Daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the l
Based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the law to its logical extreme since it undermines confidence in the rule of law itself and conflicts with the agencys Law Enforcement mission. I would like to begin with the review ability question. If the
Argument, which took place in november. Argument first this morning in case 18 587, the department of Homeland Security the university of california and the related cases. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, in 20, the dr. Ircuit held that daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded
Well what is the problem . And when you start thinking about what is the problem, it goes to a lot of different directions. You have an issue of global migration, you have immigration and immigration policy. You have refugees and displaced persons, and you have the treatment and according to the un, there are 272 million migrants in the world, so you talk about people that have moved from country to country, that is a large number. There have been three and a half part of the global perception, but the bigger number is 70 million displaced persons, and if you think about, that we are living at a time when we see more people forced out of their lives and out of their homes. And you see these people on the move. Over half of the refugees that are in other countries are from three countries, syria afghanistan, and south sudan, which is also really striking. When you think about what this means for policies, then theres obviously policies for handling refugees, policies for migration, poli
Resting on saying every attendee look at a temperature check, be offered Hand Sanitizer, and a mask. We are going to be in oklahoma and its a crowd like nobody seen before. We have tremendous requests for tickets like that has never happened politically before. Oklahoma i believe is in phase three so you can have gatherings of a certain number indoors and i know that people are adhering to the protocols, but we cant pick and choose who can be where wearing a mask or not based on our politics. Based on whether some people think that folks are irredeemable and deplorable. Sandra here we go live to tulsa where Mark Meredith is watching folks start the lineup has some rain may be heading in. Good morning. You are right, light rain at the moment. For the folks that are out here, you can see they have been lined up here overnight and pushing some of those supporters out and now theyve got the Police Setting up the barricade, but still so many questions about what a rally will look like in te