Welcome to the deep state Donald Trump, we hope you enjoy selling out your base...Donald Trump is their new W.

OBVIOUS coercion through blackmail and threats can't be considered "selling out."

Ergo, even THIS writer (Matt Agorist) has ironically HIMSELF sold out -- and is now part of the "Deep State" apparatus.

Nice try, Matt, at trying to blow the mind. (I'm being nice here.) Agorist is The Free Thought Project's new neocon hand-puppet

It was obvious affable NWO-Puppet Dubya was a hard-core Globalist' side who needed NO prodding since Day One, NEVER needing to have been throttled into implementing their agenda. Most of us recall how he and Kristol and a bunch of Jihadi pals shared the same bath house towel back in the day

Dubya's motto: "Make Saudi Arabia and Iraq Great" (No, he never did have a MAGA agenda, did he? )

As for Kristol, he among countless others has committed sedition and treason. The tradition and historical penalty of which is well known.

Ergo, even THIS writer (Matt Agorist) has ironically HIMSELF sold out -- and is now part of the "Deep State" apparatus.

Because he dared to post facts about the Deep State's hold on Trump with quotes from the neocons themselves who Matt roundly criticizes?

The deep state neocon/neolib faction has become so successful at shifting the narrative toward irrelevant infighting that no one even notices when their candidate gets into office and does a 180 on damn near every promise they made — Trump included.

Doesn't look to me like he is singing their praises. We pretty much knew all along that Trump would cave eventually. The fact that Agorist points this out hardly makes him a Deep State functionary.

You know, the Deep State spends a lot of effort pretending to the public that it doesn't exist, right?

Just because Trump said stuff about the Norks and Iran that Bill Kristol (emeritus at Weekly Standard) likes doesn't mean the Deep State has or hasn't done anything. It's more likely that Trump is just listening to McMaster (unfortunately) and Kelly (not quite as bad). Either of them is probably better than anyone that Shitlery would have had on her staff.

As for Kristol, he among countless others has committed sedition and treason. The tradition and historical penalty of which is well known.

Sedition laws are mostly defunct outside of some application if someone is hatching a conspiracy to get our military to refuse their orders. Otherwise, sedition has been off the books for a long time.

Treason requires that you actively collaborate with a credible foreign enemy that poses an active danger to national security or that you willfully (or unintentionally) leak or distribute classified information that damages national security.

You can't accuse Kristol of any of that. He speaks against anyone doing any of those things and has for many years.

Maybe you need to find another windmill to tilt at. And read more real books, not conspiracy nutjob sites.

Sedition laws are mostly defunct...[and] been off the books for a long time.

Maybe you need to find another windmill to tilt at...

"Off the books"? As in Constitutional Laws that are *also* "off the books" because they are simply ignored?

Yes, let's just pretend Sedition" is "mostly defunct" and Treason so technically specific thatKristol is definitely off the hook. BE-CAUSE...you know exactly who he has or hasn't collaborated with, and to what extent -- right?

Treason requires that you actively collaborate with a credible foreign enemy that poses an active danger to national security or that you willfully (or unintentionally) leak or distribute classified information that damages national security.

Lotta leeway in that definition, pardner. But NOT enough to get Kristol, Hitlery, 0bama, Dubya, and countless other members of the NWO Cabal off the hook.

NO. You didn't actually bring up "National Security"??

You're kidding, right? You can hardly afford to lose more credibility...

The number of violations and cases of Sedition AND Treason is clearly off the chart since 911. Some of us recognize the definition of "Sedition" and "Treason" when we see it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Btw -- your brethren hatched a fake "Dossier" on Trump (delivered by McStain himself), illegally wiretapped Trump and his staffers. As just a bowl of chips on the table before the hors d'oeuvres even arrive.

Odd AND interesting that you would defend a Globalist-Firster creep like Kristol, who help mire the USA down into the war in Iraq. (OR maybe NOT.)

Yes, let's just pretend Sedition" is "mostly defunct"...

I insist it is entirely defunct. You are the one trying to pretend a sedition law is still on the books.

You may as well pretend that the Logan Act is enforceable. And it isn't. Which is why not one person has ever been convicted of a Logan Act violation even if they perhaps should be.

You're kidding, right? You can hardly afford to lose more credibility...

Oh, noes. My reputation at LF is in peril. Whatever shall become of me?

Drama much?

Expected: Parsing words, definitions and meanings; Ignoring the shredding of the US Constitution; Defending the purposeful and obvious obstruction of enforcing the Constitution; AND YES -- searching high and low for loopholes so your Globalist-First and militant Deep State brethren aren't so much associated with obvious and CRYSTAL CLEAR sedition and treason -- as well as many other violations of their respective oaths.

Your loyalty is admirable. As is your own new found drama.

1) Obama's third term.

2) George W. Bush's fifth term.

3) GHW Bush's eighth term.

Meh.

Copycat much?

I own meh.

Why am I NOT surprised ?

Because you understand the dynamics, did the math, and aren't deterred by misdirection or diversions.

It is especially difficult to think outside the box for those who've served in the military, remember John Wayne movies, or been ardent political observers and deem themselves "savvy."

To concede erring and having been bamboozled about the way the Elites play from 911 on causes some consternation about just how many *other* things they are wrong.

[..."Even THIS writer (Matt Agorist) has ironically HIMSELF sold..."]

Because he dared to post facts about the Deep State's hold on Trump with quotes from the neocons themselves who Matt roundly criticizes?

No. It's because he advances the notion or premise that Trump "sold out to the Deep State" without considering the degree of coercion or degree to which the USA is now a Puppet State.

It's MORE important for this smug little punk to ridicule a blackmailed President and celebrate how "right" he was of his prediction that a standing President's agenda of MAGA could and would be nullified by a "Deep State."

His priorities are what we should expect these days from such "Truth Tellers": Nothing but narcissism, ego, and victory laps around the corpse.

Moreover, his "TOLD YOU SO" link is just more scapegoating of Trump from someone who just happened to know an awful lot about Trump's intentions a mere 4 days after he was elected.

Free Thought Project' has always played both sides and written about juuuust enough truth to make themselves quite the artists.

The deep state neocon/neolib faction has become so successful at shifting the narrative toward irrelevant infighting that no one even notices when their candidate gets into office and does a 180 on damn near every promise they made — Trump included.

What part of "coercion" "blackmail" and "threats" don't you get?

Doesn't look to me like he is singing their praises. We pretty much knew all along that Trump would cave eventually. The fact that Agorist points this out hardly makes him a Deep State functionary.

I'm curious. Just how and why did you and Agorist believe Trump "WOULD CAVE"?

Copycat much?

I own meh.

Ok -- THAT wuz funny.

"ANARCHIST"?

Anarchy is a utopian pipe dream like the D&R party. They'll never produce a favorable result.

I'm more likely to vote Constitution Party, or a write-in, but am always on the lookout for pro-American candidates of any party, or none.

Cliven Bundy 2020!

Cliven Bundy 2020!

I like buckeroo's dead dog Scruffy a lot more than some dependency-driven Nevadan crypto-Mormon.

"Off the books"? As in Constitutional Laws that are *also* "off the books" because they are simply ignored?

Yes, let's just pretend Sedition" is "mostly defunct" and Treason so technically specific that Kristol is definitely off the hook. BE-CAUSE...you know exactly who he has or hasn't collaborated with, and to what extent -- right?

U.S. Const., Art. 3, Sec. 3,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

In what way did Kristol levy war against the United States, and what two witnesses have come forward to attest to the same overt act?

Let's not pretend Sedition is mostly defunct, let's clarify precisely what you are referring to.

The Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 were repealed, and the party that passed them was put to death.

The WW1 Sedition Act (so called) of 1918 (40 Stat. 553, May 16, 1918) was actually an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 217, June 15, 1917). H.J. Res. 382, (41 Stat. 1359, March 3, 1921) declared the emergency over and stated,

Provided further, That the Act entitled "An Act to amend section 3, title 1, of the Act entitled `An Act to punish acts of interference with foreign relations, the neutrality, and the foreign commerce of the United States, to punish espionage, and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and for other purposes,' approved June 15, 1917 (Fortieth Statutes, age 217), and for other purposes," approved May 16, 1918 (Fortieth Statutes, page 553), be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and that said section 3 of said Act approved June 15, 1917, is hereby revived and restored with the same force and effect as originally enacted.

The side note to that at 41 Stat. 1360, reads,

Amendment to Espionage Act. Punishing obstructions to sale of bonds, to enlistments, etc., repealed. Former provision revived. Vol. 40, p. 219.

The emergency declared over, the provision lost its force. Both versions began Sec. 3 with, "Whoever, when the United States is at war...." The Sedition Act (actually amendment to the Espionage Act) was repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 29, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.

Approximately 215 people were indicted under the legislation, including alleged communists, anarchists, and fascists. Prosecutions under the Smith Act continued until a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1957 reversed a number of convictions under the Act, as unconstitutional. The law has been amended several times.

Alien Registration Act, 1940
Effective June 28, 1940
Public law 76-670
54 Stat. 670
Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, § 403(a)(39), 66 Stat. 280, eff. Dec. 24, 1952
8 U.S.C. ch. 10 § 451

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-8/chapter-10/

2015 US Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality (Sections 1 - 1778)
Chapter 10 - Alien Registration (Sections 451 - 460)

Secs. 451 to 460 - Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(39), 66 Stat. 280, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

And for current U.S. Supreme Court precedent,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951).

For some definitions.

Alien and sedition laws. Acts of Congress of July 6 and July 14, 1798, which made it a criminal offense to utter or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writings against the federal government with intent to defame it, or bring it into contempt or disrepute or to excite hatred of people or stir up sedition against it. These short-lived acts tightened residency requirements for citizenships, granted presidential powers to deport and jail aliens, and provided penalties for seditious writings or speech critical of the government. See also Sedition.

Sedition. Communication or agreement which has as its objective the stirring up of treason or certain lesser commotions, or the defamation of the government. Sedition is advocating, or with knowledge of its contents knowingly publishing, selling or distributing any document which advocates, or, with knowledge of its purpose, knowingly becoming a member of any organization which advocates the overthrow or reformation of the existing form of government of this state by violence or unlawful means. An insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an overt act; attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquillity of the state. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2383 et seq. See also Alien and sedition laws; Smith Act.

Seditious conspiracy. Under federal statute, it is a crime for two or more persons in any State or Territory to conspire to overthrow or put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384.

Seditious libel. A communication written with the intent to incite the people to change the government otherwise than by lawful means, or to advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Smith Act, 18 U.S.CA § 2385. See Alien and sedition laws.

Seditious speech. Oral advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence. See Sedition.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Current law does contain the following on Seditious Conspiracy,

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-115/

2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 115 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities (Sections 2381 - 2391)

Table of Contents
Front Matter

Sec. 2381 - Treason
Sec. 2382 - Misprision of treason
Sec. 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Sec. 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
Sec. 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Sec. 2386 - Registration of certain organizations
Sec. 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally
Sec. 2388 - Activities affecting armed forces during war
Sec. 2389 - Recruiting for service against United States
Sec. 2390 - Enlistment to serve against United States
Sec. 2391 - Repealed. Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, §330004(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2142

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-115/sec.-2384/

2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 115 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities (Sections 2381 - 2391)
Sec. 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

18 U.S.C. § 2384 (2015)

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §6 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §6, 35 Stat. 1089).

AMENDMENTS

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $20,000".

1956—Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$5,000", and "twenty years" for "six years".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1956 AMENDMENT

Act July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §3, 70 Stat. 624, provided that: "The foregoing amendments [amending this section and section 2385 of this title] shall apply only with respect to offenses committed on and after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 24, 1956]."

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

I notice that it is the conspiracy that is the crime, not sedition itself. It seems that private sedition is perfectly legal.     : )

I'd like to find a source that can enumerate just how many prosecutions have been made under these laws in the postwar era, particularly since the end of the Cold War.

For instance, you could charge the Bundy clan and their supporters with seditious conspiracy pretty easily under the letter of the law. I don't think they were charged however.

We can look at some notable cases involving attempts to prosecute for seditious conspiracy.

• In 1936, Pedro Albizu Campos, a Puerto Rican Nationalist, and nine others were charged with forcibly attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico and were jailed for 10 years in Atlanta, Georgia.
• In 1980, Puerto Rican Nationalist Carmen Valentín Pérez and nine other women and men were charged with seditious conspiracy for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States in Puerto Rico, and were each given sentences of up to 90 years in prison.[7]
• On 1 October 1995, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a prominent Muslim cleric, and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[8] They had been accused of terrorist plots in New York City.
• On 29 March 2010, nine members of Hutaree were charged with seditious conspiracy.[9]

Perez got 90 years but Bill Xlinton gave her clemency in 1999, probably as cover for his taking of a major bribe to pardon fugitive tycoon Mark Rich.

