Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on DACA Case Tomorrow…

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case: “DHS -vs- Regents of University of California“, also known as the DACA case: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  DACA was instituted by a President Obama ‘executive action’, not an ‘executive order’.

The Obama Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) did not fully support the constitutional framework around the effort to protect a sub-set of illegal aliens; and therefore the originating presidential action was not an official ‘executive order’, a technicality that could end up as part of the argument(s).  The same issue existed within DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Arrivals), and was ruled unconstitutional by a divided SCOTUS.

Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog has a great encapsulation of the case and current status:

In 2012, the Obama administration established a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows undocumented young adults who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation.

Applicants who meet a variety of criteria – for example, who have graduated from high school or served in the military and do not have a serious criminal record – must pay a fee of nearly $500 in total, submit (among other things) their fingerprints and home address and undergo a background check.

In the past seven years, nearly 800,000 people have obtained protection from deportation under DACA, which permits them to work legally in this country and gives them access to other benefits like health insurance and driver’s licenses. In 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would end the DACA program; in November, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a challenge to that decision. (read more)

In September of 2017 President Trump released a statement outlining how the administration would work with congress on immigration legislation toward a final disposition for those who fall under the DACA construct.

Unfortunately, Pelosi and House Democrats ultimately rebuked an immigration reform package they viewed was too heavy on enforcement and too much of an impediment to their preferred open-border platform.  By January 2018 the negotiations collapsed.

While the oral arguments are tomorrow, it is unlikely there will be a SCOTUS ruling on the current DACA case until sometime later in 2020 (summer).  Which will likely put DACA at the center of the 2020 election.

President Trump has previously been open to affording immigration protection for those who fall under DACA as part of a package for structural immigration reform.   However, it is very likely Speaker Pelosi and the DNC will rebuke any legislative effort in their continued push to politicize the “dreamers”, and trick young voters into supporting democrat candidates.

Turning to the legality of the government’s decision to end DACA, the government explains that it had several different reasons to shut the program down, all of which were entirely reasonable. First, it reiterates, it believed that the program was illegal, so that keeping it in place would be “sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal immigration law by nearly 700,000 aliens.” And not only did the government believe that DACA violates federal law, but the 5th Circuit had in fact struck down the two related policies.

Particularly in light of the program’s “legally questionable” provenance and the announcement by Texas and other states that they would challenge DACA, the government believed that the best course was to go forward with an “orderly wind-down” on its own terms rather than taking its chances defending the program in court and risking the possibility that the program could be abruptly shut down.

It was also, the government observes, “entirely sensible” for it to determine that, even if it could have continued DACA, it would be better to do so “only with congressional approval and the political legitimacy and stability that such approval entails.” After all, even then-President Barack Obama, when announcing DACA, had indicated that the program was only intended as a “temporary stopgap measure.”

Instead, the government concluded, it opted to return to the pre-DACA system of reviewing requests for protection from deportation on a case-by-case basis. “One can agree or disagree with that judgment,” the government suggests, “but it is not remotely specious.” (more)


This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Election 2020, Illegal Aliens, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on DACA Case Tomorrow…

  1. hokkoda says:

    The entire premise of the DACA lawsuit is preposterous. If the President can write an “executive action” to set the policy, then the President can terminate the “executive action” too. This is at SCOTUS simply because progressive judges in the lower courts want to force the President to obey their preferred policy choice.

    I would love to hear one of the government lawyers just say something simple like, “If the President can write an executive action, he can also repeal the same executive action. It really is that simple.”

    Liked by 44 people

    • 1 Observer says:

      No no no no…

      “Four legs good, two legs bad”

      IOW, the “revolution” shall always go forward!

      Liked by 3 people

      • snellvillebob says:

        “Four legs good, two legs bad” until they sieze control. Then it eventually becomes “Four legs good, two legs better”.


    • Boots says:

      “If the President can write an executive action, he can also repeal the same executive action. It really is that simple.”

      And, “Allowing an unlawful, unconstitutional, so called ‘executive order’ by a former President of the United States, by refusing to allow the current President of the United States to terminate by executive order the unlawful executive order stands the rule of law upside down, and makes a mockery of the very words engraved over the entrance to this very building.

      “Your decision is clear. There can be no other decision than to disallow and dismantle the unlawful abridgement of federal immigration law by declaring DACA for what it is; unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional.”

      Liked by 18 people

      • The Demon Slick says:

        This is exactly what we’re sick of. The government keeps telling us that we just don’t understand, that it’s complicated. BS! We can see clearly that it’s a very simple issue. For all their high sounding words, what they’re really saying is that 2 consecutive presidents have completely different powers. We all know that can’t be true, no matter how they say it.

        Liked by 14 people

    • Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

      “This is at SCOTUS simply because progressive judges in the lower courts…”.

      I agree DACA needed to end up at SCOTUS to be settled once and for all, however I take issue it’s due to lower court judicial activism.

      DACA should’ve been enacted or killed by CONGRESS. Much like all “hard issues” (and by hard I mean anything that would cost them re-election), Congress has chosen to pass the hot potato.

      Q: why do we even have a Congress?

      Liked by 16 people

      • hokkoda says:

        I would argue that Congress opted not to act – choosing not to decide is a choice – and was willing to rely on activist judges to do what their voters refused to allow.

        Paul Ryan chose to resign and hand the Congress to Pelosi rather than do what the voters wanted. He knew there would be plenty of Leftist judges to force DACA on us.

        Liked by 13 people

        • Of course, Obama knew it was much easier to ( stopgap give away something with fancy words) to pet his base. Of course, he also knew that ‘base’ would kick and scream when someone else would try to take it away. Of course, he believed we would be suckers.

          Liked by 2 people

        • BitterC says:

          SCOTUS already gave us homosexual marriage and abortion. You might have something there.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

          opted not to act –

          I believe that’s what was implied, ergo, the legislative branch is derelict in performing as a constitutional body.

          The left is perfectly happy with inaction, as they can rely on activist judges to “rule” in their absence. One could surmise, with more Trump appointees, they wouldn’t be happy with the rulings. However, those of us who believe in the Constitution don’t agree, no matter your political leanings, with Congress shirking their duties.

          Presidential executive actions, judiciary “enacting” v interpreting laws…..neither is constitutional, hence my question…why do we even have a congressional branch?

          Aside from the fact, sans a legislative body we’d have a dictatorship form of govt, I can’t see what benefit our ineffective congress offers.

          They don’t adhere to their oaths of office, fail to perform their duties, run up enormous debt for their social programs and hand off legislation to donors, yet they become filthy rich. I call that theft.

          Liked by 4 people

      • H.R. says:

        Devil in the Blue Drapes: “Q: why do we even have a Congress?”

        Bad habits are hard to break? ;o)

        Seriously, as hokkoda wrote: “I would argue that Congress opted not to act – choosing not to decide is a choice […]”

        Yup. The choice itself is an act. You can choose to, or you can choose not buy that ice cream cone. A decision is itself an act which produces a result; empty hands or an ice cream cone.

        Congress has been reduced to naming Post Offices and Government buildings after dead people. Anything else puts them on the record and may hurt their chance of being re-elected to their spot at the feeding trough of taxpayer funds. They’ve largely decided not to act on much of anything of consequence.

        Well… not quite. I’d add that they will vote for and pass anything that would add funds to the trough. No problem getting Congress to act on that. It’s fast track legislation and you can hear the wind whooshing by.

        Liked by 3 people

    • WhiteBoard says:

      PDJT should make an executive order that illegals can be taxed without representation. and that would end this bs.

      Liked by 3 people

      • hokkoda says:

        Until some Prog judge issues a nationwide injunction declaring it “unconstitutional”. SCOTUS has been telling the lower courts to stop doing that, but they keep ignoring SCOTUS.

        A better Executive Order is that the Executive Branch will no longer comply with nationwide injunctions imposed by regional courts, and will continue implementation of the law or policy until resolved at the Supreme Court.

        The Progs would have a collective stroke!

        Liked by 8 people

        • neal s says:

          Excellent suggestion. As long as the Executive will within the specified region recognize the regional court ruling until such time as it is over-ridden by the SCOTUS, I would hope that the SCOTUS would approve of this narrowing of the jurisdiction of the regional courts to just their own region.

          I have long thought that the time is ripe for SCOTUS to figuratively bonk the heads of many of these lower court judges, and tell them to mind the constitution.

          Liked by 1 person

          • hokkoda says:

            Supposedly, SCOTUS has been doing this, but the Progs just ignore it because each judge is like a god in their courtroom.

            But I do think the POTUS response to a lower court judge ought to be, “OK, in YOUR jurisdiction”…make the Progs launch 1,000 of these, make them spend millions of dollars, drag it out war of attrition. Refuse to respect court rulings that go past the boundaries of that judge’s jurisdiction.

            Same at the appellate level.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Darrell Michael Richardson says:

      I agree with that statement,however also good to note that DACA is un-Constitutional as it bypasses “jurisdiction” as defined by the Constitution as well as Congress and the SCOTUS. Jurisdiction is not just geographical rather it is allegiance too….as in allegiance to our country which requires taking the oath as set forth in the Immigration Act (yes it is also illegal as in it violates our immigration laws as well as un-Constitutional). This is but one of the many issues with DACA. I suspect the SCOTUS will strike it down the same as they did with DAPA.

      Liked by 6 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      One wonders who needs s writing the s argument. The argument is about justifying not following a LAW which is not a law. It takes no steps to defend executive power and f the current POTUS and or the sunsetting of the power of a previous POTUS. Is it just me or is this a serious constitutional threat??

      Liked by 1 person

    • mnwild1961 says:

      True. But then the next president could reinstate it again. If ruled unconstitutional by the SC, then it cannot be reinstated by the next president.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Sentient says:

    It’s one thing to have a policy not to enforce the law by deporting people. It’s another thing entirely to – without legal authority – give work visas. If SCOTUS allows that to stand it’ll me that we have a jurisprudence based upon feelings. And/or that the Deep State got enough blackmail material through use of The Hammer to get a Justice to rule the way they want.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Sentient says:

      it’ll mean

      Liked by 2 people

    • CM-TX says:

      It was reported that Nobama had either DOJ/DoS (forget which agency) helping to expedite the dishing out of social security numbers to DACA recipients…. FOR MONTHS after a Judge issued an injunction. He caught them too, reprimanding in court– & demanded they provide a list of all those issued.

      Don’t know if they ever complied. Somehow doubt it.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Bruno says:

      If SCOTUS allows as precedent for one administration to rule by executive action and not allow another to ever overturn it, all subsequent actions by Trump should be by executive actions and then we’ll see how everyone likes dictatorship. Common sense needs to apply here, please.


  3. “These kids were American just like us” says the Kenyan.

    Liked by 16 people

    • annieoakley says:


      Liked by 1 person

    • Daniel says:

      If only he were Kenyan. He is the soon of Davis. He looks nothing like the Kenyan named Obama. If they came out with the truth, we would have ‘scandal’ but we wouldn’t have an issue with eligibility.


    • mopar2016 says:

      Yeah they’re illegal, just like Buraq the pied piper of illegals.
      There’s no leverage for our side with DACA and dreamer BS, that’s already been proven.
      I wanted DACA, DAPA, and all that dreamer nonsense ended on day one.
      How many of these people are gang members now?

      Liked by 5 people

    • rd says:

      The Democrats could have gotten everyone in the DACA /Dreamer population and more legalized in 2017. President Trump was going to include several million more illegal aliens in addition to the 800,000 already in the program.

      All the Democrats had to do was agree to update the immigration laws and fund the border wall.

      Now the Democrats are going to get nothing. Their DACA Pawns are going to be declared illegal. The Wall is being built. Their only choice next Summer will be to cave in on revising the immigration laws to save the Dreamers.

      I hope President Trump hammers Nancy on this next Summer. “You could have saved the Dreamers three years ago. You Democrats made them suffer in uncertainty. You hated me more than you loved these poor pawns, but I will be magnanimous to these Dreamers in exchange for your agreement to update our antiquated immigration laws now.”

      Offer a deal for the 800,000 only, in exchange for updating the asylum laws, and funding the entire Border Wall, and updated detention centers. When Chuck and Nancy refuse the deal, start the deportation process. Let the Republican Congress in 2021 revise our immigration laws.

      Liked by 3 people

      • mike says:

        DACA (s)pawns may be a better spelling…


      • Wrong answer. When Reagan gave amnesty to many, many more sued and got it as well. We must cut the head off the snake and declare them all criminal aliens. After which we can write laws to allow them the serfdom they long for. Minus any and all access to government services.
        The one thing that crazy blond “conservative” got right was to deport the DACA kids first.


    • tellthetruth2016 says:

      Most of those “children” are now adults who either are drawing welfare checks and food stamps for their children OR gang members …. few have gone on to get GEDs and have jobs and become contributing members of society who Love America ….

      Liked by 2 people

      • Judith says:

        The 800,000 who are already signed up for DACA were vetted and deemed to be productive members of society. They do not have criminal records. They are not gang members. And President Trump has stated that he will deport illegal welfare recipients.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jbowen82 says:

          Agreed. These are the least offensive illegal aliens. If they came in as minors, they are not legally responsible for the entry. Now, if they remained after age 18, as most of them have, they are responsible just like anyone who overstays a visa. They’re illegal according to the letter of the law. But that’s different than an adult who flew into the country legally with the intent to overstay, and much different than an adult who crossed the border without a visa with the intent to stay in the country. When the law is passed, it should include a way for these young adults to get into the line for naturalization, but not ahead of those already in line.


        • Cathy M. says:

          Vetted? I was told by USCIS personnel who review these applications that many if not most are rubber stamped. They rubber stamp applications every time there’s some type of amnesty (So I’ve been told by personnel who process those applications.

          “According to USCIS, a total of 2,127 individuals had their DACA status terminated for criminal activity and/or gang activity as of November 22, 2017. In no more than 3 percent of these cases did the termination occur merely because of gang involvement; nearly all of the terminations followed criminal convictions or arrests, according to related data on the USCIS website.”


          • Judith says:

            President Trump is a very stable genius, so I do trust his judgement on the matter of DACA.

            ICE has been extremely busy deporting illegals with criminal records and gang members, so I find it hard to believe that DACAs were somehow overlooked in this effort.

            Those currently eligible for DACA status represent an infinitesimally small percentage of illegal aliens, and were weeded out from all the others flooding across our border for the past fifty years.

            DACA happens to be excellent leverage for groundbreaking MAGA immigration legislation. And President Trump is a master at leveraging great deals for his MAGA policies.

            If President Trump constructs a border wall AND leverages DACAs to force CONgress to address serious immigration flaws in 2020, then I’m all in. I can even accept those last few droplets from that *gushing* spigot, as decades of wide-open borders are permanently sealed off.


            • Cathy M. says:

              Not “over looked” but over whelmed.

              The President is doing a great job of improving immigration issues, especially the vetting & not skittish on rejecting claims but one thing he cannot do on his own is obtaining a budget to employ more USCIS employees who can process applications & immigration judges.
              Jeff Sessions increased the number of immigration judges but USCIS has not increased their staff.

              USCIS has only 19,000 employees. That includes support staff, administration and supervisors who do not process claims. Those that process claims & immigration judges have to meet a quota to obtain a satisfactory evaluation.

              USCIS employees process immigrant applications and play a role in all aspects of legal & illegal immigration whether it concerns an alien that solely wants to relocate to the U.S., refugees, asylum seekers, student visas, work visas, those going through the immigration court, etc.

              When you consider the below- yes, many are rubber stamped, especially under the Obama admin.

              As of Jan. 2018
              “USCIS to Take Action to Address Asylum Backlog”

              2019 articles:
              “Immigration court backlog exceeds 1 million cases, data group says”

              Legal immigration:
              “They’ve increased vetting, increased the number of interviews required, all without providing a similar increase in personnel,” said Pierce, who has studied the various administrative moves on immigration in a detailed MPI report”

              “Now, USCIS reports the backlog reached 2.3 million cases in September 2017 and continues to grow despite just a 4% increase in applications. The wait time for some visa categories has nearly doubled.”

              I retired 6 months after Obama was elected as an ICE/HSI Resident Agent in Charge. USCIS was co-located in our bldg. Although I’m not an expert on immigration laws (as I was part of the mass transfer to ICE when it was formed) I do know more about than the average guy.


              • Judith says:

                Thank you for your insights. PDJT should write an executive action to do away with the unrealistic “quotas” you described, and let this antiquated system grind to a halt. Would-be immigrants should wait in their home countries for a green light *after* the vetting process is completed, nomatter how many years it may take.

                Obviously there is no perfect process in place, but I do feel that the border situation has greatly improved under President Trump, and I can live with DACA if it counts the ones already in the system, AND if they manage to stay out of trouble. And only then as the leverage needed for Congress to fund the wall and implement the meaningful immigration legislation previously suggested by President Trump.


        • snellvillebob says:



  4. timothy says:

    the real issue is replacement demographics. See Virginia goes blue.

    Liked by 13 people

    • vikingmom says:

      Same thing that happened in England, although a different demographic…

      Liked by 6 people

      • Judith says:

        Yes! Replacement demographics is the alternative to sealing off the gushing spigot of illegal migration. President Trump will leverage DACAs to apply some serious pressure to force CONgress to close that spigot.

        Grandstanders on the issue of DACA will effectively keep the spigot wide open, until American citizens are in the minority, just like they are right now in California.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. bulwarker says:

    This is what a post-constitutional society looks like folks. A Democrat president’s unlawful “executive action” can’t be undone by his Republican successor because racism, or something. Even if we “win” this one the crooked lower-court judges that allowed it to continue for so long won’t be held accountable (just like they weren’t with the so-called Muslim Ban).

