Federal judge: Trump administration must accept new DACA applications

Witchit

Gold Member
Jun 18, 2014
3,077
626
245
TARDIS
Bates is the third judge to rule against Trump administration attempts to rescind DACA, which provides two-year, renewable work permits and deportation protections for about 690,000 “dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children.

In his decision, Bates said the decision to phase out the program starting in March “was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action,” Bates wrote.


aclu.jpg


If DACA is so awful, why can't they legally prove it?


Federal judge: Trump administration must accept new DACA applications
 
Newsflash sister: It is the president's prerogative and right to set the immigration rules for the US.

Apparently this judge missed that law. That doesn't change it from being so.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?

It's clearly codified in The Constitution and Federal law as well.


That judge will lose, and should be impeached. IMO, hanged by the neck until dead.

Did that judge take an oath to uphold the Constitution? If so, he has violated it.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?

It's clearly codified in The Constitution and Federal law as well.


That judge will lose, and should be impeached. IMO, hanged by the neck until dead.
Using liberal federal judges to block the President is the only option of the left and they're using it at every opportunity. They have to.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?

It's clearly codified in The Constitution and Federal law as well.


That judge will lose, and should be impeached. IMO, hanged by the neck until dead.
Using liberal federal judges to block the President is the only option of the left and they're using it at every opportunity. They have to.

Clearly not the correct way to do things.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?

It's clearly codified in The Constitution and Federal law as well.


That judge will lose, and should be impeached. IMO, hanged by the neck until dead.
Using liberal federal judges to block the President is the only option of the left and they're using it at every opportunity. They have to.

Wrong again, home skillet. There are judges who put country before party, and the law before all else. So no. It's not as simple as you would like it to be.
 
P.S.: You still haven't told me why the judge should rule in Trump's favor.

Judge orders reopening of DACA, after 90-day delay - CNNPolitics

Similar to the other rulings, Judge John Bates concluded that the wind-down of DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" because the Department of Homeland Security failed to "adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful." The judge also accused the government of providing "meager legal reasoning" to support its decision.
*ahem*
A George W. Bush appointee to the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Bates delayed the implementation of his ruling "to allow the agency an opportunity to better explain its rescission."

Oh, and here's another fun read for ya.

John D. Bates - Wikipedia

"Bates was a law clerk for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1987, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office from 1987 to 1997. Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington, D.C. law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/LitigationDepartment and a member of the Executive Committee. From September 1995 until leaving in March 1997, Bates worked as Deputy Independent Counsel for Kenneth Starr and the Independent Counsel's office during the investigation into President Bill Clinton."

Any other snide, unfounded remarks?
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?
Wrong. A Presidential decree started the program, a Presidential decree can end it.

Trump should just ignore this judge and end the program.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?
Wrong. A Presidential decree started the program, a Presidential decree can end it.

Trump should just ignore this judge and end the program.

On what basis.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?
Wrong. A Presidential decree started the program, a Presidential decree can end it.

Trump should just ignore this judge and end the program.

On what basis.
It is an Executive Action. It is not binding legislation. It is NOT law. Any EA from any previous Administration can be canceled by the new or subsequent Administrations.

The lawsuits don't even pass the standing test. The judge is just plain wrong and his ruling isn't based on any law, because DACA is NOT law.
 
The Constitution clearly gives the President control of immigration policy. The hack judge's ruling won't stand. Trump should ignore it, he will win in the SC.

Wrong. He can't just do things, obviously. This is his third loss. He has ninety days to come up with good reasons for removing DACA. So tell me, what are they?
Wrong. A Presidential decree started the program, a Presidential decree can end it.

Trump should just ignore this judge and end the program.
He could ignore the judge and add yet another nail in his impeachment coffin.
 
This is a fucking EXECUTIVE ORDER. One that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A President doesnt have power to make immigration laws through EO
This judge should be impeached for breaking his oath.
 
Bates is the third judge to rule against Trump administration attempts to rescind DACA, which provides two-year, renewable work permits and deportation protections for about 690,000 “dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children.

In his decision, Bates said the decision to phase out the program starting in March “was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action,” Bates wrote.


View attachment 189882

If DACA is so awful, why can't they legally prove it?


Federal judge: Trump administration must accept new DACA applications

Trumptards don’t understand what is legal and what isn’t. And they don’t understand what is decent and what isn’t

Very confused people
 

Forum List

Back
Top