| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 06/16/2017 10:28:11 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Duplicate AP article |
Posted on 06/15/2017 8:59:48 PM PDT by Pinkbell
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Obama-era immigration program intended to protect parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents from deportation has been formally cancelled, fulfilling a key campaign promise from President Donald Trump, the Homeland Security Department announced late Thursday.
Homeland Security John Kelly formally revoked a policy memo that created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program. The revocation came on the fifth anniversary of another effort that has protected hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation.
The program to protect parents was announced by President Barack Obama in November 2014 but was never fully launched. It was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge in Texas after 26 states filed suit against the federal government and challenged the effort’s legality. Republicans decried the effort at “backdoor amnesty” and argued that Obama overstepped his authority by protecting a specific class of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
The protection program for parents, like the one for young immigrants, was created with a policy memo during the Obama administration. Both programs required that participants meet certain conditions, including not having a criminal history. As part of the expansion to protect immigrant parents living in the United States illegally, the Obama administration also sought to provide the young immigrants with work permits good for three years at a time. That provision was also blocked by the Texas judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
First of all, this program was blocked by the Supreme Court after 26 states sued the Obama Administration and was never fully implemented, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rage.
Second of all, we are a nation of borders and laws. Nations are defined by borders. If we aren't going to enforce immigration law when people are here illegally, why in the world is it fair to make other people go through the process of coming in through immigrations and customs enforcement and why in the world is it fair to make other people who are trying to become legal citizens go through a long, tedious process?
This would allow 4 million people to stay illegally with work permits, but we know the end goal is amnesty. This program would incentivize people to come in and have a child that is an "anchor" because, why not come and have a child here as it opens up a chance for benefits and a chance to get to stay?
It's a sad situation, but ultimately, if people break domestic law, we don't refrain from enforcing it if they have children.
Someone already posted this in breaking if you want to delete. I shouldn’t have stopped midway through my post to watch Tucker interview Oliver Stone.
Perspective on the Oliver Stone interview?
Oliver Stone was interesting to listen to. He clearly doesn’t like Hillary Clinton and didn’t vote for her because of her “neocon” foreign policy with respect to Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Despite being a liberal, I got the impression he doesn’t think it’s fair what they are doing to Trump with respect to this Russia narrative. He also expresses a healthy degree of skepticism about the intelligence report and Brennan and Comey. He says if anyone interfered in the election, it was Comey. At the end he remarked he directed Trump for a day for a movie, but the scene was deleted. He said it was interesting, but unfortunately, Tucker didn’t press for more details. I honestly would have liked the interview to be longer.
(I’ll PM this to you in case thread deleted.)
5.4,3,2,1, lawsuit!!!
Stone is an honest liberal, I think. A bit like Kucinich. I still think JFK was an outstanding movie. Followed the book “On the trail of the Assassin’s” by Garrison very closely. I do not know his views on 2A but would not be surprised if he were not reflexively anti.
The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional already in 2016! It was yet to be fully implemented.
But they always seem to find a federal judge to block what Trump does no matter what the law is.
Both programs required that participants meet certain conditions, including not having a criminal history.
_____________________________________________________________
Heh. Not a single one of the illegals fit that requirement. They had to break the law to get here.
FAKE NEWS! Parents are not immigrants, they’re aliens.
Sick movie huh? :)
I got a kick out of it either way.
Seemed VERY implausible.
Great post.
You could write for a paper.
Well, not most that are out there today but the right wing ones :)
Unfortunately, I can’t watch Tucker tonight. Wish I could.
The left, however, is having a meltdown right now on Twitter.
When is the Left *not* having a meltdown on Twitter. ;-)
Check out his “Untold History of the United States”.
Very pro communist, but some good and relevant information.
I don’t how the movie is implausible at all.
Any “public servants” involved we’re servants of the deep state. Not patriots. Also see A Farewell to Justice written by Jim Garrison’s friend, about how much of the cast of characters involved were on the payroll of other gov’t agencies.
Same kind of interests who wanted to take down Reagan.
Same kind of interests who want to remove our current prez.
Hard to sue over a policy revoke of something that was never law in the first place.
Considering that that Dreamer successfully sued that she followed all the conditions of DACA so shouldn't be deported(liberal judge even ordered the Feds to give her her work permit back), the only solution to that is to revoke DACA for everyone.
Like with gay marriage, you give in on anything and libs(progressives) will use it as a stepping stone to the next level.
I'll pass that along to the fed judges who keep stopping Trump's travel bans (note: not laws). Maybe the key fact is SCOTUS ruled on DAPA. Nice to know that fed judges take the SCOTUS seriously. At least for now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.