I cringe when I see even Fox News use the term “migrants” to identify illegal aliens. These folks broke our laws, they did not migrate here, they are not undocumented, they are criminals that violated our laws.
Glad to see that a Court refuses to use the politically correct terms and instead uses the legal term: “illegal alien”.
“To qualify for Obama’s effective amnesty the illegal alien had to have come to the U.S. before he or she was sixteen, lived in the United States for at least five years, be in school or have a high school degree or an honorable discharge from the armed forces, and not have been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor.
The district court that initially reviewed this case concluded that Obama’s policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but temporarily stayed the application of the law to illegal aliens currently benefiting from DACA.”
U.S. Appeals Court Calls Illegal Aliens ‘Illegal Aliens’
By CNSNews.com Staff, 10/6/22
In a case reviewing the legality of the “Dreamers” program that President Barack Obama created to let some illegal aliens stay in the United States, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit repeatedly referred to illegal aliens as “illegal aliens.”
The opinion, written by Judge Priscilla Richman, did not refer to them, for example, as the New York Times did in its story about the court’s decision, as “young immigrants,” “immigrants,” and “young undocumented immigrants.”
The case, State of Texas vs. USA, which was brought by eight states against the Department of Homeland Security and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, challenged the policy issued by the Obama Administration in 2012 that allowed illegal aliens who had come to the United States as minors to stay in the United States.
To qualify for Obama’s effective amnesty the illegal alien had to have come to the U.S. before he or she was sixteen, lived in the United States for at least five years, be in school or have a high school degree or an honorable discharge from the armed forces, and not have been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor.
The district court that initially reviewed this case concluded that Obama’s policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but temporarily stayed the application of the law to illegal aliens currently benefiting from DACA.
“In ruling on competing motions for summary judgement, the district court held that the DACA Memorandum violates procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),” said the appeals court.
“The district court vacated the DACA Memorandum and remanded to DHS for further consideration but temporarily stayed that vacatur as it applies to current DACA recipients,” said the appeals court.
“We affirm the district court’s judgment in part, but remand to the district court rather than DHS in light of a final rule promulgated by DHS in August 2022,” said the appeals court.
That new final rule issued by Biden’s DHS updated Obama’s DACA policy into a federal regulation.
The appeals court then summarized the district court’s decision on DACA.
“The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the States,” the appeals court said. “It concluded that DACA violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the APA. The court held that DACA was procedurally deficient because it failed to undergo notice and comment. DACA was not a general policy statement exempt from notice and comment because it involved ‘significant rights and obligations’ and imposed ‘fixed criteria.’
“The district court further held,” said the appeals court, “that DACA was substantially unlawful because in violated the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] and other immigration statutes.
“The district court concluded that DACA was ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction’ and ‘short of statutory right’… because “Congress’s clear articulation of laws for removal, lawful presence, and work authorization illustrates a manifest intent to reserve for itself the authority to determine the framework of our nation’s immigration system.”
“On summary judgement,” said the appeals court, “the district court held that DACA violates the APA’s procedural and substantive requirements.”
The appeals court then concluded that Obama’s DACA policy did in fact violate the APA.
“DACA created a detailed, streamlined process for granting enormously significant, predefined benefits to over 800,000 people,” said the appeals court. “This constitutes a substantive rule. Because DACA did not undergo notice and comment, it violates the procedural requirements of the APA.”
“Congress determined which aliens can receive these benefits, and it did not include DACA recipients among them,” said the appeals court. “We agree with the district court’s reasoning and its conclusions that the DACA Memorandum contravenes comprehensive statutory schemes for removal, allocation of lawful presence, and allocation of work authorization.”
“There is no ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power that DHS claims,” said the court.
“DACA ‘is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to statute,’” said the appeals court. “DACA violates the substantive requirements of the APA.”
Despite this, the appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further consideration. “The legal question that DACA presents are serious, both to the parties and to the public,” said the appeals court. “In our view, the defendants have not shown that there is a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits. But we are mindful that, in the similar DAPA case, the Supreme Court was equally divided over our judgement.”
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part,” said the appeals court. “The case is REMANDED to the district court, rather than DHS. The motion for a partial stay is GRANTED pending a further order of this court or the Supreme Court.”
In the course of making its argument, the appeals court repeatedly used the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal aliens.”
For example, it said: “The DACA Memorandum provides that an illegal alien qualifies for relief from removal and specified benefits if that person…came to the United States before the age of sixteen…”
It also said: “The States make clear in their filings and briefing that once the DACA program has ended, former DACA recipients should be removed on the same basis as any other similarly situated illegal alien.”
It also said: “The record does not indicate precisely what portion of all costs for illegal aliens is spent on DACA recipients, but no one disputes that some are.”
It further said: “It identifies expenditures in providing emergency medical services, social services and public education for illegal aliens.”
On Oct. 5, the New York Times published a news story about the appeals court decision that was headlined: “Appeals Court Says DACA Is Illegal but Keeps Program Alive for Now.”
In this story, the Times referred to the foreign nationals allowed to stay in the United States under the Obama Administration’s DACA policy as “young immigrants,” “immigrants,” and “young undocumented immigrants.”
Unlike the appeals court, it did not use the term “illegal alien.”
“The ruling affirmed a lower court decision that deemed a program protecting about 600,000 young immigrants from deportation to be illegal but allowed current recipients to renew their status,” said a subhead on the Times’ story as published online.
“A federal appeals court panel ruled on Wednesday that a program that protects nearly 600,000 young immigrants from deportation is illegal but allowed those already enrolled to renew their status — in essence keeping the status of the program unchanged but its future uncertain,” said the first paragraph of the Times’ story.
“Immigration advocates said the ruling signaled that the only chance for DACA to survive was for Congress to pass a law to protect young immigrants, something it has been unable to do for more than two decades,” the Times’ story went on to say.
“Former President Barack Obama created DACA through executive action in 2012 after years of inaction in Congress to provide permanent protection to immigrants who were brought to the country as children, a group referred to as ‘Dreamers,’” reported the Times.
“The Biden administration has repeatedly called on lawmakers to pass legislation enshrining protections for young undocumented immigrants,” said the Times’ story.
