It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Second Federal Judge Rules That DACA Dreamers Can Stay in the U.S.A..

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
February 13, 2018

On January 13th a Federal Judge ruled that DACA can NOT end on March 5th, as the MSM and politicians keep declaring it will do. That all DACA-related lawsuits against the Administration must be settled, before the program can be terminated.

Today, a second Federal Judge ruled similarly.

For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has barred the Trump administration from ending the Obama-era DACA program next month.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in New York ruled Tuesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had "erred in concluding that DACA is unconstitutional" and granted a preliminary injunction sought by state attorneys general and immigrants who had sued the administration.
Source: www.foxnews.com...

What do you think ATS? Is it fair that "Dreamers" brought here as children, should be granted citizenship? What does the Federal judges rulings mean for the DACA Dreamers?

-CareWeMust



edit on 2/13/2018 by carewemust because: wording adjustments




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
February 13, 2018

On January 13th a Federal Judge ruled that DACA can NOT end on March 5th, as the MSM and politicians keep declaring it will do. That all DACA-related lawsuits against the Administration must be settled, before the program can be terminated.

Today, a second Federal Judge ruled similarly.

For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has barred the Trump administration from ending the Obama-era DACA program next month.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in New York ruled Tuesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had "erred in concluding that DACA is unconstitutional" and granted a preliminary injunction sought by state attorneys general and immigrants who had sued the administration.
Source: www.foxnews.com...

What do you think ATS? Is it fair that "Dreamers" brought here as children, should be granted citizenship? What does the Federal judges rulings mean for the DACA Dreamers?

-CareWeMust




One question . Which Federal Circuit ?
Bet I know....
Dont be taken aback , I have a feeling there are 2 Federal Circuits (or more) about to encounter swift and tremendous change....



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: carewemust
February 13, 2018

On January 13th a Federal Judge ruled that DACA can NOT end on March 5th, as the MSM and politicians keep declaring it will do. That all DACA-related lawsuits against the Administration must be settled, before the program can be terminated.

Today, a second Federal Judge ruled similarly.

For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has barred the Trump administration from ending the Obama-era DACA program next month.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in New York ruled Tuesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had "erred in concluding that DACA is unconstitutional" and granted a preliminary injunction sought by state attorneys general and immigrants who had sued the administration.
Source: www.foxnews.com...

What do you think ATS? Is it fair that "Dreamers" brought here as children, should be granted citizenship? What does the Federal judges rulings mean for the DACA Dreamers?

-CareWeMust




One question . Which Federal Circuit ?
Bet I know....
Dont be taken aback , I have a feeling there are 2 Federal Circuits (or more) about to encounter swift and tremendous change....


The Trump Administration said that it has confirmed a record number of judges in the first 12 months. Maybe it's one of his Admin's appointees?



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Obama said 22 times he did not have the power to change immigration. As a constitutional law professor and one of the smartest men(sorry I used a gender) in history. How could he be wrong? That’s why he kind of bended the law to his will, instead of flat out breaking it.


www.politifact.com...


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Did you really describe O as one of the smartest constitutional lawyers? You mean the community organizer?

Just how can you back up anything O contributed as a constitutional lawyer? I was shocked-never heard that before.

Real insult to real constitutional lawyers.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
This is really simple.

DACA is an EO, a judge can not stop the President from rescinding an EO. Especially when it pertains to a portion of federal law that explicitly is under the purview of the President.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Just a few straws for DACA to cling to. Trump makes great use of the liberals focus on potential dirt.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


Obama used his keen mind to find loopholes.. lots of them.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
This is really simple.

DACA is an EO, a judge can not stop the President from rescinding an EO. Especially when it pertains to a portion of federal law that explicitly is under the purview of the President.


Judges are wasting their time/energy/resources deliberating over this for months at a time?



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


Now that you put it like that, the Judges must be traitors to America. They can line up behind CNN executives to be shipped to Gitmo.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Oh look, another activist judge. It's amusing how their rulings almost ALWAYS get overturned after an appeal, this will be no different. DACA is an EO, not an actual law.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

Even more confusing is DACA EO was ruled unconstutional.

So now we got a judge saying let's enforce an unconstutional EO by saying it's unconstutional to do away with the unconstutional rule.

Man these judges are messed up!



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

Oh look, another activist judge. It's amusing how their rulings almost ALWAYS get overturned after an appeal, this will be no different. DACA is an EO, not an actual law.


If Congress does not resolve the DACA issue by March 5th, what happens on March 6th? The cattle-cars start being loaded up for Mexico?



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.


Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling? The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.

We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
What does the Federal judges rulings mean for the DACA Dreamers?

-CareWeMust


It means the DACA 'recipients' can continue to live in limbo while our do-nothing congress uses them as a propaganda tool for many years to come instead to doing their jobs and settling the issue.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Judges ruling means nothing as daca is not a law and the courts can not weigh in on allowing a executive order to sunset.

Given that the executive order has to be renewed every two years (sun setting) and the plaintiffs did not bother to file suit over the last eight years when the same EO was about to expire puts the trump administration in a position of power the courts can not stop. Funny how the Obama administration and democrats think they can make or change laws on citizenship at a whim.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

There is no due process to be subverted. The dreamers have signed up and acknowledged they are here illegally which the punishment is a known quantity (deportation) due process has already occurred since the dreamers have pleaded guilty by their participation in the program. Pretty much the same as probation in all reality.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp



Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?


The US Constitution.

Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.



The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.

We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.


That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.

Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".

Blah blah.


edit on 13-2-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join