This program protects them from deportation immigrants under 30 years of age, arrived clandestinely in their childhood in the United States. Donald Trump wanted to put an end to it.
The supreme Court of the United States has dealt a blow Thursday to Donald Trump in validating the protections granted by his predecessor to 700,000 migrant youth, the Dreamers, the billionaire republican wanted to remove. The high court deemed it “arbitrary” and “capricious” decision of the republican administration in a decision taken by a narrow majority (five judges out of nine). Donald Trump was immediately denounced on Twitter a decision “horrible” and “oriented politically”.
The democratic president Barack Obama had lifted in 2012, the threat of eviction weighing on these “Dreamers” (dreamers), the nickname given to immigrants under the age of 30 years old, arrived illegally in their childhood in the United States, and had given them a social security number, sesame essential to work, drive or study in the United States.
Trump deemed the program “illegal”
In 2017, his republican successor, who has made the fight against illegal immigration one of his horses to battle, has decided to put an end to this program called DACA, the decree is “illegal”. