web analytics

DACA

By Patrick Van Roy On June 19th, 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating President Trump’s reversal of former President Obama’s DACA executive order was a victory for the illegal immigration lobby, but a stinging blow to common sense and the rule of law.  The grounds upon which the Roberts Court made this decision were ridiculous. The court stopped short of saying that Obama‘s edict was proper, but struck down Trump’s reversal because, supposedly, it did not express an adequate rationale for its order.  “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts said. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”  In the court’s prime Dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas nailed it.  “The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope,” Thomas said. “The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.”

Now whether or not you think DACA is a good thing or a bad thing, where you stand on the actual issue is irrelevant. What is relevant is the New Standard and Category of Law that the Supreme Court just created out of whole cloth.

The Constitution states that all Laws are created by Congress, the Legislative Branch. DACA is a Law that was created by President Obama. He wrote it and stated it was now the Law of the Land. President Trump did the same thing Obama did in regards to Obama’s DACA he voided it in the same manner it was created.

The Supreme Courts Ruling say’s he can’t do that, and the Law Stands.

The consequences of that Decision are that now Presidents can write Law, not only can they write Laws those Laws can not be overturned.

Just think of the fun…….

36 Responses to “DACA”

  1. “Roberts said. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”

    The court found the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation. It is not a new category of law, it is the failure of the agency.

    Bravo Chief Justice Roberts. This ruling will save the DACA folks until a sane administration takes over. A sizable majority of Americans support the DACA folks. Many have gained educational and professional accomplishments and contribute to our nation.

    Beating up immigrants stops with Trump. It is contrary to American values and tradition. It is also a nasty and morally debased position. But change is on the way and the garbage in the White House will soon be carted away.

  2. No reason was needed NYr it was an Illegal Law.

    Obama’s own words……

    There was indeed – in plain sight – a rational basis for reversing Obama’s ruling. It was illegal. That’s all we need to know.

    How do we know it was illegal? Obama himself said so on more than 20 different occasions. In May 2011, the former president admitted he could not “just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. … That’s not how a democracy works.”

    but acording to the Supreme Court now a President can and not even another President can overturn it.

  3. “No reason was needed NYr it was an Illegal Law.” If the court believed it was an illegal law, they would have stated so.

    President Biden will this January introduce measures to rectify this issue. It is foolish and immoral to eject DACA folks who are fellow Americans and contribute to our country in the professions and business.

  4. DACA isn’t a law. It is a policy instrument. The President simply not enforcing, or not fully enforcing, a law passed by Congress. Ultimately he is the sole Chief Executive. He possesses all Executive power.

    And ultimately there is a distinction between the President not enforcing the law (as Obama did with DACA) and the President breaking the law (as Trump did with the repeal of DACA by acting against the terms of the Administrative Procedure Act).

    If Trump repealed DACA, while fully following the Administrative Procedure Act then he would be fully legally able to do this.

    This episode shows nothing more that the total incompetence of the Trump administration.

  5. Once again, Seamus demonstrates that here on ATW, especially on matters political, he is the master of throwing light, where there had previously mainly been heat !

  6. correct colm
    pat is so lucky he has a pro-bono legal brain in the name of seamus willing and able to correct his errors . Mahons can take a rest , and we’re all the wiser .

    LGBT rights are safe now as is DACA and the holy trinity would include supreme court rejecting the WH attempts to block his tax returns ..

    There’s also a DNA test application required from a woman raped by Trump, but that is going to have to wait till he’s out of office .. His lawyers have said he’s too busy being POTUS to give a sample of DNA, though to be fair someone waiting at the 1st or 18th Hole from a round of Golf sounds reasonable to me – its just a saliva sample .

