Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)’

Fed-Up AZ Supreme Court Hits Dreamers with Costly Bad News in Blowout Ruling


Reported By Ben Marquis | April 10, 2018 at 12:39pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/az-supreme-court-hits-dreamers/

Former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created something of a legal limbo for a select class of illegal immigrants, shielding them from deportation without granting them legal status. Now, some of the program’s enrollees could quite literally be paying for that uncertainty.

According to The Washington Times, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that DACA recipients, also known as “dreamers,” are not eligible for the in-state tuition rates that some state colleges and universities were offering them, and instead will have to pay out-of-state rates.

That 7-0 decision upheld an earlier 3-0 state court of appeals ruling against the Maricopa Community Colleges, who had decided on their own volition to extend in-state tuition rates to DACA recipients. The ruling applies to all state colleges and public universities in Arizona.

The appeals court had ruled that both federal and state law granted that sort of decision-making power to the state’s political branches, and not the colleges or universities. At the heart of the decision was a 2006 law passed by voters known as Proposition 300, which declared that illegal immigrants were not eligible to receive state benefits, including in-state tuition rates.

“While people can disagree what the law should be, I hope we all can agree that the attorney general must enforce the law as it is, not as we want it to be,” stated Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. 

The Arizona Republic reported that an estimated 2,000 DACA recipients are currently enrolled in community colleges or state universities at in-state tuition rates, and could now find themselves being compelled to pay nearly three times as much for out-of-state rates if they wish to remain in school.

As might be expected, advocates for DACA recipients are incensed by the court’s ruling. They have claimed the decision essentially blocks access to education for dreamers by making it “impossible” for them to afford, especially when considering these particular illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for any sort of state or federal financial assistance because of their lack of legal status.

But based on a clear reading of the 2006 law, those dreamers should never have received the lower in-state tuition rates from colleges in the first place.

As Brnovich stated, “It’s about time someone held (the colleges) accountable, and that’s my job. My role as AG is to make sure you’re following the law.”

Though Brnovich did express some sympathy for the plight of the dreamers, he nevertheless pointed out that the law is the law. “What makes this country unique and great … is because the rule of law means something,” the attorney general said.

However, the Arizona Daily Sun reported that some college-aged dreamers may not ultimately find themselves having to pay the substantially higher out-of-state tuition rates thanks to something of a middle-ground solution worked out by the state university system’s Board of Regents.

That policy, put in place years ago by Regent Jay Heiler, “sets charges at 150 percent of the in-state rate for any student who graduated from an Arizona high school after attending school” in the state for at least three years, the Sun reported.

While that policy could very well be challenged through litigation, Heiler and others believe it will survive because the special rate would actually cover the costs of tuition, meaning state taxpayers would not be subsidizing or offering a “benefit” to illegal immigrants.

The Republic noted that the Arizona supreme court has only released a three-page order at this point, and won’t make the full opinion explaining the ruling public until May 14.

Whatever one may think about the state law or this court ruling, one thing that’s patently obvious is that the hap-hazard manner by which Obama devised and implemented the DACA program has once again hurt those individuals it purported to help by leaving them in a legal limbo.

The only way to truly solve the problems created by DACA is for Congress to finally agree on a permanent solution to the legal status question for DACA recipients, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on legislators to do.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Federal Judge Secures Massive DACA Win For Trump… Changes Underway For Illegal Immigrants


Authored By Randy DeSoto | March 6, 2018 at 12:25pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/federal-judge-secures-massive-daca-win-trump-changes-underway-illegal-immigrants/

President Donald Trump lauded a win in a federal court affirming his authority to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The program — initiated by former President Barack Obama by executive action in 2012 — allows those who arrived in the United States before they turned 16 the ability to apply for renewable two-year deferments on deportation.

“Federal Judge in Maryland has just ruled that ‘President Trump has the right to end DACA,’” Trump tweeted on Tuesday. “President Obama had 8 years to fix this problem, and didn’t. I am waiting for the Dems, they are running for the hills!”

Federal district court Judge Roger W. Titus found that Trump was fully within his authority to rescind Obama’s executive order last September and provide Congress six months to address the issue legislatively.

“(Trump’s) decision took control of a pell-mell situation and provided Congress — the branch of government charged with determining immigration policy — an opportunity to remedy it. Given the reasonable belief that DACA was unlawful, the decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner was rational,” Titus wrote, according to The Washington Examiner.

Titus added that any rhetoric Trump may have employed regarding illegal immigration in the past was not relevant to reaching a legal ruling concerning DACA.

“As disheartening or inappropriate as the president’s occasionally disparaging remarks may be, they are not relevant to the larger issues governing the DACA rescission. The DACA Rescission Memo is clear as to its purpose and reasoning, and its decision is rationally supported by the administrative record,” the judge stated.

The Washington Examiner noted that Titus’ ruling does not override decisions made by federal courts in California and New York issuing preliminary injunctions from preventing the Trump administration from winding down the program for the approximately 700,000 currently enrolled.

Multiple legal experts told the Examiner the fate of DACA is likely on the fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is currently at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and on its way to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City.

Last week, the Supreme Court declined the Trump administration’s request to bypass the appeals court level, but that decision in no way speaks to whether the court would take up the case in a matter of months following rulings at the circuit courts.

Trump had set March 5 as the deadline for Congress to act on DACA, which the federal court rulings in effect placed a hold on.

The president has accused Democrats several times of being unwilling to solve the DACA issue.

The deal Trump seeks is building a U.S.-Mexico border wall and an end to the Visa lottery program and chain migration.

Meanwhile Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. has blamed Trump for creating the “crisis.”

As reported by The Western Journal, Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe reminded Durbin last month who was truly to blame for the DACA issue.

“It’s hard for me to take Sen. Dick Durbin seriously and lay this at the feet of Trump,” said Boothe, “because the reason why we are here right now is President Obama did something he himself said he did not have the legal authority to do in creating the DACA program.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“This is a temporary stopgap measure,” Obama said when he announced the policy.

Boothe pointed out that Obama’s decision to proceed with DACA in June 2012, during the heat of his re-election campaign, shows that to him, the issue was a political one.

Last fall, after Obama called Trump’s decision to end the program “cruel,” Booth said it was time for the former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to “go away,” noting he had his chance.

The Democrats held both houses of Congress — including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — during Obama’s first two years in office, yet did nothing to address immigration, despite calls from Hispanic leaders to do so.

When asked about the topic during a 2010 Univision interview, Obama responded, “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

It’s Starting: Dem Rep. Announces Insurrection, War in Streets Against Trump


Reported By Davis | on September 7, 2017 at 9:06am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/dem-rep-insurrection-trump/?

President Donald Trump’s announcement this week that he would be ending the program for illegal aliens called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” has sent liberals into overtime screaming and raving about how terrible it is. All of them have ignored the fact that the only reason Trump is ending the program is to give Congress a chance to pass a suitable replacement the right way. The outrage over Trump’s decision has grown by the day, and some of the rhetoric has bordered on disturbing.

Democrat Illinois Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez released a video reacting to Trump’s decision on DACA where he implied that DACA recipients and their supporters should be turning to violence.

“I want to say something that so that we’re clear,” Gutierrez stated on the video. “Yes, we will be on the streets fighting.”

Over the past month we’ve seen what liberals fighting in the streets looks like, and it is quite violent and quite brutal. Gutiérrez is essentially calling for more violence in the United States.

“Yes, we will go to the courts to fight, and we will also insist that our friends and our allies in the Congress of the United States don’t sign a budget, don’t support a budget, don’t collaborate with Republicans and give us a budget unless there is a safe place legislatively, an avenue legislatively, that secures the future for the 800,000 DACA recipients,” he added.

“Let’s be clear. We are going to fight in the courts, we are going to fight in the streets, but also we are going to fight in the Congress of the United States to make sure legislatively we have a solution,” he concluded at the end of the video.

You can watch the promise of violence here:

Gutiérrez has been a particularly outspoken proponent of DACA. In August, he was actually arrested at a protest outside the White House demanding that Trump keep DACA in place.

The Washington Times also noted that Gutiérrez (who has not served in the military) claimed that White House chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, is a “disgrace” to the military because he didn’t stop Trump from ending DACA.

“General Kelly is a hypocrite who is a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear. He has no honor and should be drummed out of the White House along with the white supremacists and those enabling the president’s actions by ‘just following orders,” his statement read.

Rhetoric like that isn’t really going to help Gutiérrez convince people that his side is right. Calling for fighting in the streets and disparaging a decorated Marine general only makes sane Americans think you are off your rocker.

H/T Informed Folks

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Court appears divided, signaling trouble for Obama on immigration


waving flagBy Lydia Wheeler – 04/18/16

The Supreme Court appeared divided during oral arguments Monday in a crucial case challenging the executive actions on immigration that President Obama took in 2014. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is typically the court’s swing voter, seemed to side with Texas and the 25 other states arguing the president overstepped his executive authority in granting deferred deportation to nearly 5 million immigrants.

Kennedy said that the justices are being asked to define the limits of discretion, adding that Obama’s actions seem more like a legislative act than an executive act.

“It’s as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it,” he said. “That’s just upside down.”

A 4-4 split by the court, which has shown signs it’s struggling with just eight justices, would leave in place a lower court’s decision blocking Obama’s action in a severe blow to the president.

The justices spent the majority of the 90-minute arguments grappling with whether Texas has a legal basis to challenge the creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) initiative and the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), programs that have been on hold since February 2015.

The states claim they will be burdened by having to spend more on public services like healthcare, law enforcement and education if undocumented parents of both American citizens and legal permanent residents are allowed to stay in the country. Texas, specifically, says it will be hurt by having to issue more drivers licenses, a benefit that’s now subsidized.

“Isn’t losing money the classic case for standing?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Since the administration argued that DAPA does not injure states because it does not require them to do anything, Roberts wanted to know whether it would be illegal for Texas to deny DAPA recipients drivers licenses. “If they did not offer licenses to those who are lawfully present because of your policy, avoided that injury, you would sue them, wouldn’t you?” he asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who argued on behalf of the administration.

Verrilli said he wasn’t sure if the government would sue since Texas has not changed its law.

“No, because they have what seems to me a perfectly legitimate policy,” Roberts quipped.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan questioned why the states aren’t challenging administration regulations that have long granted recipients of deferred action the ability to work and receive public benefits.

“It seems to me that what you should be attacking is not DAPA,” Kagan said. “What you should be attacking is the work authorization regulations DHS [Department of Homeland Security], or before that, the INA (Immigrant and Nationality Act) has had for 30 years,” Kagan told Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.More Words

But Keller said the states chose to challenge DAPA itself instead of the government regulations. “That is what is transforming unlawful conduct into authorized lawful conduct,” he said.AMEN

Sotomayor jumped on Keller’s comments that DAPA is “one of the largest changes in immigration policy in our nation’s history.”

“How can you say that?” she asked. “We have the Fairness Act that happened in 1990. It granted basically the same thing, deferred action and work authorization, to 1.5 million people out of 4 million. Forty percent of the immigrant population of the time was affected. Here, the best estimate is that only 35 percent are affected.”More Words

When Keller corrected Sotomayor and explained that only 47,000 people actually got relief, she pointed to congressional action.

“Here, we have a Congress that’s decided – some members of the Congress have decided – they don’t like it, and so Congress has remained silent,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that at some later point after the election or whenever, Congress can’t step in and do what it wants to do.”Picture2

The House of Representatives had 15 minutes Monday to argue that the president’s programs should be struck down.

Erin Murphy, the attorney representing the House, argued that the president does not have the power to give immigrants the ability to work in the U.S. If all the administration wanted to do was protect people from being deported, she said, it would have simply issued an enforcement priority memo.Picture3

“What the executive wanted to accomplish was something more,” she said. “To say not only are you not an enforcement priority, but we want you to be eligible to work and to receive benefits. And the way that we do that is by taking this affirmative act of converting you into a status that, under our own regulation, changes your eligibility.”More Liberal Gibberish

The Supreme Court issued the order giving lawmakers a chance to be heard after the House, in an unprecedented move, filed an amicus brief in support of the states. Democrats that disagreed with the Republican-led brief filed a brief of their own in support of the administration, but did not get time in court to argue their position.

The case could have a devastating effect on the president’s public policy legacy. Obama vowed when he campaigned in both 2008 and 2012 to push for comprehensive immigration reform, but has yet to fulfill those promises.

A 4-4 tie would essentially kill the immigration programs for good. The lower court’s temporary injunction would stand while the states seek to permanently block the president’s actions. The litigation could then span into the next administration, which may or may not fight to uphold Obama’s actions, depending on who the next president is.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday declined to guess how the justices will decide.

“At this point, I am going withhold any prognostication on behalf of the administration and reiterate our confidence in the power of the legal arguments” made by administration lawyers, he told reporters.More Liberal Gibberish

The court asked both parties to argue an additional question in their briefs — whether the immigration programs violated the Take Care Clause under Article II of the Constitution, which directs the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That move signaled the justices are determined to settle the case, though the question was never raised during oral arguments.

— Jordan Fabian contributed to this report, which was updated at 2:32 p.m.

Illegal Immigration Giant Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Paul Ryan Betrays America: $1.1 Trillion, 2,000-Plus Page Omnibus Bill Funds ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’


waving flagby Stephen K. Bannon & Julia Hahn 16 Dec 2015Washington D.C.

AP_543948283316

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill. Too harsh, you say? Let the programs, the spending, and the implications speak for themselves.

(1) Ryan’s Omnibus Fully Funds DACA

Though much of the public attention has surrounded the President’s 2014 executive amnesty, the President’s 2012 amnesty quietly continues to churn out work permits and federal benefits for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Paul Ryan’s bill funds entirely this 2012 executive amnesty for “DREAMers”—or illegal immigrants who came to the country as minors.

Specifically, Division F of Ryan’s omnibus bill contains no language that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the President’s unconstitutional program. Obama’s executive action, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has granted around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs. A recent GAO report documented how this illegal amnesty program for alien youth is, in large part, responsible for the illegal alien minor surge on our southern border.

In 2013, Paul Ryan said that it is his job as a U.S. lawmaker to put himself in the shoes of “the DREAMer who is waiting” and work to find legislative solutions to his or her problems.illegalalienvoters-300x300

(2) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Sanctuary Cities

Five months ago, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was bleeding to death in her father’s arms. She was gunned down in broad daylight by a five-time deported criminal alien whose presence in the country was the direct result of San Francisco’s refusal to comply with U.S. immigration law—yet Paul Ryan’s omnibus rewards these lawless Sanctuary Cities with federal grants. Division B Title II of Ryan’s omnibus funds various grant programs for the Department of Justice (pages 167, 168, and 169) and contains no language that would restrict the provision of such grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.

In a Congressional hearing, Steinle’s father demanded Congressional action and recalled his daughter’s dying words: “Help me, Dad.”

(3) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds All Refugee Programs

Despite broad support amongst Republican lawmakers for a proposal introduced by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) to halt all refugee resettlement, Ryan’s appropriations bill will fund President Obama’s refugee resettlement operation and will allow for the admission of tens of thousands of refugees with access to federal benefits. Division H Title II of Ryan’s bill contains appropriations of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and contains no language that would restrict the program. Nor are there any restrictions for the program in Division K of Ryan’s bill, which provides funding for the Department of State, which oversees refugee admissions.

Ryan is not one of the 84 cosponsors of Babin’s bill to halt the refugee operation, and he recently told Sean Hannity that he does not support halting resettlement because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws.” Similarly, this outcome represents a legislative win for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who told Sean Hannity he’d “hate to use” Congress’s power of the purse to deny funding for Obama’s resettlement operation. no more rinos

(4) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds All of the Mideast Immigration Programs That Have Been Exploited by Terrorists in Recent Years 

Although multiple immigrant and visa programs in recent years have been exploited by terrorists (such as the F-1 “student” visa, the K-1 “fiancée” visa, and our green card and refugee programs), Ryan’s proposal does nothing to limit admissions from jihadist-prone regions. As Senators Shelby and Sessions of Alabama noted in a joint statement: “The omnibus would put the U.S. on a path to approve admission for hundreds of thousands of migrants from a broad range of countries with jihadists movements over the next 12 months, on top of all the other autopilot annual immigration.”

(5) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Illegal Alien Resettlement

On page 917 of Ryan’s omnibus a section titled “Refugee and Entrant Assistance” funds the President’s resettlement of illegal immigrant border crossers.

(6) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds the Release of Criminal Aliens

Senior legislative aides tell Breitbart News that Ryan’s bill does not do anything to change the enforcement priorities that Jeh Johnson established a little over a year ago that would shield entire categories of criminal aliens from immigration law, nor does it include language recommended by Sessions and Shelby to “deny the expenditure of funds to issue visas to countries that refuse to repatriate criminal aliens.”

(7) Ryan’s Omnibus Quadruples H-2B Foreign Worker Visas 

Despite Ryan’s pledge not to move an immigration compromise with President Obama, tucked 700 pages into BrokeRyan’s spending bill is language that would resuscitate and expand a controversial provision of the Schumer-Rubio Gang of Eight plan to increase the H-2B visa program.

The provision “would quadruple the number of H-2B visas for unskilled guest workers, for a total of more than 250,000,” writes immigration attorney Ian Smith. The Americans who fill these jobs are typically “society’s most vulnerable — including single women, the disabled, the elderly, minorities, teenagers, students, and first-generation immigrants,”  Smith explains.

A recent BuzzFeed exposé revealed how this program allows businesses to discriminate against American workers and “deliberately den[y] jobs to American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead.” As one GOP aide told Breitbart News, “This provision is a knife in the heart of the working class, and African Americans.”

(8) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Tax Credits for Illegal Aliens

Ryan’s bill preserves the expansion of the President’s expiring child tax credits without any accompanying language to prevent illegal aliens from receiving those tax credits. While Sen. Sessions attempted to include language in the bill that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving tax credits, his recommendation was rejected.

(9) Ryan’s Omnibus Locks-In Huge Spending Increases

The bill funds the Obama-Boehner budget deal, which eliminated spending caps, and will increase both defense and non-defense spending next year by $25 billion more each.

(10) Ryan’s Omnibus Fails to Allocate Funds to Complete the 700-Mile Double-Layer Border Fence That Congress Promised the American People

Nearly a decade ago with the passage of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, the American people were promised a 700-mile double-layer border fence. However, funding for the fence was later gutted and, as a result, its construction was never completed. Despite heightened media focus over the past six months about Americans’ desire for this barrier to illegal entry, Ryan’s bill does not require that funds be allocated to finish the construction of the 700-mile double-layer fence.

A vote could occur as early as Thursday after midnight, giving lawmakers and the public only one full business day to review the 2,242 page package. The Ryan-Pelosi package represents nothing short of a complete and total betrayal of the American people.

Yet Ryan’s omnibus serves a second and equally chilling purpose. By locking in the President’s refugee, immigration, and spending priorities, Ryan’s bill is designed to keep these fights out of Congress by getting them off the table for good. Delivering Obama these wins–and pushing these issues beyond the purview of Congress–will suppress public attention to the issues and, in so doing, will boost the candidacy of the Republican establishment’s preferred presidential contenders, who favor President Obama’s immigration agenda.death

What may prove most discouraging of all to Americans is that recent reports reveal that conservatives in the so-called House Freedom Caucus are praising Ryan even as he permanently locks in these irreversible and anti-American immigration policies. According to Politico, the House Freedom Caucus will “give Ryan a pass” even as he funds disastrous policies that prioritize the interests of foreign nationals and global corporatists above the needs of the American people whom lawmakers are supposed to represent.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud