Yesterday, a second U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s decision to end a program that protects immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children from deportation.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, cannot end in March as the Republican administration had planned, a victory for Democratic state attorneys general and immigrants who sued the federal government.

The decision is similar to a Jan. 9 ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco that DACA must remain in place while litigation challenging Trump’s decision continues.

The legal battle over DACA complicates a debate currently underway in Congress on whether to change the nation’s immigration laws.

The Supreme Court on Friday is due to consider whether to take up the administration’s appeal of the San Francisco ruling. The court could announce as soon as Friday afternoon whether it will hearing the case. –Reuters

Since when does a judge unilaterally decide that a program based on an executive order by a radical and lawless president, with an expiration date, can be extended?

Trending: BREAKING: Obama Just Endorsed Grandson Of A Terrorist And Soros-Supported Candidate Running Against Duncan Hunter

Peel back the layers of lies that are being told to the American public by Democrats like Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, and their allies in the media, and discover the shocking truth about the “Dreamers”(or voters) they’re fighting so hard to keep in America.   

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to 100PercentFedUp.com updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

According to The Hill, the narrative surrounding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program holds that it was put in place to protect “kids” who were brought here through no fault of their own. DACA supporters implied that applicants were mostly Hispanic and that as citizens of distressed republics a short distance away from the wealthy United States, their violation of our immigration laws was somehow understandable. Program applicants were also portrayed as brilliant valedictorians and proud members of the military.

From the outset, that narrative rang hollow. In a column for the Washington Post, Mickey Kaus described it as public-relations-style “hooey.” Here’s why.

  • Many of the DACA “kids” were not brought here as young children. They entered the U.S. illegally as teenagers.
  • A large number of DACA applicants weren’t “brought” here at all. They crossed the border themselves.
  • Over 2,000 individuals approved for DACA had their status terminated for criminal activity ranging from alien smuggling to sexual assault. That number is still growing.
  • Fewer than 900 DACA recipients – or slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the total DACA population – joined the military.

New data released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) definitively establishes that most of the DACA narrative is false. Particularly overblown are claims that deported DACA recipients would inevitably be strangers in a strange land.

USCIS lists 149 countries of origin for DACA applicants. English is the national language in at least 26 of those countries. Those include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. A large number of applicants are from India, Hong Kong and the Philippines, where there are enormous English-speaking communities.

Other statistics also undermine claims that the United States must “take care of the DACAs” or condemn them to a life of isolation and poverty.

  • At least 36 of the nations of origin listed by USCIS are wealthy, democratic and European. They include Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden.
  • Applicants also originate from at least nine Asian countries with fully developed or rapidly developing economies. Those include South Korea, Japan and Singapore.
  • A total of 360 nationals from Israel applied for DACA benefits. Israel is a developed nation with a thriving economy that accepts all returned citizens and provides free instruction in Hebrew to returnees and immigrants.

In fact, many DACA applicant’s birth countries are listed on the higher end of the common standard of living indexes. Which means that DACA advocates are arguing that the United States has a moral obligation to undermine its own laws in order to avoid returning illegal aliens to countries whose citizens are considered to have a higher standard of living than many Americans.

One wonders why it has never occurred to Congress that its primary obligation should be protecting native-born American kids from illegal aliens who compete with them for entry-level jobs and seats at colleges and universities. Curiously, our elected representatives seem remarkably unconcerned about protecting America’s standard of living.

What is most disturbing about the data released by USCIS, however, is the number of DACA applicants who come from countries associated with terrorism or overt anti-Americanism. This is cause for concern given the “lean and lite” vetting used to quickly approve DACA applications:

  • More than 1,000 DACA applications were accepted from Pakistani nationals despite concerns over growing anti-U.S. sentiment within the country and the Pakistani government’s overt support of jihadist terror groups.
  • At least 60 applicants were accepted from Iran, and more than 2,000 from Venezuela, even though both nations are overtly hostile to the United States.
  • Applications were also accepted from Libyans, Syrians and Yemenis even though the Obama administration placed travel restrictions on nationals from those countries, due to terrorism concerns.

Based on the facts — rather than the myth — it seems clear the individuals who applied for, and received, DACA were not the oppressed, well-meaning, high-achievers that the media and the open-borders lobby portrayed them to be.

 


Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.