Thread: Broken Promise? Trump Still Hasn’t Ended DACA

Originally Posted by Judy

Suit yourself, MW. It doesn't matter to me. I can count to 3. And when someone promises to end "two", that's not "three", that's "two". Simple math and a law of the universe. And when someone promises to end the "two" "Obama Executive Orders" "stopped by the Judge", that's the "two Obama Executive Orders stopped by the Judge", not a Memo Directive by Janet Napolitano. Those aren't the same things in our language. They are different things in our language.

Don't you think it's rather odd that you're the only one that thinks Trump didn't promise to end DACA immediately?

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/...utely-nothing/

http://redrightrepublic.com/republic...ets-sue-trump/

https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/were...ulfill-promise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0780bac2c585f

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...s-daca-amnesty

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/30/an...es-on-promise/

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.co...llegals/184756

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...124-story.html

http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opin...daca/97133560/

http://trueviralnews.com/an-estimate...es-on-promise/

The list goes on and on. Obviously when Trump made the promise he thought it was an executive order, not a directive. That confusion on his part does not change the fact that he promised to end DACA immediately!

No, it's not odd at all. It's correct. It's what he said at every one of the many rallies I watched on YouTube. It was TWO Executive Orders issued by Obama that were stopped by the Judge. Every single time. There were TWO Executive Orders in 2014 issued by Obama that were "unconstitutional" and stopped by the Judge. Those are the ones Trump promised to end day one. Since they are already "ended" with an injunction by the Judge, there is really nothing for him to do.

I have no explanation for why people want to overlook this simple recorded fact of Trump's actual promises and claim a promise was broken that was never made to begin with.

My suggestion is if you would like for someone in this administration to do something about a THIRD program, you might ask, lobby, inform, and demand Sessions and Kelly revoke the MEMO Directive of Janet Napolitano that established that DACA program in June of 2012. You certainly don't need a President to do that. They are the Cabinet members with the legal authority and responsibility for it.

Originally Posted by Judy

No, it's not odd at all. It's correct. It's what he said at every one of the many rallies I watched on YouTube. It was TWO Executive Orders issued by Obama that were stopped by the Judge. Every single time. There were TWO Executive Orders in 2014 issued by Obama that were "unconstitutional" and stopped by the Judge. Those are the ones Trump promised to end day one. Since they are already "ended" with an injunction by the Judge, there is really nothing for him to do.

I have no explanation for why people want to overlook this simple recorded fact of Trump's actual promises and claim a promise was broken that was never made to begin with.

My suggestion is if you would like for someone in this administration to do something about a THIRD program, you might ask, lobby, inform, and demand Sessions and Kelly revoke the MEMO Directive of Janet Napolitano that established that DACA program in June of 2012. You certainly don't need a President to do that. They are the Cabinet members with the legal authority and responsibility for it.

No, it is odd and it's incorrect. However, you have the right to live on the very small island you've created in your own mind. Have a nice day.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy founded by the Obama administration in June 2012. DACA allows certain undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit.

The policy was created after acknowledgment that these undocumented students had been largely raised in the United States, and was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior.^[1] The illegal alien student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal alien students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis.^[2]

From the start, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible.^[3] As of June 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had received 844,931 initial applications for DACA status, of which 741,546 (88%) were approved, 60,269 (7%) were denied, and 43,121 (5%) were pending. Over half of those accepted reside in California and Texas.^[4]

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to expand DACA.^[5] However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).^[6][7][8] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeds.^[9][10] After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4-4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.^[11]

On February 14, 2017 a CNN report on the detention of 23-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina in Northwest Detention Center,^[12] Tacoma, Washington following his arrest in his father's Des Moines, Washington home, observed that "The case raises questions about what it could mean" for the 750,000 Dreamers, who had "received permission to stay under DACA."^[12][13]

On March 7, 2017 the Los Angeles Times^[14] reported that 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi became the second DACA recipient to be detained by the Trump Administration, further raising speculation about President Trump's commitment to Dreamers and questioning whether immigrants who speak out against the administration's policies should fear retaliation [1].

Vargas was released from LaSalle Detention Center on March 10, 2017 [2] and Ramirez Medina's release followed on March 29, 2017 [3]. However, questions remain regarding the future of DACA recipients due to the Trump administration's initial plans [4].

Contents

[hide]

• 1History
  
  • 1.1Republican response
  
  
• 2Implementation
  
  • 2.1Eligibility
  • 2.2Travel eligibility
  • 2.3Renewals
  • 2.4Expansion
  
  
• 3Impact
• 4State responses
  
  • 4.1California
  • 4.2Arizona
  • 4.3Maryland
  • 4.4Illinois
  • 4.5Texas
  • 4.6Nebraska
  • 4.7Michigan
  • 4.8North Carolina
  • 4.9Virginia
  
  
• 5See also
• 6References
• 7External links

History[edit]

President Barack Obama announced the policy with a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House on 15 June 2012,^[15] a date chosen as the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision barring public schools from charging illegal alien children tuition. Republican Party leaders denounced the program as an abuse of executive power.^[16]

USCIS began accepting applications for the program on 15 August 2012.^[3]

Republican response[edit]

Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224-201 to defund DACA in June 2013.^[17] Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, "The point here is...the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect."^[18]However, in practice Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations.^[19]

Although politicians are divided on immigration issues related to DACA, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated that he would honor the grants of deferred action approved under DACA until a more permanent legislation was put into place.^[20]

Under the presidency of Donald Trump, DACA has been under scrutiny, also in view of Trump's earlier announcement during his candidacy that he intended to end that program.^[21][22]

Implementation[edit]

DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.^[23]

To apply for DACA, illegal aliens must pay a $495 application fee, submit several, and produce documents showing they meet the requirements. They do not need legal representation.

Eligibility[edit]

To be eligible, illegal aliens must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship,^[24] nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.^[25]
In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).^[26]

To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:^[24]

• Came to the United States before their 16th birthday
• Have lived continuously in the United States since 15 June 2007
• Were under age 31 on 15 June 2012 (i.e., born on 16 June 1981 or after)
• Were physically present in the United States on 15 June 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
• Had no lawful status on 15 June 2012
• Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school
• Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

To show proof of qualification (verify these requirements), applicants must submit three forms; I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and I-765WS, Worksheet, as well as supporting documentation.^[24]

Travel eligibility[edit]

In addition to the $495 application fee, if a DACA qualifying illegal alien wants to travel abroad there is an additional fee and application requirement.

Form I-131 Application Type D, with a fee of $575 needs to be submitted to USCIS.^[27]

To receive advance parole one must travel abroad for the sole purpose of an educational, employment, or humanitarian purposes. This must be indicating on the Form I-131 as described below:

• Educational purposes, such as studying abroad;
• Employment purposes, such as overseas positions, interviews, training, or meetings with clients; or
• Humanitarian purposes, such as travel for medical reasons, attend funeral services for a family member, or visit a sick relative.

Travel for leisure is not a valid purpose.^[27]

Renewals[edit]

USCIS released the process for DACA renewals in June 2014 and directed applicants to file their documents during a 30-day window starting 150 days before the expiration of their previous DACA status. Renewing requires an additional $495 fee.^[28]

As of June 2016, there had been 606,264 renewal cases, with 526,288 approved, 4,703 denied and 75,205 renewals pending.^[4]

Expansion[edit]

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal aliens who entered the country prior to 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to two years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000.^[29]
However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).^[30][31][32] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeds.^[33][34]

After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4-4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.^[11]

The court's temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.^[24]

Impact[edit]

A 2016 study found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal aliens in the bottom of the income distribution.

However, DACA had no significant effects on the likelihood of attending school. Using these estimates, DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.^[25]

State responses[edit]

State-level government officials are also divided on the issue. Although state governments cannot affect DACA itself, they can control the state benefits available to individuals under deferred action.

California[edit]

To assist those eligible under the program,^[35] the state of California has agreed to support those who receive a DACA grant by allowing access to a state driver's license,^[36] provided that such individuals participate in specific state guidelines (such as paying income taxes). The state of California also allows DACA holding individuals to qualify for Medi-Cal.^[37]

Arizona[edit]

Arizona became the first state to oppose President Obama's order for DACA when Governor Jan Brewer issued a counter-order that prevents those with deferred status from receiving any state benefits.^[38] This caused controversy,^[39] as eligible and approved applicants would still be unable to obtain a driver's license.^[40] In May 2013, a federal district court held that this policy was likely unconstitutional. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against Brewer's ban, and in November 2014 held this ban was in violation of the law.^[41]

Maryland[edit]

Former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake chose to open the city's doors to undocumented immigrants to boost its dwindling population. The city boasts an executive order prohibiting officials from questioning an individual's immigration status, especially about Maryland's Dream Act, which grants in-state tuition rates to "any student who graduates from a Maryland high school and comes from a family who has paid taxes. If the individual is a male he must also complete his Selective Service form and prove his acceptance."^[42]

Illinois[edit]

In a New York Times interview, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated that he wants to make Chicago the "most immigrant-friendly city in the country". In addition to offering in-state tuition for illegal aliens, he has also made plans for an ordinance that would prevent illegal aliens with no criminal background from being turned over to immigration enforcement agencies.^[43]

Texas[edit]

Although in-state tuition is still offered, Governor Rick Perry announced his opposition to DACA by distributing a letter to all state agencies, meant "to ensure that all Texas agencies understand that Secretary Napolitano's guidelines confer absolutely no legal status whatsoever to any illegal alien who qualifies for the federal 'deferred action' designation.”^[44]

Nebraska[edit]

Governor Dave Heineman, also joined in the opposition against DACA, confirming that the state, will continue its practice of not issuing driver's licenses, welfare benefits, or other public benefits to illegal immigrants" regardless of deferred status. Since then, however, Nebraska legislature has made it legal for these people to acquire driver's licenses.^[45]

Michigan[edit]

In October 2012, the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, announced that Michigan will not issue drivers licenses or state identification of any kind to beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.^[46] In making this decision, it was clear that the Secretary of State erroneously conflated the notion of "lawful presence," which is required under Michigan Law to issue a driver's license, and "lawful status," a different legal concept entirely.^[47] USCIS has made it clear that DACA beneficiaries do not possess legal status, but does not state that DACA beneficiaries are unlawfully present; in fact, it states that DACA beneficiaries will not accrue unlawful presence time here while they are in this deferred action status.^[48] The Secretary of State relied upon USCIS' own explanation, which discusses legal status, not lawful presence.^[48] In response to this policy, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging that the policy violated both Michigan law and the U.S. Constitution.^[49] On January 18, 2013, USCIS updated their "Frequently Asked Questions" page about DACA, clarifying, among other things, that DACA beneficiaries are, in fact, lawfully present in the United States.^[50] On 1 February 2013, Johnson reversed her policy and began issuing drivers licenses to DACA beneficiaries on February 19, 2013.^[51]

North Carolina[edit]

North Carolina briefly suspended giving out driver's licenses to DACA grantees while waiting for the state attorney general’s opinion. The attorney general decided that even without formal immigration status the DACA grantees were to be granted legal presence. After that, the state once again continued to give out drivers licenses and allowed the DACA grantees to become legal members of North Carolina.^[52]

Virginia[edit]

On April 29, 2014, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring sent a letter to the director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the presidents of Virginia public colleges and universities, and the chancellor of the Virginia Community College System, in response to inquiries from public institutions of higher education on whether DACA students are eligible for in-state tuition. The attorney general advised these institutions that under Virginia law, DACA students who meet Virginia's domicile requirements are eligible for in-state tuition.<sup>[53][54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferr...dhood_Arrivals</sup>

Originally Posted by MW

No, it is odd and it's incorrect. However, you have the right to live on the very small island you've created in your own mind. Have a nice day.

LOL!! You're acting like a liberal judge, it's not what it actually says, it's what you want it to say. Wow. Very disappointed in you, MW!!

Sessions, unlike Trump, says DREAMers are 'subject to being deported'

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!! You're acting like a liberal judge, it's not what it actually says, it's what you want it to say. Wow. Very disappointed in you, MW!!

You do it all the time when making excuses for Trump. I've often times seen you twist his words, detail, or facts to fit what you want them to mean.

WHO'S RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT? Trump has yet to fill 85% of key executive branch positions

Like I said, you think like a liberal judge, it's not what it actually says, it's what you want it to say.

As to making excuses for Trump, I'm so thrilled with his election and what he's doing, I will defend this President on every thing he does that I agree with. Why would I not? Why would any Trump Supporter? Why would any Republican? Why would any conservative? Why would any American attack the first President in our adult lives to help US end illegal immigration into the United States? Makes no sense to me why anyone in our cause would embroil themselves in a CORRUPT MEDIA DNC-INSPIRED NARRATIVE to attack this President on a "broken promises" meme in his first 3 months of office.

There is a huge difference between keeping the pressure on to end DACA and accusing this President of "broken promises" especially when he didn't even make the damn promise to begin with. Facts are stubborn things. Facts can get buried, they can get lost in the mill, they can be misunderstood, but they don't change. His actual statements are a matter of public recorded record from all his rallies, all his press conferences, and every speech he's made and every document he's written and posted. This President has put up with these false narratives from the CORRUPT MEDIA, the DNC and the NEVER-TRUMPERS for 2 years. Anyone who thinks it's going to phase this President now, truly needs to think again and pursue a different approach. Either Trump or his people will end DACA 2012 when they believe it's the right time and way to do it.

My 2 cents for whatever it's worth.

Originally Posted by Judy

The program itself expires in June.

I've been looking for some official facts to support your claim that the program ends in June but have not been able to find anything. Please give us something more than "he said" to validate your claim. Where is Shawn Spicer getting his information? If the program is designed to twilight in June, it should be officially documented somewhere.