“DACA’s Deficiencies are Severe”: Federal Appellate Court Rules Against DACA

For years, I have written that I considered President Barack Obama’s action to create Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to be unlawful. The move was part of an open effort to circumvent Congress when it failed to yield to the demands of President Obama and dispensed with obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Now the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld a lower court in ruling against DACA.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit (with U.S. Circuit Judges James Ho and Kurt Engelhardt), Chief Judge Priscilla Richman found that President Obama did indeed circumvent Congress and evaded the limits imposed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it enacted DACA in 2012. The court declared:

“Under the first factor, DACA’s deficiencies are severe. The district court’s excellent opinion correctly identified fundamental substantive defects in the program. The DACA Memorandum contradicts significant portions of the INA. There is no possibility that DHS could obviate these conflicts on remand.”

The court, however, did not change the status of the roughly 600,000 people from 150 countries enrolled under DACA. It sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Biden Administration fought to block any judicial review by challenging the standing of Texas to bring the action. However, it did little to refute the claims of injury raised by the state, including an expert who estimated that DACA recipients overall impose a cost of more than $250,000,000 on Texas per year and another $533,000,000 annually in costs to local Texas communities.

In addition, the court noted that:

“Texas contends that the rescission of DACA would cause some recipients to leave, thereby reducing the financial burdens on the State. It cites a survey of over three thousand DACA recipients in which twenty-two percent of respondents said they were likely or very likely to leave the country if DACA ended.130 The Government presents evidence that many recipients would remain without DACA, but that does not controvert Texas’s showing that some would leave.”

The Fifth Circuit also rejected the common claim that this is nothing more than the exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute cases:

“As our court held in DAPA, “‘[a]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not “unfettered.”’ Declining to prosecute does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.”

Even if the INA were ambiguous, DACA would fail at step two because it is an unreasonable interpretation of the INA. Like DAPA, DACA “undoubtedly implicates ‘question[s] of deep “economic and political significance” that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.’”

There is no “clear congressional authorization” for the power that DHS claims.”

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen will now get the case back. He previously decided that the Department of Homeland Security had implemented DACA in violation of the APA.

In response, the Biden administration has developed a new DACA rule and published it on the Federal Register to satisfy the public notice-and-comment process. The new rule is scheduled to become active on Oct. 31.

The case could ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court but such a move could only magnify the bad precedent already created in the case for the Administration.

Here is the opinion: Texas v. United States

157 thoughts on ““DACA’s Deficiencies are Severe”: Federal Appellate Court Rules Against DACA”

    1. Everything “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did was illegal.

      Secession was fully constitutional. War of aggression without cause against a sovereign foreign nation was unconstitutional. Smashing printing presses, throwing political opponents in prison, fixing the ’64 election using the Army was unconstitutional. Declaring marital law was unconstitutional The president suspending habeas corpus* was unconstitutional – the Chief Justice acted in the absence of a “case” in Judicial Review to strike it down. Committing crimes against humanity through Sherman’s heinous “March to the Sea” was unconstitutional. Lincoln’s communist successors ramming through, not one, but three nearly-impossible-to-ratify amendments in an environment of brutal, post-war, military occupation and oppression was counterintuitive, antithetical, anti-American and unconstitutional – Congress has no legal basis or mandate to act for the benefit of illegal aliens with foreign countries of origin.

      Through Judicial Review, the Supreme Court must act retroactively by 150 years to impose legislative/constitutional corrective action, making America whole and constitutional again.
      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
      *
      “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

      “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

      “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

      – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

    2. Obama gets the added protection of ‘Black privilege’ along with the ever-present, media-provided ‘Democrat privilege’ required to get away with the brazen corruption and lawlessness. Without all that added ‘protection’? Obama is an empty suit, a total fraud.

  1. I’ve always thought that the democrats could get their way on DACA if they were willing to give something to the republicans in exchange. It wouldn’t have to be much. Enforcing our current immigration laws would be an easy thing to give away but no, the democrats always want their way without any compromise. It has ruined our system.

  2. DACA is witchcraft.

    So shall it be. In the year of our lord 1692, we the people condemn thee as a witch. May the flames cleanse thy soul of this evil and its lust for blood.

    Mark your calendars. October 23rd is Satan’s Sabbath.

      1. On January 1, 1863, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect as extant immigration law.

        Deportation of the illegal aliens created on January 1, 1863 was required by extant immigration law.

        The Supreme Court acted retroactively by 50 years to strike down Roe v Wade.

        The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by 150 years, per Judicial Review, to strike down the mass illegal immigration/invasion of January 1, 1863.
        __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        The Naturalization Acts of 1790,1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations, they meant it)

        United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

  3. Congress, not the executive branch, legislates and sets immigration rules.

    Why is there not “judicial overreach” with reference to communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs)?

    The Supreme Court must get to work and do its sworn-oath duty to support the literal, verbatim Constitution, and do so retroactively as it did regarding Roe v Wade.

    The Supreme Court must have acted by Judicial Review and rejected this DACA legislative nonsense, just as Chief Justice Taney immediately struck down “Crazy Abe” Lincoln on his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional and must now be reversed by Judicial Review – time does not bear on constitutionality.

    Obama should have been impeached for abuse of power, usurpation of power, corruption, etc., for his DACA crime of high office, and Obama must have been found ineligible by the Judicial Review of the Supreme Court per the constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement.

    Where the —- is the Supreme Court???

    The charge of the Supreme Court is not to legislate, modify legislation, or modify legislation by “interpretation,” but to assure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4

    The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,…

    1. It’s not that barry-o couldn’t read. Like others who would be king, he just signed a piece of paper – laws, regs, process be damned.

  4. Now, whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,

    That declaration expresses the bedrock philosophy of every tyrant.

