On Monday, the Department of Justice submitted a brief to the Supreme Court, outlining why the Trump Administration has every right to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ‘policy,’ instituted by Obama.
And, the reasoning is sound.
The president decided to end the ‘policy’ in 2017, but liberal advocates (who need a new slave-based voting block) took the decision to selected federal courts. Activist judges basically said that the Trump administration does not have the power to overturn a MEMO writing by a previous administration.
Essentially, Obama’s HHS Sec. is above the law, these courts ruled.
The executive lawmaking by fiat took place in 2012 when President Obama basically gave the finger to Congress and announced that he was going to contravene black letter law and exempted some illegal aliens from being eligible for deportation.
The method he used for this was not an Executive Order or the APA rule-making process, it was established by a memo former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano sent out to her field staff directing them to not deport illegal aliens who allege that they were brought to the US as children. That’s it. That was the depth of the analysis and consultation.
A similar program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court which should have been a hint that it wasn’t on the up-and-up. But when Jeff Sessions got around to pulling the plug on DACA, lawfare ensued and the administration was told it could not rescind the Napolitano memo.
Just stop for a moment and consider this. Federal courts literally told the Trump administration that they could not rescind a memo written five years and three Homeland Security secretaries earlier. Logically, this means a cabinet secretary’s memo is more powerful than an actual law because it takes no consensus to issue it and it can’t be withdrawn when management changes.
The Trump administration appealed this to the Supreme Court and the case is to be heard in November. Today, however, we got a glance at the argument.
Justice Department lawyers told the Supreme Court on Monday that President Trump acted lawfully in September 2017 when he decided to end an Obama-era program that protects young undocumented ‘immigrants’ [aka invaders] from deportation.
In a legal brief submitted to the court, the lawyers asserted that the president was fully within his rights to eliminate the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and said the lower courts were mistaken when they said Mr. Trump’s action almost two years ago was arbitrary.
The Department of Homeland Security “correctly, and at a minimum reasonably, concluded that DACA is unlawful,” the lawyers argued, disputing the conclusions by the lower court judges about the three reasons the administration gave for ending the program. “None of those three grounds is remotely arbitrary or capricious, let alone all three.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the fate of the program in November. The justices could decide the case next spring or summer, just as the presidential election campaign is in full swing.
The government’s brief, filed late Monday, is the first salvo in what could be one of the biggest legal tests of the president’s immigration agenda. The outcome of the case will probably determine whether Mr. Trump can make good on a central campaign promise.
I think that it is a safe bet that this version of DACA is dead. Given the way the Supreme Court has ruled, it is very difficult to see the same majority that has upheld President Trump’s actions on immigration so far suddenly decide that this administration must continue to carry out the policies of the previous one given the lack of fact finding or public comment or anything more than one person signing a memo.
Many people are hoping the same thing. When they see these ‘dreamers’ taking government money, homes, and other handouts… going to college on taxpayers’ dime and then becoming lawyers to try to overturn the laws of the nation, they are angry and disgusted.
When people see so-called ‘dreamers’ convicted of murder, rape, and other heinous crimes, they are furious.
The president has every right to overrule a judgement memo that was enacted by a previous administration, they argue.