Immigration Watch International (2): Federal appeals court rules Obama-era DACA program illegal, buts says 600,000 already in US can stay

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Federal appeals court rules Obama-era DACA program illegal, buts says 600,000 already in US can stay

A federal appeals court determined that the Obama administration didn't have the authority to institute the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program but declined to dismantle it, allowing more than 600,000 immigrants to continue to enjoy its protections.

The 5th U.S. Circuit ordered a review of new changes by the Biden administration to DACA, telling a Texas federal judge to review the program.

A three judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that while the Obama administration lacked the authority to create the immigration policy which affects over 600,000 people, it didn't dismantle the program, and people can continue benefiting from the policy.

The panel ruled that the U.S. government cannot process new applicants for individuals seeking DACA benefits.

"A district court is in the best position to review the administrative record in the rulemaking proceeding and determine whether our holdings as to the 2012 DACA Memorandum fully resolve issues concerning the Final Rule," the opinion states.

Several Republican-led states are suing the U.S. government, arguing that they are being harmed financially by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on services such as education and health care for people who are being allowed to stay in the U.S. illegally.

The Biden administration presented changes to DACA in August which were open to public comments, but don't contain substantial modifications to the Obama-era policy and are pointed at legal challenges in relation to the program.

The rule would begin on Oct. 31.

In July 2021, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA was illegal and said that it wasn't put through public notice and comment, which is a requirement by the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

When President Biden took office in 2021, he signed a memo aiming to protect DACA and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to take "all appropriate actions under the law" to protect the program.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement that he's disappointed by the ruling.

"I am deeply disappointed by today’s DACA ruling and the ongoing uncertainty it creates for families and communities across the country. We are currently reviewing the court’s decision and will work with the Department of Justice on an appropriate legal response," Mayorkas said.

"As a result of the stay that remains in place, no one who currently has DACA will lose their protection from removal or work authorization. Consistent with that stay, DHS will continue to accept the filing of both initial and renewal DACA applications, but will process only the DACA renewal requests."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-orders-review-biden-administration-changes-daca

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Federal appeals court rules Obama-era DACA program illegal, buts says 600,000 already in US can stay

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors