• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Rules Acting DHS Secretary Did Not Have Authority To Suspend DACA Program

Old 'N Chill

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
26,143
Reaction score
44,374
Location
USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a just ruling, too bad there even needed to be a ruling. Trump does not honor his oath as president or the rule of law. Mafia.

A federal judge in New York City says Chad Wolf was not legally serving as the acting secretary of homeland security when he issued a memo in July that stopped new applicants to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Therefore, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York ruled Saturday, Wolf's memo is invalid.

It's the latest court ruling against the Trump administration's attempts to undo the Obama-era program that currently protects about 640,000 young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

In June, the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's attempt in 2017 to cancel DACA, saying the administration's reasoning was "arbitrary and capricious." In July, a federal court in Maryland told the administration to start accepting new applicants.

Instead, Wolf issued a memo on July 28 that, Judge Garaufis wrote, "effectively suspended DACA" pending a Department of Homeland Security review. Wolf's memo said the administration would reject new applicants. It also said the administration would renew protections for immigrants who already have them, but for just one year, instead of two years, which was the previous policy.

Judge Garaufis said Wolf's appointment violated the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

He ordered the parties of the case to schedule conferences with the court by Sunday to inform the judge of any planned motions in response to the ruling.

"Today's decision is another win for DACA recipients and those who have been waiting years to apply to the program for the first time," wrote Karen Tumlin of the Justice Action Center, who represents DACA recipients in the case.

 
The old fun game of "Obama's administration began an unconstitutional program and the following administration doesn't have the authority to stop something we have already ruled to be unconstitutional."
 
The old fun game of "Obama's administration began an unconstitutional program and the following administration doesn't have the authority to stop something we have already ruled to be unconstitutional."
Do you have a source for the quote you used?
 
Funny, Links back to your own quote.
So you have nothing to support your statement saying the "Obama's administration began an unconstitutional program "

Got it. It is your opinion that DACA was an unconstitutional program.
 
It also happens to be the correct one.
Correct in that it is not shared by many.

Now, if you could provide links to where the courts have ruled that DACA was unconstitutional you would have something.
 
Didn't trump say he supported the DACA kids be given a path to citizenship, didn't the Republicans say the same. So why hasn't it been dealt with, oh wait now I remember, when the Dems tried trump added on funding for the Wall as a condition, yes, it is called exstorsion. So, next year under a new President it will finally get dealt with.
 
Correct in that it is not shared by many.

Now, if you could provide links to where the courts have ruled that DACA was unconstitutional you would have something.

You can look up for yourself the legal details of DACA. I'm not your personal assistant and could care less if you prefer to remain ignorant. In the meantime, here are some quotes from Obama about his authority to change immigration law via executive order.

“I’m president, I’m not king”
“I’m the president of the United States, not the emperor of the United States.”
“I can’t just make the laws up myself.”
“There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
 
Didn't trump say he supported the DACA kids be given a path to citizenship, didn't the Republicans say the same. So why hasn't it been dealt with, oh wait now I remember, when the Dems tried trump added on funding for the Wall as a condition, yes, it is called exstorsion.
Yes, border security was a condition for amnesty. That seems like a normal request.

So, next year under a new President it will finally get dealt with.
Good luck passing amnesty without any additional security with a Republican Senate.
 
You can look up for yourself the legal details of DACA. I'm not your personal assistant and could care less if you prefer to remain ignorant. In the meantime, here are some quotes from Obama about his authority to change immigrant law via executive order.

“I’m president, I’m not king”
“I’m the president of the United States, not the emperor of the United States.”
“I can’t just make the laws up myself.”
“There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
sigh.
So you are one who will not support their statements. Got it.
Take your pick of the articles regarding DACA.

 
So you are one who will not support their statements. Got it.
Hah, I'm the one?! Sigh, so you're the one who can't defend your positions and demands everyone to spoon feed you basic information because you're incapable of doing basic research.

Take your pick of the articles regarding DACA.
Try reading your articles or finding a neutral source.

Under what authority was DACA implemented?
 
Yes, border security was a condition for amnesty. That seems like a normal request.


Good luck passing amnesty without any additional security with a Republican Senate.
Think you might be very surprised that Republicans without trump in the WH are nit big in the idea of a Wall. Border security is not dependent on a huge wall being built, you know that right?
 
Hah, I'm the one?! Sigh, so you're the one who can't defend your positions and demands everyone to spoon feed you basic information because you're incapable of doing basic research.


Try reading your articles or finding a neutral source.

Your can have your opinion. No matter how misguided it is.
You said DACA was unconstitutional. I called you on it. You are unable to prove that it is.
Come back when you have something that defends your position. If not, have a whatever day.
.
 
Think you might be very surprised that Republicans without trump in the WH are nit big in the idea of a Wall. Border security is not dependent on a huge wall being built, you know that right?
Doesn't matter what type of security is implemented... but, it will need to be negotiated if you want any chance of amnesty. Biden isn't getting amnesty through the Senate without McConnell getting additional security and he trusts a Biden/Harris will actually follow through. And even then he's likely to not provide amnesty to a Democrat administration under any circumstance. Which means you shouldn't hold your breath.
 
Your can have your opinion. No matter how misguided it is.
You misspelled correct. Odd.

You said DACA was unconstitutional. I called you on it. You are unable to prove that it is.
Come back when you have something that defends your position. If not, have a whatever day.
.
Yes, it is unconstitutional. Cite the constitutional authority for DACA. You can't, not even Obama could because there was never any legal authority for DACA. Come back when you can do so.
 
Doesn't matter what type of security is implemented. Biden isn't getting amnesty through the Senate without McConnell getting additional security and he trusts a Biden/Harris will actually follow through. Which means you shouldn't hold your breath.
Like I said, watch and see, the GOP will pass a DACA law to protect those that the guidelines apply to. Thinking you are going to be surprised how GOP will become far less obstructive without the Donald sitting in the WH, bet it happens next year. Are you against protecting those kids?
 
If it were already legal, why would they need to pass a law? I'm confused.
So some morons can't come along and kill it on a whim. Yes, you are. Are you against such a law???
 
I'm confused. You believe that somehow McConnell is going to pass a law that benefits Democrats without any concession and then you also seem to think the policy is legal, but needs legislation to make it legal.
You think passing a law covering DACA is good only for Democrats, hence bad for Republicans? Yes, you really are confused, watch it get passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom