quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
^^^ I don't understand it at all. If it were simply an executive order, why can't another president summarily end it? I guess I must be missing something.

quote:

The Regents of the University of California (UC) and Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California, filed this lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). The complaint was filed on September 8, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

According to the complaint, DACA has benefited approximately 800,000 individuals brought to the U.S. as children “through no choice of their own.” Under DACA, applicants who met certain criteria were eligible for deferred immigration action for two-year periods, pending approval of their applications. As the complaint stated, “DACA allowed these individuals to live, study, and work in the United States without fear that they could be arrested and deported at any time,” and so they “were able to pursue opportunities in higher education, to more readily obtain driver’s licenses and access lines of credit, to obtain jobs and access to certain Social Security and Medicare benefits, and to contribute to their communities and American society.” The plaintiffs stated that these individuals - known as Dreamers - have enabled the nation and UC to greatly benefit from their presence as students and employees at the university. The plaintiffs stated the Dreamers contribute significant to UC life, “expanding the intellectual vitality of the school, filling crucial roles as medical residents, research assistants, and student government leaders, and increasing the diversity of the community.” Plaintiff Janet Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security who designed and implemented DACA in 2012.

But the revocation of DACA, the plaintiffs argued, threatened the Dreamers with “expulsion from the only country that they call home.” Moreover, the plaintiffs argued, DHS did not offer any “reasoned basis” for revoking DACA and did so in violation of legally required procedures. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’s justification for revocation is that a related but ultimately separate program - Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) - is illegal. The plaintiffs asserted that this justification is based on “an incorrect legal premise” as the two programs “were governed by different sets of rules, applied to different individuals, and conferred different benefits” and that “no court has held that DACA is unlawful.” Further, the plaintiffs argued that in not accounting for the Dreamers' strong reliance on DACA, DHS violated Supreme Court precedent requiring agencies to provide “more substantial justification” for policy changes when there is significant reliance on the preexisting policy. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’ revocation of DACA violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on Sept. 8, but then reassigned to Judge Hon. William Alsup on Sept. 12.

On Sept. 18, the court related this case to State of California v. Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 17-cv-05235. Two days later, the court related two more cases to this one: Garcia v. United States of America, No. 17-cv-05380, and City of San Jose v. Trump, No. 17-cv-05329. On Oct. 16, County of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-cv-05813, was added as a related case. All are in the Clearinghouse.

On Oct. 6, the defendants filed the administrative record, available here, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception to the decision to rescind it. On Oct. 17, after the plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, the court ordered them to do so. The court found that the defendants did not produce all documents leading to the rescission, specifically related documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. The defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court on Oct. 18 in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The court denied staying proceedings on Oct. 19, and the defendants appealed the next day by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the district court and and emergency motion for stay. On Oct. 23, the district court replied to the Ninth Circuit's invitation to answer the government's petition stating it would not stay proceedings in light of the narrow window of time until the DACA ends on March 5, 2018.

On Nov. 1, in the district court, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from rescinding DACA, arguing that the rescission "violates the fundamental prohibition on arbitrary agency action imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act" by not providing a reasoned basis for it. The same day, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the rescission is an enforcement action "presumed immune from judicial review" and that the government provided ample explanation for the rescission based on DAPA's enjoinment.

On Nov. 16, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay of discovery and record expansion that had been entered, and the District Court immediately ordered the federal government to file an augmented administrative record by Nov 22. On Nov. 17, the federal government filed an emergency motion noting that it intended to file an application for mandamus with the Supreme Court no later than Nov. 20, and requesting that the Ninth Circuit stay its order pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the forthcoming petition. On Nov. 21, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the federal government's motion, noting that jurisdiction currently lies with the District Court and instructing the federal government that further relief must be sought in a new petition for mandamus.

Meanwhile, in the District Court, Judge Alsup on Nov. 20 agreed to stay all discovery until Dec. 22, at which point the augmented administrative record will be due.

On Dec. 1, 2017, the government filed notice that they appealed the Ninth's Circuit denial of mandamus relief and applied for a stay to the Supreme Court. On Dec. 21 in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's denial and remanded the case, arguing that the district court should have stayed implementation of the Oct. 17 order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court should have "first resolved the Government’s threshold arguments (that the Acting Secretary’s determination to rescind DACA is unreviewable because it is “committed to agency discretion,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record." 583 U. S. ____ (2017). The same day, the district court stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the court dismissed the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction from Nov. 1, 2017 under rule 12(b)(1) and provided provisional relief to the plaintiffs. The order indicated the court would separately dismiss the government's motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6). The court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the recession. However, the government did not need to process new applications from individuals who never before received deferred action. The court then granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss on Jan. 12, dismissing the plaintiffs' Regulatory Flexibility Act and equitable estoppel claims as well the individual plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims. The court sustained the plaintiffs' APA, due process, and equal protection claims (with a few exceptions from the various complaints of the related cases).

The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 16, 2018.

The case is ongoing.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/imm...-soar-184604124.html

OH, yes!

This wouldn't have happened during the Kenyan's ( or evil witch's) term.

"MIAMI (AP) — More than a dozen advocacy groups issued a warning about traveling in Florida on Wednesday saying immigration arrests there have soared more rapidly in the past year than in any other area of the country.

Leaders from immigrant rights and nonprofit organizations said new cooperation between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 17 Florida sheriffs is also spreading fear in the state.

The travel advisory issued by 15 groups warns immigrants from other states to reconsider Florida trips or to be ready to encounter immigration agents at airports, sea ports and bus stations.

"Also, the agency last month in Florida unveiled what it called a template of a nationwide model that gives law enforcement agencies the power to hold immigrants who have been arrested for other offenses and are in the country illegally. Seventeen Florida law enforcement agencies have agreed to follow the new protocol with ICE, a decision called into question by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center."

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The Trump-backed immigration reform, which gave amnesty to almost 2 million illegals in exchange for border wall funding, major restrictions on chain migration and ending the diversity visa lottery failed in the Senate today. It couldn't even get 40 votes. 14 Republicans voted against it!

On the positive side, none of the other weaker proposals got past a cloture vote either (although they all got more than 50 votes).

This country is screwed. A majority in the Senate (and surely the house as well) are itching to give the biggest possible amnesty for the littles border security and enforcement crumbs they can get away with. Eventually the Dems will have power again, and this will be the firs tthing they do....and enough "Republicans" will go along with it to let it pass.

It will be hugely unpopular like Obamacare, but once done, it can't be undone.

And it will only encourage millions more to come illegally.

Sad day.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The Trump-backed immigration reform, which gave amnesty to almost 2 million illegals in exchange for border wall funding, major restrictions on chain migration and ending the diversity visa lottery failed in the Senate today. It couldn't even get 40 votes. 14 Republicans voted against it!

On the positive side, none of the other weaker proposals got past a cloture vote either (although they all got more than 50 votes).

This country is screwed. A majority in the Senate (and surely the house as well) are itching to give the biggest possible amnesty for the littles border security and enforcement crumbs they can get away with. Eventually the Dems will have power again, and this will be the firs tthing they do....and enough "Republicans" will go along with it to let it pass.

It will be hugely unpopular like Obamacare, but once done, it can't be undone.

And it will only encourage millions more to come illegally.

Sad day.

I think these are tactical votes, designed for the folks back home, their bases, while a deal is being hammered out behind closed doors.
You need to be able to convince the folks bsck home you are really on their side, even when you end up being forced to go along with some distasteful compromise ultimately.

quote:

Nothing got 60 votes.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Nothing got 60 votes.

What the hell ever happened to that silly majority rule thingy??

As I understand it, that 60 vote crap is nothing more than what amounts to a senate "custom" that is invoked whenever they do not want to deal with something. I.e. gee, let's do the 60 vote thing, we know it will not pass, and we can move on to something more important, like how can more lobbyists get me more money. Screw the country!

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Mueller has indicted Russians for interfering in our 2016 election.

quote:

When is Trump going to shut this nonsense down already, FOR F*CKS SAKE!

quote:

The indictment says that the goal or the entities and people indicted was to support now-President Trump's campaign and to hurt Democrat Hillary Clinton's, and that some defendants while posing as U.S. people communicated with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:


It will die its own death

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's good news. It means that douchebag and his douchebag team of douchebags have found nothing on President Trump.

quote:

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump, special counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday.