Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this


By Chris Jennewein

Photo: U.S. Supreme Court, by D.B. King via Wikimedia Commons

Reprinted from Times of San Diego, a member of the San Diego Online News Association

February 26, 2018 (San Diego) -- San Diego’s estimated 45,000 Dreamers got a reprieve from possible deportation Monday when the Supreme Court refused to hear a Trump administration challenge.

The court declined to overrule a lower court’s action that temporarily blocked ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on March 5.

The program, which allows immigrants brought to America illegally as children to live and work in the country, was terminated by President Trump last year, leaving it up to Congress to pass permanent protections.

The case now goes to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast. “It is assumed that the court of appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case,” the Supreme Court said.

Congress has been negotiating permanent protection for the Dreamers, but has been unable to reach an agreement. Trump has called for protections to be coupled with funding for his proposed border wall and changes to the immigration system.

The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce has said that deporting San Diego’s Dreamers would be disastrous for the local economy.

Image icon SupremeCourt-DBKingWikimediaCommons.png506.34 KB

Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.


How many

OK, just for the record, what number of illegals do Democrats/liberals want admitted to the United States? I mean, no matter what limits anyone tries to put on the influx, liberals always have an excuse as to why the particular limit is not valid (e.g. "They're veterans." or "They're upstanding citizens." or "We don't want to split up families." , etc., etc., etc. ) So, tell us all....when, if ever, does it stop? Or, is the truth what we all suspect; that Democrats/liberals want enough illegals to be admitted so that every single elected office in the United States is held by Democrats/liberals....voted in by the grateful illegals and/or their relatives? If that is not the case, then tell us.....WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF ILLEGALS?

I strongly agree with you

This has nothing to do with compassion for the tiny number of refugees
This has nothing to do with feelings
This has nothing to with good intentions
This has nothing to do with family history

Supporting illegals over the rights of citizens is ABUSE, THEFT, and aiding and abetting criminals. People have a hard enough time supporting their families without supporting illegals.

The rule of the law and the right of the People to be safe and have secure borders is sane and is NOT racist, is NOT some made up phobia and is NOT meaning people are lacking in compassion.
You are correct the dems have kept blacks down for a long time, now they need a new demographic
Look at the mayor of oakland, the murders and crime from citizens isn't enough , so lets import more

how about some compassion for people?

Why the sudden hatred toward immigrants?

Here's a bit on my family tree.  Some came fleeing the Nazis; their relatives who couldn't escape died in Nazi concentration camps.

One came here as a stowaway on a ship at 11 years old, after watching sodliers burn in village in a pogrom in Austria-Hungary.

One escaped starvation during the potato famine in Ireland; he came here and became a boxer at first as as a young man. 

There's also some Cherokee Native American blood in me; and we all now how the so-called "Americans" abused the Cherokees on the Cherokee trail of tears, where many died and all were forced off their lands.

And yes, I have a branch that traces back to the founding fathers including Patrick Henry of "give me liberty or give me death" fame, as well as some pioneers who crossed the west in covered wagons and a grandfather who lost everything in the Depression.

Why do you think immigrants who came here and built good lives for themselves are any less deserving of the American dream than others fortunate enough to have Mayflower ancestry or whatever else?

The people coming today are just as in fear of their lives, safety, and a safe future for their children -- fleeing drug gang violence in central America and Mexico, terrorist bombings in the middle East, starvation in parts of Africa, and so on.  America has also been welcoming up to a point -- quotas per year on immigration is one thing; totally barring all immigrants or worse, seeking to deport those who have lived law-abiding lives here for deacdes and kids brought here as young children is cruel and downright unAmerican in my book.  With  your attitude, I would never have been born. And yes, there were anti-immigrant sentiments throughout our history with every wave of immigrants including the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.  And every generation has contributed positive things to our society in the end.






Safe - for now

And I hope these innocent kids remain so. They were brought into this country as very young children having no choice in the matter. There's absolutely no reason for deporting them. I know a few, and they have become upstanding citizens, working hard and paying bills. In fact, many perform jobs which many others refuse to do. I agree that they stay - permanently.

comment from AG Becerra on the DACA decision

Attorney General Becerra: U.S. Supreme Court Instructs Trump Administration to Follow Regular Process to Appeal DACA Injunction

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today released a statement following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny a petition for certiorari in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lawsuit led by California and instead allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the case.

“Today the Supreme Court denied the federal government’s unusual and unnecessary request to bypass the Appeals Court review of our DACA lawsuit,” said Attorney General Becerra. “We look forward to explaining to the Ninth Circuit court that DACA is fully legal. For the sake of the Dreamers who help make our economy and our state strong, the rescission of DACA should not be allowed to stand.”

In January, Attorney General Becerra obtained a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration over its decision to end the DACA program. Other plaintiffs in the case include the Attorneys General for Maine, Maryland and Minnesota, as well as the University of California, individual Dreamers and other entities. The ruling in the district court for the Northern District of California blocked the Trump Administration’s rescission of DACA while the underlying case continues. The Court determined that the merits of California’s case are strong, that there would be immediate harm if the Administration’s plan to terminate DACA were to proceed, and that the public interest is served by prohibiting the Administration from ending DACA before the legal issues are ruled on. On January 13, the United States Citiz enship and Immigration Services (USCIS) quietly announced that it has resumed accepting requests to renew deferred action under DACA, per court order,  as a result of the preliminary injunction issued in Attorney General Becerra’s lawsuit.

The Trump Administration submitted a request to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. Attorney General Becerra opposed the Trump Administration's request, arguing that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should weigh in first. Attorney General Becerra argued that the Court of Appeals was the appropriate court to initially review the rulings by the district court, and that it is unnecessary to divert from usual legal procedures and bypass the Appeals Court. Today’s order by the U.S. Supreme Court means the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will review the preliminary injunction first.