Obama clearly states that DACA/DAPA was a Janet Napolitano, DHS action, and not a congressional law, because only congress makes law, yet refuses to touch child welfare law or anything dealing with parental rights in SCOTUS 2016.
US Supreme Court blocks Trump on DACA - 2018
If you take the time to listen to the oral arguments of this SCOTUS case, you will understand why I do what I do because these people.....the Justices....the Attorneys.....the parties.....these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) have no freakin' clue about child welfare law, which is chattel, law, or the fact that we have three branches of government and this case was doing nothing but furthering case precedent of privatization for foreign entities, which are the residuals of the peculiar institution.
Facts of the case
In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, along with criteria for determining when prosecutors can choose not to enforce immigration laws under DACA. People who qualify for DACA may apply for work authorization. In 2014, DHS established a similar process for parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents as well as expanding DACA by making more people eligible. The new program was known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.
Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA and argued that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it had not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and because it was arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which clarifies the President's power. The district court held that the states had standing to file the suit and temporarily enjoined the implementation of DAPA because the states had established a substantial likelihood of success on the notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the states had standing as well as a substantial likelihood of success on their substantive and procedural claims.
Question:
- Do states that provide subsidies to persons who are granted deferred action have standing to sue because the new guidelines will lead to more persons being eligible for deferred action?
- Is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program arbitrary and capricious?
- Did DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to go through the notice-and-comment procedure?
- Does DAPA violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 15–674
_________________
UNITED STATES, et al., PETITIONERS v. TEXAS, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit
[June 23, 2016]
Yes, this was all SCOTUS put out, but the media took it in a different direction, not speaking upon the trafficking of tiny humans, not just in physical body, per se, but through the chattels in child welfare Social Impact Bonds, through the operations of foster care, adoption, and all the other privatized refugee child welfare services programs, through the States.
No one is identifying that these children landing on our shores from all over the world, not just from Central America, are coming under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), through DACA/DAPA policies, that are not law, because only congress makes law.Dems are no longer talking DACA! “Out of sight, out of mind,” they say. DACA beneficiaries should not be happy. Nancy Pelosi truly doesn’t care about them. Republicans stand ready to make a deal!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2018
If anyone has ever taken the time to just look at INA, you can still bring in child brides, child servants, child models....do you finally see it now?
These "alien children" are then assigned through the policies of DACA/DAPA to the Trustees of the States Children's Trusts, who then, I guess you can call it a quiet title of parental rights, and transfer, well, I guess you could just call it an issuance of an amended, corrected, oh, heck, let us call it what it is, a new birth certificate.
The Immigration and Nation... by on Scribd
The salvaging of souls in asset forfeiture, in the termination of parental rights by the corporate trustees is what you call being born again, under chattel law, because the chattel is now under a corporate parent, through the privatized child welfare contracting agencies like Bethany Christian.
No one wants to talk about parental rights or child welfare, but me, and I have all intentions of doing it until the world stops trafficking tiny humans.
HHS OIG Separated Children ... by on Scribd
DOJ: Solicitor General Noel Fransico Files SCOTUS DACA, DAPA Briefs To Enjoin Actions In Trafficking Tiny Humans In DC Court Of Appeals - The Sinking Of The Privateers' UCC Ships
SCOTUS may not take up the Trump DACA/DAPA Appeal, but, in all actuality, it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction.
Firstly, we are dealing with the children's trusts, which are UCCs, making the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the proper jurisdiction to address DACA/DAPA because it deals in international commerce.
Secondly, these children's trusts are registered as foreign entitites, UCCs, that have engaged in the treacherous activities of privatization, Medicaid fraud in child welfare, stealin' the children, the land and the votes, which makes this a war crime, furthering my position that ICJ is the proper jurisdiction.
Lastly, the Trump Administration just exhausted its administrative remedies, which could put the U.S. in a position to enjoin in other actions in ICJ.
Then again, we could be at the threshold of a constitutional crisis, but, hey, what do I know?
I know we have a Chief Justice who has a few trafficking tiny humans issues that may not allow him to touch any of these cases.
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Well, how is that different? If I -- if I own, say, a parcel of land and it's subject to some government regulatory program that I think is a taking under -- under existing law, why isn't the answer, well, you should go buy some other land that's not subject to it.
I also know the Nuremberg Trials were about war crimes which led to the creation of the International Court of Crimes, the proper jurisdiction to hear the DACA/DAPA case.
Supreme Court unlikely to hear Trump DACA appeal
If the justices don't take up the issue during the court's current term, the government will be required to keep the program going for at least ten more months.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court took no action on Friday on the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It now appears likely that the court will not take up the issue during its current term, which would require the government to keep the program going for at least ten more months.
The Trump administration urged the justices to hear appeals of lower court rulings that prevent the government from shutting DACA down, but Friday was the last day for adding cases to the current term's docket, barring unusual circumstances. Any cases accepted in subsequent weeks won't be heard until the next term, which begins October 1, and it would take a few months more for the court to issue a decision.
DACA allows children of illegal immigrants to remain here if they were under 16 when their parents brought them to the US, provided they arrived by 2007. The Obama-era initiative has allowed 700,000 young people, commonly referred to as "Dreamers," to avoid deportation. The nickname comes from the DREAM Act, which would have offered many of the same protections as DACA but was never approved by Congress.
The Trump administration moved to end the program in late 2017, but federal courts in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., blocked that attempt. Following a brief hiatus, the government began accepting renewal applications from DACA participants, which must be filed every two years.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that, far from being illegal, deferred action has been a feature of the immigration system for decades. "In a world where the government can remove only a small percentage of the undocumented non-citizens present in this country in any year, deferred action programs like DACA enable DHS to devote much-needed resources to enforcement priorities such as threats to national security, rather than blameless and economically productive young people with clean criminal records."
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn up those lower court judgments. The Department of Homeland Security and the attorney general concluded that it is unlawful, said Solicitor General Noel Francisco, finding that it "sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million people."
He said that by agreeing to hear the appeals, the court could "provide much-needed clarity to the government and DACA recipients alike." Francisco also said that as long as the question is pending in the courts, Congress has less incentive to come up with a permanent solution.
But supporters of the DACA program said nothing in the lower court rulings would prevent the government from undertaking deportation proceedings against any individual DACA recipient if the need arose. They also noted that President Trump himself has taken conflicting positions on the program, saying at one point, "I love the 'Dreamers.'"
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment