Judge Orders Trump to Protect Dreamers from Deportation

Barack Obama had the authority to protect law-breaking Dreamers but no President thereafter has the right to enforce the law?

President Trump rescinded Barack Obama’s executive order to protect Dreamers because several state were about to sue the Administration for continuing what they consider to be an unconstitutional exercise in power. But Liberal judges presume to act not only like Barack Obama had the authority, but that President Donald Trump lacks the authority to stop suspending the law.

How does that work?

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Bad Hombres Apprehended Near Texas Border… Sex Offenders, Gang Members

The law says that Dreamers are illegal aliens and are subject to deportation. That’s the law as passed by Congress. The courts have never ruled that law unconstitutional. Barack Obama claimed to have the authority to suspend the enforcement of immigration law. If he didn’t have that authority, then Trump is obligated to cancel the executive order. If he did have that authority, then Trump has the authority to resume the enforcement of immigration law.

It’s that simple.

The Associated Press reports, “White House condemns ruling on Trump’s ‘Dreamers’ program.

The White House on Wednesday sharply criticized a federal judge’s ruling that the Trump administration must resume a program that has shielded hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation.

While the government has 90 days to restate its arguments before the order takes effect, presidential press secretary Sarah Huckabee characterized the ruling as “good news” for smuggling organizations and criminal networks and “horrible news for our national security.”

If Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington survives the three-month reprieve, it would be a new setback for the Trump team because it would require the administration to accept requests from first-time applicants for the Obama-era program.

Two nationwide injunctions earlier this year applied only to renewal requests for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA recipients are commonly referred to as “Dreamers,” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act that would have provided similar protections for young immigrants.

Siding with Princeton University and the NAACP, Bates said the administration’s decision in September to phase out the program over six months relied on “meager legal reasoning.” He invited the Department of Homeland Security to try again, “this time providing a fuller explanation for the determination that the program lacks statutory and constitutional authority.”

Read the entire AP story.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Joe Scudder

Joe Scudder

Joe Scudder is the "nom de plume" (or "nom de guerre") of a fifty-ish-year-old writer and stroke survivor. He lives in St Louis with his wife and still-at-home children. He has been a freelance writer and occasional political activist since the early nineties. He describes his politics as Tolkienesque.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend