• 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!

Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'

VanceMack said:
DO you realize how many of the federal courts decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court? DO you understand why?

In 1996, the 9th was SO badly corrupted that 27 of 28 of their decisions were overturned.
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=circuit_review
Click to expand...

While that is true, I doubt that this case will be one of them. Or at least, it won't be overturned for the reasons given by many in this thread, but instead because the SCOTUS finds that the government's reason for rescinding the DACA memo was not arbitrary and capricious.
 
Anagram said:
While that is true, I doubt that this case will be one of them. Or at least, it won't be overturned for the reasons given by many in this thread, but instead because the SCOTUS finds that the government's reason for rescinding the DACA memo was not arbitrary and capricious.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court will likely rightfully find that the sitting president doesnt need to justify cancelling an executive order. EOs are not law...they are simply a directive of how a current sitting president directs his executive branch to enforce the law up to and within the limits of existing law. Subsequent presidents are not bound by preceding presidents opinions or political positions.
 
ludin said:
Does the president have the ability to rescind EO's yes or no?
pretty simple.

The policy change from homeland security came from the rescinded EO. By reascending the EO that gave homeland security the authority to change policy.






The DHS memo stems from the OBama EO. without that EO there is nothing that homeland security could do. They do not have the power to change or make law.



The APA has little to do with this the root of the issue is Obama signed an EO. That gave authority to HLS to change policy. HLS cannot change or make law on their own.
the memo they issued was a direct result of the EO that obama issued which was unconstitutional to begin with as the president doesn't have the power to change law either
That power solely resides with congress.
Trump undid the EO. by getting rid of the EO it rescinded any authority for the previous memo. it basically made it invalid. Therefore the policy can be changed.
Trump can rescind any EO he wants without reason.
Learn about the separation powers. The previous memo only had the power that the obama EO gave it.
by rescinding the EO that memo is no longer valid. neither obama nor the HLS has the power to change or make law.
they are in fact in violation of the separation of powers.
so please stop yourself.
Click to expand...


You have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about. Posts 14, 16, and 19 on page 2 completely dispose of every stupid thing you say above. I actually know what I'm talking about, except I'm not appealing to my own authority, I explain it in detail in those posts. I also provide the link to the actual decision so people can read it and see that I am right.

All your continued posting can accomplish is to get high-fives from other people who don't know what the **** they're babbling about, are proud of it, and only really complain because the ruling causes a temporary delay in their obtaining a political result they want.

Just stop.

You don't know what you are talking about.
 
VanceMack said:
Not seeing that as fact. Can you support that? The OP sites the Obama era EO and the federal requirements, not an administrative action of a current University president.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1907-23

From the ruling:

In 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum establishing the DACA program, which
allowed certain undocumented aliens1 who had been brought to the United States as children to be treated as low priorities for removal under the federal immigration laws.
Click to expand...

On September 5, 2017, three months after DAPA’s rescission, then- Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke issued a five-page memorandum rescinding DACA (the “Rescission Memo”).
Click to expand...

DACA wasn't established nor rescinded by executive order, but by administrative action. Therefore, it has to comply with the APA.
 
VanceMack said:
The Supreme Court will likely rightfully find that the sitting president doesnt need to justify cancelling an executive order. EOs are not law...they are simply a directive of how a current sitting president directs his executive branch to enforce the law up to and within the limits of existing law. Subsequent presidents are not bound by preceding presidents opinions or political positions.
Click to expand...

As stated above, DACA was not established by executive order.
 
Zyphlin said:
From my take on the last thread like this...

It's my understanding that essentially the problem is an administrative one. Essentially, the given reason for ending it...that it was unlawfully in place...is essentially not a justifiable claim for the EXECUTIVE branch to make and use as the basis for taking action. That doesn't mean that DACA cannot be removed via EO, but rather that it would simply need to be rescinded for a reason that actually is within the general purview of the executive branch to declare.
Click to expand...

You're close but that's not quite it. The focus on EO's is a distraction. It's all about whether DHS complied with the APA when it rescinded the memo that actually implemented DACA. (Obama's EO did not implement it directly; it simply started the process).

DHS still can end DACA in obedience to Trump's EO, but it has to comply with the APA, which congress passed as a control on administrative agencies.


(In other words, no, Trump cannot single-handedly end DACA via EO. He can issue an EO saying "ok, go end it", and then DHS can do so, provided it follows the APA).
 
Mr Person said:
You're close but that's not quite it. The focus on EO's is a distraction. It's all about whether DHS complied with the APA when it rescinded the memo that actually implemented DACA. (Obama's EO did not implement it directly; it simply started the process).

DHS still can end DACA in obedience to Trump's EO, but it has to comply with the APA, which congress passed as a control on administrative agencies.


(In other words, no, Trump cannot single-handedly end DACA via EO. He can issue an EO saying "ok, go end it", and then DHS can do so, provided it follows the APA).
Click to expand...

Did Obama even sign an executive order prior to DACA? I know he signed one expanding it in 2014, but I don't think he even signed one before Napolitano's memo to begin with.

I definitely agree with the substance of your post though, as I have been arguing through out the thread.
 
Anagram said:
Did Obama even sign an executive order prior to DACA? I know he signed one expanding it in 2014, but I don't think he even signed one before Napolitano's memo to begin with.

I definitely agree with the substance of your post though, as I have been arguing through out the thread.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was a mistake for me to take others' words that Obama signed an EO directing DHS to implement DACA. I actually don't know that for a fact. But that doesn't matter for the reasons we've been stating. He could have used an EO to do it, or a private chat over golf.

It's all and only about whether DHS complies with the APA when it inevitably makes its second attempt to rescind them memo, and it really shouldn't be hard for them to do that.
 
Mr Person said:
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to take others' words that Obama signed an EO directing DHS to implement DACA. I actually don't know that for a fact. But that doesn't matter for the reasons we've been stating. He could have used an EO to do it, or a private chat over golf.

It's all and only about whether DHS complies with the APA when it inevitably makes its second attempt to rescind them memo, and it really shouldn't be hard for them to do that.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I was looking at this today, and I don't think he did. It was just weird having heard that Obama used an EO over and over again to find out it wasn't actually true. I'd always assumed, like you, that just from the sheer number of people saying it, that there was at least an EO beforehand, even though the memo was what actually implemented the policy and that that was causing confusion. But it looks to me now like there was't even that.
 
VanceMack said:
Then you see how silly it is to assume that future administrations have to operate under the memo's of previous administration and why the court ruling is such a joke...right?
Click to expand...

The judge's ruling is correct at least as far as that the administration has to provide a reason for changing administrative policy. I don't see anyway around the APA's requirements there. Congress mandated those administrative requirements because they didn't want new administrations to be able to easily and immediately change all of their predecessors policies. (If DACA were a rule that required notice and comment the process mandated for rescinding it would be much more arduous).

So I guess I don't see why the ruling is such a joke. Maybe you could argue that the APA shouldn't have been passed in the first place, but the judge is bound to follow that law.
 
VanceMack said:
Then you see how silly it is to assume that future administrations have to operate under the memo's of previous administration and why the court ruling is such a joke...right?
Click to expand...

You just don't seem to get it no matter how many people explain it to you. You can't get the instant "kill DACA" gratification in this that you crave.

DHS can indeed rescind DACA. But they have to do it in a manner that follows the APA law, and the methodology cannot be capricious and arbitrary.

The judge even provided a 90 day interim period to allow his message to sink in at DHS, and for them to change their approach.
 
Middle_Ground said:
Here's the difference between you and I. I actually think it's wrong for either a Democrat or Republican president. I can like daca but still think the issuance of the eo was wrong no matter the reason. I can dislike the travel ban but still think the eo was wrong. I can like legalized marijuana is the right way to go but think it should be a federal issue of legalization and not state. You go right ahead and fight this eo, all the while supporting the current presidents eo's.
Click to expand...

I do not think we are disagreeing as to principle. I am against the President's unilateral suspension of the enforcement of the law no matter who the President is, whether a Republican or Democrat.
 
Anagram said:
The judge's ruling is correct at least as far as that the administration has to provide a reason for changing administrative policy. I don't see anyway around the APA's requirements there. Congress mandated those administrative requirements because they didn't want new administrations to be able to easily and immediately change all of their predecessors policies. (If DACA were a rule that required notice and comment the process mandated for rescinding it would be much more arduous).

So I guess I don't see why the ruling is such a joke. Maybe you could argue that the APA shouldn't have been passed in the first place, but the judge is bound to follow that law.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a joke. Its as much a joke as it would be if this administration created policy (not law) that future administrations were forced to operate under. We are not a nation of administrations...we are a nation bound by Constitution and Law. DACA is not Immigration law. DACA is in fact in opposition TO existing immigration law.
 
Anagram said:
As stated above, DACA was not established by executive order.
Click to expand...