  7. In fairness to Patrick he hasn’t given his own opinion but is repeating a Fox News personality’s words.

  8. lol
    Pat any updates on Flynn/ObamaGate ?
    maybe too busy with Bolton, Mary Trump’s book next weekend and tax returns
    when it rains it pours ..
    please look after your health buddy,
    don’t feel you have to come out to bat on every Trump scandal .
    stephen miller is busy writing great speeches, 136 days to go

  9. once again Seamus is wrong

  10. lol pat have you been listening to porter wagoner

    I’ll go down swinging (1964)

    https://youtu.be/vNOrBfiNJKw

  11. DACA

    What are the Requirements?
    To qualify for the DACA program, eligible applicants must:

    have entered the U.S. before turning 16 years old
    have been younger than 31 years old on June 15, 2012
    have a high school diploma, GED, be currently in school, or show that they received an honorable discharge from the armed forces.
    have resided within the U.S. since June 15, 2007.
    not be under any visa, asylum, or refugee status, meaning that they must be undocumented immigrants.
    If the applicant was qualified, he or she needed to file an I-821D form for the Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and pay the non-negotiable $495 fee.

    That is THE LAW it is not an Executive order, it is a Law with rules, regulations and procedures, and costs, and budgeting.

    It was written and came out of the White House and for that reason has been in court since day one. It didn’t modify or put a codicil on the Immigration Laws it created a Whole new category of Law that EVERY STATE has to follow.

    The Supreme Court confirmed it as a Law and a Law that the another President can’t just write away.

    The United States Laws are written by Congress Specifically in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. That has been the ONLY way a Law can be created since September 17, 1787 until Barrack Obama became President.

    2 Laws were created outside of the House during Obama for the first time in History. The first was Obamacare, DACA was the 2nd. Both Laws violated the Rule of Law in the manner they were created. The Constitution is not a set of suggestions it is THE LAW set in stone unless amended and ratified by a majority of the States.

    No Amendment was ever written, voted on, and sent to the States for ratification that changes where and how Law can be written.

    Instead the Constitution has now been changed via fiate by the Supreme Court.

    So even though my friend and colleague Seamus is probably the best researcher here, he is wrong. The Administrative Procedure Act has never been applied to Presidential Orders because they are NOT Laws. The Supreme Court now saying that Trump can’t rescind Obama’s order because he didn’t follow Administrative Procedure Act has never been ruled before it is also NEW LAW.

    This whole case is a violation of the Constitution. It allows 2 bodies The Court and The Executive Branch to now create Law.

  12. well I got stuff to do , but will stay tuned for the rebuttal in this heated debate

    of The Hon Seamus O’Gealic vs Hon Patrick Von Rhubarb 😉

    presiding Judge Hon Colm O’londinium

    reporters Ms Dee Meanour and Doctor Mal Feasance

  13. here is another persons view to add to my own that may help you understand.

    Supreme Court’s Illegal Immigration Ruling Applies Different Legal Standards To Different Presidents
    And it allows presidents to legislate, a recipe for ever expanding federal and executive power.

    June 18’s Supreme Court ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is bad judging on top of bad lawyering. It has good short‐​term practical effects but makes policy reform harder in the longer term.

    Recall what’s going on here: In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo creating DACA, which allows people who were brought here illegally as children (the so-called Dreamers) to apply for a renewable “lawful presence” status exempting them from removal, along with work authorizations and other benefits. Two years later, it created a similar program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).

    In the 2016 case Texas v. United States, an evenly divided 4-4 court (after Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing) affirmed without opinion an injunction issued against DAPA for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In June 2017, based on an opinion of Attorney General Jeff Sessions that DACA was unlawful because its defects mirrored those in DAPA, DHS announced a phase-out of DACA, which has been stuck in the courts ever since.

    But Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion didn’t simply adopt the lower courts’ reasoning that DACA was likely lawful and thus the administration couldn’t end it so easily. Instead, he first found that “DACA is more than a non-enforcement policy” of the kind that merits broad deference to the executive branch, but also an affirmative-benefits policy, the rescission of which must follow the niceties of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). And since both the Fifth Circuit in the DAPA case and Sessions in his memo focused only on the illegality of granting certain benefits, DHS’s action was “arbitrary and capricious,” a no-no in administrative law.

    In other words, precisely because nobody challenged executive authority to set removal priorities—going after violent criminals ahead of the Dreamers, say—the Trump administration couldn’t simply claim that all of DACA went beyond presidential power, but had to show its work as to the illegal parts. That technical reason for blocking rescission is debatable, and I think Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent has the better of that argument over Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion. I won’t go into all the details, but it’s clear that the administration didn’t do a good job explaining its decision—not that it needed to, points out Kavanaugh—or differentiating the part of DACA that’s legal (“forbearance,” or deprioritizing deportation of certain classes of people) from the part that’s not (granting temporary status and benefits).

