Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New York and other states sue over DACA termination

New York and other states sue over DACA termination

“culmination of President’s Trump’s oft-stated commitments …to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, in a Facebook live event, announced that New York and 14 other states plus the District of Columbia have filed a Complaint attempting to halt the phasing out of the DACA program as announced yesterday by U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions.

The Complaint (pdf.) is embedded below.

The plaintiffs are New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

The heart of the lawsuit is the claim that Trump is motivated by anti-Mexican animus:

3. More than 78 percent of DACA grantees are of Mexican origin, See Ex. 1 (USCIS, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Fiscal Years 2012-2017, June 8, 2017), which is more than double the percentage of people of Mexican origin that comprise of the overall foreign-born population (29 percent) of the United States. See Ex. 2 (U.S. Census Bureau, The Foreign-Born Population in the United States).

4. Ending DACA, whose participants are mostly of Mexican origin, is a culmination of President’s Trump’s oft-stated commitments—whether personally held, stated to appease some portion of his constituency, or some combination thereof—to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots. The consequence of the President’s animus-driven decision is that approximately 800,000 persons who have availed themselves of the program will ultimately lose its protections, and will be exposed to removal when their authorizations expire and they cannot seek renewal. The individuals who have relied on DACA are now more vulnerable to removal than before the program was initiated, as they turned over sensitive information to the federal government in their applications. Despite the federal government’s repeated promises that it would not use such information to conduct enforcement measures, the DHS Memorandum does not explain how the government will keep that information secure, nor does it provide any assurances that immigration enforcement agents will not use such information to find and remove those who applied for DACA.

Much as in the Travel Order cases, there is a litany of Trump statements recited for the purpose of showing that prejudice is behind the actions taken, including these examples among others:

239. Despite these various and repeated promises to DACA grantees made by the federal government and by President Trump, including a recognition of DACA’s value and successes, President Trump has a long history of disparaging Mexicans, who comprise the vast majority of DACA grantees.

240. In announcing his presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump compared Mexican immigrants to rapists, stating: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Ex. 35 (Washington Post, Transcript of  Donald Trump’s Presidential Bid Announcement, June 16, 2015).

241. During the first Republican presidential debate, then-candidate Trump again restated his distaste for immigrants from Mexico: “The Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don’t want to pay for them. They don’t want to take care of them.” Ex. 36 (Andrew O’Reilly, At GOP debate, Trump says ‘stupid’ U.S. leaders are being duped by Mexico, Fox News, Aug. 6, 2015.

242. Soon after, on August 25, 2015, then-candidate Trump refused to answer questions about immigration from Jorge Ramos, a Mexican-American and the top news anchor at Univision, a Spanish-language news channels. After sending his bodyguard to physically remove Mr. Ramos, then-candidate Trump derisively told Mr. Ramos to “Go back to Univision.” Ex. 37 (Phillip Rucker, First, Trump booted Univision anchor Jorge Ramos out of his news conference. Then things got interesting, The Washington Post, Aug. 25, 2015).

The pardoning of Joe Arpaio also was mentioned as evidence of Trump’s animosity towards Mexicans:

249. On August 25, 2017, President Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was to be sentenced for criminal contempt for failing to comply with a federal judge’s order to stop racially profiling Latinos. See Ex. 46 (Julie Hirschfield Davis and Maggie Haberman, Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who Became Face of Crackdown on Illegal Immigration, The N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 2017).

Most of the Complaint is devoted to explaining why each of the states and DC have a legal interest (standing) to sue. That’s an obvious problem, and expect the same arguments used as to the Travel Order, i.e., this affects our university enrollments and so on.

The legal claims are Fifth Amendment – Equal Protection (First Cause of Action):

271. The DHSMemorandum—together with the President’s numerous statements about his intentions towards Mexicans, who comprise the largest population of DACA grantees—target individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their national origin, without lawful justification.

272. The DHS Memorandum was motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory motive and/or a desire to harm a particular group.

273. The discriminatory terms and application of the DHS Memorandum cannot be sufficiently justified by federal interests.

Fifth Amendment – Due Process (Second Cause of Action)

277. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that immigration enforcement actions taken by the federal government be fundamentally fair.

