Updated Trump administration ends DACA, with 6-month delay 08/30/2018

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The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients.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: 2867

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

From left, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., finish a news conference on the bipartisan immigration deal they reached during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2018. The Trump administration is already denouncing their deal in the Senate, saying it will "create a mass amnesty for over 10 million illegal aliens, including criminals." " (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Bipartisan amnesty dies in Senate; McCain plan also fails

With “Dreamers” watching from the viewing galleries, the Senate on Thursday shot down the bipartisan amnesty that would have granted them and 1.8 million other illegal immigrants citizenship rights, dealing a major blow to the chances for an agreement to clear before the March 5 deadline President Trump set for Congress.

Lawmakers also defeated a bigger amnesty offered by Sen. John McCain, and a more enforcement-heavy plan backed by GOP leaders and Mr. Trump was poised to fall as well, leaving the Senate without anything to show for a week’s worth of debate.

“President Trump has stood in the way of every proposal that could become law,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, Democrats’ leader, moving quickly to pin blame on a White House that had set parameters for the debate and vowed to veto anything that didn’t conform.

The most popular alternative, the bipartisan amnesty led by Mr. Schumer, won 54 votes’ support, which was still six shy of the 60 needed to be approved under the rules senators set for the debate. Mr. McCain’s more generous amnesty, meanwhile, won 52 votes’ support.

The bipartisan plan drew the support of eight Republicans, but three Democrats voted against it, saying that despite the generous amnesty for 1.8 million, they couldn’t stomach spending $25 billion on Mr. Trump’s border wall. Those Democrats all waited until the end to vote, however, suggesting they may have backed the bill had their votes mattered.

“We’re trying to find common ground,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who became the face of the bipartisan amnesty proposal this week — even though Mr. Schumer was listed as the chief sponsor.

Mr. Rounds was part of a group who’d been working for weeks to try to reach a deal, negotiating behind closed doors instead of the free-wheeling debate all sides had vowed to hold.

The bipartisan plan Mr. Rounds and Mr. Schumer pushed would have coupled citizenship rights for 1.8 million people with the border wall. The plan also attempted to prevent Dreamers from sponsoring their parents for future status, though government officials said it was clunky, unworkable and perhaps even unconstitutional. The plan did not end the Diversity Visa Lottery.

Homeland Security officials said the plan not only didn’t solve the problem but marked a step backward, since it made nearly all illegal immigrants low priorities for deportation — enshrining the Obama-era priorities that protected most illegal immigrants from removal.

The administration said that would result in an amnesty for 10 million people.

“We have not seen before a bill that places a future amnesty date in law — a date that is basically a beacon for millions of people around the world who would seek to come here illegally,” a senior administration official said.

The White House said Mr. Trump would veto that plan.


The Problem is not having sufficient laws to deal with immigration... the problem is lawless US Senators, who ignore the 'Rule of Law', and act as if illegal immigration is somehow above the law. 

The solution is not new laws... it is a NEW CONGRESS... fire them all.  The fiasco taking place in the US Senate demonstrates where our problems exist.  We have a bunch of premadonas... a new age aristocracy... that believes they are above the law and can willy-nilliy manipulate the laws of the US, to fit their own interests. 

These criminal miscreants have no intention of listening to their constituents or ENFORCING THE LAW... The current law or any new laws... unless it fits their need for the moment.  Fire the all.. and then prosecute them all.

 The problem is lawless US Senators, come on Mr. Nelson, tell me who are they, and where do they come from?

 Plus why?


Hank...  as usual you are walking around with your head in the wrong place... 

Any US Senator who observes DACA in operation, or has reason to believe that members of the government have committed a crime and don't report it to the proper authorities are themselves guilty of a crime: 

Misprision of a felony... 

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 1 › § 4
18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony
US Code

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

If this law were applied appropriately I don't believe there would be a single member of Congress able to avoid prosecution under this law.

The Senate on Thursday killed a bipartisan bill that would have cracked down on sanctuary cities, as the long-awaited immigration floor fight turned into a massacre.

The bill failed in a 54-45 vote, falling six votes short of the 60 needed to survive and becoming the second casualty in the chamber’s battle over immigration.

However, the measure drew bipartisan votes with four Democrats crossing the aisle to join 50 Republicans in support of withholding some federal grant money from states that don’t cooperate with federal immigration officers when they have illegal immigrants in custody.

Sen. Richard Durbin, the chambers’ No. 2 Democratic leader, rallied his colleagues against the bill by saying it would withhold crucial funds from police and stop the federal government from forcing them to act as immigration agents.

He said a no vote would be “a vote for our men an women in uniform.”

The first bill to die was a bipartisan proposal by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Sen. Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat, that would have granted amnesty for perhaps 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for a study of border security and a promise of action by 2021.


Mr. Nelson,

 Try tell that to the DNC, or GOP, Therefore, anyone who condemns Judaism condemns Christianity as well, and since America is built on the principles of the Bible, Jesus and his teaching they condemn America , therefore being Un-American. They are not paying any mind to who wrote or what is what, now are they?


Finally, historically and literally, Jews are the progenitors of the Christian faith...

LMAO, I did not write the DACA LAWs, now did I?

Cruz: If dreamers get citizenship, there's a good chance Trump gets impeached

Cruz: If dreamers get citizenship, there’s a good chance Trump gets impeached

Yesterday, Ted Cruz appeared on Fox and Friends where he blasted Republicans who are trying to - in his words - gallop to the left o Barack Obama’s immigration policy.  As the Senator puts it, DACA gave work permits to around 600,000 illegals.  That was unconstitutional, and bad enough, but now some Republicans are trying to out-Obama the former President by lining up to support bills that give citizenship to almost 1.8 million illegals.

Host Brian Kilmeade pointed out that it’s simply part of a deal to get other things they want, but Cruz shot back:

“If Republican majorities in Congress pass citizenship for millions of people and amnesty, I think it’s quite likely we will lose both houses of Congress and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will impeach President Trump”

This echoes something Cruz said in his Senate remarks, which summed up the future facing the GOP should they go for a blanket amnesty:

“What I would urge my colleagues is very simple, ask yourselves what you told the voters before election day. Let your conduct after Election Day match what you told the voters. The Democrats, campaigned as the party of amnesty so they’re being true to their promises. They promised amnesty as their priority and they’re being true. But for Republicans, we promised something different. We promised to stand with the working men and women, the union members, the steel workers - the men and women with the calluses on their hands. And I urge every one of us to listen to the working men and women, and to respect the rule of law, and to vote against these misguided proposals.”

Cruz believes that, if amnesty is granted, it could well end with nothing less than the impeachment of Donald Trump.

“Mark my words. If Republican majorities in Congress pass citizenship for millions of people and amnesty, I think it’s quite likely we will lose both houses of Congress and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will impeach President Trump,”

 If the last five or six elections have shown us anything, it’s that without your base, you’re doomed

We’ve been down this road too many times to count: GOP members win a major election on the back of a pile of promises, then cave to their opponents and abandon all the guarantees that put them in office.

You can watch the entire of Cruz’s comments at the link he provided, but the above section is really the salient part.  Ted Cruz is 100% right. If, after basing their 2016 victory on a pile of promises, GOP members think they can toss their base under the bus and walk away unscathed, they’re in for a very rude awakening.  Any Congressional Republican who votes for amnesty will face the wrath of the base.

If the last five or six elections have shown us anything, it’s that without your base, you’re doomed.



Absolutely correct... the GOP is playing with fire if they think for one moment they will be able too keep control of both houses of Congress if they pass any form of amnesty AND... BETRAY the American people one more time.  The days of manipulation and betrayal are over... the people are on the verge of revolution and the GOP is about to become extinct... if it doesn't keep its word.

If DREAMers support the bipartisan, 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform's (CIR)* recommendations, reform birthright citizenship, change the law to expressly make it a 3rd degree felony to be in the U.S. illegally, place the question of "citizenship" back on the 2020 census, assess penalties to municipal authorities who harbor illegal aliens, close the Child Tax Credit loophole, adopt Kate's Law, establish English as the official language, help fund the border wall with a fee of $3,000 per amnesty applicant, extend permanent residency requirement from five to twelve (12) years, along with terminating all legal immigration for the next decade,** full amnesty with a pathway to citizenship can be obtained by the first 10 million registered illegal aliens living and working here at a time certain can be achieved.
* Source: 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform
** With the exception of agricultural, merit-based immigration, and immigration backlog, not to exceed 500,000 per year

None of the above will work... there is every reason to believe such changes would soon go unenforced...  Nearly all of the changes suggested are able to be implemented without Congress and have not: Childhood tax credit changes, funding for the wall with visa application and crossing fees, enforcing English as our official language, etc., all these can be initiated and enforced thru regulatory action and or Executive Order... We don't need Congress to do these things.

See: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32240.pdf 

The above link provides access to the requirements for the regulatory and rule making process.  Most if not all laws passed by Congress, including immigration laws, permit the Administration to enact various rules or regulations to implement the Statutory law... with wide latitude, in most cases, to set policies like fees, fines, and penalties, (some criminal) for violating such rules or regulations.  The President has wide latitude to focus enforcement using the regulatory powers given to him by Congress.  Some would not want us to know just how wide those powers are, as they engage in their Machiavellian tactics to deceive the people... claiming to be powerless to enforce the will of the people. 

It is past time that Pres. Trump direct the various agencies of HIS ADMINISTRATION to enforce the existing laws, and to establish the necessary rules, regulations and fines/fees to accomplish the core of his political goals... including securing the border and building the wall. He can then take his time in working with Congress to obtain permanent changes to the law which are in line with the will of the majority in the United States.  No more phony... I can do nothing carp without Congress.

In addition to statutory requirements, Presidents have imposed their own requirements on federal agencies when issuing rules, regulations and EO's. The most important of the current set of presidential rulemaking requirements are in Executive Order 12866, which establishes presidential review of covered agencies’ rulemaking within the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The executive order requires covered agencies to submit their significant rules to OIRA for review before they become final, and requires those rules to meet certain minimal standards. Other executive orders and presidential directives delineate other specific rulemaking requirements incumbent on covered agencies. However, these requirements often provide substantial discretion to agencies regarding whether, and if  they are applied.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


 Kavanaugh Accuser Donated   To Hillary Clinton  10 Times,  60+ Liberal Groups 

Reportedly attempted to conceal political activity by scrubbing social media accounts

Over the weekend, a name and face were added to the previously anonymous sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which is now threatening to derail his nomination. Those looking to obstruct Kavanaugh’s confirmation certainly saved their best for last, as the prior attempts included pathetic stunts such as:

– Claiming to file perjury charges against Kavanaugh, which only Jeff Sessions would have the ability to file.

– Packing the hearings with hysterical protesters, resulting in hundreds of arrests.

– Threatening female Republicans with extortion.

– Cory Booker comparing himself to Spartacus, the escaped slave who led a revolt against the Romans.

The identity of the accuser was revealed as Christine Blasey Ford, who has agreed testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ford reportedly made the allegations back in July in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Feinstein waited until it was close to the vote to confirm Kavanaugh before making the accusations public.

There’s a record of Ford making the accusation in a 2012 therapy session, though Kavanaugh isn’t named in the session notes that Ford gave to the press. Ford alleges that in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh entered a room drunk, pinned her to a bed, and groped her over her clothing. Kavanaugh “categorically denied” the allegations.View image on Twitter

Fin Gomez @finnygo   NEW: Statement from Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

There is a slight discrepancy in the account Ford provided in her letter to Feinstein and in her therapist’s notes, but that could simply be due to an error on her therapists part.

There are however some other questions that need to be answered which call into question Ford’s motives.

As Grabien reported, they include:

1. Why Ford deleted her public social media accounts before revealing herself.

Ford deleted all of her public social media before she came forward, making it difficult to see the advocacy and partisanship she was engaged in the time leading up to her making her allegation public. Of course, Ford may simply value her privacy, but the act of deleting her public postings will inevitably make some wonder what she didn’t want seen.

2. That Ford may have an unrelated grudge against Kavanaugh, as his mother, once a circuit court judge, ruled against Ford’s parents.

In August 1996, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, Paula and Ralph Blasey, were foreclosed upon. Kavanaugh’s mom, Martha, was then serving as a judge on the Montgomery Country Circuit Court, and she ruled against Christine Ford’s parents.

3. That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.

There’s no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Maryland, where she claims that the assault happened. Rather than go to the police, Ford went to Dianne Feinstein. If her accusations are true, she should immediately file a police report against Kavanaugh and take him to trial. If she doesn’t, perhaps that’s because she knows the consequences of filing a false police report.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service