    Liked by 24 people

  6. Sentient says:

    Note that the libs have a DACA recipient attorney as part of their legal team for this case. They also have Ted Olson on their team. Apparently they hope that by having an attorney in the courtroom who could face eventual deportation if DACA is ended it will sway one of the conservative justices. And since Ted Olson is a longtime republican, they probably hope that Roberts or Kavanaugh will considerate it unseemly and gauche to allow the poor “dreamers” to be subject to … you know … the actual law.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Please care for Americans who are elderly, disabled & poor before helping non-Americans. The last thing we need are more people who almost certainly will not vote for President Trump due to party affiliation. Logic dictates if Obama thinks it’s a “good idea,” it probably isn’t!

    Liked by 30 people

  8. Please care for Americans who are elderly, disabled & poor before helping non-Americans. The last thing we need are more people who almost certainly will not vote for President Trump due to party affiliation. Logic dictates if Obama thinks it’s a “good idea,” it probably isn’t!

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Alexander Bocephus Hamilton says:

    El deporto, por favor. En maas.

    Liked by 10 people

  10. Gov Jay says:

    Let them go dream… back in Mexico…

    Liked by 12 people

  11. Mike in a Truck says:

    Get out of MY country!

    Liked by 8 people

  12. jus wundrin says:

    This should have never landed in the SCOTUS, ever. Are these nutty people saying that something which is less than an EO has the same weight as congressional legislation?

    The legal system in this country is corrupt, and way out of control.

    Liked by 12 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      That’s one reason why we need to re-elect Trump. He’s already stacked the Supreme Court quite well and as soon as Ginsburg drops out he’ll be able to appoint a third. And he’s stacking the other courts as well. It will take many decades though to undo the damage Democrats and RINOs have done. It’s up to us to elect good people and be vigilent.

      Liked by 10 people

  13. billrla says:

    I hereby introduce a new, 100% evidence-based legal doctrine: If it’s for the children, it’s not for the children.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Les Standard says:

    Illegal aliens are a violation of the civil rights of every legal American citizen. Round them ALL up and deport, deport, deport…


    Liked by 9 people

  15. covfefe999 says:

    Let the libtard base gaslighting begin! Just like “Hillary is going to win in a landslide” and subsequent promises to their base, the Dems are once again assuring them that Trump will lose. 🙂

    NYT: How the Trump Administration Eroded Its Own Legal Case on DACA
    When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday, the administration’s attempts to end the program protecting “Dreamers” could rest on a top aide’s actions in 2017.

    IMO Trump should repetitively, until the Supreme Court publishes their decision, offer to Pelosi a deal on the DACA recipients. Repetitively. Drill it home to everyone that he wants to provide them a path to citizenship or some kind of permanent status but she does not. She’ll have an impossible time defending her lack of action. Trump should press the candidates too, what is Warren doing? Sanders? Trump should press them to pressure Pelosi to take action. They’re all going to fumble.

    Liked by 1 person

    • covfefe999 says:

      WaPo: Supreme Court again confronts Trump’s authority, this time over DACA recipients. The Supreme Court on Tuesday will once again review a controversial policy initiated by President Trump and blocked by lower courts

      Gotta love how the Dem propaganda media phrases stuff. They know the base won’t read an entire article, they’ll just see the headline … and be misled once again into thinking Trump will lose. Confront! Controversial! Buried farther down in the article is this:

      Roberts, joined by the court’s most consistent conservatives, wrote in the travel ban decision that Congress has given the president “broad discretion” in immigration matters, and that Trump was lawfully using it to protect the country.


      Liked by 4 people

  16. Remember when the previous administration wouldn’t put a name to Muslim terrorism? Now no one wants to put a name to Obama terrorism.

    Liked by 7 people

  17. davidberetta says:

    i would wager that these Democrats (and RINO/NeverTrumpers), have cost US Taxpayers well in excess of $100 million since Donald Trump won the election in 2016. Nearly half of that was Mueller but all the other expenses are the (Democrats), hiring legions of Lawfare Attorneys directly onto their Democrat Congressional Staffs. Aside from their 4-figure hourly rates….Imagine their expense reports of world travels, “experts”, etc.

    The US Citizenry are actually FUNDING this hoax….still…for 3 years now!

    Liked by 1 person

    • jebg46 says:

      “We the people” demand a stop payment to all these coupists. Plus we demand a full refund on the Mueller fraud. Plus, plus we demand full reparations for all who were harmed by the fisa court, fbi, DOJ, cia, 5 eyes, etc.


  18. thanks Federal Gubmint

    Liked by 4 people

  19. 804hokie says:

    daca is caca

    Liked by 4 people

  20. Ironclaw says:

    How does the University of California even have standing to bring the case?

    Liked by 3 people

  21. litlbit2 says:

    “These kids are American ………us”? You kidding? If that were the case why are not many of actual legal American kids offered the same privileges as

    Take a moment? I will wait for your response! No IRS, DOJ, FBI, MSM, DNC or GOPe Bu$$it.


  22. Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals: the entire name is a lie.

    Deferred is meant to be permanent.
    The Action is enforcing the law. Laws written by Congress and signed by Presidents.
    Childhood can be 40 years old and the children are used to justify the adults.
    They didn’t arrive, they were smuggled.

    This is an illegal One-Man Law; as the Other Hussein once said: “What is law? It is the line above my signature.”

    Liked by 2 people

  23. leftnomore says:

    So I guess even Obama could not have rescinded the EA without court approval, correct?


  24. Justin Green says:

    “These kids are Americans, just like us.”
    – Barry Bathhouse Obama

    Okay, except:
    1) They’re not.
    2) See #1
    3) See #1
    4) See #1

    Liked by 4 people

  25. mugzey302 says:

    Roberts should be impeached. He’s a fraud, and compromised.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Justin Green says:

      He oversees the FISA Court. After the FISC fraud, which he oversees and about which he undoubtedly knows the full details at this point, and yet has done nothing, he should be removed from the Supreme Court and face criminal charges.

      Liked by 7 people

  26. cpurick says:

    The status quo relies on the premise that Obama’s executive actions can somehow possibly out-rank Trump’s. It shouldn’t have gotten this far, and Trump certainly shouldn’t have to argue it on the merits of DACA.

    If the public wanted Obama’s rule by executive action they would have elected his Democrat successor.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. covfefe999 says:

    I guess we can look at the bright side here will we wait for another Trump win. Trump did succeed in ending new applications for DACA, he was only forced (temporarily) to renew existing DACA permits. So the number of DACAns has remained steady. And soon they will find that they’ll have to make some new plans when their DACA permits expire. Nancy Pelosi had better be prepared for the onslaught, they will go directly after her for help.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ma McGriz says:

      “Nancy Pelosi had better be prepared for the onslaught, they will go directly after her for help.”

      They’ll also go directly after her for revenge, because that’s what they do.

      We will smile.


  28. Judith says:

    It figures that this DACA case -yet another Obama time bomb- is set to go off just in time for the 2020 election. What else is new?

    However, President Trump can easily set this to boomerang mode so it clobbers CONgress right between the eyes, for their inaction in setting immigration policy that would legalize DACA recipients. He can and should make these do-nothing Democrats squirm.

    As long as President Trump insists on an end to chain migration, merit-based immigration instead of the lottery system, continues to deport those with criminal records, illegal welfare leeches and illegal voters, AND builds a big, beautiful wall to keep them from returning, I can certainly put up with a few hundred thousand currently *vetted* and registered DACA immigrants with clean records, who make positive contributions to American society. It’s a no-brainer.

    But I’ve no doubt the neverTrumpers will come out of the woodwork to haruumph and disparage our President over this compromise. Grand-standing is what they do best. Anything to smear our President AND keep our borders wide open for their New World Order.

    Liked by 4 people

  29. Quote GovJay Let them go dream… back in Mexico…

    While getting in line and come back,


    Liked by 4 people

    • Oh, crossthread, these are not “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” These people have suffered at the hands of “mules” for hundreds of miles during which they were forced to walk on foot on desert roads, in summer or in winter, while the countries through which they walked looked the other way. They were promised the Promised Land, or maybe they were just taken advantage of because they were within some criminal’s reach. The truth of what is going on here, south of our border and in so many other countries, is very gruesome … and, unknown to many Americans.

      By erecting a strong Wall, we are definitely having a purely-physical impact upon this situation, and PDJT is achieving further successes by economics, but Congress refuses to implement necessary changes … and, I am heartbroken to say, “there is a reason for that.” A very, very, corrupt and evil reason which very conveniently involves a considerable amount of money.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Justin Green says:

        Mexico has a rich history of failed revolutions. Coming from Spain historically, they were not influenced as much by the enlightenment’s ideas of natural rights, natural law, etc.

        From generation to generation, they’ve become more accustomed to being cowed by poor government and drug cartels, when in reality, if they rose up en masse, they could easily take back their countries in short order. Their governments have set up systems that promote cooperation with the drug cartels instead of a moral revolution. We need the wall to let them stew in their own moral inaction.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Well, Justin, I do hope that their national future will someday take a turn for the better. I have a few friends who live in various parts of Mexico and I guess I pray for all of them, while at the same time thinking that “this, too, is a proud and ancient country that deserves a much better ‘shake’ than it has so far gotten.”

          🤔 I find myself wondering … Just how revolutionary might ‘the influence of Donald Trump’ actually turn out to be, in this very-wretched situation? Might he, once again, turn out to be “the person who did what they said could never be done here?” Stay tuned!

          Liked by 1 person

  30. Personally, I am fundamentally angry at the way that our immigration policies – and the deliberately-set “loopholes” in them – are used to preserve and perpetuate two horrific human-rights abuses that were supposed to be outlawed by our 13th Amendment in 1865: “involuntary servitude” and (let’s just call it what it is) “slavery.” Yes, the slave-ships are still out there, even though they don’t dock in America: there is one and only one way for an African migrant to wind up in northern Mexico …

    Yes, this is about so much more than walls. This is human trafficking, and international organized “crime … against humanity.”

    So here we have the slaves: the people who are here without papers, and to whom legality will never be offered. They are to live forever in fear of the “Federales,” and their children are trapped right there with them. So, do we offer them Ellis Island? Citizenship? Or even legal residency permits? No, no, no.

    How very easily we accept the proffered euphemisms. How easily we look the other way, as our own government, by its purposeful actions and inactions, keeps this human trade alive. It grieves me to write these words. “This is about so much more than Walls! Yes, Walls are a courageous and vitally important physical step, but there is so much more yet to do … and so much needless human suffering.”

    “I was held as an effective slave in your wretched factories, along with My children, who were also Me. And you did nothing for Me. Depart from Me, ye evildoers!”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Justin Green says:

      Antebellum slavery, if we are to be blunt, was bad, but was not the worst form of human slavery known to man. Plantation owners weren’t dumb and despised having an “investment” die or run away. Slaves during that period were provided for, albeit at an extremely meager level.

      I say that not to defend slavery, but to point out that even when slavery was allowed and practiced, slaves still were given a subsistence to keep them working.

      Which is pretty much what Democrats want to do to illegals – give them just enough to keep them coming and keep them voting Democrat. The slave trade is alive and well today, and the Democrat Party, now as it was then, are the slave traders, selling all manner of brown people to their constituent base.

      Liked by 1 person

      • As you correctly observe, Justin, “Antebellum” slavery was a very primitive incarnation of this extremely-basic human offense. But the victims today are certainly not just “brown.” In my opinion, both “undocumented aliens” and(!) “non-immigrant visa holders” would equally qualify to be victims of this very-deliberate abuse.

        Nope … the only thing that actually changes, from one human generation to the next, is the euphemisms that are applied. And, most nefariously, “there is always ‘money in it.'”

        So – keep building Walls. And, PDJT, keep up the international economic pressure. Then, keep kicking Congress in the face.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. dallasdan says:

    I perceive the SCOTUS vote as another litmus test for Roberts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rileytrips says:

      I do too, Dallasdan. And maybe, hopefully, Justice Roberts is aware that ALL eyes will be on him on this one…since we all have an idea he has been compromised somehow by his inaction of the corrupt FISA court and its recent abuses.

      This should be interesting.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Cathy M. says:

    DACA eligible aliens had their chance for “due process” (for several yrs) to seek legal status but the majority didn’t lift one finger to do so. (DACA is not a legal status). The vast majority of them apparently believe the laws do not apply to them. It’s “Gimme, gimme, gimme” & I don’t need to earn the honor to remain in the U.S.

    **Approximately 1.9 million illegals were reportedly eligible to apply for DACA at the time DACA was initiated.

    ** Of those, approximately 800,000 received DACA status (as of 2017)

    ** That means that approx. 1.1 million of potential DACA eligible illegals were either not eligible (conviction of crime, dropped out of school, gang member, etc.), and/or did not even attempt to apply for DACA.

    ** Those who did obtain DACA status (approx 800,000) had years to apply to remain in the U.S. legally without fear of deportation.

    Of those 800,000 who did obtain DACA, Approx. only 105,225 took legal steps & did obtain legal status.

    ** Those DACA eligible & recipients, who did not take legal steps, had several years to apply for advanced parole (leave the country temporarily & return to U.S.), then LPR (Green Card), then citizenship.
    * But the Vast majority of them are either too lazy, too ignorant, too dumb or ineligible to do so. We have a sufficient number of our own lazy & willfully ignorant people, thank you very much. We don’t need anymore.

