Trump Gets Smacked Down Again on DACA

[protectionist]

]
Children broke the law when their parents brought them in? Why are you so hateful?

Why are you so neglectful of PROTECTING the American people ? No sense of NATIONalism ?

Wasn't your display name "Patriot" ? Or maybe it should be ProgressiveGlobalist ?

 

[protectionist]

We have no leadership from the retarded president who precipitated this issue and who is holding the dreamers hostage for his idiotic wall.

Nobody can be a hostage in a place where they're not supposed to be.

 

[protectionist]

Bitching about Guatemalans ? My brother in law is Guatemalan. Came in undocumented many years ago. Now he's a citizen and a hard working, law abiding person, and family man. So are his numerous relatives who are also here.

You mean he came in here ILLEGALLY.

To call an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant", is like calling a bank robber an "informal withdrawl agent."

PS - I also am of Central American ancestry. My paternal grandparents came to the US in the 1880s, from British Honduras (now called Belize). But they came here LEGALLY.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why are you so neglectful of PROTECTING the American people ?

From children and young adults who are themselves American people?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wasn't your display name "Patriot" ? Or maybe it should be ProgressiveGlobalist ?

I am a patriotic globalist. Try wrapping you head around that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No sense of NATIONalism ?

Actually NO. Especially since the T-Rump election

 

[protectionist]

Show us the damned studies then. When I posted documentation to support my claim you called it leftist propaganda. But you think that you just make shit up and present it as fact. That is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy.

Liberals are strictly programmed to screen out all conservative media. As a result they watch/read only leftist OMISSION media, which is carefully crafted to omit anything outside the liberal agenda. Consequently, they are the most information-deprived individuals in America, all walking around with no idea how much they don't know.

I've proven this time and time again, by challenging them to take my Islamization Quiz, which they all flunk with flying colors. Some even ask me "Islamization. What's that ?"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is what democrats are importing and what they want here.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/26/latin-america-murder-crisis-violence-homicide-report

Latin America has suffered more than 2.5m murders since the start of this century

Think of how fast, democrat killers could get the American population replaced at that rate. Now you KNOW why the democrats want to disarm us so badly.

This is Brazil, and it is OUR future if we let the democrats win.

In Brazil, far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, an early presidential frontrunner, has vowed to relax gun-control laws. “We must give everyone the right to carry a gun, just like in the US,” he told O Globo this week. “We already have a ‘bang-bang’ going on in Brazil but only one side is allowed to shoot.”

Now you know what the democrats are really doing.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

DACA = "People who believe they are above our immigration laws".

Dimocrats of today have absolutely zero respect for citizenship.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This made my day. The third Federal Court to rule against the Trump Administration on DACA. And it was done so poetically


Another Federal Judge Rules Against Trump's Order To Cancel DACA | HuffPost

In September, President Donald Trump canceled the Obama-era DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as youths from deportation. But in a stinging rebuke of the Trump administration’s legal logic, U.S. District Judge John Bates described the program’s cancellation as “arbitrary and capricious because the Department [of Homeland Security] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program,” Bates wrote in the opinion.

This ruling is different than the others:

The ruling has no immediate effect, and the decision to cancel DACA has already been stalled by a nationwide injunction. Bates’ ruling is unique, however, because it opens the possibility that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services might have to start accepting new DACA applications. The current injunctions only require the federal government to renew the applications of people who have already been approved for the program.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No sense of NATIONalism ?

Actually NO. Especially since the T-Rump election

Gad am I glad to hear that. I thought I was the only one who had no sense of national identity with democrats. Split this sucker open like a rotten watermelon!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This made my day. The third Federal Court to rule against the Trump Administration on DACA. And it was done so poetically


Another Federal Judge Rules Against Trump's Order To Cancel DACA | HuffPost

In September, President Donald Trump canceled the Obama-era DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as youths from deportation. But in a stinging rebuke of the Trump administration’s legal logic, U.S. District Judge John Bates described the program’s cancellation as “arbitrary and capricious because the Department [of Homeland Security] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program,” Bates wrote in the opinion.

This ruling is different than the others:

The ruling has no immediate effect, and the decision to cancel DACA has already been stalled by a nationwide injunction. Bates’ ruling is unique, however, because it opens the possibility that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services might have to start accepting new DACA applications. The current injunctions only require the federal government to renew the applications of people who have already been approved for the program.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We have activist judges who are as determined as democrat politicians to destroy the country and put it down to where it belongs after such an unfair history.

 

[Ame®icano]

This made my day. The third Federal Court to rule against the Trump Administration on DACA. And it was done so poetically


Another Federal Judge Rules Against Trump's Order To Cancel DACA | HuffPost

In September, President Donald Trump canceled the Obama-era DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as youths from deportation. But in a stinging rebuke of the Trump administration’s legal logic, U.S. District Judge John Bates described the program’s cancellation as “arbitrary and capricious because the Department [of Homeland Security] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program,” Bates wrote in the opinion.

This ruling is different than the others:

The ruling has no immediate effect, and the decision to cancel DACA has already been stalled by a nationwide injunction. Bates’ ruling is unique, however, because it opens the possibility that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services might have to start accepting new DACA applications. The current injunctions only require the federal government to renew the applications of people who have already been approved for the program.

Sooo, those judges are saying it's unconstitutional to cancel unconstitutional EO?

What makes you think those judges have constitutional jurisdiction on the matter?

1. On what basis are you claiming that the EO is unconstitutional?

2. Federal Judges do indeed have constitutional jurisdiction.

1. By asking that question you're confirming your ignorance about the Constitution. The articles of the Constitution clearly specify responsibilities of the each government branch. Barry, in his own words, had no constitutional power to issue DACA EO. That would be the job of the Congress. Therefore DACA is unconstitutional, and I am talking about EO, not the content.

2. Federal judges have no power to create immigration policies. The only jurisdiction in regards the immigration is constitutionality of immigration laws created by the Congress. Congress could pass DACA, even with the same content as Barry's EO, and it would be constitutional, and if signed by President it would become a law.

Is that clear?

 

[GreenBean]

logical fallacies

 

[GreenBean]

You're saying that undocumented immigrants are incarcerated at a higher rate than other minority groups? I don't think

You should have stopped at "I Don't Think" and you would have been right about something at least ... for once ...

Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16

the biggest problem with studying immigrant crime is that states and localities do not systematically track the country of birth, citizenship, or legal status of those they arrest, convict, or incarcerate. But the federal government does track the citizenship of those it convicts. New data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that of those convicted of federal crimes between 2011 and 2016, 44.2 percent were not U.S. citizens — 21.4 percent, if immigration crimes are excluded. In comparison, non-citizens are 8.4 percent of the adult population. Of this 8.4 percent, about 4 percent are illegal immigrants and about 4 percent are legal immigrants.


Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:

• 
  
  
  • 42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions;
  • 31.5 percent of drug convictions;
  • 22.9 percent of money laundering convictions;
  • 13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt);
  • 17.8 percent of economic crimes (e.g. larceny, embezzlement, and fraud);
  • 13 percent of other convictions (e.g. bribery, civil rights, environmental, and prison offenses); and
  • 12.8 percent of auto thefts.

Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions roughly equal to their share of the adult population include:

• 
  
  
  • 9.6 percent of assaults;
  • 8.9 percent of homicides; and
  • 7.5 percent of firearm crimes.

Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions lower than their share of the adult population include:

• 
  
  
  • 4.1 percent of sex crimes;
  • 3.3 percent of robberies;
  • 4.5 percent of arsons; and
  • 0 percent of burglaries.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We have activist judges who are as determined as democrat politicians to destroy the country and put it down to where it belongs after such an unfair history.

Yes people love to bleat about “activist judges” and "Legislating from the bench" But, they are just words that both sides use to decry decisions that they don't like. Call it what you want. The fact is that what is also called case law or court made law is an important and recognized part of constitutional law .

Courts make decisions on matters of law, and on finding of facts. Higher courts uphold or overturn lower court decisions. Is every case in which they overturn a decision legislating from the bench and is it always wrong to do so? If not when may they legitimately overturn a decision?

If the appeals court had ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, and SCOTUS upheld that ruling, would that have been legislating from the bench to? What if SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a matter for the states to decide and turned it back to them? In each of these scenarios, case law-or binding precedents are being set that carry the force of law . Again call it what you like . but if you are going to rail against legislating from the bench, consider this- what can the court do that effects the way the constitution and the law is applied that is not legislating from the bench.

 

[Markymark11]

We are talking about people who have been here since they were children and regard themselves as Americans. Terrorists ? Really ? What a joke.

Doesn't matter what they regard themselves. They're here illegally by lawbreaking, and shouldn't be here imposing the harms of immigration in the long list.

Children broke the law when their parents brought them in? Why are you so hateful?

Thats a really good point. Finally some liberal logic on this site.

 

[Markymark11]

This made my day. The third Federal Court to rule against the Trump Administration on DACA. And it was done so poetically


Another Federal Judge Rules Against Trump's Order To Cancel DACA | HuffPost

In September, President Donald Trump canceled the Obama-era DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as youths from deportation. But in a stinging rebuke of the Trump administration’s legal logic, U.S. District Judge John Bates described the program’s cancellation as “arbitrary and capricious because the Department [of Homeland Security] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program,” Bates wrote in the opinion.

This ruling is different than the others:

The ruling has no immediate effect, and the decision to cancel DACA has already been stalled by a nationwide injunction. Bates’ ruling is unique, however, because it opens the possibility that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services might have to start accepting new DACA applications. The current injunctions only require the federal government to renew the applications of people who have already been approved for the program.

Yet we still have no resolution form the retarded left.

We have no leadership from the retarded president who precipitated this issue and who is holding the dreamers hostage for his idiotic wall.

We need the wall, but yes he shouldn't use the dreamers as a bargaining tool. Unfortunately this is the method to work with when it comes to the retarded left. Also seems odd that the democrats had so much time to take care of this issue and now thats in their face, they refuse to resolve it. If they really cared they would've ponied up the wall money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are you so neglectful of PROTECTING the American people ?

From children and young adults who are themselves American people?

From children and young adults who are themselves American people?

American people? Don't you mean illegal aliens?