Rep. Martha McSally, who typically avoids commenting on controversial issues, responded to President Trump’s recission of DACA with a lie.
The lie: “Congress was robbed of the opportunity to do so when President Obama issued his June 2012 meorandum.” That is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Since McSally has unfortunately been in Congress, the “Gang of Eight” Immigration Reform bill passed the Senate on a super-majority vote of 68-32 in 2013. Senate passes immigration bill.
The “Gang of Eight” bill died in the House, where Rep. McSally supported alternative bills by racist xenophobe Rep. Steve King (R-IA). Martha McSally is a ‘Deportation Republican’.
The GOP turned over its immigration policy to racist xenophobe Rep. Steve King in the new Congress in 2015, a policy which included the repealof DACA. The GOP reaffirms it is ‘the party of maximum deportations’. Rep. McSally supported Rep. King’s bill.
Rep. McSally voted with her “Mass Deportation” GOP colleagues to defund the DACA program in January 2015. House Deportation Tea-Publicans vote to defund DACA Program.
Rep. McSally is counting on our feckless local media and the low information voters who voted for her to suffer from short-term memory and to not remember how she has voted on this immigration issue in the past. She has consistently voted against DACA. She is not “willing and ready to find a solution.” She has voted for deportation.
There has been some truly terrible reporting in recent days about DACA. Too many in the media have acted as mere stenographers, simply repeating what Confederate Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and ten GOP state attorneys general claim to be an unconstituional executive order.
Reporters are failing their “fair and balanced” mantra when they fail to report that these ten GOP state attorneys general (now nine after Tennessee’s Republican AG drops DACA opposition) are more than offset by 20 Attorneys General Write To Trump, Urging Him To Keep DACA:
California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra and 19 of his colleagues are asking President Trump to keep the program running.
In a letter to the president, Becerra and the other attorneys general are urging Trump to refuse a request from Texas and nine other states that wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asking the Trump administration to rescind DACA, which was established by President Obama in a June 15, 2012, memorandum.
Confederate Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III refusal to defend the DACA executive order is because he is a racist who has long opposed DACA, not because the executive order is unconstitutional.
Back in 2014 when President Obama expanded his 2012 DACA executive order I explained President Obama has the legal authority for prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters, so get over it people!:
I have previously posted this piece by Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, Lawyers agree: Obama has broad authority to act on deportations:
With Obama administration officials debating how aggressively to use unilateral action to shield people from deportations, more than 100 immigration law professors have signed a letter to the President(.pdf) arguing that he has expansive legal authority to act to temporarily protect additional groups from removal — and that this authority is rooted in statute, court opinion, regulations, and precedent.
The letter (.pdf), which was shared with this blog before its release, is designed to make the case to media and opinion-makers that Obama has maximum legal room to maneuver — which could shape how much political space the administration thinks it has on this difficult and explosive decision.
The letter — which was distributed by the American Immigration Council and the National Immigration Law Center — was signed by over 130 professors, attorneys and experts, some from the major Ivy League law schools, and others from border and red states that are relevant to the politics of this decision.
The short version of the letter’s argument is as follows. The administration has the authority to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” when deciding how to apply limited resources to the act of enforcing immigration laws. This discretion is grounded in the Constitution and has been recognized in statute and regulations for decades. Numerous administrations have used prosecutorial discretion to protect both individuals and groups from removal — and have historically justified these actions with humanitarian reasons.
The argument continues as follows. There are multiple forms of prosecutorial discretion, of which “deferred action” is one. Deferred action, too, has existed as a category for many years — and predates DACA. Therefore, DACA and/or its expansion confer an already existing designation and create no new form of immigration status. While deferred action does confer the ability to work, it did so before DACA. Deferred action — before, and under DACA and/or its expansion — merely provides a temporary reprieve from deportation, without providing any route to permanent residency or formal legal status. What’s more, before DACA, previous administrations [Reagan and Bush], and the Obama administration, granted deferred action not just to individuals, but to large classes as well.
