Skip to main content

Protections for 660,000 immigrants on line at Supreme Court

  • Empty

    People rally outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard in the case of President Trump’s decision to end the Obama-era, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2019, at the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

  • Empty

    Martín Batalla Vidal takes an escalator into the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York to take a bus to Washington, Monday, Nov. 11, 2019. Vidal is a lead plaintiff in one of the cases to preserve the Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and has seen his name splashed in legal documents since 2016, when he first sued in New York. His case will be heard at the Supreme Court beginning Tuesday. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

  • Empty

    People rally outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard in the case of President Trump’s decision to end the Obama-era, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2019, at the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

  • Empty

    Martín Batalla Vidal waits in line at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York to take a bus to Washington, Monday, Nov. 11, 2019. Vidal is a lead plaintiff in one of the cases to preserve the Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and has seen his name splashed in legal documents since 2016, when he first sued in New York. His case will be heard at the Supreme Court beginning Tuesday. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

  • Empty

    Luz Aurora Vidal and her son, Martín Batalla Vidal, line up to take a bus to Washington, Monday, Nov. 11, 2019, in New York. Martin Batalia Vidal is a lead plaintiff in one of the cases to preserve the Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and has seen his name splashed in legal documents since 2016, when he first sued in New York. His case will be heard at the Supreme Court beginning Tuesday. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

  • Empty

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other participants, outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard in the case of President Trump’s decision to end the Obama-era, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2019, at the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

  • Empty

    Monica Sibri, left, who is originally from Ecuador and now lives in New York, sits next to Diego Tum-Monge, of Grand Island, Neb., right as they wait in line outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Nov. 11, 2019, to be able to attend oral arguments Tuesday at the Supreme Court in the case of President Trump’s decision to end the Obama-era, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Published November 12. 2019 11:52AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Protections for 660,000 immigrants are on the line at the Supreme Court.

The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday on the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that shields immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and allows them to work in the United States legally.

The program was begun under President Barack Obama. The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it would end DACA protections, but lower federal courts have stepped in to keep the program alive.

Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to say whether the way the administration has gone about trying to wind down DACA complies with federal law.

A decision is expected by June 2020, amid the presidential election campaign.

President Donald Trump tweeted Tuesday that if the Supreme Court overturns the immigrants’ protections “a deal will be made with the Dems for them to stay!” But Trump’s past promises to work with Democrats on a legislative solution for these immigrants have not led to an agreement.

Trump also wrongly claimed in the tweet that many program participants are “no longer very young, are far from ‘angels’” and that “some are very tough, hardened criminals.” But the program bars anyone with a felony conviction from participating. Serious misdemeanors may also bar eligibility.

Some DACA recipients who are part of the lawsuit are expected to be in the courtroom for the arguments. People have been camping out in front of the court since the weekend for a chance to grab some of the few seats that are available to the general public. Chief Justice John Roberts has rejected a request for live or same-day audio of the arguments. The court will post the audio on its website .

A second case being argued Tuesday tests whether the parents of a Mexican teenager who was killed by a U.S. border patrol agent in a shooting across the southern border in El Paso, Texas, can sue the agent in American courts.

If the court agrees with the administration in the DACA case, Congress could put the program on surer legal footing. But the absence of comprehensive immigration reform from Congress is what prompted Obama to create DACA in 2012, giving people two-year renewable reprieves from the threat of deportation while also allowing them to work.

Federal courts struck down an expansion of DACA and the creation of similar protections for undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens.

Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric was a key part of his presidential campaign in 2016, and his administration pointed to the invalidation of the expansion and the threat of a lawsuit against DACA by Texas and other Republican-led states as reasons to bring the program to a halt.

Young immigrants, civil rights groups, universities and Democratic-led cities and states sued to block the administration. They persuaded courts in New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., that the administration had been “arbitrary and capricious” in its actions, in violation of a federal law that requires policy changes be done in an orderly way.

Indeed, the high court case isn’t over whether DACA itself is legal, but instead the administration’s approach to ending it.

Comments
Well under Trump, and his waiving a magic wand to get manufacturing jobs back, these dreamers can get jobs. No doubt these dreamers will vote for Trump... no doubt. After all, the only thing the Democrats stand for anymore is impeachment.
I have nothing against the immigrants coming here as long as it’s legally. They come here & tied up in the court system & don’t follow thru making them illegal. This is why build the wall MAGA by securing the border & making them come thru a port of entry. Seems like a simple solution to me. So send them back & apply for status the legal way.
We need a healthy young workforce, so all who wish to positively contribute will be welcomed, through proper channels of coarse (legally). The Europeans (Germany, Italy) saw a decline in their workforce, so they welcomed the rapid immigration of Arabs (Muslims). How's that working out for them? Dig in and find a good source of news, and you'll find that did not work well. Failure to assimilate.
You see, when a society kills the young (abortion), or just doesn't procreate (homosexuality, selfish desires), the birthrate falls below sustainable levels. They don't teach that in the schools, but it's basic nature.
The immigration laws were set in place to avoid this very situation, but, the progressives know better. The founding fathers were old school.
I have always agreed with Model 88 they should enter legally. The R's and D's had not addressed the immigration problem for years. It is well known they and the wealthy have used illegals for cheap labor. My other concern is the HB 1 Visas issue they don't address. People are already cutting through the wall and will be able to dig under or over. And only a fraction has been built or restored. Many law suits to follow as the occupant wants to take private land.
CG we usually don’t agree on much so why can’t congress act like this? We can work our differences out lol. As far as taking land illegally there are eminent domain laws. I’m going thru it right now with the Penn East Pipe Line. I don’t like it but they will eventually get a right away thru my land even though I don’t want it.
Again another stupid liberal wise crack from crack head Joe.No I don’t like eminent domain but it’s the law you idiot. And what is putting up the border wall on the edge of someone’s property going to hurt??? So you’d rather have illegal aliens on your property or have a wall???? Your a typical liberal dumb ass

Classified Ads

Event Calendar

<<

December 2019

>>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    

Upcoming Events

Twitter Feed