35 Burst results for "Daca"
Ocean Spray gifts truck to TikTok star whose post went viral
"I think everybody has fallen in love with him. The man who went viral on for skateboarding to wheat would Mac song dreams will bring it up a bottle of ocean spray cranberry juice Just, receive a huge huge gift from the ocean spray brand a brand new bright red truck Nathan Daca is his name. He debuted his new wheels on instagram and tick tock earlier this week on the side of the truck. It says, dear, Nathan Good Vibes only love ocean spray and the bed of the truck with filled with cases. Awesome off. Men I go full over reached over my blood because I always have my car grabbed my juice would me to cough up the highway size I? Just. Less, than ten minutes time you get to work so I'm like, all right let's go. Nuts. So it's such a cute video and his original video which was posted on Tiktok back on September twenty fifth. Has Racked up twenty, six, hundred, million views four, hundred to kind of. Video you need in today's world. It's just a happy and fun. Yeah really does
Amy Coney Barrett: Trump nominates conservative favourite for Supreme Court
"Trump Trump picked picked Amy Amy Cockney Cockney Barrett Barrett yesterday yesterday to to fill fill Ruth Ruth Bader Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg empty seat. The federal appeals court judge also got high praise from him. President Trump made that announcement at the White House yesterday. Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant And gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement. Powering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution Judge Amy Cockney Barrett. There. It was there in person with her family to accept that nomination and pays tribute to the woman chief replace Should I be confirmed? I will be mindful of who came before me. The flag of the United States is still flying at half staff and memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great American life. Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession. But she not only broke glass ceilings, she smashed them. Well, that's it. Ginsberg's the legacy of Expanding women's rights is pretty much the opposite of judge barrettes. She is deeply conservative and is a favorite of the religious right. She's from Marlins and has a law degree from Notre Dame. Bear. Its presence on the court will give conservative leaning justices a solid majority, and critics say that could take Obama care and the DACA program while threatening LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights. Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer. My colleagues are united in opposition. Many of them have issued statements in opposition. And we are united. Democratshouse Senate and Joe Biden. And show in alerting the American people to the danger danger to their health care. They're very healthcare they depend on with this nomination. The court will hear a challenge to Obamacare next month, one that could take away guaranteed coverage for anyone with a pre existing condition. Covert 19 would likely apply and well, we're in the middle of a global health crisis. Barrettes nomination is expected to be quickly confirmed in the Senate. But as correspondent Karen Travers report now that President Trump has made this nomination official the action moves to Capitol Hill, where there will likely be a very bitter confirmation fight president today acknowledged to the senators who were in the Rose Garden that they could have a tough time on their hands. Very quick. I'm sure it'll be extremely non controversial, A new poll from ABC News in The Washington Post found. 57% of Americans say the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by the winner of the November election with a vote in the Senate next year. Just 38% say they prefer to see President Trump and the current Senate Act on a nomination. nomination. Majority Majority leader leader Mitch Mitch McConnell McConnell says says he he wants wants to to confirm confirm Barrett Barrett before before election election Day. Day. Republicans Republicans are are looking looking at at October October 12 12 to to begin begin barrettes barrettes confirmation hearings right now.
UN agency laments northern summer's 'deep wound' to Earth's ice cover
"Climate warming in the Arctic has caused tremendous diminish over the summer months and the European of suffered to you and weather experts said on Tuesday in an update to coincide with the start of autumn in the northern. Hemisphere. The World Meteorological Organization WMO reported major impacts on ice shelves and. Heat records in the polar region included one on Norway's Svalbard archipelago the town of Longyearbyen hit twenty one point seven degrees Celsius seventy, one degrees Fahrenheit on the twenty fifth of July shattering the previous record had stood for forty one years also this summer the UN agency noted that an eighty one kilometer square portion of the milne ice shelf broke off producing the total area by forty-three percent. Warm conditions have also been seen in the European. Alps. The UN agency said with similar consequences temperatures in the absolute fact increased by two degrees, Celsius twentieth century, and the damage that this caused has been amplified by decrease in Snow Ice Cover, which has revealed Daca Rox that absorb more Saudi radiation.
How Are You Intelligent
"You grew up from my understanding in nineteen fifties sixties Liverpool. So can post war, which was also pretty interesting time and Liverpool. Yeah ours born in Nineteen fifty. In Liverpool. And was it was a? Is a city that had been devastated and the second world. War. In the middle of the nineteenth century, Liverpool was the probably the most important port in the world something like sixty percent of world trade what through the port of Liverpool side of empire. Realizes at much high to the British empire and it was the main point of entry for all the goods that were coming from the southern states to feed the the Mills of Lancashire. It was the hydrogen industrial revolution. So it was a huge import export trade. It was the of departure to the United States and also to far-flung parts. The Empire. If you had been around the pool in the. Mid To late nineteenth century defined this bustling port huge wealth great open parklands, magnificent houses, and know the metropolis Greg. Colton Center. When I was born in Nineteen fifty, it was none of that in the the docks were pretty much faltering the the passenger ships going from there anymore was international. Travel and empire collapsed so and battered by the lava. So we literally playing in bomb craters and in the austerity of Post War Britain wet food was rationed than we had. high levels of unemployment poverty I WANNA set in kids and. my dad had been unemployed for long time because of the situation generally unlivable. I Australia recently to my own kids about their life you know that that does children. You've no real. Grasp of what's going through your parents minds. That we took, we had a great childhood Safah's we're concerned we grew up playing in the streets of the full. we didn't have feel for. With every day only about a great family my dad was one of five kids. So we had. Lots of family on his side cousins and uncles. My Mom was one of Sutton in heck six girls and a boy she had giant fan found when we gather together, there were to be hundreds of his daughter actions and liberals very funny place I. REMEMBER GROWING UP A. Laugh in good times and but a call sweet new. Later on my parents, you know coping with only problems you have coming from, you know with unemployment and an economy there but they didn't let us know but. Did. You ever go back and and speak to them that what it was like for them that time curious. Yeah. Well, the thing is that. I was I was born nineteen fifty, a couple of things happened. the tech would be turning points. One was that. In one, thousand, nine, hundred, fifty, full, I got polio, which is. Endemic at the time there was A. Massive. International crisis around the spread of polio virus. So I called it around the time that Sulk came up with the vaccine. But not quite in time read. and. Until then my father was convinced, I was going to be the soccer player in the family. We grew right next auto evidence football ground, which is one of the main teams in countries. So he was convinced I was Gonna be the soccer player. So I was strong and fast and Anita, told me trauma had a great sense of Boll Control and he thought this is the one fan. My youngest brother Neil eventually went on to be professional soccer. Yeah, I'm played for evison. In fact, he my brother John were taken on by the team Neil persisted with John lack the life of it less. So yes, I got poed and that was Devastating. For the family members a kid you don't have a word I've devastating it is, but you can imagine now a spokesman about it. Later on, you can imagine your own four year old kid completely paralyze stretched out. Bad. Surrounded by sandbags, NICO overnight from being perfectly fit to being completely wiped out. And some kids didn't make it a total. So is in hospital for eight months when it came out on to braces and we will chat crutches and. I was tremendously cute. I have to say. Often, me money spontaneously in the street. So that was a big thing obviously for the whole family are seventy the only one in the whole family to get it So that was bad for them. A memoir of a friend of Mine God's. Cycle Colston rankin saved the day save is to Kensington this particular thing in the Standard on very well at his own haulage business. And my dad had been. A professional soccer player himself he'd. Run. PUBS. And have been very successful, but then the wall intervened and. he was being offered the to be the manager of this. Very successful pub, but he was then passed over by the brewers in favor of a well-known sock play who was looking to manage a pump. So. My Dad had to work a DACA long showman and. But there's whole period of unemployment than Stettin Christmases, looming and literally Christmas Eve. This guy stand rankin. Showed up at the highest where the become full of food. Tacky. Presents for us that hasn't been anything. There was just wondering how Christians tiny show with a tool. So ready for like a Father Christmas. Jonathan's exaggerated. Wasn't that we lived in abject poverty. But it was difficult for them. You know we. And we went as aware of it but but it was it was hard for them and then. In Nineteen fifty-nine. Madonna was back at work and had an industrial accident. He was what Mrs Stihler actor. And he broke his neck I'll he was Completely paralyzed. quadraplegic quadriplegic paralyzed from the neck down. To won't morning. This wooden beam they're working on fell thirty feet the rope snapped and broke his neck. Oh,
DevOps and Site Reliability with Matt Watson from Stackify
"This sort of field and and what serve inspired you to take the leap from whatever you're doing at the time to say, I want to start I company built a company around. DEVOPS and site reliability. Yes. So I am now thirty nine years old just day was my birthday and happy birthday. So thank you. I actually started my first software company when I was Let's see twenty two years old and. Coming Calvin solutions and that company grew really fast it was actually it's weird to think about now but was really kind of on the forefront of SAS software as a service companies in back. Then crap was hard like if we needed more servers like we're racking servers and stolen vm ware and like dealing with all that kind of crap and you know none of that was fun and none of it was easy and it was before the cloud right before aws azure and all these things, and so did you have a warehouse or something i? Mean how did you see we use? A local data center I mean, it was just a lot of can't city data center but you know so that company really grew really fast and in two thousand eleven we sold it. But when we sold it you know I had about forty people that worked for me and it most of that was software development but we had every challenge in the world from you know how to scale this thing the performance and bugs, and trying to build new features, and like we had all the problems as a startup, right? And you know my goal when I when I left there and started stack by was to build a set of tools and a platform that would help developers better understand how their applications are performing, how to troubleshoot basic problems. View errors view log files know just basic kind of day to day stuff, which is a lot of a devops `sorry kind of stuff these days but the problem I had back then and is it felt like myself and the three or four other. Developers that were the most important people in the whole company spent all day long looking at log files and trying to solve bugs in production. Right when we have like forty other developers, but they just didn't have the knowledge, the tools, the security access you know just didn't have all of those things to really help troubleshoot things and we just didn't have the tool. So that was originally the goal was know how do we build a set a tool sell developers troubleshoot basic problems You know so that the lead developers don't spend all day doing it. Yeah. Yeah. Let's try to unpack. I'm pack you. It's actually there's a lot of complexity around. Just getting. Some diagnostics into your hand, right. So you have this data center. Now most people are using aws. Let's say you've rented out a portion of the data center and you have some servers on it. How do you go from one hundred, thousand, ten, thousand machine serving some website to? Being able to look at something on your computer and say, Oh yeah, this this is bad. This log line is bad. How how does that end to end process look like? Well so all of these things have changed a lot over time right and used to be you know developers and system administrators would would set up all these machines and have a load balancer and you can log into the server and. Of course, you have all the DISA- Curie access, you know concerns with all those things right. But now you fast forward to today and like servers aren't even thing we have containers or we have server less applications and you now you're deploying a container somewhere and there's one many of those instances of that container and yet to your point of like. Well, how do I get the log files off of a container? Break it's it's like there's more and more levels of abstraction from you know developer or anybody on it to troubleshoot these things. There's multiple layers of automation and abstraction and all this stuff which makes it more and more difficult to troubleshoot some of these things because we use Microsoft azure stack by and we were really trying to troubleshoot something and I had to figure out how to SSh into a container that was. Am by the one I I'm an old Microsoft developer basically who eats every hates everything command line related. and. So I'm I'm not an old dog and I feel like an old dog now being forced to learn this Cuban eighties in all this stuff and Lennox. And I'm like God the is. So can I just like already pee into the box and like trouble shoot some things it'd be a little easier but you know the only way we get access to these things today is to get all the data off the servers right so like log data we gotta get the logging data off of the servers containers, the server lous APP whatever type of APP it is wherever it is wherever it's deployed you've got to get that data off of there and get it to you know A. Centralized. Logging solution which there are a lot of those backfires one of them we centralize logging, but there's things. Or all sorts of solutions that you can throw all of your logging data into elastic search, another popular how how does that work? So someone wants to use any of these. Let's say Stack Affi-, they built some docker container that has their their their website business logic, and then how did they connect that to Stack Affi- they? Right As. Part of their code like you have something in every programming language. So using say see boss boss or or no gas or something they have to have some line that says you log this Daca fi like how does it? How does that work? Yeah most developers in their applications use some form of standard logging framework, right? So in dot net that's log for Jay in its nausea since it's Winston, you know dot net it's in log log frenette are. So there you know they use these standard logging frameworks which help you decide if you WANNA logged the disc or log to. SIS LOG or windows event viewer rolling files on Disk, and all these different things right and so most most of the way you do this is they sport different targets or penders that are seeing the call different things. But basically, they're like extensions that allow you to just change your convict file to say you know what I want to send these this logging data to this third party source now, which could be stack or whatever the thing is right so It's usually a small configuration
Jos Ralat, Taco Editor
"Roulette. Welcome to let you know USA. Thanks for having me to be like the one and only standing official dot co editor of the United States of America. That's a big deal. Congratulations. Thank you. It's an honor fed I don't. Take lightly because I. I have the responsibility of. Not just. For reading about the food but. priding about the people and I think that's really the most. Critical part of the job but before we continue. People might be saying, wait what's going on and so you're very open about the fact that you stutter that is something that happens and so we might as well just say, Hey, it happens in your cool with. Saying Yeah and and moving on, right? Yes. I am thank you. Yes. It's part of my life and it's never stopped me from doing things like. Live TV or radio segments I. Love that. I. GotTa Say I really do I completely loved that. So. What you may not know is that I've been Taco fanatic since probably before you were even born, I'm Mexican I grew up with this stuff. You know I mean, my mom made dot goes by our leader. Mehta goes you're Puerto Rican you were growing up with this stuff. So what's the story as to why this Puerto Rican dude ends up falling in? Love with TACO's growing up in the states I knew about duck was generally speaking at A. Fast Food Product but. As a Mexican food item. was in. Brooklyn from. A. China and I don't know. Who I fell in love. With I. The woman. or The food. So before we get to talking about that goes which again we talk about forever. One of the things that stood out to us is from the beginning of your book. And this is where you refer to something you call the alita principal. And having just mastered Jose, you'll be proud of me finally having just mastered my I will lead us the you like I finally figured it out. I'm just like Oh my God I can't believe it. I unlocked it. What is this thing about the alita principle when it applies to Dacas? So, whenever people? Talk about Mexican food eventually the conversation. Pros around to. Well. My Willett I made the best Mexican. Food she made best diesels. Hurling. was, the best or her? Malia was the best. and. For them. That's as far as Mexican food goes. Nothing else. Counts as Mexican. which is unfortunate because. Mesko is a large country with micro regions. And Different, cuisines. It's not that. Simple. We shouldn't box it in. Boxing it in. His misguided at. Best and racist that worst Could also. Be. Maybe so and so's grandmother wasn't
Pico in Lockdown
"Start by checking in with friend of the show author Pico to hear how he's faring during this pandemic summer Pico was raised in England in southern California by parents who were both philosophers and religious scholars we caught up with him in Santa Barbara Pico welcome back travel with Rick Steves Real Delight. It's always. Highlight, to talk to you. Thank you know people used your life between California and Japan tell us how you are dealing with this crisis. Well I spent the first half of the pandemic in Japan and I'm almost embarrassed to say that things are quite beautiful and the sense that things look very much the same as normal as you know from your many trips, the people wear masks much of the time in. Japan anyway literally and figuratively to protect others. If you were in a bus in Japan in November, usually, there'll be forty percents of the people wearing masks. So that part was not different and as you also know, Japan has managed to avoid the west of the virus. So even in the middle of April I was playing Ping Pong every day with my neighbors eight year old men were diving across the hard floor of the wooden Jim to hit back at forehands and really looking around everything seems same as usual except, of course, no foreign tourists. And I think the other thing about Japan which is one reason I moved. There is as you know, they're very STOIC uncomplaining and resilient, and so they've been dealing with challenges for fourteen hundred years there, and they don't see these kind of crises is shocked sore in the south. So aberrations they think of them almost as the way life always is they used to earthquakes some Salamis forest five. So in that way to it was quite a complex to be. and. Then I flew back in the middle of the pandemic to Santa Barbara where I am now because my mother who's now eighty nine just come out of the hospital and I knew I had to have and California did look very different from usual but in certain ways, people seem thoughtful and focused and reflective kind and. In some ways. Conversations I had with people here on the telephone if I in is in the supermarket with Michio the they might be otherwise I'm lucky again in both places because I'm in. The small town of not as affected as big cities and. Towns of privileged. So everybody was most concerned about those without a roof over the heads with family nearby jobs I had a pretty lucky I. Think you know, Pico, you mentioned in Japan people are to wearing masks both literally and figuratively and I cringed at that because I don't want to have a world where we wear literal masks I would want even less to have where we all have figurative masks and maybe we'll have more literal masks in our future. But what you're saying is when you got back to California, people might have been wearing masks but they were being a little more honest and open with each other's is that right? Yes. That is right. I'm I think in Japan the FIGURATIVE MOSQUES Seen as a form of social duty I think you know as you know, the Japanese define themselves by the the whole unit, the neighborhood or the country or the company, and they feel everybody around me is suffering, and so my job is to make people feel better. I don't want to inflict my own suffering on people who already going through a lot. I want to offer them what I can in the way of help Williamson. And support, and so actually I like that quality about Japan essentially positive and and also they're not rattled by things sometimes very small things will come along and and other places. I'll see people get very shocked and caught up in the fight of the moment and Japan has much more level suffix, which makes it in some ways a calm place you're right that they're not good at facing up to some of the DACA places. The, dogs spots in history. But as a win a sort of social lubricant, I think it makes for at least a cheerful atmosphere and it's sort of related to being considered socially. Exactly, it's. It's. It's. It's a matter of thinking about the other person before yourself and then recalling if remember in the Nami two, thousand eleven, eighteen, thousand, five, hundred people died and when people watch the footage on TV they were surprised the Japanese was so quiet uncomplaining and I think that's because even though one person that loves to people right here at the house, she knew that everybody around her had losses also and so she didn't want to compound that. Grief
Members Of The Class Of 2020 Face A Brutal Job Market
"Just. A few months ago college seniors could reasonably expect to graduate into one of the best job markets in history. Now, because of the pandemic, they've graduated into one of the worst generations when members of the class of twenty twenty half landed jobs, the experience is odd NPR's Berlin reports. Twenty twenty was shaping up to be a great year for Golden. DACA, he be the first member of his family to graduate from college not only that he was the Valedictorian of his school. Morehouse College. ATLANTA. But in March, campus emptied and classes went online and then the moment he'd been waiting for commencement it was postponed I wanted to give that huge speech onstage with my family friends and loved ones who made it very possible for me to go to it came to an abrupt end been expecting rites of passage and celebration. Instead he landed in the pandemic, it's been a really difficult transition you know and it's been one that's a mocking allies with. A lot of uncertainty. A lot of self doubt. Worst of all, his grandmother who was supposed to come see him graduate passed away in their native. Zambia. Despite everything, there has been a bright spot dako landed a paid fellowship with the governor of Illinois after four rounds of remote interviews. So I'm more on the fortunate side and a lot of my classmates in other individuals across the nation are is a very challenging time to be a new college graduate through pollock is a Labor economist with the job sites Ziprecruiter. So compared with fee labor market in February before covert hit, we have seen job postings for the entry level positions most popular among new college graduates fall by seventy three percent. But even though postings have plummeted, people are still landing jobs. So even in a crisis, there are companies hiring eighteen million jobs have been posted. On ziprecruiter since covert struck, what has changed dramatically is how those new workers get hired interviews or evolving from those zoom skype calls and now to virtual video platforms where you record yourself answering the questions and then send that video in yourself. So you have no interaction with a person that all the lack of face to face human interaction that's been one constant for Danielle Kaplan she graduated this spring from the University of Iowa, and moved in with her mom it's been fine. But with a lot of activity around the house, it was tricky for her to find a quiet place for job interviews. So I, feel like my interviewer singing a different background, every single time with them. You know this is a very difficult, but as it turned out, backgrounds didn't matter. So I will be heading to Kansas City to work at a startup in. So I'm really excited about it. Kaplan's excitement is accompanied by trepidation because so much of the last few months felt unreal even disembodied. This is a huge major life transition that I'm about to undergo and it doesn't feel that way. I've been virtually meeting people. Virtually getting an apartment. So nothing feels like tangible to me all that is about to change this weekend. Kaplan will load up a rental truck and moved to a new hometown. Kansas. City. There won't be anything virtual about it. Berliner NPR news.
Trump administration to review DACA and reject new applications
"A month after the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's methods of winding down Doc of protections. The White House's taking new and different steps. CBS's Camillo Montoya Galvez is a stopgap action while the administration undertakes a quote unquote comprehensive review of the Obama era program, and the justifications offered into down 17 for dismantling it. Officials intend to use that review. To act on the programme.
DHS to limit current DACA protections and reject new applicants
"Said the Trump Administration couldn't wind down DACA protections on the timetable that had wanted the White House taking new steps to limits those protections. Here's CBS News, White House correspondent Steve Importantly, as it continues its efforts to kill Dhaka The Trump Administration says it will renew the expiring status of dreamers on a case by case basis for one year instead of two. New applications will be rejected. A White House official says the new legal rationale for ending the program will focus on its negative effect, in particular how it's thought to serve as a magnet for Maury legal crossings. Supreme Court ruled last month 5 to 4 that the administration's previous attempts to wind down DACA were arbitrary and capricious. Federal judge in
Trump Administration Refuses To Accept New DACA Applicants Despite Court Rulings
"Say President Trump is still working to unwind the Dreamers program. The president has been using the Supreme Court ruling to not end the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, even though it went against his administration has a signed executive orders can be bold and sweeping. The program was created by an Obama order. And with that in mind, senior administration officials Say the president will order changes to how so called dreamers are given renewals one year instead of two and no new applications for the program, which protects persons brought into the US illegally is Children from
Trump administration continues to wind down DACA
"A month after the Supreme Court said the Trump Administration could not wind down DACA protections. It's doing just that CBS News reporter Camillo Montoya Galvez the Trump Administration announced Tuesday. It will continue to reject Initial application for deferred action for childhood arrivals Dhaka from immigrants who never obtained the protection in the first place, and it will also limit the renewals of more than 640,000 so called dreamers currently enrolled in the program,
DHS to limit current DACA protections and reject new applicants
"After the Supreme Court, the Trump administration couldn't wind down DACA protections on the timetable they had sought. The White House is now taking steps to limit those protections. CBS NEWS White House correspondent Steve Important reports. As it continues its efforts to kill Doc of the Trump Administration says it will renew the expiring status of dreamers on a case by case basis for one year instead of two new applications will be rejected. White House official says the new legal rationale for ending the program will focus on its negative effect, in particular how it's thought to serve as a magnet for Maury legal crossings. The Supreme Court ruled last month 5 to 4 that the administration's previous attempts to wind down DACA where arbitrary and capricious
Judge orders Trump administration to fully reinstate DACA program
"Judge has ordered the Trump administration to accept new DACA applications. The order comes nearly a month after the U. S. Supreme Court blocked the administration's attempt to end the Obama era program that Shields undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as Children from deportation. Judge Paul Grim of Maryland said the program is to be restored to its September pre September 2017 levels.
Supreme Court Issues Key Rulings on Trump's Finances
"On the final day of its term, the Supreme Court issued two highly anticipated rulings involving president trump's financial records. One decision clears the way for Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance to potentially view the president's taxes. The other was a mixed decision involving congressional efforts to obtain the president's personal financial documents both were sent back to lower courts for further consideration. Joining me now with more details is our legal affairs reporter Brent Kendall. So rent. The court rejected the president's efforts to block New York subpoena seeking his tax records, but issued a mixed ruling in a related case involving subpoenas from House Democrats. Can you tell us more about these rulings? And why in the congressional case? It was a mixed ruling. On the congressional case we'll start there that the court made pretty clear that it was not at all satisfied with either president trump's position. which the court said would really neuter Congress and make it harder for the legislative branch to do investigation while also being equally dissatisfied with Congress's position here and said look. Lawmakers you're under the belief that you can just get almost anything you want under the Sun, and the the you know, the president here is different. This is about his personal papers, and we really do need to give more scrutiny here to make sure that these requests are targeted and limited and these. Don't harass the president or become a really burdensome on him in some ways that case ended up as kind of a draw, and we will have significant further lower proceedings, and it's. It's hard to know at this point at the end of the day whether Congress is going to get. Any some all of these records that it is seeking the one thing we do know. It's extremely unlikely that they're going to get any of them before the election in November The vans case with a lot clearer and a lot. More of a straight forward and fairly sweeping loss for the president who argued that he was absolutely immune from having his financial information, disclosed or turned over to state prosecutors Wyle. He was in office, and the court flatly rejected that claim and basically sided with newer prosecutors and all their basic. That case isn't completely resolved. either. The president still potentially has more arguments. He can make against the subpoenas which he will certainly try to do in the lower courts, but it did remove a big roadblock for prosecutors in Manhattan who are examining whether President, trump or people close to him violated any state record keeping laws. So these separate cases, both came down and seven to two votes, and the president's appointees neal gorsuch and bright cavanaugh were in the majority. What do you make of that breakdown? While I mean it's a pretty remarkable thing and most of the big cases here right at the end of the term, the chief justice avoided five four rulings, and so for example we had some big religious freedom cases that were issued on Wednesday and have been the kinds of cases in the past. We're liberal justices, all descended and they're. The just got to the Liberals to join with the Conservatives, and what is was a pair of fairly conservative rulings in favor of religious institutions, and then flipping things around today we had the chief justice in the four liberal justices, and the chief was also bring along justices, neal gorsuch and Brett Cavanaugh, who are both trump appointees and to the majority in both of these rulings, those two didn't agree on all the same reasoning, but joined the outcomes. We ended up out of the nine justices with only two dissenters justices clarence. Thomas Samuel Alito. Tell us more about what happens next. For these two cases, what questions are now left for the lower courts? especially as we're looking ahead to the November election, even if these issues won't be resolved by then. There are a lot more issues for the lower courts in the congressional cases, basically because the Supreme Court crafted a whole new set of standards, the judges should now look out for these kinds of disputes. I mean the disputes. Themselves are pretty rare, normally congress and the White House work out their differences when Congress wants to have people testify when they want information. But now the court is basically said you lower chords take these new standards. We've articulated that we think will provide some protections to the president as well as some protections to Congress and sort out who's got the better argument here. That's going to take time. The New York case may take a little less time. The president still has some arguments available to him to contest the criminal subpoena here to his accountant's but they're more straightforward at. That courts can deal with more quickly, but even there it's going to take time, and even if he loses and the accountants turnover this information to Manhattan prosecutors. This comes in the context of a secret grand jury proceeding, and it will be many months, if ever, before details of of what prosecutors learn would become public. And the president quickly responded to these rulings on twitter. We are hearing responses. Continue to roll in. Tell me a little bit about your impressions of what he's been saying well, the president has been frustrated with a Supreme Court on several of its rulings, including one day invalidated his cancellation of the Dhaka and program and right after the ruling came out today, and he expressed clear frustration on twitter that this case would continue and express his views that this is sort of a political partisan prosecution that's designed to harass him, and he said that it was not fair to him or his administration. While the president was frustrated with the rulings today. Sivan's in New York. The prosecutor who is leading this investigation was thrilled and said this was a day really where the Supreme Court affirmed the rule of law that is applied to the president, just like everybody else. And he said now his team would get back to doing the business that had been doing of investigating this case and proceeding as it had planned to proceed, while also knowing they're still future battles ahead against president trump and his lawyers as this probe continues. France it's been a busy few weeks as supreme. Court now heads into its recess. Any final thoughts that you're leaving with well. It was a really big momentous term, even though the court ended up hearing less cases than it had planned because of corona virus, but we had these major rulings today on presidential power. We've had blockbuster rulings on religious freedom on gay rights in the workplace on the DACA immigration case. A lot at the court has tackled, and so it will take at at least a little bit of a breather now while we all sort out what's on the horizon. Wall Street Journal. Legal, affairs reporter Brent Kendall Brent thank you so much for joining me sure. Thank thank you.
People come to America for a dream
"Today we had the honor to talk to Nana Xanthi. She is an attorney and the executive director of the Black Alliance for justice immigration or. She's also the founder of the Community Legal Clinic and Transform Justice Center in legal these workshops as well as the founder of Justice Warriors Black Lives I. Hope you enjoy this conversation. Nana how are you today? I am well well, as can be expected in during these times and hoping you're well as well you know I am well despite everything, but one of the reasons that I'm grateful is because of the great work that women like you do in this country so excited to talk about the Black Alliance for just immigration, which is one of the organizations that the BG and wonder me a network which produces the BG podcast has been encouraging our audiences to support, so thank you. These organizations are critical in times like this. Thank you so very much? We appreciate that support and the support that we've gotten from black folks all over the globe. Appreciate it. Tell us a little bit more about the Black Alliance for just immigration, and what brought you to the organization? So the black lines for just immigration is a national black lead Immigration Rights Human Rights Racial Justice Organization. We are the largest of our kind in the United States. We educate we advocate. We organized on behalf of the. The roughly ten million Black Refugee and immigrant families in this country as well as black folks who are trying to come into the country, whether it be permanently or temporarily, and those who are seeking asylum. We have our headquarters in New York, but we also have offices in DC. Miami Atlanta Los Angeles and Oakland and we have staff in Houston, and in Minneapolis, so we pretty much are all over the place as well as doing work on the. Episode of the border in Mexico, at the northern border with Tijuana, and also we've been doing some work the southern border of Mexico in Chula where you have black asylum seekers coming to the United States through Mexico. In that way and the work that we do is national in many cases in terms of policy, and you know we've been very busy in that regard, especially in with this administration, we also do national work with respect to racial justice our. Former executive director open committee was one of the big three that started black lives matter, and so by has been involved in black lives matter since the beginning and we do that work, and then we also do local work regional work. I'm both on the policy side, but as well as more, and with even more vigor on the organizing side to make sure that we are pushing for racial. Economic and social justice with an right alongside our multigenerational African American siblings. So much work, such powerful work. As. You said you've been very busy with this administration echo, they're just keeping everyone busy with their foolishness, but I definitely do a suit top about Daca so for our listeners, who may not be familiar Dhaka's stands for deferred action for childhood arrivals and the Supreme. Court decision around Dhaka now allows immigrants who ever see Daca status sometimes referred to as dreamers so if you seen the Hashtag is sandwiched dreamers. That's what that means. It allows them. them to stay in the country safely without a threat of deportation, but one the things that we've been really seeing missing from mainstream conversation over Daca was that it also impacts not Hispanic and Latino communities that there are black and brown communities impacted by this as well other black communities that are impacted by this as well. So, what was your reaction when you hurt the decision? And what are our next steps in the Dreamer, movement so? It is really important in think I really WanNa, thank you for lifting up the fact that yes, there are dreamers who are not Brown folks. That are not Latin next folks. That are not black right that we have black Latino next folks as well as black dreamers from the continent of Africa from the Caribbean from Europe right we think about. Twenty, one savage right and how this came up? And he actually falls in the category that is equally as important that we need to advocate for a person who isn't a Dhaka recipient, but who happens to be undocumented, and obviously we're looking for permanent protections, not just for Dr Recipients because everyone. Coming to this country is dreaming. No one's coming to this country to be a nightmare. Faces are looking at the Supreme Court decision. I also happen to be an attorney of twenty six years. Doing movement work is it's a temporary relief. It is not the permanent protection that we want our people to have and that our people need to have in order to thrive, basically what the Supreme Court said is that the way that the administration got rid of Dhaka? Had No basis. They got rid of it that they have to have a reason. They have to show that they've thought about everything before. They come to that conclusion and they did not. And so, what does that mean? It means that just like the Muslim ban if you remember, the court ruled against the Supreme Court ruled against the administration on the Muslim ban, and said he pointed out what was wrong and. And so they just instituted a new Muslim bad adjusting themselves to what the court had pointed out, and that Muslim ban remains not struck down,
People come to America for a dream
"Today we had the honor to talk to Nana Xanthi. She is an attorney and the executive director of the Black Alliance for justice immigration or. She's also the founder of the Community Legal Clinic and Transform Justice Center in legal these workshops as well as the founder of Justice Warriors Black Lives I. Hope you enjoy this conversation. Nana how are you today? I am well well, as can be expected in during these times and hoping you're well as well you know I am well despite everything, but one of the reasons that I'm grateful is because of the great work that women like you do in this country so excited to talk about the Black Alliance for just immigration, which is one of the organizations that the BG and wonder me a network which produces the BG podcast has been encouraging our audiences to support, so thank you. These organizations are critical in times like this. Thank you so very much? We appreciate that support and the support that we've gotten from black folks all over the globe. Appreciate it. Tell us a little bit more about the Black Alliance for just immigration, and what brought you to the organization? So the black lines for just immigration is a national black lead Immigration Rights Human Rights Racial Justice Organization. We are the largest of our kind in the United States. We educate we advocate. We organized on behalf of the. The roughly ten million Black Refugee and immigrant families in this country as well as black folks who are trying to come into the country, whether it be permanently or temporarily, and those who are seeking asylum. We have our headquarters in New York, but we also have offices in DC. Miami Atlanta Los Angeles and Oakland and we have staff in Houston, and in Minneapolis, so we pretty much are all over the place as well as doing work on the. Episode of the border in Mexico, at the northern border with Tijuana, and also we've been doing some work the southern border of Mexico in Chula where you have black asylum seekers coming to the United States through Mexico. In that way and the work that we do is national in many cases in terms of policy, and you know we've been very busy in that regard, especially in with this administration, we also do national work with respect to racial justice our. Former executive director open committee was one of the big three that started black lives matter, and so by has been involved in black lives matter since the beginning and we do that work, and then we also do local work regional work. I'm both on the policy side, but as well as more, and with even more vigor on the organizing side to make sure that we are pushing for racial. Economic and social justice with an right alongside our multigenerational African American siblings. So much work, such powerful work. As. You said you've been very busy with this administration echo, they're just keeping everyone busy with their foolishness, but I definitely do a suit top about Daca so for our listeners, who may not be familiar Dhaka's stands for deferred action for childhood arrivals and the Supreme. Court decision around Dhaka now allows immigrants who ever see Daca status sometimes referred to as dreamers so if you seen the Hashtag is sandwiched dreamers. That's what that means. It allows them. them to stay in the country safely without a threat of deportation, but one the things that we've been really seeing missing from mainstream conversation over Daca was that it also impacts not Hispanic and Latino communities that there are black and brown communities impacted by this as well other black communities that are impacted by this as well. So, what was your reaction when you hurt the decision? And what are our next steps in the Dreamer, movement so? It is really important in think I really WanNa, thank you for lifting up the fact that yes, there are dreamers who are not Brown folks. That are not Latin next folks. That are not black right that we have black Latino next folks as well as black dreamers from the continent of Africa from the Caribbean from Europe right we think about. Twenty, one savage right and how this came up? And he actually falls in the category that is equally as important that we need to advocate for a person who isn't a Dhaka recipient, but who happens to be undocumented, and obviously we're looking for permanent protections, not just for Dr Recipients because everyone. Coming to this country is dreaming. No one's coming to this country to be a nightmare. Faces are looking at the Supreme Court decision. I also happen to be an attorney of twenty six years. Doing movement work is it's a temporary relief. It is not the permanent protection that we want our people to have and that our people need to have in order to thrive,
"daca" Discussed on We The People
"Defer removal in as well as work permits and benefits. What interests they had? That would be disrupted the fact that you had people that had grown up here. That had gone to school gotten degrees got jobs built families. bought houses and to suddenly say Oh yeah. You're not going to be able to renew. This deferred removal is clearly disruptive and Chief Justice Roberts stress that that does reliance interest in particular. Ah, needed to be considered, and that there was nothing on the face of the Duke memo that indicated any consideration of either the the policy Of decision whether or not Daca was a good or a bad idea, and did not seem to address at least directly. The reliance interest that DACA beneficiaries had in being able to continue to rely upon the ability to stay in this country. LEAH THIS IS A. Complicated and important decision of administrative. Law and there was a threshold question decided by chief, Justice Roberts, and the four justices joined him the liberal justices that the decision was reviewable in the first place in other words that the courts had the power to consider it. Tell us about chief justice. Roberts is holding on that part of the decision. Of course, so in administrative law, most administrative actions are traditionally reviewable. There is a presumption in favor of judicial review, however by statute, certain issues or matters are committed to an agency has discretion by law, one category of policies that are not often judicially reviewable are what are known as enforcement decisions and specifically non-enforcement decisions a decision by an agency or the executive branch, not to initiate an enforcement proceeding against a particular party or entity so one argument the administration made. Is that their decision to rescind? DACA was a kind of enforcement policy that is not reviewable in court and instead is committed to the agency's discretion by law. In the DACA decision, the chief justice rejected that argument finding that the DACA recession and dock itself were not traditional. Non Enforcement Policy is why because. People immigration decisions resembled more adjudications than they did. Enforcement Proceedings on top of that the DACA program is not just as decision about whether to deport someone or not, but instead their ability to access certain benefits, including the ability to work legally in the united. States and that detail about the DACA program will be significant throughout the opinion, but here the chief justice said because Dhaka on the DACA recision are not just an ordinary non enforcement policy. The administration's decision to rescind DACA was reviewable in court. Thank you very much for drawing a series of helpful stations of I between a non enforcement decision and an education, and then that distinction between the benefits that Daca gave, and the decision to deport which as we said, we'll be significant later. Jonathan, you have written in your commentary on Daca that the threshold decision that Daca is subject to judicial review is significant while the administrative procedure has long been understood body a presumption of judicial review. It's also long been understood that exercise enforcement discretion are generally immune from such review, so tell us about why you think it's significant end to help us understand the decision. Well it's significant I think because the actual decision to deport has often been understood long, but understood as an exercise of enforcement discretion in fact, when the Obama Administration was defending the lawfulness of Darpa the related immigration policy that had been challenged in the Supreme Court, but that the Supreme Court. A split four to four on the Obama Administration argued that their policies were not subject to judicial review for among other reasons because they were committed to agency discretion because they involved. Questions about how to do among other things how to play enforcement. Aresources resources whether or not to seek deportation of one person versus another, or whether to devote immigration enforcement resources to perhaps other other aspects of immigration law altogether, and so, what's interesting about this changes that the court has broadened the notion of or the category of actor actions that are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and has narrowed the range of enforcement related decisions that are presumptively immune. From Judicial Review and did so in a way that not only rejected the trump administration's position, but also an important respects rejected the position that had been adopted by the Obama. Administration in its efforts to defend the lawfulness of these sorts of programs. What was the legal grounds for Chief Justice Roberts saying if those reliance interest had to be considered, and the center said that because the program was in illegal, they didn't have to be considered. What was the basis for their argument on the other side? So under the administrative. Procedure Act which we've been talking about throughout this discussion. The Statute prohibits agency actions are allows agency actions to be set aside if they are arbitrary or capricious or otherwise in violation of law and one way that an agency action can be arbitrary and capricious is if it is not adequately explained that if the agency does not consider all sides of an issue or important alternatives to its decision, so that was a specific statutory basis that the majority relied. Relied on to conclude that the DACA recession was illegal, it was arbitrary and capricious, because the administration had not adequately explained or discussed alternatives to ending the entirety of Dhaka, nor had it considered the reliance interests now three of the dissenters Justice Gorsuch Justice Alito and Justice Thomas would have held at the deferred action for childhood arrivals program is illegal full stop, and therefore the administration can end it. The Fourth Dissenter Justice Kavanagh did not specifically consider that now. Interesting aspect of their determination that DACA is illegal is as we were talking about when we discussed the mechanics of the DACA program granting. Action carries with it benefits such as work authorization by virtue of long standing and regulations that pre existed the creation of Dhaka itself, so for example, the regulation that says individuals who received deferral from removal or deferred action or authorized to work in the United States dates back to a Ronald Reagan era regulation, similarly the regulation that says individuals with deferred action him can receive access to certain public benefits such as retirement accounts that dates back to the Clinton administration, so the dissenters determination that Daca is illegal. It's not entirely clear if they were. Were saying Daca as implemented is illegal, those regulations that pre dated Daca are illegal and in an interesting footnote. They said if by Statute Congress had authorized the Attorney General to grant work authorizations to people with deferred action or public benefits. Then Dave were inclined to say that that statute was unconstitutional as violating the non delegation Dr in which prohibits Congress from giving out its legislative power. So because there's was not a majority opinion, it's not entirely clear which specific portions of Dhaka or the broader statutory and Regulatory Scheme..
"daca" Discussed on Politics and More Podcast
"Last week in a surprise five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the trump administration's twenty seventeen cancellation of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program known as Dhaka was unlawful. DACA which was introduced by President, Obama, in two thousand, twelve protects from deportation over seven hundred thousand undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the Department of Homeland Security had failed to provide a recent explanation for the administration's decision to rescind the program. Louis Cortez an immigration lawyer on the team defending DACA before the court himself. DACA.
"Girded Loins" - How Will The Supreme Court Rule?
"I wanted to talk a little bit about the Supreme Court. Because I. Kind of always WanNa talk a little bit about the Supreme Court, but also because it's been really. It's been a real roller coaster ride for the last. Year or so everybody went in thinking that the liberals would get just pommelled and that America's social progress would get set back fifty years, and in some ways you not. Everything has been a win for sure I. Don't WanNa pretend that everything has been a win. There have been some surprising wins like last week on the day. That show came out the supreme. Supreme Court ruled that the trump's attempt to extinguish. DACA was unconstitutional. He didn't do it the right way so Daca. Lives we had neil gorsuch coming through and saying that the Civil Rights Act title seven covers the rights of lgbtq Americans when it comes to employment. Yep, but we still have one that's Kinda hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. And that is a. that's an abortion case out of Louisiana. Alyssa. What do you think is going to happen with the case? It might come down tomorrow. It might come down next week because the supreme, court loves to wait and save the big cases for the end. What do you think's GonNa Happen? Erin. I'd be lying if I said I knew if I even had an inkling that I think that Neil, gorsuch was going to SORTA. Come through or that. John Roberts we don't know like I. Guess My problem is I. Don't have the brain of a supreme. Court justice and I could never be one. Which is why I didn't go to law school. Because what's the point if you can't ultimately be a? Supreme Court Justice One day, but it's like I. Worry I worry that they've done these things sort of I think by following the letter of the laws they they believe it should be interpreted and I'm like. ARE THEY GONNA? Be like well and buy them. I mean the republic. We know how old Brett's GonNa. Go breads just he doesn't even need to show up for the for the hearing I mean he can just put that Shit on mute and play brick. But the others you're like, are they just? Are they going to be like? Wow, if we. If we are. Are we really going to Piss? Trump off like it's GonNa fire US court justice. If we don't if we don't give do him a solid here and set women's rights back thirty years. So I, don't I? Don't know I know what's going to happen. Yeah I. Mean I try not to get excited because you know one hand. There's no words no way to get excited, but there's also being in a state of having my loins just constantly go ahead. Is a little exhausting I really want to. I. Really Want to live in a world were John Roberts can. Be The deciding vote and in and write an opinion. He admonishes the Fifth Circuit Court for even trying to step to him right by deliberately directly confronting Supreme Court ruling from two thousand sixteen. But in two thousand, Sixteen Roberts was on the side of keeping the trap block question in place. I. Don't know what's going to happen and I'M Just I just get it over with I. Just wanted to know I. Just want to tell us. It's suspense we don't need. Yeah Yeah I just WanNa read Sonia Sotomayor's either concurring opinion or fiery descent. She has been really writing some interesting stuff this term. And I just really want to know you know. We have. We've affirmed the LGBTQ people are people. With amazing Yes docker recipients, also people I'm really excited to learn if women are also people less negative crazy. I know get crazy.
"daca" Discussed on Latino USA
"Many many years, but at this point, what can we say about what the future looks like for Dhaka holders and their supporters in terms of moving forward so page our legal expert is advising a cautious approach to Dhaka still, so if individual person wants to apply for the first time, or if they want to apply for things like advance parole, which allows daca recipients to travel outside of the US or if they have other questions about the program, consult a lawyer I, if possible, but looking at the bigger picture page says a program. DACA is a start, not a solution. Like. We've mentioned DACA covers over seven hundred thousand people, but that's pretty small number compared to the estimated eleven million undocumented immigrants in this country. Even if the DACA program remains in place, our work is not done here. Many many people have benefited, but many people were also left out by virtue of their age or by virtue of when they arrived in. In the United States, so page and other people who support Daca are looking for a legislative fix. They're looking for a law that goes way beyond what Daca covers right now. We want to address immigrants across the spectrum, not only those who fall within the parameters of the two thousand twelve daca program, and we absolutely are going to keep pushing for that. DACA itself while it's been a game changer in many ways, it's also not at all a perfect program. DACA isn't a path to citizenship. It is impermanent like I mentioned scipion to renew their status every two years. DACA was an executive order. Not a law passed by Congress, so it falls into jeopardy whenever someone who doesn't agree with the program or the existing immigration policy is elected into the White House by the way. If you're keeping track for twenty twenty, the candidates do diverge on the issue. Joe Biden released video statement after the decision in support of the Supreme Court today was another landmark victory. The Supreme Court has made it clear. The DACA is the law of the land. He also called for immigration reform together. We can restore our values nation of immigrants as a nation that values sooners, meanwhile, president trump tweeted about his disappointment with the Scotus decision. He called it quote politically charged an promised to point more conservative justices, if for a second term. Now at one point I asked Dr Lotto's about her hopes that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Dhaka and like most of our conversations. This was before the decision was released and asked her hypothetically at that point, if the Supreme Court upheld Daca, how would she feel? It offers us a SPA mowing respite small, maybe sigh of relief. She had her answer ready to go immediately like she's been thinking about it for her whole life..
"daca" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Because the DACA program is an overwhelmingly supported program in America and so to own that decision I think is going to do a lot politically, and now the you know if he decides to terminate the program now in follows the administrative procedures act. It's going to go into. November and he's going to have to terminate a program. That's very supportive and he's GonNa have to do that. It's not cost. There's GonNa. Be Some political consequences into that, so he's going to have to decide that I. think my anxiety about it will increase if he is reelected to a second term so that he has that process to do so. So you know what it does. Is that it? Kinda reconfigures the Rubik's cube of what the conversations going to look like. In this political election. Is So. So you know what's going to happen to the feeder dreamers if it goes on and. I. I suspect that we probably won't have. He won't have enough time to do it before the election so it I if there wasn't already enough of a spotlight this election, there's a much brighter one now. especially as you said with the data, around much dreamers have contributed on the healthcare front in the pandemic I can't imagine this would only look worse to do it mid pandemic mid Kovin. I, a hundred percent and you know part of the administrative procedures act is to consider what is happening and whether the pilot, the change of policy outweighs that and so he's going to have to explain all of that. One of the things that I am keeping a close eye on is the structural integrity of Daca is now in place. It continue. We've had protected it from Trump just terminating an outright. But. Daniels cases now back at the nine. It's not what the ninth circuit, and the he now I think now more than ever Daniels case is really important because. We don't want the administration to do the death by a thousand people because we thought he was going to do in February and just keep the program, but just chop the person's and so. Part of what we're trying to do with Daniels cases to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security continues to play by the rules even on the individual basis so that it doesn't you know, essentially leave just the shell of the program. Tonight. I also want to ask you about this equal protection part because that's the poison pill here, right I mean I mean in the touchdown dance. We miss the fact that not only. was there no sort of? Finding that there was racial animus put, there was only one vote right John Roberts writes. There's not a Scintilla They've made no showing of racial animus. It's it cannot be an accident that it's Sonya. Writing for herself alone, who goes through Donald? Trump's history of slurs against Mexicans and says you know the idea that this does not amount to a showing at least for purposes of this litigation that there's animus. Garner's no votes so I. Guess I, WanNa ask that that is a loss. I mean that would've been nice to get the five votes for that, but I wonder if you agree with some of the folks who said the poison pill in year is that that opinion makes such a showing harder going forward. It was it was. Difficult I think for me to really wrap my head around why it was there in the first place you know the Chief Justice Roberts could have decided on the ground, and then just not. Ruled on the Constitutional Provisions on the case and just kinda disposed on it that way, so it was a big. It was a bit surprising for me to comment on it. It seems to be gratuitous. To the extent that he did I, it was a bit disappointing to see the the the more votes on the racial animus component at least at this component of the litigation right, we're here an preliminary injunction. We just have to make showing that there is some racial animus before with the case and we you know we had our courtroom doors closed on that We knew that after during the course of the litigation of the documentation, the Hawaii versus trump came out and the happened right in the middle of and so that really changed the landscape of how this. Discourse of of a political speech and is ultimately ingrained in policy-making. And so we knew it was GONNA be tough tough argument anyway, but it was really disappointing that it didn't get more votes in that justice up to my. Your was the only one who saw the race component here that we all felt really we all felt it. It's oftentimes the trouble with racial animus is that it's is cloaked in dog whistles and things that you know code words and. You don't say it in one aspect, but you say it and others and so. It was a disappointing. You know and I and I think we're GONNA have to continue moving forward to to show you know what racial and social justice looks like in legal justice the Hawaii case we should just flag. That was the travel ban case. that. The court determined was not. Motivated by racial animus. It's true I. I came away thinking. Louise that John Roberts was willing to split the baby in so far as he would say Donald. Trump is sloppy. But he's not racist I mean that's how you can read this acceptance on the EPA, and absolute retreat from the the equal protection animus question in it's frustrating, because as you say in his Justice Sotomayor said This is some seriously racist talk. That that gets swept away I. Guess before you go I. WanNa ask you just as you as Louis. How is Your Life Different today? From a week ago, what do you I mean in addition to being able to exhale at least for a little while what's changed for you and what's to come I feel so vindicated that we accomplished what we set out to do in two thousand seventeen, which was to not just protect Dhaka, but to really change the way that we see how we define what it means to be American and I think through the course of the doctor. Litigation more people became aware of what Daca was. What was at stake? who were the dockers? Hippies in their community and I feel so proud of the work that we've done and what we were able to do and I am. Feeling so much more hopeful about her future in time where there's so much that. You know it puts a damper on on our communities and I think I oftentimes think that it's not. You know we measure our communities. Not by the bad things that happen, but how the community reacts to those bad things that happen and I think this is a really great showing to that and also really reminded me about. The the importance of court system you know being a lawyer in in in working in immigration where after study about other countries, governments, and how they operate one thing that makes America so amazing. It's it's court system. It's court system and it's imperfect. But it, you know historically we have seen that. It's the court system that has a protected the rights of some of the most marginalized and so i. I am so proud and and excited to be a part of a you know. It feels like it's not just a coincidence that Dhaka was not only the thing that allowed me to practice law, but the I get to protect that program for others, and so it's. It's going to take a little while to reflect fully, but it was an amazing moment and i. It gives me a lot of hope for the future regardless as to who is in charge. We know that we as a community are going to do the right thing so I'm I'm I'm very hopeful happy about the outcome. Louis I've been doing this show for a very long time and only doing it on zoom since Shelter in place since March and. Yet this the first time I'm just so freaking. Glad I get to see your face instance Aliou. Really truly I I think you represent that which is best. About the American legal system and I'm just very very glad that you took a little time to be with us this week. Because like I said I definitely needed to hear from you..
"daca" Discussed on The BreakPoint Podcast
"This is break point this week. A weekly briefing on faith culture worldview and mission with John Stonestreet President of the Colson Center for Christian worldview going to breakpoint this week. John Stonestreet here along with Shane Morris. Lots of stories to get to in our conversation here on the culture it from a Christian worldview in this week's program a lot of them having to do with what's happening in the political theater in America too big stories this week the Supreme Court Lord heard oral arguments on Daca basically. What are we going to do with those that are known as the dreamers people who have been brought to the United States as children children of illegal immigrants and not by any choice of their own? We were pushing about seven hundred thousand of those in the US. This has been a political football. That's gone back and forth north. We did a breakpoint commentary on it this week. And I'm GonNa get to that in just a second but I think Shane. We should probably and I think at some level if you did deep enough there's some things that these these two stories have in common and that is the impeachment hearings for president trump were underway with an awful lot of media coverage and noise this week. And you you look. Are we going to learn anything new in these impeachment hearings you know. I don't think so you know again just like has been said throughout throughout the entire coverage of this story since it broke one side saying. Hey there's nothing here there's nothing illegal here. This is the way presidents talked to other other presidents and this is all kind of expected and the other side basically claiming breaking news that there was an additional phone. Call the next day. Are we really going to you. Learn anything new from these impeachment hearings. I think the answer right now is probably probably know. So we're GONNA start by addressing both the elephant and the donkey the room. Is that what you're saying. I see what you did. They are very clever. I like thank you. Thank you well. If I remember correctly John they've only been two presidents in. US history who've been impeached reached. It was Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and no president has ever been convicted by the Senate which is really what removes a president from office. According to the constitution so the likelihood president trump getting removed from office especially by a Republican controlled. Senate at this stage seems pretty slim but I think the thing we're talking about isn't the political shape of the whole situation but the the moral shape of the whole situation like what's going on before us in the how our public life is being transformed. I think many Americans have this unspoken sense of this instinct that this is a political feeder. Like you said that's it's not this. Trump might not have done something improper favors from a foreign government or whatever. But you know I've not been a fan of his character either or methods for a long time but I think there's a widespread that sense it. What's happening here is the breakdown of our political process and the ability to even accept elections? It looks very bad. For the Democrats for instance. Because because I think everyone realizes they've been intent on impeaching trump since before he took office. You know it's been a the articles of impeachment have just had a little blank on them. Therefore the reason for impeaching him you know so. That's not that's not. Look I mean that's an important point because I think that's the way that this whole thing is being received by a a whole lot of Americans is that this was inevitable. I mean I remember before. He was inaugurated after winning the election. National National Public Radio and of course. NPR is supposed to be known as the calm. The calm soothing voices. No they're not getting upset. They're certainly you know left of center pretty indeed dramatically on so many issues. But but they're going to you know kind of walk through issues pretty calmly and straightforwardly and I heard at least two or three different. NPR programs dedicate dedicate. I'm talking thirty minute. PODCAST that are dedicated. To what would it look like either win. President trump is MPG. Or what will he do to get impeach. Now what might he do. But what will he do to get impeached. I mean this is before he was even inaugurated and I think that that's the noise that a lot of Americans are cynical about as you've been talking about this from the very beginning. You just waited to. You could wait no longer and made a political calculation about this. I don't think that this is building any faith in the the mechanisms of government and of course we remember back as you mentioned bill. Clinton's impeachment hearings that just really emboldened the fact that he was GonNa win reelection for at at least that was the case with Bill Clinton. Yes certainly I mean we have to remember. Impeachment is sort of an indictment. It's not a conviction so presidents can be impeached without being convicted by the Senate removed from office. So we have to ask exactly what the fallout of this is going to be. I don't I'm not going to predict an election but it certainly seems like something that you could imagine helping the President win reelection. But I'll tell you what to bring this back just real quick to a world view level here since that's what we're doing on the show. There was a great article. What Matt Taibbi in realclearpolitics? I think it's how you say his name. It was called. We're in a permanent coup and Matt hails from Russia and he was just sort of drawing on his experience in the early early nineties watching the Soviet Union fall apart and the the KGB coup that was attempted against Gorbachev and he says look guys the language which I'm hearing right now out of Washington. The new cycle in America right now. It sounds a whole awful lot like what I remember from Russia and what others I who have grown up in the third world countries and sort of banana republic style governments remember. And it's not something you want you don't want to live in a permanent senate coup in a place where there's never an admission of legitimacy in the government where every election is contested by you know police forces and criminal trials does and the new rings so I mean we can be grateful that we have not up until this point lived in that kind of country. But what's happening right now has consequences and I don't think this this is a road we want to go down. I think he's right. Yeah I think that's right and you know earlier. This week we talked about Daca the deferred action for childhood arrivals program of course this was signed into law by President Obama and essentially granted the seven hundred thousand immigrants who arrived in the. US miners gave the temporary protection action from deportation but basically kind of an ongoing every two years checking with the government sort of thing back early in his presidency. President trump issued basically weekly an executive order killing Daca and giving congress basically a short amount of time in order to come up with some sort of solution for these children children and of course we all know what happened with that. Some you know summary nothing and this is going back and forth and back and forth then we made two points on breakpoint commentary. Sorry this past week and I want to go back and revisit them because I think that you can see this underpinning underneath the impeachment hearings as well. I point that we made. Is that one of the problems. uh-huh is that immigration has become a political issue. And I think what we're seeing in the impeachment hearings is how so much of American culture has become a political article issue. Now we've had some folks that wrote in and they didn't understand what that meant and I get that because you know they didn't like the language if it goes you have to have a political solution to this so that makes it a political issue but that's exactly what I'm trying not to say. I think there are economic issues. I think their immigration issues. I think there are religious freedom issues. I think that there are all kinds of issues. But when politics stops being a process and the rules of politics become the means by which we understand think through and and determine our position on issues. That's where we've got a problem because what we're seeing here is just. I think this is what that article talking about. The impeachment hearings is saying. Shane is that when things. It's just become a political football when everything gets put through the rules of politics then things get understood by whoever can finally get the final lever on power our this on a politics that actually moves the needle forward for human flourishing or moves the needle forward for understanding the best way to order our lives together. Yeah there's a pragmatic side to politics. There's a power side the politics but we should think through both immigrants and citizens and laws and rights on on their own terms first and foremost put those things in place and then kick around on a political level how to best get to a level of compromise in a position and forward and that was the point is that Dhaka has become such a political football and just goes back and forth and we go from this executive order executive order and back and forth worth. It's hard to see in any sense that the Supreme Court's GonNa Quote Unquote settle this issue in any way that's going to have a long-term impact and it's GonNa to help us deal with what we have which is a really really big problem which How do we understand human dignity at the same time understanding rules of law that we have in America and a southern border? That's far too porous. How do we put all of the stuff together and and I'm not sure that the current process is going to get us there? Well you said this is a political political football and that's right but we gotta remember the people getting kicked around are real human beings. What you said breakpoint really nailed it that it never should have come to this and I also think that it was right to point out that this is the result John at least partly on both sides of the parties being controlled by weather most extreme factions? I've watched those on the left and just the last few years shift from this kind of really mainstream call for common sense immigration immigration reform. And they were still saying secure borders like you said a moment ago to this almost reflexive kind of open borders mentality just just a a No to whatever Republicans propose and the right has undergone the same kind of radicalization. I think we're pull by Pew Research earlier this year for instance found that white evangelicals that's us are the least likely group to support accepting refugees. And that's something we've talked break point before and I think it's maybe this knee-jerk reflexive the reaction to anything that sounds like open borders That's not not only. Is that not healthy John. But that's inhumane. Remember we're talking about seven hundred thousand people who are here under the DACA program or the DACA policy rather whose futures are at stake now and they're here through no fault fault of their own. Whatever solution we come up with for this and I liked it John Roberts chief justice sort of signaled in this direction during the oral arguments? Whatever solution we come up with here has to be implemented implemented in a humane way because it's not their fault and that's what we were trying to communicate to in the breakpoint commentary and the second point we made? Is You know. So what should we do. I I don't know I mean maybe somebody knows. I don't think there's a quick easy solution because there's not a long-term solution until we back up and think about it along these lines. We talk about people as people both citizens and immigrants we talk about the rules of law as if there is such a thing as a rule of law and until we get to that point. There's not going to be a long-term easy well. Well here's the decision. The Supreme Court can make an it'll quote unquote settle the issue just like there wasn't on the issue of abortion just like there hasn't been on the issue of same sex marriage if we don't think about these things on their own terms we're never going to get their look come to breakpoint dot org will link you to the commentary this week that we released on Daca and and I hope it's helpful. I know it's not always helpful to get to the end of a whole long three and a half minute explanation of something and end with A. I don't know what we should do but I think so. Many people don't know first of all. What are the details of Dhaka? You know if you just kinda follow politics from one political parties perspective or another political parties perspective. It's either a great thing or a terrible thing and we don't even really know what it is we're talking about and we tried to provide that level of detail and hopefully that's helpful and also kind of get to to the root of what kind of how politics should operate and how it should not operate and I hope that Christians can be a redemptive force. None of this is to denigrate the political local process at all. It's only an important process. It's a necessary process. And it can be a good process. It can take down the line to human flourishing but we don't see a whole lot a lot of that in our context right now. You're listening to breakpoint this week..
"daca" Discussed on We The People
"Is re-elected than being a year or two guests come back to the court with another hundred thousand people in Dhaka makes even harder to to wind down and if Elizabeth Warren Arnor someone else's elected at that juncture she can just reanimate Daca. And then we're back to game where the doctors legal so whether it's a ruling justiciability or a ruling on We need more evidence. Were back in court. This issue will continue lingering with dreamers having this cloud over them so every attempt to have a judicial minimalist minimalist approach will simply prolong this sort of uncertainty ran. One last. Beat on Channeling Roberts give it given that Reality that the uncertainty would be prolonged concern that several of the justices voiced Do you think that the chief will vote either to hold it. It's not just issue. Were the we need more evidence and come back a few years. I mean I think it's entirely possible that the court could say that you know the reason that game was not right and they need to go back and look at it again and in some ways you know that it's back to the trump administration. Decide what they want to do that with some sense from some of the justices that. Oh what's the the point in sending it back you know. We know what the administration will do. We have these subsequent memoranda that they did they issued. But I think it's important don't really know what the trump administration will do. You know there was the reason why they decided to upset that. Their hands were tied in the first place. And you know what I don't think the courts should do is enor- The way you administer view normally works because if the court were to say here we don't have to look at the reason that day just gave initially active. We can look at these subsequent region- reasons yeah that would have major implications not only for Dhaka And you know it's future but for the way agency review happens more broadly and that that would be something that I think would be a really troubling results of this case. Well it is time for closing arguments in this fascinating discussion and Josh the first one is to you tell us why you believe that the trump administration's decision to rescind DACA GEICO was consistent with the laws and the constitution. All thank you again to Jefferson. Also thank you to Brad. so He's good to spar with you and have it reasonable discourse I think the trump administration has had its hands tied the weights litigated cases. Based on an unusual compliments of events at the time uh-huh when trump wanted to end Daca the acting Homeland Security Director. Name was Elaine Duke. refused to go along with president the trump she said I am bound by attorney general. WHO said illegal but I will not offer any policy? Justifications Daca In other words. DOJ walked into this case of his hands tied behind his back. which makes it very difficult fight? But ultimately I think the administration will prevail fairly simple idea if president Obama's able to create Daca through executive action without going through the courts than president. Trump's you're allowed to do the same. I don't know that. The trump administration's position is entirely coherent. I think they've made some arguments. That are strange. Brad mentioned a few of them. I think they've also withheld arguments. That are much stronger ones on advancing. So they win this one it will not because of the strong argumentation because the law a general grant discretion it's making source of decisions to the President But I I think they the the S G is also journal. Had his hands tied his back based on the habit. Facts were given to him. Brian the last word is to you. Tell are we the people listeners. While you believe that the trump trump administration's decision to send Daca was not consistent with the lawn. Sure well thanks again Jeff for having me. Thanks Josh for this conversation you know. I think it's just important to think about DACA. In context in the context of decades decades of Congress making the consider decision that given that immigration is a complex field dynamic field. It makes sense for the executive branch to have discretion to determine how best to implicate mate implement the nation's immigration laws and of course into that particularly important in this context because Congress hasn't even appropriate and sufficient resources to allow the removal of all undocumented individuals and so the government necessarily has to make discretionary decisions ends up about a whose removal to prioritize. and WHO's knives up and I think the administration's decision to put in place. The DACA policy was an entirely permissible exercise of the discretion that the executive branch has long enjoyed. I'm a Whiz in keeping with past practices of administrations administrations of both major political parties It was in keeping with the types of policies that Congress has consistently indicated it's affirmative normative approval of. And you know I think what's really important here is to look at the reasons that the trump administration gave for terminating the policy policy You know if you look at its initial memoranda. The Generals Memoranda The initial D H S Miranda. I think there's no question that they were acting because because they viewed this policy as unlawful at justice powerfully said the argument yesterday if you look at their nose and they're saying This is a law It's not about their policy choices and given that the question for the court is whether Daca was law four nines and given the significant discretion the executive branch has immigration law given the way that discretion Russian has been exercised in the past DACA is plainly lawful and therefore the trump administration can't terminate it on the ground that it wasn't thank you so much Josh Blackman and Brian Garage for a really eliminating unpacking of the complicated legal Statutory and Administrative Law questions at the heart of the DACA case. I now understand all of them much better as a result of your contributions and I know our listeners. Ours will to Josh Brand. Thank you so much for joining. Thank you jack thanks. Today show was engineered by Kevin Kilburn and produced by Jackie. McDermott determined research was provided by Lonzo Rick and the constitutional content team homework of the week. dear people friends. There's a good Scotus blog log symposium on the case with contributions by our to champion. Today Josh Blackman Garad check it out at SCOTTCLARK DOT com please rate review and subscribe to we the people on Apple podcasts and recommend the show to friends colleagues or anywhere everywhere. Who's hungry to understand? Not only the DACA case but all aw nutty constitutional and legal questions and always remember that. The National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit. We rely rely on the generosity passion engagement and devotion to lifelong learning of people..
"daca" Discussed on We The People
"From our podcast on a gundy cases aces hotly contested before the court today. Perhaps five justices at least four Believed that this non delegation doctrine which has been dormant since the nineteen thirty. You should be revived and Congress's power to delegate important decisions to the executive should be restricted of the liberal justices. Strongly resist that justice. kagan against this would mean the end of government So so this is a cutting edge question. My question to you Brianna is It just didn't seem much appetite for confronting not directly directly at the court. Justice or at the argument said she didn't understand how this policy was illegal. She said that the administration has frequently adopted class based discretionary relief policies. And she and Chief Justice Roberts debated how many people have been covered by these policies in the past. He said it was more like fifty thousand people and she said it was more like one point. Five million so BRIANNA. My question is to. What degree does the legality turn at? How many people were affected? Eight hundred thousand under under Dhaka as opposed to maybe four point. Five million hundred OPPA and more broadly. What's your response to Joshes argument? That DACA is as an unconstitutional delegation of authority from Congress and the President and for that reason is illegal and unconstitutional one of the most interesting aspects of the the court argument with how little time the trump administration's lawyer spent making the case that Daca is unlawful. And I think that's because it's actually a really difficult difficult argument to make you know Congress as I mentioned earlier. His long conferred discretion on the executive branch to implement the nation's immigration laws the Supreme Court. It has in the past recognized that deferred action is. They've said a regular practice that the executive branch engages in for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience since and Congress over the years has repeatedly taken affirmative steps that demonstrate its ratification of its reliance on these exercises of executive expression Congress has for example passed legislation that presumes that the executive will continue to grant a production or expressly directs. The executive have to continue doing so. And there's not been any suggestion in the past that the legality of these programs should turn on the exact number of individuals who were affected but even if other than what the fifth circuit up considered the Darpa case a couple of years ago. But even if you consider consider that you know I think the lawyer for California at the argument you made a very persuasive case that there are instances that are on par with Dhaka. You he pointed wanted to the family fairness program which was a program that was put in place under the Reagan administration at allow. Ins district directors to choose. Not to remove you've some children in south of immigrants who status had changed under a recent change in the nation's immigration laws. He told the court the executive branch at the time told Congress that program would apply to forty percent of the undocumented population at the time and I think against that background the the decision to put in place Daca seems entirely keeping with what administrations have done in the past and what Congress has approved in the past us as a valid exercise of the significant disruption that Congress has given to the executive branch and I think it was telling the argument. The Justice Kagan asked the Francisco this Lizard General the lawyer for the trump administration to identify what particular provision of the way. He was saying that Daca violated Ed and he knows that they were not saying that there was a specific provisions that it conflicts with you know they were pointing simply to a lack of authority. But when you look at the immigration laws you know Congress. Congress has authorized the second home security to establish regulations issue instructions from other He's for carrying out his authority under the IRA and end. Congress has also directed. The secretary established National Immigration Enforcement Policies and priorities and all that does is a factual wait those immigration policies and priorities making clear that those who arrived with countries children who have not broken the law or not are not priorities ready for removal and should be allowed to work legally while they're here Josh. Show one more beat on the legal and constitutional arguments is just to confirm in your viewed dude. The DACA program is illegal. Because it's unconstitutional. There's not a separate statutory violation and then my question is did you detect any appetite for ruling DACA illegal at the Supreme Court. The constitutional provision at play is. What's knows the take care clause that that clause has got a lot of attention the last couple years because the president trump but even for the electric seen Kato and I we briefed the take care clause. We argued that the decision to Grant deferred action to such a large class of people amounted to a suspension or abdication immigration. Laws there were zero briefing. This issue I don't think it will even even come up Indeed this is important The attorney general sessions letter which which argued a doctor's legal reference constitutional defects They did not explain what those defects were until We prodded them In our brief one sentence where he said hey government what's the constitutional defect effect and the gene is replied breeze had a hop the the console defect refers to an excess delegation of power which is the non delegation doctrine. The only way the government argues persuasively that this that this policies illegal is premise the non delegation doctrine but he has secret Jeff. They don't WanNa argue argue that generally the government does not want to argue that there's doctrine which gives court the powers to set aside federal laws. They're very hesitant. And when Justice Kagan pose questions Dole. Francisco I the same reaction branded Francisco Com Ogden. We've the question. I really hope that the court appointed Texas is an Amicus they requested. There were denied died because any Texas cooking a lot better arguing that this law is unconstitutional But ultimately I don't know that the court has an appetite to rule the legality of Dhaka. I think the former likely sleep path is something that won't be satisfied to almost anyone. The girls simply hold at the decision to cancel. DACA is not one that review by the courts. What does that mean well will? The policy might be shut down in six months or so. We have election coming up real soon. So it's very likely that in January of twenty twenty one where the president is gets to decide the fate of Dhaka. Does it can keep it out of the can get rid of it In the event that let's say present Elizabeth Warren Oxides to reinstitute DACA Then texts will come right back and sue them So we're the same exactly's were in today. I would much rather have ruling yes or no or in this sort of Punt based on whether the courts can review it since you introduced this question of non reviewability I will ask Brown to illuminate the rather wonky and complicated arguments about reviewability Ludi and degree with Josh or not. That the court may find the case to be non reviewable yes. This is one of the big questions that was disgusted. The argument Ed's this week which is whether this termination of Daca is something. The courts can even look cats and I think that there are really strong arguments that the termination daca is something. That is reviewable. You're there is a strong presumption that when an administrative agencies on Federal Agencies Act that Congress intends the courts to to be able to review that action. There's this narrow exception for agency actions that are quote committed to agency discretion by law. But here you're on justice. Ginsburg actually pointed out the irony in the administration's argument. It's really difficult to understand how this could be an action. Committed to agency discretion by the law when the agency has said wasn't acting as an exercise of discretion it was saying that he thought the law required it to take this action and imports consider whether agency actions revealed worn out. One thing that they often consider is whether there's historical tradition of these sorts of agency actions of being reviewed by the courts. And they're simply no stoorikhel tradition of allowing executive agencies to do what they did here to say that their hands were tied by the law that they didn't have love the legal authority to continue Daca and to say that that decision is free from review by the branch of government. That's tasked with clearing what the law is the courts. So you know when courts consider this question there couplings they look at just one with. There's any watch apply with any meaningful standard against what to judge the agency's exercise of discretion. And you know here because the question we've been discussing already know whether Daca is lawful is the quintessential sort of question Ashton that the courts are well suited to engage in. I just don't think that there is a strong argument. That the action here isn't reviewable. And you know there the lot of discussion about it at the core. It's your the Assembly a couple of justices who were pushing back on the argument. That this is reviewable They wanted to know why it is. They want to understand with limiting principle would be but at the end of the day. It's dangerous to predict what the court will do My guess is that the court will conclude lead. This is Rubio Ball. But but I don't think I wouldn't surprise me if there is a little bit of disagreement with the quarterback question Josh Brown say that the standard for whether or not a a agency decision is reviewable is whether or not it's committed to agency discretion by law and brand says that because this was ultimately not a a discretionary policy decision but judgment about Dhaka's illegality then that doesn't meet that now view ability exception Do you agree or disagree and do you believe that the court will find the case to be reviewable. This litigation is basically like groundhog day. Everything thing is the same as wasn't twenty sixteen but in reverse In Two thousand sixteen. The defenders of Dhaka argued that President Obama's decision to enact DACA was not subjects review and maybe in groups arguing that the decision to cancel it is subject to review on the flip side. A today others were challenging the recision a argue that it is subject to review. And everything's basically flipped. I think everything subject to review I think in two thousand sixteen eighteen doc was subject to review adding twenty twenty nineteen. I think the recession is subject to review so I think it does affect tangible benefits But the fact that it does affect effect review a me that does not really discretionary policy has substantive. Wait that cannot be supported by the statute The reason why I suggested that the court may a punt on this or justiciability factor Is Because the court we know my tip. According to John Roberts the court doesn't like getting involved often messy situations and it'll be all too easy for the courts just ducked decisions. Our you guys figured out But this this punt would not be very effective for simple reason The dreamers are not going anywhere they're here and even if you say that the policy is not subject to review if the election comes out for the democratic side. We'll be right back in court to having side legality. I so I think it's a mistake. Let this linger any longer. I'm just as Gorsuch had one. Line Racer that. There's a cloud of uncertainty that that's been around for years. Why this cloud stretching longer and I I hope that the court finds it's either rule? Yes no thumbs up or thumbs down. Don't give us a short demoted Kon. It just just just decided case. Thank you for that and I'm going to look up the shrugging murder convict. I haven't seen but it would be a good motto for the Avoidance Doctrines Before the Supreme Court so that brings us back to the question of the legality of the recision and beyond is it right that turns on whether or not the agency policy was reasonable and adequately defended Ju Justice Ginsburg oppressed General Francisco at the beginning of the argument and he conceded. We're making two arguments want one. Is that we you know had to rescind the policy because we thought it was illegal in the other we had discretion to do so Tell us about His argument that the decision was justified by the Attorney General's Memoranda Maranda and the skepticism of the liberal justices who believed that the bare bones attorney general's memoranda did not adequately balance interest and therefore was is not sufficient to defend the program onto law. There are a couple of interesting things that were going on. At the argument. You know one was the question of what documents the courtship you considering considering when a determines what the agencies rationale explanation was you know it was interesting. You Know Francisco did not I think. Want Rely Shirley on the Attorney General memo or the initial D. H. S. memo because it is really really difficult to see those documents any indication that this decision was was based on anything other than the administration's conclusion that the law required them to terminate the policy so instead he trying to draw the court attention to a subsequent..
