Washington Among 15 States Suing Trump to Protect DACA Recipients


So the state is suing because the temporary executive amnesty for dreamers is being rescinded? What a great allocation of resources!

What exactly are they suing for? The DACA info being used to deport people? Has it been? Can that info be expunged if the Daca program doesn't get renewed by congress? It sounds like these states are suing because trump said nasty things about illegal immigrants on the campaign trail and is now cutting off a former administrations amnesty program. While that's in poor taste, it's his job to run the executive branch of government as he sees fit. Rescinding a former executive order doesn't seem like an action that a lawsuit could stop.

So what exactly are our elected officials wasting their time and our money for?
DACA isn't a piece of legislation: it's an executive order issued by the President. And as such it can be rescinded by the President at any time.

At best DACA was a stop-gap measure until Congress could pass immigration reform. It's foolish to think it would stand forever: particularly with the Orange One in power.
@1, 2: you should read Theodore Comitatus' post from yesterday. things are not a simple as you'd like them to be:

"As usual, Attorney General Ferguson has a good case. The federal courts could very well reject a politically motivated attempt by President Trump to rescind DACA waivers.

Properly speaking, DACA is not a presidential executive order but instead a DHS policy memorandum. See DHS, "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to US as Children,"June 15, 2012.

As an agency action rather than an executive order, DACA is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Under the APA, when an agency abruptly reverses an established policy without adequate reason, the reversal is unlawful. See U.S. Dept. of Treasury v. FLRA, 995 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 1993). An order from the President to reverse an established agency policy for political reasons is not, by itself, adequate reason to justify a reversal. See, eg., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983); Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

Unless President Trump can convince the courts there is some legitimate, non-political reason why the United States needs to rescind DACA waivers, the waivers will probably survive. DACA has other legal problems, and I think the red states' legal challenge to it will succeed. But just because DACA may be unlawful does not justify the president in behaving unlawfully to attack it.

Theodore Commitatus to support ur point on September 4, 2017 at 4:11 PM" ยท
@3. I like how Hillary voters lost the election and then cry like little bitches whenever trump cuts a fucking fart. And FYI, the mess was made when illegal aliens came here and stranded their children in a country that doesn't technically owe them shit. Nobody voted anyone across the border, precious.
@4, if that's the case then maybe there is some merit to it. This article seems more feelings based than informational. DACA is a slam dunk of an immigration amnesty and if there's a way around depending on congress to make it law, great. Everybody knows congress is gonna drop this ball like every other one that comes their way. That's just not the way I understand law (and specifically, amnesty laws in our past) to be passed.
@7. Keep lowering that bar lil smoky. One day your gonna clear it yourself and wonder how the hell a fine upstanding person like yourself got labeled a nazi and why it just doesn't mean anything anymore.
Is it campaigning time already?
@4: Hey, thanks for the shout-out, Max. And indeed if you read paragraphs 281 to 293 of the complaint the Stranger article links to, you'll see AG Ferguson and the other AGs making exactly this statutory argument, which is a strong one.

They also raise an Equal Protection argument that Pres. Trump is acting out of racial malice, and a Due Process argument that the government promised not to use DACA applicants' own data against them but is now potentially doing just that. These arguments, which are constitutional rather than statutory, are also sound.
More Windmills.
Uhhh Hellooo....These people are not in this country legally. Can someone....anyone, on this forum bitching about Trump ending DACA name me one....JUST ONE country that allows illegal immigrants to stay in their country without consequence? Better yet, name me one country that has open borders with no restrictions.
Tick tock
@8 just wondering how many your comment would have hit if the words 'lil smoky' had been left out...