No DACA deal, Push now for strict immigration restrictions

[StLucieBengal]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28934/no-deal-trump-signals-and-end-compromise-pushes-emily-zanotti’

Finally. It’s about time we focus on the things we can just do with 51 votes. Ted Cruz has mentioned this with other issues as well.

Quote:NO DEAL: Trump Signals An End To DACA Compromise, Pushes GOP To Pass Strict Immigration Restrictions
Emily ZanottiApril 1, 2018
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with bipartisan members of Congress to discuss school and community safety in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018.
Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Sunday morning, President Donald Trump signaled to reporters that Congressional Democrats had wasted their opportunity to come to the bargaining table over comprehensive immigration reform, and that the time for a deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Act had passed.

He also encouraged Republicans to pass strict anti-immigration legislation, likely including increased funding for Trump's planned border wall.

Trump Tweeted early Sunday that he was growing tired of Democratic immigration policies, including the nonsensical border patrol "catch-and-release" program instituted under President Barack Obama. He punctuated his social media missive with the words, "NO DACA DEAL" in all capital letters.


According to the Washington Post, whose reporters waited to speak to the President and his wife outside Easter services at an Episcopalian church local to the couple's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, the President was very willing to elaborate on his statement, accusing Congressional Democrats of standing in the way of any potential deal to protect past and future DACA recipients.

“A lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of DACA,” Trump said, according to WaPo. “They had a great chance. The Democrats blew it.”

He continued, “Mexico has got to help us at the border. They flow right through Mexico; they send them into the United States. It can't happen like that way anymore.”

The so-called "nuclear option" would allow Republicans to pass immigration reform in the Senate with only a simple majority of 51 votes, but would require the GOP to destroy the filibuster -- something that could come back to haunt them in future administrations, and could mire a divided Congress.

DACA was due to expire on March 5, and in February, Republicans and Democrats agreed to discuss extending the measure permanently through legislation as part of more comprehensive talks on the omnibus spending bill. But Republicans and Democrats were able to reach an agreement to fund the government without taking on DACA, and now, DACA recipients are protected only by an injunction that prevents the Trump Administration from ending the program while a lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to end DACA moves through the court system.

Congressional Republicans have, however, been slow to consider major anti-immigration legislation, so it's not clear they will heed Trump's threat.

[GMDino]

April Fools!  

[GMDino]

And yet this could have all been over and agreed on if the POTUS wasn't a wet wad crybaby.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/daca-rejected-deals-trump/index.html

Quote:President Donald Trump argued Friday that Democrats have stood in the way of DACA recipients gaining permanent legal status, while casting Republicans as would-be saviors.

"The Republicans are with you, they want to get your situation taken care of," Trump said at the White House, as he complained about the $1.3 trillion spending bill program, speaking directly to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. "The Democrats fought us, they just fought every single inch of the way. They did not want DACA in this bill."

But as Congress left town increasingly unlikely to pass any major immigration legislation before November's midterms, the White House has repeatedly rejected deals to fix DACA, the Obama-era policy he ended then implored Congress to save.

Here's a timeline of DACA under Trump:

September 5, 2017: Trump announced an end to the DACA program, which protected young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation. President Barack Obama instituted the work permits and protections in 2012.
September 13: Trump has dinner with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi at the White House, after which the two Democrats say they agreed in broad strokes to a DACA-border security deal that doesn't include Trump's wall. Trump initially seems on the same page, then the White House and Republicans walk it back. Trump tweets about how "good, educated and accomplished" DACA recipients are.
October 8: The White House unveils what it calls its priorities for a DACA deal, a laundry list of aggressive conservative immigration measures that Democrats and a handful of Republicans rejected as rife with poison pills.
November 1: After a terrorist attack in New York City, Trump begins to emphasize ending the diversity visa lottery and family-based migration.
November 2: Republican lawmakers meet with Trump at the White House and rule out attaching any DACA deal to year-end funding bill before a possible shutdown.
December 21: Lawmakers pass government funding into the new year and leave town without a deal, despite Democrats' previous pledges to not go home without one.
January 9: Trump holds bipartisan meeting at the White House that cameras televise for nearly an hour. He indicates multiple times he is willing to compromise on DACA, despite some contradictions within the meetings, and says "when this group comes back -- hopefully with an agreement -- this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I'm signing it." The so-called "four pillars" also come out of this meeting -- that a deal shall include DACA, family-based migration, the diversity lottery and border security.
January 9: Federal court puts hold on Trump's plan to end DACA, ordering renewals of permits to continue but no new applications.
January 11: After months of meetings, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Lindsey Graham go to the White House to propose to Trump a compromise worked out by their group of six bipartisan senators. The offer includes a path to citizenship for eligible young immigrants, the first year of Trump's border wall funding, ending the diversity visa lottery and reallocating those visas, and restricting the ability of former DACA recipients to sponsor family.
Trump and the White House invite hardline Republicans to the meeting and he rejects the deal, making his now-infamous "shithole countries" comment in the process.
January 19: House before a government funding deadline, Schumer and Trump meet for lunch at the White House. Schumer offered Trump the upwards of $20 billion he wanted for his border wall in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for the eligible immigrant population. The deal is rejected, and government shuts down at midnight.
January 22: Government reopens after Republicans Graham and Jeff Flake secure a public commitment from Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell to hold a future immigration floor vote. Bipartisan negotiations resume.
January 25: White House releases its proposal for a DACA deal under the four pillars, which includes a generous path to citizenship for eligible immigrants, but also a number of impossible-to-swallow provisions for Democrats and some Republicans under the auspices of family-based migration and border security.
February 14: A bipartisan group of senators unveils a compromise plan, which includes $25 billion for the border, a pathway to citizenship for the immigrants, cuts to one slim category of family-based migration and prevents the parents who brought their children to the US illegally from ever being sponsored for citizenship by those children.
February 15: White House goes all out to stop the bipartisan compromise deal, which fails to get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, with 54 votes.
February 26: Supreme Court declines to take up an immediate appeal of court decisions resuming DACA renewals, ensuring no deportations of DACA recipients for months and taking pressure of Congress.
March 14: With roughly a week to go before the major government spending package known as the omnibus must pass, White House suddenly signals a desire for a DACA-border deal. Publicly, the White House says they oppose a temporary fix.
March 22: Congress passes an omnibus without DACA, virtually ensuring it will not be addressed before midterms.
March 23: Trump signs the omnibus, rails on Democrats for, he says, not caring about DACA.

Even if you agree with getting rid of DACA you should at LEAST deride him for blaming others for it's demise.  If HE wants to be "tough" on immigration he should take credit for it.  But he's just playing politics:  Make the rabid base happy by talking about all the "criminals" he is protecting them from and at the same time trying to make the people affected by DACA believe that it was the Democrats that let them down.

He's a moron.  But there are enough morons who believe him to make him dangerous.

[GMDino]

http://news.trust.org/item/20180418165240-uqorp

Quote:Push for 'Dreamer' immigration bill gains steam in U.S. House
by Reuters

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - A bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday urged Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule debate on bills to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation, in a move aimed at reviving a push that sputtered in the Senate in February.


Backers said they had 240 House members on board so far pushing for debate of four different bills to replace the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which Republican President Donald Trump ended on March 5.


Under the House members' plan, the measure with the most votes would win and be sent to the Senate. November's congressional elections could contribute to an already difficult path, however.


The bill many lawmakers think is most popular was written by Republican Will Hurd and Democrat Peter Aguilar. It would protect "Dreamer" immigrants from deportation and strengthen border security, although not with a Southwest border wall Trump wants.


DACA, established in 2012 by Democratic then-President Barack Obama, protected illegal immigrants brought into the United States by their parents when they were children. Around 800,000 "Dreamers" have participated.


With Trump's action, their legal status is in limbo pending the outcome of court battles.


Trump has urged Congress to write legislation giving these immigrants permanent protections, but he has failed to reach a compromise with Congress.


"It is time to have a full debate for the American public and have the entire country decide what border security should look like, what a permanent fix for Dreamers should look like," said Republican Representative Jeff Denham, who represents a central California district with a large Hispanic population.


In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton beat Trump in his district, leading to speculation that Denham, like Republicans in similar areas, could face a tough re-election.


At least 218 votes are needed in the 435-member House to pass legislation. With five vacancies, slightly fewer are necessary.


But there are difficulties, even with the 240 votes supporting this latest immigration push.


Only 50 of the House's 237 Republicans are behind the effort so far, with nearly all 190 Democrats on board.


That presents political problems for Ryan and his leadership team, which bridles at passing legislation not backed by a majority of fellow Republicans.


Representative Linda Sanchez, a member of House Democratic leadership, told reporters that a bill to take care of Dreamers could pass the House if Ryan allowed it, but that opponents were blocking a debate.


"One hundred of the most conservative members in that (Republican) caucus are making policy for the rest of the United States," Sanchez said. (Reporting By Richard Cowan; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

[StLucieBengal]

(04-19-2018, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://news.trust.org/item/20180418165240-uqorp

So house members up for re-election are supporting a deal the president has offered that senate dems continue to block. Besides there will. Never be DACA only bill. If they want to protect DACA the they vote for ending chain migration, the wall, and the visa lottery. At this. Point. They should also add on the raise act. Go nuclear in the senate and make the changes the good, decent, normal people have wanted.

[GMDino]

(04-19-2018, 12:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So house members up for re-election are supporting a deal the president has offered that senate dems continue to block.  Besides there will. Never be DACA only bill.    If they want to protect DACA the they vote for ending chain migration, the wall, and the visa lottery.   At this. Point. They should also add on the raise act.  Go nuclear in the senate and make the changes the good, decent, normal people have wanted.

I do wonder if you ever read the posts or just have a copy & paste answer ready for every topic.

Quote:Trump has urged Congress to write legislation giving these immigrants permanent protections, but he has failed to reach a compromise with Congress.



"It is time to have a full debate for the American public and have the entire country decide what border security should look like, what a permanent fix for Dreamers should look like," said Republican Representative Jeff Denham, who represents a central California district with a large Hispanic population.


In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton beat Trump in his district, leading to speculation that Denham, like Republicans in similar areas, could face a tough re-election.


At least 218 votes are needed in the 435-member House to pass legislation. With five vacancies, slightly fewer are necessary.


But there are difficulties, even with the 240 votes supporting this latest immigration push.


Only 50 of the House's 237 Republicans are behind the effort so far, with nearly all 190 Democrats on board.


That presents political problems for Ryan and his leadership team, which bridles at passing legislation not backed by a majority of fellow Republicans.

You literally pulled one phrase: "speculation that Denham, like Republicans in similar areas, could face a tough re-election." and tried to reframe the entire article to Democrats obstructing the bill.  That takes chutzpah!  Kudos!  

[StLucieBengal]

You are not going to get all the immigration feel good goodies without eating your peas. If you want to protect DACA you are going to have to come around to a strict immigration policy.

The president should just start deporting DACA, starting with the oldest until congress steps up. The changes needs to come from them and for too long congress has given away power to the executive to patch instead of real changes to laws.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-19-2018, 12:43 PM)GMDino Wrote:

I do wonder if you ever read the posts or just have a copy & paste answer ready for every topic.





You literally pulled one phrase: "speculation that Denham, like Republicans in similar areas, could face a tough re-election." and tried to reframe the entire article to Democrats obstructing the bill.  That takes chutzpah!  Kudos!  

The house has never been the problem. I also believe I said senate dems. But please don’t let that get in the way of your story.

[GMDino]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/daca-dreamers-trump.html

Quote:U.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules



In the biggest setback yet for the Trump administration in its attempt to end a program that shields some undocumented young adults from deportation, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the protections must stay in place and that the government must resume accepting new applications.

Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that the administration’s decision to terminate the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was based on the “virtually unexplained” grounds that the program was “unlawful.”

The judge stayed his decision for 90 days and gave the Department of Homeland Security, which administers the program, the opportunity to better explain its reasoning for canceling it. If the department fails to do so, it “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications,” Judge Bates said in the decision.

The ruling was the third in recent months against the Trump administration’s rollback of DACA. Federal judges in Brooklyn and in San Francisco each issued injunctions ordering that the program remain in place. But neither of those decisions required the government to accept new applications.

Judge Bates, who was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2001, described the Trump administration’s decision to phase out DACA as “arbitrary and capricious because the department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

The Obama administration established the DACA program on the premise that children brought to the United States as children should be treated as low priorities for deportation.

About 700,000 of the young undocumented immigrants — who are known as Dreamers — have signed up but must renew their DACA status every two years. The program also gives them the opportunity to work legally in the United States. Immigrants must be 15 years old to apply.

The Trump administration officially rescinded DACA in March, but the previous court orders allowed the Dreamers to file their renewal applications as challenges to the Trump administration’s move made it through the legal system.

The Supreme Court in late February declined an unusual White House request that it immediately decide whether the Trump administration can shut down the program.


In a statement released Tuesday night, the Justice Department said that it would “continue to vigorously defend” the legality of its decision to end the DACA program and that it looked “forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”

The Department of Homeland Security “acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner,” the Justice Department statement said. “Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens.”

Immigration advocates hailed Judge Bates’s ruling, saying it highlighted the failure of the administration to justify the program’s termination.
“Either President Trump finds another way to end the program, tossing hundreds of thousands of young people into deportation proceedings,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group in Washington, “or he works with Republicans and Democrats to find a legislative solution.”

In trying to close the program, the Trump administration argued that Mr. Obama had abused his authority and circumvented Congress to create DACA. President Trump urged Congress to find a legislative remedy to replace it and expressed support for giving the Dreamers a path to citizenship.

Despite broad bipartisan support for the beneficiaries of the program, Congress has failed to agree on a solution. Mr. Trump recently has wavered in his support of the young immigrants — at times even saying he would not agree to any deal to back them — as he called for a tough crackdown on illegal immigration and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.

In January, however, Judge William Alsup of the Federal District Court in San Francisco ordered that Dreamers must be allowed to renew their status. That lawsuit was filed by the University of California, which is led by Janet Napolitano, who was the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security when the program began.

The next month, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn decided in favor of attorneys general from 15 states and several advocacy groups that sued to block the DACA rollback.

Under Judge Bates’s ruling, unless the administration can justify its decision within 90 days, the cancellation of the program will be rescinded.

The latest lawsuit was brought by the N.A.A.C.P. as well as Princeton University and Microsoft.

“Princeton higher education and our country benefit from the talent and aspirations that Dreamers bring to our communities,” Christopher L. Eisgruber, the university president, said in a statement. “We continue to urge Congress to enact a permanent solution.”

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, said that Judge Bates’s ruling, if upheld on appeal, would “benefit tens of thousands of Dreamers.”

Hasan Shafiqullah, director of the immigration law unit of the Legal Aid Society of New York, said the ruling ushered in hope, especially for younger siblings of DACA recipients who, as of last September were ineligible to apply because they were too young.

In three months’ time, they might be able to submit a new application, Mr. Shafiqullah said, “and at last be able to come out of the shadows, register for DACA, and — like their older siblings — more fully integrate into the fabric of our society.”

[Griever]

(04-25-2018, 08:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/daca-dreamers-trump.html

so much winning! 

[*PhilHos*]

(04-25-2018, 08:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/daca-dreamers-trump.html

I thought the program had an expiration date and it was encumbent upon Trump to either extend it or create a whole new program.

Even if I thought wrong, can a judge do this? It feels wrong to me that a judge can force a governmental program to continue or cease to be cancelled. Isn't that only the purview of the President and/or Congress?

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2018, 12:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I thought the program had an expiration date and it was encumbent upon Trump to either extend it or create a whole new program.

Even if I thought wrong, can a judge do this? It feels wrong to me that a judge can force a governmental program to continue or cease to be cancelled. Isn't that only the purview of the President and/or Congress?

I actually don't get this. I don't understand the court challenges to this or the Muslim ban. Both seem, to me anyway, well within the purview of the Executive's Constitutional authority. I think both actions by Trump were terrible policy decisions, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.

As to the purview of the court, if the action to cancel was unconstitutional, then the courts can absolutely reverse that action. I just don't agree that it was.

[Yojimbo]

(04-25-2018, 12:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I thought the program had an expiration date and it was encumbent upon Trump to either extend it or create a whole new program.

Even if I thought wrong, can a judge do this? It feels wrong to me that a judge can force a governmental program to continue or cease to be cancelled. Isn't that only the purview of the President and/or Congress?

Judges are part of government, they are the third branch along with congressional and executive. I’m not sure where their powers stand on executive orders though.

(04-25-2018, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually don't get this. I don't understand the court challenges to this or the Muslim ban. Both seem, to me anyway, well within the purview of the Executive's Constitutional authority. I think both actions by Trump were terrible policy decisions, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.

As to the purview of the court, if the action to cancel was unconstitutional, then the courts can absolutely reverse that action. I just don't agree that it was.

The travel ban has been struck down due to its unconstitutional discrimination against a religion. That decision isn’t based on the language of the ban, but on Trump’s own tweets.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually don't get this. I don't understand the court challenges to this or the Muslim ban. Both seem, to me anyway, well within the purview of the Executive's Constitutional authority. I think both actions by Trump were terrible policy decisions, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.

As to the purview of the court, if the action to cancel was unconstitutional, then the courts can absolutely reverse that action. I just don't agree that it was.

It’s the courts legislating. This is a problem. Doesn’t matter the current topic, the courts need reined in badly.

Same for executive orders, they need pulled back as well, and force the congress to do its job and write and enact legislation.

DACA was unconstitutional. It’s absurd these judges are protecting this nonsense.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 02:43 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Judges are part of government, they are the third branch along with congressional and executive. I’m not sure where their powers stand on executive orders though.


The travel ban has been struck down due to its unconstitutional discrimination against a religion. That decision isn’t based on the language of the ban, but on Trump’s own tweets.

1. Judges can not legislate. They are over reaching. Not yo mention forcing and unconstitutional executive order.

2. Using trumps tweets is a joke. Executive branch has the authority to close the border to any non citizen.

[Griever]

(04-25-2018, 02:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s the courts legislating.  This is a problem.  Doesn’t matter the current topic, the courts need reined in badly.  

Same for executive orders, they need pulled back as well, and force the congress to do its job and write and enact legislation.  

DACA was unconstitutional.  It’s absurd these judges are protecting this nonsense.

are you including trumps EO's, or just referring to Obamas use of EO's?

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 02:54 PM)Griever Wrote: are you including trumps EO's, or just referring to Obamas use of EO's?

The executive order in general. I prefer less of them and more actual legislation. Congress has given away power to the executive branch since the Woodrow Wilson days. Executive writes regulations, chooses what laws to enforce, its madness.

Unfortunately because congress is inepet it’s the only way things happen.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-25-2018, 02:43 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The travel ban has been struck down due to its unconstitutional discrimination against a religion. That decision isn’t based on the language of the ban, but on Trump’s own tweets.

If true, then the judge should be immediately stripped of his authority. Ok, that might be a bit harsh, but it's his job to determine if a LAW or exectuive order is constitutional, not if what people SAY about the law is consitutional. If the law, as written, passes constitutoinal merit, it shouldn't matter what ANYONE says about the law, a judge does not (or should not) have the authority to overturn it.

[Yojimbo]

(04-25-2018, 03:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If true, then the judge should be immediately stripped of his authority. Ok, that might be a bit harsh, but it's his job to determine if a LAW or exectuive order is constitutional, not if what people SAY about the law is consitutional. If the law, as written, passes constitutoinal merit, it shouldn't matter what ANYONE says about the law, a judge does not (or should not) have the authority to overturn it.

Actually judges are allowed to take all information into account when making a decision, including public statements.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-25-2018, 03:38 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Actually judges are allowed to take all information into account when making a decision, including public statements.

And I'm saying they shouldn't factor into the decision if a law is constitutional or not. If there's nothing wrong with the wording or the perceived effects of the law, then a judge should not be able to overturn it.