SURRENDERING AMERICA TO MEXICO - SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE DACA AMNESTY - THEN THE REST OF THEM CAN LEGALLY UP FROM MEXICO!

Supreme Court to Decide DACA Amnesty Cases Before 2020 Election

Getty Images

KEN KLUKOWSKI

28 Jun 2019Washington, DC196

4:59

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court announced on Friday it will decide the legal challenges to the Trump administration’s decision to end the DACA amnesty program for illegal aliens, with a decision in the first half of 2020 before the presidential election.

Barack Obama told the American people for three years that the Constitution and federal law did not allow him to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, that amnesty could only be authorized by Congress. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over immigration.

After years of failing to get even a Democrat-controlled Congress to enact amnesty Barack Obama in 2012 announced a form of amnesty for illegal aliens who had entered the country as children. Then-Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum to DHS personnel mandating that they not enforce immigration law for over 400,000 illegal aliens, creating a form of amnesty.

This program was called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known as DACA. In 2014, Obama expanded that amnesty to cover over 1 million adults under the similarly named program, DAPA, bringing the total number of noncitizens receiving amnesty from deportation to roughly 1.5 million.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led a coalition of over a dozen states in a challenge against DAPA, arguing that the amnesty program violated (1) the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) requirements for public notice and comment, (2) could not be reconciled with Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and (3) the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.

In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down DAPA, holding that DAPA violated APA’s notice-and-comment requirements and also the INA. The Supreme Court took up the case, but tied 4-4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

After President Donald Trump took office, the Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning was correct on DAPA, and that the same reasons that made DAPA illegal doomed DACA as well. DHS consequently announced that it would end DACA.

Various liberals sued, including the regents of University of California (ironically currently led by the same Napolitano who first created DACA in 2012), arguing that even though Obama and Napolitano created these programs out of thin air, it nonetheless is illegal for President Trump’s team to end the program. The challengers filed suits federal districts dominated by liberal judges, and won in the lower courts.

In the final set of orders the Supreme Court handed down in its annual term – which began in October – the justices announced on Friday that they will now hear these appeals. Arguments would typically take place in November or December with a decision likely in May or June of 2020, but given the urgency of aspects of this situation, DOJ could potentially ask the Court to expedite consideration of the case. An expedited case could result in a decision closer to January.

Lawyers were curious as to why the Court did not take up these challenges sooner, but an answer might be found in the Court’s Thursday decision in the census citizenship question case, Department of Commerce v. New York. One of the hotly contested issues in that case was whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to reinstate the census question is subject to judicial review under the APA, or instead if it falls within the APA exemption for matters committed by law to agency discretion.

Roberts wrote for a majority of the Court in Department of Commercethat federal judges have jurisdiction to review the census question. But it is common practice for the Court to delay voting on whether to take a new case when it has a pending case involving an overlapping issue. One of the questions presented in the DACA cases is whether DHS’s decision to end DACA is subject to APA judicial review at all, so it is possible that the Court was just waiting until it clarified in Department of Commercethe legal standard for APA review before taking a case where the lawyers would need to argue over how that standard applies to DACA.

The Supreme Court granted review in three DACA challenges. In all three, liberal district judges had decided the challenges against DHS. But only one had been decided by the federal appellate courts. The other two still have appeals pending, and in an extremely rare move, the justices granted review in those cases as well – called a grant of certiorari before judgment – signaling the High Court agrees that this litigation is an urgent priority.

The cases are Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 15-587, Trump v. NAACP, No. 15-588, and McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 15-589, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski

THE DEM CONSPIRACY HITS SAN DIEGO

Let’s briefly review the sordid history of DACA. DACA was a program concocted by the Obama administration to overcome the failure of Congress to pass a massive amnesty program known as Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the follow-up attempt to pass a massive amnesty program known as “The DREAM Act.” By Michael Cutler

*

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-daca-la-raza-supremacy-dreamers.html

*

The concept behind the DREAM Act and DACA was to exploit the well-known empathy and compassion Americans have for children. Both of those efforts were sold as means of helping children who were brought to the United States by their parents. By Michael Cutler

*

A study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER

 

No Right to College for Illegal Immigrants

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5440581937224467578#editor/target=post;postID=1242653707746926792

(Charles Mostoller/Reuters)The Eleventh Circuit confirms: Universities don’t have to accept unauthorized immigrants, including DACA beneficiaries, as students.

At a time when Americans believe immigration to be the most important issue facing the nation, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that Georgia’s state colleges and universities can’t be forced to admit illegal immigrants as students. And that includes aliens who qualified under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by former president Barack Obama in 2012.

In an opinion handed down earlier this month, a three-judge panel upheld the right of the Georgia Board of Regents, which runs the state-university system, to verify the “lawful presence” of applicants before granting them admission as students to the “more selective schools in the University System.” Selective schools are defined as any Georgia college or university that “did not admit all academically qualified applicants” in the “two most recent academic years.” That applies to at least three state colleges, including the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the best-known engineering schools in the country.

This policy denies admission to aliens who received “deferred action” under the 2012 DACA memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security. That memo provided what amounted to a temporary administrative amnesty to aliens who entered the U.S. illegally before their 16th birthday and met certain other criteria. The government agreed to defer removing DACA beneficiaries from the country under the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” But as the court pointed out, the DACA memo specifically stated that DACA recipients “are not considered lawfully present in the United States.”

Despite that qualification, in Estrada v. Becker, three DACA recipients who were denied admission to Georgia colleges filed suit, alleging that the board’s policy is preempted by federal law and violates their right to “equal protection” under the 14th Amendment.

Thus, the lawsuit dealt simultaneously with two important questions: Does DACA actually confer “lawful presence” onto illegal immigrants? And do states have a legal obligation to any illegal immigrants when it comes to a college education?

“Lawful presence” is a classification that designates whether a person who is not a citizen is legally in the United States. It is a status enjoyed by green-card recipients, visa holders, and others.

The plaintiffs in Estrada v. Becker claimed that DACA provides them with lawful presence, but the DACA memo explicitly states otherwise. It also says that it “confer[s] no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”

Under federal immigration law, simply living in the United States for an extended period does not entitle one to lawfully present status — a fact usually overlooked by DACA advocates.

Yet the students argued that the board’s policy conflicts with federal law because it creates a new alien classification. The court disagreed. It concluded that the board’s policy verifies lawful presence based on classifications established by Congress and written into federal immigration law. According to the court, the DACA program grants recipients nothing more than “a reprieve from potential removal.”

Given that no federal statutory authority exists for classifying DACA recipients as lawfully present, the plaintiffs also argued that the constitutional doctrine of preemption (i.e., federal law overrides state law) prohibits states from regulating a policy area that is within the authority of the federal government. Under the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively a federal one.

Yet, as noted earlier, the Board’s policy creates no new regulation. It simply uses existing federal immigration statutes to “verify lawful presence, and it does not require a state agent to make any independent determination,” according to the court. DACA confers no residency status onto illegal immigrants and does not prohibit state entities from using existing federal statutes to shape their policies. Thus, there is no preemption.

The plaintiffs additionally alleged that their right to equal protection under the laws is being abridged, since their classification burdens a fundamental right, the right to an education. But as the court pointed out, the Georgia “policy deals with postsecondary education, and the Supreme Court has never said that education is a fundamental right.”

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs “may pursue postsecondary education outside these three schools, and the Policy in no way undermines appellants’ deferred action status.” Lawful-presence checks are rationally related to a government’s interest “in responsibly investing state resources” in residents who are most likely to remain in the state. Thus, states have no obligation to admit illegal immigrants — whether they are DACA-qualified or not — to their university systems.

Outside of Georgia, 18 other states are doing their best to expressly disobey federal immigration law by providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who reside in that state. 8 U.S.C. §1623 prohibitsstates from providing in-state tuition rates or any other post-secondary benefit to an illegal alien if the same benefit is not available to a citizen of the United States. In other words, states such as California and Texas that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens while charging higher tuition rates to out-of-state students who are citizens are doing so in direct violation of federal law.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Justice Department has never enforced this provision against any state, to the detriment of the public. These states are encouraging illegal immigration and forcing taxpayer parents to subsidize the education of illegal immigrants while disadvantaging students who are citizens.

6

That is fundamentally unfair.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow, and Caleb Morrison is a member of the Young Leaders Program, at The Heritage Foundation. Mr. von Spakovsky is the co-author, along with John Fund, of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

KILLING AMERICA!

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE WASTELAND OF AMERICAN CITIES THEY CONTROL AND SURRENDER TO LA RAZA

*

A study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER

*

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-nation-unravels-democrat-partys.html

*

“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE 

"It extends to each issue the Democrats embrace. Every city that has come under Democrat control is proof positive that instead of raising the standard of living for the occupants, the city falls to crime, gangs, and drugs.  In fact, "America is awash with troubled, dysfunctional cities that have been electing Democrat Party mayors for decades." EILEEN F TOPLANSKY