278. Given the federal government’s representations about the allowable uses of information provided by DACA applicants, a refusal to prohibit the use of information contained in DACA applications and renewal requests for purposes of immigration enforcement, including identifying, apprehending, detaining, or deporting non-citizens, is fundamentally unfair.

And three counts alleging violation of required administrative procedures:

282. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), prohibits federal agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute. In implementing the DHS Memorandum and rescinding DACA with minimal formal guidance, federal agencies have taken unconstitutional and unlawful action, as alleged herein, in violation of the AdministrativeProcedure Act.

283. In implementing the DHS Memorandum, federal agencies have acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have abused their discretion, in violation of the APA.

* * *

286. The APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 706(2)(D), requires that federal agencies conduct
formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive rights.

287. DHS is an “agency” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1).

288. The actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS Memorandum are “rules”
under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).

289. In implementing the DHS Memorandum, federal agencies have changed the substantive criteria by which individuals DACA grantees work, live, attend school, obtain credit, and travel in the United States. Federal agencies did not follow the procedures required by the APA before taking action impacting these substantive rights.

* * *

295. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612 (“RFA”), requires federal
agencies to analyze the impact of rules they promulgate on small entities and publish initial and
final versions of those analyses for public comment. 5 U.S.C. §§ 603-604.

296. “Small entities” for purposes of the RFA includes small businesses, small
nonprofits, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

297. The actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS Memorandum are “rules”
under the RFA. 5 U.S.C. § 601(2).

298. The actions that DHS has taken to implement the DHS Memorandum are likely to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. §

299. Defendants have not issued the required analyses of DHS’s new rules.

In a rational legal world, this lawsuit would have zero chance of success.

It is highly questionable whether the states have the right to sue, but considering how the lower courts in the Travel Order cases have played fast and loose with the issue of standing, who knows.

Additionally, there is no substantive right pleaded that is violated. There was no right to the administrative decision to implement DACA, and it purported to be an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not creating any substantive rights.

This was showboating. But in the age of Trump Derangement Syndrome, the law seems to be the first victim.

New York v Trump DACA Lawsuit – Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Pelosi Schmelosi | September 6, 2017 at 3:27 pm

So Trump gets sued by states that want DACA repealed, AND by states that want it kept, all because Congress kicked the can and Odummy over-reached and the Skank lost.
Oh and #Animus!
This would be funny if it weren’t for reals

OleDirtyBarrister | September 6, 2017 at 3:30 pm

I suppose it is a foregone conclusion that all the states suing have Dems running them.

The anti-Mexico angle is nonsense, because no group of illegals is getting a deferral based on nationality. It will be interesting to see what mental gymnastics the Clinton or Obama appointees on the bench will undertake to find that the standing test of injury, causation, and redress has been met.

    Pelosi Schmelosi in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | September 6, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    I’ll be calling the NY AG today threatening a libel countersuit.
    When you start claiming racism by association or vote, someone needs to be made to pay

      Nope. Even if Trump weren’t a public figure, he still couldn’t sue. The factual statements they made about him are demonstrably true, and the conclusion they drew from those facts are protected opinion.

      Oh, not to mention, of course, the obvious point that even if they made factual allegations, and Trump could prove that they knew them to be false, he still couldn’t sue because the litigation privilege is absolute.

      He’s not incorrect. Some of the information they use to justify their statements are direct quotes which are sourced correctly. Weather the lawsuit itself is legal, is probably a no, but a counter suit is also illegal. Opinionated statements can’t be sued against, for sure their statements are up to debate and fall under the first amendment.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | September 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    They have not standing to sue in the first place.

regulus arcturus | September 6, 2017 at 3:36 pm

How can states possibly have standing, given the Supremacy Clause, and the fact that Obama took the original action?

    The supremacy clause is irrelevant. Their standing arguments seem solid enough; they show how the states are harmed by this measure, which should be enough to let them sue, if they had a real cause of action to sue over. That’s the problem with this suit — the causes of action have no substance.

      regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 5:35 pm

      No, it isn’t.

      Immigration is a federal issue, and as such, federal law supersedes state law on this issue. NY cannot unilaterally contradict federal law, and decide to allow aliens disallowed by federal law.

      “Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. Pp. 7–8.”

