in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are moving swiftly to impose a permanent DACA amnesty for those illegal aliens protected by the illegal and unconstitutional administrative amnesty created by Barack Hussein Obama. The Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty was created out of thin air to protect illegal aliens from deportation, and, of course, there was no legal process used in its creation, especially not the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
However, three Kritarchs in California have decided that DACA is now a mandatory program of amnesty for illegal aliens who now have a legal interest in the program despite the claim by the Obama Regime that it was solely an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was not reviewable by the courts. And, importantly, was revocable at any time as well as not granting any legal status to illegal aliens.
Below is the Obama Administration's legal rationale:
As has historically been true of deferred action, these proposed deferred action programs would not “legalize” any aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States: Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, nor does it provide a path to obtaining permanent residence or citizenship. Grants of deferred action under the proposed programs would, rather, represent DHS’s decision not to seek an alien’s removal for a prescribed period of time...A grant of deferred action under the proposed programs would remain in effect for three years, subject to renewal, and could be terminated at any time at DHS’s discretion...As a general rule, when Congress vests enforcement authority in an executive agency, that agency has the discretion to decide whether a particular violation of the law warrants prosecution or other enforcement action. This discretion is rooted in the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and it reflects a recognition that the faithful” execution of the law does not necessarily entail “act[ing] against each technical violation of the statute” that an agency is charged with enforcing. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Rather, as the Supreme Court explained in Chaney, the decision whether to initiate enforcement proceedings is a complex judgment that calls on the agency to “balanc[e] . . . a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise.”[Memorandum Opinion For The Secretary Of Homeland Security And The Counsel To The President, by Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, November 19, 2014]
Your correspondent warned
that kritarchs would seek to make DACA permanent
. Because President Trump failed to immediately revoke DACA on his first day in office, we now have kritarchs circling in the water, testing push back from the Trump Administration, and contemplating declaring DACA mandatory.
An appeals court has cleared the way for a federal judge to force the Trump administration to make public more of its internal documents on the decision to rescind the program granting quasi-legal status and work permits to so-called Dreamers.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted, 2-1, to rebuff the Justice Department’s attempt to halt U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s order that the administration turn over emails, letters, memos and legal opinions considered in the course of the decision announced in September to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created in 2012 under President Barack Obama.
[Court Won't Halt Judge's Demand For Details On DACA Cancellation Decision, By Josh Gerstein, Politico, November 16, 2017]
Kritarch William Alsup
Two more Kritarchs, Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould, at the Appeals Court, appear to think that an exercise of deferral of prosecution creates rights for illegal aliens and the President cannot end that policy without their approval.
And it is clear their concern about DACA is not based on due process or the APA, but an ideological commitment to replacing the historic American nation
with illegal aliens.
Judges Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould said in a ruling issued Thursday that the official record the administration submitted in response to more than half a dozen lawsuits challenging the decision was clearly inadequate.“Put bluntly, the notion that the head of a United States agency would decide to terminate a program giving legal protections to roughly 800,000 people based solely on 256 pages of publicly available documents is not credible, as the district court concluded,” Wardlaw and Gould wrote in a joint opinion.
Kritarchs Wardlaw and Gould seem to think that the President has to produce some minimum number of pages of documents before making a decision. Well, nothing like that in the Article II of the Constitution. The President, or anyone else he designates, can make a decision about any particular issue without any documents, with a few, or with thousands, it does not matter. What matters is that in exercising prosecutorial discretion is not reviewable and a matter where the Executive Branch is supreme, the APA notwithstanding, especially since the Kritarchs involved seem deliberately unaware that DACA was created without regard to the APA.
Usual Suspect Kritarch Ronald Gould
The mask of the Kritarchs is off, and they are becoming more readily open in their hostility to the Constitution in their pursuit of their ideology of nation busting, whether it is destroying Poland
or the United States