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The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients.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: 2631

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sen. Chuck Schumer meets with President Trump amid budget logjam after White House blasts 'Schumer Shutdown'

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, met with President Trump at the White House Friday as part of efforts to avert an imminent government shutdown, just hours after the White House coined a decidedly Trumpian phrase in the battle to assign blame for the standoff, branding it the "Schumer Shutdown."

A senior White House official told Fox News that the meeting was productive but there was no deal yet.

“We had a long and detailed meeting," Schumer said in a statement. "We discussed all of the major outstanding issues, we made some progress, but we still have a good number of disagreements. The discussions will continue.”

Trump summoned Schumer to the White House shortly after Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, speaking to reporters at a press conference, pointed the finger at Schumer for Democrats refusing to back a short-term spending bill unless it includes protections for illegal immigrants brought to the country as children.

According to a White House source, Schumer arrived in the Oval Office and presented the president with a list of demands on domestic issues that went well beyond just DACA.

Director of the Office of Management and Budget says the White House does not want a government shutdown, accuses Sen. Schumer of forcing it on the American people.

The president listened to Schumer and appeared perplexed as Schumer rattled off his agenda items, the source said. The president told Schumer he wasn’t going to get all of those demands in a spending bill.

Schumer, the source said, did appear open to considering a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded for five days.  The official White House position is still a 30-day extension.

The nickname echoed President Trump’s well-documented penchant for hanging nicknames on political adversaries, and the invite appeared to complete a carrot-and-stick approach to negotiations. The move comes as Republicans and Democrats scramble to assign blame to their opponents, knowing that whoever is seen to be behind the shutdown is also under pressure to return to the bargaining table.

In his remarks, Mulvaney accused the Democrats of opposing a bill that contains nothing they are against.

“They don’t oppose anything in the bill, but they are opposing the bill,” Mulvaney said, pointing to popular measures in the bill such as the funding of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Democrats seemed to be aware of the importance of messaging, with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., taking to the Senate floor with an image declaring the logjam a "Trump Shutdown," quoting a tweet from President Trump from May saying "our country needs a good 'shutdown.'"

Markey blasted Republicans complaining about the threat of a shutdown, telling them to "spare me your crocodile tears."

'What they’re simply trying to do is hold the government hostage, our military, kids health, over something completely unrelated.'

- Rep. Paul Ryan

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed a one-month bill Thursday night by a vote of 230-197 largely along party lines, with 11 Republicans voting no and six Democrats voting yes.

With a midnight deadline looming, the bill now moves to the Senate where the Republicans hold only a slender majority, making prospects for passage grim. To break a Democratic filibuster, the bill will need 60 votes. Republicans have a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

Senate Democrats have said that Democrats want any spending bill to include a fix for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- an Obama-era executive order that granted protected status to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. President Trump repealed the order in September, and gave Congress a deadline of March to come up with a legislative fix.

“Unless we pass the #DreamAct, I won’t support another short-term funding bill,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., tweeted Thursday. “Our Dreamers have waited far too long for a chance to be a part of this country’s future.”


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.



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