Thread: Under Trump, Conservatives Put Less Urgency On Ending DACA

See page 5 of the Judge Hanen ruling in the link below for the ruling on the DACA 2012. I can't copy it for some reason, maybe someone else knows how to make it copy and paste. If so, please help and thank you very much.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...n-opinion.html

Under Trump, Conservatives Put Less Urgency On Ending DACA

Originally Posted by Judy

See page 5 of the Judge Hanen ruling in the link below for the ruling on the DACA 2012. I can't copy it for some reason, maybe someone else knows how to make it copy and paste. If so, please help and thank you very much.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...n-opinion.html

I read the information you provided. There is nothing on page 5 that rules on the constitutionality of DACA 2012. All it says is the complaint in this case does not involved DACA 2012. "Therefore, those actions are not before the Court and will not be addressed in this opinion."

It says quite abit more than that, but until I find a text that I can copy and paste, people will have to click on the link, go to page 5 and read the section highlighted in yellow to read the whole writing of the court on DACA 2012 which he left in place and continuing, when he could have done otherwise.

Trump, Kelly and/or Sessions, should end it on the earliest possible date by whatever legal avenue is available. And hopefully one or all of them will do so, very soon. Sean Spicer for some reason believes DACA 2012 expires in June, which would be 3 years from the date of Obama's 3 year renewal of DACA 2012 that was actually a Memo Directive issued by Jeh Johnson.

If Judge Hanen thought that DACA 2012 was unconstitutional, he would have included it in the case to be argued on the merits and put an injunction against future renewals and new applications, but he didn't.

There is a law in Congress that gives the Executive Branch, "prosecutorial discretion" based on "prioritization for best utilization of resources". This is the law that probably protects DACA 2012 until more resources are available or a better prosecution plan is implemented, more agents, more judges, more etc. Another possibility is that at the time of the ruling, the Judge cites 700,000 people eligible for this "deferred action", but now there are over 870,000 signed up. The scope has changed dramatically having grown by over 25% in less than 3 years, which would seem to me to be the best argument for ending new sign ups and renewals and prosecuting the problem.

This all may seem "silly" to you, but navigating through the law properly to ensure an action does not result in lawsuits that cost US taxpayers potentially billions of dollars in claims in addition to establishing new court precedents that weaken the powers of the Executive Branch to actually enforce our immigration laws, is not "silly". It's actually very serious.

Originally Posted by Judy

Iit says quite abit more than that, but until I find a text that I can copy and paste, people will have to click on the link, go to page 5 and read the section highlighted in yellow to read the whole writing of the court on DACA 2012 which he left in place and continuing, when he could have done otherwise.

Trump, Kelly and/or Sessions, should end it on the earliest possible date by whatever legal avenue is available. And hopefully one or all of them will do so, very soon. Sean Spicer for some reason believes DACA 2012 expires in June, which would be 3 years from the date of Obama's 3 year renewal of DACA 2012 that was actually a Memo Directive issued by Jeh Johnson.

If Judge Hanen thought that DACA 2012 was unconstitutional, he would have included it in the case to be argued on the merits and put an injunction against future renewals and new applications, but he didn't.

There is a law in Congress that gives the Executive Branch, "prosecutorial discretion" based on "prioritization for best utilization of resources". This is the law that probably protects DACA 2012 until more resources are available or a better prosecution plan is implemented, more agents, more judges, more etc. Another possibility is that at the time of the ruling, the Judge cites 700,000 people eligible for this "deferred action", but now there are over 870,000 signed up. The scope has changed dramatically having grown by over 25% in less than 3 years, which would seem to me to be the best argument for ending new sign ups and renewals and prosecuting the problem.

This all may seem "silly" to you, but navigating through the law properly to ensure an action does not result in lawsuits that cost US taxpayers potentially billions of dollars in claims in addition to establishing new court precedents that weaken the powers of the Executive Branch to actually enforce our immigration laws, is not "silly". It's actually very serious.

I read it and it clearly states, referring to DACA 2012:

. "Therefore, those actions are not before the Court and will not be addressed in this opinion."

How can you not see that?

What makes you think I can't see it? The difference between you and me is I understand what it means, and you obviously don't.

Originally Posted by Judy

What makes you think I can't see it? The difference between you and me is I understand what it means, and you obviously don't.

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. Moreover, I fully understand that anyone, and I do mean anyone, that disagrees with you is always wrong.

I challenge anyone that cares to read the page 5 section highlighted in yellow to provide their interpretation. Honestly, I don't see how anyone with an eight grade education can come to the conclusion that DACA was ruled unconstitutional after reading it. DACA 2012 was not included in the lawsuit and it was not ruled on by the Court, period, end of argument!

Originally Posted by MW

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. Moreover, I fully understand that anyone, and I do mean anyone, that disagrees with you is always wrong.

I challenge anyone that cares to read the page 5 section highlighted in yellow to provide their interpretation. Honestly, I don't see how anyone with an eight grade education can come to the conclusion that DACA was ruled unconstitutional after reading it. DACA 2012 was not included in the lawsuit and it was not ruled on by the Court, period, end of argument!

I think you've mixed yourself up even more with your indignation.

The court ruled to exclude DACA 2012 from the lawsuit because they couldn't find a reason for it to be included, that means there was no basis for a legal challenge of DACA 2012 in the lawsuit. The 2014 DACA Expansion and 2014 DAPA were stopped temporarily by the court with the injunction while a lawsuit of those 2 matters are argued on the merits.

The ruling is on page 123.

What this means is very complicated. But I'll try to simplify for you and oooh, I see JD2 has chimed in, so for JD2 as well. It means there is no basis for a court to end it. That means there is no constitutional issue on DACA 2012 at this point for the time being. That means Trump can't Trumpet "I'm ending DACA 2012 because it's unconstitutional." Trump would need a precedent, a ruling, a legal review, a legal opinion, a SOMETHING to end it on a constitutional over-reach of power by Janet Napolitano.

So the point of all this is to stop claiming DACA 2012 needs to terminated because it's unconstitutional. You have no basis for that at this point. If there was some viable constitutional issue with DACA 2012, Judge Hanen would have enjoined it in the Texas lawsuit. He didn't. He did the complete opposite and excluded it.

Trump, Kelly or Sessions can still end it, just not on the basis that it's "unconstitutional". They can end it on the basis of civil rights laws, unfair to Americans, they can end it on the basis of labor laws, unfair to American Workers, they can end it on the basis of welfare costs, unfair to American Taxpayers, they can end it on difference prioritization of resources today versus then and better prosecutorial plans and abilities, more agents, more judges, better enforcement and prosecution plans, such that the prosecutorial problems that were the basis for the discretionary deferred action in 2012 no longer exist today.

There are many and varied existing laws and new circumstances with which to end DACA 2012, I just don't think constitutionality of the Executive Power behind that claim is one of them.

It boils down again to the issue of enforcing the laws. If you don't want them in public schools ruining the educations of American Children while increasing the cost to taxpayers, you deport them from the country. That was the message of Plyler vs. Doe. If you let them stay, you must afford them the same benefits as other children until you deport them.

You have to attack this DACA 2012 differently than the much larger scope of the DACA Expansion 2014 and DAPA 2014. Otherwise, you'll have 870,000 claimants who more likely than not will win their case if you don't do this right.

Kelly needs to issue a Memorandum terminating the program on its 3rd year anniversary, whatever date that is, Spicer said June, but a CATO institute work permit study showed March, yet the Hanen ruling refers to November .... so whichever date IS the date, IS the date it needs to be asserted that the program is over and is not being extended, the website taken down, no more work permits issued and letters sent to everyone giving them their notice of termination as of the date of their work permit in hand with a clear statement that the work permit in hand does not prevent deportation, only the right to be hired until the earlier of the expiration of the work permit or deportation, whichever occurs first.

THEN KICK ASS and get them all the hell out of here.