Ruling Saving DACA Was ‘Outrageous,’ Unprecedented ‘in Our History’
Attorney Harmeet Dhillon blasted U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates' decision to block Trump's move
by Kathryn Blackhurst | Updated 26 Apr 2018 at 1:05 PM
A federal judge’s ruling against President Donald Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is “outrageous, and it’s not precedented in our history,” attorney Harmeet Dhillon said Wednesday on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, revoked Trump’s DACA termination, saying it “was unlawful and must be set aside” and calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”
The judge gave Trump 90 days to justify further the reasoning behind rescinding DACA. Bates is the third federal judge ruling against Trump’s termination of a program launched by former President Barack Obama via an executive memo of highly dubious constitutionality.
“President Obama, himself in 2012 when he signed the DACA order, he said this is a temporary measure. This is a stopgap. This is to give hope to some people until Congress acts,” Dhillon (above, second from right) said. “Now it’s being converted into a permanent entitlement.”
Host Laura Ingraham noted Trump made his decision to rescind DACA to “restore the rule of law and return immigration decisions and the fate of those DACA kids to the constitutionally appropriate branch of government — Congress.”
“Yet district court judges from San Francisco to Brooklyn and now here in Washington, D.C., have stymied this president at every turn,” Ingraham said. “This is totally absurd and an abuse of power.”
Dhillon, founder of the Dhillon Law Group Inc. and Republican National Committeewoman for California, agreed with Ingraham, noting this "is not how our courts were meant to be."
"President Trump has been subject to 22 nationwide injunctions — that's more than any other president in history," Dhillon said. "This is a recent fashion, and it's out of control, Laura."
Although Democratic lawmakers, liberal pundits and pro-illegal immigrant activists praised Bates' ruling, Dhillon warned that Democrats "should be very concerned about this as well" because "the tables will be turned one day and it is not the place of judges who are an equal branch — not a superior branch — to be issuing nationwide injunctions on the basis of two or three people in front of them."
"That's outrageous, and it's not precedented in our history," Dhillon said.
Democrat Scott Bolden, a managing partner of the law firm Reed Smith, argued that Trump "and anyone else who loses at the federal district court level" can "go to the Court of Appeals or the 9th Circuit or whatever circuit — they can even go to the Supreme Court," to challenge Bates' ruling.
Solomon Wisenberg, former deputy special counsel in the Whitewater-Lewinsky investigation of former President Bill Clinton, argued that Bates' ruling "is a very narrow opinion" that shouldn't upset Trump supporters' too much.
Bates merely stated that "the government did not adequately explain why they think that Obama lacked the constitutional" authority to authorize the DACA program, Wisenberg (above, far left) said.
"All Judge Bates said was, 'You've got 90 days to come up with a better reason,'" Wisenberg said.
Although Wisenberg agreed that the U.S. "absolutely" has a problem with "runaway judges," he urged Trump officials and the president's supporters not to get too carried away.
"I'm not saying I agree with Judge Bates' decision, but it is a mainstream decision," Wisenberg said.
But Bates' ruling is only one of multiple setbacks for Trump in his efforts for strengthening enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and securing the country's border with Mexico.
Ingraham noted that "a source close to the Mexican government" told her "after Mexico had effectively disbanded the caravan" that Trump fiercely decried earlier in April "and deported many of its members," that "American media outlets — including CNN, along with various NGOs [non-governmental organizations] in the United States — whipped up a lot of stuff that helped reconstitute the caravan and indeed recruit new members."
The "caravan" is now poised to enter the United States illegally.
"Well, [media and NGOs] sold these individuals as political refugees, of course, when most are seeking asylum based on purely economic reasons because they want a better way of life," Ingraham said, noting that the caravan "was basically finished until CNN reporters sympathetically focused on the plight almost exclusively of women and children in the caravan."
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told Ingraham that "watching this caravan make its way towards the United States and divert toward Tijuana, and seeing the way they're facilitating this with the media and with the immigration attorneys" constituted watching "an unarmed invasion."
King said there are federal statutes "that prohibit and create a felony for contributing and aiding and abetting illegal immigration."
"[The media and NGOs] better have their laws right if they're going to go to a foreign country and help facilitate an unarmed invasion into the United States," King said. "But we are weak on our asylum laws."
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...n-our-history/
