Supreme Court Appears Inclined To Let Trump End DACA Program | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

Supreme Court Appears Inclined To Let Trump End DACA Program | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC 1

 

A bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to let the Trump administration follow through on its plan to shut down DACA, the federal program that has allowed nearly 800,000 young people, known as dreamers, to avoid deportation and remain in the U.S. MSNBC's Pete Williams reports. Aired on 11/12/19
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Supreme Court Appears Inclined To Let Trump End DACA Program | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

43 Comments on "Supreme Court Appears Inclined To Let Trump End DACA Program | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC"

  1. surely you joke, mein failüre | November 12, 2019 at 6:28 PM | Reply

    This miscarriage of justice brought to you by “Moscow Mitch” McConnell, who worked to prevent Obama from seating a SCOTUS justice and who then greased the skids for Trump to seat two of them.

  2. This is just FFFFF’D up..I BOOFED myself when I heard this story….
    Perhaps the Devils Triangle game tonight will take my mind off it..

  3. Long Tall Texan | November 12, 2019 at 6:52 PM | Reply

    That is typical of the raging incoherence that infects virtually every policy position taken by Trump. He is profoundly ignorant and incapable of forming rational arguments. And that’s just another reason why he is utterly unfit to serve as president. He is not just an embarrassment to the nation, he is an imminent danger. But at least he is adept at cramming loads of gooey nonsense into his half-witted (at best) tweets.

    • “he is utterly unfit to serve as president” Yes he is, we knew that before he got the job but if 2018 and 2019 elections are any indication, he wont be with us for long.

  4. That if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such person because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
    – President Theodore Roosevelt 1905

    • The key word is “immigrant” and the key phrase is “becomes an American.” An immigrant is someone who has permanent legal status. That does not include illegals. It does not include DACA recipients. As far as “becoming an American” I think Roosevelt intended that to include legal immigrants who became American citizens.

    • That’s a great quote that applies to immigrants………this story is not about that though……..

    • A quote from 1905….we are in 2019!!!!

  5. Ending DACA just isn’t illegal or unconstitutional, so no big surprise. The Supreme Court isn’t the arbiter of how just a policy is, just whether or not the constitution or laws passed by congress allow the President to do it. In this case there is nothing stopping Trump from undoing one Presidents executive order with another. The Dream Act never passed into law.

  6. Tell all them daca plp to assemble in a small fenced in area for their safety…. Then deport them. Trump does not need a reason that roberts requires…

  7. Remember when DACA ripped into Nancy Pelosi, calling her a liar and not getting them permanent status. So much fun to watch.

    • I do remember that .. but then this is the DACA/dreamers mentality.. They don’t care about what is in conflict with their desires.. just that they have their way.. Obama himself clearly stated what DACA “WAS” and and what is “WASN’T and I quote “Now, let’s be clear — this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.” Pres Barrack Obama at the announcement of DACA (second paragraph) 6/15/2012..Sounds pretty clear to me..So since they don’t want to live up the the conditions of accepting DACA and taking that deferment with the understanding that its only “temporary” Are they willing to give back to this nation 7.5 years of social support and security??..The free education (k-12) the abilty to work”temporarily”..Those were all part of the program..You took the “deferment” DACA and understood its “just temporary”..Now when the temporary is coming to an end you say.. “wait a minute now” I wanted more….. Just as faithless as mom and dad

  8. Colleges are stealing intellect property from Mexico by letting DACA stay SEND THEM BACK MAKE MEXICO GREAT AGAIN

    • Anonymous Larry | November 13, 2019 at 7:37 PM | Reply

      Honestly, it won’t be all that bad. If they focused on making their own country great, we would have 3 great nations in North America. And I’m all for that.

  9. REPLACE DACA WITH REPARATION!!! See how far it goes!!!

    #nowhere

  10. THEY CAN ALL DREAM ABOUT THEM GOING BACK TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY !
    No FREE RIDE FOR ILLEGALS ALIENS DEPORTATION FOR THEM ALL

    • They’re not illegal immigrants. They have us work permits and such. Which means they aren’t getting a free ride and are actually paying taxes when they receive a paycheck. Please do your research

  11. that wasn't.chicken | November 13, 2019 at 4:03 PM | Reply

    Looks like it’s starting to sink in!! democraps lost!! NO quid pro quo!!…..haw haw!!

  12. Absolutely ridiculous !! They’re here gone to school serve in the military know nothing but this country but they’re pawns should’ve been put on a path to citizenship long ago !!
    And what’s up with these Russian bots using black avatars ?

  13. Dreamers need to grow up and face the fact that they were smuggled in past the immigration cue.

    • @nigel cairns OK Nigel.. lets reverse that argument and see if you think its valid..Should children benefit from their parents illegal acts..Should the children of a bank robber get to keep the money???

    • @nigel cairns How much does La Raza pay you to troll???..just a layman who is trying to wade through the propaganda.. DACA had to prove they arrived under the age of 16 prior to 6/15/2007, be “in school” or have a H.S. diploma or GED equivalent, have a nearly clean criminal record and cannot be over 31 on the day of the announcement (the military exclusion).. Mind you “arrived” not “conceived” so the average age of a DACA is in the mid to later 20s.. The minimum education level would be a H.S. or GED equivalent unless they are still “in school” at the extremely young side … an infant in mid 2007 would be 12 and 1/2 minimum.. but would mom and dad sign them up for DACA at that young an age??

    • @Kevin Rehberg Hi_ I came here illegally myself, so I think you have misunderstood me

  14. Joseph Christopher | November 16, 2019 at 4:42 PM | Reply

    Good .
    No line cutters.
    I
    Me and my family have been waiting 12 years. Dont reward bad behavior

  15. The purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the “Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision of 1857” and did nothing more than this. It was about granting citizenship to freed African slaves. The 14th Amendment gave naturalize citizenships to all freed African slaves and their children are natural born United States citizens. Under the 14th Amendment only naturalized or natural born United States citizens parents can have children that have birthright citizenships.
    14th Amendment Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause meaning is political jurisdiction example Native Americans had their own tribal jurisdiction therefore not subject to the American jurisdiction this includes foreigners and aliens that are subject to home countries jurisdiction and allegiance. Allegiance and/or citizenships although different words they have the same meaning. Foreigners and aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction therefore their United States born children allegiance are in question and are not naturalized or natural born United States citizens.

    Civil Rights Act of 1866

    All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

    The civil rights acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed by the U.S. Congress in an effort to make full citizens of and guarantee the rights of the freed slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) had abolished slavery throughout the nation, and Congress was faced with how to enfranchise this population

    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 has the same meaning as the 14th Amendment but written differently in such a way so that it cannot be misinterpreted. Such as claiming birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents

    Anchor babies are not United States citizens. Birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens parents started after the 1965 Immigration act it was a decision made by executive fiat not authorized by the senior executive ranks and only congress that has the authority to make such changes, decisions, and law. President Donald Trump has the authority to reverse this un-authorized executive fiat decision retroactively without the consent of congress. This is what the executive order is all about. This is the same as reversing DACA executive order made by President Obama it will be an uphill court fight. Congress never authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents in the 1965 immigration act. Congress in its entire history never authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents. Judges in court will be constantly asking questions did congress by law authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents? No! The court case will not be about whether the 14th Amendment authorizes birthright citizenships but about reversing an executive decision. Congress needs not get involved.

    The executive or the president oversee enforcement of immigration laws. Enforcing the laws as they are written and following strict constitutional protocols is fully constitutional. The 14th amendment is not being followed to its original intent as Senator Jacob Howard R-MI statement of intent.

    Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: “The 14th Amendment granted citizenship only to the recently freed African slaves. It did not grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. It did not grant citizenship to Native American Indians. It did not grant citizenship to foreigners or their children born on U.S. soil.” Senator Jacob Howard R-MI: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Senator Jacob Howard R-MI, 1866 14th Amendment author.

    By signing an executive order reinforcing the original intent of the 14th Amendment is fully constitutional because President Donald Trump is not violating constitution, not promoting or creating laws by executive order legislation, DACA by executive order did violate the constitution only congress has the authority to create immigration law. But the congress and the states by constitutional amendment have already express that only decedents of African slaves are covered by the 14th amendment. It was about reversing the “Dred Scott case of 1857” were African American slaves lost in the Supreme Court case gaining their United States citizenships.

    By signing an executive order reinforcing the original intent of the 14th amendment is fully constitutional. Keep in mind most judges have already made up their minds on the 14th Amendment vs. birthright citizenship. Of course, this executive order will be challenge in the courts by anchor babies because they will lose their United States citizenships retroactively. For anchor babies some very uncomfortable questions will be asked in the courts, were Native Americans covered by the 14th Amendment? No! Native Americans got their United States citizenships by the “Indian citizenship act of June 2nd, 1924”. Proof that only freed African slaves were covered by the 14th Amendment. The “Indian citizenship act of June 2nd, 1924” gave naturalize citizenships to all native Americans and their children are natural born United States citizens. If native Americans were not covered by the 14th Amendment why do you say persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens are US Citizens when Senator Jacob Howard R-MI made statement of intent “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

    This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    Lawyers it will be really challenging to answer this question!

    Before the 1965 immigration act babies born on United States soil of foreign and alien parents were not citizens and were later deported to their parents’ home countries. Did congress authorize birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents in the 1965 immigration act? No!

    Lawyers it will be really challenging to answer this question!

    Did the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents? No! Because of the Chinese exclusionary act of 1882 congress by law excludes all Chinese from getting United States citizenships. The federal government executive never allowed children from Chinese parents who were Chinese citizens to become United States citizens. Even after the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision. United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment therefore should be overturned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znzyPlk4Zy4

  16. They riding off.the 14th amendment.which was meant for slaves

  17. These illegal immigrants have taken over whole communities.from all 50 states

    • We haven’t taken over anything we just want to be able to live our lives and work towards proper citizenship i dont understand what your problem is with us but it sounds personal

  18. The would help housing problems.specially in California and east coast

  19. What’s the matter all of you anti illegals are not answering the comment I made because you know I am right and you don’t have a base to your argument!

  20. WHY THEY DO NOT ASK THE CREATERS TO EXPLAIN THE MAINING OF THIS PROGRAM TO THEM ?? INSTEAD TO QUESTION THE WRONG PERSON.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.