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The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients.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

Not far from the truth... the US Constitution prohibits inferior courts from hearing any case involving a State, a Ministry of Government or a sovereign... The District and Appellate Federal Courts have long engaged in unconstitutional adjudication... see Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 or the US Constitution.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 below:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The US Supreme Court is supposed to be the ONLY COURT with Constitutional Jurisdiction to judge cases involving a State or Ministries... the Administration.  Congress doesn't have the unilateral power to amend the Constitution's restrictions on the lower Federal Courts... when it comes to hearing cases involving a State or administration/ministry.  Too, provide the lower courts with jurisdiction to hear such cases would require a Constitutional Amendment and the approval of 3/4ths of the States.

The inferior Federal Courts are acting under the 'color of law'... as they are not empowered with the Constitutional judicial authority to hear any case involving a STATE or the Ministries of Government... the Administration.

See:  Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress may not assign such jurisdictional authority to the lower courts... as the CONSTITUTION HAS ASSIGNED ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO THE SUPREME COURT.   Congress must AMEND the Constitution and get 3/4ths of the States to agree to allow District and Appellate Courts to hear such cases. 

It was never the intent of our founders to provide the lower courts... one judge or a panel of three judges with the power to deny the sovereign law of any State or to interfere with the exercise of Constitutional powers by any of the Ministries of government. That is reserved for the US Supreme Court. 

If the Supreme Court finds itself overloaded...  let Congress expand the Court... create DIVISIONS within the Court, as necessary.. .IE:  A Criminal, Civil, and Sovereign's Division (States and Ministries, etc.) assigning jurisdiction within the limits of the Constitution, as needed, granting each Division of the US Supreme Court the jurisdiction needed to hear the various cases brought before it... in accordance with the limits established in Article 3, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2.

I have a Trump Update for you, this is why our Immigration Laws are going to the East, its called Islam.

 I was angry when I wrote this, so its time to wake the hell up!!!

More than 90 American Muslims Most (D) Running For Office: USA: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/more-than-90-american-musl...

my comment is on this page: I was mad when I wrote this forgive the type o, I do not intend to change it: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/more-than-90-american-musl...

Ditto Jea9, Ditto Jea9, Ditto Jea9, Ditto Jea9, Ditto Jea9,

Mr. Nelson, go on back to bed, man, we are busy, doing what you do not want to help in.

Have a nice night man.

Ditto Mr. Nelson..,.LMAO...:)-

Don't panic just yet... there are over 3000 legislators in our State Houses alone... not counting other elected officials it will take a lot more than a few hundred Muslims to change our government... 

However, we do need to be aware of those who are Muslim's as Islam is fundamentally incapable of operating within our system of government... it is not compatible with our values or cultural heritage. 

By the way Hank... I have 17,960 posts on this site... how many do you have... I suggest you research before you attempt to degrade the contributions of others on this site...

 17,960, impressive, so tell me Mr. Nelson, at what point in the time line of events within the site did the blogs stop having effect in the media?

 I will help you old friend, it was when Obama was elected.

 Are you interested in a new approach?

Tif under my orders sent you a invite, join us.

 As for Mr. Jordan's blogs, only one so far has over 250,000 views, how many views does all of the collective of your blogs have?

Point is Mr. Nelson, something is up, you have a invite, please join us.

Dad, its 154377 Views, Opps!!!....:)

 Over 3000 Legislators in our State Houses alone. law makers, CFR Jewish members controled by the UK that are being replaced one at a time, by Christian Muslims, or Muslims of the Islam Radical Sector????????

 I not worried Mr. Nelson,...LMAO at the whole dam* system...:)-

There is no such thing as a Christian muslim. 

Their god is a moon god and their prophet a murdering, raping, pedophile, who's only talent was war and conguering. 

 Yes there is, people who are Muslims that excepted Christ.

Sorry Jean wrong again.

Then they are Christian. You cannot be both. Their writings say what they say, just like our Bible says what it says. Subscribe and follow one or the other. You cannot call it a religion and then say it is not a religion. 




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