In other words, the letter seeks to rebut the leading legal and political arguments against both DACA and its expansion — the suggestion that granting deferred action status to groups crosses a line into rewriting or non-enforcement of the law; and the notion that it confers a quasi-amnesty status.
Recently, more than 100 of these immigration law professors signed a letter available here (.pdf) to President Trump arguing that DACA is legal because the president has the power to decide whom to deport, given that the government does not have the resources to target all undocumented immigrants.
“The legality of the program is crystal clear,” said Shoba Wadhia, a law professor at Penn State who helped write the letter.
But you never see this in media reporting, do you? All you ever see is “Republican politician says …” The public is not being informed by allowing GOP politicians to frame the debate with lies. The media needs to do its damn job.
President Phat Phuc will revisit the DACA issue in six months if Congress fails. Just can’t shake that Obama obsession. So creepy.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump Sep 5
Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
States file lawsuit challenging Trump decision on Dreamers
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to end protections and benefits for young people who were brought into the United States illegally as children.
The multistate lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic attorneys general on Wednesday to protect beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program argues their state economies will be hurt if residents lose their status.
The lawsuit seeks to block Trump’s decision and maintain DACA.
Read more…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ny/states-file-lawsuit-challenging-trump-decision-on-dreamers-idUSKCN1BH1HS
15 states, DC sue Trump administration over ending DACA
By LARRY NEUMEISTER AND GENE JOHNSON, ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK — Sep 6, 2017, 3:40 PM ET
…
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.
California, one of the most solid Democratic states, was noticeably absent.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to file a separate lawsuit because a quarter of DACA recipients are California residents, his spokeswoman Bethany Lesser said.
Becerra’s office has not said when the lawsuit will be filed or whether it will include different legal arguments.
…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/washington-states-sue-immigration-move-49658654
So, 15 states with New York in the lead and a separate lawsuit coming from the State of California.
We ain’t going back, y’all. No one is going back to 1950.
And one other thing. Trump can’t erase President Obama’s legacy because…
WE ARE HIS LEGACY!
RESIST!
” Trump can’t erase President Obama’s legacy because…”
Oh, dearLiza, I fear you may have the obsession with Obama, not Trump…
California lawmakers defend DACA with an eye on lawsuit against Trump’s action
Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers will seek to blunt effort to end DACA
….
“California has its eyes on Congress to do what it should have done years ago, but we cannot bank on that,” said Brown’s top aide, Nancy McFadden, as the governor was traveling to an energy summit in Russia.
Democratic leaders of the California Legislature accused Trump of acting primarily to appease his conservative political base. And they pledged to take steps in Sacramento to protect thousands of immigrants who benefit from the protections, known as “Dreamers.”
“The Dreamers who were brought to this country as young children, who are American to their core, deserve better,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount). “The Legislature will do everything we can working with local governments, universities and schools to keep these young people secure, safe and here where they belong.”
…
An analysis this year by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute found that California is home to more than 1 in 4 DACA participants, scattered among the Central Valley’s agricultural counties or clustered in urban areas. Los Angeles County topped the list with 180,000 eligible residents.
California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra promised legal action to challenge the Trump administration’s decision, arguing Tuesday that it was unconstitutional in light of the fact that the young immigrants followed the rules as instructed and, as such, may be denied their due process rights.
“They did what we always ask people to do,” Becerra said. “No one should be treated this way.”
Becerra and 19 other state attorneys general penned a letter to Trump in July urging him to defend the program, one month after Texas and nine other states threatened to sue if it wasn’t scrapped.
…
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-jerry-brown-lawmakers-trump-immigrants-daca-20170905-story.html
I troll McSally’s FB timeline fairly often, depending on what is happening. I’ve noticed that McSally is most definitely in the process of re-inventing herself as a healthcare advocate and, most recently, an immigration reformer.
Democrats who want to challenge McSally in 2018 need to pay close attention to what she is doing. She is writing her TV ads and, if history repeats itself, she may have seven or eight million dollars to run them. The counter message, or the truth, must be out there, early and often.
If the FB comments are at all predictive, McSally’s re-invention of herself does not sit well with the die hard Trump supporters. But that means that her manipulation of perceptions might be working, and her chances of being re-elected most likely increase if she is perceived as a moderate Republican, especially as an incumbent.
She’s going to fight for that job.
Let’s see what other names we have for “Dreamers”.
Retailers call them “Customers”. Deporting them will mean the grocers lose tens of millions of dollars in sales. Shoe companies lose about 8 million pairs of shoe sales yearly. Gas stations sell millions of gallons less, restaurants serve millions less meals, movie theaters…. you get the idea.
Employers call them “Employees”. They were taught in American schools the skills needed to work at American jobs. It varies by occupation, but in my line of work, it costs companies about $50,000.00 to hire and train even and entry level employee. So deporting “Employees” is going to cost employers millions.
Landlords call them “Tenants”. Deporting Dreamers will lead to a few hundred thousand empty houses and apartments, and we all know from 2008 how bad that is for the economy.
And of course, people who aren’t scared little racist POS call them “Americans”.
This is a politically motivated racist economic disaster waiting to happen.
If the GOP fails to pass DACA, they’ll look like the shitheels they are, which is why you have right wing politicians saying “Oh, my, I have always supported the Dreamers, but rule of law and all that, I wish I could do something but my little baby hands a tied!”
If they pass DACA, they lose their base.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t, and they did this to themselves.
DACA goes far beyond prosecutorial discretion, which in any event is best used on a case by case basis and not on 800,000 people. Prosecutorial discretion is simply not prosecuting. It is NOT conveying legal status, which only immigration law can confer and that must come from congress.
I have always supported legalizing DACA “dreamers,” even at the height of SB1070, which I cosponsored and supported. But you have to do it the legal constitutional way – with a bill.
Was there a section in SB1070 covering “Dreamers”?
Or was there a separate piece of legislation?
Something like SB-NeverHappened?
You’ve had years to do something and have not, why is that? You seemed to think Arizona could enforce federal immigration laws before, so don’t pass the buck.
If you don’t want immigrants coming to America there’s a simple fix, one that only requires a few Private Prison cells instead of hundreds of thousands. You lock up a few CEO’s from big-ag and the construction corporations and the hospitality industry for hiring them.
Oh, but those are Rich White Guys and Campaign Donors, and we don’t lock up Rich White Guys in Arizona, no matter how crooked they are.
You and the GOP don’t get off so easy.
Jennifer Rubin, who was no friend of Obama’s DACA executive order, nevertheless points out here https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/09/06/how-democrats-and-some-republicans-can-save-daca/?utm_term=.b7357c7b281c
“It’s far from clear that Trump can be prevented from rescinding DACA, but litigants might be able to delay its implementation on grounds that Trump and Sessions did not abide by the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring notice and a period for comment for changes in government rules. There is also a solid due process argument that the government should not be allowed to use information DACA applicants supplied to then track them down and boot them out.
Meanwhile, pressure should be applied to the Justice Department. Former Justice Department lawyer Jack Goldsmith asks a number of key questions: “Did Sessions consult w the [Solicitor General]’s office about the new [U.S. government’s] litigation position, and its consequences (inter alia) for SG credibility?” He recalls that “in 2014 DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote an opinion that concluded that DACA was constitutional.” That leads to even more questions: “Did Sessions consult OLC on this? If so, did OLC revise its views and/or withdraw the 2014 opinion? If Sessions didn’t consult OLC, what’s the status of 2014 opinion? Will it be withdrawn? What is official DOJ position on this matter?” Sessions can be asked about these matters in oversight hearings; outside groups can send FOIA requests to the Justice Department seeking documents that lay out the department’s legal reasoning. It’s no wonder Sessions wouldn’t take questions at his Tuesday announcement. He cannot, however, indefinitely avoid answering questions as to the basis for his decision.”
So much for the rule of law.
Wait….what? Are you saying the Trump and Sessions didn’t follow the legal procedure?
This is shocking news! Shocking!
Thanks for the blog, AZ, keep up the great work.
Also, I’m shocked!
“Wait….what? Are you saying the Trump and Sessions didn’t follow the legal procedure?”
No, what he is doing is grasping at straws the way lawyers always do. He is seeking out any tiny administrative issue that might be raised that could delay implementation of the eminiation of DACA. The same sort of mental exercises went on with Arpaio’s pardon to no avail. And who knows? Perhaps something will work, but it is doubtful. And even if it does, it will only delay it. The President has the authority to rescind Executive Orders and that is the bottom line.
speaking of the rule of law azbm in 1955 birmingham alabama it was the law that a black woman had to give up her seat on a bus to a white man and be arrested and jailed if she did not. rosa parks said the law is wrong and I will face the consequences of not obeying it. I asked steve here at the blog being a law and order guy if he would demand the police arrest rosa parks for breaking the law. so far he has not answered me. by the way the answer to rosa parks arrest was not liberal whining . it was the birmingham alabama bus boycott! what action will we take?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKCsZc37esU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCPy5B5oM5M
“I asked steve here at the blog being a law and order guy if he would demand the police arrest rosa parks for breaking the law. so far he has not answered me.”
I didn’t see where you asked me that before…I must have missed it. The question you ask is a hard one to answer. If I was man in 1955 who had been raised in the South and had those prejudices and racial biases instilled in me all my life, I just might have called the cops about it. I would like to think I would have done better, but let’s be honest, we are creatures of the culture and time in which we are raised. The vast majority of whites in 1955 Birmingham supported segregation and Jim Crow Laws and for someone in 2017 to stand here and say they would not have been that way is stupid and extremely arrogant.
“rosa parks said the law is wrong and I will face the consequences of not obeying it.”
Yes, she did. And she paid the price for violating the City Ordinance. But if you are trying to make a comparison between Rosa Parks and the “Dreamers”, then you are wrong. First of all, Rosa Parks was a citizen and was having her civil rights violated. She had a right to be in this Country and to make demands of it. The “Dreamers” are here illegally and have no right to be here and have no right to make demands of us.
“what action will we take?”
Probably nothing. This will have to be settled by Congress. Even the lawsuits are rather pointless because the issue is a constitutional issue and no amount of marching will change that.
steve I was a boy in 1055 and I new racism was wrong. I admit being part native american helped me understand what was happening. a citizen and a dreamer have the same human rights. so explain the difference between a citizen going 40 mile an hour thru a school zone and a dreamer doing it. demands have nothing to do with it rosa parks was arrested and not treated like a citizen as alabama did not count black people as citizens but as sub humans!
“steve I was a boy in 1055 and I new racism was wrong.”
You are stretching something here, Captain…most people do not remember what they thought on big serious issues like racism when they were less than twelve. Not being able to truly tell the difference between right and wrong is why we have special laws regarding how children are handled in our legal system. You may think you remember, but I suspect you are looking back and planting those memories.
“A citizen and a dreamer have the same human rights.”
Okay. So what? That does not mean that dreamers have the same civil rights as someone who is here legally. We, as a decent people, have extended them certain pro-forma civil rights as a courtesy, but they still have no legal right to be here.
“so explain the difference between a citizen going 40 mile an hour thru a school zone and a dreamer doing it.”
There is no difference in that specific instance. They both are in violation of a traffic law. But, again, so what? The dreamers still have no right to be here that we don’t grant them. They are here illegally.
“rosa parks was arrested and not treated like a citizen as alabama did not count black people as citizens but as sub humans!”
Okay, let’s say you are correct (and I am not certain you are in your blanket statement) what does that have to do with dreamers? Rosa Parks had rights as a citizen she was denied; the dreamers are here illegally. There is a big difference.