Rahman died in prison in February of 2017, serving his life sentence.

The Hutaree were all released.

The required element of criminal intent here remains conspiracy, not sedition itself.

A few ways to look at the Trump presidency...

1) Obama's third term.

2) George W. Bush's fifth term.

3) GHW Bush's eighth term.

BLAH,BLAH,MORE MINDLESS BLAH.

You have been playing that same tune ever since he won the nomination.

Hillary lost. Get over it.

Some may indeed claim there IS no concrete or definitive application of either "Sedition" or "Treason." Some will also use their own eyes and ears with which to discern whether "Sedition" as well as "Treason" HAS indeed been committed -- and find proper application as any decent attorney could and would.

Like the riddle, "Does a tree in the forest make a sound if no one hears it," so too is, "WAS SEDITION AND TREASON ACTUALLY COMMITTED IF NO ONE INVESTIGATES THEN PROSECUTES IT"??

Frankly, if truly scrutinized to a fingernail's depth as to what has transpired in this so-called "gubmint" and supposed "Constitutional Republic," We'd soon run out of lamp-posts and rope.

Like the riddle, "Does a tree in the forest make a sound if no one hears it," so too is, "WAS SEDITION AND TREASON ACTUALLY COMMITTED IF NO ONE INVESTIGATES THEN PROSECUTES IT"??

Really, one of the dumber things you've ever said, as though the two things are remotely comparable.

And, yes, of course a falling tree makes exactly the same sound whether a human being is there to hear it or not.

Really, one of the dumber things you've ever said, as though the two things are remotely comparable.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion :-)

Hillary lost.

That's the good news. The bad news is that her clone Trump won.

Same horrible foreign policy including regime change in Syria. Same illegal alien DACA "Dream Student" sanctuary.

Debt ceiling raised for more spending. Hillary would have done the same. They both stink!

They both stink!

A primary drawback of democracy.

Democracy has never really solved the problem of what to do if "None of the above" is the right choice on a ballot. In a parliamentary democracy, you do at least have a no-confidence vote available but it is seldom used to good effect.

That's the good news. The bad news is that her clone Trump won.

Are you now admitting the other Republican candidates for President would have been worse than Hillary?

Are you now admitting the other Republican candidates for President would have been worse than Hillary?

No only equal at worst. Are Jeb!, Lindsey Graham, or Rubio really any better than Hillary?

Hillary's Libyan Freedom Fighters

Some will also use their own eyes and ears with which to discern whether "Sedition" as well as "Treason" HAS indeed been committed -- and find proper application as any decent attorney could and would.

Some will look to the Constitution to see if treason has been committed. Some will look to actual laws to see if the archaic form of sedition still exists as a crime. Other will listen to their invisible friends.

If you rely on your ears to discern either treason or sedition, you will be listening forever.

Treason has been well defined since 1789,

U.S. Const., Art. 3, Sec. 3,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Talk is not levying war.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Seditious conspiracy at 18 U.S.C. 2384 has little to do with the archaic forms of sedition through speech. Saying Trump sucks won't do it. Saying the whole government sucks is equally unavailing.

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Post-Brandenburg, government may only punish speech which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Same illegal alien DACA "Dream Student" sanctuary.

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,

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

• 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.

Continued sanctuary for The Donald's "Dream Students".

Sanctuary Don's Allahu Akbar DACA "Dream Students"

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.

I regret that they did not carry through but let Trump stall for another six months.

Six months from now, we'll have to go through this again. In an election year, it will not turn out any better, probably worse since the GOP congresscritters will be even more cowardly than usual.

Are Jeb!, Lindsey Graham, or Rubio really any better than Hillary?

All three of them dream of being able to suck her toes. It's insulting to weasels to call them weasels.

I like buckeroo's dead dog Scruffy a lot more than some dependency-driven Nevadan crypto-Mormon.

SCRUFFY 2020

Its about tyme some people are wising up!

Nope, its more a matter of timelessness, just as the US Constitution was once considered. Now, the US Constitution can be changed by an act of federal law and without US Supreme Court intervention; this is the unspoken RULE of a corrupt government.

Well, Scruffy certainly is timeless.

Oh yes Bucky Jr and the poop on the floor. Timeless.

Trump is a snake-oil salesman. And you put him in the White house.

Trump, OTOH, took a big dump on the NFL (twice) and on the NBA. All in one day.

I bet $1,000 that it smells like Obama too !!