Report: Trump Caves on DACA, Wants ‘Quick’ Amnesty for 800K Illegal Aliens

Who really believes the Republican congress will rush to get DACA amnesty through Congress before SCOTUS annihilates entirely?

MAGA = Make Aztlan Great Again!

If anyone wonders why I dislike Trump so, this is it! He's a traitorous POS.

Guaranteed Trump will sign amnesty into law in 2021 if reelected.

Oral arguments begin October 15th. By 2021 there would be no DACA to talk about. SCOTUS is coming.

By 2021 there would be no DACA to talk about.

SCOTUS is coming.

Trump will continue the Obama DACA tradition, regardless. Presidents are under no obligation to enforce SCOTUS rulings. The supremes are paper tigers.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: (Chief Justice) "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

SCOTUS is coming.

These strange freaks strike fear into my outlook of and about the future.

Presidents are under no obligation to enforce SCOTUS rulings.

Somebody should have told that to Richard Nixon.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: (Chief Justice) "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

https://www.nps.gov/articles/andrew-jackson-and-martial-law-in-new-orleans.htm

In December 1814 General Andrew Jackson arrived in New Orleans to shore up the city’s defenses against an anticipated British invasion. He encountered a civilian population with its morale in shambles. Some were resigned to defeat; others in a state of panic; still others ambivalent about the possibility of invasion. In part to address flagging civilian will, Jackson declared martial law. It was the first such declaration in United States history. Jackson proclaimed “those who are not for us are against us, and will be dealt with accordingly.”

Jackson’s men won a spectacular victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans in January. But even with the threat of invasion checked, Jackson still refused to lift his order instituting martial law for months afterward. The open-ended order made many civilians uncomfortable. A Louisiana State senator expressed unease about the ongoing state of martial law in a March 3 newspaper article; Jackson promptly had the senator arrested. When a U.S. District Court Judge demanded that the senator be charged or released, Jackson not only refused, he ordered the judge jailed before banishing him from the city. (When Jackson eventually lifted martial law, the returned judge proceeded to charge him with contempt and levied a thousand-dollar fine, which the “Hero of New Orleans” paid.)

[nc] Oral arguments begin October 15th.

Make that October 10th.

the “Hero of New Orleans” paid

Jackson wasn't a separate branch of the federal government then, President of the United States of America.

You quote the law, but very little seems to sink in.

Guaranteed Trump will sign amnesty into law in 2021 if reelected.

The only way he can have that bill TO sign is if the Republican-controlled Congress passes it.

Do you hate the Republicans?

Who really believes the Republican congress will rush to get DACA amnesty through Congress before SCOTUS annihilates entirely?

I hope you're correct.

But I have my doubts about both the Congress and the Supreme Court.

I don't trust either to follow the Constitution.

Jackson wasn't a separate branch of the federal government then, President of the United States of America.

The President is not a branch of government. Very little since kindergarten seems to have sunk in.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=52754&Disp=All

In a political he-said, she-said, Democrats claimed late Wednesday they reached a deal with President Donald Trump to pass permanent legal status for so-called “dreamers” in return for some border security measures — but no wall. Caught off-balance by intense blowback from his own base, Trump insisted there was no such bargain.

“No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that unconstitutionally allowed 690,000 illegal aliens to remain here temporarily while receiving work permits and government benefits.

As fury from populist-conservatives continued regarding any permanence of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, beneficiaries of which are called dreamers, Trump reiterated his commitment Thursday afternoon to building a wall on the nation’s southern border.

Any permanence of the DREAM Act must begin with its initial passage. The bill has been shot down by Congress three times, was dropped as it had no hope of passage, and has never become an Act. That does not stop libtards from talking about the non-existent DREAM Act, and talking and talking.

Any deal to pass permanent legal status for so-called "dreamers," named after the non-existent Dream Act, would require majorities on both houses of congress, the members of which were not in the room.

Guaranteed Trump will sign amnesty into law in 2021 if reelected. For now, DACA sanctuary. IMO

If anyone wonders why I dislike Trump so, this is it! He's a traitorous POS.

Yes,he is,and the traitorous piece of shit you supported is even worse.

If this passes,it will be time for the Second American Revolution before elections are held again. The slogan in 2020 will be "It's now or never!"

he President is not a branch of government

He runs the Executive Branch, and it is separate.

Hoss, Trump KILLED DACA.

He killed it by eliminating it as a problem by giving them what they wanted.

Do you hate the Republicans?

Who doesn't? Weasels without balls,their only move seems to be to cave in to whatever the Dims want,and call that a successful strategy.

the traitorous piece of shit you supported is even worse

Darrell Castle, how so?

Darrell Castle, how so?

Isn't he the guy that sells denture glue on late-night teebee?

the guy that sells denture glue on late-night teebee

That's your 2012 pick, Virgil Goode.

Hoss, Trump KILLED DACA.

He killed it by eliminating it as a problem by giving them what they wanted.

Technically, DACA was created by a 15 June 2012 DHS Memo of Janet Napolitano, and that DHS Memo was rescinded by the below 5 September 2017 DHS Memo of Acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca

Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Release Date: September 5, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR:

James W. McCament
Acting Director
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Thomas D. Homan
Acting Director
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Joseph B. Maher
Acting General Counsel

Ambassador James D. Nealon
Assistant Secretary, International Engagement

Julie M. Kirchner
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

FROM:

Elaine C. Duke
Acting Secretary

SUBJECT:

Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”

This memorandum rescinds the June 15, 2012 memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” which established the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). For the reasons and in the manner outlined below, Department of Homeland Security personnel shall take all appropriate actions to execute a wind-down of the program, consistent with the parameters established in this memorandum.

Background

The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1] Specifically, DACA provided certain illegal aliens who entered the United States before the age of sixteen a period of deferred action and eligibility to request employment authorization.

On November 20, 2014, the Department issued a new memorandum, expanding the parameters of DACA and creating a new policy called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”). Among other things—such as the expansion of the coverage criteria under the 2012 DACA policy to encompass aliens with a wider range of ages and arrival dates, and lengthening the period of deferred action and work authorization from two years to three—the November 20, 2014 memorandum directed USCIS “to establish a process, similar to DACA, for exercising prosecutorial discretion through the use of deferred action, on a case-by-case basis,” to certain aliens who have “a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.”

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling by equally divided vote (4-4).[5] The evenly divided ruling resulted in the Fifth Circuit order being affirmed. The preliminary injunction therefore remains in place today. In October 2016, the Supreme Court denied a request from DHS to rehear the case upon the appointment of a new Justice. After the 2016 election, both parties agreed to a stay in litigation to allow the new administration to review these issues.

On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” In that Order, the President directed federal agencies to “[e]nsure the faithful execution of the immigration laws . . . against all removable aliens,” and established new immigration enforcement priorities. On February 20, 2017, then Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly issued an implementing memorandum, stating “the Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement,” except as provided in the Department’s June 15, 2012 memorandum establishing DACA,[6] and the November 20, 2014 memorandum establishing DAPA and expanding DACA.[7]

On June 15, 2017, after consulting with the Attorney General, and considering the likelihood of success on the merits of the ongoing litigation, then Secretary John F. Kelly issued a memorandum rescinding DAPA and the expansion of DACA—but temporarily left in place the June 15, 2012 memorandum that initially created the DACA program.

Then, on June 29, 2017, Texas, along with several other states, sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions asserting that the original 2012 DACA memorandum is unlawful for the same reasons stated in the Fifth Circuit and district court opinions regarding DAPA and expanded DACA. The letter notes that if DHS does not rescind the DACA memo by September 5, 2017, the States will seek to amend the DAPA lawsuit to include a challenge to DACA.

The Attorney General sent a letter to the Department on September 4, 2017, articulating his legal determination that DACA “was effectuated by the previous administration through executive action, without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date, after Congress' repeated rejection of proposed legislation that would have accomplished a similar result. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” The letter further stated that because DACA “has the same legal and constitutional defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA, it is likely that potentially imminent litigation would yield similar results with respect to DACA.” Nevertheless, in light of the administrative complexities associated with ending the program, he recommended that the Department wind it down in an efficient and orderly fashion, and his office has reviewed the terms on which our Department will do so.

Rescission of the June 15, 2012 DACA Memorandum

Taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s and the Fifth Circuit’s rulings in the ongoing litigation, and the September 4, 2017 letter from the Attorney General, it is clear that the June 15, 2012 DACA program should be terminated. In the exercise of my authority in establishing national immigration policies and priorities, except for the purposes explicitly identified below, I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum.

Recognizing the complexities associated with winding down the program, the Department will provide a limited window in which it will adjudicate certain requests for DACA and associated applications meeting certain parameters specified below. Accordingly, effective immediately, the Department:

• Will adjudicate—on an individual, case-by-case basis—properly filed pending DACA initial requests and associated applications for Employment Authorization Documents that have been accepted by the Department as of the date of this memorandum.

• Will reject all DACA initial requests and associated applications for Employment Authorization Documents filed after the date of this memorandum.

• Will adjudicate—on an individual, case by case basis—properly filed pending DACA renewal requests and associated applications for Employment Authorization Documents from current beneficiaries that have been accepted by the Department as of the date of this memorandum, and from current beneficiaries whose benefits will expire between the date of this memorandum and March 5, 2018 that have been accepted by the Department as of October 5, 2017.

• Will reject all DACA renewal requests and associated applications for Employment Authorization Documents filed outside of the parameters specified above.

• Will not terminate the grants of previously issued deferred action or revoke Employment Authorization Documents solely based on the directives in this memorandum for the remaining duration of their validity periods.

• Will not approve any new Form I-131 applications for advance parole under standards associated with the DACA program, although it will generally honor the stated validity period for previously approved applications for advance parole. Notwithstanding the continued validity of advance parole approvals previously granted, CBP will—of course—retain the authority it has always had and exercised in determining the admissibility of any person presenting at the border and the eligibility of such persons for parole. Further, USCIS will—of course—retain the authority to revoke or terminate an advance parole document at any time.

• Will administratively close all pending Form I-131 applications for advance parole filed under standards associated with the DACA program, and will refund all associated fees.

• Will continue to exercise its discretionary authority to terminate or deny deferred action at any time when immigration officials determine termination or denial of deferred action is appropriate.

This document is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Likewise, no limitations are placed by this guidance on the otherwise lawful enforcement or litigation prerogatives of DHS.

[1] Significantly, while the DACA denial notice indicates the decision to deny is made in the unreviewable discretion of USCIS, USCIS has not been able to identify specific denial cases where an applicant appeared to satisfy the programmatic categorical criteria as outlined in the June 15, 2012 memorandum, but still had his or her application denied based solely upon discretion.

[2] Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015).

[3] Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015).

[4] Id.

[5] United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam).

[6] Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Secretary, DHS to David Aguilar, Acting Comm’r, CBP, et al., “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children” (June 15, 2012).

[7] Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, Secretary, DHS, to Leon Rodriguez, Dir., USCIS, et al., “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Whose Parents are U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents” (Nov. 20, 2014).

Topics: Border Security, Deferred Action

Keywords: DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Last Published Date: September 5, 2017