United States, Supreme Court, Obama Administration discussed on The Dave Gram Show on WDEV

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

STAY SAFE MAINSTREAM Warren village. It's the Dave Ramsey show. WD DV. The US Supreme Court last week came out with a second pretty big decision and one, which was not popular with the trump administration, having to do with the <hes>. With the dreamers, the children of immigrants <hes> some of whom have grown up pretty much all in the United States and have considered themselves US residents. Maybe American citizens even although <hes>. Let's talk about the particulars here. Dan Richardson. These folks <hes> are. How would you categorize them? Actually are. If you're a citizen, you're you're not. You're not in this category anymore. Is that right? People? That were brought to the United States <hes>. You know without without permission. I it legally is the term. That's used although I think it's. It's important to realize that a lot of immigration law is civil as opposed to to criminal and I think we tend to when we think of things is being illegal, which is true? You know we have to be careful. And I think is important distinction. <hes> because it's a lot of what this case rests upon as well <hes>, but these are people. These are individuals who brought to the country as as small children <hes> by parents that did not have permission that we're you know either overstaying their visas or entering without permission or visas, and then taking up permanent residence, so these are people who were technically born in another country did not have citizenship, but for all intents and purposes have been raised as American citizens. Their entire lives <hes> or at least akin to that. <hes> and so it was intended. This is a policy <hes> program that was created by the Obama Administration, which was intended to slice at some of the immigration issues that seem to have stymied a lot of national politics, and this is a good example of what I was talking about before. which is that one way or the other? We have not been able to come up with a good policy solution to any type of immigration issue <hes>. We have not resolved the fact that there are. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of. People living in this country that do not have full citizenship status <hes> for one reason or another. And, this was an attempt to to cut off. Probably the most innocent of that bunch these people that did not <hes> cross on their own volition. They were brought <hes>. These are people who do not have strong ties to the country. <hes> where they came from in many cases, they do not speak the language. They do not have <hes>. Relatives or or friends or acquaintances in the country <hes> and they are for all intensive purposes, productive members of and the fact that was one of the requirements that they be productive members of society I. Mean these are people who have either served military or who? Hold essential jobs are professionals <hes> you know it was an attempt to create the best class of of immigrants that lacked any type of of legal standing <hes> and to protect them, and to say look. We'll deal with immigration in these other things, but we're. WE'RE NOT GONNA go after the best and the brightest. Will Continue to let them stay in the country <hes>. In this case, it's a five four decision. Chief Justice Roberts again voting with the majority <hes>, but it a very narrow decision. And it really rests upon whether or not the administration. The trump administration gave. A good reason to abandon this policy. <hes> and in some ways you know I've heard this characterized. This is basically the Supreme Court swatting down sloppy legal work on the trump trump administration's. Side <hes> others might characterize it differently <hes>, but essentially what it comes down to is the fact that the trump administration on basically two one page memos tried to change this policy and eliminate it when there were you know thousands of people that had. Relied upon it had given up information that they would not otherwise be a required to give up who had made changes in plans. Change their life and made adjustments based on the promise of this government policy, and while the government can change policy when such things occur when they're such reliance by parties on it, there has to a good reason and the Supreme Court basically said. Government you haven't given us good reason. And it doesn't mean the government can't go

Coming up next