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The Department of Homeland Security formally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, with a six-month delay for current recipients.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: 2630

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mr. Nelson,

 As of now I could care less about what you have to say, soon enough the UN DACA Docs will be on line here, so enjoy the rest of the day.

LEAKED MEMO: DREAMers Are ‘Critical’ To Dems ‘Future Electoral Success’

The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called “Dreamers” — a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”

President Donald Trump’s administration moved to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy in September, which former President Barack Obama instituted through executive order to keep immigrants who came here as children from being deported.

Trump called on Congress to find a legislative fix for young immigrants, or “Dreamers,” facing deportation. House lawmakers recently put forward a bipartisan DACA compromise bill that also claims to address worries over chain migration. However, it’s unclear if the bill will pass.

CAP Action’s memo says protecting DACA is not only a “moral imperative” for Democrats, it also key to getting votes.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”

Fox News Host Tucker Carlson confronted Center for American Progress senior fellow Henry Fernandez on the memo. CAP Action is the 501(c)(4) political group, a sister group of the think tank where Fernandez is technically employed.



We don't need to fund the Dreamers deportation... go after employers, schools, financial institutions and any one who profits from their presence... put these individuals in jail for felony harboring, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, accessory to their crimes, etc.  Once the employers, educators, public servants, land lords and others understand that it is criminal to harbor, aide, abet or hire a Dreamer, the Dreamers will have to self-deport or starve. 

I for one am sick of the left and their RINO operatives telling us we must change the existing law... to accommodate criminal conduct... go after those aiding and abetting the Dreamers... let the public know the will be prosecuted for knowingly aiding and abetting these criminals.

P/S the UN has nothing to do with the DACA program or Dreamers in the US of A... Focusing on the UN for a solution to our Illegal alien problems is a waste of time.

I agree Col. Prosecute them, enforce mandatory e-verify, secure the border and enforce the current laws on the books. 

Yes, we all know the UN has never been our friend.

Judge rules DACA legal, blocks Trump’s decision to end program

The ruling contradicts other federal judges, including the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rules a program similar to DACA was illegal because it not only didn’t go through notice-and-comment, but it also was contrary to immigration law.


Nearly 100,000 Dreamers Granted Amnesty in Trump's Opening Months


Just one more case demonstrating that the RULE OF LAW has been totally corrupted... DACA is definitely illegal as it circumvents the underlying Statutory Law.  The Attorney General has issue a legal finding declaring it illegal.

This judge needs to be referred for IMPEACHMENT by the DOJ as he definitely has step outside his duties as a judge to engage in Judicial Activism (rule by judicial fiat)... A judges decisions that fundamentally changes the law as legislated is bad conduct on the part of the judge.  Activism by Judicial Officers needs to be met with IMPEACHMENT, ever time it raises its ugly head... the judicial is to interpret and administer the law... they are not to rewrite or invent new law.

I do try not to be a bad Goy, I really do, but I just love that word created for me by the elite. Its both British and Jewish. And DACA is much more then you think?

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., made the first motion to adjourn in protest of the GOP position. He was followed by Reps. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Dems revolt on the House floor over GOP immigration plan

Democrats tried to hold up legislative work in the House on Wednesday by demanding votes that it adjourn three times, forcing Republicans to waste time on these procedural motions each time.

Democrats disapprove of the Trump administration's decision to revoke temporary protected status for thousands of Salvadorans, and also oppose the GOP plan to impose tougher border restrictions as part of a larger immigration plan.

They specifically are demanding protection for Dreamers as part of a spending bill next week. But Republicans are demanding that this immigration matter be delayed until March.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., made the first motion to adjourn in protest of the GOP position.

"The president gave the Congress a deadline to pass legislation to protect the Dreamers and we take that deadline very seriously and think our colleagues should too," Gutierrez said in a statement. "Any time we are not debating the Dream Act is time wasted and we wanted to make that point by forcing everyone to come to the floor for a symbolic vote."

He was followed by Reps. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

"We are taking action to make sure everyone knows that people with DACA are already losing their status and face deportation," said Grijalva. "If we have to inconvenience our colleagues to get their attention, so be it."

The House defeated those motions each time, and the number of Democrats voting to adjourn ranged from 51 to 62. But it wasn't clear early Wednesday afternoon how many more protest votes would be demanded.


UN policy doesn't apply to US Law... unless it is formalized in a treaty.  DACA is not mentioned in any UN Documentation I can find...

As you mention above, 54 UN DACA docs are not on line... exceptions or could it be they don't exist?

Right sure thing, you have a very nice day Ronald.


NumbersUSA has been at the forefront of grassroots mobilization against every amnesty since 1996. BUT OUR TOP GOAL IS TO REDUCE IMMIGRATION NUMBERS.

That's why we have endorsed H.R. 4760, the Securing America's Future Act, introduced yesterday by U.S. House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee and Sub-Committee chairs Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)

Below, I will provide you with the details of the bill so you can make your own judgment.