    DACAs that did apply themselves:(numbers overlap due to going thru different legal statuses.)
    As of 2017-
    ** 45,447 DACA recipients have been approved for advance parole
    ** 59,778 DACA recipients have applied for Lawful Permanent Resident (Green Card).
    ** 39,514 DACA recipients have been approved for a Green Card
    ** Of the DACA recipients with Green Cards, 2,181 have applied for U.S. citizenship
    ** Of the DACA recipients with Green Cards, 1,056 have become U.S. citizens

    (At least those aliens abided by the law But they Broke In Line of those who have waited years to enter legally.)
    So I say to those illegals who did not apply for DACA status, ineligible for DACA, who are apparently too lazy to apply for DACA or are too stupid to have done so, who believe that U.S. laws do not apply to them, believe it is their Right to remain in the U.S. , did not apply for LPR or citizenship-
    LEAVE! If you want to return legally, go to the back of the line and apply for this honor.

    Liked by 3 people

    • randyinrocklin says:

      thanks for all the facts ma’am


    • Ma McGriz says:

      ” ..those aliens abided by the law But they Broke In Line of those who have waited years to enter legally.)”

      We never hear from those families, do we?

      We have no idea how many were elbowed aside, have we?

      We have no idea how many hearts were broken and lives ruined after putting all they had into the expensive, long and difficult process of legally coming to the US, only to be shoved aside and have their dreams shattered by an arbitrary policy favoring the never-ending wave of illegal invaders from the south.

      We never hear of those tragedies.

      Thank you for remembering the forgotten.

      Liked by 2 people

  33. Doug Amos says:

    Did Obama ever do anything in his life that was not outside the laws of the land?

    Liked by 3 people

  34. Brant says:

    Well, I trust Barr will send someone other than a first year law student on an intern break.


  35. Carrie says:

    Is there a way to see who will be doing the oral arguments?


  36. Laurie Walker says:

    You can listen to oral arguments at They usually post within a few days.

    I suggest anyone interested should listen to the Masterpiece Cakeshop arguments for a deep dive.


  37. randyinrocklin says:

    If the Court rules against Trump, he should just get his pen and his phone and write “executive actions” on whatever policy he chooses. Damn the Congress and the Courts.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. ezgoer says:

    If SCOTUS lets DACA stand they will be creating precedent to give the president dictatorial power to in effect create law without the action of Congress. A law that can’t be undone by executive action after the fact. That would be insane. But you never know what Justice Roberts will do. We already know the other 8 justices will vote 4-4 on party line.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. MD says:

    If remember correctly, when this was brought up and Pelosi and the dems failed to do anything they got serious blowback from the Hispanic population.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Judith says:

      That “serious blowback” is exactly the leverage that PDJT needs to pressure CONgress to write meaningful new immigration legislation.


  40. dallasdan says:

    “While the oral arguments are tomorrow, it is unlikely there will be a SCOTUS ruling on the current DACA case until sometime later in 2020 (summer).”

    Until then it is moot, with both sides assuring victory. Nothing to see here.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. John-Y128 says:

    “The Department of Justice (DOJ) has quietly told the Supreme Court that it does not have the legal authority to issue work permits to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) migrants and has effectively invited the court to block the annual award of more than one million work permits to migrants.”

    “The new DOJ language threatens the many administration programs, which award more than one million work permits each year to foreigners. If the court strikes down those programs, it will open up many technology jobs to the American graduates who are now locked out by managers’ favoritism for Indian workers.”


  42. Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

    Well isn’t this timely. Nan and Chuck can “legislate” before the cameras, but as a body on the Floor, not so much.

    Isn’t this akin to “extortion” or “obstruction of justice” before SCOTUS?



  43. amwick says:

    BO issues executive actions, and they are carved in granite, with no backlash. Our VSGPotus is trying to make repairs, and there is a storm of protests,,, screams,, and the courts intervene. The courts always seem to fight out President. That is the issue that needs fixing… Judicial Overreach will erase the separation of powers,,, that is happening now… Maybe that will be addressed as part of these arguments.. I certainly hope so.


  44. WDS says:

    I can’t wait to see what the 2 girls my Senator, Lindsey Graham voted to confirm to SCOTUS do.


  45. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    Obama has pictures of Roberts.


  46. Les Standard says:

    What is coming across the border now is the dregs of humanity, they are untrainable, hopelessly dishonest, and they act like they have been in prison recently……


  47. Joe says:

    Trump consistently lied to everyone who was going to sue over this illegal DACA (governors/states) so this was actually delayed by years with his lies. Trump doesn’t care about American workers, as you can tell by the H1B abuse and the open border.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s