PDA

View Full Version : DACA Schemers are over Monday




Jan2017
03-02-2018, 09:54 PM
Monday is the last date for a subset of DACA Dreamer Schemers that had until March 5, 2018 to file for their renewal -
as originally planned since the September 5 extension for this scheme of entry to end.

at 9:01 am March 2, 2018
Dreams Deferred: A Look at DACA Renewals and Losses Post-March 5

On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration terminated the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program
and permitted only a subset of current DACA recipients, whose protections were set to expire on or before March 5, 2018, to file renewal applications.
Predictably, this action created a March 6 cliff, where the bulk of DACA-protected individuals would begin to lose status.
At the time, President Donald Trump made clear that it was the responsibility of Congress to pass legislation by March 5
to avert that crisis from unfolding. That has not happened.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2018/03/02/447486/dreams-deferred-look-daca-renewals-losses-post-march-5/

timosman
03-02-2018, 09:58 PM
The congress was too busy. There is so much staff going on these days. Nobody has time for work. :cool:

Swordsmyth
03-02-2018, 10:03 PM
Hasta Lasagna, via con queso.

Zippyjuan
03-02-2018, 10:10 PM
Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled they can't end it on March 5th. New applications can't be filed but those currently under DACA can apply to have theirs extended if they are expiring.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/daca-deadline-explainer/index.html


Judges weighing the cases have temporarily ruled that the Trump administration has to keep accepting DACA renewals, and that officials can't revoke DACA protections in individual cases without giving notice, an explanation and an opportunity to respond.

timosman
03-02-2018, 10:14 PM
Zippy, we are talking about congress failing to act and you come up with some temporary court ruling. You have mastered the art of conversation disrupting via directing attention to unimportant facts. You get a passing grade but you don't have to do it anymore.

Swordsmyth
03-02-2018, 10:18 PM
Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled they can't end it on March 5th. New applications can't be filed but those currently under DACA can apply to have theirs extended if they are expiring.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/daca-deadline-explainer/index.html

SCOTUS will overrule the nonsense from the lower courts.

Keep DREAMing Juan.

Zippyjuan
03-02-2018, 10:21 PM
Zippy, we are talking about congress failing to act and you come up with some temporary court ruling. You have mastered the art of conversation disrupting via directing attention to unimportant facts. You get a passing grade but you don't have to do it anymore.

OP is about DACA renewals ending March 5th. Courts said they have to keep accepting them. It is true that Congress has not acted with a bill covering DACA.


Dreamer Schemers that had until March 5, 2018 to file for their renewal -

http://time.com/5175496/supreme-court-daca-dreamers-deadline/


When Does DACA Expire? The Supreme Court Just Gave Dreamers More Time

President Donald Trump set a deadline of March 5 for Congress to address the fate of hundreds of thousands of people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, but the Supreme Court just gave everyone more time.

On Monday, the nation’s highest court decided not hear arguments in a California case that upended the Trump-imposed deadline, meaning the nearly 700,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program can continue to renew their applications while the case works its way through the legal system.




The Supreme Court’s order and the previous judicial rulings keep the Trump administration from ending the program on March 5, but around 100 DACA recipients have been losing their work permits and deportation deferrals every day, notes Cornell Law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr. “The uncertainty is causing problems for both DACA recipients and their employers,” he said. “Today’s ruling throws the DACA program back into Congress’ lap.”

fedupinmo
03-03-2018, 07:15 AM
To the courts:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4kUKfb_A6P0/UPwxcADNYBI/AAAAAAAAGcY/2DuK8L2NKOI/s1600/no-power-here.jpg

Immigration is the purview of Congress, and getting rid of Obammy's illegal EO is well within the power of the president.
It is also illegal for a court to force unconstitutional acts to continue.

Also, Time as a source? :rolleyes:

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 12:55 PM
To the courts:



Immigration is the purview of Congress, and getting rid of Obammy's illegal EO is well within the power of the president.
It is also illegal for a court to force unconstitutional acts to continue.

Also, Time as a source? :rolleyes:

If you prefer Fox: http://fox59.com/2018/02/26/supreme-court-rejects-trumps-bid-to-end-daca-requiring-administration-to-continue-accepting-renewal-applications/


Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to end DACA, requiring administration to continue accepting renewal applications

fedupinmo
03-03-2018, 01:29 PM
The SCOTUS didn't require any such thing, they merely declined to skip the process ahead of the layers of appeals between the commie cocksucker stage and them.

Superfluous Man
03-03-2018, 02:47 PM
Immigration is the purview of Congress

Not according to the US Constitution.

enhanced_deficit
03-03-2018, 02:51 PM
To the courts:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4kUKfb_A6P0/UPwxcADNYBI/AAAAAAAAGcY/2DuK8L2NKOI/s1600/no-power-here.jpg
:rolleyes:

POTUS has power and is on their side, so looks like they'll be fine.


Trump is now tweeting that DREAMers are wonderful and should be allowed to stay in the US


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/14/16306658/trump-daca-deal-tweets

Trump & Democrats Near Agreement on DACA (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514924-Trump-amp-Democrats-Near-Agreement-on-DACA&)



POTUS is also consistent ; with more law abiding people on our streets, society will be more harmonious and there will be lesser need for guns (Trump about to push hard for gun control). (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519828-Trump-about-to-push-hard-for-gun-control&)


But nay sayers will probably poo poo this as usual:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHzUOLOC5eQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHzUOLOC5eQ

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 04:55 PM
Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled they can't end it on March 5th. New applications can't be filed but those currently under DACA can apply to have theirs extended if they are expiring.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/daca-deadline-explainer/index.html


Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to end DACA, requiring administration to continue accepting renewal applications

Damn are you effin stupid - why Zipsh!t?

Swordsmyth
03-03-2018, 04:57 PM
Not according to the US Constitution.
Yes it is.

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 05:02 PM
Zippy Group should be banned for all the misleading interpretations and dumbing down of anyone who reads what the Zips say/write - in everything.
And then after the Zippyjuan lie/disinformation is exposed and thoroughly shot down, never an acknowledgement of Zip dumb and dumber.

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 05:41 PM
Damn are you effin stupid - why Zipsh!t?

Can you enlighten us as to what is inaccurate there?

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 05:53 PM
Can you enlighten us as to what is inaccurate there?
.

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to end DACA, requiring administration to continue accepting renewal applications
.

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 06:01 PM
.

.

Yes?

By refusing to hear the case, the court let stand the lower court rulings which require the administration to continue to accept renewal applications even beyond March 5th. It is accurate.

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 06:05 PM
Can you enlighten us as to what is inaccurate there?
Yes - do you read ?


Yes?

By refusing to hear the case, the court let stand the lower court rulings which require the administration to continue to accept renewal applications even beyond March 5th. It is accurate.
Do ya' understand YET ?


Zippy Group should be banned for all the misleading interpretations and dumbing down of anyone who reads what the Zips say/write - in everything.

Vote for your ban - permanent Zipsh!t

oyarde
03-03-2018, 06:07 PM
Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled they can't end it on March 5th. New applications can't be filed but those currently under DACA can apply to have theirs extended if they are expiring.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/daca-deadline-explainer/index.html
How would they come to that conclusion ?

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 06:38 PM
Yes - do you read ?


Do ya' understand YET ?


Vote for your ban - permanent Zipsh!t

Thank you for your detailed explanation of what was inaccurate.

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 06:42 PM
Damn are you effin stupid - why Zipsh!t?

And this is why we need on RPF a thread devoted to the misguidings of Zippyjuan - get corrected and then dodge out.
It would be a compilation thread - doesn't even have to be retroactive - and then enough accumulates for your permanent ban.

Oh yeah - we did that . . . but THAT thread gets deleted by mods.

You have the nerve to ask for donations for your disinformation in your signature.

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 06:43 PM
Thank you for your detailed explanation of what was inaccurate.
What you wrote - explain it's accuracy - got anyt'ing (?) No ?

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to end DACA, requiring administration to continue accepting renewal applications

I explain and then what happens Zipsh!t ?

Jan2017
03-03-2018, 06:45 PM
Thank you for your "detailed" explanation of what was inaccurate.
Again - do you read what you write or regurgitate from CNN ?
And then your out is you are just posting someone else/media/CNN - just to reveal the disinformation.

Ask Zippy if he wants to defend the accuracy of what he writes.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 12:00 AM
Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled they can't end it on March 5th. New applications can't be filed but those currently under DACA can apply to have theirs extended if they are expiring.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/daca-deadline-explainer/index.html
LOL

Let's see . . . what do ya' mean Zipsh!ts (?)