    Sure, go ahead and pass your little pieces of legislation. Maybe I’ll sign them, maybe I won’t. It really doesn’t matter. Because I have a pen and a phone, and I will direct my administrative state to do what I want to do anyway. You won’t impeach me and even if you do, you won’t have the votes in the Senate to convict. Ultimately, this will end up in a legal battle that will take years to maybe reach SCOTUS. By then, I will have fulfilled my original campaign promise to fundamentally transform this country.

    That was then, but President Trump put spike strips down on the administrative state by getting 3 conservative justices on SCOTUS. The wheels of justice do turn very slowly, but at least they are rolling in the right direction.

  5. “Biden Administration fought to block any judicial review by challenging the standing of Texas to bring the action. However, it did little to refute the claims of injury raised by the state, including an expert who estimated that DACA recipients overall impose a cost of more than $250,000,000 on Texas per year and another $533,000,000 annually in costs to local Texas communities.”

    The illogic of the Left and Democrats is clear. Democrats are totally incompetent in creating policy, running economies, and building a strong nation. They are to ignorant understand that a state the has such a high liability obviously has standing.

    If you vote for Democrats, you are voting in ignorance for politicians and political actors who have no understanding of crafting good policy (for reference: Bid-inflation, destruction of energy independence, drugs/gangs/illegals crossing our borders, disarray in the world – all brought to you by the Demcrats)

    1. Highlyeducatedwoman,

      The claims of injury by Texas are suspect. As the court noted there are approximately 600,000 DACA recipients and only 101,000 live in Texas. The amounts cited by Texas are assumed. They don’t account for the fact that DACA recipients can legally work in the state and/or are in school. If the majority are legally working it means they have employer based health insurance and other benefits that the state does NOT pay. Plus the emergency medical treatment they do get is federally mandated regardless of immigration status. The court accepted the state’s “proof” of injury solely because it met the technical definition of ‘injury’. Even if the state claimed just a $100 spent on a DACA recipient they can legally claim standing because the court’s interpretation of ‘injury’ is any monetary amount.

    2. highlyeducatedsuburbanwoman

      Apropos of nothing, you’re highly educated yet you are compelled to inform your audience of that which should evince spontaneously.

      Why do you and your highly educated colleagues-in-gender require affirmative action?

      Why does wholly illicit, antithetical unconstitutional affirmative action exist?

      How do you propose to totally calculate much less repay the debt you owe to those who were required to sacrifice (i.e. positions, compensation, reputation, etc.) for your benefit?

      Isn’t affirmative action actually inane and incoherent as the natural duty of women precludes any true career commitment?

      Doesn’t a nation require multitudinous and nurturing mothers?

  6. Jonathan: Now, I would like to move on to an unrelated topic–the Trumpster–the guy we on the “left” like to use as a punching bag. But he is such a great target we can’t resist. And since your have remained pretty quiet about Trump’s legal problems I feel compelled to respond.

    Since the FBI recovered all those top secret docs Trump has come up with several conflicting accounts of how all that material ended up at Mar-a-Lago. He has blamed the GSA for packing the material that left the WH. The GSA has unequivocally denied that false claim. Now there are photos of the shrink packed boxes that show the boxes were prepared either by Trump aides or by Trump himself when the movers arrived. And the Washington Post is reporting that it was Trump who personally packed the 15 boxes of material he agreed to return to NARA back in January. Trump tried to get one of his attorneys, Alex Cannon, to sign off on all the material being returned. Cannon refused because he suspected there was more material his client was holding back. It turns out Cannon was prescient because Trump kept a lot of material–including about 100 top secret classified docs. All of this is pretty conclusive evidence intended to violate the three federal criminal statutes being considered for prosecution.

    The on Tuesday Trump filed a hail-Mary emergency appeal with the Supreme Court asking the Court to overturn the 11th Circuit decision to allow the DOJ/FBI to use use the 100 top secret docs recovered from Mar-a-Lago in their criminal investigation of Trump. And who has Trump applied to for relief? Clarence Thomas who Trump thinks will be more sympathetic. Most legal scholars don’t think Trump’s application has any merit. But with Clarence Thomas we know the legal merits of any case don’t count.

    Finally, yesterday Trump made his most bizarre claims yet. He said that if George Washington and old Abe combined in a Pres/VP combo and ran against Trump the latter would win hands down. Recent polls don’t support Trump’s bizarre claim. Lincoln was rated the best president and Washington was second. Trump was rated third from last among all presidents. In a Monmouth poll, Americans chose Washington. Only 15% chose Trump. How a guy, who has been impeached 2X, thinks he could beat Washington/Lincoln is beyond me. But at least we now know what an extreme Narcissistic personality disorder looks like!

    1. It’s amazing how Turley is actively avoiding the real scandal that is the classified document problem that Trump is facing. It makes the Hunter Biden laptop “scandal” a mere fairy tale compared to Trump’s mounting legal trouble. Not only is his scandalous behavior strangely absent in Turley’s columns it’s also Judge Cannon’s obvious bias towards anything Trump. Marcy Wheeler has done an exemplary job of pointing out just how much judge Cannon has done to help Trump including manufacturing a harm so that she could rule on that very harm to help delay the proceedings against Trump. Even as a law professor Turley should be addressing that.

      1. When one has nothing worthwhile to write, one succumbs to the overriding need to interject the word “trump” into any comment that is more than one sentence.

    2. Dennis McIntyre always wants to move on to the topic of Trump. This happens when he is completely ignorant of the subject at hand. He has no concern for the people of Texas who have to support the DACA recipients. If the immigration laws had been enforced their would be no children who are here due to no fault of their own. Dennis McIntyre can’t honestly defend DACA so he immediately jumps to Trump Trump Trump. There is much to be learned about the constitutional analysis of DACA but Dennis McIntyre has little interest in learning anything that might question his dogma so once again we get Trump Trump Trump. Dennis McIntyre owns an XXL pair of blinders and he puts them to good use in his one trick pony show that has a matinee every afternoon. He pictures himself the Ringmaster.

      1. Thinkitthrough: You are not paying attention. I had two comments. One relating directly to the 5th Circuit’s ruling re DACA. The other one dealt with Trump. You and your MAGA brethren don’t like it that I keep bringing up the Trumpster. It’s a touchy subject because you don’t like hearing the facts. Either does Turley and that’s why he is strangely silent about all of Trump’s legal troubles. But that doesn’t mean Svelaz and I have to remain silent. You are the one who has “XXL” blinders because you refuse to see Trump for what he is–a scam artist, a liar, and a threat to our Democracy. If Trump is actually indicted on criminal charges–either by the DOJ, Georgia or some other jurisdiction–he is calling for his MAGA supporters to rise up to prevent that. So let’s be blunt. Are you willing to put yourself in harms way to defend Trump?. Now I should make an addendum to my comment on the 5th Circuit’s DACA ruling. Turley and the GOP screamed to the heavens complaining about the Dems calls for “packing” the Supreme Court. But when Trump packed the 5th Circuit with his supporters did you hear a peep out of Prof. Turley? Nope. “Packing” the courts with Trump supporting right-wing ideologues is Ok with Turley. Thar’s where hypocrisy comes in!

  7. “ However, it did little to refute the claims of injury raised by the state, including an expert who estimated that DACA recipients overall impose a cost of more than $250,000,000 on Texas per year and another $533,000,000 annually in costs to local Texas communities.”

    Turley is being quite loose with the facts here. That is not what was said in the ruling regarding proof of ‘injury’ by Texas. This is what they actually said,

    “ Texaspresentedevidencethatitspendsmillions ofdollarsprovidingtheseservicestounauthorizedalienseachyear.110 Asthe district court’s opinion reflects, the estimated cost to Texas of providing Emergency Medicaid services to undocumented immigrants residing in Texas was $90 million in fiscal year 2013 and $73 million for 2015.111 The Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimated that the state’s public hospital district facilities incurred approximately $596.8 million in uncompensated care for undocumented immigrants in fiscal year 2006 and $716.8 million in fiscal year 2008.112 The record does not indicate precisely what portion of all costs for illegal aliens is spent on DACA recipients, but no one disputes that some are.113 An expert for defendants estimated that DACA recipients overall impose a cost of more than $250,000,000 on Texas per year and another $533,000,000 annually in costs to local Texas communities.114 “For standing purposes, a loss of even a small amount of money is ordinarily an ‘injury.“

    Given that the court states approximately 600,000 DACA applicants are currently in the country 200,000 reside in California. Only 101,000 live in Texas. That doesn’t account for the fact that they are all legally employed or in school. The $250 million and $533 million figures are grossly overinflated specifically to exaggerate Texas claims of injury. The government correctly notes that IF those same DACA recipients lose their status then they WILL also lose employer based health insurance and other legal employer based benefits and will incur the ‘injury’ Texas claims. Texas is using assumed ‘injury’ as a means to qualify standing and the conservatives of the 5th circuit are more than happy to oblige on this ‘technicality’.

    1. Weren’t the dollar amounts simply for establishing standing, Alexandra? It wouldn’t matter if the amount was $1 (as I think you quoted at the end of your screenscrape). The key findings were on the substance of immigration law

      1. The court was being painfully technical. They were not technically wrong per se. But it begs the question of whether it really was an credible ‘unjury’ since the amount was an assumption not an actual expenditure that was incurred.

        1. Doublespeak much? Aren’t courts supposed to be “painfully technical” and technically right per se? Take another crack at it… in English

    2. Svelaz says that Professor Turley should discuss Trump because it’s more important than a case finding against DACA but in his very next comment he discusses DACA which he considers of little import. If Svelaz wants to discuss it it must be important but if Professor Turley wants to discuss it he is some how remise in his choice of subject. Svelaz is just to discombobulated to take with any degree of seriousness.

      1. Thinkitthrough,

        I didn’t say discussing DACA was less important than Trump’s current legal problems. I only pointed out that Turley is ignoring a rather important issue solely because he wants to avoid criticizing Trump and his poor excuses. The same goes for the Trump judge’s obvious abuse of her position to support Trump’s excuses. There is a much bigger scandal and Turley is conveniently avoiding it unless there is an something new benefitting Trump or a setback for the DOJ that lets him criticize the “bias” against Trump because he…obviously broke the law. Turley sure loves to bring up Biden a lot for alleged “scandals” instead of real scandals occurring on a near daily basis from Trump. It’s just an obvious omission on his part that’s all.

  8. Jonathan: The 5th Circuit’s decision was not a shocker given the ideological makeup of the court. The 5th Circuit is the most conservative appeals court in the country. Trump appointed 6 ultra-conservative judges to the 5th–including James Ho and Kurt Engelhardt. Chief Judge Richman, another conservative, was appointed by George W Bush–the 3 judges who ruled against DACA. It is probably no coincidence you chose Judge Ho for you column on 10/3 in which you defended Ho’s decision not to hire Yale grads. Ho only wants clerks that reflect his extreme right-wing ideological views.

    The right-wing trajectory of the 5th circuit was made possible by Mitch McConnell. When 2 vacancies arose during the Obama presidency McConnell tanked Obama’s appointees and kept the two seats open so Trump could fill them with his Federal Society selections. This has encouraged forum shopping by conservative groups and the GOP to challenge Biden administration policies. Forum shopping was evident when Trump chose Judge Cannon, who he appointed, to challenge the DOJ over the material recovered by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago. Most legal experts say Judge Cannon should have referred Trump’s challenge back to Judge Reinhardt who authorized the original search warrant. Judge Cannon decided to intervene because she is ideologically aligned with Trump and simply wanted to slow down the DOJ/FBI investigation–not to rule on the lack of merit of Trump’s spurious claims.

