Good News? Appeals Court Rules DACA Unconstitutional

And they sent it back to a lower court. But, there’s an issue

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.

Um, OK? This is insane. And does show that the whole system is broken. They’re here illegally. The people who brought them are here illegally and benefiting from the kids being here illegally. Obama’s DACA was illegal and unconstitutional, as everyone said from the get go, including Obama. Yet, they’re allowing the illegals to stay, and sending it back to a lower court. This is very, very silly.

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.

This shouldn’t matter. The whole thing is illegal and unconstitutional.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Good News? Appeals Court Rules DACA Unconstitutional”

  1. Dan says:

    So what. Not going to change a damn thing. The criminals in power will simply take Obozo’s EO, change some words and reissue it. Then the decades long legal circus will start over while they willfully continue importing invaders. There is NO PEACEFUL solution to the problems we face. The laws simply do not apply to the criminal left. They ignore any and all laws that do not serve their needs. The only path out of the destructive course the left has us on is war. Violent bloody conflict that removes the left from this planet. Nothing else can work because they respect NOTHING but force of action.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    It actually makes sense and likely it was what Obama was counting on. It’s on old legal principle called (something in Latin) where the actions of government, once presumed to be legit, continue to carry weight. It is often used in the enforcement of international agreements without treaties and since DACA “kids” are technically legal citizens of other countries, this could apply.

    Similarly, the USA practices defacto birth right citizenship for anyone who crosses our borders when the clear reading of the law would indicate that was never intended. But having been upheld for so long as a matter of policy, it would be unthinkable to strip citizenship from the tens of millions of Americans who have benefited from it.

    The best we can hope for is to put those “kids” currently enrolled in the program into some sort of abbreviated naturalization path with a very low standard.

    Ideally, we fix the birth-right custom to match what every other country on the planet practices: Citizenship belongs to the children of other citizens. Just being here doesn’t make you one of us.

    • Professor Hale says:

      It is a form of the Ex Post facto principle where people cannot be held legally liable for things that were not crimes when they did them. Immigrants, acting in good faith with the US government, registered under a program that they believed had legal merit. So, even if the program is dismantled, the previous people in it would still enjoy the protections of being in the program.

      • Dana says:

        If the Supreme Court did the right thing, and overturned the odious Obergefell v Hodges decision, there would still be tens of thousands of legally married homosexual couples; bad laws can leave bad consequences even after they have been overturned.

    • Dana says:

      The Professor wrote:

      Similarly, the USA practices defacto birth right citizenship for anyone who crosses our borders when the clear reading of the law would indicate that was never intended.

      I don’t think that a “clear reading” of the 14th Amendment says that at all; the meaning of the words is vary clear.

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

      There isn’t much ambiguity in that!

      More, you have to remember that when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified, 1868, we had no immigration laws; anyone who could get here was welcomed to stay. Other than a late 19th century restriction on Chinese immigration, the United States had no immigration restrictions until the 1920s.

      In 1868, we were a vast, mostly empty country, and we wanted white immigrants to fill up the place. The restrictions of the late 19th century were because we were seeing an influx of non-white immigrants into California, and the restrictions begun in the 1920s were because we were seeing too many Slavic, Jewish and southern Europeans coming over.

      • Professor Hale says:

        101.3(a)(1), a person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and is therefore not a U.S. citizen at birth (however, he or she may obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status at birth). 8 C.F.R.

        The point is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Foreign visitors and unlawful trespassers should be categorized in the same class as those under the jurisdiction of their home countries for purposes of citizenship. Just like diplomats. Just like the children of US service members living abroad. No one believes those children are anything but American.

        The civil war is over. The slaves were freed. Their decedents are citizens. The 14th amendment was never intended to grant unlimited invitations to the rest of the world.

        As you said, the USA was once unpeopled, now it isn’t. You might have an argument if immigration law required immigrants to go live out in Western states with no recourse to move internally to Eastern or coastal states. But we don’t do that. We add new immigrants into already crowded locations that in no way can be said to have “not enough people”.

        But the fact is, the USA has enough people. We really don’t need any more. Everyone else can just stay where they are or go somewhere else. Without immigration, the USA is in a state of population decline, just like all the other industrialized nations. Population decline is how we solve lack of affordable housing, unsustainable energy production, and potential for other scarce resources. The only thing the world has plenty of is unskilled labor from the third world.

  3. alanstorm says:

    Um, OK? This is insane.

    Yes, but it’s probably the best we’re going to get. Now to finish the wall.

    ASSUMING we can stop illegal immigration (or slow it to a trickle), the GOP should write a bill declaring those 600K to be citizens. It’s a win-win: Either

    A) the Dems will kill it, so they call be called out as the racists they are, or

    B) You will have another 600K GOP voters.

Pirate's Cove