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 12:05 AM
Courts said they have to keep accepting them.
Implying that DACA is now what . . . an executive order of the Supreme Court - LOL How effin stupid, eh ?
Lie away everyday.
Thanks Zip

But you have done a great public service here liar - helping along with CNN to snow Mexicans into believing your lie.

Helps keep the scirmishes down a little bit. Thanks again.


Help me keep posting. Please donate here: http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh

TheCount
03-04-2018, 08:46 AM
To the courts:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4kUKfb_A6P0/UPwxcADNYBI/AAAAAAAAGcY/2DuK8L2NKOI/s1600/no-power-here.jpg

Immigration is the purview of Congress, and getting rid of Obammy's illegal EO is well within the power of the president.
It is also illegal for a court to force unconstitutional acts to continue.

Congress granted the courts judicial oversight over the executive agencies when they passed the administrative procedures act in 1946.

It's all laid out very clearly in the New York court decision.

fedupinmo
03-04-2018, 12:16 PM
Congress granted the courts judicial oversight over the executive agencies when they passed the administrative procedures act in 1946.

It's all laid out very clearly in the New York court decision.

Congress grants power to another branch to oversee a third branch? Usually that would take a constitutional amendment, wouldn't it?

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 12:18 PM
Congress granted the courts judicial oversight over the executive agencies when they passed the administrative procedures act in 1946.

It's all laid out very clearly in the New York court decision.
First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay was very clear about the separation between the Nation's Executive and
the Supreme Court he headed under his friend First President George Washington.

Under no circumstances can the Supreme Court - or any court with some jurisdiction - "Court Order an Executive Order" - ain't happening !

It is a ludicrous idea / myth propagated by a consortium of criminal minds of the Clinton crime syndicate machine,
some right here on RPF acting for profit, btw.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 02:16 PM
"path to DACA" in final day this 4th of March, 2018.
Now unofficially just becomes known as "path back to Mexico"

Trump did all he could . . . extend a very gracious 6 months extension to another Obama signature act
that by Obama's own pen is a TEMPORARY condition.
No Court can order Trump to issue another Executive Order - moot point for the Court to consider a program over.
While illegals want to blame Trump, they should blame Obama for enticement with the temporary program.

Bye Bye Schemers

TheCount
03-04-2018, 02:23 PM
Under no circumstances can the Supreme Court - or any court with some jurisdiction - "Court Order an Executive Order" - ain't happening !


Good, because that's not what happened.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 02:45 PM
Congress grants power to another branch to oversee a third branch?

All legislation is written by congress, implemented by the executive, and overseen by the courts.



Usually that would take a constitutional amendment, wouldn't it?

It's called article 3.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 02:47 PM
Good, because that's not what happened.
And it won't happen. What has happened is that one nation has usurped immigration law unlike any other nation in the world.
CNN and others - some on RPF even - have been so ludicrous to twist court orders to seem to suggest "path to DACA" means anything
at all, like amnesty for illegal entries -

They should all jus' tell it like it is to the Mexico illegal Schemers . . .
and that it is really "path back to Mexico" - as it should be - to equal out immigration from all nations wanting to add to USA diversity -
just as current immigration policy always existed - but never enforced.

Trump perfectly does nothing, now that lawmakers failed to make law, the dream scheme dies

fedupinmo
03-04-2018, 02:48 PM
All legislation is written by congress, implemented by the executive, and overseen by the courts.




It's called article 3.[/COLOR]

DACA was NOT written by Congress, which makes it unconstitutional on its face and therefore isn't law, so Article 3 grants no power to the judiciary to force it to take place or adjudicate in favor of it.

Zippyjuan
03-04-2018, 03:03 PM
DACA was NOT written by Congress, which makes it unconstitutional on its face and therefore isn't law, so Article 3 grants no power to the judiciary to force it to take place or adjudicate in favor of it.

So executive orders aren't laws. Does that mean they can't be enforced? Does that make all Trump's Executive Orders worthless? Or does that mean that a President can say whatever he want to in an Executive Order and ignore what the laws say? Rule by fiat?

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:07 PM
So executive orders aren't laws. Does that mean they can't be enforced? Does that make all Trump's Executive Orders worthless? Or does that mean that a President can say whatever he want to in an Executive Order and ignore what the laws say? Rule by fiat?
- neg rep . . . 'cause you jus' can't have enough neg rep for stupidity, can ya' Zipsh!t

Back on topic - after the distracting zipmosquito - for what I was about to post . . .

"because rights of family integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment not clearly established"
See :
Doe v. State of Louisiana 2 F.3d 1412, at 1418 (Fifth Circuit 1993), cert. denied ----U.S. -----, 114 S.Ct. 1189, 127 L.Ed.2d 539 (1994)

TheCount
03-04-2018, 03:08 PM
DACA was NOT written by Congress, which makes it unconstitutional on its face and therefore isn't law, so Article 3 grants no power to the judiciary to force it to take place or adjudicate in favor of it.

Holy shit, just read the court order already. All you're doing is making stuff up.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:15 PM
DACA was NOT written by Congress, which makes it unconstitutional on its face and therefore isn't law, so Article 3 grants no power to the judiciary to force it to take place or adjudicate in favor of it.
+ repped
Hit the nail on the head, perfectly.

"Courts may not control or supervise operations of other two branches of government."
Article 3 Section 1 U.S.C.A. Note 211 referencing
Protestants and Other Americans United for..., et al.v. O'Brien 272 F.Supp. 712 (District of Columbia 1967)

Ender
03-04-2018, 03:18 PM
From the Judge:


Immigrant Children and the Rule of Law
By Andrew P. Napolitano

September 7, 2017

Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that in six months, the Department of Justice will begin the long process for deportation proceedings against 800,000 young people who came to America as babies and young children in the care of their parents and others because those entries into this country were and remain unlawful.

When President Barack Obama signed numerous executive orders attempting to set forth the conditions under which illegally immigrated adults whose children were born here could lawfully remain here, he was challenged in federal court and he lost. Sessions believes that the government would lose again if it declined to deport those who came here illegally as babies and young children.

Here is the back story.

Shortly after President Obama formalized two programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (commonly known as DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (commonly, DAPA), in a series of executive orders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that DAPA — the orders protecting undocumented immigrants who are the parents of children born here — was unconstitutional.

Before signing his executive orders, Obama tried to persuade Congress to amend federal immigration laws so as to permit those who came here illegally and bore children here and those who came here illegally as infants to remain here with work permits, high school diplomas, Social Security numbers, jobs and other indicia of stability and permanence. After Congress declined to vote on the Obama proposals, he authored his now-famous DACA and DAPA executive orders. He basically decided to do on his own what Congress had declined to do legislatively.

But Obama’s executive orders were not novel; they merely formalized what every president since Ronald Reagan — including President Donald Trump — has effectively done. Each has declined to deport undocumented immigrants who bore children here or who were brought here as young children. President Obama alone showed the courage to put this in writing, thereby giving immigrants notice of what they need to do to avoid deportation and the government notice of whose deportations should not occur.

Numerous states challenged Obama’s DAPA orders in federal court. The states argued that because they are required to provide a social safety net — hospital emergency rooms, public schools, financial assistance for the poor, etc. — for everyone within their borders, whether there lawfully or unlawfully, DAPA was increasing their financial burden beyond their ability or will to pay. Stated differently, they argued that the president alone was effectively compelling these states to spend state tax dollars against the will of elected state officials. The states also argued that DAPA was such a substantial deviation from the immigration statutes that Congress had written that it amounted to the president’s rewriting the law and thereby usurping the constitutional powers of Congress.

A federal district judge agreed with the states, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed that ruling. That court held that by increasing the financial burden on states against the will of the elected officials of the states, the president had violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution — which guarantees a representative form of government in the states, not one in which a federal official can tell state officials how to spend state tax dollars.

It also ruled that by enforcing his executive orders instead of the laws as Congress wrote them — those laws mandate deportation for all who came here illegally, no matter their age or family status — the president was failing to take care that all federal laws be enforced. That behavior, the court ruled, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which compels the president to enforce federal laws as they were written, not as he might wish them to be.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene by a 4-4 vote, thereby permitting the 5th Circuit decision to stand undisturbed.

When Sessions announced this week that DACA will not be followed after March 5, 2018, he said he is confident that DACA is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the courts found DAPA to be unconstitutional. Yet there are moral, constitutional, legal and economic arguments on this that will be an obstacle to the cancellation of this long-standing program.

Morally, most of the beneficiaries of DACA are fully Americanized young adults who know no other life but what they have here and have no roots in the countries of their births. Many are serving the U.S. in the military. Constitutionally, DACA has effectively been in place since 1986, and 800,000 people younger than 40 have planned their lives in reliance upon it. Legally, once a benefit has been given by the government and relied upon, the courts are reluctant to rescind it, even though the 5th Circuit showed no such reluctance.

Economically, the summary removal of more than three-quarters of a million people from the workforce would have serious negative consequences for their employers and dependents and for delicate economic forces, and there would be negative economic consequences to the government, as well, as each claimed hardship case — each person whose deportation is ordered — is entitled to a hearing at the government’s expense.

Now many Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress want to make a close version of Obama’s executive orders with respect to immigrant infants (DACA) the law of the land — something they declined to do when Obama was president. Were this to happen, the tables would be turned on Trump. He would be confronted with the constitutional duty of enforcing a federal law that he has condemned.

Would he live up to his oath of office?

Zippyjuan
03-04-2018, 03:20 PM
The courts did not rule that Trump could not end DACA with an Executive Order. Nor did they rule that DACA was legal or not. What they have ruled (so far) is that they did not follow the proper procedure to try to end it.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/26/17053202/daca-supreme-court-ruling-trump


Several different lawsuits got filed over the end of DACA, arguing that the Trump administration had acted illegally in winding down the program. In one of those — filed by the University of California — federal judge William Alsup ruled in January that there was evidence to suggest that the administration had in fact violated the law, by not going through a standard deliberative process or doing enough to consider the costs of ending DACA. Therefore, he said, he was going to put the rollback of the program on hold while he considered the legal questions more fully.

Here’s the way the process is supposed to go from there: the Trump administration would appeal the judge’s ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then, if the 9th Circuit sided with the judge and against the administration (as is likely, given the 9th Circuit’s track record), take that appeal to the Supreme Court. Here’s the way the process actually went: the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to let them skip the 9th Circuit.

Zippyjuan
03-04-2018, 03:22 PM
From the Judge:

Punishing children for the sins of the fathers. People brought here as kids who know no life outside the US. Deportation would be sending somebody "back" to a place they don't even know- and they might not even speak the language.

Ender
03-04-2018, 03:22 PM
DACA was NOT written by Congress, which makes it unconstitutional on its face and therefore isn't law, so Article 3 grants no power to the judiciary to force it to take place or adjudicate in favor of it.

So, maybe we should concentrate on all those unconstitutional wars we're in instead of some kids that know no other way of life or country than the US?

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:29 PM
Holy shit, just read the court order already. All you're doing is making stuff up.


All legislation is written by congress, implemented by the executive, and overseen by the courts.

It's called article 3.You are right !
Just read case law of Article 3 too though to understand more betta.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 03:30 PM
You are right !
Just read case law of Article 3 too though to understand more betta.


Here, I've cut it down to 4 sentences. There's still some 3 syllable words in there, though, so you might want to take a deep breath before and plan on a long rest after reading it. Maybe see if you can get the home to give you a double serving of pudding at snack time.



... the APA authorizes parties harmed by federal agencies to obtain judicial review of agency decisions. 5 U.S.C. § 702. The reviewing court must set aside "action, findings, [or] conclusions" that are, among other things, "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

...

The APA thus sometimes places courts in the formalistic, even perverse, position of setting aside action that was clearly within the responsible agency's authority, simply because the agency gave the wrong reasons for, or failed to adequately explain, its decision. E.g., State Farm, 463 U.S. at 42-43, 48-56; Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416,420. Based on the present record, these appears to be just such cases.

Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program. Nothing in the Constitution or the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (the "INA"), requires immigration authorities to grant deferred action or work authorization to individuals without lawful immigration status.

...

The question before the court is thus not whether Defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that Defendants have not done so.


https://www.bklynlibrary.org/sites/default/files/styles/eventcal_large/public/images/events/calendar/reading_is_fundamental__6_4.jpg

timosman
03-04-2018, 03:31 PM
So, maybe we should concentrate on all those unconstitutional wars we're in instead of some kids that know no other way of life or country than the US?

How did it work for you?

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:36 PM
So, maybe we should concentrate on all those unconstitutional wars we're in instead of some kids that know no other way of life or country than the US?
Trump does nothing - courts can not compel an Executive Order to continue anything - Trump gave Congress 6 mos. an an extension to be "lawmakers" - Congress fail.

Think of the children - of other nations - that wanted to immigrate to the USA from every corner of the globe -
Mexico would have to be penalized with no future immigration to the tune of some 1.3 million -
with about 3000 immigrants from all other countries tops annually -
about 43 years before any other single Mexico immigrant could be naturalized if the amnesty seekers took a future spot -
as Senator Rand Paul mentioned and proposed last month in CNBC interview.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:42 PM
Here, I've cut it down to 4 sentences. There's still some 3 syllable words in there, though, so you might want to take a deep breath before and plan on a long rest after reading it. Maybe see if you can get the home to give you a double serving of pudding at snack time.


Enjoy the read of Protestants and Others v. O'Brien too though - an annotation to the Article 3 case law study, right there easy reading at Note 211 in your U.S.C.A.
In ONE sentence to read . . . only 3 words have three syllables - you can DO IT - jus' try -
but try the rest of the full opinion if you can. Thanks.

"Courts may not control or supervise operations of other two branches of government"

Superfluous Man
03-04-2018, 03:47 PM
You are right !
Just read case law of Article 3 too though to understand more betta.

Case law. So basically, you're saying to just defer to whatever the judicial branch has decreed. Is that right?

Zippyjuan
03-04-2018, 03:51 PM
Trump does nothing - courts can not compel an Executive Order to continue anything - Trump gave Congress 6 mos. an an extension to be "lawmakers" - Congress fail.

Think of the children - of other nations - that wanted to immigrate to the USA from every corner of the globe -
Mexico would have to be penalized with no future immigration to the tune of some 1.3 million -
with about 3000 immigrants from all other countries tops annually -
about 43 years before any other single Mexico immigrant could be naturalized if the amnesty seekers took a future spot -
as Senator Rand Paul mentioned and proposed last month in CNBC interview.

Rand Paul: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/349219-rand-paul-calls-for-bipartisan-daca-solution


Senator Rand Paul

Verified account

@RandPaul
Follow Follow @RandPaul
More
There are ways to make sure people who have been here for many years since childhood are allowed to stay.

9:01 AM - 5 Sep 2017




Paul calls for bipartisan DACA solution
© Keren Carrion
Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) on Tuesday called for bipartisan congressional collaboration to replace or fix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration (DACA) policy, shortly after the Trump administration announced its decision to end the program.

In a series of tweets, Paul said that the Obama-era order "was illegal," but the overarching problem calls for a "bipartisan" solution.

The Kentucky senator added that "there are ways" to protect the deportation of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as minors and sought work permits.


Ron Paul:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm


Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011


Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

TheCount
03-04-2018, 03:51 PM
Enjoy the read of Protestants and Others v. O'Brien too though - an annotation to the Article 3 case law study, right there easy reading at Note 211 in your U.S.C.A.
In ONE sentence to read . . . only 3 words have three syllables - you can DO IT - jus' try -
but try the rest of the full opinion if you can. Thanks.

"Courts may not control or supervise operations of other two branches of government"

K.


5 U.S.C.

§ 702. Right of review

A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein (1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or (2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:52 PM
O'Brien case of 1967 involves the Postmaster General, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was without error with Supreme Court review . . .
in stating that Article 3 does NOT give Courts standing to interfere with Postmaster General's discretion.

Analogous to an Executive Order at the discretion of the executive branch and ultimately the President - which we've all known about since John Jay and George Washington . . . O'Brien case should be an eye-opener for funny men like Seinfeld and Costanza, eh ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5_ipIELoc

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 03:55 PM
K.

Again though . . . an illegal entry person may not have a same standing to sue or rights as "person suffering legal wrong" of 5 USC Section 702 . . .
let me annotate a case from that 5 USCA § 702 to make it clearer fer ya' ?

TheCount
03-04-2018, 04:01 PM
O'Brien case of 1967 involves the Postmaster General, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was without error with Supreme Court review . . .
in stating that Article 3 does NOT give Courts standing to interfere with Postmaster General's discretion.

Analogous to an Executive Order at the discretion of the executive branch and ultimately the President - which we've all known about since John Jay and George Washington . . . O'Brien case should be an eye-opener.
K.


5 U.S.C.

§ 706. Scope of review

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall -




(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/556.htm) and 557 (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/557.htm) of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.



In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 04:06 PM
K.

§ 706

Good reading - but do you understand what you read ?

dannno
03-04-2018, 04:12 PM
Holy shit, just read the court order already. All you're doing is making stuff up.

The court order is retarded.

Basically they said that Trump needs a good reason to do it, and his reason was that it was illegal - but since he tweeted that he might re-visit the issue later, they believe that invalidates his argument that it was illegal or something.

It sounds like a Zippy argument to me.

Judge was a Clinton appointee, sounds like an activist judge.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 04:12 PM
All legislation is written by congress, implemented by the executive, and overseen by the courts.
It's called article 3.

You have been a good little count(ess) . . . but have ya' learned anything about Article 3 of the United states Constitution little one ?

TheCount
03-04-2018, 04:14 PM
Basically they said that Trump needs a good reason to do it, and his reason was that it was illegal

Trump didn't do it. Maybe if he was less of a pussy, and did it himself rather than direct Sessions to do it, it wouldn't have been agency action and wouldn't have fallen under the APA.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 04:18 PM
The court order is retarded.

Basically they said that Trump needs a good reason to do it, and his reason was that it was illegal - but since he tweeted that he might re-visit the issue later, they believe that invalidates his argument that it was illegal or something.

It sounds like a Zippy argument to me.


The Court's Zippy argument gets trumped by Article 3 - LOL

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 04:26 PM
"If Congress may exercise commerce [(or other Congress function like -say - immigration ) power -]
- power and asserts that it is exercising it, judicial department may NOT (emphasis added)t attempt in its own conception of policy to (act)"

Shirley Moon v. Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture et al. 379 F.2d 382 (Ninth Circuit 1967)

dannno
03-04-2018, 04:27 PM
Trump didn't do it. Maybe if he was less of a pussy, and did it himself rather than direct Sessions to do it, it wouldn't have been agency action and wouldn't have fallen under the APA.

That makes it all the more retarded that they turned it over based on Trump's tweet.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 04:33 PM
That makes it all the more retarded that they turned it over based on Trump's tweet.

They didn't.

dannno
03-04-2018, 04:41 PM
They didn't.

They did..

Judge cited Trump tweet in decision to leave DACA in placehttp://thehill.com/homenews/administration/368268-judge-cited-trump-tweet-in-decision-to-leave-daca-in-place

TheCount
03-04-2018, 04:46 PM
They did..

Judge cited Trump tweet in decision to leave DACA in place

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/368268-judge-cited-trump-tweet-in-decision-to-leave-daca-in-place

It's a footnote on one page of 55 pages and has nothing to do with the conclusion that's made. You should probably read it.



Rather than terminating the program forthwith, however, Acting Secretary Duke directed her subordinates to begin a phased "wind-down of the program," under which DHS would continue to renew DACA applications that were set to expire in the next six months and would honor existing DACA benefits until they expired. The means by which Defendants ended the DACA program thus appear to conflict with their stated rationale for doing so. If the DACA program was, in fact, unconstitutional, the court does not understand (nor have Defendants explained) why Defendants would have the authority to continue to violate the Constitution, albeit at a reduced scale and only for a limited time.

https://www.bklynlibrary.org/sites/default/files/styles/eventcal_large/public/images/events/calendar/reading_is_fundamental__6_4.jpg

dannno
03-04-2018, 05:08 PM
It's a footnote on one page of 55 pages and has nothing to do with the conclusion that's made. You should probably read it.



Their entire argument rests on that statement.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 09:57 PM
Their entire argument rests on that statement.
You should probably read it.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 10:05 PM
Reading is so fundamental - you little ones should be encouraged to read for understanding though.

'Courts have no power" to write into sections of US Code "by interpretation, language which broadens its scope."
Scofield v. NLRB, 393 F.2d 49 (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 1968)

"matters of policy must be determined by Congress, and court's task is not to fix policy but to interpret statute
and say what court thinks Congress intended it to mean. NLRB v. Miranda Fuel Co.,326 F.2d 172 (Second Circuit Court of Appeals 1963)

Hundreds of cases to affirm that Courts can not be legislating policy - keep up your reading program little count and countess
to pronounce those three-syllable words accurately, but read to improve your understanding needs alot more work it seems,
especially if you are to pass your fourth-grade reading comprehension and beyond.

dannno
03-04-2018, 10:12 PM
You should probably read it.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you should.

But feel free to post your interpretation, I've already posted mine.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 10:26 PM
Courts (including the Supreme Court) have ruled they can't end it on March 5th. New applications can't be filed but those currently under DACA can apply to have theirs extended if they are expiring.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/daca-deadline-explainer/index.html So, have you read the OP article yet ?

Of course, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on anything - what SCOTUS determined is that the government case has to go through the normal Circuit Court appellate review before they can consider it.

Hundreds of thousands of DACA-eligible young people continue to be locked out of protection

Since its inception, more than 800,000 young people have applied for and received DACA. Pursuant to the pending injunctions, these individuals are now eligible to apply for additional two-year work permits and protection from deportation under the program.
But the injunctions offer no relief for other DACA-eligible individuals. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the overall total number of individuals who may have been eligible to apply for DACA or who may have become eligible by aging into the program or obtaining additional education was slightly more than 1.8 million.


Certainly, some of these individuals were not able to apply because of a range of factors, including not being able to afford the nearly $500 application cost or fears of sending information about themselves and their loved ones to the government. Now, Because President Trump ended DACA, they are locked out of protection.
Moreover, an estimated 120,000 individuals among the 1.8 million were unable to apply for protection because they had not yet reached 15 years of age at the time that President Trump ended DACA on September 5. For these young Dreamers—who are in middle- or high-school today—the injunctions provide neither protection from the threat of being ripped from their families nor hope that they will be able to one day obtain work authorization.

https://s26.postimg.org/90gmcj67t/daca005x.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

TheCount
03-04-2018, 10:50 PM
Reading is so fundamental - you little ones should be encouraged to read for understanding though.

'Courts have no power" to write into sections of US Code "by interpretation, language which broadens its scope."
Scofield v. NLRB, 93 F.2d 49 (Wisconsin 1968)

"matters of policy must be determined by Congress, and court's task is not to fix policy but to interpret statute
and say what court thinks Congress intended it to mean. NLRB v. Miranda Fuel Co.,326 F.2d 172

Hundreds of cases to affirm that Courts can not be legislating policy
If courts cannot legislate US code, why are you quoting court cases as if they over turn the US code that I posted?

TheCount
03-04-2018, 10:52 PM
But feel free to post your interpretation, I've already posted mine.
By which you mean you were told what to believe and will not consider anything contrary to it. At least you are consistent.

dannno
03-04-2018, 10:56 PM
By which you mean you were told what to believe and will not consider anything contrary to it. At least you are consistent.

Ya, no. That is clearly what it states.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 11:25 PM
If courts cannot legislate US code, why are you quoting court cases as if they over turn the US code that I posted?
You are learning . . . a little - good!

Courts are NOT the legislative arm of the government. They interpret US Code and rulings.
They can not dictate to the Postmaster General what stamp to issue -
they can not order a President what Executive Order he rescinds - which the current US President had already done as of September 5, 2017 - or that he needs to write another Executive Order to replace an expired one, which he won't.
Congress - the lawmakers - do that but they didn't here with DACA. No more DACA without legislation to make it law of the land - pretty simple really.

Citation of case law could help ya' understand what you are posting from statute - nothing is turned over -
case law interprets statute and makes it easier for you to understand that statute what it means and it's implications on the case at hand.
These case law interpretations obviously are lacking in your reading and are very much recommended for little ones like you.

Expect deportations coming to a neighborhood near you - sooner, not later.

Ender
03-04-2018, 11:30 PM
So, have you read the OP article yet ?

Of course, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on anything - what SCOTUS determined is that the government case has to go through the normal Circuit Court appellate review before they can consider it.

Hundreds of thousands of DACA-eligible young people continue to be locked out of protection

Since its inception, more than 800,000 young people have applied for and received DACA. Pursuant to the pending injunctions, these individuals are now eligible to apply for additional two-year work permits and protection from deportation under the program.
But the injunctions offer no relief for other DACA-eligible individuals. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the overall total number of individuals who may have been eligible to apply for DACA or who may have become eligible by aging into the program or obtaining additional education was slightly more than 1.8 million.


Certainly, some of these individuals were not able to apply because of a range of factors, including not being able to afford the nearly $500 application cost or fears of sending information about themselves and their loved ones to the government. Now, Because President Trump ended DACA, they are locked out of protection.
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=&amp]Moreover, an estimated 120,000 individuals among the 1.8 million were unable to apply for protection because they had not yet reached 15 years of age at the time that President Trump ended DACA on September 5. For these young Dreamers—who are in middle- or high-school today—the injunctions provide neither protection from the threat of being ripped from their families nor hope that they will be able to one day obtain work authorization.


And you are FOR this?

timosman
03-04-2018, 11:33 PM
And you are FOR this?

Is it OK not to give a shit, comrade?

Ender
03-04-2018, 11:35 PM
Is it OK not to give a $#@!, comrade?

Not for a real libertarian/freedom-lover/Christian.

timosman
03-04-2018, 11:37 PM
Not for a real libertarian/freedom-lover/Christian.

You forgot commie.:cool:

Ender
03-04-2018, 11:38 PM
You forgot commie.:cool:

Mirror? ;)

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 11:39 PM
And you are FOR this?This . . . is what it IS. Congress did not do what they had 6 months to do. They knew this new deadline was March 5, with a March 6 cliff to fall off of without new legislation.
Like I have said, pretending this is not the situation has been a deceiving disinformation campaign of Zippy Group and others.
Maybe that disinformation has helped - ya' know don't be too worried about your deportation 'cause Zips are on the case to deceive.

Swordsmyth
03-04-2018, 11:40 PM
Not for a real libertarian/freedom-lover/Christian.

John 10:1
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”

Ender
03-04-2018, 11:40 PM
This . . . is what it IS.
Like I have said, pretending this is not the situation has been a deceiving disinformation campaign of Zippy Group and others.

This is NOT what America should stand for.

Ender
03-04-2018, 11:41 PM
John 10:1
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”

"And the second is like unto it: Love your neighbor as yourself."

timosman
03-04-2018, 11:42 PM
This is NOT what America should stand for.

You are confused. The most fundamental right in this country is the right to be left alone and not give a fuck about the manufactured crisis de jour.

timosman
03-04-2018, 11:43 PM
"And the second is like unto it: Love your neighbor as yourself."

My neighbor is not really my type. I don't see us getting together. :cool:

Swordsmyth
03-04-2018, 11:44 PM
"And the second is like unto it: Love your neighbor as yourself."

And when questioned "who is my neighbor" Christ told the parable of the good Samaritan, at the end the answer was that the Samaritan was the neighbor, those who do good things unto you are your neighbor.

We have never been told "love thy enemy AS THYSELF"


Luke
Chapter 10

29 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-29/)But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-30/)And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-31/)And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-32/)And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-33/)But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-34/)And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-35/)And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-36/)Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-37/)And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 11:46 PM
This is NOT what America should stand for.
It is what America under Obama did - created a quagmire of illegals that protections would expire in September 2017 - about eight months after he would be leaving office. What a sneaky thing to do Obama. Imagine a first term President that expires an executive order in his second term.
Obviously, the Committee to Re-Elect a Democrat wanted Clinton45 to go with Clinton42, but voters chose otherwise in november 2016, eh ?

Jan2017
03-04-2018, 11:59 PM
This is NOT what America should stand for.

You are confused. The most fundamental right in this country is the right to be left alone and not give a fuck about the manufactured crisis de jour.
Hitting the nail on the head like a libertarian.

DACA Schemers are people, but as illegal entries they do not have every fundamental right as written in every corner of the US Code.
It is a fact. Don't have to debate the morality either, but maybe lawmakers will come up with something for these people in some future decade when there are 9 billion humans on the planet.

In the meantime, it is what it is already. As planned by Obama - DACA program expired.

Ender
03-05-2018, 12:07 AM
And when questioned "who is my neighbor" Christ told the parable of the good Samaritan, at the end the answer was that the Samaritan was the neighbor, those who do good things unto you are your neighbor.

We have never been told "love thy enemy AS THYSELF"


Luke
Chapter 10

29 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-29/)But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-30/)And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-31/)And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-32/)And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-33/)But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-34/)And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-35/)And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-36/)Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-10-37/)And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

You do realize that the one who showed mercy, the Samaritan, was hated above all people by the Jews.

THIS is why Jesus told this parable- to show the good of someone that was not in the Pharisees favorite buddy club.

Ender
03-05-2018, 12:09 AM
You are confused. The most fundamental right in this country is the right to be left alone and not give a $#@! about the manufactured crisis de jour.

You are confused- try reading the Declaration once in a while.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These DACA children did not cause this "problem" and they should not be punished for it.

Swordsmyth
03-05-2018, 12:10 AM
You do realize that the one who showed mercy, the Samaritan, was hated above all people by the Jews.

THIS is why Jesus told this parable- to show the good of someone that was not in the Pharisees favorite buddy club.

Yes, but that is irrelevant, I will love my neighbor (He that sheweth mercy unto me) as myself, lawbreakers are a different story.

Swordsmyth
03-05-2018, 12:16 AM
You are confused- try reading the Declaration once in a while.
"All men are created equal" doesn't mean all men are born American.
Also the Declaration of Independence is not law.




These DACA children did not cause this "problem" and they should not be punished for it.

Setting things right is not a punishment, the DACA "children" will be better off than they would have been if they had never been brought here so I won't cry when they go.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 12:18 AM
You are confused- try reading the Declaration once in a while.



These DACA children did not cause this "problem" and they should not be punished for it.

But . . . in a forum of debate - what if these children are preventing - by an unfair dispersal of diversity entering the sovereign nation -
i.e. DACA 1.8 million - no other country has ever contributed 1,8 million new full citizens ever -
the entry ' and unalienable rights" of others . . . children from Chad to shoot off one arrow so to speak.

These children hindering other children, with a public interest of diversity - diversity of ALL cultures - not one to take over the language.
But instead of true diversity, it has been Mexico children to the exclusion of other - equally cute - nations' children.

timosman
03-05-2018, 12:19 AM
You are confused- try reading the Declaration once in a while.



These DACA children did not cause this "problem" and they should not be punished for it.

Does the constitution apply to non-citizens and what is the punishment you are talking about? Non-citizens can pursue happiness in their home country. Nobody has a problem with that. We might drop a bomb or two over there but this is not anything anybody has a problem with.:cool:

Swordsmyth
03-05-2018, 12:22 AM
But . . . in a forum of debate - what if these children are preventing - by an unfair dispersal of diversity entering the sovereign nation -
i.e. DACA 1.8 million - no other country has ever contributed 1,8 million new full citizens ever -
the entry ' and unalienable rights" of others . . . children from Chad to shoot off one arrow so to speak.

These children hindering other children, with a public interest of diversity - diversity of ALL cultures - not one to take over the language.
But instead of true diversity, it has been Mexico children to the exclusion of other - equally cute - nations' children.

Ender wants us to import all of them so we can become a communist nation.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 12:24 AM
"All men are created equal" doesn't mean all men are born American.
. . . nice


Setting things right is not a punishment, the DACA "children" will be better off than they would have been if they had never been brought here so I won't cry when they go.
the DACA children would probably be pretty popular kids in Mexico, eh ?

Swordsmyth
03-05-2018, 12:27 AM
the DACA children would probably be pretty popular kids in Mexico, eh ?
They have a better education than they would have gotten in Mexico and plenty of Yankee dollars, they will do just fine.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 12:29 AM
Ender wants us to import all of them so we can become a communist nation.

Well we do allow immigration for them all - numbers in nation/public interest are to be equal . . . diversity of China and Phillippines and Nicaragua and Syria and all others does make our nation great - and desirable. Mexico has to realize it can't be all - nearly all - of USA immigrants forever.

TheCount
03-05-2018, 12:52 AM
You are learning . . . a little - good!

Courts are NOT the legislative arm of the government. Which means that the APA stands, granting the courts judicial oversight over some agency actions. I'm glad that you agree.



they can not order a President what Executive Order he rescinds - which the current US President had already done as of September 5, 2017 - or that he needs to write another Executive Order to replace an expired one, which he won't.

That's not what happened. Maybe you should read the ruling.

Expect the INS to be forced to continue processing DACA applications until they come up with an entirely new rationale for stopping.

TheCount
03-05-2018, 02:59 AM
Mexico has to realize it can't be all - nearly all - of USA immigrants forever.It isn't. It's not even all or nearly all of the illegal immigrants. But you wouldn't know that from the media narrative, huh?

Swordsmyth
03-05-2018, 03:04 AM
It isn't. It's not even all or nearly all of the illegal immigrants. But you wouldn't know that from the media narrative, huh?

It's soooooo reassuring to know that more ChiComs are invading than Mexicans.:rolleyes:

timosman
03-05-2018, 03:11 AM
It's soooooo reassuring to know that more ChiComs are invading than Mexicans.:rolleyes:

The open borders advocates also instantly latch on the fake Mexico vs. Central and South America debate. The immigration from Mexico is decreasing. Aw, aw. :D

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 07:41 AM
Which means that the APA stands, granting the courts judicial oversight over some agency actions. I'm glad that you agree.
The courts get judicial oversight over some agency actions - DACA was an Executive Order.
A bold - easy to see and read - line has already been drawn between "judicial oversight" and outside the reach of the judiciary.

It takes a case like the Postmaster General being sued over "racial bias" in an agency of the administrative branch of government known as the USPS -
a "General" who has the discretion to spread tiny pictures of colored people in the top right corner of mailed envelopes. No judicial oversight possible - the Courts don't do THAT.
Postmaster General decision all the way. It is one of many precedents deciphering application of Article 3.
This Executive Order called DACA dies toady. Court has absolutely no say - no oversight. Just like the General of the US Post Office.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3cQ0sPvSY

at 1:15 on . . . Postmaster General Henry Atkins played by Wilfred Brimley -
the guest appearance in this episode was an homage to the actor's father, a postmaster. An actor playing sorta his Dad as the top in his field.



I was thinking the USA needs a new holiday . . . houz 'bout "Cinco de Marzo" to celebrate Mexicans going back on the path.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 09:59 AM
Expect the INS to be forced to continue processing DACA applications until they come up with an entirely new rationale for stopping.
Says who, again ? ___________________ [fill in the blank for your answer little one]

Jus' wonderin' if you understand where this is really going based on the clear litany of case law precedent. Do you read yet?

TheCount
03-05-2018, 09:59 AM
It's soooooo reassuring to know that more ChiComs are invading than Mexicans.:rolleyes:
It's somewhat important to know if the policies you're pursuing will solve the problem. Unless, of course, the policies are just signalling and not actually important.

TheCount
03-05-2018, 10:02 AM
Says who, again ? ___________________ [fill in the blank for your answer little one]

The court order that you haven't read.

TheCount
03-05-2018, 10:05 AM
The courts get judicial oversight over some agency actions - DACA was an Executive Order.
A bold - easy to see and read - line has already been drawn between "judicial oversight" and outside the reach of the judiciary.
Where does the executive get its immigration powers from?

Also, might try reading the order. It covers all of this.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 10:08 AM
Expect the INS to be forced to continue processing DACA applications until they come up with an entirely new rationale for stopping.



Expect deportations coming to a neighborhood near you - sooner, not later.



Where does the executive get its immigration powers from?

Also, might try reading the order. It covers all of this.

Congress of course - that is the legislative branch that makes up immigration law. What don't you understand still ?

Trump did all he could with the expired on September 5, 2017 DACA Executive Order - giving some illegal entries that qualified a 6-month extension until Cinco de Marzo.
No more executive orders on this . . . wait for lawmakers to legislate is all there is.
Are ya' still having a tough time . . . *sgeeze us chris' man - learn to read.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 10:22 AM
Says who, again ? ___________________ [fill in the blank for your answer little one]

Jus' wonderin' if you understand where this is really going based on the clear litany of case law precedent. Do you read yet?

The court order that you haven't read.
The Court . . . get it ?

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 10:30 AM
If courts cannot legislate US code, why are you quoting court cases as if they over turn the US code that I posted?
You are truly a fool. Start to read more - you'll make much more sense that way.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 10:42 AM
"matters of policy must be determined by Congress, and court's task is not to fix policy but to interpret statute
and say what court thinks Congress intended it to mean. NLRB v. Miranda Fuel Co.,326 F.2d 172 (Second Circuit 1963)


In a real sense, Zips misinterpreting what the Supreme Court said just fuels misunderstanding and misdirection.

The Supreme Court is not going to entertain the Trump administration/federal government skip over of the Circuit Courts of these United States of America.

The Circuit Court would need to make an error . . . Supreme Court not going to waste time with the overwhelming opinions of precedent
already existing in Circuit Courts. Do you think Circuit Court will find the error in the lower Court injunction ?
Read on The Count with the FUN-ny meme . . . coming from low reading and comprehension skills you, of all people. geesus Chris' man, get with it.

Superfluous Man
03-05-2018, 10:42 AM
Congress of course - that is the legislative branch that makes up immigration law.

Not according to the US Constitution.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 10:49 AM
Not according to the US Constitution.
Please read more of Article 3 for your own sake.

Superfluous Man
03-05-2018, 10:52 AM
Please read more of Article 3 for your own sake.

OK. Done. I find nothing there authorizing the judicial branch to compel the Executive branch to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Also, throughout this whole thread you've been conspicuous in your reliance on wise cracks and seemingly irrelevant assertions. I honestly still don't get whatever your point was in the OP. Why not come right out and state in plain English what it is you're trying to say, and if necessary present an actual argument for it?

timosman
03-05-2018, 10:53 AM
Not according to the US Constitution.

Does anybody take you seriously in real life? Do you think trolling on a public forum will help you cope?:cool:

timosman
03-05-2018, 10:55 AM
OK. Done. I find nothing there authorizing the judicial branch to compel the Executive branch to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Also, throughout this whole thread you've been conspicuous in your reliance on wise cracks and seemingly irrelevant assertions. I honestly still don't get whatever your point was in the OP. Why not come right out and state in plain English what it is you're trying to say, and if necessary present an actual argument for it?

We need more champions of rational thought here, aw, aw. :cool:

Superfluous Man
03-05-2018, 11:17 AM
Does anybody take you seriously in real life? Do you think trolling on a public forum will help you cope?:cool:

How is promoting the mission trolling?

Wouldn't trolling be what the people who come here to promote statism are doing?

TheCount
03-05-2018, 11:22 AM
Congress of course - that is the legislative branch that makes up immigration law.

Huh, weird how that works. It sounds very similar to all of the other things that the executive does, all of which are subject to judicial review...



Also, still read the order.

timosman
03-05-2018, 11:23 AM
How is promoting the mission trolling?

Wouldn't trolling be what the people who come here to promote statism are doing?

Oh, yeah, now we are back to promoting the site mission. Zippy's defense. :cool:

timosman
03-05-2018, 11:26 AM
Huh, weird how that works. It sounds very similar to all of the other things that the executive does, all of which are subject to judicial review...

Are you familiar with the concept of legal standing?



Also, still read the order.

Look who's talking. :cool:

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:27 AM
OK. Done. I find nothing there authorizing the judicial branch to compel the Executive branch to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Trump guilty as charged for granting an extension until Cinco de Marzo - toady. Except - DACA is NOT and never was a law - only an Executive Order.
Trump can do whatever Executive Order he wants to - as an extension was pretty wise enough, and legal since Congress persons sit on their hands alot, don't they ?



Also, throughout this whole thread you've been conspicuous in your reliance on wise cracks and seemingly irrelevant assertions.
Wise cracks intersperced because of the meme the Count wants to start up - I'll go over the top to show who is NOT reading that would be The Count -
every obtuse statement from him is kinda FUN-ny

as for Zippy interjection trying to interpret SCOTUS reliance on Circuit Courts to handle this . . . Zips bs needs to be confronted more.




I honestly still don't get whatever your point was in the OP. Here , as in original OP
Dreams Deferred: A Look at DACA Renewals and Losses Post-March 5

https://s26.postimg.org/90gmcj67t/daca005x.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration terminated the deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and permitted only a subset of current DACA recipients, whose protections were set to expire on or before March 5, 2018, to file renewal applications. Predictably, this action created a March 6 cliff, where the bulk of DACA-protected individuals would begin to lose status. At the time, President Donald Trump made clear that it was the responsibility of Coingress to pass legislation by March 5 to avert that crisis from unfolding. That has not happened.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2018/03/02/447486/dreams-deferred-look-daca-renewals-losses-post-march-5/





Why not come right out and state in plain English what it is you're trying to say
as you must have missed . . .
"matters of policy must be determined by Congress, and court's task is not to fix policy but to interpret statute
and say what court thinks Congress intended it to mean. Volume 326 of Federal Reporter Second Series at page 172

Hundreds of cases to affirm that Courts can not be legislating policy.


. . . if necessary present an actual argument for it?
Interpretation of the recent SCOTUS referral to the Circuit Courts is in such a misunderstanding here - I wonder why and who (?)

The arguments are abundant in a litany of Circuit Court cases . . . I am a slow typer sorta. More case law is promised , as available.

Superfluous Man
03-05-2018, 11:29 AM
Trump can do whatever Executive Order he wants to


Not according to the Constitution.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:30 AM
Huh, weird how that works. It sounds very similar to all of the other things that the executive does, all of which are subject to judicial review...
OMG still with reading comprehension losses - get with it !
What is "judicial review" - and who does the reviewing again (?)

TheCount
03-05-2018, 11:31 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of legal standing?


Oh no, definitely not, you'd better explain it to me.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:32 AM
Not according to the Constitution.
right -you are gonna parse it out a bit to get a "gotcha" - funny man - reading comprehension is what you need to consider - not just exact words taken in a mis-context.

Superfluous Man
03-05-2018, 11:35 AM
right -you are gonna parse it out a bit to get a "gotcha" - funny man - reading comprehension is what you need to consider - not just exact words taken in a mis-context.

This is exactly what I was talking about before. All your posts are like this. I still can't tell what your point is in this entire thread.

Why not just say it, in complete sentences, without links or sarcasm?

