Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Trump Will End DACA With Six Month Delay

Report: Trump Will End DACA With Six Month Delay

DACA supporters are going ballistic.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/728297587418247168?lang=en

Sources have leaked to Politico that President Donald Trump has decided to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program from the Obama administration.

The sources stated that Trump will delay enforcement for six months and give Congress the opportunity to write proper immigration legislation.

Remember, DACA is not a law or even an Executive Order. All DACA is a Department of Homeland Security policy that officials announced via memo.

Congressional Republicans attempted to influence Trump from ending the program. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) was one of those Republicans, but also said that Congress should do something with DACA. These Republicans have said that DACA is unconstitutional since Obama sidestepped Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has also called for Congress to pass legislation as Politico points out:

“My hope is that as part of this process we can work on a way to deal with this issue and solve it through legislation, which is the right way to do it and the constitutional way to do it,” Rubio told CNN in June.

Others in Trump’s administration agreed. From Politico:

Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.

In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”

Last week, reports came out that Trump would announce his DACA decision last Friday. But then on Friday, he decided to announce his decision will come this upcoming Tuesday. A few questions have come from this “leak.” As I mentioned before a lot of lawmakers within the GOP have tried to persuade Trump from ending DACA. Did someone leak this in order to change his mind?

Say he doesn’t change his mind. The ball is officially in Congress’s court to change immigration, either keeping DACA or embrace….amnesty.

Already the reaction from supporters of DACA is ballistic:

But some cooler heads have prevailed:

Here is the information on DACA from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on the Department of Homeland Security website:

What Is DACA

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.

Guidelines

You may request DACA if you:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 4. 15, 2007, up to the present time;
5. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed 7. Forces of the United States; and
Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Another win!

They shouldn’t be tortured.

Dangling the prospect of a Congressional rescue in front of them when we all know Congress will continue to do what it’s been doing for years—nothing—is just cruel.

Morning Sunshine | September 3, 2017 at 11:19 pm

truth be told, Trump was not in my top 5 GOP primary contenders. I eventually voted for him over the only other viable candidate, because she was A VERY BAD IDEA.
But Trump is pretty clever. He distracts the media with twitter squirrels for them to chase while he is quietly doing things like nominating conservative judges in lower courts. I think this move is particularly brilliant – he plops this bag of excrement he inherited from Obama (because, let’s be honest, Obama knew anyone who tried to overturn DACA would be savaged from all sides, so he thought it was a safe EO) right on the desks of Congress, and tells them to do their jobs because it is not his mess.

So… What keeps a DACA individual from applying for citizenship like everybody else who wants to come to the US? Heck, what was keeping a DACA individual from applying for citizenship, putting in an application, paying the fee, etc… when they first learned they were illegally in the country, instead of waiting this long?

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | September 4, 2017 at 12:53 am

    People who entered the country illegally are not eligible for citizenship. They can’t even apply.

    (Apparently some enterprising people have found a loophole: Having secured a deferment on their deportation — and remember that’s all DACA is — they ask for special permission to leave the country and come back, perhaps to see their dear abuelita one last time or some similar purpose. When they re-enter the country they do so legally, of course, so they become eligible to apply for permanent residence, and then for citizenship.)

      tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 1:51 am

      According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, over a thousand illegals have already succeeded in this scam, and are now citizens, with a couple thousand more applicants in the pipeline.

      So much for claims that it’s impossible.

        Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | September 4, 2017 at 3:07 am

        1. This was impossible until DACA, so georgfelis’s question was based on a false premise

        2. Even now it’s only possible if one can get permission to leave and return, for which one needs a good reason.

          tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 7:15 am

          Whatever your rationalization, this statement—

          People who entered the country illegally are not eligible for citizenship.

          —is simply wrong, since thousands of people who entered the country illegally are being awarded citizenship right now … whether you think they’re “eligible” or not.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 7:49 am

          WTF are you blathering about now…???

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 8:34 am

          No, tom swift, the 1,056 people you refer to entered the country legally. That is how they became eligible for citizenship. Without that legal entry they would have remained ineligible. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact, so you’re not entitled to your own.

          georgefelis’s question was why “DREAMers” didn’t apply for citizenship as soon as they found out they had no legal status. Why they needed DACA. He seems to have imagined anyone can apply for citizenship, but this is not the case. Anyone who entered the country illegally cannot apply, and nothing has changed about that. The fact that some people figured out a way to parlay DACA into a legal entry doesn’t invalidate this; on the contrary it proves it.

          tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm

          No, tom swift, the 1,056 people you refer to entered the country legally

          Wrong. They were here illegally, brought in by their illegal parents. Under cover of DACA they left the country legally and then re-entered legally. They then applied for citizenship on the basis of having entered legally. That doesn’t change the obvious fact that their original entry was illegal. It was illegal then and it’s illegal now. Subsequent legal behavior under cover of DACA doesn’t erase the original crime.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 8:50 pm

          How are you not getting this? The topic we are discussing is why they didn’t do the right thing and apply for citizenship as soon as they became adults and found out about their illegal status. georgefelis seems to blame them for this, and accuse them of spurning citizenship but wanting special accommodation just for them. The answer is that since their original entry was illegal, they couldn’t apply for citizenship. Every single one of them would love to get US citizenship, if only they could get it.

          The fact that a few of them have figured out a way to parlay a DACA deferment into a green card and then citizenship only proves my point. If they could have got citizenship earlier they would have. They didn’t because they couldn’t.

          They can now because they are no longer illegal entrants. They have never in their lives committed a crime, and they are now here legally, so they’re eligible to apply for the right to live here permanently. Of course it doesn’t change the obvious fact that their original entry was illegal, but so what? How is that relevant? They’re here legally now, and therefore they can apply.

          As for your claim that “subsequent legal behavior under cover of DACA doesn’t erase the original crime”, what original crime? They were minors, brought by their parents, so they didn’t commit any crime. There’s nothing to erase. The only bar to their applying earlier was that they hadn’t come here legally, and now they have.

DACA supporters don’t care why there is an exodus of millions of people from second and third-world nations, or the progressive conflict of interest suffered by acolytes of the Pro-Choice sects.

Congress will pass something because most of them support open borders. Trump is forcing them to show their hand.

    CZ75Compact in reply to Jackie. | September 4, 2017 at 1:38 am

    Congress has had half a decade to pass a law to legitimize DACA if they think it so wonderful.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Jackie. | September 4, 2017 at 8:43 am

    Congress likes the current arrangement. Many Republicans declared DACA unconstitutional when Obama implemented it. That gave them cred with their voters.

    But now Trump is going to make them do something about it, and they’ll fold. The Democrat Media complex will excoriate them if they don’t enact DACA-like legislation.

    Republicans have no principles. They won’t repeal Obamacare and they’ll make DACA legal. Exact same thing that would have happened if Democrats controlled both Houses. Democrats are never afraid to push the line further left. Republicans are afraid to ever move it right. When Republicans have power, the best you can hope for is they will hold the line, or move it leftward at a slightly slower pace.

    Matt_SE in reply to Jackie. | September 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    That will sound like a clever plan, unless they pass something and Trump signs it. Then it will be just another betrayal.

I didn’t realize that there were two parts of DACA, or perhaps I just forgot the details…

The first is the original 2012 program which was not an Executive Order or an Executive Memo, but a policy. It was limited, as described above in the post, to a certain group of people at a point in time. This is the program that is still in effect.

There was an executive “action” issued in Nov 2014 which expanded DACA as well as created the DAPA part. This action was blocked by a judge in Texas, affirmed by the 5th circuit and deadlocked by the Supremes in June 2016. But, the actions by the courts did not impact the original DACA program.

The expanded DACA was to cover ALL people who entered the US if they were under the age of 16. The entry date was adjusted from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. The “relief” and the work permits lasted 3 years, instead of 2 years. So, this greatly expands the number of people who would be given a delayed action (or really, inaction).

However, I can’t locate a Obama signed order,memo or action for the expansion. All searches lead me to this DHS page –
https://www.dhs.gov/archive/immigration-action# .

This page states – “The President asked Secretary Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to undertake a rigorous and inclusive review to inform recommendations on reforming our broken immigration system through executive action. This review sought the advice and input from the men and women charged with implementing the policies, as well as the ideas of a broad range of stakeholders and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. Our assessment identified the following ten areas where we, within the confines of the law, could take action to increase border security, focus enforcement resources, and ensure accountability in our immigration system.”

Here is the link for the DHS “action” –
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action_0.pdf

So, it seems that the courts shut down the expansion of the program and President Trump will shut down the original program after giving Congress a deadline to act. The critical question is what program will Congress go for – the limited DACA or the expanded DACA or something in between or worse.

President Trump is smart to hand the mess to Congress, who should be the ones making the laws governing immigration. By giving them a deadline, they can work on it right away or delay until next year. However, if they crank out a new immigration law before tax reform, the budget or health care, then they will be rightly criticized for caring more about illegal aliens than American citizens.

During the six-month window (where the congress critters have a chance to change immigration law), the swamp demons will lift their heads above the putrid water and reveal their evil agenda while defending DACA.

The GOPe (bought and paid for by corporate lobby) will show their true faces. 6 months from now is primary season. We The People will see it on a wide screen. It will not go well for the Judas types.

    Matt_SE in reply to Grandpa. | September 4, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Prediction: more kabuki theater.
    GOP Senators up for re-election will be ALLOWED to vote against it, and the bill will pass anyway with Democrat support.

    Why is anyone still falling for this?

Trump supporters just got had. The only folks that break the law and pay for it are real citizens.

If Congress is going to offer DACA amnesty now, the very least they can do for their fellow law abiding U.S. citizens in return is restrict birthright U.S. citizenship to only those born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, with no foreign allegiances or attachments at birth. This would prevent the ludicrous situation where the offspring born here of illegal aliens are considered natural born U.S. citizens at birth.

    Milhouse in reply to davidfarrar. | September 4, 2017 at 10:17 am

    They can’t do that without a constitutional amendment, which they will never get. The current constitution explicitly says that anyone who is born in the USA and has to keep its laws is automatically a citizen.

    What’s more, such an amendment would be very unpopular because it would exclude dual citizens; every year millions of Americans are born with automatic foreign citizenship because one of their parents is a foreign citizen. Sometimes there is nothing they can even do about it, because their other country of citizenship doesn’t recognize renunciation.

      lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 11:26 am

      No, that’s not what the 14th says. The framers of the 14th were very clear on the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Years after the 14th, SCOTUS illegally redefined the 14th to mean only geographical jurisdiction instead of both the legal and geographical jurisdiction the framers specified. This is so very well documented I’m surprised you aren’t aware of it.

        Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | September 4, 2017 at 11:39 am

        Bulldust. There has never been any ambiguity whatsoever about the meaning of being subject to a state’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means legal authority. If someone is not subject to US jurisdiction, that means they are exempt from our laws, and cannot be arrested or tried in any US court. I’m quite sure you don’t really think that a foreign passport is a get-out-of-jail-free card. You’re just using words you don’t understand.

          lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | September 4, 2017 at 11:59 am

          I’m going to provide the words of several framers and other representatives.

          Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

          [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. (Emphasis in original)

          Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens. (Emphasis mine)

          Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

          This next quote addresses your inability to understand that there are indeed geographical and legal jurisdictions to consider here.

          Sen. W. Williams: In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (Emphasis mine)

          http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2017 at 2:56 am

          Wow, you really are that stupid. Did you even read your cut-and-pasted material? Or are you incapable of understanding it? “Fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means nothing more than the person has to obey US laws, can be arrested and prosecuted if he breaks them, and can be sued in a US court by anyone who has a grievance against him.

          As Sen Trumbull said, the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause did not include Indians because they were not subject to US law. “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court?” In his day you couldn’t. The Indian nations were independent of the USA, just like foreign countries. “We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.” Would you say the same of foreigners living in the USA today? Do you think they are not subject to our laws? Do you think they’re free to break our laws with impunity, and to do whatever they like without being arrested or sued? Of course you don’t. But that’s what it means not to be under US jurisdiction.

          Sen Williams then brings up the example of an ambassador’s children, which to this day is the chief example of someone not subject to US jurisdiction. He says that diplomatic families are “to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect”; I don’t know in what respect he thought they are subject to it, but they certainly can’t be sued or arrested. If you have a financial dispute with a foreign ambassador, tough luck, you have no recourse to the courts. Donald Trump can’t really gun someone down on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, but the Kiribati ambassador’s son can, because he’s not subject to US jurisdiction. And that’s why foreign ambassadors’ US-born children are not US citizens.

This is just what President Trump promised to do many time on the campaign trail. End DACA!

A correction…. stop referring to Ryan as a Republican.

Just a reminder that the “thorough background checks” that Obama promised for DACA recipients never happened. Further, the DHS directive (which was illegal from the start) created a new avenue (unauthorized by congress) for chain migration, because it allowed immediate family members of DACA amnestees to apply for amnesty also.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/homeland-security-documents-reveal-dhs-abandoned-required-illegal-alien-background-checks-to-meet-flood-of-amnesty-requests-following-obamas-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-directive/

And this is what Ryan and the other sell-outs in congress now want to make law.

buckeyeminuteman | September 4, 2017 at 11:53 am

Trump once again puts the ball in the RINOs court! Either nut up or shut up!

“The sources stated that Trump will delay enforcement for six months and give Congress the opportunity to write proper immigration legislation.”

The establishment wants to pass amnesty, and Trump is giving them the time to do so. However, with the upcoming elections in 2018, this will be political poison.
There won’t be enough support for the GOP to do it alone, since there will probably be defections of everyone up for re-election, so if it passes I assume it will be with Democratic support.

If it passes, it will be because Trump enabled them by giving them 6 months to stab us in the back.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to Matt_SE. | September 4, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    He doesn’t have to sign the amnesty bill, unless I’m missing something in your worst case scenario.

      Trump didn’t have to sign Ryancare, but when it failed he went after the conservatives who scuttled it. That indicates to me that he would’ve signed it, even if he didn’t care what was in it.

      I assume the same attitude might hold for DACA.

Subotai Bahadur | September 4, 2017 at 1:36 pm

The Republicans in both Houses of Congress will pass an unconditional amnesty for DACA, and every relative that they can invent.

That will make it a clean sweep for the GOPe:

1: saving Obamacare.
2: Continuing Resolutions instead of constitutional budgets.
3: No tax reform.
4: Continuing open borders.

Could someone/anyone explain to me what basis the states intend to sue over cancellation of DACA? If DACA was implemented via an EO it seems like it is subject to being done away with via the same route. All the articles talking about the states suing only say it is unfair & cruel – when did that become the criteria for govt action and how can it be deemed cruel to take away something they actually had no right to?

However I also believe Trump is passing the buck to Congress expecting they will pass something and IMO he would sign it under the auspices of “it’s what Congress, the representatives of the people, wanted” and Trump’s supporters will be expected to give him a pass because “the Congress shafted us -not him.”

And if as usual Congress can’t do squat in a timely manner – a 6 month delay will still give activist states plenty of time to tie the issue up in court forever.

    healthguyfsu in reply to katiejane. | September 4, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    I think you’re wrong about passing the buck. Trump is probably tired of signing EOs that won’t stick beyond his term(s). If Congress can get their act together and do their damn jobs, they can pass something more permanent.

    Milhouse in reply to katiejane. | September 5, 2017 at 3:01 am

    Could someone/anyone explain to me what basis the states intend to sue over cancellation of DACA?

    I think you have it backwards. The states were threatening to sue the USA for not cancelling DACA.

Aliens, illegally in this country are not completely “within the jurisdiction” as they cannot vote, set on juries, or subject to the military draft.

    I’m not a lawyer and even I can poke holes in this argument. Ahem.

    …but they can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for committing crimes within the US borders, quite unlike individuals protected by Diplomatic Immunity, which prevents such.

    i.e. Children born of diplomats in the US don’t get citizenship.

    Milhouse in reply to davidfarrar. | September 5, 2017 at 10:47 am

    Neither voting nor jury service have anything to do with jurisdiction. Legal aliens can’t vote or sit on juries either. (And there’s nothing preventing states or cities from allowing both of these things to aliens — legal or illegal. None have yet chosen to do so, but they have every legal right to, and we may yet see it.)

    Aliens resident in the USA — legally or illegally — were subject to the draft when there was one.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend