Updated Trump administration ends DACA, with 6-month delay 07/10/2018

The Trump administration on Tuesday announced the “orderly wind down” of the Obama-era program that gave a deportation reprieve to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children – putting pressure on Congress to come up with a legislative alternative.

The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients. According to Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, the interval is meant to give Congress “time to deliver on appropriate legislative solutions.”

“However, I want to be clear that no new initial requests or associated applications filed after today will be acted on,” Duke said in a written statement.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, speaking to reporters, blasted the Obama administration's "disrespect for the legislative process" in enacting the 2012 policy. He said the “unilateral executive amnesty” probably would have been blocked by the courts anyway.

“The executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions,” Sessions said, blaming the policy for the recent “surge” at the border. “Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.”

A day earlier, Sessions sent Duke a letter with his legal determination that the 2012 executive action was unconstitutional.

The Trump administration was facing a Tuesday deadline to make a decision on DACA or face legal action by Republican state AGs who hoped to force the president’s hand in discontinuing the program.

Administration officials cast their approach Tuesday at the least disruptive option.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had promised to terminate DACA, though he appeared to soften his stance since taking office. In ending the program with a six-month delay, Trump put the onus on Congress to pass a legislative fix.

According to DHS, no current beneficiaries will be impacted before March 5, 2018.

“Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!” Trump tweeted Tuesday morning.


In this Aug. 15, 2017, file photo, a woman holds up a signs in support of the Obama administration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, during an immigration reform rally at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

While some Republicans support the goals of the DACA program, many opposed the use of executive action to institute it, describing the move as a presidential overreach.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is among those who now supports the call to protect so-called “Dreamers” with legislation.

“I have always believed DACA was a presidential overreach,” he said in a statement. "However, I equally understand the plight of the Dream Act kids who -- for all practical purposes know no country other than America. If President Trump makes this decision we will work to find a legislative solution to their dilemma.”

On a conference call, administration officials said Tuesday they are still prioritizing criminal aliens for deportation. But they described the original DACA criteria as very broad and cited the legal determination of the Justice Department.

During the presidential campaign, Trump referred to DACA as “illegal amnesty.” However, he seemed to edge away from that stance in April when he told the Associated Press that DACA recipients could “rest easy.”

The DACA program was formed through executive action by former President Barack Obama in 2012, allowing recipients to get a deportation reprieve – and work permits – for a two-year period subject to renewal. Under the program, individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and have continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007. Individuals must also have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients cannot have a criminal record.

Congress had been considering legislation to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation for years, dating back to the George W. Bush administration. Lawmakers tried again to pass a bill during the Obama administration, but couldn’t muster the votes amid flagging Republican support before Obama formed the program in 2012.

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth are currently under the program's umbrella.

On Friday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he supported a legislative solution to protect undocumented minors, but also urged the president to reconsider scrapping DACA.

"I actually don't think he should do that and I believe that this is something that Congress has to fix," Ryan said on radio station WCLO.


Views: 2630

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

With the positive direction Trump has put America on... It would be foolish to attempt to block this direction by VOTING ANY MORE DEMOCRATS TO THE CONGRESS OR SENATE.


America need only to put a magnifying glass on the current bedraggled Democrat government of Jerry brown in California to see what UBER-LIBERAL Government has done to the once great state of California......BROKE! No lying by Jerry Brown can change that.

This is Browns second stint as Governor. He took over Californis after Ronald Reagan in 1970's fixed the state and HAD CALIFORNIA RUNNING IN THE BLACK. After Jerry Brown completed his destruction of California's economy the state was FULLY IN THE RED and BROKE.





California Democrats Propose Surcharge on Businesses to Fund SOCIAL PROGRAMS!

This is what I'm talking about...The state is broke and it keeps siphoning money from peoples pockets who live in this state---ITS CRIMINAL! 


Jerry Brown takes gas taxes and pays pensions with it instead of fixing roads then jacks up gas tax to fix the roads (LIES) and rapes the residents of this state its a never ending FUBAR in BROKE CALIFORNIA.

One can look for the liberal States to lay claim to the tax brake given to the people... the State's will simply increase State Income taxes on businesses and the general public as the Federal Government reduces them... along with the federal revenue shared with the states.


There are some other very serious things that also need attention. "Jerry MOONBEAM Brown" is stating:

California Democrats want some businesses to fork over half tax-cut savings to state. That's the Sanctuary State.... of California!

