Can someone please explain this ruling to me? Why does the administration have to explain their choice? Seems to me that if president is not allowed to make immigration policy, the next one should be able to overturn it. It's not even like Trump is against allowing a great many to stay, he wanted to double the eligible participants from 800k to 1.6m, a gigantic concession to illegal immigrants. He simply said that this was unconstitutionally enacted law (which nationalization falls under Congress' purview not executive) and kicked it back to Congress to make the law. Nothing unconstitutional about his actions, but the original establishment of DACA law was most certainly unconstitutional.

What reason does he need other than, this law was unconstitutional? Does the judge really want different immigration policy every four years? Does he want 10 different judges to have to rule in the merits every four years? What a clusterfuck it would be if the laws of immigration changes every presidency and every different court ruling? Let Congress enact the laws instead of president, not a hard concept.

quote:

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution:

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

DACA program should be fully restarted, federal judge rules

Fox News

A federal judge on Friday ordered a total restart of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in a hit to the Trump administration.

The administration last year announced its plan to phase out the program, which provides a level of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, many of whom came to the U.S. as children.

The order is not set to kick in right away, according to Politico, which notes that the government has until Aug. 23 to file a motion to appeal the ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates.

However, the judge denied a motion by the government to revise its earlier decision in April -- which determined that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to rescind DACA was "unlawful," according to court documents.

Following that decision, the court issued a 90-day stay acknowledging that the "DHS could possibly remedy the decision's inadequacies -- at least in theory." That period of time is now over, the judge said.

"For the reasons explained below, the government's motion will be denied," the document read. "Although the Nielsen Memo purports to offer further explanation for DHS' decision to rescind DACA, it fails to elaborate meaningfully on the agency's primary rationale for its decision: the judgment that the policy was unlawful and unconstitutional."

The aforementioned memo from DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen provided "additional 'policy' grounds" to undo DACA, the judge wrote. However, he added that "most of these simply repackage legal arguments previously made," making them "'insufficiently independent from the agency's evaluation of DACA's legality' to preclude judicial review or to support the agency's decision."

In closing the brief, the judge wrote that at no point in this ruling, or the previous one, did the court contend that the DHS didn't have "the statutory or constitutional authority" to end the program.

"Rather, the court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program - or to take any other action, for that matter - it must give a rational explanation for its decision," the judge wrote.

"A conclusory assertion that a prior policy is illegal, accompanied by a hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions, simply will not do," the judge wrote. "The court therefore reaffirms its conclusion that DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside."

The DACA program was formed through executive action by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and allowed certain people who came to the U.S. illegally as minors to be protected from immediate deportation. Recipients, widely known as Dreamers, were able to request "consideration of deferred action" for a period of two years, which was subject to renewal.

Individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 by June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007.

It did not provide "legal status."

quote:

"Although the Nielsen Memo purports to offer further explanation for DHS' decision to rescind DACA, it fails to elaborate meaningfully on the agency's primary rationale for its decision: the judgment that the policy was unlawful and unconstitutional."

Nor does it have to as far as I'm aware. My understanding is that the president can withdraw an EO for any reason whatsoever, even on a whim. Guess it all depends on 'who' the president is.

quote:

In closing the brief, the judge wrote that at no point in this ruling, or the previous one, did the court contend that the DHS didn't have "the statutory or constitutional authority" to end the program.

Of course not. This judge and others will simply continue to play whack-a-mole every time the administration attempts to do away with DACA until they can get another leftist in the White House who will do the 'right' thing.

quote:

"Rather, the court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program - or to take any other action, for that matter - it must give a rational explanation for its decision," the judge wrote.

It really must be great to be god.

With judges like these infesting the bench, there is 'no' law or justice left in this country. Only tyranny inflicted on the populace from the bench.

Without reading the pleadings, briefs, etc, it is hard to say.

I thought the winning argument was that Congress has never authorized this. It is a creation of an Executive Order and hence ultra vires.

It will go to the Circuit Court before finding its way to the Supremes, contrary to what the panelist claimed on Special Report on Fox this afternoon. He blabbered about Justice Kennedy has left the court and now there are 8, so if they split, the lower court ruling prevails. I guess he never heard of a court of appeals.

well the part about the 4-4 split is true, but the path to get there isn't.

Rational explanation? Rational to whom? This is BS, I hope the administration fights this all of the way to the SC if need be. I'm sick of these activist judges.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
well the part about the 4-4 split is true, but the path to get there isn't.

By the time it gets there it won’t be.

I apologize for my distasteful language, but these traitorous fucking judges need to be imprisoned.

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
I apologize for my distasteful language, but these traitorous fucking judges need to be imprisoned.

No need for such characterization. There are significant issues involved which the courts are resolving, involving important constitutional limitations.

Read the order first. Read the arguments of each party.

I bought a book for my Kindle on the 14th Amendment, a bunch of Supreme Court cases over 150 years interpreting and applying the 14th Amendment in a variety of contexts. It is amazing the subtleties and twists and turns of meaning, the analysis of authorities that goes into resolving these questions logically and completely, and I say this after 40 years as a lawyer.

I also have, but have not yet read, a similar work on Equal Protection.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
I apologize for my distasteful language, but these traitorous fucking judges need to be imprisoned.

