Sessions rescinds DACA

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

DACA is unconstitutional.  Just another of Obama's EOs that, while he may have felt good doing it, bode ill for the US.  It's simply an end run around legal immigration, and a signal to potential illegals that it's ok to come to America, for you can then become legal.  Total BS, compared to those who choose to perform immigration the legal and lawful way.

 

Another bit of hype I don't understand:  

Quote

Brannon estimates that repealing DACA would also hit the U.S. government by deporting taxpayers. He forecasts a potential $60 billion loss in tax revenue to the federal government and $280 billion hit to economic growth over 10 years.

 

If DACA affects 800,000 young, illegal immigrants, then how is it that repealing DACA now will cause the loss of $6 billion in taxes per year?  I haven't seen any factual numbers, but there is no logical way that 100% of those 800,000 DACA folks are actually working and paying taxes.  And using the numbers quoted above, that means that all 800,000 DACA folks who (if they suddenly went away) would cause a deficit of $6bil per year, would mean that each of them is earning over $50,000 annually.  Not likely.  

 

So along with me not buying all the numbers being thrown about, I also don't support a program that encourages illegal immigration.  There are laws in this country that allow for legal immigration.  I think they should be enforced, like they are in so many other countries.

 

Quote sourceL http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/05/news/economy/daca-us-economy/index.html?sr=fbCNN090517economy1241PMStory 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I agree with you on one point... it WAS cowardly.  A cowardly use of executive powers, when the proper use of our legal system would never have worked.  Yet another way Obama cheated the US.  Sad that he was allowed two terms to bring this country down.

 

4 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

no questions, no details. Will have to rely on "fake news" for those! Cowardly Donnie. Sessions a creep as Donnie beat up on him, yet he delivers the message.

 

[Dashinka 24,448]

Don't worry, Bob Furgeson is on the case.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-state-attorney-general-vows-to-sue-trump-if-he-rolls-back-daca/article/2633356

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Don't worry, Bob Furgeson is on the case.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-state-attorney-general-vows-to-sue-trump-if-he-rolls-back-daca/article/2633356

So how can he sue for doing away with something? These guys irritate the ####### out of me. They want to sue for EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dashinka 24,448]

6 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So how can he sue for doing away with something? These guys irritate the ####### out of me. They want to sue for EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know what you mean.   It I am sure he can find an activist judge to agree with him.  This is the whole issue with doing things outside the Constitution.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Suing someone doesn't always mean damages (i.e. money). Suing is how matters that are up for legal debate as to the rights and obligations of parties get determined by, for example, declaratory relief. It's how the system is supposed to work.

 

Everybody hates lawyers, but that's okay.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

The path may be politically well chosen between the poles but who picked the poles we slip between?  Nothing prevented Congress from fixing this problem before today, do you think this crisis is going to change how effective those folks are at their job?  

 This choice lacks any moral courage to do the right thing for the 800,000 youngsters who have their life put on hold after the Federal government asked them to come forward and enroll. 

Nothing prevented a fix but inertia and cowardice. Immigration is the stickiest wicket out there, no matter who controls the reins in the White House and Congress. No matter what Washington does, a large section of the electorate will be ticked off. It's a lose-lose scenario that requires someone (really, multiple someones) to have the courage to do something definitive and meaningful, even if it means falling on his or her own sword.

[Dashinka 24,448]

1 minute ago, elmcitymaven said:

Suing someone doesn't always mean damages (i.e. money). Suing is how matters that are up for legal debate as to the rights and obligations of parties get determined by, for example, declaratory relief. It's how the system is supposed to work.

 

Everybody hates lawyers, but that's okay.

I don't disagree, but it is interesting how can one sue to maintain a previous administrations EO that was questionable in the first place.  Since this wasn't a duly passed and signed law, wouldn't a court deciding to hear this case be approaching lawmaking as well?  However, I am not a lawyer, so I guess anything is possible.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

21 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Suing someone doesn't always mean damages (i.e. money). Suing is how matters that are up for legal debate as to the rights and obligations of parties get determined by, for example, declaratory relief. It's how the system is supposed to work.

 

Everybody hates lawyers, but that's okay.

 

No one hates you Maves. You are our Susan Dey from LA Law.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree, but it is interesting how can one sue to maintain a previous administrations EO that was questionable in the first place.  Since this wasn't a duly passed and signed law, wouldn't a court deciding to hear this case be approaching lawmaking as well?  However, I am not a lawyer, so I guess anything is possible.

Executive orders have the full force of law, through power that is delegated to the president either through the Constitution (Article II powers) or under some statute. As such, they are subject to judicial review, like any other justiciable matter (i.e, the parties must have standing, and the case must be ripe for review and not moot).

 

The argument by those who believe that DACA is constitutional is that the order was issued under an Article II power, specifically that the president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Now, what "faithful execution" is can be a matter of some debate, hence where we are right now. If you think DACA is constitutional (and the courts have repeatedly ruled that is the case -- the DAPA case and the proposed DACA extension case are not the same thing), then you might agree that the President has the right to determine who should be in the country legally. That is what Trump's travel ban was about, after all. On the other hand, by that reasoning, Trump would be within his powers to "faithfully execute" the law by saying these people cannot be here. That is why judicial review is appropriate here. 

 

Of course if Congress could pull its head out of its fundament, that would be ever so helpful.

[Boiler 45,411]

If the Dems were really that bothered they would have done something when they had control, they did not, we can speculate why.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

If the Dems were really that bothered they would have done something when they had control, they did not, we can speculate why.

I seem to remember that there were earnest folks on both sides of the aisles trying to get effective Immigration reform.  A handful of Republicans in Congress killed it.  Buth then how well are Republicans doing with both houses and the White House? 

 

 

Microsoft vows to protect its Dreamers in court

by Julia Horowitz   @juliakhorowitzSeptember 5, 2017: 1:28 PM ET

 

 

Microsoft is vowing to defend its Dreamer employees in court if the government tries to deport them.

Brad Smith, the company president, said in a blog post Tuesday that President Trump's decision to end the program known as DACA is "a big step back for our entire country." The company said it knows of 39 employees covered by the protection.

 

"If the government seeks to deport any one of them, we will provide and pay for their legal counsel," he wrote.

Smith said the company will also explore whether it can intervene directly in any such case.

"In short, if Dreamers who are our employees are in court, we will be by their side," Smith said.

DACA allows undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to live, work and study in the country without fear of deportation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave Congress six months to act before anyone loses the ability to live in the United States.

Related: These men and women expect to lose their jobs once DACA is repealed

Microsoft's (MSFT, Tech30) Smith said Congress should pass legislation that protects DACA, even before it tackles tax reform.

"We say this even though Microsoft, like many other companies, cares greatly about modernizing the tax system and making it fairer and more competitive," he said. "But we need to put the humanitarian needs of these 800,000 people on the legislative calendar before a tax bill."

Top tech CEOs have strongly opposed the ending of DACA. Both Smith and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella signed a letter last week urging President Trump to preserve it.

On Tuesday, Smith reinforced the company's support for the policy.

"The Dreamers are part of our nation's fabric. They belong here," Smith said.

[Boiler 45,411]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

I seem to remember that there were earnest folks on both sides of the aisles trying to get effective Immigration reform.  A handful of Republicans in Congress killed it.  Buth then how well are Republicans doing with both houses and the White House? 

There needs to be Comprehensive Reform, not Amnesty.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, Boiler said:

There needs to be Comprehensive Reform, not Amnesty.

Agreed and the 800K kids left hanging till Congress gets its act together? 

[Boiler 45,411]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

Agreed and the 800K kids left hanging till Congress gets its act together? 

Kids?

 

DACA applied up to 31 some will be approaching 40 by now.

 

Amnesty has been shown not to work.