This State is so over-run by OVERLY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS Many of who side with Nancy Pelosi's thinking, that one would love to Get all the Carnival type ships together along shore, arrest all of them and put them on the ships and send them to a south seas Island chain for good. AND... Once again installing Republicans  to the government here and thus turning California into the heaven it once was, the last time a great person governed California...Ronald Reagan.

Jerry Brown needs to GO and take his Liberal mess with him!He has destroyed the states economy and California is now BROKE or almost BROKE.


Immigration activists rally at the Supreme Court in 2016. (Screenshot)

Supreme Court Pumps The Accelerator On DACA Appeal

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to accelerate the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court order requiring the government to continue administering the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends legal status to 700,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. as children.

The justices ordered DACA supporters to file a brief defending the lower court judgement by Feb. 2, a swift timetable compared to other cases. The expedited schedule means the justices could make a decision about whether to review the ruling as soon as Feb. 16, when the Court is next scheduled to meet in conference to discuss pending cases.

If the justices agree to take the case, arguments will likely be scheduled for the spring. A decision would follow by late June.


The Government should have demanded that the order to continue DACA be dismissed as frivolous... and that the order to take applications while the case before the Court be set aside... It appears that the DOJ is going to throw this case, as they are not responding with legal arguments to remove the order immediately and to dismiss with prejudice. 

This is just more BS...  The SCOTUS has grounds to throw this case out for being frivolous...however, the DOJ failed to move that it be dismissed immediately, as it is an unlawful EO on its face, and any case suggesting it has legal merit is frivolous.  Again, it appears that the DOJ may be deliberately planning to throw the case... thereby, imposing Amnesty without Congress or the President... taking it out of their hands and letting them claim they could do nothing...

Again BS... it appears the fix is in.

Yes it certainly appears so Col.

The Public Isn’t As Fond Of Boundless Immigration As The Democrats Are Betting They Are

The Democrats are still picking up the pieces from Chuck Schumer’s realization that maybe shutting down the government wasn’t such a hot idea, and their supporters in the media are figuring out who to blame. The Washington Post offers a host of possibilities today, ranging from Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel (naturally) to the Democratic leadership for “losing their nerve.” One wag went so far as to suggest blaming Barack Obama. But under the covers and behind the cloakroom doors, it sounds more like a dose of cold, hard reality was setting in for Schumer.

It had become obvious that the public was catching on to the fact that the shutdown was essentially about DACA. The Democrats wanted to demand their “clean” DACA bill and were willing to shut down the government to get it. But we’ve already heard rumors that their own internal polling was showing the voters souring on that angle in a serious way, probably leading to the Minority Leader’s change of heart. If so, his conclusion is definitely supported by some recent polling which shows that a serious majority of Americans, while they have sympathy for the Dreamers, overall don’t want to see even legal immigration increasing. In fact, they’d like to see less of it. (Free Beacon)


The public isn't as fond of boundless immigration as the Democrats ...

Eighty-one percent of Americans want one million or fewer legal immigrants to the United States per year, according to new polling data released Monday by the Harvard-Harris poll, a number lower than the 1.38 million who came to the United States in 2015.

The plurality of respondents, 35 percent, think that there should be between 1 and 250,000 legal immigrants arriving to the United States per year. A net 12 percent want to see immigration increased to 1.5 million people per year or more, while nine percent of Americans think that there should be no new legal immigrants.

Plurality preference for between 1 and 250,000 new immigrants a year persists across white, Hispanic, and black Americans, as well as moderates and self-identified Democrats. Such a rate of immigration would be lower even than the rate expected from the RAISE Act, a bill backed by the administration and expected to cut immigration in half in ten years.

That new Harvard-Harris poll is available here, and the numbers are stunning. The basic question has nothing to do with illegal immigrants (who the Democrats also champion), but rather those immigrating legally. More than three quarters of the public wants to see the numbers lower than they currently are. The only solid plurality in the poll, in terms of precisely how many immigrants they feel we need to accept each year, wants the number to be less than 250,000 (which is more than a million less than what we’re currently taking in). The tally of people who actually want more immigration – and this is the group the Democrats are basing their electoral hopes on – only adds up to 12%. And that number is only three points higher than that of people who don’t want any more immigration at all.

Chuck Schumer may have some political opinions I don’t agree with (and he’s one of my senators, just for the record), but the man isn’t stupid. He can read a poll as well as the next person. Do you really think that didn’t factor into his decision to back off on the shutdown after it became obvious to one and all that this mess was all about DACA?

One other thing I’m sure Schumer is pondering this week is how this affects the #RESIST movement and their prospects against Trump. We’re once again seeing a situation where a lot of voters may not care for President Donald Trump, but they really do like some of the policiesof President Donald Trump. Majorities approve of the wall (even if they’re not sure if they want to pay for it) and most of his other takes on questions of immigration and border security. They like that he’s standing up for the police and veterans. And boy do they like a good tax cut. It should be noted that each of those items are things which the Democrats have been fighting against.

How much longer can that disconnect continue? If you like the majority of the President’s policies, doesn’t it eventually become hard to dislike the guy pushing them, even if you find his tweeting and propensity for political food fights to be offputting? And perhaps more to the point, how much longer can the Democrats maintain their favorable numbers if they are fighting against policies the public supports based solely on the fact that these are things Trump wants? None of this adds up and it just feels like something has to give in the approval ratings game sooner or later.



Don't look for any changes in the PHONY POLLS as they are as managed as our rigged elections... It is obvious that there are problems with the polls when both political parties commission both external and internal polls... the external polls for the public and an internal poll for the party leadership... 

The External Polls are managed to arrive at numbers favoring the party's positions and the internal polls are designed to provide the REAL sentiments of their constituents... and are kept behind closed doors.  If the real poll numbers (internal poll numbers) were widely distributed and known, the Democrats would be in a panic.

 ‘Dreamers’ Storm Schumer’s New York City Home, Demand Amnesty ‘Now’

Dozens of illegal aliens surrounded Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) home in New York on Tuesday demanding that Congress pass legislation immediately to give millions of people in the United States illegally amnesty and a pathway to citizenship.

“We want a Clean Dream Act,” the crowd chanted.

“When do we want it?” they chanted.

“Now!” they chanted.

The so-called Dreamers — some of whom are recipients of President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA – and potentially as many as 3.6 million illegals in all were reacting to the Senate vote on Monday to pass a Continuing Resolution funding the government until Feb. 8 that did not include any immigration amendments.

The crowd chanted in Spanish and English to Schumer; “If he won’t let us dream, we won’t let him sleep.”

The group that organized the protests in New York and on Capitol Hill, United We Dream, is funded by a slew of social justice and open borders organizations, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

United We Dream’s website announcing the New York protest reveals the group’s agenda:

Our community is outraged by the Senate vote to pass a temporary budget deal with no solution for Dreamers. Instead of holding firm for Dreamers, Senator Schumer and most Senate Democrats backed down from their commitment to stand up for our communities.

Join us outside Senator Schumer’s house to remind him: Our lives are on the line, Chuck! We need a clean Dream Act Now–not in three weeks. Now. 122 Dreamers will continue to lose their status every day, potentially losing their jobs and being put at risk of deportation. Congress can’t continue to push the lives of 800,000 youth and their families aside. Dreamers are tired of empty promises and need a legislative solution NOW!

It is past time for Senator Schumer to use his political power in Congress as the minority leader and finally bring home a clean #DreamActNow for undocumented youth, without compromising the future of their families by funding a racist wall and increased border security measures that only tear families apart.

United We Dream also tweeted their demands:

“We are not politicians we are activists and it’s our job to demand action… the #Dreamers who are going to lose their status are going to play a short game with disastrous consequences. We will call @SenSchumer every day!” – @bkindivisible #DreamActNow the tweet said.

“Our organizer Patricia says we will not stop until we have a clean Dream Act because we are ALL immigrants!” the tweet read.

Although the media speculated that Republicans might not have the 51 votes needed to pass the CR with a DACA provision, the final vote was 81-18.

Illegal aliens also stormed the offices of Senators today protesting the vote.


Send in the sheriffs and police and state militia. oops, we don't have that, do we.

US Policy should never be made based in coercion... DOZENS of professional protestors, and Marxist Dreamers, should not be given a prominent roll in making US Immigration policy.  We must not let a FEW PAID professional leftist demonstrators drive the National narrative. 

Sen. Schumer should have asked the local law enforcement to disband these so called dreamers... for trespassing... except these demonstrators were probably there by his invitation.

Illegal Aliens who storm, illegally assemble, (create a public nuisance) are breaking the Law and should be immediately arrested.  Their disruptive presence however may well be at the invitation of liberal Senators or local political figures... Hence, they are permitted to violate the law and their protests are nothing but political theater created to agitate the public and drive the leftist's narrative..

I agree Jea9 ... send in the Sheriff and if needed the National Guard to remove and JAIL  ALL THOSE Illegally assembled for disturbing the peace and creating a public nuisance. .



Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.


Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service