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

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.

Just give it up, Judy. You were wrong when you posted this:

What people are missing is that the court, Judge Hanen specifically, upheld by 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and then tied by US Supreme Court that let 5th Circuit ruling stand is that the Judge ruled the DACA 2012 program, the one everyone is claiming is unconstitutional, constitutional for now and to remain in place. That is the existing standing of the DACA 2012 program according to the courts.

And you're still wrong. DACA 2012 was never ruled constitutional. You need to learn when to admit you misspoke and/or are wrong. Doing so would cause a lot less aggravation for both of us and more importantly, it would cause a lot less confusion for other folks.

The court made no finding or ruling on DACA 2012. That is a fact that is substantiated in the court ruling you yourself provided. For any questions refer back to this:

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." - MW

There is no mention of constitutional, unconstitutional, or otherwise.

Trump says he will treat Dreamers 'with heart'


Pence: 'We'll See' on Path to Legalization for Illegal Immigrants as Reform Bill Encouraged


BREAKING: Terry McAuliffe Says DACA and 700,000 Dreamers Here to Stay


Kelly: No Use of US Military to Enforce Immigration, No Mass Deportations


Do you support Trump's Dream Act Amnesty?

Originally Posted by MW

Just give it up, Judy. You were wrong when you posted this:



And you're still wrong. DACA 2012 was never ruled constitutional. You need to learn when to admit you misspoke and/or are wrong. Doing so would cause a lot less aggravation for both of us and more importantly, it would cause a lot less confusion for other folks.

The court made no finding or ruling on DACA 2012. That is a fact that is substantiated in the court ruling you yourself provided. For any questions refer back to this:



There is no mention of constitutional, unconstitutional, or otherwise.

You are too uninformed to post with.

OVER AND OUT.

Originally Posted by Judy

You are too uninformed to post with.

OVER AND OUT.

Attempting to dismiss me simply because you refuse to admit you were wrong is so you.

I actually provided quotes and facts to substantiate everything I said, whereas you did not.

LOL!! You just proved my point. Thank you.