In Regards To DACA, what Should Be The Priority?

[Slade3200]

I've read DACA and how both USCIS and DHS present it. Nowhere does it mention parole unless it is talking about advance parole with travel. It also is not exclusive to those who have been detained and have a court date. They are actively advertising the program for qualifying people to apply, most of who do not have a court date and whom not have been detained.

How about instead of doing all the head shaking you actually back up your claims with substance. Show me the text that either proves me wrong or proves you right.

None have been detained, DACA places them into deportation proceedings that get deferred (the forms they file when they apply for DACA), meaning their hearing court date is sometime in the future (more than 1 year out allows them to apply for work authorization).

DACA gives them deferred action on deportation and a work permit as long as they meet the criteria and do not commit crimes. It does not put them in deportation proceedings. If a persons DACA is denied and they have not committed a crime then the case is not reported to ICE.

Deferred action means they are placed into removal proceedings (via the forms they fill out and file) through USCIS that are being deferred. There is no deferred action on deportation as they can be deported while having DACA. DACA does not protect them in any way. They stop accruing illegal presence when granted DACA and they are of the lowest priority for removal. ICE has nothing to do with it as ICE doesn't prosecute, yet if ICE comes across one via local law enforcement for a crime, then ICE can detain and removal proceedings can be completed. ICE is only informed by USCIS if the person is found to have lied on the application or they have committed a heinous crime or one that renders them deportable.

This was done under Obama to a DACA recipient.
DACA Recipient Deported After Visiting Mexico | HuffPost

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

Trump’s Quiet Reversal on Deporting Young Undocumented Immigrants

DACA is a written order given by the commander and chief directing our immigration enforcement agencies to defer deportation and issue valid work permits in two year intervals to a group of people who qualify under the criteria. You dont think that's protection?! Of course it is!
There was always the risk of a new president reversing the policy. And there was a risk of deportation if they commit crimes. But other than those two scenarios it gave the dreamers protection from deportation and the ability to work.

Just because it isn't written law doesn't mean it has no significance. It's still a law in my home town that you can get a citation if you sneeze on a public sidewalk (because it could spook the horses) but surprisingly enough it hasn't been enforced for a long time now. Could a cop right now be justified to write a sneezer a ticket? Sure he could by law. But nobody is going to do that

Btw. Congressman Steve King (Mr toughass on immigration) just called DACA a "quasi legal status" tonight in an interview with Tucker Carlson. You should go set him straight!

You sure like to spin words to fit your narrative. DACA is a directive (not a written order by the President) given to the agency head who put out a memorandum (written letter by DHS head) with the directive that DACA is a low priority for removal/deportation. Agents are to focus on criminals and border crosser's. Read the DACA memo put out by the DHS head under Obama. They can still be deported for crimes (if they come into contact with the law).

Steve Kings comment went right over your head, "quasi legal status" because they are given legal work authorization and in most states they are also allowed a drivers license.

Just because a law isn't enforced, doesn't mean its not law, the officer has discretion to enforce it or not based on priorities set by the department/agency. :SHRUG:

Who is the one playing word games? Get a mirror man. You started this whole discussion, acting all superior by nit picking terminology.

DACA was a policy memorandum directing CBP, USCIS and ICE about immigration enforcement priorities. You don't like that I called the directive an order? Again, you play petty word games... now I'm shaking my head

I never said it was law, I never said that DACA recipients couldn't be deported for committing crimes. Kings statement didn't go over my head, he used the same loose language calling it legal status that I did about the program... but you decided to jump down my threat about it. What a joke.

You also said that "DACA does not protect them in anyway" which is bullshit. The actual text in the Dream Act that is going through congress right now refers to people as "protected by DACA".

 

[Liquid Reigns]

None have been detained, DACA places them into deportation proceedings that get deferred (the forms they file when they apply for DACA), meaning their hearing court date is sometime in the future (more than 1 year out allows them to apply for work authorization).

DACA gives them deferred action on deportation and a work permit as long as they meet the criteria and do not commit crimes. It does not put them in deportation proceedings. If a persons DACA is denied and they have not committed a crime then the case is not reported to ICE.

Deferred action means they are placed into removal proceedings (via the forms they fill out and file) through USCIS that are being deferred. There is no deferred action on deportation as they can be deported while having DACA. DACA does not protect them in any way. They stop accruing illegal presence when granted DACA and they are of the lowest priority for removal. ICE has nothing to do with it as ICE doesn't prosecute, yet if ICE comes across one via local law enforcement for a crime, then ICE can detain and removal proceedings can be completed. ICE is only informed by USCIS if the person is found to have lied on the application or they have committed a heinous crime or one that renders them deportable.

This was done under Obama to a DACA recipient.
DACA Recipient Deported After Visiting Mexico | HuffPost

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

Trump’s Quiet Reversal on Deporting Young Undocumented Immigrants

DACA is a written order given by the commander and chief directing our immigration enforcement agencies to defer deportation and issue valid work permits in two year intervals to a group of people who qualify under the criteria. You dont think that's protection?! Of course it is!
There was always the risk of a new president reversing the policy. And there was a risk of deportation if they commit crimes. But other than those two scenarios it gave the dreamers protection from deportation and the ability to work.

Just because it isn't written law doesn't mean it has no significance. It's still a law in my home town that you can get a citation if you sneeze on a public sidewalk (because it could spook the horses) but surprisingly enough it hasn't been enforced for a long time now. Could a cop right now be justified to write a sneezer a ticket? Sure he could by law. But nobody is going to do that

Btw. Congressman Steve King (Mr toughass on immigration) just called DACA a "quasi legal status" tonight in an interview with Tucker Carlson. You should go set him straight!

You sure like to spin words to fit your narrative. DACA is a directive (not a written order by the President) given to the agency head who put out a memorandum (written letter by DHS head) with the directive that DACA is a low priority for removal/deportation. Agents are to focus on criminals and border crosser's. Read the DACA memo put out by the DHS head under Obama. They can still be deported for crimes (if they come into contact with the law).

Steve Kings comment went right over your head, "quasi legal status" because they are given legal work authorization and in most states they are also allowed a drivers license.

Just because a law isn't enforced, doesn't mean its not law, the officer has discretion to enforce it or not based on priorities set by the department/agency. :SHRUG:

Who is the one playing word games? Get a mirror man. You started this whole discussion, acting all superior by nit picking terminology.

DACA was a policy memorandum directing CBP, USCIS and ICE about immigration enforcement priorities. You don't like that I called the directive an order? Again, you play petty word games... now I'm shaking my head

I never said it was law, I never said that DACA recipients couldn't be deported for committing crimes. Kings statement didn't go over my head, he used the same loose language calling it legal status that I did about the program... but you decided to jump down my threat about it. What a joke.

You also said that "DACA does not protect them in anyway" which is bullshit. The actual text in the Dream Act that is going through congress right now refers to people as "protected by DACA".

The text of the Dream Act has no bearing on the DACA memo. DACA has no protections in it, they were simply low priority removals as per the memo.

 

[Slade3200]

DACA gives them deferred action on deportation and a work permit as long as they meet the criteria and do not commit crimes. It does not put them in deportation proceedings. If a persons DACA is denied and they have not committed a crime then the case is not reported to ICE.

Deferred action means they are placed into removal proceedings (via the forms they fill out and file) through USCIS that are being deferred. There is no deferred action on deportation as they can be deported while having DACA. DACA does not protect them in any way. They stop accruing illegal presence when granted DACA and they are of the lowest priority for removal. ICE has nothing to do with it as ICE doesn't prosecute, yet if ICE comes across one via local law enforcement for a crime, then ICE can detain and removal proceedings can be completed. ICE is only informed by USCIS if the person is found to have lied on the application or they have committed a heinous crime or one that renders them deportable.

This was done under Obama to a DACA recipient.
DACA Recipient Deported After Visiting Mexico | HuffPost

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

Trump’s Quiet Reversal on Deporting Young Undocumented Immigrants

DACA is a written order given by the commander and chief directing our immigration enforcement agencies to defer deportation and issue valid work permits in two year intervals to a group of people who qualify under the criteria. You dont think that's protection?! Of course it is!
There was always the risk of a new president reversing the policy. And there was a risk of deportation if they commit crimes. But other than those two scenarios it gave the dreamers protection from deportation and the ability to work.

Just because it isn't written law doesn't mean it has no significance. It's still a law in my home town that you can get a citation if you sneeze on a public sidewalk (because it could spook the horses) but surprisingly enough it hasn't been enforced for a long time now. Could a cop right now be justified to write a sneezer a ticket? Sure he could by law. But nobody is going to do that

Btw. Congressman Steve King (Mr toughass on immigration) just called DACA a "quasi legal status" tonight in an interview with Tucker Carlson. You should go set him straight!

You sure like to spin words to fit your narrative. DACA is a directive (not a written order by the President) given to the agency head who put out a memorandum (written letter by DHS head) with the directive that DACA is a low priority for removal/deportation. Agents are to focus on criminals and border crosser's. Read the DACA memo put out by the DHS head under Obama. They can still be deported for crimes (if they come into contact with the law).

Steve Kings comment went right over your head, "quasi legal status" because they are given legal work authorization and in most states they are also allowed a drivers license.

Just because a law isn't enforced, doesn't mean its not law, the officer has discretion to enforce it or not based on priorities set by the department/agency. :SHRUG:

Who is the one playing word games? Get a mirror man. You started this whole discussion, acting all superior by nit picking terminology.

DACA was a policy memorandum directing CBP, USCIS and ICE about immigration enforcement priorities. You don't like that I called the directive an order? Again, you play petty word games... now I'm shaking my head

I never said it was law, I never said that DACA recipients couldn't be deported for committing crimes. Kings statement didn't go over my head, he used the same loose language calling it legal status that I did about the program... but you decided to jump down my threat about it. What a joke.

You also said that "DACA does not protect them in anyway" which is bullshit. The actual text in the Dream Act that is going through congress right now refers to people as "protected by DACA".

The text of the Dream Act has no bearing on the DACA memo. DACA has no protections in it, they were simply low priority removals as per the memo.

The dream act may have no legal bearing on DACA but it clearly is in contrast with your claims in regards to your statement that DACA offers protections... Face it, Mr. High and mighty is wrong

Dream Act of 2017

This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel removal and grant lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis to an alien who is inadmissible or deportable or is in temporary protected status who: (1) has been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding this bill's enactment; (2) was younger than 18 years of age on the initial date of U.S. entry; (3) is not inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds; (4) has not participated in persecution; (5) has not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and (6) has fulfilled specified educational requirements.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Deferred action means they are placed into removal proceedings (via the forms they fill out and file) through USCIS that are being deferred. There is no deferred action on deportation as they can be deported while having DACA. DACA does not protect them in any way. They stop accruing illegal presence when granted DACA and they are of the lowest priority for removal. ICE has nothing to do with it as ICE doesn't prosecute, yet if ICE comes across one via local law enforcement for a crime, then ICE can detain and removal proceedings can be completed. ICE is only informed by USCIS if the person is found to have lied on the application or they have committed a heinous crime or one that renders them deportable.

This was done under Obama to a DACA recipient.
DACA Recipient Deported After Visiting Mexico | HuffPost

Trump’s Quiet Reversal on Deporting Young Undocumented Immigrants

DACA is a written order given by the commander and chief directing our immigration enforcement agencies to defer deportation and issue valid work permits in two year intervals to a group of people who qualify under the criteria. You dont think that's protection?! Of course it is!
There was always the risk of a new president reversing the policy. And there was a risk of deportation if they commit crimes. But other than those two scenarios it gave the dreamers protection from deportation and the ability to work.

Just because it isn't written law doesn't mean it has no significance. It's still a law in my home town that you can get a citation if you sneeze on a public sidewalk (because it could spook the horses) but surprisingly enough it hasn't been enforced for a long time now. Could a cop right now be justified to write a sneezer a ticket? Sure he could by law. But nobody is going to do that

Btw. Congressman Steve King (Mr toughass on immigration) just called DACA a "quasi legal status" tonight in an interview with Tucker Carlson. You should go set him straight!

You sure like to spin words to fit your narrative. DACA is a directive (not a written order by the President) given to the agency head who put out a memorandum (written letter by DHS head) with the directive that DACA is a low priority for removal/deportation. Agents are to focus on criminals and border crosser's. Read the DACA memo put out by the DHS head under Obama. They can still be deported for crimes (if they come into contact with the law).

Steve Kings comment went right over your head, "quasi legal status" because they are given legal work authorization and in most states they are also allowed a drivers license.

Just because a law isn't enforced, doesn't mean its not law, the officer has discretion to enforce it or not based on priorities set by the department/agency. :SHRUG:

Who is the one playing word games? Get a mirror man. You started this whole discussion, acting all superior by nit picking terminology.

DACA was a policy memorandum directing CBP, USCIS and ICE about immigration enforcement priorities. You don't like that I called the directive an order? Again, you play petty word games... now I'm shaking my head

I never said it was law, I never said that DACA recipients couldn't be deported for committing crimes. Kings statement didn't go over my head, he used the same loose language calling it legal status that I did about the program... but you decided to jump down my threat about it. What a joke.

You also said that "DACA does not protect them in anyway" which is bullshit. The actual text in the Dream Act that is going through congress right now refers to people as "protected by DACA".

The text of the Dream Act has no bearing on the DACA memo. DACA has no protections in it, they were simply low priority removals as per the memo.

The dream act may have no legal bearing on DACA but it clearly is in contrast with your claims in regards to your statement that DACA offers protections... Face it, Mr. High and mighty is wrong

Dream Act of 2017

This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel removal and grant lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis to an alien who is inadmissible or deportable or is in temporary protected status who: (1) has been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding this bill's enactment; (2) was younger than 18 years of age on the initial date of U.S. entry; (3) is not inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds; (4) has not participated in persecution; (5) has not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and (6) has fulfilled specified educational requirements.

How the Dream Act is worded has no bearing on what DACA is. The Dream Act has no bearing on anything that was discussed.

The Dream Act covers all aliens (meaning more than just DACA) who are inadmissible or deportable or in TPS (refugees - Temporary Protected Status) status, provided they meet the Dream At requirements.

Where does the Dream Act contrast anything I have stated about DACA let alone show that DACA is a protected status? What you quoted doesn't do it and makes you look pretty damned inept. Here is the actual memo link as signed by O'l Nappy herself. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets...on-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

And here is the new memo from Mrs. Duke rescinding the 2012 memo Memorandum on Rescission Of DACA | Homeland Security

 

[Slade3200]

DACA is a written order given by the commander and chief directing our immigration enforcement agencies to defer deportation and issue valid work permits in two year intervals to a group of people who qualify under the criteria. You dont think that's protection?! Of course it is!
There was always the risk of a new president reversing the policy. And there was a risk of deportation if they commit crimes. But other than those two scenarios it gave the dreamers protection from deportation and the ability to work.

Just because it isn't written law doesn't mean it has no significance. It's still a law in my home town that you can get a citation if you sneeze on a public sidewalk (because it could spook the horses) but surprisingly enough it hasn't been enforced for a long time now. Could a cop right now be justified to write a sneezer a ticket? Sure he could by law. But nobody is going to do that

Btw. Congressman Steve King (Mr toughass on immigration) just called DACA a "quasi legal status" tonight in an interview with Tucker Carlson. You should go set him straight!

You sure like to spin words to fit your narrative. DACA is a directive (not a written order by the President) given to the agency head who put out a memorandum (written letter by DHS head) with the directive that DACA is a low priority for removal/deportation. Agents are to focus on criminals and border crosser's. Read the DACA memo put out by the DHS head under Obama. They can still be deported for crimes (if they come into contact with the law).

Steve Kings comment went right over your head, "quasi legal status" because they are given legal work authorization and in most states they are also allowed a drivers license.

Just because a law isn't enforced, doesn't mean its not law, the officer has discretion to enforce it or not based on priorities set by the department/agency. :SHRUG:

Who is the one playing word games? Get a mirror man. You started this whole discussion, acting all superior by nit picking terminology.

DACA was a policy memorandum directing CBP, USCIS and ICE about immigration enforcement priorities. You don't like that I called the directive an order? Again, you play petty word games... now I'm shaking my head

I never said it was law, I never said that DACA recipients couldn't be deported for committing crimes. Kings statement didn't go over my head, he used the same loose language calling it legal status that I did about the program... but you decided to jump down my threat about it. What a joke.

You also said that "DACA does not protect them in anyway" which is bullshit. The actual text in the Dream Act that is going through congress right now refers to people as "protected by DACA".

The text of the Dream Act has no bearing on the DACA memo. DACA has no protections in it, they were simply low priority removals as per the memo.

