Thread: Politico: Democrats Complain DHS John Kelly Is Not Following Their Commands

Originally Posted by Judy

I posted tons of information on it and am not going through that again. If they let it expire, then they'll shut it down on June 15th. We'll see what they do. If they do, the less said the better. This DACA 2012 is within the authority of John Kelly as Secretary of DHS to end since it was Janet Napolitano who directed it by MEMO to begin with. Just disable the system. Easy Peasy to end it, just disable the website and let the work permits expire on their due dates. That should seriously reduce the lawsuits. No announcement is required, no big Presidential EO Signing, no big production. Just call IT in DHS and disable the website. If press asks, just tell them, Obama's 3 year renewal expired on June 15th and the President is not interested in renewing or extending it.

Well, I must have missed that so-called "ton" of information. Like I said, I heard Spicer say something about it a month or so ago in passing. Other than that, I've seen nothing else on a expiration date coming from the White House. I'm afraid anyone that believes DACA is going to end on June 15th is going to be extremely disappointed.

Trump has pretty much said he's going to take care of the DACA folks. His ultimate goal, in my opinion, is to offer them a permanent path to legalization and citizenship. All he's waiting for is a bill from the U.S. Congress. It's time to face the facts, President Trump is going to screw us on DACA (actually he already has). The signals coming from Trump and the White House on this have been pretty clear.

Maybe he will take care of them, I sure hope not though. They all need to be on the run, in the shadows, packing their bags, and on the list for deportation.

6/15/17

DHS Kelly Signs Memo Rescinding Obama's DAPA Program DACA still in Effect

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

6/15/17

DHS Kelly Signs Memo Rescinding Obama's DAPA Program DACA still in Effect

Just a motion with no true benefit in my opinion. DAPA has already been rejected by the courts.

No, DAPA was not rejected by the courts, MW, neither was the DACA Expansion. An injunction pending a trial on the merits was upheld by the Courts. Now that the program that led to the lawsuit has been revoked, the lawsuit becomes moot and will be dismissed.

There was no court ruling on the merits of the case pertaining to the programs ordered in 2014, only an injunction to stop them from implementation pending a trial. Now that the orders for the programs that were part of the lawsuit have been "expired" and revoked, no trial is needed, and everything is back to where it was prior to the 2014 Obama Order. The case will now be dismissed without a trial because the issues at the heart of it have been revoked, no longer exist, and are now moot.

Originally Posted by Judy

No, DAPA was not rejected by the courts, MW, neither was the DACA Expansion. An injunction pending a trial on the merits was upheld by the Courts. Now that the program that led to the lawsuit has been revoked, the lawsuit becomes moot and will be dismissed.

There was no court ruling on the merits of the case pertaining to the programs ordered in 2014, only an injunction to stop them from implementation pending a trial. Now that the orders for the programs that were part of the lawsuit have been "expired" and revoked, no trial is needed, and everything is back to where it was prior to the 2014 Obama Order. The case will now be dismissed without a trial because the issues at the heart of it have been revoked, no longer exist, and are now moot.

What trial. I've heard nothing about an impending trial. DAPA was rejected by the courts making it a non-issue.

PUBLISHED:

Tue, APR 19^th 2016 @ 9:21 am EDT

After oral arguments on Monday the eight Supreme Court Justices seem to be evenly split over the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) case. The court spent 90 minutes debating if Texas and the other 25 states have the right to sue over Pres. Obama’s executive amnesty and if so does DAPA, specifically the Administration's plan to grant work permits and Social Security numbers to a class of illegal aliens, violate the constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were concerned that the language of the executive action would grant illegal aliens “legal” status. “How is it possible to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States,” Justice Alito asked. Chief Justice Roberts continued, “I mean, they’re lawfully present, and yet, they’re present in violation of the law?”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is usually the swing voter, argued that Pres. Obama overstepped his authority. “And that's **the whole point, is that you've talked about discretion here. What we're doing is defining the limits of discretion. And it seems to me that that is a legislative, not an executive act. All of the cases,** the briefs go on for pages to the effect that the President has admitted a certain number of people and then Congress approves it. That seems to me to have it backwards. It's as if **that the President is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside down,” he said.

Justice Clarence Thomas also seemed to side with Texas and the states over the Obama administration.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the argument that there are 11.3 million illegal aliens in the U.S. but Congress has only provided funds to deport around 4 million, so Pres. Obama is allowed to set priorities. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued against the standing of Texas and the other states to challenge President Obama’s executive action saying this could set a precedent that would make it easier for states to attack any federal agency regulations they don’t like. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer also voiced their support for the administration’s position.

There are currently only eight Supreme Court justices after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If the final decision is split this would mean that the lower court’s injunction would be upheld, essentially ending DAPA.

For more on other possible Supreme Court decisions read Chris Chmielenski’s blog here.
DAPA was put on hold last February after Texas and 25 other states filed a lawsuit against the executive action. The injunction has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court that said DAPA would affect more than just immigration enforcement but would actually change the status of illegal aliens.
DAPA would provide approximately 5 million illegal aliens access to work permits and social security cards, which would qualify them for other state and federal benefits including welfare, essentially granting them legal status.

The Supreme Court is set to give its final decision on June 28.

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/supr...ided-dapa-case

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court ended up in a split decision so DAPA was essentially ended at that point.

No it wasn't ended, if Hillary had won the election we would be at a trial and they would be arguing why these people deserve deferred status. Trump won which is what "ended it", but there are still procedures to dismiss the lawsuit. All the courts did was approve the injunction to put a stay on it until a trial on the merits of Texas' claim that the orders were unconstitutional. But in the process, they also ruled that DACA 2012 was to remain in effect. There has no been trial because Trump became the 45th President of the United States instead of Hillary Clinton. Otherwise you would have DACA Expansion and DAPA in perpetuity.

It's really not worth the time to explain any of this to you.

So I'm just going to wait and see what happens, but it's looking good to me so far.