    The 5th Circuit has endorsed the GOP agenda. In October it temporarily reinstated Texas’s abortion law. This was followed by its issuing a stay freezing the Biden administration’s requiring workers at companies with at least 100 employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or be tested weekly. But the 5th Circuit has proven too extreme even for the conservative Supreme Court. The Court reversed 6 of 7 decisions by the 5th in the 2019-20 terms and 5 0f 7 decisions in the 2020-21 term. Not a particularly good record for the 5th.

    Just as with your defense of Judge Ho and now the 5th circuit ruling in the DACA case it’s pretty clear you endorse the right-wing agenda of the GOP and you will defend erroneous rulings by Trump appointed judges/Justices. It appears the fair and impartial administration of justice is now not one of your priorities.

    1. Or, even more reasonably, that Turley supports constitutional efforts and rulings. DACA was obviously unlawful from the start and imposed serious economic hardship on all taxpaying Americans.

      1. Anonymous, DACA was not ‘obviously’ unlawful. Since the executive branch does have prosecutorial discretion in many cases DACA’s policy applies. Texas is deliberately inflating the “costs” these DACA recipients are imposing on the state. Texas only has 101,000 DACA recipients. The majority are living in California. $533 million is quite excessive for just 101.000 people who are either legally employed or in school and legally employed. Meaning they have employer paid health insurance and other benefits. What services are they getting that costs Texas $533 million a year? Obviously Texas is exaggerating it’s “injury” claims in order to have standing.

        1. @ Svelaz: What is painfully obvious is that you choose to skip over portions of the ruling that address your bogus claim that, “…the executive branch does have prosecutorial discretion [in many DACA cases]. While true in part, its applicability to DACA was directly refuted in the article’s quote of the decision itself — not Mr. Turley’s interpretation.

          The only folks that were shocked to hear DACA was unconstitutional are people who either cannot or refuse to read and comprehend the Constitution .”I’ve got a pen…and a phone” is a catchy tagline, but it wilts immediately when slapped in the face with constitutional reality.

          1. Hickhead,

            The court applied the prosecutorial discretion on the removals portion of the DHS authority. Their ruling was clearly not on the constitutionally of the program. It ruled that it violated the APA because the DHS claim that it was only a policy statement and not a rule did not meet the requirements as laid out in the APA and INS.
            The panel explicitly pointed out that their ruling did not mean the DHS was required to remove DACA recipients since they still have the authority of prosecutorial discretion. They only ruled on the merits of the DHS claim that the DACA memorandum was a policy statement.

            They did stay their ruling pending the resolution of they current changes DHS made to DACA and it may turn out the current ruling is more narrow in scope.

            1. @Svelaz: That is an outright disingenuous, deliberate misrepresentation, and you are a fool if you continue to repeat it. In the article, you seem to have skipped over “As our court held in DAPA, “‘[a]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not “unfettered.”’ Declining to prosecute does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.” The preceding sentence reads:

              “DHS asserts that the program set forth in the DACA Memorandum is an exercise of its inherent prosecutorial discretion. The district court cogently and thoroughly analyzed this argument and rejected it.202 We agree with the district court.”

              Elsewhere:
              “Like DAPA, DACA “is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute.’”217 DACA violates the substantive requirements of the APA.”

              “The district court explained that a nationwide injunction was appropriate because the “public interest of the nation is always served by the cessation of a program that was created in violation of law and whose existence violates the law.”239 ”

              “[the 5th circuit] held that DAPA likely violated procedural APA requirements because it was a substantive rule that required notice and comment.24 [They] also held that DAPA likely violated substantive APA requirements because it was “manifestly contrary” to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).”

              in addition to the APA findings, “The district court further held that DACA was substantively unlawful because it violated the INA and other immigration statutes.46 The district court concluded that DACA was “‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction’ and ‘short of statutory right’ . . . .” because “Congress’s clear articulation of laws for removal, lawful presence, and work
              authorization illustrates a manifest intent to reserve for itself the authority to determine the framework of the nation’s immigration system.”47″

              Also, Setting aside APA: Whether the DACA Memorandum is inconsistent with the INA is ripe for decision and not moot.”

              Reality: 1
              Svelaz: 0

    2. Obama declared, “I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In March 2011, he said that with “respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. … That’s not how a democracy works.”

    3. The majority of the main civil rights cases that went to the SCOTUS (before it was Trumped) came from the Fifth Circuit, so when Turley mentioned the “Fifth Circuit”, I stopped reading. He knows that the disciples don’t realize that this Circuit has less credibility in the legal community than any others. I expect BS from them.

      1. I expect BS from them.

        I am an attorney in Indiana and am familiar with attorney Karen Neiswinger. She and I just spoke on the phone; her name is on the Indiana Bar Association page.

        https://www.inbar.org/members/?id=29040592

        She stated she has never heard of this legal blog nor does she read/comment on here. She has no idea why someone would steal her identity, especially as a woman in her 70s. I however do read Jonathan Turley’s blog and have great respect for him. BS is your MO “Natacha” which is why you steal the identity of an attorney, showing the paid professional troll that you are. When John Podesta stated David Brock was bats*** crazy, he was only getting started in characterizing Media Matters Left wing cultists.

        https://jonathanturley.org/2016/11/04/podesta-warned-i-hope-hillary-truly-understands-now-how-batshit-crazy-david-brock-is/comment-page-1/

    4. Dennis, you make too many erroneous statements to cover all of them, so let me speak to only one.

      “Ho only wants clerks that reflect his extreme right-wing ideological views.”

      Did you bother to think that Ho looks for people that respect speech and diversity? No. That never crossed your mind, even though the statement was loud and clear. You listen to the thoughts rattling in your head that do not permit you to evaluate the spoken word for what it is. In your mind, all words spoken are censored based on leftist doctrine before you can think about them.

  9. It’s your right to be strong on the exact letter of the law yet concurrently really weak on the spirit of the law, Jon. We’ve seen it lately with Dobbs, and now DACA.

    1. There’s nothing even in the spirit of the immigration laws that says “You can’t come to the United States unlawfully but if you come unlawfully and bring your minor children unlawfully, they will be considered citizens.”

      1. According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”

        This excluded:

        foreigners,
        aliens,
        ambassadors’ children, and
        children of foreign ministers born in the U.S.
        Howard specifically wrote that the 14th Amendment:

        “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
        https://thewashingtonstandard.com/14th-amendment-not-grant-citizenship-foreigners-born-u-s/

  10. Executive orders do not have to adhere to the Administrative Protection ACT. BUT an Executive order canceling a previous EO has been squashed by the courts. Where do the courts find their jurisdiction?

    1. Sometimes, it seems they pull it from the portion of their person that predominantly contacts the top surface of a chair (or bench, as it may be).Indeed, it seems they spend inordinate time with their upper-most bodily appendage buried in the orifice located in the same general location previously described.(which seems painful if you consider it).

  11. The left has a difference of opinion about who America belongs to.
    And too many Americans aren’t staking their claim.
    Loudly.

  12. What? All that illegal stuff is NOT Trump’s fault. Say it ain’t so. Wait for it….wait for it. Undoubtedly there will be a post (or several) giving a tit for tat accounting to redirect from the actions of Obama and Biden.

    1. mccartyae: After your “wait for it…”, I expected you would have thrown in some reference to the whole deal being racist. So, you missed that opportunity. But in the bigger picture, what does all this tripe mean as far as having a country with borders where people aren’t given all sorts of benefits for breaking our laws? Well, most likely, nothing. Nothing will change. DACA SCHMACA, our borders are wide open, and we have maybe five million new recipients of government largesse here and already receiving their goodies.

  13. If it were an unconstitutional Trump program, there would be a sweeping nation-wide injunction wiping out the program instantly, but, you see, this is an Obama unconstitutional program. So, it remains in effect during legal challenges until it is replaced by a near identical Biden unconstitutional program mooting all prior legal challenges and starting the process all over again. In the meantime the participants remain, work, accept benefits, give birth to purported American citizens / anchor babies, grow old, and die. Mission Accomplished.

  14. The country has an immigration law and has had it for years. But the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations would never really enforce the law. In fact they flouted and broke the law. For all his deficiencies, Trump at least tried to enforce the law and campaigned on enforcing the law. This is not the time of Andrew Jackson when he could say about the Supreme Court (paraphrasing) that they had made their decision and now had to enforce it themselves. I believe that was in regards to the Indian Removal Act.
    Even Obama said he did not have the power to do this just before he did it.
    DACA is there to get the foot in the door to flood the country with illegal voters and give the major employers cheap labor.
    Immigration has been great for this country but it has to be moderated or we lose all semblance of who we are and what we are. We are not static but ever changing because of immigration. But uncontrolled, healthy change can become chaos, balkanization and strife between large unassimilated groups. Then everyone suffers and we lose what we have taken 2+ centuries to build
    We, as a country, have a sellers market. People want to get what we have. Political and Economic freedom. Not usually found together consistently through this world but unless placed and maintained together, neither is worth much alone.
    We should pick the best who wish to come to our shores and welcome them, irrespective of where they come from. We need those who can contribute right away or very soon after arrival. Just because you want to come does not mean we need you.
    And I am well aware that immigrants frequently do better than native born because they often have a greater appreciation of what they have gained and maybe are just a little bit more hungry to achieve. Those are the people I would like to see accepted into our nation

    1. GEB: You nailed most of the argument. Who gets to decide the individuals that will stay? Let’s throw out there maybe Cori Bush from Missouri. She seems nice. Or maybe Nancy Pelosi. She has a big heart. How about AOC? Maybe we’ll let all the NGO folks decide. Those wonderful people who get government contracts to deal will all the illegals. The administrative DEEP STATE is so pernicious, America-hating, and ubiquitous that I see no hope of ridding the country of any of these illegals EVER.

  15. The underlying goal of DACA has never changed: give them legality, then give them the vote. Rewarding anyone for breaking the law, whether you did it or your parents did it, will only result in more of the same. DACA is bad for America.

  16. I said way back when President Obama started DACA that it was an intentional unconstitutional act and it was illegal; therefore, it was an impeachable offense.

    Was I wrong then?

    I said when President Biden mandated vaccines last year and recently ordered student loan forgiveness that these were intentional unconstitutional acts and they are illegal; therefore, these are impeachable offenses.

    Am I wrong now?

    1. Steve, you were right on both accounts but you forgot to mention Biden’s illegal evection mandate, his open border illegality and his illegal use of “a pen” to spend over THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS giving a gift to students by waiving their mandate to actually pay for their own loans. So now we have 5 causes of action for impeachment.

      1. hullbobby wrote, “you forgot to mention Biden’s illegal evection mandate, his open border illegality and his illegal use of “a pen” to spend over THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS giving a gift to students by waiving their mandate to actually pay for their own loans.”

        Read again, I did mention the illegal student loan forgiveness action by President Biden.

        1. Sorry Steve, in my haste to agree with you I missed that point being made. However, the main point is that Biden has committed multiple illegals and impeachable acts and that at least the two of us see it.