The dream act may have no legal bearing on DACA but it clearly is in contrast with your claims in regards to your statement that DACA offers protections... Face it, Mr. High and mighty is wrong

Dream Act of 2017

This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel removal and grant lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis to an alien who is inadmissible or deportable or is in temporary protected status who: (1) has been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding this bill's enactment; (2) was younger than 18 years of age on the initial date of U.S. entry; (3) is not inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds; (4) has not participated in persecution; (5) has not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and (6) has fulfilled specified educational requirements.

How the Dream Act is worded has no bearing on what DACA is. The Dream Act has no bearing on anything that was discussed.

The Dream Act covers all aliens (meaning more than just DACA) who are inadmissible or deportable or in TPS (refugees - Temporary Protected Status) status, provided they meet the Dream At requirements.

Where does the Dream Act contrast anything I have stated about DACA let alone show that DACA is a protected status? What you quoted doesn't do it and makes you look pretty damned inept. Here is the actual memo link as signed by O'l Nappy herself. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets...on-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

And here is the new memo from Mrs. Duke rescinding the 2012 memo Memorandum on Rescission Of DACA | Homeland Security

You try too hard to make me look inept and you continue to contradict yourself. So we are very clear, i'll use the memorandum that you just linked to and display my point:

You said that DACA provided no protections, this is from your memo:
On February 20, 2017, then Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly issued an implementing memorandum, stating “the Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement,” except as provided in the Department’s June 15, 2012 memorandum establishing DACA,[6] and the November 20, 2014 memorandum establishing DAPA and expanding DACA.

From the original DACA memo:
However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority, your Kelley quote isn't specific, nor is it aimed at DACA, it refers to all immigrants including refugee and asylum seekers, and legal immigrants too.. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1]

and

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

That is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

 

[Slade3200]

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1]

and

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

That is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1]

and

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

That is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA. :SHRUG:

Tom Perez, the new DNC chair who was Obama’s labor secretary from 2013 to 2017, ripped into Trump on April 20 over a USA Today report about the deportation of a man who reportedly should have been shielded from deportation by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. But immigration lawyers who spoke to The Daily Beast said the deportation at issue probably would have played out the same way if Barack Obama were president—and that Democratic political operatives, including Perez, were silent when DACA recipients were deported under his administration.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

 

[Slade3200]

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1]

and

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

That is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA.
:SHRUG:

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1]

and

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

That is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA.
:SHRUG:

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

There was no directive of protection, if there was they wouldn't have been deported, and no, they all didn't get deported for committing a crime. SMFH They were simply low priority.

Obama didn’t just deport hundreds of DACA recipients; Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained or deported more than 4,000 U.S. citizens in 2010, according to the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

Great job Obama!

 

[Slade3200]

Those memorandums provided protections, plane and simple, or else they would not have been pointed out in the highlighted paragraph. If the protections were not there in the directive then you all wouldn't be causing a fuss over them.

Again, you are trying to hard to try and make me look dumb and it is having a negative effect on your arguments. It is a very dishonest way of having a debate, trying to bully and demean through petty word games instead of having a straight forward discussion. Keep it up if you must, your little tactics don't intimidate me. I see your BS from a mile away.

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security established DACA through the issuance of a memorandum on June 15, 2012. The program purported to use deferred action—an act of prosecutorial discretion meant to be applied only on an individualized case-by-case basis—to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress had not otherwise acted to provide by law.[1]

and

Prior to the implementation of DAPA, twenty-six states—led by Texas—challenged the policies announced in the November 20, 2014 memorandum in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an order issued on February 16, 2015, the district court preliminarily enjoined the policies nationwide.[2] The district court held that the plaintiff states were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program did not comply with relevant authorities.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Texas and the other states had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied the other requirements for a preliminary injunction.[3] The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Department’s DAPA policy conflicted with the discretion authorized by Congress. In considering the DAPA program, the court noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.” According to the court, “DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined.”

Although the original DACA policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, both the district and appellate court decisions relied on factual findings about the implementation of the 2012 DACA memorandum. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that DACA decisions were not truly discretionary,[4] and that DAPA and expanded DACA would be substantially similar in execution. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that implementation of the program did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act because the Department did not implement it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

That is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA.
:SHRUG:

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

There was no directive of protection, if there was they wouldn't have been deported, and no, they all didn't get deported for committing a crime. SMFH They were simply low priority.

Obama didn’t just deport hundreds of DACA recipients; Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained or deported more than 4,000 U.S. citizens in 2010, according to the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

Great job Obama!

Did you even read that article that you linked to that proved absolutely nothing? haha, what a joke. Here is a nice line from the article you just referenced.

"Obama put DACA in place to provide temporary protection from deportation and work permits to people..."

You gonna keep digging?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No those memo's didn't provide any protection, they simply stated that DACA was a low priority. I'm not trying to make you look dumb, you're doing that all on your own.

O'l Nappy re-invented the term prosecutorial discretion which is what the big fuss was over and then she carved out a specific group to give benefits to, which is outside the law, as shown by Texas vs US with DAPA and DACA 2.0.

andThat is why the new memo was created, as it specifically stated.

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA.
:SHRUG:

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

There was no directive of protection, if there was they wouldn't have been deported, and no, they all didn't get deported for committing a crime. SMFH They were simply low priority.

Obama didn’t just deport hundreds of DACA recipients; Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained or deported more than 4,000 U.S. citizens in 2010, according to the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

Great job Obama!

Did you even read that article that you linked to that proved absolutely nothing? haha, what a joke. Here is a nice line from the article you just referenced.

"Obama put DACA in place to provide temporary protection from deportation and work permits to people..."

You gonna keep digging?

Yes I read it and the authors opinion is just that, his poorly written opinion. Now, here is what actual lawyers state. Deportation relief doesn't constitute protection as Mrs. Collopy points out "enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration". Enforcement action could have taken place at any time, and for some 300-400 it did happen to them.

Deportation relief is not equivalent to legal status, notes Dree Collopy, an immigration lawyer in Washington, D.C. But enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration.

Here it says they weren't priorities to begin with.

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

Here Johnson advises CBP and ICE to excercise discretion on a case by case basis.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

None of this protects DACA, as noted from Kelley, some had been arrested in recent weeks.

 

[Slade3200]

Jesus man, you said it right there "prosecutorial discretion" "Deferred Action" THATS PROTECTION. It honestly can't be any clearer. If you really don't get it then thats fine, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Whether you think it legal or illegal it was a directive that protected a group who fit the criteria and went through a process from deportation. Those are just the simple facts.

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA.
:SHRUG:

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

There was no directive of protection, if there was they wouldn't have been deported, and no, they all didn't get deported for committing a crime. SMFH They were simply low priority.

Obama didn’t just deport hundreds of DACA recipients; Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained or deported more than 4,000 U.S. citizens in 2010, according to the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

Great job Obama!

Did you even read that article that you linked to that proved absolutely nothing? haha, what a joke. Here is a nice line from the article you just referenced.

"Obama put DACA in place to provide temporary protection from deportation and work permits to people..."

You gonna keep digging?

Yes I read it and the authors opinion is just that, his poorly written opinion. Now, here is what actual lawyers state. Deportation relief doesn't constitute protection as Mrs. Collopy points out "enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration". Enforcement action could have taken place at any time, and for some 300-400 it did happen to them.

Deportation relief is not equivalent to legal status, notes Dree Collopy, an immigration lawyer in Washington, D.C. But enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration.

Here it says they weren't priorities to begin with.

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

Here Johnson advises CBP and ICE to excercise discretion on a case by case basis.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

None of this protects DACA, as noted from Kelley, some had been arrested in recent weeks.

Yeah, it happened to those who broke the law per the directive. Show me an example of 1 person who was under DACA and got deported without being accused of breaking any laws.

 

[flacaltenn]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

The priority should be differentiating between the children that CAME with parents/immediate family and those that were ATTRACTED here by the hype over DACA UNESCORTED.

We are NOT the world's orphanage or child care. I have no issue with the general of DACA since they are thoroughly vetted and HAVE a track record. The Guatemalan kids who rode the death trains thru Mexico and paid the smugglers did not.

So the "fix" to DACA is simply making the point that WHEN they came and WHO came with them -- is the most important initial qualifier for this "amnesty". Any UNESCORTED minors? Just wards of the State in a very crappy run orphanage... Find their parents. Send them home..

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Prosecutorial Discretion is not protection. Why you think it is is dumbfounded. It was a memo that placed a group at the lowest of priorities, they could still get deported with having DACA status, as I already showed some have been. If they were protected, then they shouldn't have been deported while having DACA.
:SHRUG:

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

There was no directive of protection, if there was they wouldn't have been deported, and no, they all didn't get deported for committing a crime. SMFH They were simply low priority.

