Activist Judge Issues Ruling That DACA Program Must Continue [VIDEO]

Activist Judge Issues Ruling That DACA Program Must Continue [VIDEO]

Activist Judge Issues Ruling That DACA Program Must Continue [VIDEO]

President Trump’s move to end the Obama designed DACA program hit another snag when a D.C judge issued an order for the program to continue. 

A D.C. federal judge has delivered the toughest blow yet to Trump administration efforts to end deportation protections for young undocumented immigrants, ordering the government to continue the Obama-era program and — for the first time since announcing it would end — reopen it to new applicants.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates on Tuesday called the government’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program “virtually unexplained” and therefore “unlawful.” However, he stayed his ruling for 90 days to give the Department of Homeland Security a chance to provide more solid reasoning for ending the program.

So, he gave DHS and the Trump Administration an additional 90 days to “explain” why this program should be done away with. That’s something I guess. You can read the entire ruling here. 

Of course the media can’t help but notice that this judge was a Bush appointee as if that makes a case for ‘golly! even Republican judges hate Trump!’ or something.

DACA is a program that former President Obama put into place with one swipe of his handy dandy pen in 2012. It was ‘For the kids!’ they said. Uh huh… Obama’s program was designed to let minors who came into the country illegally request a two-year deferred action stay rather than be immediately deported. But there are specific requirements. 

Individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007.

Individuals also had to have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients could not have a criminal record.

It did not provide “legal status.” [Emphasis Added]

So, the requirement for the nearly 800,000 Dreamers is pretty interesting. *Side note – how did the Obama Administration know that there were exactly that many when they couldn’t even keep track of the weapons involved in ‘Fast and Furious?’ Hmmm…

Back on point. Here’s the problem I see with the DACA requirements.

  1. If they came to the U.S. ILLEGALLY what proof will any of them offer that can be verified?
  2. Sanctuary cities are all over the place, if those cities are refusing to cooperate with ICE now regarding criminals, what’s to stop them from providing proof of criminal record or lack thereof regarding any DREAMERS?

Here’s something else to consider. Just because a deferment may be granted does not automatically grant them a green card or make one a legal citizen. Seems that little fact regarding the DACA program has gotten lost in the noise.

The timing of Judge Bates ruling is interesting given the fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the DACA case last month to allow the process to move forward the way it should.

Not only that, but the timing is also suspect given that the Trump Administration appears before the Supreme Court today to defend the legality of the Travel Ban implemented last year to block entry into the U.S. of people coming from Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iran.

There are two additional things to consider regarding the DACA program and Judge Bate’s ruling.

Earlier this year, Trump released his “four pillars” of immigration reform, which included a provision for legal status for DACA recipients and others who would be eligible for DACA status. The White House estimated that total to be 1.8 million people. The Senate rejected the plan. [Emphasis Added]

And

Keep in mind, that even Obama said this program was temporary. But now, people want it to be in place forever and when you have an activist judge rule that the program MUST be expanded if the government doesn’t come up with an acceptable (in his opinion) alternative. That’s casting a pretty wide net over what is a relatively small pool of eligible Dreamers isn’t it?

So was this ruling really a blow to the Trump Administration? Or will the DOJ and DHS win the appeal with their clarification? We’ll see in 90 days.

Written by

11 Comments
  • Kate says:

    Infuriating.

  • Doug Purdie says:

    This issue has me so totally confused. Someone please explain (in plain English, not Legaleze) to me how a lower federal court judge can deny the POTUS ability to cease a program that the SCOTUS previously ruled unconstitutional?

    • SDN says:

      Don’t leave the Senate that confirmed him out of this. More than enough Republicans (not sure if this was before or after “Jumpin Jim Jeffords” gave the Senate majority back to the Disloyal Opposition) to have stopped this with a filibuster.

  • GWB says:

    A D.C. federal judge has delivered the toughest blow yet
    Ummm, well, no, not really. You see, the court has ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE JURISDICTION in this matter. So, it’s not really a tough blow at all. Trump can simply say “so you’ve got an opinion, too?” and press on.

    he gave DHS and the Trump Administration an additional 90 days to “explain” why this program should be done away with
    Ummm, no, he’s trying to keep it in the news for another 90 days. Because they don’t have to explain S#!T to this judge.

    How many troops does the DC court have again?

    the Trump Administration appears before the Supreme Court today to defend the legality of the Travel Ban
    Yeah, this is another one that should be an open and shut case of Separation Of Powers. It’s well within the purview of the Executive branch, even according to extant law, to manage immigration. The SCOTUS should slap that one down in less than 10 minutes. Heck, I’ll even write the opinion for them – should take fewer than 4 paragraphs, given the folderol you have to write at the beginning and end.

    The problem is that ANYONE, but especially Trump, is even giving these folks any oxygen. The court is in violation of the Separation Of Powers on DACA. Period.

    • SDN says:

      Troops? They don’t need troops. They have enough RINOs quietly backed by Vichy Mitchy to “bend over across the aisle” if President Trump follows the Constitution and tells the court to get bent.

      The question is how many troops and “unorganized militia” does the Constitution have?

  • Rodney Stanton says:

    Liberal Judge was appointed by a progressive President in ’01. What was the left’s name? Hint his liberal dad had also been President.

    • SDN says:

      Don’t leave the Senate that confirmed him out of this. More than enough Republicans (not sure if this was before or after “Jumpin Jim Jeffords” gave the Senate majority back to the Disloyal Opposition) to have stopped this with a filibuster.

  • Will Munny says:

    Remember Bush saw his record high approval ratings collapse as he pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens. His appointing an amnesty friendly judge isn’t a surprise, it’s totally expected.

  • DEEBEE says:

    SCOTUS examining whether to put bounds on POTUS, until now unfettered power of national security.
    SCOTUS wanna-bes examining POTUS unfettered power of executive order
    Fascinating how limited government is supposed to work when the man of orange is POTUS

  • richb313 says:

    This Judge just made a completely boneheaded ruling that will force Trump to ignore this ruling if he wants to retain any Executive Power. There is no legal recognized basis for this ruling but it is the Judicial usurping the Executive by Fiat.

  • WILLIAM J FRANCIS says:

    It’s time to start disbanding these courts who are so far out in left field they have no ability to function.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram has returned invalid data.