world

U.S. judge rules against ending program to protect Dreamers

71 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

Wait for the conservatives to start railing against the liberal judge.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Wait for the conservatives to start railing against the liberal judge.

Here we go! 3..2..1..

9 ( +10 / -1 )

So you now have to explain to a judge why something that is unlawful is actually unlawful?

I thought that was why judges exist, to look at the actual law and determine that? Oh well keeps the Supreme Court busy enough that maybe a couple of them will quit.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

So you now have to explain to a judge why something that is unlawful is actually unlawful?

No. The Trump administration has claimed it was unlawful. They were sued, and were supposed to show proof that it was unlawful. They didn't do that. So, how do you know its unlawful?

I thought that was why judges exist, to look at the actual law and determine that?

And 3 times the Trump administration has been sued ans unable to prove Daca was unlawful. Perhaps they're mistaken?

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Trump set to lose his DACA and his great wall too.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

"arbitrary and capricious". I'd say that about sums up the entire Trump Presidency to date.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Seems strange to me that the people suing don’t have to prove it IS legal, but whatever.

Not like the judge said it’s legal, he just said he wants better proof from the administration that it’s not in the next 90 days. Fair enough.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

"arbitrary and capricious". I'd say that about sums up the entire Trump Presidency to date.

Funny, because it is so true.

This is an administrative law standard.

Normally, this is a difficult standard to prove, but Trump and his cohorts make it all to easy because (1) they telegraph what they are doing to shore up their nationalistic base, and (2) their actions are nearly always "arbitrary and capricious".

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Not like the judge said it’s legal, he just said he wants better proof from the administration that it’s not in the next 90 days. Fair enough.

Try reading it again. Or change your source of news.

Ending the program in the way they did was unlawful.

The program is has not been challenged as being unlawful. A President has the power to set immigration policy within certain bounds. DACA wasn't ended based on a challenge of the legality of Obama's order creating the program. Still, once created, there are basic rights given to the DACA beneficiaries regardless of the legality. The bill of rights trumps an executive order. Damn constitution for making hate so difficult.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I thought that was why judges exist, to look at the actual law and determine that? Oh well keeps the Supreme Court busy enough that maybe a couple of them will quit.

You just summed it up perfectly.

"arbitrary and capricious". I'd say that about sums up the entire Trump Presidency to date.

Wow, then the Democratic Party is by all standards “irrelevant and incapable” of pretty much anything except......wait, it’ll come to me....

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

You just summed it up perfectly

By "It" you mean misunderstanding??

Judges are arbiters of fact and law and only decide the questions before them.

Wow, then the Democratic Party is by all standards “irrelevant and incapable” of pretty much anything

The relevance of the GoP is what?

Fiscal prudence? Not when there is money to be had.

Religious freedom? Depends on the religion.

Freedom of government intrusion? Depends on what you are doing (see religious freedom).

Strong defense? maybe, but lets pay companies for cool weapons (for the kickbacks) and not people. People are basically walking welfare, assuming they can still walk.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It’s right here:

Bates gave DHS 90 days to "better explain its view that DACA is unlawful." If the department cannot come up with a better explanation, he wrote, it "must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications."

so the decision is still open pending a “better” explanation (whatever that really means)

i don’t see how an order by one president that illegally gives rights to a group that shouldn’t have them can’t be undone by another president with the same power. This is like saying if your company pays you incorrectly, you get to benefit from their mistake and keep the extra money. Obama screwed up so we can never fix it? That’s unlikely.

judicial these days is just ruling in the least controversial manner possible to avoid personal responsibility and associated attacks. Supreme Court will clear this up too.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Obama screwed up so we can never fix it? That’s unlikely.

No, according to Trump it's 100% Obama and President Hillary's fault. I can't believe that a Trump voter is not blaming Obama and President Hillary.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The EO by Obama clearly wasn't obviously illegal and the court wants more information before it makes a final determination.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

America's immigration in an order of magnitude a million times greater than the Dreamers. Until America can gain absolute firm control of its borders, the dreamer issue is very much small fry. They also need to remove this idea that cities can somehow stop federal authorities from doing their job. That is absolutely insane. Nowhere else in the planet would that fly.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

America's immigration problems are an order of magnitude....

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Tommy JonesToday  05:45 pm JST

The EO by Obama clearly wasn't obviously illegal and the court wants more information before it makes a final determination.

Or to put it another way, things don't become illegal just because Trump wants them to be.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

arbitrary and capricious

Pretty much nails Trump’s thinking in general. The best description of Trump’s mind I heard was the image of an inflated balloon released without tying off the end and it flying chaotically around the room making fart noises.

This is a real problem in a leader.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Nowhere else in the planet would that fly.

Trump's wall won't fly. But even if it does then ladders will be flying out of home depot locations to go over Trump's wall.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The only people this ruling would upset are those who want to remove Dreamers.

And no, Trump fans, we don’t buy your cover that you are just the trying to clean up some legal matters that would allow them to stay. You want Trump to be able to use them as hostages for your wall, nothing more.

The more these decisions are delayed the better the chances that the clock will run out on Trump.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I want Dreamers to be removed because their presence is illegal, its that simple. They can stay as a compromise for the wall to prevent "future Dreamers" and to prevent more illegals from coming thinking they will be able to stay once a liberal is President someday again.

There was no legal basis for Obama to make an order to allow them to stay and even if there was, Trump has the same exact power to cancel it.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

They can stay as a compromise for the wall

But people will just hop over with ladders. That means dreams and and more illegals under Trump's watch.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

And when caught they will be arrested and jailed. Liberals really love promoting illegal acts when it suits them.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

And when caught they will be arrested and jailed

No, it's well documented that Trump can have his wall or funds for border guards. Not both- not enough money for both. Trump wants 100B$ for his wall which leaves no money for border patrol. The illegals will just hop over and no one will be there to catch them because there will be no money to pay border guards' salaries. Trump will then be forced to issue millions of greencards just like Reagan did. When did President Hillary or Obama ever issue millions of greencards?

thinking they will be able to stay once a liberal is President someday again.

Reagan was the one who gave away 3M greencards. President Hillary never did that. Or Obama. That's on the Republicans.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

There was no legal basis for Obama to make an order to allow them to stay and even if there was, Trump has the same exact power to cancel it.

Then why hasn't Trump canceled it?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

And yeah Obama didn’t give green cards, he left the the same number of people in legal limbo. with false hopes and expectations so that the next person has to do something about it and take the criticism for his mess.

So deport them all and they can reapply through the legal process. Obama word means nothing as he didn’t finish the job of getting them legal status. His fault, so bye to those he screwed over.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Trump did cancel it. That’s why these groups sued, remember?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Trump did cancel it.

Then your boy and your team got what they wanted - what are you complaining about?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Supreme Court judges actually know the law and don’t have to depend on lawyers to explain it to them.

See you there for this and the “travel ban”.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

See you there for this and the “travel ban”.

Muslim ban failed. Another Trump broken promise.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It is usually used in the context of evidence. The onus of proof in criminal cases lies with the government. It is the government that has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the onus of proof lies with the plaintiff who must prove his case by balance of probabilities.

so is this a criminal case or a civil case? The government is the defendant.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I'm still not clear what you're complaining about, since your boy got his way. More manufactured outrage?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Blacklabel: Supreme Court judges actually know the law and don’t have to depend on lawyers to explain it to them.

Then all decisions would be 9-0, but they aren’t. Some legal concepts are complex and different judges can have different opinions. You really need to stop thinking that you always know the only way to interpret the law and anyone who disagrees is wither wrong or a radical.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

so is this a criminal case or a civil case? The government is the defendant.

Neither. Its a constitutional issue.

And at any rate, Donny's crew failed to prove DACA's illegality. Again.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If that caravan of Hondurans are really-really seeking asylum, then they should apply in Mexico -which has already granted them temporary visas.

Its obvious they just want to come in & leech off the US. They’re looking for economic gain, not asylum from persecution.

Most of them never even show up for their hearing in court. Wonder why.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Neither. Its a constitutional issue.

I believe that constitutional lawsuits are civil. So-and-so vs the government.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Its obvious they just want to come in & leech off the US. They’re looking for economic gain, not asylum from persecution.

Is it? Question: What do you call the firms who employ illegal immigrants? Are they not leeches as well, or?

Most of them never even show up for their hearing in court. Wonder why.

Perhaps its because it can take years for a court hearing? Or perhaps its because they aren't afforded legal representation?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I believe that constitutional lawsuits are civil. So-and-so vs the government.

Meh, okay, but still:

Plaintiffs sued claiming its discriminatory (it is), and government was asked to provide evidence Daca was unlawful.

At which point they failed to provide evidence. Sorry, not how this works. Donny could have brought suit, but he did not- because then he couldn't use them as leverage.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Its obvious they just want to come in & leech off the US.

Trump followers think they simply show up at the local social security office and ask for money and benefits as soon as they jump the wall (with a ladder).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

How is it “discriminatory” that a person who illegally enters a sovereign nation has no right to stay? Seems it’s only discrimination when it fits the narrative.

No one feels sorry when someone’s new Japanese wife just can’t go live in America the day after marriage. It takes $3-5000 and about a year of interviews and paperwork for her today be able to go. If she illegal enters she is deported. Liberals only care if the law is applied to their “protected” groups.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Regardless we didn’t elect Trump to continue Obama’s weak policies or to implement Hillary’s immigration policies.

So it will all get worked out over the next 6.5 years as more Trump appointee judges are confirmed.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Regardless we didn’t elect Trump to continue Obama’s weak policies or to implement Hillary’s immigration policies.

Less than half the voters (by over 3 million) voted for Trump, so don't try equating what the voters for Trump want as being what the people of the US want.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

More than 60 million people want what Trump wants. Where is their voice?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

More than 60 million people want what Trump wants. Where is their voice?

1/6 Americans.

Their voice is small against the the other 5 out of 6 people.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The relevance of the GoP is what?

Do the DNP have any revelance? I mean, besides cutting government checks.

Fiscal prudence? Not when there is money to be had.

The left have absolutely No ground on the issue,

I have never known a liberal himself more than a tax hike.

Religious freedom? Depends on the religion.

The left have zero tolerance for Religion, but terrified and reluctant to one and that is not Christianity.

Freedom of government intrusion? Depends on what you are doing (see religious freedom).

Strong defense? maybe, but lets pay companies for cool weapons (for the kickbacks) and not people. People are basically walking welfare, assuming they can still walk.

Oh, please! The left think it’s ok to harass law abiding citizens all the time and use identity politics to intimidate and bully people into thinking the grievance industry is a real thing. Sure, in raising cash, most definitely and as far as welfare is concerned, I still haven’t met a liberal yet that can create jobs in the private sector, but Bernie wants to give jobs to every American in the government sector which brings it back around and once again, who’s going to pay for all this, especially if you don’t have a private sector job.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The left have absolutely No ground on the issue,

Last two Democratic presidents left the country in way better standing than they received it. The last two republican presidents left the country in way worse standing than they received it.

Let's stick to reality, mmkay?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I still haven’t met a liberal yet that can create jobs in the private sector

Obama final tally:

private sector jobs: +11.9 million

public sector jobs: -341,000

Let's stick to reality mmkay?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Resist and persist -- it's working!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Last two Democratic presidents left the country in way better standing than they received it.

And nothing to show for it, Appeasement is not an option, especially the last one and the economy.

The last two republican presidents left the country in way worse standing than they received it.

But our enemies fear the get tough approach though.

Let's stick to reality, mmkay?

Always,

private sector jobs: +11.9 million

Pardon???

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/30/note_to_obama_only_private_sector_creates_wealth_jobs_99341.html

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Trump has used illegals to work on his buildings. Should that be our policy? Should there be any consequences for people like him?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump has used illegals to work on his buildings.

And liberals just allow virtually every illegal to come in whether they are terrorists, sex offenders, criminals etc.

Should that be our policy? Should there be any consequences for people like them?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

You can talk about your strawman liberal position with someone who is interested.

My question is about Trump, a man who uses illegals on his own projects. Should there be any consequences for him? Should we allow people to use illegals as long as they promise to stop others from using illegals?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You can talk about your strawman liberal position with someone who is interested.

Ok, so we have to lesson to one point of view is what you’re saying...

My question is about Trump, a man who uses illegals on his own projects.

“Used” you don’t know and can’t prove his company uses them now.

Should there be any consequences for him?

Like what? Kick out of the presidency? You guys need to relax. I know you guys hate Trump, but this, this is not normal. You guys get obsessed with the least unimportant things.

Should we allow people to use illegals as long as they promise to stop others from using illegals?

Doesnt matter, if the President and AG push to to curb and stop it, which I think they have to, then that’s what we do and I’m glad he’s taken an aggressive approach about it. I care about now.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Supreme Court judges actually know the law and don’t have to depend on lawyers to explain it to them.

Is that why there are oral arguments? You clearly have no idea how the judicial system works.

As for those that employ undocumented immigrants, they are punished severely if caught. Those that state otherwise clearly have no idea about employment law.

You cons should either educate yourself beyond what Fox tells you or be quiet about legal issues because you are only displaying your Uber ignorance with your comments.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You clearly have no idea how the judicial system works.

He does this regularly. He doesn’t understand how something works, then gets outraged that the world doesn’t work the way he misunderstands it to.

what Fox tells you or be quiet about legal issues because you are only displaying your Uber ignorance

I think we need to coin the term Fox-ignorant, because that’s what these people are. I do feel a little bad pegging such a vile term on such a cute little animal though.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And liberals just allow virtually every illegal to come in

Not like Reagan. 3M greencards to illegals. And now illegals keep crossing the border because Trump failed on his wall. And even with the wall (a giant "IF") they will just use ladders and shovels.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It cracks me up how incredibly stupid the American left is regarding immigration. They want completely open borders. You are utterly delusional. Have you seen Europe over the last decade? Brainless.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

They want completely open borders.

But even if they are closed with a 50ftx2,000mile wall for 100B$ they will just use a $100 dollar ladder from Home Depot to hop over it. Ladders have been used to go over walls since the invention of of walls

how incredibly stupid the American left is

Really? Reagan must have been left with his 3M free greencards to illegals. When did President Hillary ever give out greencards like that.

Have you seen Europe over the last decade? 

Please tell us all about it!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They want completely open borders

So you support the Right’s position that illegals should be shot on sight?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I do. I tell people on the other side of my wall that if they walk up with a ladder or shovel within 50 feet they will be non lethally shot.

I have that right under national security for a sovereign nation that you need my permission to enter.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Except the laws of our sovereign nation require passports and visas for entry, not ladders and shovels.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Except the laws of our sovereign nation require passports and visas for entry, not ladders and shovel

Yes they do and while you may sell the ladders and shovels you can't issue the passports and visas and still don't need "your permission to enter".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Uber ignorance.

Tommy, I laughed.

It is a perfect counterpoint to alternative facts and should go in the lexicon of new phrases created during his Trump's presidency.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

they will be non lethally shot.

That's a felony and prison time for attempted murder.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oral arguments are to prove your case with facts. Not to “explain” to a judge what the law is.

You don’t explain to the judge that murder is a crime. The judge knows the law as it relates to murder. You prove that your client didn’t murder anyone under the law or the prosecution proves he did.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Oral arguments are to prove your case with facts. Not to “explain” to a judge what the law is.

In that case, the same can be said for lower courts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reality is coming when the Supreme Court tells you this President maintains the same powers that every other President before him has had. Comes with the job.

Obama isn’t somehow exempt from having his executive orders cancelled by the next guy and neither will Trump be exempt when Kanye cancels some of his stuff after 2024.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The judge knows the law as it relates to murder. 

Yes, and.....

they will be non lethally shot.

The judge knows this is close to murder when presented the warrant to be singed by the prosecutor and it will be a full murder charge if the shot ends up lethal. And even if not it ends up being a serious federal crime of attempted murder or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Again, FEDERAL charges. You are not allowed to shoot at people. That is ridiculous.

Meanwhile the illegals will just keep hopping over Trump's wall with ladders while laughing all the way to the welfare bank. Trump will look like a complete fool.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's not forget that the only chance Trump has to win is because the GOP stole the SC seat for him. Rule of law and all that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Blacklabel Apr. 26 05:59 pm JST

You don’t explain to the judge that murder is a crime. The judge knows the law as it relates to murder. You prove that your client didn’t murder anyone under the law or the prosecution proves he did.

This is actually false and you shouldn't compare the complex administrative law case at hand with what you think is a simple and clear cut criminal law case.

The judge cannot be reasonably expected to remember every last bit of case law (or in civil law countries jurisprudence) or precedent. So there is actually a considerable crossing of swords in the interpretation of law, with both sides trying to come up with past cases where the judge ruled their way on a law-reading, procedural point concerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain types of evidence ... etc. Of course, the opponent's cases are belittled and compartmentalized. The judge decides who has the better argument, which is the essence of the adversarial system.

Even in criminal law cases on points of substantive (rather than procedural) criminal law it's perfectly possible to dispute wording like "violent", "breach of peace" ... etc.

Obama isn’t somehow exempt from having his executive orders cancelled by the next guy and neither will Trump be exempt when Kanye cancels some of his stuff after 2024.

The judge may indeed rule your way. However, you should realize that the two sides are not perfectly balanced. In essence, Obama's administrative act was beneficial, while Trump repealing it is onerous. The standard of review is tighter for an onerous act, and you should probably hope it is that way.

(Beneficial and onerous are measured from the viewpoint of Object - that is to say, the person it affects, in this case the Dreamer).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites