Updated Trump administration ends DACA, with 6-month delay 03/23/2018

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The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients.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: 1801

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As I understand the budget and law funding for essential National Security expenditures will not be shut down... Our Military should continue to receive adequate financing during the shut down.  If not, it is because the DEEP STATE is deliberately refusing to follow the law... something they have proven quite capable of doing.

One of the guests on Payne or Dobbs said, or floated the idea, that if any military died during the shutdown, they would not receive benefits. I didn't believe it.

Trump took the job knowing the risks... he is more likely to end up like JFK if he holds back on his power to reign in and correct the corruption in government.  He needed to start off his Presidency with SHOCK AND AWE... by firing all the DOJ, FBI, CIA political operatives/appointees and replacing them with 'recess appointments' on the same day... He should have had a priority list of criminals in the DEEP STATE too arrest and indict within the first 2 weeks of his Presidency... before they saw he would vacillate on using his power to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

As of today... the President has not prosecuted on major member of the criminal cabal operating the DEEP STATE... the result has been desasterous and if left to fester it will seriously damage his Administration and the ability to win the seats necessary to mandate his MAGA programs, in the Mid-Term Elections.

The President was recently faced with massive resignations coming from his Committee to investigate Voter and Election Fraud... in the midst of wide spread refusal of the States to cooperate by releasing otherwise public information to the committee... why?  It should be obvious that the electoral system has been corrupted and is totally gamed/rigged. The People no longer have the power of consent ... to be governed... our elections are a joke.. they are rigged to arrive at predetermined outcomes. 

I agree with you 100% with your assessments.

If I were elected President----Ever Person associated with Obama or his Administration in any way would have been gone RIGHT DOWN TO THE SECRETARIES and JANITORS. NO WARNING JUST GONE IN ONE DAY!


That is what I wonder, also.

It only takes a majority vote to pass any legislation once it makes it to the floor of the US Senate for an up or down vote... It is the US Senates rules, not the Constitution, that requires what is called a 'Cloture Vote' to cut off debate on a bill in order to send it to the floor for an up or down vote.... where a simple majority is all that is required to actually pass the legislation. 

The so called 'Cloture Rule' can be suspended or eliminated at anytime the Majority Party decides to change the 'Cloture Rule'... it is often called the NUCLEAR OPTION.  Therefore, any shut down of the government always results from the Majority Party's failure to end the debate (filibuster) to bring a Bill to the floor for a vote.

The rules haven't changed in a few decades, but the customs have...  we now have  groups of Senators, often from both sides of the isle, (gangs of 6, 8, 12, etc.) looking to shut down legislation by filibustering the bill... blocking it from coming to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote.  It Then takes a 60 vote majority to bring a bill to the floor. 

This tactic is primarily used by the minority party.  However, recently, we find that RINO's are willing to join with the Democrats to keep Bills they don't like from making it to the floor for a simple up or down vote... They revel in derailing legislation they don't approve ... even though a clear majority wants such legislation passed.  This practice is not Constitutionally mandated, it is based on rules established by the US Senate and can be eliminated. 

In the Senate, the rules are rigged to make it more difficult to pass legislation over a clear majority. If a Bill makes it to the floor for  an up or down vote it needs only 51 votes to pass not 60. Requiring a 60 vote minimum, to end debate, and send the bill to the floor for an up or down votes makes it possible for 41 Senators to block any piece of legislation. With the serious division among political parties,  filibusters have spiked, and 'Cloture' or a 60 vote majority is now considered essentially mandatory, for any bill except the most banal to pass.  We must end this rule and return to the Constitutional requirement of a simple majority vote to pass any bill.

2 sides same party working for the corporate interests and cheap labor not for the People.

DUMP DACA on March 5th then review DACA immigrants and base their status by merit. I know of 2 close people one has become a Doctor and his mother is equally a productive and sound part of America but there are many still in gangs with no intent to become what A citizen must be so they will likely be sent packing. They think they deserve to be here because they listened to way to much crap propaganda peddled by a lying Liberal and Criminal President Obama. BUILD THE WALL!

President Obama's "Deferred Action" Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional

In 2010 Congress declined to enact the DREAM Act, which would have bestowed lawful resident status on illegal aliens who had arrived in this country as minors.1 In September 2011, when pressured by illegal alien advocates to implement the DREAM Act "on his own," President Obama responded: "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true."2 In June 2012, the president did what nine months before he had insisted he could not do, unilaterally instituting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ("DACA"), under which illegal alien "Dreamers" can request a two-year deferral of any action to remove them, along with employment authorization documents.3 To date, over 600,000 illegal aliens have been accepted into the program.4

In 2013 Congress again declined to enact an immigration bill supported by the president, a so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" that would have given legal status to more than 11 million illegal aliens, including the Dreamers. In November of that year, in response to an illegal alien's insistence that the president had the power to issue an executive order stopping deportations, President Obama responded: "Actually, I don't. ... if in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws through Congress, then I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws."5 On November 19, 2014, the president did what a year before he insisted he hadn't the power to do, allowing approximately 4 million illegal aliens who are the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to request a three-year deferral of removal, along with employment authorization documents.6 He also extended the stay of DACA beneficiaries by three years and expanded the number of illegal aliens eligible for DACA by about 200,000.

As explained in this report, (1) the president's deferred-action program involves three separate legal steps, (2) each of the three steps is plainly illegal, and (3) the three steps, taken together, amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's exclusive constitutional authority to formulate immigration policy.

Continued here


We all know this... the country knows this.  The President needs to order the USCIS not to follow the US District Court Judges orders regarding the extension of DACA ... instead they may receive the applications but must do absolutely nothing with them... Sit on them, until Congress acts to change the law.  The underlying National Immigration and Naturalization Act prohibits DACA from being enforced... DACA is a totally illegal Executive Order. 

I would also stress that inferior federal courts don't have the Constitutional Jurisdiction to interfere in the Presidents/Executive branches orders... that the only court with 'Original Jurisdiction' in such matters is the US Supreme Court.. See; Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, ministers and consuls of the government, the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.  No inferior Court may hear any case involving the President or his ministers... administration... nor those involving a State.  

It is time to insist that the Constitutions restrictions on the Federal Courts Jurisdictions be followed... no inferior federal court may hear cases involving States, Ministers and Consuls of Government... those cases must be heard by the US Supreme Court.  Congress may not remove the Constitutional restrictions on jurisdictions without amending the Constitution... they may however add to them or clarify them using the Federal Judiciary Act and Congressional Resolutions to express the will of Congress and the meaning of the Constitution.

Shut the government down... let March 5th come and then begin massive deportations.  Build the wall a real wall... not a fence or electronic barrier.. a wall... maintain it and man it properly.  A wall properly guarded will keep out 99% of the current illegal population from crossing... the 1% can be dealt with internal enforcement... 

However, we need a properly constructed and maintained wall if we are to stop the Drug Cartels... deserts and mountains are assets to the Cartels... they use them daily as terrain features which help to hide them.

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.







Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service