    The problem is that because DACA is more than non‐​enforcement, more than executive or prosecutorial discretion, it goes beyond the powers presidents are given under the INA. Indeed, it goes beyond the powers presidents can be delegated by Congress, because these sorts of actions constitute making rather than enforcing the law.

    In other words, the majority says that President Trump issued a new regulation without giving sufficient reasoning and otherwise following the APA. But if that’s the case, then President Obama acted even more egregiously in rewriting the law in the first place.

    “DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authority and without going through the requisite rulemaking process,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, joined by justices Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch. “The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope.”

    The court could’ve avoided that glaring hole in its administrative‐​law reasoning—and any concerns about the “nondelegation doctrine”—by just deferring to the administration’s reasonable if insufficiently explained legal judgment, as Cato’s amicus brief suggested. It didn’t even need to rule on DACA’s legality, but could’ve instead found that what one president established via memo, another can rescind with another memo, for good, bad, or no reason at all.

    Instead, it set a precedent that one president’s executive action can’t be rescinded by the next president unless he jumps through hoops that his predecessor didn’t have to. That’s a recipe for ever‐​expanding federal and executive power, to the detriment of our constitutional system of government. As Thomas put it, the holding “is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority.”

    Finally, as a matter of policy, it’s a good thing that DACA beneficiaries—themselves no strangers to jumping through administrative hoops—will now be allowed to stay here and continue their lives as productive members of society. Good for them and good for the country.

    But for how long? Because today’s decision not only goes against the rule of law, it harms the prospects for fixing our broken immigration system. Just as Obama’s imposition of DACA and DAPA poisoned the well for legislative solutions, this ruling removes all pressure from Congress to act.

    A decision upholding rescission would’ve forced Congress’s hand. Now we’re left with a mutually antagonistic muddle that benefits nobody but both parties’ Manichean political operatives. As is often the case with a Roberts opinion, an attempt to depoliticize an issue or remove the Supreme Court from the electoral fray only does the opposite.

    Ilya Shapiro is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He is director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. Follow him on Twitter, @ishapiro.
    Photo Mario A. P./ Flickr

  14. This decision is a shotgun blast into the faces of conservatives and Republicans. We need more judges. Vote for Trump 2020!

    Now whose analysis might that be?

  15. pat, just to flip it ( aid understanding )
    what would now be the position , if the SCOTUS ruled in your favour this week ?

  16. You’re right Mahons…… see what kind of damage bad judges can do……

  17. The “analysis” is from President Trump’s tweet. He’s no longer even pretending to be the leader of all Americans.

  18. Kurt bad Law and Bad Decisions happen.

    As Mahons refers I am an advocate for originalist Judges. Judges that use the standard of the Constitution to interpret the validity of a Law.

    This decision shows the Damage not using that standard can cause. The Supreme Court by Majority vote chose to ignore the Constitution. The consequences of that decision are what future generations are going to have to suffer.

    They took what should have been a minor decision and a simple one of one President reversing the actions of another. A very common thing actually because Presidents don’t create Law and instead invested the power to create Law in the Executive over turning the Constitution.

    and to answer your question if they rule in my favor on a case this week I will cheer. There is a case that the ruling will be quite telling on. It’s a case involving the church.

    Religious exemptions from discrimination suits

    In another religious liberty case, the justices are being asked to resolve whether two Catholic schools are exempt from employment discrimination suits brought by former teachers.

    The schools claim immunity under the so-called ministerial exception. This First Amendment principle bars lawsuits by workers who are considered “ministers” due to the religious nature of their work. For their part, the former teachers say there were religious aspects to their jobs but that they should not be considered ministers.

    The pair of cases, which pit the U.S. Constitution’s safeguards for free expression of religion against legal protections for workers, have not yet been scheduled for argument.

    This involves lbgt alphabet soup sex identifiers and whether or not church’s have to hire openly gender manipulated people or they can say no on religious grounds.

    You clowns want to whine and say Google would be “Forced” to run ad’s on platforms it doesn’t like as an outrage…. where do you stand on the church being forced to accept a transvestite receptionist? Even though they have an explicit carve out in that pesky document the constitution.

    You see Kurt I follow the Supreme Court, because it can be and has been one of the greatest threats to the Republic.

  19. you can do better than that mahons please flesh out your arguments….

    where it is true that I could argue with the air if I choose, I’d prefer to be able to have some substance to argue against.

  20. ”That is THE LAW it is not an Executive order, it is a Law with rules, regulations and procedures, and costs, and budgeting.”

    It isn’t a law. It also isn’t an Executive order. It is a policy memorandum, sent by Janet Napolitano to the heads of ICE, Customs and Immigration Services and Border Protection, directing them not to enforce immigration law against individuals who meet the requirements set out in the memo. That isn’t a law. It is an enforcement decision, for whom the President (and the people designated by the President) is the sole decider of.

    ”The Supreme Court confirmed it as a Law and a Law that the another President can’t just write away.”

    Here is the opinion in the case:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

    Please show me where the court “confirmed it as a Law”? Or is that just something you made up?

    ”The United States Laws are written by Congress Specifically in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. That has been the ONLY way a Law can be created since September 17, 1787 until Barrack Obama became President.

    2 Laws were created outside of the House during Obama for the first time in History. The first was Obamacare, DACA was the 2nd. Both Laws violated the Rule of Law in the manner they were created. The Constitution is not a set of suggestions it is THE LAW set in stone unless amended and ratified by a majority of the States.”

    Firstly, Obamacare was not created outside the House (technically). Secondly, the origination in the House only, and specifically only, applies to bills for raising revenue. All other bills can originate in the Senate. And have done plenty of times, even before The Black Dictator took office. For example the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (in 2003) was introduced in the Senate by Rick Santorum (even before Obama became a Senator never mind President). It was not introduced in the House. Thirdly, DACA isn’t a law.

    And Supreme Court judgements are part of the constitution. It isn’t just the text document, but all decisions that flow from it, as well as learned writings (such as the Federalist papers) and individual relevant statute laws. Thus Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California is as much a part of the Constitution as “We the People”.

    ”The Administrative Procedure Act has never been applied to Presidential Orders because they are NOT Laws.”

    What utter, complete horse shite is that? A difference of opinion is fine, but that is just stupid.

    The Administrative Procedure Act only applies to executive actions, and never applies to laws. It was written purely to provide oversight against the regulations and policies of executive agencies following the New Deal. By applying the Administrative Procedure Act to DACA (and its repeal) the Supreme Court is clear that it is not a law.

    ” The Supreme Court now saying that Trump can’t rescind Obama’s order because he didn’t follow Administrative Procedure Act has never been ruled before it is also NEW LAW.”

    Again what nonsense is this? The courts have never ruled on the Administrative Procedure Act? Sure they have. In fact in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that standard of review for rescinding notice and comment rules is the same as that for enacting rules

  21. “This involves lbgt alphabet soup sex identifiers and whether or not church’s have to hire openly gender manipulated people or they can say no on religious grounds.”

    No it doesn’t. You are just making stuff up now. The Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers”. So churches can say no, when relevant, to a homosexual person on relgious grounds. Other organisations cannot.

  22. What is John Elway’s opinion on this?

  23. Funny how people who attack our free press and courts as a threat to a Republic when they are the safeguards of a Republic.

  24. The safe guards of our Republic The Supreme Court….. lmao…. you don’t know your country or the courts history if you can make a statement like that counselor

  25. The Judicial Branch is a critical part of our system of checks and balances.

  26. What is General Flynn’s opinion on this?

  27. Seamus……. you have a very weird set of definitions and word play as to how you think Laws are actually created.

    If you follow the constitution it’s a very simple limited set of rules House…Senate….President exactly in that order and ALL Bills originate in the House.

    We have not used that system since FDR we use a different set of rules. All Bills are wrapped into Spending Bills written by lobbyists and Lawyers. Very few to almost no bills are even read by Representatives and each submits their “Idea” to a staff of Lawyers who then figure out what area of “Regulation” it will effect and which direction the money will flow etc etc. When the spending Bills are Passed a Million NEW LAWS are created.

    A Federal Regulation is a Law they are almost the only laws that have been passed since FDR. Each year the Bureaucracy not the Congress creates enough “Laws” to equal a stack of paper the size of 10 story building. This has been allowed to transpire because all those regulations have come out of the bureaucracy that supports the function of congress, so the argument that gives them legal standing is they all come about as a result of a Bill voted on by the House Then Senate and signed by the President. So whether they read the Laws or not they Passed them.

    Now this occasionally creates problems like trampling peoples rights and the Law/Regulation winds up in court. The Courts job is to look at the “Laws/Regulations” compare them to that 250 old piece of paper and settled court Law and make a decision.

    Obama and the Executive Branch Bureaucrats wrote DACA it created Law a new class of Immigrant. AND IT WAS NEVER SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS to the branch that by Law is where “Laws/Regulations” have to come from.

    You can dance all you want, but the Supreme Court just Ruled that DACA is a Legitimate Law. They are the final say (which is an argument for another day) so your It is a policy memorandum is shit. SCOTUS said it’s a Law. And it stands as a Law that can only be overturned by further Legislation and not by a policy memorandum even though that’s how you yourself said it was created.

  28. Sorry Patrick, I will take Seamus’s analysis over this rather than yours. You are too biased.

  29. What is General Flynn’s opinion on this?

    wait till you see the whites of their eyes…… 😉

  30. “If you follow the constitution it’s a very simple limited set of rules House…Senate….President exactly in that order and ALL Bills originate in the House.”

    For revenue bills, not for anything else. Plenty of bills start in the Senate.

    “A Federal Regulation is a Law they are almost the only laws that have been passed since FDR.”

    A federal regulation is a regulation. And is an executive instrument to implement already passed laws.

    “You can dance all you want, but the Supreme Court just Ruled that DACA is a Legitimate Law. “

    No they didn’t. They didn’t rule it was a law. They ruled it was an executive action. Which it was.

    “And it stands as a Law that can only be overturned by further Legislation and not by a policy memorandum even though that’s how you yourself said it was created.”

    It can be overturned by a policy memorandum. However that policy memorandum must meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. If the Trump administration issued a policy memorandum, that complies with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, that overturns the DACA rule then that would be perfectly legal. They are too incompetent to do so. This ruling didn’t introduce anything other than more and more evidence of the stupidity of the Trump White House.

  31. Correct Seamus. Incorrect Patrick.

  32. Correct Seamus. Incorrect Patrick.

    Some things are usually true.

  33. Correct Seamus. Incorrect Patrick.

    Sorry Patrick, but that statement could apply to most American politics threads here on ATW 🙂

  34. lmao

    Sorry not correct on a single point.

    Try breaking a Federal Regulation and see if they don’t prosecute you criminally.

    You also repeated exactly what I said…. or you didn’t grasp it.

    A federal regulation is a regulation. And is an executive instrument to implement already passed laws.

    I said this.

    This has been allowed to transpire because all those regulations have come out of the bureaucracy that supports the function of congress, so the argument that gives them legal standing is they all come about as a result of a Bill voted on

    and this

    A federal regulation is a regulation. And is an executive instrument to implement already passed laws.

    A Law is made up of Regulations BEFORE it is passed they are the Body of the Law. A Law is not a single sentence on a piece of paper. It is a body of regulations designed to implement an idea into an action. The Bureaucracy does then add on to those regulations this is a ceded power. It is one we have accepted since WWII but it is not the purview of the Bureaucracy. It is a loophole created for convenience solely for the reason that the politicians don’t read the laws they vote on, as a consequence they are riddled with mistakes that the those elected to do such a thing as know what they are voting on do not…. and can’t be bothered. Let the clerk handle it.

    None of this is how our system was designed to work, which is why the country is in such a mess.

    All this can only be corrected though the same way it was screwed up…. one election at a time.

  35. Pat I think you might be confusing LAW with WALL

  36. it’s not me who is confused son