Connecticut 'Dreamers' In Limbo, Despite Judge's Order To Keep DACA

Share

"Due to a federal court order, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA", the agency said. The program will be operated under the same terms as before the Trump administration rescinded the program on September 5, the agency said.

"This week, President Trump provided leadership on a hard issue that our nation has faced for decades and Main Street members want to help the president address our broken immigration system", said U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Chairman of the Republican Main Street Caucus. "Like the president's meeting with congressional leaders demonstrated, there are many different ideas on how we get there, but our members are committed to working with leadership to fix the problem - beginning with a solution that includes DACA, increased border security, and reducing the backlog in our immigration courts". That's even though a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restart the program that it canceled a year ago.

But last week, a federal judge in San Francisco said the almost 690,000 DACA recipients must retain their work permits and their protection from deportation while a lawsuit moves forward.

New Website Aims To Help Support Victims Of Human Trafficking
In 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline received 331 calls related to human trafficking in Pennsylvania. Department of Transportation to organize human trafficking prevention efforts, among other measures.

USCIS will only be accepting renewal applications from people previously approved for the DACA program.

Alsup said he thought racism could be the reason for President Donald Trump's plan to rescind protection from deportation to young undocumented immigrants, Bloomberg reported. That suit challenges the decision to end the program. Under Alsup's ruling, renewal applications must still be accepted, giving those approved another two years from the new date of their application approval.

Judge Alsup, however, ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed that in their claims that Trump's decision to end the program was "arbitrary and capricious" and based on a faulty legal premise.

Share