Thread: Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

Originally Posted by jtdc

Then what is the significance of those dates? Obviously Jeh Johnson renewed it BECAUSE IT WAS TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 15, 2014. AND HE RENEWED IT FOR THREE MORE YEARS. Obviously, if it had no expiration, he would not have had to renew it. And if it was renewed for three more years, that is an expiration date!

It was done under the authority of the Obama Administration, NOT CONGRESS! So it was a "law" that should never have been!

EXACTLY!!

And well said, too.

Originally Posted by jtdc

Then what is the significance of those dates? Obviously Jeh Johnson renewed it BECAUSE IT WAS TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 15, 2014. AND HE RENEWED IT FOR THREE MORE YEARS. Obviously, if it had no expiration, he would not have had to renew it. And if it was renewed for three more years, that is an expiration date!

It was done under the authority of the Obama Administration, NOT CONGRESS! So it was a "law" that should never have been!

So you're now buying into Judy's dates that really have no significance on the topic of an expiration date. The DACA program was not due to expire on June 15, 2014, or any other date. The only expiration date is the one set forth by the Trump administration when it was forced to end the program.

The three year extension you're talking about was the 3 year DACA Expansion attempt that failed in the courts along with DAPA. Had the DACA Expansion attempt been successful it would have changed the 2 year work permits and other protections to 3 years upon individual renewal in the program. Judy confused you into buying her hogwash dates and you unfortunately fell for it. Can't blame you, that's what obfuscation is designed to do.

Here is the original memorandum that created the program. Note the absence of any expiration date on the program. The memorandum effectively made it an open-ended program with no stated or implied expiration date.

Homeland Security


June 15, 2012 MEMORANDUM


FOR: David V. Aguilar Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement


FROM: Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security

SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children

By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our on going review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them.

However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date ofthis memorandum and is present in the United States on the date ofthis memorandum;
• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general educationdevelopment certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard orArmed Forces ofthe United States;
• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiplemisdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• is not above the age of thirty

Our Nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways.
Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.

As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.

1. With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

• With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

• USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear.

2. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:

• ICE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal,in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.

• ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves through a clear and efficient process.

• ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

• ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet theabove criteria, and pass a background check:

• USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorial
discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the 2 above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

• The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to a final order of removal regardless of their age.

• US CIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

Janet Napolitano

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/...s-children.pdf

So, once in for all, this should prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there was no actual ending date (expiration) of the DACA program. The above memorandum was the tool that actually established DACA.

3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet theabove criteria, and pass a background check:

• USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorial
discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the 2 above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

DACA program is the "process", for deferring removal. The USCIS "process" for those identified to be participants is "2 years, subject to renewal". The 2 year "process" of prosecutorial discretion for DACAs ended two years from June 15, 2012 on June 15, 2014, "subject to renewal". This is why Jeh Johnson RENEWED the expiring program for 3 years in 2014, causing a new expiring date of June 15, 2017, which for some reason flies right over your head and apparently flew over Jeff Session's to boot.

It did not however fly over the head of this President or his White House staff or Sean Spicer who stated clear as bell in a February White House Press Briefing when asked about DACA, "the thinking is to let it expire in June." This of course would have been the absolutely most sensible, reasonable and legally proper thing to do, which is why they ended the DACA Expansion and DAPA on June 15, 2017, which were all part of the same 2014 renewing memo executed by Jeh Johnson. Why they didn't end DACA 2012 in that same statement when it was the primary part of the 2014 Jeh Johnson renewing memo I guess is because Sessions wanted to do something else later on September 5th, instead.

And so he did, and so here we are. Maybe he has some plan that explains this that he'll reveal at some point. To me risking these lawsuits over a rescission, very nasty business in the world of contracts on its best day, that's going all the way to the US Supreme Court, is also very risky business, compared to just letting the whole damn thing expire on June 15, 2017.