"daca" Discussed on We The People
"I'm Jeffrey Rosen. President and CEO of the National Constitution Center and welcome to we the people a weekly show of constitutional national debate. The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among among the American people. This week the Supreme Court heard challenges to the trump administration's decision to end the deferred action for childhood arrivals program or Dhaka Dhaka was enacted by the Obama Administration to defer the deportation of undocumented people brought to the US us as children now. The court will decide whether president trump's decision to rescind DACA. Almost two years ago was lawful and possibly unconstitutional `institutional or whether it even has the authority to review the question to begin with joining us to dive into this crucially important question into unpacked. The complicated complicated legal and constitutional issues at the core of the case are two of America's leading Supreme Court commentators and two great friends of the we the people podcast. Josh Blackman is associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law Houston and an adjunct scholar. At the Cato Institute. He has testified before the house. Judiciary Committee the and is the founder and president of the heart institute and he blogs Josh Blackman Dot Com Josh. It is great to have you back on the show. Thanks Jeff and Brianna garage is chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. She has served as attorney advisor in the office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. And clerked for Justice Steven Briar Bran. It's great to have you back on the show me okay so I want our listeners to understand the complicated facts and unpack unpack these legal issues. I is the case. reviewable by the court second Is it illegal third. Is it unconstitutional. National and fourth was the administration's decision to rescind the policy Consistent with the law so Josh let's begin with the facts as professor King's field said there were two programs here Dhaka and Dhaka which was the deferred action for parents. Can you as concisely as possible. Tell us how this Daca case got to the Supreme Court Jeff. This case is many years in the making The story begins in twenty twelve Congress considered a piece of legislation. Don't ask me Matt. This law would provide a pathway to citizenship chip for certain young immigrants who came to this country As miners who have gone to school state of trouble and and lived. upstanding lives This this bill was not didn't have support in the Senate and had failed after a Dhaka films or after the Dream Act failed in the Senate The Obama Administration announced policy known as Dhaka. DACA deferred action for childhood arrivals DACA was not amnesty. To not give citizenship instead of graduates knows waffle presents the aliens. What does this mean that? The dreamers would be de prioritize deportation and would also receive certain Federal Oh benefits for example social security They could legally work and the other a benefits as well The DACA policy was challenged in a few courts. But not meaningfully. It was pretty popular across the board And that policy has been in effect now for the better part of Seven Years Years Fast forward to twenty fourteen. A congress considering the comprehensive immigration reform bill the the gang of eight bill if you will This bill actually passed the Senate of but in the House. The speaker John Bainer did not bring it up for a vote. Didn't bring for votes so it never went anywhere. Legislation died After that happened President Obama announced that he would take executive action. The second policy was known as Dumb Pot. DAP CNN dot com the cloudy not daca super deferred action for parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. This policy of grand differed action to the parents citizens as well as parents of lawful permanent residents that is green card holders while Daca was quite popular. Dabo is not considered popular and it was challenging challenge in court Texas and other conservative states sued up for a injunction and they were able to block by the District Court That that injunction was affirmed firm by the Fifth Circuit. Court of Appeals in two thousand sixteen. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. However that time? The court shorthanded because justice. Scalia's untimely death As a result the court split four four simply affirming the lower court but not Reaching the merits I'm at that juncture Daba was more more or less enjoined but doc remained in effect fast works twenty seventeen. President trump is elected. He announced that he will suspend Dapo. Abolishes no big deal. It never went to effect but DOC remained in effect Texas once again threatened to sue the trump administration for continued to enforce Daca in response sponsor trump administration said we are going to wind down Daca and suspend the policy because we decided that it was a legal base on the fifth circuit decision also immediately. After President President trump announced he would suspend DACA The administration was sued across the country in various courts and various court ruled that the suspension memorandum was not lawful. Awful that is The the memo said we are killing this policy. 'cause it's illegal and of course you're wrong. The policies perfectly legal Therefore your justification was incorrect rectal arbitrary capricious and we can halt the recision and so the supreme considering whether the memoranda that justify the recision provided a unreasonable invalid basis and the policy. I think that's everything. Shift got everything in one in one. One breath beautifully done. Thank you so much for that Our Best of concision and and and but brand. There's always more to say and my follow up question on the facts is and what exactly did the memorandum recinding. DACA say it said. It was both illegal and unconstitutional. What what previous memoranda did it rely on? And what did the lower courts that held Daca to be illegal hold. What was the basis for the reasoning? That Dhaka was illegal. Sure so you know when the administration decided to terminate Daca on the first memo explaining decision actually came from the attorney general all Jeff sessions. who was that Attorney General? Who wrote to advise that the Department of Homeland Security shouldn't his words should resend the June fifteen in two thousand twelve Random entitled exercising prosecutorial discretion with respect individuals who came to United States as children. What the Attorney General said was the DACA wasn't his view affected by the previous administration for decorative action without proper statutory authority and with no established end days and so in his view? The DACA policy suffered from legal and constitutional defects in fact said that they were the same legal constitutional defects effects that the courts recognized as Sadaka. And that's really important because it provides the background against which D H S issued. Its memo a formally formally terminating the program in that memo. The Jess explained that taking into consideration the Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit's rulings Of in the case and the letter from Attorney General Sessions They concluded that the program should be terminated and again really important the reasons that the attorney general and d h s gave when decide to terminate the program because the bedrock principle of administrative law that that when an agency acts the courts review that action based on the explanation the agency gave at the time that it acted and because the administration said that it was acting. It was terminating the program because it concluded the DACA was unlawful. That decision attorney the program whether it itself was legal really turns on the question of Dhaka's legality because if the courts who the DACA was legal then their conclusion that they had to do it that the law bound their hands that it forced to terminate it was itself unlawful under the federal law that Governs Agency action. And so that's why in the lower court cases that have been considering this question. The fundamental question that they were all asking is whether the DACA program was itself lawful whether when the Obama Administration put it in place it was permissible exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Josh started the story with the dream. Act And in fact you know the story story in some sense begins long before the dream. Act Because for decades Congress's conferred discretion on the executive branch. Determine how best to enforce our nation's immigration laws over decades ministries. Both parties have put in place these kinds of deferred action policies and when the Obama Administration put in place Daca. It was acting against against that background so as lower courts have considered this. They'd ask the question whether Daca was lawful and almost uniformly. They concluded that it wasn't lawful awful and the administration's decision to terminate it on the ground that it wasn't was itself unlawful. Okay we've distinguished between Dhaka and DA As Josh put it publicly. And we understand the Tacoma covers about almost eight hundred thousand people. Da covers far far more up to four point five million almost half of the unauthorized population of the US. And we're going to jump in for our first question into the arguments for and against Dhaka's being illegal Josh You believe that Daca is not legal illegal. So focusing on the legal and statutory arguments rather than the constitutional ones. What are the arguments that Daca is illegal? And how did they fare at the Supreme Court. Well I filed an amicus. Brief Ambi- asked the Cato Institute in Dhaka case and I filed a nearly identical brief reef couple of years ago on behalf of the student adopt case when position has been largely consistent I think Dhaka's our policy a minding dream act should have been enacted. Did I truly feel for the situation of the dreamers These are people who a should have their status permanently adjusted by statute Although not By executive action the answer to this question of wide Dhaka's legal relies on a fairly esoteric but a pretty important element of constitutional law would soon as a non delegation doctrine The NON delegation doctrine suggests that Congress cannot give the president power to make laws laws and everyone more or less degrees in the abstract. That is bad of the difficult part becomes at what point has congress given too much authority. Our brief takes the position position. That immigration law gives the president a lot of power but it's somewhat bounded right. It's somewhat limited. I'll give you I'll give you an example There is a statute that says the attorney general can give work authorization to certain people on deferred action. It's there and and and we can't deny that it's there When that statue was first enacted and when regulations were inactive pursuant to members of Congress asked how many people do you expect to gain work authorization through this regulation? A mantra given was such a small number. That's not worth statistically recording. It just a tiny number Because generally the the issue of giving work authorization to immigrants is fairly controversial. It's a it's an issue which Congress has a lot to say about Daba and DACA relied on. He's fairly mundane provisions designed to help a very small number of people to grant work authorization to up to a million perhaps one point five million individuals and we argue that the laws Congress enacted cannot support such a broad delegation authority. That is if Congress intended to give the present this much power the statute cell phone constitutional. The better way is to avoid the constitutional question and say that Congress would resolve these major questions itself. This this is what's called the major questions doctrine after the best way of reading these various statutes is that Congress did not give these authorities the president and it goes beyond what Congress intended and because the statutory authority. The Statutory Authority is lacking the executive branch cannot lend this policy Now I don't know how much appetite there is for this argument the court. I didn't cure many questions along these lines yesterday of this argument that we advanced Texas advances similar Arctic argument a couple years ago and the did circuit didn't cite Mike Brief but they definitely read it in their decision from two thousand fifteen That is that the Congress has delegated a precise authority used to grant the work authorization air just one point to clarify a Texas and myself. We've never debated the issue prioritization. That is the president can prioritize some be proposal over others of the debates always been about the ancillary benefits like work authorization. And that's where the key is towards the president. Just said we will not remove you. I think it's a much much tougher question but it's we will not remove plus communities benefits. That's what the statute conflict comes from all right Brianna. If I understand joshes argument argument I it was quite influential. It was the basis for the fifth circuit's argument and the NON delegation doctrine deer with people listeners. You'll remember.
"daca" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"Blocking these executive actions that are so sloppy so poorly reasoned so detached from the tax to federal law. Aw that they simply cannot survive any level of judicial scrutiny and so that is the law that tripped up the sense of citizenship question. Shen right the Supreme Court wound up deciding that this census citizens who question was justified on the beasts of pretexts that the administration had lied about it and so now the the dock as revolves around the very same law and who knows which way the chief justice will lean. I think he will favor the trump administration in this case ace. I don't think this is quite as blatantly sloppy as the sense of citizenship. Case by Chief Justice Roberts is full of surprises. So you never know as as you watched the arguments today. What are you looking for from the justices? That will tell you a little bit. What they're thinking so? I'm very interested in the emotional residence at this case among the justices. You know we we can get into the technical details of the law was arbitrary and capricious but I am curious to hear if conservative justices just sort of channel their inner Fox News hosts and rant about illegal immigration which is what Jeff Sessions did when he announced repeal. or Or. If you're going to see some real sympathy even from justices like Cavanaugh and and Gorsuch who have tried to present themselves as kind find people as somewhat embassy people even if they don't necessarily bring that to their judging. I'm curious to hear if they're just GONNA go on and on about these aliens who've invaded the country or if they're going to have some respect for Dhaka beneficiaries and maybe even acknowledging their questions very difficult position these individuals are in. Ah The liberal justices especially justice soda or who is excellent on all matters of immigration and undocumented individuals. I think they're going to to go really hard. On the trump administration sloppiness here. I think they're going to in some ways. Try to be less emotional. BECAUSE THEY WANNA win over the chief justice who is a little bit of a robots and they're going to try to prove to him through their questions that it doesn't matter if you love dreamers or hate them the point here is is that the law matters and the administration didn't follow the law. Here's something I'm struggling to figure out with this case the administration is arguing against an executive of action. Here they're saying it was kind of capricious to implement Daca in the first place but this administration is so into executive power and and canceling DACA. Just looks like a different kind of capricious executive action. How do I square this? It may be impossible to square because I you know I would argue that something like the travel ban which affected so many millions of people which separated in a profound bound way so many families and yet the trump administration and talked three times to try to find a legal version of it and yet the trump administration says. Oh Daca you you know just enshrining this deferred action principle in an executive policy. That goes way too far. You know that's just beyond the executives should be doing. There is a whole lot of hypocrisy. There there's a lot of a policy among trump's defenders who called DACA executive overreach but then defend all of the ridiculous policies that trump is implemented to try to curb immigration in this country. So I don't know that it can be squared because I think hypocrisy lies at at the root of it. You know trump claims. He doesn't like executive overreach when it comes to Dhaka but in every other context administration has been defined by incessant. Overreach which I'm glad you brought up the fact that the travel ban they kept trying and trying because none of the lower courts here have actually said the government is is required to maintain DACA. They've just been ruling that the administration was sloppy. Here and to me I look at that and I think no matter what happens at the Supreme Court this administration can just keep going back and doing this over again trying to do it better and now we have a much stronger attorney general in Bill Bar. Yeah that's right Say what you will about bar. But he's better at this job than sessions especially if you view the job avas protecting trump. which bar does even if dreamers win this case it's going to be a temporary victory right because it means that the trump administration is is going to go back and start over and perhaps speed up the time line? You know the original policy for recinding DACA was on a rolling basis. It was going to give people an opportunity to renew last time. It was wasn't gonNA take effect for several years but if trump loses at the supreme court. He's probably going to be really angry and he's probably going to lawyer up and entrust bill bar to do it right this time. And maybe try to repeal Daca on a much quicker timeline and that would means you know throwing Dr Beneficiaries under the bus in very short order so there is no absolute victory for Dhaka beneficiaries. In this case because has everyone agrees that at the end of the day. Trump can do this. The only question is whether he's done it correctly Mark Thank you so much. Thanks so much always. A pleasure marches. A stern covers the supreme court for slate. He's GonNa be at Skoda's today to hear this case you can catch his coverage over at slate dot com. While you're there. Make sure Jeremy Stalls interview with a migrant who missed out on on DACA. She's now been separated from her American daughter for nine years. And that's the show. What next is produced by Mary? Wilson Jason Deleo Mara Silvers and Daniel Hewitt. I'm Mary Harris. You can catch me during the day on twitter at Mary's desk. I'll talk to you tomorrow..
