قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / The Supreme Court does not want to decide the fate of "dreamers" yet

The Supreme Court does not want to decide the fate of "dreamers" yet



The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump government's highly unusual offer to evade a federal appeals court and force judges to intervene in the fate of a program that protects hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation.

The announcement means the case that concerns "Dreamer" must work its way through the lower courts before a Supreme Court ruling is possible. The case could also become controversial if the Congress takes action in the meantime. Right now, however, efforts to tackle the issue in Congress have triggered a stalemate.

The decision of the Supreme Court to stay away from the case of delayed action for the arrival in the Obama era (DACA) was not surprising. It is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to hear a case before a Dutch court of appeal has considered it.

But DACA supporters welcomed the decision as a significant ̵

1; albeit temporary – victory. Trump said the case would now be heard by a court of appeal and "we'll see what happens there."

"You know, we tried to implement it quickly, because we want to help DACA, I think everyone in this room wants to help with DACA," he said guest governors. "But the Supreme Court has just decided that it must go through the normal channels."

DACA provided protection against deportation and work permits for some 800,000 young people who illegally arrived and remained illegally in the US as children In September, Trump argued that President Barack Obama had exceeded his executive powers when he created the program. Trump announced that he would terminate the program with effect from 5 March and until then gave the legislators a legislative solution.

But in recent weeks, federal judges in San Francisco and New York have temporarily held Trumps deadline for those who have requested and granted renewals English: www.mjfriendship.com/cms/index.php?id=126&L=1. The judges issued interim injunctions ordering the administration to maintain the DACA, while the courts considered the legal challenges to Trump 's dismissal. English: www.comece.org/comece.taf?_function…&language=en. As a result, US immigration authorities resumed DACA renewals until January, just as Trump announced in September.

The Trump administration has not attempted to block the injunctions forcing them to continue operating the program. Although the date of March 5 is now controversial, Greisa Martinez, political and advocacy director for United We Dream, said DACA supporters were planning to demonstrate in Washington that day to put pressure on Congress.

The Senate two weeks ago blocked a bipartisan bill that offered Dreamers potential citizenship and provided $ 25 billion to President Donald Trump to build his proposed border wall with Mexico. A more conservative House proposal, which severely restricts legal immigration and imposes other restrictions, missed the GOP polls and called into question its fate.

The Supreme Court's announcement on Monday that it was not in The case now means that the US Appellate Court is likely to be the first for the Ninth Appeal Court of Appeals dealing with the issue, the step before the Supreme Court

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has joined the other In a lawsuit to uphold the DACA, the Supreme Court protested Monday [19659002] "It's a win for all dreamers, certainly a big win for California," said Becerra during a phone call with reporters. "It's a Victim For the rule of law, this is a victory and a victory for our economy."

The Ninth Appeals Council has not set a date to hear arguments, but has provided the lawyers with data that they have until April have to fill out. Andrew Pincus, a lawyer representing more than 100 companies intervening in support of the DACA, said that June is probably the earliest that the court would rule.

Trump on Monday did not seem to have much hope of winning the Ninth Circuit: "Nothing is as bad as the Ninth Circuit"

"I mean, it's really sad when every single case is filed against us in the 9th Circuit we lose, we lose, we lose and then we do it well in the Supreme Court, "he said.

Elliot Spagat contributed to this report by San Diego and Jill Colvin, while Mark Sherman and Alan Fram contributed from Washington.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *