• 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!

Dreamer Arrested in INS Raid Claiming Protection Under DACA

ludin said:
YOu didn't read did you?

A three-judge panel ruled against the Obama administration on a 2-1 vote in Texas v. United States, upholding a lower court’s injunction against two programs. Obama created one of the programs, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, and expanded another, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA in a unilateral effort to reshape the U.S. immigration system after the 2014 midterm elections.

it was right there in the article :roll:
Click to expand...

Nope. Read again. They challenged DAPA and the expansion of "DACA" but not DACA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Nope. Read again. They challenged DAPA and the expansion of "DACA" but not DACA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I give up it was ruled unconstitutional have a nice day. right there in the article.
he can't expand it by himself. yes you need to read it again.

done. finished.

This kid will probably be sent back with his parents. we are a nation of laws.
all people are expected to live by those laws.

If I break the law I get whatever punishment comes my way. I don't get a free pass.
so under equal protection clause of the constitution others shouldn't either.

either way this kid is probably going back with his parents.
 
NotreDame said:
This is edifying but doesn't address the points I made in the post in which you responded to in your post above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

sure it does it shows that trump an undo the DACA as it was not an act of congress and it doesn't violate the constitution.
so you were wrong.
 
ludin said:
I give up it was ruled unconstitutional have a nice day. right there in the article.
he can't expand it by himself. yes you need to read it again.

done. finished.
Click to expand...

You need read the article because DAPA because article talks in reference to DAPA, and not DACA. DACA remains.

You are indeed done and finished as you can't even get right what the court did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mac77 said:
"A three-judge panel ruled against the Obama administration on a 2-1 vote in Texas v. United States, upholding a lower court’s injunction against two programs. Obama created one of the programs, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, and expanded another, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA in a unilateral effort to reshape the U.S. immigration system after the 2014 midterm elections. Texas and 25 other states sued the United States soon thereafter, in an attempt to halt the executive actions."
Click to expand...

Read it again man. DACA itself remains, the expansion of DACA was challenged. Or better yet, read the opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ludin said:
sure it does it shows that trump an undo the DACA as it was not an act of congress and it doesn't violate the constitution.
so you were wrong.
Click to expand...

That does not address the points I made in that post. I never contested Trump couldn't rescind DACA by EO. So, you are wrong for thinking you've actually addressed the points I made in that post you responded to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ludin said:
I give up it was ruled unconstitutional have a nice day. right there in the article.
he can't expand it by himself. yes you need to read it again.

done. finished.

This kid will probably be sent back with his parents. we are a nation of laws.
all people are expected to live by those laws.

If I break the law I get whatever punishment comes my way. I don't get a free pass.
so under equal protection clause of the constitution others shouldn't either.

either way this kid is probably going back with his parents.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia

The court's temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[1]

That means DACA is still operational and needs to be ended by a new EO from trump

But if the man has violated the terms of DACA and is a criminal he needs to be deported with or without a new EO
 
NotreDame said:
Read it again man. DACA itself remains, the expansion of DACA was challenged. Or better yet, read the opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes I concede that DACA is still legal and needs to be rescinded
 
Mac77 said:
From Wikipedia

The court's temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[1]

That means DACA is still operational and needs to be ended by a new EO from trump

But if the man has violated the terms of DACA and is a criminal he needs to be deported with or without a new EO
Click to expand...

Yep! What I've said all along but Ludin decided to speak in an uniformed manner and unintelligently assert an appeals court ruled DACA unconstitutional. He was wrong. He's NEVER been right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mac77 said:
From Wikipedia

The court's temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[1]

That means DACA is still operational and needs to be ended by a new EO from trump

But if the man has violated the terms of DACA and is a criminal he needs to be deported with or without a new EO
Click to expand...

according to other reports he is gang affiliated. which would violate DACA.
trump needs to get rid of that unconstitutional EO.
 
ludin said:
according to other reports he is gang affiliated. which would violate DACA.
trump needs to get rid of that unconstitutional EO.
Click to expand...

Yes I know

If so he should be deported
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, his expansion was blocked, the original EO is still in force. You have lost another argument.
Click to expand...

What is up with people mistakenly asserting DACA was ruled unconstitutional? Another poster linked to an article that explicitly said the expansion of DACA was problematic and they treated it as DACA itself!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mac77 said:
I think he can be deported if he is a gang banger

But yes, he is entitled to a court hearing unless trump signs a new EO repealing DACA
Click to expand...

Yes, if he's a "gang banger," as I understand the phrase, then he may and should be shipped back to country of origin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom