home

Trump Ends DREAMER's Program

This is so sad. Donald Trump announced the DREAMER's program created by President Obama through executive action will end.

Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security said the agency would no longer accept new applications for DACA other than those submitted before Tuesday. Immigrants enrolled in the program will be permitted to continue until their two-year work permits expire. And those whose permits expire through March 5, 2018, are allowed to seek renewals provided they do so by Oct. 5, officials said.

Here is the actual announcement.

Obama took to his Facebook page today to call Trump's action cruel and an affront to basic decency. [More...]

Ultimately," Obama wrote, “this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people — and who we want to be.”

Here is the original 2012 program memo, issued by then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

More on Obama's DACA order here and here.

Who makes the decision that violent foreign cartel members get to stay in the U.S. after serving their sentence, often in witness protection but sometimes just roaming our streets? Doesn't that authorization begin with a request by DOJ, in exchange for the anticipated benefit it will receive in the form of testimony against another drug trafficker? How can AG Jeff Sessions claim that DOJ can't defend exercising prosecutorial discretion for DREAMERs not to be removed from the U.S. when it requests such relief for cooperating drug cartel members?

America should hang its head in shame at today's action. While predictable, it's inexcusable.

< Labor Day Weekend Open Thread | Hurricane Irma Nears Antigua and Barbuda >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I've been hanging my head in shame since 11/9/16. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    "America should hang its head in shame at today's action. While predictable, it's inexcusable."

    There are hundreds of Dreamers (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    Here in the keys, probably thousands.  I know several from the boat docks and grocery store.  They are devastated.  Several churches are offering DACA sanctuary to them.  

    Sorry, hurricane jitters (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 05:53:31 PM EST
    never met a crisis they couldn't use (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Allowing a president to selectively not enforce immigration law was dubious anyway.
    Much easier to simply put the DACA people in front of the line to get green cards by a congressional law.  They have a better claim than a random person who is applying for a green card.  Or congress could pass an "amnesty law" for the current batch of DACA people, maybe coupled with a couple of billion of dollars for Trump's wall.
    At this point the Congressional Democrats are exploiting the DACA kids as much as anyone.

    Every President since my birth (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    Has selectively enforced immigration laws. Usually Republicans don't enforce it because their base wants cheap labor. Democrats semi enforce trying to avoid being called on it by Republicans.

    Parent
    President Obama's administration... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    did more than semi-enforce...they enforced the sh*t out of immigration law to the tune of 2.5 million immigration orders...more than every 20th Century presidential administration combined.  DACA was a shining silver lining on the darkest of storm clouds to rival Irma.

    If Trump really wants to be all things anti-Obama, he shoulda left DACA alone and put a leash on ICE.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    Cuz DACA exists because of Obama. I think you've slipped a bit off the soapbox.

    Parent
    Understood... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    DACA exists because of Obama and a do-nothing Congress who could not/would not pass a DREAM Act, which the overwhelming majority of Americans support.

    I repeat, DACA was a shining silver lining on an otherwise very dark and stormy cloud that has immigration enforcement policy under Obama aka the former Deporter-N-Chief.  Just because DACA was good doesn't negate an otherwise awful record on the treatment of the undocumented, which would make Reagan look like a radical leftist.

    Parent

    The House passed the act (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    Jeff Sessions killed it in the Senate

    Parent
    my thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by linea on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 07:49:23 PM EST
    i agree with much of your post. that the Dream Act should have been passed and that DACA was the only alternative given the inaction of congress.

    Obama aka the former Deporter-N-Chief

    however, i don't agree that president obama can be criticized for a total number count absent legitimate analysis that shows human-rights violations or civil-rights violations.

    my criticism of president obama, related to this issue, would be the continued use of roadside immigration checks within the u.s. border. they are intrinsically a civil-rights violation.

    Parent

    I'd take a rather liberal position... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 07:58:27 AM EST
    on what constitutes a human rights abuse, namely every detention and/or deportation of a human being lacking documents is an abuse of a basic human right to live and breathe free in my book....but I'm weird like that.  

    For a more conservative position, the documented abuses of human beings, especially women, in ICE detention centers is but one example.  Linkage

    Not to mention all the families broken over simple traffic stops and the like.  Just because the Dreamers are an obvious choice for sympathy and mercy doesn't mean all the other undocumented should be forgotten.

     

    Parent

    Dems in the Senate passed a version also (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    And understand (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 08:54:00 PM EST
    Evil Alabama is going to elect Roy Moore in December. If Trump doesn't get DACA done by then Roy Moore will Jeff Sessions it.

    If Trump succeeds though, some day he will tweet that he chose to remove Sessions from the Senate so he could Constitutionally save the dreamers.

    Parent

    Whom did Obama admins. deport? (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 02:12:03 PM EST
    I thought mostly people with felony convictions.  Must google.

    Parent
    Mostly people collared... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    within 100 miles of the border, fingerprinted and booked...not violent felons. If I'm not mistaken.

    Parent
    Per Snopes.com, (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    the definition of Deportation" changed during the W admins. to include persons crossing illegally, who were returned mmed.  

    Parent
    In the mid-90s, Congress invented (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    the current legal concept of "removal," which covers both what was formerly called "deportation" (thrown out after getting into the U.S., but either having no right to be here in the first place or else losing that right) and what was formerly called "exclusion" (stopped at the border - or within the crazy 100-mile border "zone" - and not allowed in). I don't know whether the stats that back up the "deporter-in-chief" charge involve all "removals" (including exclusions) or only true deportations.

    Parent
    According to (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 05:20:54 PM EST
    this

    Clinton deported (now officially labeled as "removed") about 850K, Bush about 2,000K, and Obama about 3,000K.

    Parent

    "Returns" are not included (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 07:04:29 PM EST
    in the data above for "Removals."

    Apprehension: An action by immigration enforcement officers to take physical custody of a noncitizen.

    Deportation: A general, nontechnical term describing the movement of a noncitizen out of the United States through either a formal removal or a return.

    Removal: The compulsory movement of a noncitizen out of the United States based on a formal order of removal.

    Return: The movement of a noncitizen out of the United States based on permission to withdraw their application for admission at the border or an order of voluntary departure.



    Parent
    Facts (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    Were More People Deported Under the Obama Administration Than Any Other?

    A record number of people were "deported" from the U.S. during President Obama's tenure as president, due in large part to a change in definition.


    However, that statistic is somewhat misleading, as a significant portion of it was due to a change in the way "deportations" are defined that began during the Bush administration, not in the actual number of persons turned out of the U.S. As the Los Angeles Times noted, if not for that change in definition about what constitutes a "deportation," the Obama administration likely would not have been a record-setting one in this area:

         The number of people deported at or near the [U.S.-Mexico] border has gone up -- primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.

        The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

        Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

        Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

        In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom [had] just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category

    .

    Parent
    But OK, what are Obama's numbers and how do they compare to Bush, Clinton, etc.?

    Parent
    If you want to know (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    ... you need to do your own research.  In just pointing out that the numbers you chose to post are apples to oranges and - at best - misleading.

    Parent
    from the link I provided.

    Good luck.

    Parent

    Of COURSE not (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    Nothing at all.

    Well, ... Except for the fact that "deportations" means something completely different now, making your numbers fall somewhere squarely between irrelevant and misleading.

    Heh.

    Parent

    My link refers to Removals (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    not Deportations.

    Parent
    The numbers you posted (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    ... referred to deportations, then used the word "removed" without distinguishing between them and without segregating the numbers.

    According to this Clinton deported (now officially labeled as "removed") about 850K, Bush about 2,000K, and Obama about 3,000K".

    If you think these numbers are significant for some reason, feel free to find your own numbers that aren't a misreading apples-to-oranges comparison.

    Parent

    I used the word "deportations" because (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    Obama has been labeled our "Deporter in Chief."

    The link (which you clearly did not read) listed the Removals of the past three presidents, and they are as I posted.

    Obama has more than any other president...

    ...despite the actual influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico dropping significantly during his presidency due to an economic upturn in Mexico.

    I guess your point is Obama should be labeled our "Removaler in Chief."

    Okaaaay.....

    Parent

    Since 1997, deportations are called (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 09, 2017 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    removals. From ICE:

    Deportation

    The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws. Deportation is ordered by an immigration judge without any punishment being imposed or contemplated.

    Prior to April 1997 deportation and exclusion were separate removal procedures. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 consolidated these procedures.

    After April 1, 1997, aliens in and admitted to the United States may be subject to removal based on deportability. Now called Removal, this function is managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.



    Parent
    "Exploiting" - heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 05:50:48 PM EST
    They have online dictionaries, now.

