trump has not rescinded DACA.
RESPONSE to Response to: 1
Didn’t say he had.
This person is being jettisoned under his watch.
The court is denying his administration the right to do it.
Further Comments:
By using the imprecise terms, "Trump and company cancel the edict.", and "The court is denying his administration the right to do it.", I can see why it may have appeared to you I was claiming Trump had stricken down DACA.
That was not my intent.
The agency that is trying to deport this woman is operating under directives by this president, or that this president agrees with, which would be why he allowed them to remain viable.
Even though Trump has not officially stricken down DACA, it is still true that in some instances that is in effect the operational status in the field. Otherwise this person would not be under threat of deportation.
The judge has observed this situation, seems to agree with me, and has made a ruling that this is not appropriate.
While overly broad and not specific enough for folks this issue is important to, I believe my first comments were accurate, while somewhat clumsily stated.
I was not trying to evade your point. It may have seemed like it.
This individual let her DACA status expire and the administration was well within their responsibility to remove her.
The judge is overstepping as badly as Obama did when he set up the illegal DACA program.
Aren’t you being overly optimistic with that 800k ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I probably grossly underestimated the real number.
Thank you for pointing out that point. I had not read that far.
Your point about the judge is correct on several points.
If she was covered by DACA, Trump would have had the right to reverse DACA.
Second, if she let DACA expire, this wasn’t even a close call at all.
Her not being under DACA, would void part of my comments concerning a new policy being implemented below the surface.
That would not have had to have been the case.
Your point is therefore more solid than previously thought.
There was not a surfaced underlying policy change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.