It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Second Federal Judge Rules That DACA Dreamers Can Stay in the U.S.A..

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

To which protections are you referring to, specifically?

And the fact that you believe that it's "empty platitudes" doesn't negate the fact that it's the truth.




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MteWamp



Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?


The US Constitution.

Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.



The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.

We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.


That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.

Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".

Blah blah.



I'm sure you enjoy regurgitating The Hill or whatever, but this is the actual wording:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So no, they are not granted any protections in this regard because they aren't being denied anything.

No one is taking their life. They are free to live.
No one is taking their liberty. They are free to do whatever they want in their own country.
No one is depriving them of property, and if they are, then they can sell the property and take the earnings with them.

Ultimately, due process has already happened and these people get more protections than US citizens when they can go around murdering and raping our children.

As far as some obligatory "but I also think they should..."

Nope, end of discussion. GO HOME, try again the right way. The United States of America didn't screw your life up, your parents did. Sorry your country sucks and you don't want to go back, better luck next time. Maybe overthrow the government or whatever.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MteWamp



Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?


The US Constitution.

Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.



The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.

We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.


That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.

Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".

Blah blah.



The EO isnt constitutional so they have no right to protection.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

Oh look, another activist judge. It's amusing how their rulings almost ALWAYS get overturned after an appeal, this will be no different. DACA is an EO, not an actual law.


If Congress does not resolve the DACA issue by March 5th, what happens on March 6th? The cattle-cars start being loaded up for Mexico?

Democrats in congress would like you to believe that. It will remove the protection they have though, so if they do something illegal even if it's a minor offense they will probably face deportation.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.

How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.

How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.


They don't need to go to court, part of DACA is agreeing that you have committed a crime by being here illegally. Due process is OVER.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
The only way to save DACA is to have Congress pass legislation that would invalidate it. THIS is why Trump told Congress they had to do something. Otherwise...it is gone.

An Executive Order is something that is used to 'instruct' the Executive Branch what to do. It really has nothing to do with the Judicial side but if they say that it conflicts with the Constitution then it can be challenged and will wind up in The Supreme Court.

This is just grandstanding...



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp



To which protections are you referring to, specifically?


5th and 14th amendments would apply, I believe.



And the fact that you believe that it's "empty platitudes" doesn't negate the fact that it's the truth.


No, it's not the truth. If it was, you would have proof and this is not it.

What you mean is that is what you believe.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wakeupstupid



No one is taking their liberty. They are free to do whatever they want in their own country.


Perhaps, but not without their due process here first.

That is a constitutional right.

We do not take that away just because of how people feel.

As for the rest of your post, irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MteWamp



Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?


The US Constitution.

Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.



The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.

We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.


That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.

Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".

Blah blah.



The EO isnt constitutional so they have no right to protection.


Anyone and everyone in this country has constitutional protection of due process.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

Oh look, another activist judge. It's amusing how their rulings almost ALWAYS get overturned after an appeal, this will be no different. DACA is an EO, not an actual law.


If Congress does not resolve the DACA issue by March 5th, what happens on March 6th? The cattle-cars start being loaded up for Mexico?

Democrats in congress would like you to believe that. It will remove the protection they have though, so if they do something illegal even if it's a minor offense they will probably face deportation.


Ah...a nice clear answer. Thank-you!



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.

How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.


That is why the Trump admin's push to end DACA has hit this road block. Processes within the courts have to take place, before it can continue.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: wakeupstupid

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.

How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.


They don't need to go to court, part of DACA is agreeing that you have committed a crime by being here illegally. Due process is OVER.


Nancy Pelosi took over Congress for 8 hours straight last week, to explain that DACA recipients are a special class. Even those who were too scared or lazy to go register for special class status.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.

How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.


That is why the Trump admin's push to end DACA has hit this road block. Processes within the courts have to take place, before it can continue.

Yes, and once appealed and overturned, DACA will be dead forever. Which is good, it's up to congress to write laws regarding immigration, not a guy with a phone and a pen.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




What do you think ATS? Is it fair that "Dreamers" brought here as children, should be granted citizenship? What does the Federal judges rulings mean for the DACA Dreamers?


Trump has said he wants to find a way that they can stay, but the never Trump portion of the government refused to work out a deal. They just want it their way without conceding anything in return. Obviously they do not care as much about the Dreamers as they say they do.
The Dreamers are realizing this, and are starting to turn to Trump who will then help them.




www.cnn.com...





This week, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke in Congress for eight hours straight about immigrant youth. She shared our stories and called for passage of the Dream Act.
Yet, while she was speaking, Democratic and Republican party leaders were writing a budget deal that would leave protections for immigrant youth out in exchange for dollars on other projects.





www.politico.com...





The concerns span multiple factions of the Democratic conference, and, combined with opposition from Republican immigration hard-liners, they could put passage of a DACA deal at risk.


I think more and more people are actually becoming aware that the government doesn't care about them, and President Trump may be their only real hope.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.


Due Process? They are already proven to be illegal? What other process do you need?



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.

Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.


It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.

How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.


That is why the Trump admin's push to end DACA has hit this road block. Processes within the courts have to take place, before it can continue.

Yes, and once appealed and overturned, DACA will be dead forever. Which is good, it's up to congress to write laws regarding immigration, not a guy with a phone and a pen.


That may be so, but I highly doubt it.

Fact still remains, the courts ruled correctly in allowing things to finish in court to allow due process to take place.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: introvert




It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.


Due Process? They are already proven to be illegal? What other process do you need?


The processes allowed by our constitutional rights.

Not sure why people have a problem with that.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The "pro family" people want to rush off the chemistry professors driving their kids to school, no "minor crime" (not even a traffic ticket) required. The whole community can be up in arms about it, doesn't matter. www.nytimes.com...

People here who want to train-up the people brought here as children and deport them some place not even known to them reveal all too much about themselves.

And there are many "due process" concerns that absolutely apply to immigrants, many avenues to claim refugee status, or other means by which they can claim legal residency now.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso

Kind of like how trump is an insult to real presidents and leaders.
edit on 2132018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join