The judge rejects the motion to stop the Immigrant Dreamer program, but ultimately can decide against DACA

Immigrants and their allies begin a 15-day walk from Battery Park in New York to Washington D.C. in an effort to draw attention to the need to protect

The judge rejects the motion to stop the Immigrant Dreamer program, but insinuates that it will eventually fail against DACA

  • The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program protects the & # 39; Dreamers & # 39; – Immigrants who entered the country illegally when they were children – from deportation
  • A federal judge rejected a motion on Friday to immediately block DACA, saying it would be harmful to end it abruptly and eight states were delayed with legal action.
  • The judge alluded to his eventual disappearance, saying that the program was probably illegal

Valerie Bauman Social Affairs Reporter for Dailymail.com

A federal judge in Texas ruled Friday against the immediate suspension of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, but indicated that his final decision in the case likely killed the program.

DACA protects some 700,000 immigrants, known as "Dreamers", from deportation because their parents brought them to the United States as minors.

Texas and seven other states are suing the federal government in an effort to end DACA, arguing that the program hurts states and their residents. The Trump administration has refused to defend DACA, leaving the immigrant defense groups to take the case to court.

Immigrants and their allies begin a 15-day walk from Battery Park in New York to Washington D.C. in an effort to draw attention to the need to protect the "Dreamers" in February.

The program is likely to be illegal and its advocates will likely lose in their efforts to preserve it, District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his decision rejecting a motion to prevent DACA from continuing.

While Hanen said that DACA is probably illegal, he cited two reasons for not granting a court order to stop it immediately.

The first problem was punctuality; Hanen said that by waiting five years to take legal action, the states could not prove that DACA was immediately damaging and deserved urgent action.

The second problem was that ending the program would be harmful because it had already been in effect for years.

"The egg has been scrambled," Hanen wrote. "Trying to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary record of precautionary measures, and perhaps with a great risk for many, does not make sense or serve the best interests of this country."

Many legal experts expected Hanen to rule against DACA on Friday's decision because previously it had blocked the implementation of a similar program that would have protected parents of US citizens who were illegally in the country from being deported and separated from their children.

If Hanen had ruled in favor of a precautionary measure that would stop DACA immediately, it would have triggered a conflict with three federal orders in other states that have demanded that the US government. UU Continue accepting program renewals despite President Donald Trump's efforts to finalize the program last year.

Asian American Dreamers and their allies unite in New York City in October 2017 in support of DACA

Asian American Dreamers and their allies unite in New York City in October 2017 in support of DACA

Asian American Dreamers and their allies unite in New York City in October 2017 in support of DACA

Ad

.