No it was a Burecractric move without congressional input.
So it's recension by same maneuver should be without question.
 
Rogue Valley said:
You just don't seem to get it no matter how many people explain it to you. You can't get the instant "kill DACA" gratification in this that you crave.

DHS can indeed rescind DACA. But they have to do it in a manner that follows the APA law, and the methodology cannot be capricious and arbitrary.

The judge even provided a 90 day interim period to allow his message to sink in at DHS, and for them to change their approach.
Click to expand...
No...they truly DONT need justification to kill DACA. Thats why the judges decision is wrong. DACA is not law...its administrative policy. When this hits the Supreme Court it will be thrown out...and it should...and you should be grateful that it is. The Obama administration had every right to determine how they would operate as an administration. The Obama administration, like the Trump administration, does NOT have the right or capability to establish law or guidelines others must follow.
 
Renae said:
No it was a Burecractric move without congressional input.
So it's recension by same maneuver should be without question.
Click to expand...

Not under the APA. The APA mandates a non-arbitrary and capricious reason for it's removal. Bureaucratic moves without congressional input are subject to the APA. In fact, it is one of the reasons Congress passed the APA in the first place. As a check on bureaucratic power. Administrations can't just changed administrative policy whenever and however they want to.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course it is a joke. Its as much a joke as it would be if this administration created policy (not law) that future administrations were forced to operate under. We are not a nation of administrations...we are a nation bound by Constitution and Law. DACA is not Immigration law. DACA is in fact in opposition TO existing immigration law.
Click to expand...

And in this case being a nation of laws means following the Congressionally passed Administrative Procedure Act, which in fact prescribes limits and regulations on how administrations can create and remove administrative policy.
 
Anagram said:
Not under the APA. The APA mandates a non-arbitrary and capricious reason for it's removal. Bureaucratic moves without congressional input are subject to the APA. In fact, it is one of the reasons Congress passed the APA in the first place. As a check on bureaucratic power. Administrations can't just changed administrative policy whenever and however they want to.
Click to expand...

The Napolitano memo went against established immigration law, this resets things back to what congress intended. That right there is all the justification that is needed.
 
Anagram said:
And in this case being a nation of laws means following the Congressionally passed Administrative Procedure Act, which in fact prescribes limits and regulations on how administrations can create and remove administrative policy.
Click to expand...

On November 20th, President Obama issued an executive order for the creation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created these two programs, and United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) was set to start receiving applications for the expanded DACA program on February 18th, with applications for DAPA being accepted in May.
On February 16th, a federal district court in Texas issued a temporary injunction on expanded DACA and DAPA. Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DHS did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in creating DACA and DAPA. DHS released a statement that they will appeal the temporary injunction. USCIS is complying with the injunction and is not receiving applications at this time.

DACA and DAPA have been criticized as amnesty or a blanket pardon for illegal aliens. However, DACA and DAPA are very limited. While DACA and DAPA provide a way for noncitizens to function in America without the fear of being deported, it is not a comprehensive solution for noncitizens, and any potential applicant should consider the risks of applying.
Click to expand...
https://jgrj.law.uiowa.edu/article/daca-and-dapa-downsides
 
VanceMack said:
Of course it is a joke. Its as much a joke as it would be if this administration created policy (not law) that future administrations were forced to operate under. We are not a nation of administrations...we are a nation bound by Constitution and Law. DACA is not Immigration law. DACA is in fact in opposition TO existing immigration law.
Click to expand...

But DACA was not implemented by executive order, it was implemented via a memo created by Janet Napolitano.

AnaGram and Zyphilian have explained this multiple times already.
 
Renae said:
The Napolitano memo went against established immigration law, this resets things back to what congress intended. That right there is all the justification that is needed.
Click to expand...

If the administration had set out a clear and cogent explanation of why DACA is unconstitutional, that probably would have worked. They did not do that. For instance, part of the memo states that DACA is unconstitutional because it faces the same problems that DAPA was declared unconstitutional for in the 5th circuit. When in actuality the 5th circuit explicitly did not reach the merits on the constitutional claims because they found DAPA violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The government actually made no argument in their legal documents about how DACA conflicted with immigration law.
 
For a dictator, that SOB keeps promptly obeying every single judicial ruling.
 
Anagram said:
That refers to Obama's November 2014 executive order expanding DACA, which was halted by a federal district court. It doesn't relate to the memo creating DACA in 2012.
Click to expand...

I was merely bringing up a similar situation, sorry I am working and didn't make that clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom