Some takeaways from the 117-page memo

The entire thing is available here

This ruling is extremely puzzling to me. The first 100 pages break down in excruciating detail as to how the DACA violated the APA (Administrative Procedures Act), but then has a little five page blurb that there is some public benefit to having DACA exist so there's no reason to immediately cancel it without going to a full trial.

Summary of some interesting arguments being made in the case:

Page 45:

* The fifth district court is being asked to rule on if the entire program is legal or not to begin with. The three current injunctions only deal with whether or not the program was ended properly or not. As a result, the fifth district court doesn't care about the other districts because it's addressing a different issue. Because of that there's no risk of a circuit split (!) based on whatever decision the fifth district court makes.

Page 46:

* The plaintiffs (Texas et al) are asking the government to wind-down the program as the government had initially promised by refusing renewals, but we can just end the whole program right here right now.

Page 49:

* Texas spends $250M per year on 115,000 DACA individuals. According to a survey that was conducted, up to 22% of DACA recipients would leave the country if they lost their DACA status. That's really great for Texas! Even if those numbers are not exactly correct, all Texas has to do is demonstrate that it would have some benefit in rescinding DACA.

Page 54:

* The court doesn't care whether the benefits (ie: economic activity by DREAMers) outweigh their costs; the only question that the court has to answer is whether there is any injury.

Page ~58:

* A bunch of discussion about the Administrative Procedure Act which gives agencies the power to create policies clarifying existing laws. Agencies don't have to enforce all the laws at 100% efficiency (so say - a memo about prioritizing deporting criminal aliens is ok), but you can't create benefits for existing illegals contrary to existing laws (ie: what the INA prohibits)

Page 68~72:

* Previous rulings say that agencies are not allowed to utilize proprietorial discretion if the law is clear about a specific subject. In this case the INA says that visa overstays and EWIs are removable. The original 2012 memo says that DACA applicants should not be considered removable -- so DACA violates that part of the INA. Furthermore, there are already sections of the INA which allow for cancellation of removal, etc, so USCIS should've been using that mechanism instead of creating DACA.

Page ~74

* SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the whole point of immigration laws is to protect american jerbs from dirty illegals. DACA sidesteps that by giving dirty illegals work permits.

Page 76

* DACA also allows for AP which sidesteps the existing requirement that AP is for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit." DACA allows people to go overseas for whatever the fuck reason they want. It also clears EWI which is a clear circumvention of the inadmissibility standards in the INA. Over 20,000 DACA people have gotten AP and 3,000 of those have gone on to do an adjustment of status.

Page ~81

* The government can do deferred action on a case-by-case basis, but not at the scale of DACA. Furthermore, the DREAMer population has been addressed multiple times by congress via the many votes on DREAM act-type laws and the laws have never passed. Therefore it is the will of Congress to do nothing about DREAMers.

Page 84

* DHS should enforce immigration laws to send a signal that laws are being enforced here to prevent more people from entering illegally.

Page 87

* We already ruled against DAPA (this is mentioned every other page) and DACA is the same so the same argument applies even if the DACA population is smaller. Because if that wasn't so, DHS could create a special DACA-like program for every group and then use it to do a blanket coverage of all illegalls.

Also page 87

* The DACA population is more appealing than the DAPA population, but we only consider questions of law here.

Page ~90

* Congress keeps failing to pass DREAM Act-type legislation so you can't even use the argument that DACA is a temporary band aid like previous immigration non-enforcement programs.

Page ~93

* DACA did not go through the proper review-and-notice process of the APA. It has a big impact on everyone (both positive and negative) so it should've gone through that process.

Page 94, 98

* DACA has strict requirements which means that individual have no room to exercise discretion. DACA therefore doesn't utilize prosecutorial discretion.

Page 100~104

* Basically the court believes that the plaintiffs will succeed challenging DACA based on the failure of Government in going through the notice-and-comment process of the APA.

Page 108

* The fifth district court won't issue an immediate injunction because a substantial delays in bringing up the issue means that there is no urgency in the case.

Page 111

* Why didn't Texas ask for DACA to be rescinded at the same time as DAPA? Their argument was that the two programs are identical, after all.

Page 112~114

* A reason for not doing an immediate injunction is that the public may suffer due to DREAMers losing their legal status immediately. Furthermore, even if some DREAMers self deport after DACA was ended, the states will still be on the hook for providing services to illegal immigrants.

Page 115

* Let's maintain the status quo because "one cannot unscramble the egg" (actual quote).

Page 116

* It would be great if the dipshits in Congress would pass a law or something.

Page 117

* Even though we spent 100 pages describing in great detail just how DACA is illegal, we're still not going to provide preliminary injunctive relief.

Actions speak clearer than 117 page memo

This makes no sense, the 117 page memo is the action.

The action is DACA is still alive. This 117 memo tries to undermine it.

co-sign.

Hanen's words: 117 memo trying to justify death of DACA

Hanen's action: DACA kept alive

Facepalm at low IQ facepalms.

It's okay Got_DACA you'll gettem next time tiger.

Page 49:

* Texas spends $250M per year on 115,000 DACA individuals. According to a survey that was conducted, up to 22% of DACA recipients would leave the country if they lost their DACA status. That's really great for Texas! Even if those numbers are not exactly correct, all Texas has to do is demonstrate that it would have some benefit in rescinding DACA.

How is this possible? Can a judge pull numbers outta their ass like that?

22% would leave? This is a big load of baloney. More like 90% would remain.