Originally Posted by Judy

DACA program is the "process", for deferring removal. The USCIS "process" for those identified to be participants is "2 years, subject to renewal". The 2 year "process" of prosecutorial discretion for DACAs ended two years from June 15, 2012 on June 15, 2014, "subject to renewal". This is why Jeh Johnson RENEWED the expiring program for 3 years in 2014, causing a new expiring date of June 15, 2017, which for some reason flies right over your head and apparently flew over Jeff Session's to boot.

It did not however fly over the head of this President or his White House staff or Sean Spicer who stated clear as bell in a February White House Press Briefing when asked about DACA, "the thinking is to let it expire in June." This of course would have been the absolutely most sensible, reasonable and legally proper thing to do, which is why they ended the DACA Expansion and DAPA on June 15, 2017, which were all part of the same 2014 renewing memo executed by Jeh Johnson. Why they didn't end DACA 2012 in that same statement when it was the primary part of the 2014 Jeh Johnson renewing memo I guess is because Sessions wanted to do something else later on September 5th, instead.

And so he did, and so here we are. Maybe he has some plan that explains this that he'll reveal at some point. To me risking these lawsuits over a rescission, very nasty business in the world of contracts on its best day, that's going all the way to the US Supreme Court, is also very risky business, compared to just letting the whole damn thing expire on June 15, 2017.

Geez, you are in total denial. I'm sorry Judy, I can't help you anymore. I provide you with the very memorandum that created the program with no end date mentioned and you continue to offer empty arguments with no substantiating evidence.

MW, posting documents you haven't read or don't understand what they say isn't helping yourself or anyone else, all you're doing is helping the DACA opposition whose WHOLE CASE is based on the program continuing indefinitely, that the DACAs relied upon, built lives, jobs and families around and paid money for, which is valuable consideration for a binding contract.

So good luck trying to rescind a binding contract with what you and Sessions claim is an "indefinite" agreement.

Originally Posted by Judy

MW, posting documents you haven't read or don't understand what they say isn't helping yourself or anyone else, all you're doing is helping the DACA opposition whose WHOLE CASE is based on the program continuing indefinitely, that the DACAs relied upon, built lives, jobs and families around and paid money for, which is valuable consideration for a binding contract.

So good luck trying to rescind a binding contract with what you and Sessions claim is an "indefinite" agreement.

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to do that for us. That's assuming Trump doesn't sign an amnesty bill before the U.S. Supreme Court hears and rules on the case.

Originally Posted by MW

So you're now buying into Judy's dates that really have no significance on the topic of an expiration date.

No, just the opposite! I "buy into" the fact that those dates are there for a reason.

Originally Posted by MW

The only expiration date is the one set forth by the Trump administration when it was forced to end the program.

And that date could have been, and should have been, January 20, 2017! The fact that the law listed no termination date for itself does not mean the law was permanent! Some laws are created with a specified "sundown provision". But not all laws.

Originally Posted by MW

So, once in for all, this should prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there was no actual ending date (expiration) of the DACA program. The above memorandum was the tool that actually established DACA.

And likewise, there was no inception/effective date on this document! It only laid out the parameters, not the implementation!

MW wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to do that for us.

I sure hope so.

Originally Posted by jtdc

No, just the opposite! I "buy into" the fact that those dates are there for a reason.

And that date could have been, and should have been, January 20, 2017! The fact that the law listed no termination date for itself does not mean the law was permanent! Some laws are created with a specified "sundown provision". But not all laws.

And likewise, there was no inception/effective date on this document! It only laid out the parameters, not the implementation!

Keep reading, it laid out the terms, 2 years for the "process of prosecutorial discretion" by USCIS for the DACAs, subject to renewal. Details of the program were to come out within 60 days of the memo, please note, no "date" was put forth, because everyone knows when 30 days from June 15 is.

Originally Posted by Judy

because everyone know when 30 days from June 15 is.

Apparently not MW!