U.S. judge blocks new applicants to program that protects undocumented 'Dreamers'
Source: Washington Post
A federal judge in Texas has issued a split decision about an Obama administration initiative that grants undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children work permits and protection from deportation, dealing a partial blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to rescue the program. U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, a Republican appointee, sided with Texas and other states in his ruling that President Barack Obama (D) overstepped his executive authority when he created the program in 2012, when Biden was vice president.
Republican officials from Texas and several other states had sued and called for an “orderly wind down” of the program, arguing that it was unlawful and burdened states with costs for health-care, education and law enforcement. Hanen’s ruling called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an “illegally implemented program” and said “the public interest of the nation is always served by the cessation of a program that was created in violation of law and whose existence violates the law.
”But the judge said he recognized that legions of young immigrants — known as “Dreamers” — and their communities need the program, and said he would not wrest it from them as the Biden administration attempts to correct its deficiencies. More than 600,000 undocumented immigrants rely on the 2012 federal program to work legally and avoid deportation.“Hundreds of thousands of individual DACA recipients, along with their employers, states, and loved ones, have come to rely on the DACA program,” Hanen wrote in the ruling.
“Given those interests, it is not equitable for a government program that has engendered such a significant reliance to terminate suddenly. This consideration, along with the government's assertion that it is ready and willing to try to remedy the legal defects of the DACA program indicates that equity will not be served by a complete and immediate cessation of DACA.” Hanen issued a permanent injunction vacating the memo that created DACA in 2012, and remanded the issue to the Department of Homeland Security for reconsideration.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/daca-court-decision/2021/07/16/6c9a35be-e677-11eb-a41e-c8442c213fa8_story.html
Full headline: U.S. judge blocks new applicants to program that protects undocumented ‘Dreamers’ who arrived as children
Apparently trying to send this back up the flagpole to the SCOTUS with what they think includes a "sweetener" with it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It figures that he was appointed by a GOP potus, because of course. 
I.e., in order to repeal an E.O., there has to be a good amount of justification which wasn't there because the cockiness that they could do what they wanted, was strong. So any cogent reasons why weren't even considered to be needed.
But then that is probably why this is being sent up the chain again to prompt some kind of ruling to eliminate the program by hook or crook.
who were not born here but brought here by their undocumented parents.
Congress has so far been unable to pass the "Dream Act", versions of which go back some 20 years. What the E.O. does (which is what any E.O. is designed to do) is direct how Executive Branch agencies should carry out existing law. So as part of that, the DACA E.O. did this -
Tom Cohen, CNN
Updated 1:17 PM EDT, Sat June 16, 2012
(snip)
Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.
It also will allow those meeting the requirements to apply for work permits, Napolitano said, adding that participants must be in the United States now and be able to prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.
The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said, adding it was “well within the framework of existing laws.”
https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html
I.e., what the "new" direction then did was instead of targeting children, or adults who were brought here as children, to round up and deport, it freed up resources for ICE to actually go after true violent criminals. It also doesn't provide a path to citizenship, which would require actual legislation - just temporary residency until such time when the permanent residency process can move forward, and be completed. Of course of the hundreds of thousands who were brought here as children, many (and probably most) are grown adults now, having lived and worked in the country for some time, yet have no paperwork. I.e., this is the only home they know.
The thing with the SCOTUS and partisanship is that they have to step lightly when it comes to E.O.'s because the shoe might be on the other foot one day, which is probably why they try to find some "technicality" to avoid a definitive ruling on some of the carefully written ones.
