Updated Trump administration ends DACA, with 6-month delay 09/27/2018

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The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients.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: 2940

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion


AG Sessions should have attacked the Constitutional authority of the lower federal courts to hear a case involving a Ministry of Government... the Executive Branch is a co-equal in governing and therefore cannot be ordered to do anything by a District or Appellate Federal Court. 

It is Constitutionally arguable that the US Supreme Court has no authority to order a President to do anything...  By appealing the case Sessions is accenting to rule by judicial fiat... giving away the Executive Branches powers to a single unelected federal judge. AG Sessions is a lawyer and he sees no problem in granting the courts such unconstitutional power.

The Constitutional recourse for an out of control President is not the courts... it is IMPEACHMENT ... removal.  Once we give the courts the power to order a President to do anything... the Courts become the supreme power in government... This must stop and stop now.  America is being ruled by an oligarchy of federal judges, who have usurped power under the color of law; too, operate our government by judicial fiat.

AG Sessions and the Lawyers in America are a major part of problems facing America... we must return the Federal Courts to their Constitutional role as 'administrators of the law' not legislators or extra-constitutional Executive agents of the government... to rule by judicial fiat.

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.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


CRIME!! -> Clinton Nightmare! Chief Financial Officer Of Clinton Foundation Turns Government Informant On Crime Family

Donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted by 90% over a three-year period since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to President Donald Trump.

But that may be the least of the her worries.

John Solomon from The Hill dropped another bombshell that will keep the Clintons up at night.

The former Chief Financial Officer of the Clinton Foundation has turned on the crime family and is now working as a government informant.

This could spell doom for the Clinton Crime Family.

American Thinker reported:

John Solomon of The Hill reveals the story that has been percolating for a long time but kept tightly under wraps – because that is what serious prosecutors do, especially when grand juries are poring over evidence and issuing indictments that remain sealed until the right moment comes. The trigger for the story coming out now probably is a House subcommittee hearing scheduled next week by Mark Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, while the GOP still can set the agenda of House hearings.

[A] GOP-led congressional subcommittee, led by Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), is planning to hold a hearing next week to review the work of John Huber, the special U.S attorney named a year ago to investigate all things Clinton.

It turns out that whistleblowers inside and outside the Clinton Foundation have amassed “6,000 pages of evidence attached to a whistleblower submission filed secretly more than a year ago with the IRS and FBI.” Among that evidence can be found:

Those reviews flagged serious concerns about legal compliance, improper commingling of personal and charity business and “quid pro quo” promises made to donors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State.

The submission also cites an interview its investigators conducted with Andrew Kessel that quotes the foundation’s longtime chief financial officer as saying he was unable to stop former President Clinton from “commingling” personal business and charitable activities inside the foundation and that he “knows where all the bodies are buried.”

Their own investigation! That’s hard to put down as politically motivated.

Having the chief financial officer of the Clinton Foundation turn informant is a nightmare for the Clintons. The CFO has to process all the cash, and because that person usually is on the hook for any criminal violations, there is ample incentive to turn state’s evidence.

That evidence was assembled by a private firm called MDA Analytics LLC, run by accomplished ex-federal criminal investigators, who alleged the Clinton Foundation engaged in illegal activities and may be liable for millions of dollars in delinquent taxes and penalties.

In addition to the IRS, the firm’s partners have had contact with prosecutors in the main Justice Department in Washington and FBI agents in Little Rock, Ark.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service