Our endorsement is a highly unusual move by us since H.R. 4760 includes three-year work permits which around 700,000 DACA recipients would be able to renew indefinitely for the rest of their lives. In other words, it includes an amnesty.
As I noted in my Action Alerts to you this morning, I know many of you may wonder why we aren't just insisting on the good stuff in the bill without accepting the DACA and other negative items.

The problem is that Pres. Trump -- the most committed immigration "hardliner" ever elected to the White House -- really, really wants a DACA amnesty. And so do the congressional Republican leaders and virtually every Democrat in Congress.

Our main hope to avoid Congress passing an 8th amnesty without beneficial tradeoffs is to push for as many positive things as possible to be added to a DACA solution.

H.R. 4760 has met the test of offering something that would be far more positive than harmful to American wage-earners and communities. We believe this is in part a result of the sustained grassroots lobbying that you all have done with Members of the U.S. House for years, and especially the last few months.


These are improvements that we believe we can count on to happen almost automatically after passage of the bill:

• Immediately ceases applications for all Chain Migration categories. (Stopping categories for brothers, sisters, adult children and parents would be a reduction of more than 3 million lifetime immigrant work permits over the first 10 years alone.)

• Erases the 4 million Chain backlog, except for approx. 120,000 scheduled to get green cards in the first year after passage.

• Phases in mandatory E-Verify over a two-year period until all employers would have to be using it. (The reduced number of future and current illegal aliens working U.S. jobs would likely be several million after a few years in comparison to what would happen if we just continue the status quo.)

• Codifies sanctuary cities restrictions so the Justice Department can withhold grants from sanctuary cities and victims can sue cities that have released their illegal-alien attackers.

• Enhances ability of localities to voluntarily enforce immigration laws.

• Includes "Kate's Law" which toughens criminal penalties for deported criminals who illegally return.

• Makes it easier -- through several changes in law -- to remove gang members and other dangerous persons.

• Combats asylum fraud and "frivolous claims."

• Ensures safe and quick return of unaccompanied minors to discourage border surges.

The bill "authorizes" several things, but Congress would have to later "appropriate" the funds for any of them to happen. Because you can't count on any of this happening (although it certainly could) I don't consider these as part of the equation in deciding whether the helpfulness of the good points significantly outweighs the harm of the compromises.

The bill "authorizes" border wall construction, 5,000 extra Border Patrol Agents, 5,000 extra CBP Officers, full implementation of the biometric entry-exit system at all air, land and sea ports of entry.

H.R. 4760 contains all those provisions above that NumbersUSA admires, but it also contains these next provisions that we wish weren't included. But that's the nature of a compromise that gives you victories you could not otherwise obtain.

• Approx. 700,000 young-adult illegal aliens who were given an executive temporary DACA amnesty by Pres. Obama can go through new screening for fraud before being given 3-year, indefinitely renewable temporary worker permits. The numerical ceiling is already set, so we don't have worry that the amnesty would be far bigger than estimated at the beginning.

But the bill's authors expect many of them to eventually obtain a green card through an employer or by marrying a U.S. citizen. I think we should expect that all or most of the recipients of any DACA amnesty will eventually have a path to citizenship. Thus, the positive ingredients of any compromise have to be large enough to justify a "citizenship amnesty" even if citizenship isn't offered at the beginning.

• The Visa Lottery would be abolished. BUT the 55,000 Lottery green cards would be reshuffled into employment categories. A wash on the numbers.

• The agriculture bill that recently passed the House Judiciary Committee is included. It makes it easier for agri-business to recruit guest workers, and to convert their current illegal workers into rotating legal guest workers. That's not bad, especially since ag would finally have to use E-Verify to keep illegal workers off the farms. And the numbers would not be increased since the current ag guest worker program is unlimited. But several thousand of the ag visas could for the first time be used by meatpackers and poultry plants.

On balance, we believe the Securing America's Future Act (H.R. 4760) would deliver a significant net improvement to the lives of American wage-earners and communities because it would reduce by millions the number of illegal and legal foreign workers added to compete for jobs and wages in the first 10 years, and far more in later decades.

Most of the net benefit would result from just two of the provisions in the bill
• Elimination of the extended-family Chain Migration categories

• Mandating E-Verify for all employers, which would turn off the jobs magnet for future illegal immigration.

By moving us toward an immigration system that better serves the national interest, this bill would keep the promises of candidate Trump and now President Trump whose Administration stated on a talking-points sheet just this week that his top priority in immigration reform is "everyday hardworking American citizens."

All the phone calling I'm requesting is aimed at pressing the President to stick to his promises despite huge pressures from powerful interests to do otherwise. One of the main ways to influence the President is for Senators and Representatives to make it clear they won't accept a weak compromise deal. And all of you are the ones who will help those Members of Congress to take that stand.

We will be providing you ways to encourage House leaders to bring H.R. 4760 to a vote on the floor. It appears it would pass. But Republican leaders may be afraid to pass a bill that would be so effective in reducing overall immigration.

And we will continue to facilitate daily opportunities to emphasize to lawmakers the central importance of ending Chain Migration and mandating E-Verify.




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