PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on September 06, 2017, 11:32:06 AM
-
I'm surprised nobody has posted anything about this yet. Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that Trump was going to rescind DACA after 6 months. Trump is (rightfully) leaving it up to Congress to deal with but of course everyone is having a melt down over this and calling it "cruel" and any other thing they can think of. Here's a few points by Ben Shapiro:
The administration will stop consideration of new applications for legal status beginning today;
Those whose current permits expire between now and March 5, 2018 can apply for a new two-year permit. They must do so before October 5;
Some so-called DREAMers — people under the age of 16 and below the age of 31 brought into the country by parents before 2012 — will be granted new legal status. Others won’t.
Even after March 5 — the deadline for enforcement of immigration law, according to the Trump administration — the Trump White House says it won’t start deporting DREAMers in serious numbers, but will continue to follow the Obama administration’s focus on “criminals.”
http://www.dailywire.com/news/20625/trump-unveils-strategy-killing-obamas-executive-ben-shapiro
The article is worth the read.
The Washington State Attorney General and the New York Attorney General have announced plans to file a federal lawsuit to prevent Trump from doing this. This is silly because it's an executive order which, while having the full effect of a law, is in fact not a law and can be rescinded, modified, or changed by the next, or any, president. I wouldn't be surprised if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals somehow finds a "legal justification" to halt Trump from rescinding this.
-
Of course the 9th Circus will jump in on this, as probably some unknown judge in Hawaii.
Somehow the progressives have come to believe that any executive order written by Obama was LAW.
And we will sit back and watch congress totally fuck this up.
-
And here you go:
http://www.kcbd.com/story/36303357/15-states-sue-trump-on-rollback-of-immigrant-protections
Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit in New York challenging President Donald Trump's plan to end a program protecting young immigrants from deportation.
The suit was first announced by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who called Trump's act "a dark time for our country."
Plaintiffs include New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia
On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the program, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, will end in six months to give Congress time to find a legislative solution for the immigrants.
The participants were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families who overstayed visas.
-
I am ashamed my Commonwealth, PA, and the far left, Obamabot, Tom Wolf is one of the illegal "plaintiffs". This is Constitutional, Federal, immigration law. It is something the states ceded to the Federal government as one of its legitimate powers. It's not like it is some wild social engineering scam like most of the other Fed crap, but a legitimate, important law.
-
And here you go:
http://www.kcbd.com/story/36303357/15-states-sue-trump-on-rollback-of-immigrant-protections
The only correct response by a judge is to throw the lawsuit out due to the plaintiffs not having standing. I'll have to look, but I'm curious if a state has ever filed suit against a president for rescinding an executive order.
The ironic part of them filing the lawsuit is that nobody is actually being deported from this, those who meet the fairly loose criteria can still get renewed permits and the only ones who won't get permits are those who apply starting today and onward.
-
The only correct response by a judge is to throw the lawsuit out due to the plaintiffs not having standing. I'll have to look, but I'm curious if a state has ever filed suit against a president for rescinding an executive order.
The ironic part of them filing the lawsuit is that nobody is actually being deported from this, those who meet the fairly loose criteria can still get renewed permits and the only ones who won't get permits are those who apply starting today and onward.
Doesn't matter. The judge in Hawaii stopped an executive action in which the President had full rights to enact as per the Constitution and federal law. He didn't even address the law in his opinion.
I don't disagree with you on the legal aspect, but these progressives will throw everything against the wall and hope to get the help of activist judges to back them up.
If Trump came out tomorrow in opposition to the second amendment the progressives would be putting up a fight to support it. This whole charade is about Resist!.
-
If I were the executive, I would just go ahead and march forward with my agenda, no matter what a court in HI, CA, or anywhere else said. Courts are a check on actions which have been already taken, not a brake on the administration of national policy. With the exception of the SCOTUS when acting as a litmus for legislation(like ACA). Even the SCOTUS gets it wrong often enough that they should only be heard when there is a failure of the lower courts to accurately and timely adjudicate.
This crap about grating a stay on an order is way overplayed, and needs to stop. Judicial history in the US shows that a stay or Estoppel was a needed function ONLY when the implementation of an order would have immediate and detrimental effects to the country as a whole. Now, any judge on any fed bench in any part of the country can just use his/her political will to shape policy. NOT what the courts were designed to do, and again, if I were Trump, I would ignore them all until it gets to SCOTUS. Go ahead, make my day.