Obama didn’t just deport hundreds of DACA recipients; Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained or deported more than 4,000 U.S. citizens in 2010, according to the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

Great job Obama!

Did you even read that article that you linked to that proved absolutely nothing? haha, what a joke. Here is a nice line from the article you just referenced.

"Obama put DACA in place to provide temporary protection from deportation and work permits to people..."

You gonna keep digging?

Yes I read it and the authors opinion is just that, his poorly written opinion. Now, here is what actual lawyers state. Deportation relief doesn't constitute protection as Mrs. Collopy points out "enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration". Enforcement action could have taken place at any time, and for some 300-400 it did happen to them.

Deportation relief is not equivalent to legal status, notes Dree Collopy, an immigration lawyer in Washington, D.C. But enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration.

Here it says they weren't priorities to begin with.

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

Here Johnson advises CBP and ICE to excercise discretion on a case by case basis.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

None of this protects DACA, as noted from Kelley, some had been arrested in recent weeks.

Yeah, it happened to those who broke the law per the directive. Show me an example of 1 person who was under DACA and got deported without being accused of breaking any laws.

DREAMer Deportation Case Raises Questions On Trump's Deferred Action Policy

Montes-Bojorquez' suit says he came to this country when he was 9 years old and had been visiting a friend in Calexico, Calif., in mid-February and walking toward a taxi stand when he was approached by an officer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection who asked him for identification.

Montes-Bojorquez said he had left his California identification card and his employment authorization document in a friend's car. Unable to verify that he was covered by DACA, Montes was detained, questioned and asked to sign certain documents. Within three hours he was escorted to the border and left in Mexicali, Mexico.

What law did he break?

 

[skye]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

The Constitution should be the priority and if Trump breaks his promise it's the beginning of the end for him.

Be careful Donald Trump, your base comes before Chuck Schumer.... it was your base that voted for you and not Schumer.

 

[Slade3200]

They would only get deported with DACA status if they committed a crime otherwise there were not getting deported. They were protected by the directive. How are you not understanding this?

There was no directive of protection, if there was they wouldn't have been deported, and no, they all didn't get deported for committing a crime. SMFH They were simply low priority.

Obama didn’t just deport hundreds of DACA recipients; Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained or deported more than 4,000 U.S. citizens in 2010, according to the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Immigration Lawyers to Outraged Dems: Where Were You When Obama Deported Kids?

Great job Obama!

Did you even read that article that you linked to that proved absolutely nothing? haha, what a joke. Here is a nice line from the article you just referenced.

"Obama put DACA in place to provide temporary protection from deportation and work permits to people..."

You gonna keep digging?

Yes I read it and the authors opinion is just that, his poorly written opinion. Now, here is what actual lawyers state. Deportation relief doesn't constitute protection as Mrs. Collopy points out "enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration". Enforcement action could have taken place at any time, and for some 300-400 it did happen to them.

Deportation relief is not equivalent to legal status, notes Dree Collopy, an immigration lawyer in Washington, D.C. But enforcement action against them was largely avoided under the Obama administration.

Here it says they weren't priorities to begin with.

“Generally, these people weren’t going to be priorities to begin with. They’re generally going to be younger people who have been here for a long time and have no criminal record,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They’re not somebody we wanted ICE agents to waste time on.” With the finite resources ICE has, the population is not one an administration wants “to waste resources on from an enforcement perspective,” he added.

Here Johnson advises CBP and ICE to excercise discretion on a case by case basis.

In 2014, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced that the administration would focus on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This would exclude DACA members since to qualify, individuals cannot be “convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors,” or “pose a threat to national security or public safety.” U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which grants DACA status, advises Customs and Border Patrol and ICE to “exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to prevent qualifying individuals from being apprehended, placed into removal proceedings, or removed.” DHS Secretary John Kelly has said his agency is not targeting DACA recipients, though some have been arrested in recent weeks.

None of this protects DACA, as noted from Kelley, some had been arrested in recent weeks.

Yeah, it happened to those who broke the law per the directive. Show me an example of 1 person who was under DACA and got deported without being accused of breaking any laws.

DREAMer Deportation Case Raises Questions On Trump's Deferred Action Policy

Montes-Bojorquez' suit says he came to this country when he was 9 years old and had been visiting a friend in Calexico, Calif., in mid-February and walking toward a taxi stand when he was approached by an officer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection who asked him for identification.

Montes-Bojorquez said he had left his California identification card and his employment authorization document in a friend's car. Unable to verify that he was covered by DACA, Montes was detained, questioned and asked to sign certain documents. Within three hours he was escorted to the border and left in Mexicali, Mexico.

What law did he break?

What law did he break? Read your own articles dude.

"Juan Manuel Montes Bojorquez was apprehended by the Calexico Station Border Patrol after illegally entering the U.S. by climbing over the fence in downtown Calexico. He was arrested by BP just minutes after he made his illegal entry and admitted under oath during the arrest interview that he had entered illegally.

"His DACA status expired in Aug. 2015 and he was notified at that time.

"In addition, he has a conviction for theft for which he received probation."

I also found this gem:
"Montes-Bojorquez, who had twice been granted protection from deportation under DACA"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Make DACA law but tie it to a strong border security act, as well. You should not have one without the other.

Little confused as to why we "should" have DACA at all. Not necessarily saying we shouldn't, just saying I don't feel that there's an OBLIGATION for us to have it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are just under 800,000 registered dreamers. What are you talking about with 11 million?

Wet backs. Dreamers are wet backs that are largely comprised of males over 18.

No, dreamers are a group of 800k undocumented people who fit within defined criteria and qualify for certain legal benefits.... but thanks for publicly stating that you know nothing about the subject. You are ignorant to the most basic of definitions. You are over your head here man, come back once you've got a clue.

Na, thats just the wrapper it needs to be in to make swallowing that bullshit more easy. Illegal is illegal or it wouldn't be an issue.

Spoken like a true simpleton. I'll prove it. If an adult goes with a crew to rob a bank and is caught in the get away car then they can be charged as an accomplice. If a couple takes their baby with them to rob a bank and the baby is caught in the car with the couple then the child is not guilty of being an accomplice. A very simple example of responsibility and culpability under the law. The dreamers were not culpable for any crimes under the law so their circumstance is very different and it is justified to treat them differently.

Child might not go to jail but it also doesn't get to keep the bank money the parents stole. The child is not allowed to profit from it's parents illegal activities.

And at no point is it anyone's responsibility to prevent children from enduring any and all ill effects from their parents' choices in life. Yeah, it sucks. No, that doesn't make the rest of us obligated to change it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, dreamers are a group of 800k undocumented people who fit within defined criteria and qualify for certain legal benefits.... but thanks for publicly stating that you know nothing about the subject. You are ignorant to the most basic of definitions. You are over your head here man, come back once you've got a clue.

Na, thats just the wrapper it needs to be in to make swallowing that bullshit more easy. Illegal is illegal or it wouldn't be an issue.

Spoken like a true simpleton. I'll prove it. If an adult goes with a crew to rob a bank and is caught in the get away car then they can be charged as an accomplice. If a couple takes their baby with them to rob a bank and the baby is caught in the car with the couple then the child is not guilty of being an accomplice. A very simple example of responsibility and culpability under the law. The dreamers were not culpable for any crimes under the law so their circumstance is very different and it is justified to treat them differently.

This is just funny.

The way slade thinks, the baby being removed from the parents while they are in prison for robbing the bank MUST BE PUNISHING THE CHILD. Remember how cruel it is to separate families!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't make this idiotic shit up!

The punishment for robbing a bank is jail. The punishment for Illegally crossing the border is deportation. You are saying the child doesn't belong in jail for the bank crime, but should be deported in the immigration scenario. Are you seeing the paradox yet?

Ones a citizen, the other is not.

Your the one that claims that separating families is a punishment.

So here's you logic using both examples.

It's ok to separate families that are US citizens, but you can't separate illegal alien families.

That's downright funny!

I really don't understand why we would be "separating families", anyway. 1) If the kids aren't legal, the parents probably aren't, either. Which means they should get their fuzzy butts back where they came from, too. 2) No one is forcing the parents to stay here without their kids. They're free to tag along. So if they choose to remain here without their kids, then THEY are separating the family, and why should their family togetherness be more important to us than it is to them?

There. Questions answered, problems solved, my work here is done.