      AZ v. US (2012),

      NY cannot make its own laws with respect to national immigration (unless, of course, NY decides to secede from the Union). Under current federal law, DACA participants are technically illegal and would be deported, but for the DACA memo. Removal of that exception means that covered DACA persons are subject to existing federal law, including deportation.

      The fact that many covered DACA individuals have spent their lives illegally in the US reliant upon the federal government’s refusal to enforce extant law is potential grounds for suit, but that is not what the states chose in this case.

      If states are allowed to sue to keep DACA, it would effectively constitute a “one-way” executive order, i.e. an order which could never be rescinded.

      I can’t see how that is constitutional.

        What are you babbling about? State laws have absolutely nothing to do with this, so the supremacy clause is irrelevant. States that are negatively impacted by federal action that they believe to be illegal are entitled to sue over it. That is all.

        90% of this suit is sound and makes perfect sense. All that is missing is a credible argument for why the action complained of is illegal.

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 7:11 pm

          As always, you don’t get it.

          Trump’s action was not illegal. What may have been illegal was Obama’s initial DACA memo.

          AZ could not supersede federal law with SB1070 (see above).

          NY cannot supersede federal law, which absent DACA (Trump’s removal of it) requires action which NY is proposing to violate.

          NY does not have standing to bring suit. Only the federal government (and Congress, via legislative processes) may make immigration law.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 8:32 pm

          Actually, the suit is basically deficient in standing. The states have NO standing to sue the federal government over the implementation of immigration law. The courts were very clear that, not only the creation of immigration law, but the implementation of those laws are solely reserved to the federal government. So, the states would have to show that the state, as an entity, is suffering some type of damage from the implementation of the law in question. This case would look the same if the states were suing because the federal government was shutting down illegal drug commerce within their borders.

          It is an imaginative case, but, it only has legs if they find an activist judge willing to ignore the law and legal precedent and rule in their favor. This, as we have seen earlier in the year, not as difficult as we would like it to be.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 11:35 pm

          regulus arcturus, I understand the issues here very well. It’s you who seems permanently stuck not getting it. You seem to imagine that this case has some connection to state law, and therefore the supremacy clause precludes it. I can’t think what could have led you to such a delusion. No state is arguing that its laws should play any kind of role here. This is entirely about the Trump administration’s actions, which harm them, and which they allege to be illegal. That the administration is taking these actions, and that they will harm the states, seems clear enough; what’s missing is a plausible case for their illegality.

          NY cannot supersede federal law, which absent DACA (Trump’s removal of it) requires action which NY is proposing to violate.

          This is gibberish. Of course NY can’t supersede federal law. Who ever claimed it could? But which federal law do you imagine NY is proposing to violate, in what way do you imagine it’s proposing to violate it, and where did you get such an idea in the first place?

          NY does not have standing to bring suit. Only the federal government (and Congress, via legislative processes) may make immigration law.

          What have these two statements (the first false and the second true) got to do with each other? How does the second follow from the first? NY is certainly not claiming it can make immigration law.

          Mac45, some of the above applies to you too. You keep repeating that the creation and implementation of immigration law is reserved for the federal government; who do you imagine is disputing this?

          the states would have to show that the state, as an entity, is suffering some type of damage from the implementation of the law in question.

          Of course. What else do you think they’re claiming? Did you not bother to read their detailed state by state listing of the harms they allege they will suffer from the cancellation of DACA? And many of those harms seem quite plausible. Their standing argument seems to me pretty solid. Where their case falls over in my opinion is they don’t have one. Their five causes of action are all ludicrous. So yes, Trump is harming them, and they’d have every right to sue if he were doing so illegally, but that part is crucial and they barely phone it in.

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 11:19 am

          Milhouse, stop being obtuse.

          NY (et al.) is trying to create an exception to federal immigration policy.

          As Mac45 and I (and others below) have stated and shown, the courts have clearly and definitively established that states cannot seek to override federal law in this manner (see above). They have no standing to do so.

          The end.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 4:45 pm

          NY (et al.) is trying to create an exception to federal immigration policy. As Mac45 and I (and others below) have stated and shown, the courts have clearly and definitively established that states cannot seek to override federal law in this manner (see above). They have no standing to do so.

          You have no idea what you are talking about. You are babbling fantasies that have no connection to reality. No state is seeking to override federal law override federal law. These states claims that this particular federal policy is illegal. They have demonstrated clear standing to do so. If only they had a case it would be entirely proper for the courts to hear it and rule for them. Unfortunately for them, that is the one thing they don’t have.

Geeze- I wish my state’s officials were as concerned about representing me and my family with as much enthusiasm as they are putting behind representing illegal immigrants.

Never mind me. I’m just the sucker that works, pays taxes, and doesn’t commit any crimes.

    Milhouse in reply to Andy. | September 6, 2017 at 4:56 pm

    They are not representing the illegal immigrants; they’re representing their states, which they believe to have benefited from DACA and therefore will lose when it’s gone. If only they had a case they’d be right to sue; but they don’t.

      gospace in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 11:44 pm

      NY’s budget would be better off without illegal immigrants within the state, therefore, they’re representing illegal immigrants, not the state nor the citizens within the state. For example, me and my family, who pay higher taxes so our money can be transferred to healthcare and education for illegals, as well as increased auto insurance rates because most illegals drive without the mandated NYS insurance coverage.

        Milhouse in reply to gospace. | September 7, 2017 at 7:58 am

        NY’s Attorney General, who is legally presumed to know more about its budget than you do, says it would be worse off without these illegal immigrants. And this makes sense, since they grew up here so there’s no reason for them to be less productive than anyone else. They pay taxes just like you, and they’re as likely to be paying for your benefits as you for theirs. They are no less likely to have insurance than you are.

          gospace in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 10:14 am

          Looking at the arrest reports in my upstate county, your statement They are no less likely to have insurance than you are.” is a bald faced lie. Also applies to stories I hear about emergency room crowds. The uninsured appear to be illegal immigrants more often then not.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 4:47 pm

          The topic is DACA recipients, not illegal immigrants generally.

          gospace in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 6:58 pm

          Po-ta-toes, po-tah-toes, to-may-toes, to-mah-toes.

          Explain how to tell the the difference between an illegal immigrant and a DACA illegal immigrant. And why they should be treated any different. Equality before the law should mean equality before the law.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 9:21 pm

          The difference is that DACA recipients are exactly like normal Americans, they are educated, have jobs, pay taxes, and are no more likely than you are to commit crimes or to drive without insurance.

          gospace in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 10:05 pm

          You live in a fantasy world of your own making.

    4th armored div in reply to Andy. | September 6, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    this is not snarc

    Move and if enough conservatives leave these states,
    hopefully, these states would not have the cash to pay their bills and you would feel much happier.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Andy. | September 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    If you don’t commit any crimes and want to make a living, then Sacramento is the place for you.

NC has a Democrat governor and AG. Everyone else is Republican. That is to say, NC isn’t suing the WH, our governor is. It’s a virtue signal, without teeth, something they have to do for the sake of appearance.

All I hear from these toy throwing Daca lovin’ lefties is “waah waah waaah… we want our unconstitutional Obama pen and paper candy goodies… waaaaaah”

OleDirtyBarrister | September 6, 2017 at 4:24 pm

Even if the court has jurisdiction, the case is ripe, and the plaintiffs have standing, it would be a good time for the federal courts to abstain under the political question doctrine or other abstention grounds. The two branches with the power over making immigration law and enforcing it are engaged in the matter, they made decisions on the issue previously that led to a mere executive order, and the executive has now retracted the EO (within its power and discretion to do so) and asked the legislative to consider it and exercise its discretion to legislate (or not) before the executive executes and undertakes enforcement of the law as it is written.

After all, if Trump start deporting the illegals concerned now he would be doing nothing more than straightforward execution of the law. The courts should be highly reluctant to interfere with straightforward execution by the executive, particularly in areas in which it has said for so long that plenary power exists in the other branches.

    I don’t think the court should abstain on this one, I think it should dismiss with prejudice and sanctions, for failure to state a cognizable case. DACA is not a program established by law, it’s nothing but a series of decisions to temporarily defer action on specific cases because the government has limited resources and better things to do with them. It should be blindingly obvious that it may change its mind at any time and for any reason, even racial animus.

“282. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), prohibits federal agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute. In implementing the DHS Memorandum and rescinding DACA with minimal formal guidance, federal agencies have taken unconstitutional and unlawful action, as alleged herein, in violation of the AdministrativeProcedure Act.”

By this standard, DACA itself is illegal and unconstitutional.

Look at the label on the can (of worms) BEFORE opening…

    Milhouse in reply to rduke007. | September 6, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Yup. That’s the major flaw in their argument. I think the better position is that DACA does not violate the APA, because it isn’t an agency action within the Act’s meaning, but then it follows that rescinding it isn’t an agency action either.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 8:36 pm

      The existence of DACA is really moot. As it is outside thwe scope of existing law and, as the Executive has no authority to implement immigration law outside the scope of that law, then the DACA is both non-applicable and unconstitutional. So, for the purposes of the ACA, the DACA program does not exist legally and therefor the ACA does not apply.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to rduke007. | September 6, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    In the overall conspectus of litigation challenging executive orders, a high percentage if not the majority of challenges have failed due to a lack of standing. Those that survive the standing challenge have done so because the court perceived the executive action to be in the nature of legislation action that is vested with the legislative branch. That was the crux of the courts reaching the merits of the Youngstown Steel Sheet & Tubing case, and then more recently in United States v. Texas.

    In this case, I believe a court could make a clear facial determination that Trump was not legislating by simply repealing a prior E.O. determined to be inconsistent with the law and constitution.

Isn’t it FRCP 11 that gives a judge the ability to order a party to pay the other’s legal expenses for a frivolous action?

Rule 11 motions should be pursued here.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to Close The Fed. | September 6, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 contains sanctions provisions, but the money goes to the court. 28 USC 1927 is a better tool, but includes a subjective bad faith standard. The feds are not invoking them enough against the states and local govts and making them think twice.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 6, 2017 at 4:26 pm

I would add that even if the foregoing were not enough for total legal abstention, it should be enough for equitable abstention, i.e. not invoking its equitable powers to interfere with lawful execution of the law by another branch. And if the federal courts will not exercise equity powers, which they say they guard jealously and only exercise when it is absolutely necessary, the plaintiffs do not have much of a case.

anyone notice the missing word in all of this, ILLEGAL, the participants in DACA are in fact illegals, they are mostly Mexican due to the fact Mexico border the US.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 6, 2017 at 4:39 pm

States sue the federal government because the president is rescinding an unconstitutional executive order of his predecessor.

I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like something that happens in bizarro world, not real life.

Wow. I just read through the causes of action, and if I were one of the government lawyers tasked by my state AG with filing this thing I’d be worried about sanctions for making a frivolous motion. There’s simply no there there. It’s one long exercise in unsupported assertion.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    Same basic argument that Trump was biased and his campaign promises are his personal desire to hurt theses people. Just a repeat of accusations made before other courts… other sympathetic courts.

This is just another Democrat jobs program for Democrat lawyers. Yet given some of the wild and convoluted court decisions who knows what will happen; perhaps Trump should ignore the unfavorable decisions until the White House can fully study it – for the next 3 years.

Re the Equal Protection argument, they’ve got it exactly backwards. It’s DACA that discriminates between illegal immigrants, giving some of them favorable treatment; recinding it means henceforward treating them exactly the same as all other illegal immigrants.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm

It should be noted that The Stupid Party is in complete disarray and earning its name. Trump has orally sided with Dems on a short term debt ceiling proposition and angered GOP Congress Critters, and the GOP Congress Critters have sided with Dems on the termination of the DACA and ticked off Trump.

Trump really could use a liaison with Congress, and I had hoped that maybe Newt G. would have enough residual gravitas and goodwill to fall into that role and lubricate the wheels despite all the obvious warts and baggage. I’d take anyone in that role that could be successful, but Newt was in a position during the campaign through the inauguration that I thought he might end up there.

Oh, FFS. As always.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 6, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Something that has not been discussed yet is intervention in the suit. Texas and the other states that were going to sue to challenge DACA if Trump did not repeal may want to intervene in this one to make certain their issues are heard and to make it harder on the plaintiffs.

Best line:
“In a rational legal world, this lawsuit would have zero chance of success.”

A little sad, but 110% true.

If the DoJ would challenge the DACA act, signed by obama, before the SCOTUS then its legality and standing would be there for even the most simple minded sorts. If the entire program is illegal then none of this whining by the left and part of the right would have any meaning.

The left is projecting. It is business and Democratic special interests that condone mass emigration and leaving people behind to face the diverse causes of the former (a la Obama’s trail of tears from Tripoli to Kiev). They also seem unrepentant for progressive taxation of Americans, class diversity (e.g. racism) that discriminate between individuals, and Planned Parenthood et al that operate abortion chambers for native Americans who are deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable (e.g. clinical cannibalism, female chauvinist reduction of women and babies to taxable commodities).

All discussion supra assumes that control of this issue will be ceded to the courts.

Perhaps the administration should exert control of its own by inflicting pain on its foes. Raise the stakes. One possibility—there’s nothing sacred about the six month delay announced by Sessions. Shorten it; five months … maybe even six weeks. And make it clear exactly why. A barrage of Tweets would do; there’s nothing to be gained by ceding the narrative to the leftoids. So now who gets blamed for the new deadline? The ones who made it happen … fourteen Attorneys General.

There are many other opportunities to do all sorts of things the pro-dreamers will hate. Some of them should be used. State’s tactics of delay and sabotage of national policy should be painful, or it will continue indefinitely.

I see no mention of the fact that all these hens are coming home to roost just before primary season.


Alas, there is a different reason to see the still ongoing hysteria as a waste of time.

Rich Lowry notes in his Corner post that the president — as ever — took to Twitter last night. It took less than 140 characters to remove any doubt: There has been no rescission.

Trump has just quasi-frozen matters for six months. He explicitly says that he wants Congress “to legalize DACA” (i.e., enact the existing program so he can sign it into law). Moreover, if the people we used to think of as lawmakers fail to codify DACA, Trump says that he “will revisit this issue!” Translation: The program won’t die; the president will simply re-extend it by executive action while encouraging Congress to continue working to pass it — just like Obama.

Yeeeeup. As I said. Donald Ducks is all in for DREAMERS.

Everyone can relax now. The deal is done.

Dems are doing what they must; be agitated. Were they to sit back and observe their favorite quasi-legislation that was foisted upon American voters fait accompli against majority voter’s expressed wishes actually become chiseled into law they’d explode automatically by internal pressure and tension. They MUST agitate. They must. It’s encoded into their DNA. They wouldn’t be Democrats if they didn’t.

And this is the way we want them. Away from majority power and perpetually highly agitated about everything. Everything. Even as we see them get what they want. Because they’re mental. And they’re much worse in full power and with American media covering their malevolent serial provocations and agitations walking all over your constitutionally protected rights claiming it’s all sensible legislation. Amassing ever more power to themselves even so far as your private healthcare and the air that you breath.

It’s clear that Trump wants DACA properly legislated. He’s forcing Republican Whigs out of their shadowy hiding places. Forcing them to actually represent. Or not. Making them show their colors. Insisting they make their arguments against the voters who sent them to Washington. He is hastening the end to their long dragged out desultory moribundity and uselessness.

He’s the guy known for making “You’re Fired” a catchphrase. He’s showing conservative voters what they must do if they’re ever to have any representation.

Trump was elected to rattle the cages of Republican representatives who find it impossible to actually represent. This is him doing that. We’ll end up with DACA properly legislated, and a whole lot of ensconced conservatives representatives challenged in primary.

It’s clarity, all around.

These lawsuits are all pot banging noise. What is Democrat party if not noise?

It’s pure joy observing instigators being so thoroughly provoked. They’re not used to being on the receiving end. Best election of my lifetime. I actually get to see political party dissolve and reconstitute into something more useful. I knew it would be excruciating, but I had no idea what that would look like. It’s historic. It’s a brilliant once in a lifetime event. Thank you, Tea Party types. You really did shake the whole system thoroughly bottom to top and throughout.

    Ragspierre in reply to bour3. | September 7, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Wow. What a mother-lode of bullshit!

    What’s clear…and it has been ever since T-rump started his campaign conversion if you listened…is that he’s on the side of DREAMERS.

    He’s on the side of touch-back amnesty.

    He’s a rightist Obama, with the same respect for the Constitution.

    Now, if conservatives in Congress want to screw him, they’ll do nothing WRT DACA. Fight any attempt to legalize it tooth and nail.

    AND advance the fight through the courts to see it declared null and void.

    THEN we’ll have “clarity”.