Trump says he will sign order to provide road to citizenship for ‘Dreamers’

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Smart

That is the obvious point about the Jackass Party, they are deviously, even demonically smart.

Anyone imagining that Satan or his followers are all intellectually deficient aren’t paying attention. It is because they possess such intelligence and use it for evil that they are so dangerous.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

“President Trump said Friday that he will be signing an executive order in the next few weeks which will include a “road to citizenship” for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients.”

Trump says he will sign order to provide road to citizenship for 'Dreamers'

That's because he was never a real Republican....
He doesn't know what the Republican platform is and can't annunciate it.
He doesn't comprehend the Philosophical grounds for the Republican platform or why they should fight for certain issues over another and when and how.
He NEVER cared about a wall (and can't understand why it would matter anyway).
He was never going to build it.

Anyone who thought Trump was a Republican was always a political ignoramus.

Trump was NEVER going to build a wall. He doesn't know why it would be important.

Duncan Hunter (a man Trump fans have never heard of) built way more wall (20 years ago) than Trump ever has or ever will.....But, Trump fans wouldn't know this.
Trump was alway little more than a temper-tantrum, and hissy-fit.
His only platform was an attitude....Where he would (when challenged) say something stupid like "The wall just got ten feet higher!"
Why?
Was the wall he was planning ten feet too short?
Should we expend the resources to increase its vertical reach?
What wall, specifically, and where are the blue-prints of said wall?
Have the engineers you've obviously consulted signed off on extending the wall by that much?
Will it remain solid if you add that footage to it?
If so, why not draw it up at that height in the first place?
How, exactly were we going to force Mexico to pay for it?
Invade them?.....Halls of Montezuma again?....
As a former Marine, I'm game, but, was that the plan?

Our country is going to go to pot because of ignorant Republicans who don't realize that a New York City Democrat and and abortion-fetishist began pretending he was a Republican about six seconds before the 2016 primaries.....

He's not dishonest about it actually, he just does not have the moral philosophical foundation of principles which define the platform.....He's a democrat populist.....and you so-called "Republicans" fell for it.
He never should have won the primaries, he was never a Republican.....and thousands more miles of wall would actually be built if moron Republicans had voted for principled men like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

If you are a wannabe Republican, and you voted against a real Republican like Cruz or Rand Paul in the primaries......losing your country and letting it become the third-world hell-hole it will become is no less than everything you deserve.

You did this, This was the liberal New York City Democrat, serial divorcee, serial philanderer/adulterer, and abortion-fetishist you forced upon our nation in the 2016 primaries.
You will lose your nation.
And I will fiddle and laugh as you weep bitter tears as your nation burns, knowing YOU did this, and you are getting everything you asked for.

 

[MartyF]

If you are a wannabe Republican, and you voted against a real Republican like Cruz or Rand Paul in the primaries......losing your country and letting it become the third-world hell-hole it will become is no less than everything you deserve.

You did this, This was the liberal New York City Democrat, serial divorcee, serial philanderer/adulterer, and abortion-fetishist you forced upon our nation in the 2016 primaries.
You will lose your nation.
And I will fiddle and laugh as you weep bitter tears as your nation burns, knowing YOU did this, and you are getting everything you asked for.

Got hate?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

[

The problem is this

Go on....

President Trump said Friday that he will be signing an executive order...

Yes, do go on...

He does not have the constitutional authority to do this.

Correct, he does not.

Phone and a pen, like Obama

.
Absolutely, because he's a New York democrat, not appreciably different from a Chicago Democrat (like Obama)
Only, unlike Obama, he doesn't KNOW he's thwarting our Constitution.
Obama knew and didn't care.
Trump is possibly too ignorant to even know its contents.

But now that it's Trump in office some of you are willing to praise this sort of "lawmaking".

Yes, these were the sorts who would actually have voted for him in 2016.......it was quite predictable.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Got hate?

Got any Political, Sociological, Cultural rejoinder to my post?
No...
Didn't think so.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Apparently Trump has a phone and a pen, just like Obama did.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

YUP!!!!!
And Trump fetishists love it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Supreme court said that Obama's Executive Order was constitutional. Would you support Trump pulling a Jackson?

I support any president "Pulling a Jackson" when they must.
It was part of the oath.
The Supreme Law of our land is the Constitution itself, which the President takes an oath to defend....
Not whatever perversions a few evil men in SCOTUS might pretend it is.

That means pull a "Jackson" on Roe v. Wade or anything else they need to.

 

[MartyF]

There is nothing in the Court decision that suggests constitutionality, rather they agreed it was illegal but claimed that, because of APA, it became complicated by its wrongful enactment.

The court didn't agree that it was illegal. (The minority said it was illegal but not the majority.) The court insisted that the important part of DACA be treated just like any other constitutional regulation.

"The Fifth Circuit, the highest court to offer a reasoned opinion on DAPA’s legality, found that DAPA violated the INA because it extended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the defining feature of DAPA (and DACA) is DHS’s decision to defer removal, and the Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished that forbearance component from the associated benefits eligibility. Eliminating benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance thus remained squarely within Duke’s discretion. Yet, rather than addressing forbearance in her decision, Duke treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regarding the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. That reasoning repeated the error in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm— treating a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy. 463 U. S. 29, 51."

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You do realize that when President Trump first decided to end DACA, he begged the Congress to send him a bill revising the situation and he would sign it into law

Yeah, but that was actually just a coward move by Trump.
DACA only ever was an Executive Order.
He could simply have reversed it.
He didn't NEED Congress to do anything.
He wanted Congress to take the heat for it in the media. It was weak of him, and he knew it wouldn't happen.

DACA would have already been done in a legal and constitutional manner but for Democrat inaction

Yes, that, and Trump's unwillingness to simply reverse the policy and take the heat instead of try to make Congress do it for him.

They (the Democrats) wanted the issue for political advantage

Yes....
And Trump didn't have the fortitude to do away with it.

not a resolution of it.

No one did.

 

[StefanM]

If DACA were unconstitutional, the Supreme court could have simply overturned it as the minority opinion said should happen. By requiring the same procedures to reverse as any other regulation, the Supreme Court did declare DACA to be constitutional.

SCOTUS typically (not always, though) rules in the narrowest way possible. Generally speaking, if they can make a ruling on process and/or kick it back to a lower court, they will. They tend not to rule on the constitutionality of an issue unless there is no other route.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The court didn't agree that it was illegal. (The minority said it was illegal but not the majority.) The court insisted that the important part of DACA be treated just like any other constitutional regulation.

"The Fifth Circuit, the highest court to offer a reasoned opinion on DAPA’s legality, found that DAPA violated the INA because it extended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the defining feature of DAPA (and DACA) is DHS’s decision to defer removal, and the Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished that forbearance component from the associated benefits eligibility. Eliminating benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance thus remained squarely within Duke’s discretion. Yet, rather than addressing forbearance in her decision, Duke treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regarding the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. That reasoning repeated the error in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm— treating a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy. 463 U. S. 29, 51."

The Court specifically said legality was up to the AG, who has already stated that it was illegal. They only ruled on the way the rescission was handled.

Whether DACA is illegal is, of course, a legal determination, and therefore a question for the Attorney General. But deciding how best to address a finding of illegality moving forward can involve important policy choices, especially when the finding concerns a program with the breadth of DACA. Those policy choices are for DHS.​