U.S. Must Resume DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules

[TheCount]

In the biggest setback yet for the Trump administration in its decision to end a program that protects undocumented young adults from deportation, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the government must resume accepting new applications.

Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that the government’s decision to end the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was predicated on the “virtually unexplained” grounds that the program is “unlawful.”


The judge stayed his decision for 90 days, giving the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to better explain its reasoning for canceling the program.


The department, the judge wrote in his decision (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1907-23), “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications.”

https://nyti.ms/2Fe3UOB

[Swordsmyth]

Another flight of fantasy that will be overruled.

[angelatc]

Another flight of fantasy that will be overruled.

The balls that the Democrat judges have are YUGE. I don't care one way or another about this issue, except that if the liberals are for it I want to see them fail.

But this isn't a law. It's just a policy Obama pulled out of the air, with no input from Congress.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Judicial Branch now believes that it is both the Executive and Legislative branchs. They have some gall. Powermad.

[spudea]

Why is it the requirement to adequately justify the end of a program, when nothing justified the start of the program? Show me the law and the appropriation bill funding the program.

[RonZeplin]

The DACA illegal aliens need to be deported immediately so they can appear before a judge in their own country who has jurisdiction in their case, if they even have one. You've got to deport them to find out.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Move 'em out quickly!

[oyarde]

Why is it the requirement to adequately justify the end of a program, when nothing justified the start of the program? Show me the law and the appropriation bill funding the program.

Obviously that is one of the real issues . There should be no funding . How would it be in the best interest of taxpayers ?

[oyarde]

DC also needs no Fed judges . None .

[TheCount]

The DACA illegal aliens need to be deported immediately so they can appear before a judge in their own country who has jurisdiction in their case, if they even have one. You've got to deport them to find out.
If you don't think that US judges have jurisdiction over them, then they're immune to deportation. And prosecution in general.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, stands to reason.

Somebody's gotta do the jobs Americans won't do... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521607-Bernie-Sanders-to-announce-proposal-promising-jobs-to-all-Americans)

[PAF]

I don’t mean to keep repeating but thought it appropriate in this thread too...

Congressional Switch Board: 202-224-3121

Well it’s ramping up...another ‘Patriot’ Act...95 cosponsors now...

Please contact your reps to OPPOSE H.R. 4760


“Either President Trump finds another way to end the program, tossing hundreds of thousands of young people into deportation proceedings,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group in Washington, “or he works with Republicans and Democrats to find a legislative solution.”


Video and other information is in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520244-30-Second-Activist-Action-Needed-(H-R-4760)

[enhanced_deficit]

Despite some conspiracy theories, there is no credible evidence suggesting that Jarvanka-Trump team was orchestrating such calls behind the scenes as face saving exercise because Dems called Trump's bluff.




Trump Supreme Court pick sides with liberals in immigration ruling against administrationNBCNews.com Apr 17, 2018
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-supreme-court-pick-sides-liberals-immigration-ruling-against-administration-n866681


https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AJwG8tF1A2tVJ4fJb4rhTbNbVuI=/0x0:633x331/fit-in/1200x630/cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9245523/Screen_Shot_2017_09_14_at_10.41.46_AM.png
http://cdn.redalertpolitics.com/files/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2017-09-14-at-8.44.56-AM-e1505393485668.png

[TheCount]

Why is it the requirement to adequately justify the end of a program, when nothing justified the start of the program? Show me the law and the appropriation bill funding the program.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

It isn't a case of an action being unlawfully withheld, it was an unlawful action that was ended.
The court has ruled exactly opposite of its duty as laid out in your citation.

[TheCount]

It isn't a case of an action being unlawfully withheld, it was an unlawful action that was ended.
The court has ruled exactly opposite of it's duty as laid out in your citation.


and
conjunction
1.used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly.
"bread and butter"


https://youtu.be/RPoBE-E8VOc
https://youtu.be/RPoBE-E8VOc

[Swordsmyth]

https://youtu.be/RPoBE-E8VOc
https://youtu.be/RPoBE-E8VOc

"When you are losing an argument turn grammar NAZI"

[TheCount]

"When you are losing an argument turn grammar NAZI"
When you can't understand what it means when a law says:

Something
And
Something else

You need remedial grammar. This continues the ongoing trend of your lack of reading comprehension.

[thoughtomator]

Any judge that attempts to wield executive power in this way should be impeached then prosecuted.