    Parent
    "much easier" my foot (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 07:48:03 PM EST
    Nothing was "easy" with the radical obstructionists in Congress during the Obama administration. Obama went to the limit of his presidential powers (but not over, in my view) with DACA, but only after Congress stonewalled the DREAM Act for years, starting in fact with its original proposal by GWB.

    Parent
    What Peter said. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    Turn off Fox News, guy. The only thing that's missing from their nonsense is a smoking bong on the set.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    If they had a bong they'd be saner

    Parent
    "Tomorrow we vote" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    is a poorly selected slogan for the DACA issue, particularly if "we" includes the "Dreamers" themselves, as by definition they are not citizens and so cannot vote. (Look out, Kris Kobach.) And a slogan that does not include the Dreamers themselves is an odd choice also, from a political point of view. Under only the most favorable suggested legislative remedies will they gain a path to citizenship, rather than just to LPR status. And nowhere near "tomorrow" in any sense.

    Glad to read your (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 09:41:45 PM EST
    usual reasoned comments.

    Re: DACA right now--I have few coherent thoughts and no ability to express them.....Someone used the word "evil" and that seemed about right....Howdy is saying all will be well.   Hmm, okay.

    Parent

    This may sound a little out there, but (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 10:02:07 PM EST
    what's been percolating at the back of my mind over these last 7 or 8 months is that the chaos seems familiar to me.  This sort of bomb-throwing Trump engages in, where he creates a disturbance that swirls and churns and ripples, and then some calm descends and people dare to hope things will be okay - it reminds me of the years before my dad got sober.  We walked on eggshells, never quite trusted the good times, never knew when some ordinary thing would bring the house of cards down.

    What that tells me is how screamingly dysfunctional Trump is, and how he seeks chaos because it's the only thing he thinks leads to calm.

    It's going to happen - it has happened - over and over again.  

    And the DACA decision is just the latest chaos.

    I don't know who or what will make it stop, or who can break the pattern, but as long as Trump's at the center of it, I think we may be stuck.

    Makes me feel uncomfortable in my own skin.

    Parent

    We will never break Trump's chaos pattern (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    Nobody can make it stop. We simply get to live in a constant state of attempted damage control until he's out.

    Parent
    i did not exactly say (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 07:12:25 AM EST
    all would be well.  all is pretty far from well.

    what i said was the dreamers would not be deported and would eventually win this and that the entire thing was an exercise in distraction.

    ive seen nothing to change my mind about that.

    Parent

    There are hundreds of Dreamers (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 05:50:57 PM EST
    Here in the keys, probably thousands.  I know several from the boat docks and grocery store.  They are devastated.  Several churches are offering DACA sanctuary to them.  

    BREAKING: New York and 15 states ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 06, 2017 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    ... have filed suit against the Trump administration over DACA in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Here's the motion.

    If only they had a better (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    legal argument. Just sayin'.

    Parent
    You said pretty much the same thing about ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 05:05:37 AM EST
    ... Hawaii's argument against the Muslim travel ban. In that case, the plaintiffs argued successfully that the Trump administration's actions were prompted by open animus toward a specific minority group, rather than an actual respect for the rule of law.

    78% of DACA participants are originally from Mexico. And in this case, Trump's own well-documented pejorative statements about Mexicans (pp. 45-47) stand a good chance of coming back to bite him in federal court.

    Throw on top of that Attorney General Sessions' recent untrue public statements about DREAMers taking jobs from Americans -- Hell, let's just throw in every hostile statement Sessions ever made about anyone of color -- and I think that the animus argument is going to be pretty hard for a federal judge to ignore. Unless, of course, the Trump administration gets the luck of the draw, and the judge assigned to hear the case so happens to share Sessions' and Trump's noxious racial sentiments.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I understand the argument. My opinion is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    that the version of it made against repeal of DACA is not as strong as the version advanced in the Travel Ban cases. The dots are not connected in nearly as straight a line.

    Parent
    Ninth Circuit has now ruled (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 07, 2017 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    that the Tr*mp Admin's interpretation of the Supreme Court's interim order on Travel Ban 2.0 was unduly narrow, both in excluding grandparents/grandchildren, brothers- & sisters-in-law, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews, and cousins from the definition of "close family" and also in unduly limiting which refugees count as having a "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. resettlement agency.  You can read it at this link (37-page PDF). This ruling should stand until after the Supreme Court rules on the government's appeal, to be argued Oct. 10.