No need for such characterization. There are significant issues involved which the courts are resolving, involving important constitutional limitations.

Read the order first. Read the arguments of each party.

I bought a book for my Kindle on the 14th Amendment, a bunch of Supreme Court cases over 150 years interpreting and applying the 14th Amendment in a variety of contexts. It is amazing the subtleties and twists and turns of meaning, the analysis of authorities that goes into resolving these questions logically and completely, and I say this after 40 years as a lawyer.

I also have, but have not yet read, a similar work on Equal Protection.

So much more fun when the lawyers don't chime in. I am a simpleton, I enjoy when Legislative branch makes laws, executive enforces, and judicial reviews.

I know that is pretty basic stuff, like eight grade civics class, but in my mind it's just how I think it should work. I am sure it's much more complex and nuanced than that, but I'd like to believe it is that simple.

Hey judge, fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
I apologize for my distasteful language, but these traitorous fucking judges need to be imprisoned.

No need for such characterization. There are significant issues involved which the courts are resolving, involving important constitutional limitations.

Read the order first. Read the arguments of each party.

I bought a book for my Kindle on the 14th Amendment, a bunch of Supreme Court cases over 150 years interpreting and applying the 14th Amendment in a variety of contexts. It is amazing the subtleties and twists and turns of meaning, the analysis of authorities that goes into resolving these questions logically and completely, and I say this after 40 years as a lawyer.

I also have, but have not yet read, a similar work on Equal Protection.

So much more fun when the lawyers don't chime in. I am a simpleton, I enjoy when Legislative branch makes laws, executive enforces, and judicial reviews.

I know that is pretty basic stuff, like eight grade civics class, but in my mind it's just how I think it should work. I am sure it's much more complex and nuanced than that, but I'd like to believe it is that simple.

Ignorance can be bliss, of course, but also the reason for a lot of frustration. It is always better to know, if possible, than not know. Rather than curse the darkness, look for a candle and light it.

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but boiled all the way down, to me anyways, it seems that millions of people and their children are illegally invading our country, and some asshat in a robe decides to assist them. That is a traitor, of the highest order, from what I understand. With all due respect, legal mental masturbation be damned.

Last I checked the government doesnt have to give a reason to stop a program it has control over, judges orders or not. Just say you dont have the budget to allow for it, and its gone. Can't do what you cant pay for.

Obama explain DACA,
“This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary, stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely“

Notice “Not a permanent fix.” That it is “temporary.”

What was his reason to issue this “temporary” action ?

“In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places.”

Obama put the blame on Congress. It was their inaction that lead to DACA. Once DACA started, Congress did nothing. The President has ended DACA to force Congress to act.

All the activist judge is doing is to allow Congress to return to doing nothing.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is vowing to pursue the end of DACA after a federal judge ruled last week the amnesty program must be reinstated in full. President Trump ended the program in September 2017 and called on Congress to come up with a fix.

"We strongly disagree with the district court’s decision on Friday in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) case. The executive branch’s authority to simply rescind a policy, established only by a letter from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is clearly established. The Department of Justice will take every lawful measure to vindicate the Department of Homeland Security’s lawful rescission of DACA," Sessions released in a statement Monday afternoon.

Sessions went on to make the case that the rescinding of DACA is consistent with federal law and that the previous administration was in violation when President Obama pushed through the program by executive order.

"The last administration violated its duty to enforce our immigration laws by directing and implementing a categorical, multipronged non-enforcement immigration policy for a massive group of illegal aliens. This wrongful action left DACA open to the same legal challenges that effectively invalidated another program they established—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA’s implementation was blocked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and never entered into effect. These two policies declared by officials of the previous administration—by policy letters only—had been considered by Congress and rejected, Sessions said. "The Trump Administration’s action to withdraw the policy letters simply reestablished the legal policies consistent with the law. Not only did the Trump Administration have the authority to withdraw this guidance letter, it had a duty to do so. As former President Obama previously said, the changes they attempted to effect through this policy letter can only be lawfully achieved by congressional action. The judicial branch has no power to eviscerate the lawful directives of Congress—nor to enjoin the executive branch from enforcing such mandates."

Link

Y'know, I wonder if the judge saw that coming?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Hey judge, fuck off.

Exactly, Trump should (if he hasn't already) just ignore the dumbass judge.

“Ordering” the reinstatement of a program that was created by executive fiat rather than through legislative action, is so ridiculous that it’s beyond comprehension.

Somehow I just can't see a court order to revive a practice based purely on policy considerations being upheld on appeal. The judge may claim that the US government missed a technical step, but the only point of that technical step would be to allow the judge to review a policy decision by elected officials or the technical step would be meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Hey judge, fuck off.

Exactly, Trump should (if he hasn't already) just ignore the dumbass judge.

Agreed.

Trump should say, "We appreciate the court's advice in this matter. However, the Constitutional authority to start and stop DACA as an executive order rests solely with the President. The Constitution does not place Presidential discretion at the mercy of the district court. The district court has not been granted jurisdiction over the lawful discretionary acts of the President. While we appreciate the judge's advice, his advice is without legal merit or authority and, accordingly, is set aside."