[thoughtomator]

Why is it the requirement to adequately justify the end of a program, when nothing justified the start of the program? Show me the law and the appropriation bill funding the program.

There does not exist even a potentially valid legal reasoning for the judge's order. This is an act of pure lawlessness under color of law. It's an in-your-face challenge by entrenched interests to lawful authority.

[Swordsmyth]

When you can't understand what it means when a law says:

Something
And
Something else

You need remedial grammar. This continues the ongoing trend of your lack of reading comprehension.

You are the one with a logic problem, the court was duty bound to find Trump's ending of the program to be lawful since the original action was unlawful.

(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed;
This doesn't apply since Trump's action didn't UNLAWFULLY withhold or delay an action.

(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.

This part applies to DACA since it is:
(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;

O'Bummer had no right to institute DACA and Trump has every right to end it.

[TheCount]

Any judge that attempts to wield executive power in this way should be impeached then prosecuted.
It's legislative power.

[Swordsmyth]

It's legislative power.
It's executive power that the court is usurping by ordering the executive branch to continue doing something, O'Bummer usurped legislative power when he created DACA out of thin air.

[TheCount]

You are the one with a logic problem, the court was duty bound to find Trump's ending of the program to be lawful since the original action was unlawful.

Oops, you deleted the and.


Also, your argument is covered in the decision.


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.

[TheCount]

It's executive power that the court is usurping by ordering the executive branch to continue doing something, O'Bummer usurped legislative power when he created DACA out of thin air.
No and no.

[Swordsmyth]

Oops, you deleted the and.
The "and" was unnecessary since I divided the quote into two parts and dealt with each.


Also, your argument is covered in the decision.


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.

By more authority than the court has to force a full scale open ended continuance of an unconstitutional program, if the court had ordered an instant end to the program then it could be debated whether Trump has the authority to taper off due to pragmatic concerns or not, as it is the court hasn't a leg to stand on.

[Swordsmyth]

No and no.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA0cOBhdpss

[Zippyjuan]

The balls that the Democrat judges have are YUGE. I don't care one way or another about this issue, except that if the liberals are for it I want to see them fail.

But this isn't a law. It's just a policy Obama pulled out of the air, with no input from Congress.

The judge in this case was a Republican appointee picked by George W Bush.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-john-bates-district-court-judge-rules-against-canceling-daca-2674977


Born in October 1946 in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Bates was appointed by former President George W. Bush for the District of Columbia. He is also the first Republican appointee to rule against President Donald Trump’s move to end the immigration program.

[Swordsmyth]

The judge in this case was appointed by George HW Bush.

GHWB is a RINO, that means he is a Demoncrat in disguise.

[angelatc]

The judge in this case was a Republican appointee picked by George W Bush.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-john-bates-district-court-judge-rules-against-canceling-daca-2674977

nothing about gwb was especially conservative

[TheCount]

nothing about gwb was especially conservative
Something something Trump

[nikcers]

Tumpservatives: Presidential power is a higher authority so ...
Ron Paulbots: Separation of powers
Trumpservartives: but Wilson and Roosevelt and JFK and Obama and Lincoln and Clinton and Bush..
Ron Paulbots: much liberty
-thread

[dannno]

By more authority than the court has to force a full scale open ended continuance of an unconstitutional program, if the court had ordered an instant end to the program then it could be debated whether Trump has the authority to taper off due pragmatic concerns or not, as it is the court hasn't a leg to stand on.

Ya that ruling should make anybody's head hurt, unless they have TDS...

[enhanced_deficit]

This also goes to show that good conduct does not make news and media mostly highligts the negative.

Case in point, media had attacked Trump in the recent past over this:


Trump disparaged 'Mexican judge' Gonzalo Curiel

washingtonpost

Feb 5, 2018 - The federal judge whom President Trump disparaged as a “Mexican” during his campaign will preside over a case brought against one of the president's most highly touted initiatives: the U.S-Mexico border wall. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, who was targeted by the president while he was the judge of .





Trump Supreme Court pick sides with liberals in immigration ruling against administration
NBCNews.com Apr 17, 2018
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ration-n866681 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-supreme-court-pick-sides-liberals-immigration-ruling-against-administration-n866681)


Any judge that attempts to wield executive power in this way should be impeached then prosecuted.




But now that he is respectful and did not attack judges who ruled against his executive order, not a word from media. It would be irrresponsble to assume that these judges were not attacked because of their European heritage as opposed to Mexican heritage of Judge Gonzalo Curiel.