    Reports say that the number (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    of previously-vetted, already-sponsored refugees protected against exclusion by yesterday's Ninth Circuit ruling may be as high as 24,000.

    Parent
    Justice Kennedy put a temporary hold (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 11, 2017 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    on the Ninth Circuit decision Monday, for one more day, to allow the challengers to respond to the government's objections.

    Parent
    The numbers I showed are from the link. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    They are the Removals of the past three presidents.

    Although widely used, especially among the general public, the term "Deportation" is inexact (as you have suggested), and most who are involved in immigration issues now use the terms "Removals" and "Returns." These terms are defined in one of my posts above.

    The term "Removals" is closest to the general public's concept of "Deportations" and thus Obama's title of "Deporter in Chief."

    "Returns" are generally immigrant candidates who are turned away from the US at or near the border.

    Obama had (way) more Removals than any other President.

    If you have numbers from some other source that contradict the claim that Obama had more Removals than any other president, then please present them.

    If not, have a good day.

    Mmmm ... Sorry (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    You're the one commingling numbers and intensifying they're the same.  If you want to claim Obama is the "Deporter in Chief", feel free to back up your claim with real numbers.  But, you can't actually do that, because the earlier numbers didn't include the numerous "catch and release" numbers from the border areas that are now counted.  

    The number of people deported at or near the [U.S.-Mexico] border has gone up -- primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.

    The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

    Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics

    .

    Which is why you can't back up your own claim with your own numbers.

    Oops.

    Parent

    So sad. (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 04:37:36 PM EST
    The link I provided shows the numbers of both Removals and Returns.

    The "voluntary returns" in your quote above which were not counted in the '90's are just that; returns. Not removals.

    Regardless of whether some returns were or were not counted, the Removals were counted. And Obama's Removals exceed all others.

    From your article, you know, the one you just quoted from:

    During the first two years after coming to office, Obama administration officials touted the record-setting deportation figures, hoping that strict enforcement at the border would convince Republicans to come to the negotiating table on immigration reform.

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was "crowing" about the increasing deportations, said Marshall Fitz, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.

    The Homeland Security Department "was patting itself on the back for reaching these record numbers," Fitz said. "I think they thought it was important to show they were very serious about this."

    Sandweg, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, rejected the suggestion that political objectives drove deportation policy. By handing detainees over to immigration officials for deportation, rather than processing them directly, Border Patrol agents could spend more time on patrol, he said.

    "From Day One we were following a policy that would emphasize public safety and border security," Sandweg said.

    But regardless of motivation, the shift had the effect of emphasizing the administration's enforcement efforts, which over time has angered Latino activists and their allies in the U.S. labor movement.

    Oops.

    Parent

    Hahahaha ... That IS sad (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 08, 2017 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    The "voluntary returns" in your quote above which were not counted in the '90's are just that; returns. Not removals.

    Regardless of whether some returns were or were not counted, the Removals were counted. And Obama's Removals exceed all others

    .

    So if you completely ignore the fact that prior to Obama, the majority of people caught crossing the border who were returned were called "voluntary returns" and were not counted as deportations or removals, his numbers are higher???  If you are willing to ignore the fact that these people were included in the ICE numbers for part of Bush and all of Obama's terms but were never counted previously, your numbers are meaningful?

    Heh.

    I probably shouldn't say "Oops", because that kind of mendacious twisting of numbers isn't accidental.

    It's purposeful.

    The problem for you, however, is that it's also ridiculously transparent.

    Parent

    Bwawawawa. Cry me a river. (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 09, 2017 at 01:47:22 AM EST
    His Removal numbers are (way) higher than any other president, regardless of any changes he oversaw to the system to gain those record numbers.

    He saddled (many) more illegal immigrants with the legal burdens associated with being Removed, rather than just being Returned, than any other president.

    As your article points out, he quite clearly prided himself on those record numbers for quite a while.

    Well, I'm done with you and your pathetic attempt to whitewash his actions.

    Parent

    "Changes he oversaw" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 09, 2017 at 05:18:44 PM EST
    You mean the changes that started under GWB?  You wingers just can't help yourselves when it comes to misleading/fabricating/prevaricating.

    Your POYTUS is the perfect match for you.

    Parent