I'm actually pretty strong in reading comprehension. But I freely admit that when I read your posts, I can't comprehend them. I just don't think the problem is on my end.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:40 AM
This is exactly what I was talking about before. All your posts are like this. I still can't tell what your point is in this entire thread.

Why not just say it, in complete sentences, without links or sarcasm?

I'm actually pretty strong in reading comprehension. But I freely admit that when I read your posts, I can't comprehend them. I just don't think the problem is on my end. Please read above posts more - you need it.

TheCount
03-05-2018, 11:41 AM
What is "judicial review" - and who does the reviewing again (?)

It looks something like this:


5 U.S.C.

§ 706. Scope of review

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall -





(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/556.htm) and 557 (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/557.htm) of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.




In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

timosman
03-05-2018, 11:48 AM
Dear trolls, so who exactly has a standing in this case?

Superfluous Man
03-05-2018, 11:50 AM
Dear trolls, so who exactly has a standing in this case?

Why ask trolls? Why not ask the people who support the site mission, and Ron Paul's anti-deportation views?

Anybody who will be deported when a law is enforced has standing in a challenge to the enforcement of that law.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:52 AM
OK. Done. I find nothing there authorizing the judicial branch to compel the Executive branch to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Trump guilty as charged for granting an extension until Cinco de Marzo - toady. Except - DACA is NOT and never was a law - only an Executive Order.
Trump can do whatever Executive Order he wants to - as an extension was pretty wise enough, and legal since Congress persons sit on their hands alot, don't they ?



Also, throughout this whole thread you've been conspicuous in your reliance on wise cracks and seemingly irrelevant assertions.
Wise cracks intersperced because of the meme the Count wants to start up - I'll go over the top to show who is NOT reading that would be The Count -
every obtuse statement from him is kinda FUN-ny

as for Zippy interjection trying to interpret SCOTUS reliance on Circuit Courts to handle this . . . Zips bs needs to be confronted more.




I honestly still don't get whatever your point was in the OP. Here , as in original OP
Dreams Deferred: A Look at DACA Renewals and Losses Post-March 5

https://s26.postimg.org/90gmcj67t/daca005x.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration terminated the deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and permitted only a subset of current DACA recipients, whose protections were set to expire on or before March 5, 2018, to file renewal applications. Predictably, this action created a March 6 cliff, where the bulk of DACA-protected individuals would begin to lose status. At the time, President Donald Trump made clear that it was the responsibility of Coingress to pass legislation by March 5 to avert that crisis from unfolding. That has not happened.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2018/03/02/447486/dreams-deferred-look-daca-renewals-losses-post-march-5/





Why not come right out and state in plain English what it is you're trying to say
as you must have missed . . .
"matters of policy must be determined by Congress, and court's task is not to fix policy but to interpret statute
and say what court thinks Congress intended it to mean. Volume 326 of Federal Reporter Second Series at page 172

Hundreds of cases to affirm that Courts can not be legislating policy.


. . . if necessary present an actual argument for it?
Interpretation of the recent SCOTUS referral to the Circuit Courts is in such a misunderstanding here - I wonder why and who (?)

The arguments are abundant in a litany of Circuit Court cases . . . I am a slow typer sorta. More case law is promised , as available.

TheCount
03-05-2018, 11:52 AM
Dear trolls, so who exactly has a standing in this case?

https://www.potterybarn.com/pbimgs/ab/images/dp/wcm/201738/0007/eliza-mirror-o.jpg

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:54 AM
Why ask trolls? Why not ask the people who support the site mission, and Ron Paul's anti-deportation views?

Anybody who will be deported when a law is enforced has standing in a challenge to the enforcement of that law.

Site mission to support anti-deportation views - well, a forum doesn't have the mission to dis-inform to reach that site mission, does it ?

timosman
03-05-2018, 11:54 AM
Why ask trolls? Why not ask the people who support the site mission, and Ron Paul's anti-deportation views?

Anybody who will be deported when a law is enforced has standing in a challenge to the enforcement of that law.

What law? :confused:

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 11:55 AM
Dear trolls, so who exactly has a standing in this case?


https://www.potterybarn.com/pbimgs/ab/images/dp/wcm/201738/0007/eliza-mirror-o.jpg

Thanks for the reply to the call for trolls to answer - yet still adds to the discussion so obtuse - typical.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 12:24 PM
Why not come right out and state in plain English what it is you're trying to say

Ah, reading legalese gets like that - hard to follow for people I understand.

O'Brien case referenced early . . . Seinfeld episode with George Costanza as another O'Brien - kinda apropos (?) LOL

The Postmaster General case is interesting . . . and another Seinfeld episode comes to mind.
Point is : Article 3 has limitations . . . there is not "judicial review" of everything as asserted by some here on RPF again.

The Postmaster General has to be given deference for what stamps to issue - no not anything / or everything is allowed - pornographic stamps for instance.
Circuit Courts will overrule a lower Court decision that exceeds the Article 3 precedents of what is "judicial oversight" - not SCOTUS

Same/analogous is here with DACA Executive Order. A lower Court does not design policy - and it is not allowed to if it tries - definitely and certainly.

DACA cliff starts at midnight local time tonight. As stated in OP link.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 12:37 PM
"Courts should not interfere in the operation of the government just because the particular judge disapproves
of the policy of the government, but, given the constitutional power to act, Congress is supreme in its legislative field,
and executive to whom certain powers are delegated subject to statutory standards, is supreme in the delegated field."
U.S. v. Big Bend Transit
42 F.Supp. 459 (US District Court for the State of Washington 1948) keynote Constitutional Law 70(1)

"One can not read the decisions of the Supreme Court in the last few years without fully concluding that it is the conviction
of that Court that courts should not interfere in the operation of Government just because the particular judge of the court
disapproves of the policy of the Government.

Given the constitutional power to act, Congress is supreme in its legislative field.
When Congress, in the exercise of its legislative judgment, delegates to an executive certain powers subject to the standards
provided in the Act, that executive is supreme in the delegated field.
It does not lie with the courts to interfere just because they dislike what was done.
The test of the correctness of the doctrine and its performance comes when the Court is compelled to accept it
to uphold acts of the Congress or of the executive of which the judge disapproves."

U.S. v. Big Bend Transit
42 F.Supp. 459, at page 475 (US District Court for the State of Washington 1948)

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 01:29 PM
The Baltimore Sun March 5, 2018 at 1:55pm ET

'Dreamers' deferred


The Washington Times - Monday, March 5, 2018

‘Dreamers’ turn ire on Democrats as DACA deadline passes


Trump's DACA deadline passes under legal cloud, with urgency dwindling in Congress
DACA deadline: Have Democrats abandoned Dreamers? (http://video.foxnews.com/v/5745133480001/daca-deadline-have-democrats-abandoned-dreamers)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/05/trumps-daca-deadline-passes-under-legal-cloud-with-urgency-dwindling-in-congress.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/05/trumps-daca-deadline-passes-under-legal-cloud-with-urgency-dwindling-in-congress.html)

EBounding
03-05-2018, 01:40 PM
It's so weird that Trump's order ended up being compeletely beneficial for Trump--no blowback from his base and the Dreamers get to stay thanks to the injunction.

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 01:51 PM
"Federal courts do not sit as councils of revision, empowered to rewrite legislation in accord with their own concepts
of prudent public policy, and only when literal construction of statute yields results so manifestly unreasonable
that they could not fairly be attributed to congressional design will exception to statutory language be judicially implied."
United States v. Rutherford, 99 S.Ct. 2470, 442 U.S. 544, 61 L.Ed.2d 68,(certiorari to Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 1979)
on remand at 616 F.2d. 455, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct.336, 449 U.S. 937, 66 L.Ed.2d 160

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 02:13 PM
It's so weird that Trump's order ended up being compeletely beneficial for Trump--no blowback from his base and the Dreamers get to stay thanks to the injunction.

What is weird really ?
The ill-conceived DACA Program is over for everyone as a first-timer applicant - base is happy.
So under Trump, Obamacare individual mandate is abolished, and DACA is done - put a fork in it.


The injunction is pretty lame in all regards acknowledging it is just a temporary band-aid . . .
The injunction does make fine target practice though:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPzIisdtS8o

EBounding
03-05-2018, 03:14 PM
Trump's base wants the Dreamers deported--Trump doesn't.

timosman
03-05-2018, 03:30 PM
Trump's base wants the Dreamers deported--Trump doesn't.

LOL. I think the base simply doesn't want more dreamers and wants deportations for those who break the law.

dannno
03-05-2018, 04:20 PM
It's so weird that Trump's order ended up being compeletely beneficial for Trump--no blowback from his base and the Dreamers get to stay thanks to the injunction.

Yep, it's all over :rolleyes:

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 05:59 PM
Yep, it's all over :rolleyes:
Yep, it's over for DACA first-timers . . .
deportation happens whether Trump wants it or not - it is the law, and deportation hearings happen everyday.
Good luck 'Schemers' !

If these recipients to the failed now abolished DACA program want to sleep well tonight comforted by the Northern District of California District Judge backing them as the light at the end of the tunnel - fine.
Tomorrow we can break the bad news to them that that light at the end of the tunnel . . . it is the headlight of an oncoming train.

Ender
03-05-2018, 06:14 PM
Ron Paul:


Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?

The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem

timosman
03-05-2018, 06:20 PM
Ron Paul:


http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem

We heard you the first time.:cool:

Ender
03-05-2018, 06:20 PM
We heard you the first time.:cool:

That was RON PAUL- you know, the guy who the forum's named after?

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 06:48 PM
That was RON PAUL- you know, the guy who the forum's named after?
The RP argument is not gonna have too much bearing for what the Supreme Court has already decided - this is a done DACA program.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zg7uQX6No


SCOTUS was short and sweet - not an explanation of what is going down but the DACA gift-receivers WILL get the decision soon about the Eventual Path To Mexico program.

So, that would mean "DACA" becomes "EPTM"

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 06:53 PM
When the Circuit Court gets a case on appeal so disgusting against precedent from a District Judge with an agenda,
what do the Zips expect - that the Courts will legislate (?) a better Executive Order (?)

Jan2017
03-05-2018, 07:11 PM
It looks something like this:
And the second half of my question to you is who . . . one of these on this list (?)

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ArticleIII_Judges

or, - on this list :

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_active_senior_judges.php

TheCount
03-05-2018, 09:57 PM
And the second half of my question to you is who . . . one of these on this list (?)

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ArticleIII_Judges

or, - on this list :

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_active_senior_judges.php Nope, neither one.

You'd know that if you read it... The name is right on it.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-05-2018, 10:22 PM
https://www.potterybarn.com/pbimgs/ab/images/dp/wcm/201738/0007/eliza-mirror-o.jpg



Unlike some people I know--I don't think he gets paid to post here.

Swordsmyth
03-06-2018, 01:48 AM
:D
Trump DACA phaseout legal, judge ruleshttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/trump-daca-phaseout-legal-judge-rules/

:D

Swordsmyth
03-06-2018, 01:49 AM
The ruling does not overturn two other federal courts, who had previously blocked the phaseout, which was supposed to take effect Monday. But it does offer a needed boost as the Justice Department appeals those other two rulings.
Judge Roger W. Titus (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/roger-w-titus/), a Bush appointee to the bench in Maryland, said the judges in California and New York who blocked the phaseout attempted to substitute their own judgments for that of the Homeland Security Department, crossing constitutional lines in order to strike at Mr. Trump’s policies.
SEE ALSO: ‘Dreamers’ turn ire on Democrats as DACA deadline passes (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/dreamers-turn-ire-democrats-daca-deadline-passes/)

Judge Titus (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/roger-w-titus/) went even further, praising the Trump administration for the way it handled the situation with a six-month phaseout.
“This decision took control of a pell-mell situation and provided Congress — the branch of government charged with determining immigration policy — an opportunity to remedy it. Given the reasonable belief that DACA was unlawful, the decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner was rational,” the judge wrote.

Jan2017
03-06-2018, 09:17 AM
Nope, neither one.

You'd know that if you read it... The name is right on it.
You are so verbose . . .

The writ of certiorari was agreed (but I thought signed) en banc all eleven - with no dissenters - I am not sure who all signed it though.
Sorta a review . . . paraphrasing . . .
telling the world the United States of America Supreme Court find by unanimous opinion such egregious - error - or -errors -
and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is to expeditiously decide this remand from the Supreme Court against the signatory Judge in the Northern District of California -
- as the Supreme Court would really be only utilized in our efficient *cough* *cough* justice system and government, if in the unlikely event the Circuit Court also commits errors. Don't fret Schemers the Supreme Court is protecting you temporarily with this temporary injunctive relief if until the Circuit Court makes another error on top of District Judge Aslip - for which we then go full metal jacket.
But - this is kinda neat - the Supreme Court gives the Schemers more time to take the path to Mexico,
or get to a Sanctuary City jus' as fas' as ya' can!


Love, your judge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
wait . . . I think I can barely make out the signature. Is the writ of error against Judge Aslip signed by none other than . . .

,

timosman
03-06-2018, 10:25 AM
971007733313961984

TheCount
03-06-2018, 10:39 AM
Judge Aslip
Your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought.

Jan2017
03-06-2018, 11:22 AM
Nope, neither one.

You'd know that if you read it... The name is right on it.
The name is there - how'd ya' miss it (?) right in the first list as expected - reading comprehension bad - such a wasted mind.
Speculation of the three-judge panel now ordered by SCOTUS to act "expeditiously" on their remand to the Circuit Court.
Aslip is gone - other than the public hanging (figuratively)


Judge Aslip . . .your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought.
In the first list of Article III judges already dunce - are your eyes going bad already at such a young age as a teenager ?
And he even has a three letter (like an airport) designation at .gov - TOO FUNNY!

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wha

His review has already had a writ of error issued by SCOTUS to remand to the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel.
So you understand what has happened and is happenin' , yet ? Sorta get it ?

Jan2017
03-06-2018, 11:31 AM
Come to think of it . . . TheCount, you don't really know what an Article III judge is - or you'd have known after bringing up Article 3 in the discussion that Aslip would be in that first list of Article 3 Judges - you said your fav "reviewer" wasn't in that list.
Ya' jus' couldn't figure that out that (?) geezus Chris' man, get with it - you look bad here.

TheCount
03-06-2018, 12:05 PM
The name is there - how'd ya' miss it (?) right in the first list as expected - reading comprehension bad - such a wasted mind.
Speculation of the three-judge panel now ordered by SCOTUS to act "expeditiously" on their remand to the Circuit Court.
Aslip is gone - other than the public hanging (figuratively)


In the first list of Article III judges already dunce - are your eyes going bad already at such a young age as a teenager ?
And he even has a three letter (like an airport) designation at .gov - TOO FUNNY!

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wha

His review has already had a writ of error issued by SCOTUS to remand to the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel.
So you understand what has happened and is happenin' , yet ? Sorta get it ?


Come to think of it . . . TheCount, you don't really know what an Article III judge is - or you'd have known after bringing up Article 3 in the discussion that Aslip would be in that first list of Article 3 Judges - you said your fav "reviewer" wasn't in that list.
Ya' jus' couldn't figure that out that (?) geezus Chris' man, get with it - you look bad here.

My first post:


Congress granted the courts judicial oversight over the executive agencies when they passed the administrative procedures act in 1946.

It's all laid out very clearly in the New York court decision.

Swordsmyth
03-07-2018, 02:57 AM
A fellow Republican has blocked Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake from forcing a vote on temporarily protecting young "Dreamer" immigrants from deportation.
It was the latest demonstration of Congress' election-year immigration stalemate.
Flake sought a vote on providing a three-year extension of protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. President Donald Trump has said he is terminating the program, which lets immigrants brought to the U.S. as children live and work here.
Flake's bill would also provide three years of financing, or $7.6 billion, for Trump to start building his border wall with Mexico.
Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford blocked the vote. He said lawmakers should consider Trump's wider-ranging bill that also limits legal immigration. Flake blocked that measure, which the Senate rejected last month.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-gop-senator-blocks-temporary-dreamers-plan-224724410.html

timosman
03-25-2018, 11:40 PM
Any updates?:cool:

Jan2017
03-26-2018, 05:14 AM
Any updates?:cool:

Well, a couple weeks farther in to deportations with border wall construction beginning toady .

March 1, 2018
Immigration Agency Rails Against Oakland Mayor’s Warning of Raids

SAN FRANCISCO — A top federal official likened Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland to a “gang lookout” on Wednesday, saying her warning of an impending, large-scale arrest operation had given immigrants in the United States illegally the opportunity to flee.
Ms. Schaaf had announced on Saturday that she had learned through “unofficial channels” that the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, was planning arrests in the area.

I know that Oakland is a city of law-abiding immigrants and families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation,” she said in a statement that circulated widely on social media over the weekend. “I believe it is my duty and moral obligation as mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”

The mayor’s warnings proved correct. Since Sunday night, ICE officers have arrested more than 150 people in Northern California in an operation ICE said was targeting “public safety threats.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/oakland-mayor-ice-warning.html

Son_of_Liberty90
03-26-2018, 09:08 AM
#AmericansAreDreamersToo

TheCount
03-26-2018, 07:40 PM
border wall construction beginning toady .

Lol.