"daca" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"Here's a bit of Washington Trivia for you named federal legislation that Republican governor? Mike Huckabee The Wall Street Journal editorial board and President. Barack Obama Obama all seemed to agree on ten years ago. Give up the House of Representatives is debating and voting on the dream. Act this evening and the answer is immigration reform. At least for dreamers dream stands for Development Relief and education for alien minors liners. It would allow the children who entered the United States illegally before age sixteen legal status to stay back in two thousand ten congress. I was trying to pass a law that would allow these dreamers kids whose parents brought them to the US illegally to stay in the US. Join the military go to school cool but when this bill got to the Senate the Dream Act it failed after all the votes were counted. Democrats held this press conference. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. He got up in front of a lectern encoded. Langston Hughes Poem. Bottom line is what happens to a dream deferred does it dry up like a raisin in the sun or does it explode this dream is going to explode and since then the dream has exploded into a years long political battle. I President Obama decided to move ahead without Congress he he signed this executive order offering dreamers deferred action on their immigration status meaning the. US wouldn't try to remove these people from the country. Order became known as Dhaka Aca then when President Donald Trump took office. He pulled the plug on that executive order. Leaving nearly seven hundred thousand dreamers wondering what would happen next now. The third branch of government has been dragged into this fight the Supreme Court. It's hearing arguments about Daca today. which is why called up? Slates marches of Stern. How much do we know about how the public feels feels about Daca the deferred action program Eight and ten Americans back dock according to a CNN poll according to a different poll nine in ten Kinda Americans want Daca beneficiaries to stay in the United States. And you here. We are still arguing about it right so many years later these poor people people have totally laid down. Roots are fully American in every way. Except there's innocent you papers and they are still at risk of being uprooted from the only lives in homes. They've ever known and sent back to a country that they in many cases don't even remember.
"daca" Discussed on 600 WREC
"DACA and really there throw long and edible. But let's just I mean excuse by grammar, I'm not that smart. I'm the agency. You don't have to apologize saying a piece, I'm not answerable edge here. Fine. Don't get into that. Just say your piece. I just I just I just think why not start four four these people if our government really because we have a federal court decision already that says, no. Okay. All right. But we we get here's what Trump could do. He could do either fi on everybody. That's got a job at our country. File actually can't because unfortunately, and he wants to change at the e verify is voluntary you believe that. It's what voluntary. Okay. All right. No. I other words he keeps saying our laws are screwed up. He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he wants to make e verify mandatory he wants to do all these things that we want him to do. But he can't he's boxed in. And so what he's saying is, okay. I'm gonna make a very modest proposal. We'll give it three year extension to dock in the other things I said, and I want the five point seven, you know, it's going to cost like thirty forty billion dollars everybody or twenty five at least. And that's okay. By me, as it is by most of us, that's national security. That's fine rather than blowing it on give money to Iran, or whatever the point is they will not permit. They control the purse strings, so he's trying to negotiate. So when you get idiots, and I don't mean. And you, sir. Who have who who who had? They public presence of some sort. Why I don't know who say he's a Sal app. He's this he that they have no idea on what he should do not. Why why is it that Americans have law that we have to follow? But twenty to thirty million illegal aliens don't have to follow a law. I don't understand that. I I.
"daca" Discussed on Part of the Problem
"Okay so so he could he could have done that easily right there's just one example there's lots of different things he could've done truthfully speaking and this gets into the weeds a little bit but he could have built a wall you go to build a wall already crazier shit's been done by executive fiat but certainly right he could've just crackdown could've just like that's it dr done no more discussion day one yeah this is what i was elected to do don't act like you're surprise i won elections have consequences that's dhaka's over but he didn't he let it loom for a while for months and months and months and months then he sent jeff sessions out too to repeal it he didn't even do it himself and then right away he's like look i wanna do daca but i wanna make it go you know the right way constitutionally i want congress to do it and he's like get me get me a doctor deal and all sign it and then he does one better and he he he goes all triple the size of dhaka i'll triple the size of dhaka and give them a pathway to citizenship so i just i i don't know like how much evidence do you need to just go like oh yeah he was never this guy who had a boner for for mass deportations that's not who trump was and i gotta say i tend to think you know what i care about a lot more than certainly deportations is i care about ending these fucking wars then i got to say i don't think trump was really ever that guy either i think he was just smart enough to say what was really popular in the room you know he did by the way speaking of the daca stuff trump tweeted out the other day that daca is officially dead now but i mean come on this was a guy who really just wanted to end you could have done it immediately i will say though that he.
"daca" Discussed on The Rusty Humphries Rebellion
"If you think you're more than doubling yeah well more than doubling what we are talking about just a week ago is a good idea hearts of illegal immigrants just curious saline frowning faces no hearts lot of frantic faces though hearts jay said the colorado lloyd's in oregon dailes in oregon e deplorable unit i like that ready says daca was a pandora's box it should never have been open lisa is the deplorable in florida hey lisa um dana says if they do the daca thing now they will expected the future e see this is what the democrats do every time it's subtle rise some that democrats will try to rip off the american people and the american treasury uh doing it for their power and influence and nothing else i see some arts there are some people that love the idea that lindsey graham nasty is up there helping out the dreamers helping out the schemers lindsey graham nazi all let's let's give him more power this is a march there i got not an i'm not seeing enough frowning phases me i'd be frowning facing it in here on cmr a who do bunch for any phrases myself i think rim lindsey graham to see is one of the biggest ad it's ever and now that his boyfriend john mccain is in there is often a who who knows what he's going to be doing with his free time how much of his country is he going to give way to do more for only faces more for any phases.
"daca" Discussed on The Jason Stapleton Program
"So how do we go about doing that how do you about solving this problem will the first thing you have to do is get rid of all of the ah a all all of the of the bureaucracy all the paperwork all the problems that exist with people trying to come here any one of the problems that i have with this one of the issues i take with this idea of people not be people coming here and taking jobs is this idea that the sessions explain sessions talks about he says it's all your coming here you're taking americans jobs let me read through some of this i'm really just roofing here but i've got all these notes here in from it should probably read them as as a this came from ah vox dot com nine facts explained daca immigration programme woman a bummer weighed on that was to the five myths of dhaka this is from cato cato did a nice little uh article here on the five myths about daca so we take a look at us and says myth one daca incentivizes an increase in illegal immigration it says doc applies only to immigrants who have entered the before the sitting there sixteen th birthday and who have lived in the country continuously since june 15th of two thousand seventeen he says no one injuring after that can apply so this daca status doesn't really apply to anybody but those people and i would probably go a step further i'm i'm gonna give you my solution to the immigration problem here amid at the let me let me finish this these these five miss says dhaka's taken jobs from americans attorney general jeff sessions said the daca denies jobs who hundreds of thousands of americans by allowing those same jobs to illegal aliens even if that was true and it's not all explain it in a minute but even if that was true what are you really say you don't like competition you don't like someone else being willing to do your job for less because that's really what we're talking about either the job doesn't have a worker to fill it and therefore an illegal immigrant or an immigrant is going to come and fill that job or that jobs being filled by someone and you have someone else's willing.
"daca" Discussed on POLITICO's Nerdcast
"The next day he's against her i don't know i don't know how if what you think how if she lost some leverage at the president over negotiated daca because national morbid enemy out of him i don't know uh i mean maybe but i i think feinstein's sense actually more of a secondary player in the daca talks it's really kind of a addict hurbon led initiative mean her bringing matters don't get me wrong but i think you know the tweet if anything ended up helping feinstein because you know it reminded the left that she's not actually as much of a sell out as some of them thinks she uses she is fighting with the president recruit for diane feinstein like the best week of the election he has pretty much could you ask for so she's in deep trouble at home going to get a primary challenge because they think she has been too soft on the president uh so she gets a nickname which is gonna be great for her every time he's hoping it would be like a letter it if though trump is best with the elaboration she is the he's not to bear though it's not not leaves loves gives like little bob little marco or lower but it's still not bad and so not only does she give him nickname from trump which will help her back home with the base she also gets kudos for at least raising the issue an almost cornering him daca this is all going to be great for her it is a great week frightful she also released the transcript which is with lots of folks the left wanted which which takes me and my last question for you alana why this is something a friend of mine texted me this question i come at a theory about it but i really don't know why didn't republicans want this release like what were the afraid of like why not released this report or are the transcript i think it was more useful to them for two reasons one at for political fodder without the transcript in the public eye they could make the kind of assertions about steel and the behavior of fusion which keep in mind with swiss getting paid by the dnc and clinton folks at around this time that osce was written um and also i think keeping it.
"daca" Discussed on WJNT 1180 AM
"I mentioned earlier and that is this i am not willing to accept a conversation on daca a deal on daca i am not willing to accept anything on daca and chill we have a secure border and i do not believe in promises let me explain why because first off all start with criticizing the republican leadership in congress the republican leadership in congress lied to every american that voted for them when they said and i quote if you vote for me and i get elected i will repeal and i will replace o obama care so i don't trust republicans on this issue of securing the border i can't trust them on securing the border because i cannot trust him because i couldn't trust them and they lied to me our obamacare second thing i don't trust democrats either i don't trust the democrats are actually gonna come out i don't trust for a moment the democrats are going to come out and somehow support a border wall and i understand this jacking i understand this idea that the president has had i get it i understand it which is hey maybe we can get a deal dacca for border security now if that deal happen simultaneously i'm willing to entertain it i'm willing to have a conversation i'm willing to talk about it but let me ask you this and many of your watching us by the way to not on facebook live so i want to get your i'm going to take a poll questioned real quick in here and throw it in here for all you guys on facebook live here's my question for you if you agree with me that there should be no deal on daca until there is a deal that is done it is guaranteed not a promise on border security i want you to hit the share button let me say it again if you agree with me that we should not be negotiating on daca until there is a secure border i want you to hit the share button now if you disagree with me and you think then i think it should simply be put should simply be uh i think daca is a is a very simple issue and then daca is something that we should definitely work on regardless of border security than than you know what i want you to hit the thumbs up button all right we'll see how me those come across.
"daca" Discussed on Latino USA
"What are you do in to make the 30second argument about why they should care about daca well sure so increased access to education and jobs means that these young people now have more money for themselves and their families to two lead better lives but it also means more money to pay for groceries more money to to get better apartments uh in some cases to start financing the purchase of homes car payments putting their kids into daycare they're investing in our country's economy are in investing in local economies and through access to higherskilled higher paying jobs they're also investing in a social security and making tremendous contributions there is a narrative in terms of just immigrants undocumented immigrants that we are somehow takers this is a program that is like being given to these young people in fact what are these young people really giving um to the american economy yeah well there's this this notion this false notion that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs i think that what we're seeing with daca is that they really really sparked our economy many daca beneficiaries are now in in jobs um that our growth areas in this country many daca beneficaries have taken jobs as physician physicians assistance they've taken jobs xray technicians these are jobs that if we look around the country that we have shortages in in a lot of these highskill jobs and so the reality is that we take away dhaka and remove these young people from jobs is that we're not going to have a workforce that's the to ready to fill the man in addition n a really important segment of dhaka beneficiaries are also owning businesses as a result are actually creating jobs employing uh people from the community um and so job creation has been a really important role that has been filled by by dhaka beneficiaries.