    2. Perhaps Congress can still impeach Obama since impeachment after a president has left office is possible according the the Democrats.

      1. DoubleDutch wrote, “Perhaps Congress can still impeach Obama since impeachment after a president has left office is possible according the the Democrats.”

        Nope, but that comment does earn you an official “Touché”. 🙂

    3. “ I said way back when President Obama started DACA that it was an intentional unconstitutional act and it was illegal; therefore, it was an impeachable offense.

      Was I wrong then?”

      Yes, because way back then. It was deemed an exercise of prosecutorial discretion which the executive branch still has. The court noted that the discretion IS broad. It”s not an impeachable offense because it is NOT a crime. It’s not a misdemeanor or a felony either. It’s just a violation of policy.

      “ I said when President Biden mandated vaccines last year and recently ordered student loan forgiveness that these were intentional unconstitutional acts and they are illegal; therefore, these are impeachable offenses.

      Am I wrong now?”

      Still wrong. Because mandated vaccines has legal precedent. The student loan forgiveness spends no money. Biden is not spending money on student forgiveness and that is also a function of prosecutorial discretion.

      1. Terribly incorrect yourself. The court says the action violated The Constitution, you know, the supreme law of the land.

        1. Robert,

          “ Terribly incorrect yourself. The court says the action violated The Constitution, you know, the supreme law of the land.”

          The court did not say that. Here’s what they said.

          “ On summary judgment, the district court held that DACA violates the APA’s procedural and substantive requirements.150 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court.”

          All they did was point out that the DACA memorandum violated the APA.

      2. So a president has to commit a crime to be impeached? Where have you been the past 4 years? The democrats impeached Trump for a phone call. He was never charged with any crime.

        1. The phone call involved an attempt to hold congressionally approved foreign aid in exchange for dirt on a political opponent. In layman’s terms Trump was engaging in extortion. That’s a crime.

          1. So I guess we are still waiting for the indictment? I mean, if Trump jaywalked, they would throw the book at him. Yet still nothing on this extortion.

            1. I’d prefer to have the entire unredacted conversation that Trump and Selenzky had. Not just the abbreviated transcript.

        1. Sack up nancy. He did not troll you…he rebutted your talking points. Do you come here to debate or just bloviate?

          1. Safeside824 wrote, “Sack up nancy. He did not troll you…he rebutted your talking points. Do you come here to debate or just bloviate?”

            I don’t debate transparently obvious internet trolls when they dangle their low fruit bait, and now that includes you. If you don’t like my choice that’s tough sh!t.

            1. Got it. You are not retreating; you are just advancing in a different direction. Taking your ball and going home. Chesty is not proud. Future post from Steve are to be ignored because he won’t defend his position. Enjoy your bubble.

              1. Safeside824 wrote, “Got it. You are not retreating; you are just advancing in a different direction. Taking your ball and going home.”, “Enjoy your bubble.”

                No that’s not what I’m doing. You’re welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Svelaz’s whole argument was built upon the false narrative foundation that the left has been spewing for 10 f’ing years and that’s the “prosecutorial discretion” nonsense that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just shot down in flames and Jonathan Turley actually quoted that section. The left’s narrative has been and still is a lie, as usual.

                I have been saying for a while that “The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times since 2016 that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?”

                I don’t argue with imbicilic internet trolls that write confirmed propaganda lies that have been specifically dealt with in the blog itself. Now if you choose to argue with a blithering idiot troll like Svalez that’s your choice, I choose otherwise.

                Safeside824 wrote, “Future post from Steve are to be ignored because he won’t defend his position.”

                The premise of your argument is confirmable falsehood, probably a lie on your part, in fact I support my arguments around here all the time, plus I challenge people on both sides of the political divide about their arguments as is evident in this very thread. Just because I don’t argue with intellectually challenged internet trolls wallowing in the filthy slime and grime of trolldom gutters doesn’t mean I won’t defend my position, you’re logic is a complete and utter failure.

                Please do ignore my posts and I hope all the other internet trolls on this site do the same because I’m f’ing done with the internet trolls on Turley’s blog, they can all go play with themselves.

                1. Always with the word salad. Try it this way, boot. Example: The smallest Marine Air-Ground Task Organization is the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Source: Guidebook for Marines (Jul 90) pg 4. Here, I made a hypothesis/statement and provided a citation for others to verify my source. If his narrative was false, demonstrate to the jury how it was false. Show the evidence for you “pattern of propaganda, political left, media lapdog” statement. A portion of the population can make the same claim but insert the word “right”. It appears you are just firing blanks in the echo chamber.

                  1. Safeside824 wrote, “The smallest Marine Air-Ground Task Organization is the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Source: Guidebook for Marines (Jul 90) pg 4.”

                    I got your boot right here Terminal Lance.

                    It appears that your claim is likely false. Military training manuals are numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, etc. not 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I have many years of experience with training manuals.

                    We’re done.

                    1. You must have been a 1-meter Marine. Walking, talking poster of a prophylactic. Were you dummy-corded to your team leader your entire enlistment? How do you not know the Guidebook for Marines is published by The Marine Corps Association? Would you like a reference? What type…Doctrinal, Warfighting, Field, Common Skills? How about you show evidence supporting your claims. When you are in a hole…stop digging.

                    2. Witherspoon says,

                      “ I got your boot right here Terminal Lance.

                      It appears that your claim is likely false. Military training manuals are numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, etc. not 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I have many years of experience with training manuals.

                      We’re done.”

                      See, that wasn’t so hard now was it? The equivalent of what you would have responded would have been something like this, “I don’t answer to your obvious trolling! FO Troll! This is nothing more than leftist trolling!!

                      WE’RE DONE!”

                      it seems the more you try to defend your position or view the angrier you get when it seems like it is not as certain as you think it is.

                2. Witherspoon says, “ No that’s not what I’m doing. You’re welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.”. That’s exactly what you are doing. You yell “troll” whenever you are faced with a problematic position.

                  “ Svelaz’s whole argument was built upon the false narrative foundation that the left has been spewing for 10 f’ing years and that’s the “prosecutorial discretion” nonsense that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just shot down in flames and Jonathan Turley actually quoted that section. The left’s narrative has been and still is a lie, as usual.”

                  I pointed out exactly what the 5th circuit said and pointed out why the claims being made by those who allegedly understand what they said are wrong. I read the opinion. Did you? If you did then you would know that they panel acknowledged that the DHS DOES have prosecutorial discretion it did not apply to the DACA memorandum BECAUSE they didn’t buy the argument that it was only a policy statement. What they DID say is that notwithstanding the DACA memorandum’s violation of the APA the department of homeland security STILL was not required to enforce removals. That is further acknowledgment of prosecutorial discretion which IS still true.

                  Your ranting and hurling insults only point out your need to avoid the facts I brought to your argument. You’re deflecting by throwing broad ad hominem nonsense about some narrative of the left that is 10 years old instead of directly addressing the points I made.

                  Turley didn’t quote the entirety of section robbing it of a broader context that doesn’t allude to what you or Turley claims. Turley is well known for omitting pertinent facts to skew his own narrative to portray a more biased opinion. When anyone dares to challenge your position exposing a weakness you immediately cry “troll!”. Because it’s easier than defending your position from new allegations against it. You’re a wimp.

              2. Safeside824, Steve likes to call anyone a “troll” whenever his position is exposed as weak or deficient in facts or just pointing out a logical failure. He uses it to scram whenever there is difficulty or realization that his position or opinion may, MAY be in error. He’s quite sensitive about that.

          2. ^^^

            The content I’m here for. At least some of the time. You got your ankles busted down, Steve.

            1. Snorkraptor false, “You got your ankles busted down, Steve.”

              Interesting opinion, it’s false but it’s interesting in a signature significant way.

              Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant. Sourcce

        2. Witherspoon, just buy responding your are “biting”.

          You consider anything that refutes or challenges your assertions as “trolling”. This is just a lame attempt at avoiding the truth or facts of the issue. For example, How is the student loan forgiveness program illegal ? You cite no law or regulation that it violates or what exactly makes it illegal. Others say he’s spending $400 Billion for the program, but how is forgiving a loan “spending money”? Surely you can clarify that simple query with our own opinion. How would that be “trolling”?

        3. Steve, is Svelaz trolling or just ignorant? It is hard to say.

          Svelaz said: “The student loan forgiveness spends no money.”

          That can be trolling or ignorance. Maybe Svelaz has the abilities of a six-year-old that believes in Santa Claus, and that money grows on trees. Does Svelaz realize that the forgiveness of loans means the federal government has to increase taxes to pay for the program or take out loans eventually paid for with taxes?

          Would Svelaz develop an awakening if he suddenly had to pay for the program out of his bank account? Does he have the ability to learn that money spent has to be paid for by someone? Maybe he is not a troll and lacks intellect. Look at all the comments he makes, where most are equally stupid.

          1. S. Meyer,

            “ Does Svelaz realize that the forgiveness of loans means the federal government has to increase taxes to pay for the program or take out loans eventually paid for with taxes?”

            Mmm..it seems you are the ignorant one here. You can’t decide whether I”m “trolling” or “ignorant”. Hey here’s an idea. You can look up the definition of what a “troll” is. What a concept.

            The federal government doesn’t necessarily need to increase taxes to pay for the program. They can CUT other programs to pay for it too. Like maybe defense or some other program that is not turning out to be cost effective. OR they could just add it the national debt like everything else. Remember the forgivable PPP loans? How did we pay for it? Republicans who benefitted greatly from that program didn’t seem to complain about how we would pay for it, right?

            Remember the claim some folks are making is that Biden is SPENDING $400 billion to forgive student loans. He’s not spending money. He’s…forgiving the loans as in taking the loss. Many companies do this, even banks.

            1. “You can’t decide whether I”m “trolling” or “ignorant”

              You are proving it true and are ignorant and a troll simultaneously. I like the sound of those words spoken together.

              Svelaz is an ignorant troll. That has a nice ring to it.

              “They can CUT other programs to pay for it too.”

              You lack the intellect to understand the taxpayer pays for the other programs. Pro Tip: Santa Clause doesn’t exist, and money doesn’t grow on trees.

              I take note that you keep changing the subject, this time to PPP loans. That does not make you look smarter.

              “forgiving the loans as in taking the loss.”

              This nonsense is evidence of your continuous stupidity. Forgiving the loans places the taxpayer on the hook to pay for them. Almost nothing you say makes sense. What you say are ramblings from a mental midget lost in his own words.

              1. Speaking of ignorance S. Meyer introduces us to some more.

                “ They can CUT other programs to pay for it too.”

                You lack the intellect to understand the taxpayer pays for the other programs.”

                Cutting other programs just moves the money to another one meaning the taxpayer isn’t paying for anything. It’s money already allocated moved to another one. Are you intentionally this stupid or do you have to work at it?

                1. Svelaz, you are unbelievably stupid. Cutting other programs paid for by the taxpayer and replacing them with loan forgiveness still leaves the taxpayer holding the bill for loan forgiveness.

                  Steve Witherspoon, do you see why it is so difficult to determine if Svelaz is a troll or dumb? He is both. He is a dumb troll.

                  1. “ Svelaz, you are unbelievably stupid. Cutting other programs paid for by the taxpayer and replacing them with loan forgiveness still leaves the taxpayer holding the bill for loan forgiveness.”

                    No, because the money is already allocated meaning it’s already been paid by the taxpayer. Cutting from a program to put into another is what republicans do all the time. You’re just being intentionally stupid now. You don’t seem to HAVE to work at it. That’s sad.

                    1. “No, because the money is already allocated meaning it’s already been paid by the taxpayer. “

                      Can you get dumber? I didn’t think that was possible, but you did it. That program isn’t paid for, it is borrowed money until the check clears. Svelaz thinks he is an economic genius. He believes we can pass a $30 Trillion spending program and then use it’s individual parts to pay our bills, so the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay anything.

                      That is the logic of Svelaz. It is laughable. …And we discuss serious things with him?

      3. It”s not an impeachable offense because it is NOT a crime.
        You have dived head first into the 12″ deep retard pool.
        Refusing to enforce the laws of the nation is impeachable. But besides that fact, Impeachment requires no crime. What ever 50% + 1 of the House considers impeachable, is the only standard.

        1. iowan2 wrote, “But besides that fact, Impeachment requires no crime.”

          False. That’s using the same false argument that the Democrats used to unconstitutionally impeach President Trump, the Democrats literally b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-e-d the constitution.

          Impeachment without a crime is unconstitutional. The constitution specifically and literally requires that impeachment be strictly used as a result of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” these things are crimes.

          Knowingly and intentionally violating the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the law of the land, is not illegal and it’s a crime.

          1. Arrgh, bad editing in my comment above before submitting.

            Knowingly and intentionally violating the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the law of the land, is not legal and it’s a crime.

            1. Witherspoon, congress didn’t “unconstitutionally” impeach Trump. Congress has a right to impeach Trump for what they believed to be a dereliction of duty when he illegally withheld money in order to get information on a political opponent.

              Congress CAN impeach based on what they deemed to be a crime. It was up to the senate who determines if the allegation is indictable or not.

              Your claim that Obama “ Knowingly and intentionally violated the Constitution” would first have to be proved. Just stating it is not proof. What exactly did he violate? You have not articulated exactly what the violation is.

              1. impeach Trump for what they believed to be a dereliction of duty when he illegally withheld money in order to get information on a political opponent.

                Retard or liar?

                President Trump was following the law passed by congress that REQUIRED the Executive to fully investigate if aide appropriated to Ukraine, was going to avoid being funneled into the hands of the corruptocrats in Ukraine. The LAW required the President to do the investigation, before dispursing the funds appropriated by Congress. The appropriate agencies did make that approval, but the President, well within his power, paused the payments and asked for more information from the agencies under his control.

                That doesn’t mean the House could not use the pause for a reason to impeach. The House does not need a reason as long as the voters like you, are stupid enough to believe the lies Democrats tell you. You are the check on rogue impeachments.

            2. Steve, you need to explain exactly who has the power to overrule an impeachment.

              I’ll save you some time. No such power exists in the Constitution. Impeachment has no rules, other than rules written by the House.
              There are no rules for conviction in the Senate, except those written by the Senate.
              The Judiciary Branch has no power to overturn an impeachment.
              The Executive Branch has no power to overturn an impeachment.

              ONLY the people can check the power of the House to Impeach,(or refuse to impeach)
              ONLY the people can check the power of the Senate to convict, (or refuse to convict)

        2. “ Refusing to enforce the laws of the nation is impeachable.”

          That is not accurate. Since the executive branch DOES have the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, like a cop deciding to let you go instead of giving you a ticket, The act exercising that authority within reason is perfectly legal and not an impeachable offense.

          1. That is not accurate. Since the executive branch DOES have the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion

            I don’t know if you are a retard, or a liar.

            Impeachment is a political process. NOT criminal. prosecutorial discretion is a function of executive branch agencies. Meaning The President is responsible for refusing to enforce laws.
            The executive takes an oath. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States…”
            The executive is responsible for enforcing laws passed by congress. When the executive refuses, Congress has to power to impeach.

            Congress CAN impeach based on what they deemed to be a crime. It was up to the senate who determines if the allegation is indictable or not.

            Again. Retard, or liar?

            A vote to impeach by the House is the ‘indictment’. The Senate conducts the ‘trial’ (Officiated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), to convict and remove the President from office requires 67 Senators to vote in the affirmative.

        1. The court didn’t refute the DHS’s authority on prosecutorial discretion. It refuted the claim that the DACA memorandum is just a policy statement. The court specifically pointed out that DHS did NOT have to enforce removals. All the panel did was say that the DACA memorandum they are using to justify the program is not lawful because it didn’t meet the requirements of the APA. The court stayed its ruling pending further analysis of the rule changes by the lower court.

  17. In another example of clear thinking from Joe Biden the president declared that “the decision by the Court is illegal” and that he will now go to Congress to codify DACA”?????

    Only Joe Biden and Democrats/liberals would state that a court decision is “illegal” because it forces them to promulgate a law by congress to achieve what they want. This folks is why they want to pack the Court, they cannot get what they want through true legal maneuvers, (you know, like legislation) due to vast majorities of people not being in agreement with them. For decades they had the Court to do their bidding but now there is a Court that actually adheres to our Constitution.

    1. So, what happens now?

      The Court held that for 10 years the Executive Branch has been implementing an unconstitutional program.

      Yet nothing appears to be done except that new applicants may not be enrolled. As to those currently in the program, everything continues as before.

      The case is remanded to the District Court. To do what?

      A new Executive Branch rule comes into effect October 31. Given the Court’s holding that the Executive Branch lacks the authority for this program, how could the new rule remedy that?What will the new rule mean for the program and this case?

      For 10 years the Executive Branch has exercised power it does not have under the Constitution. The Judicial Branch says that this has happened but nothing changes.

      We have ceased to live in a constitutional republic.

Leave a Reply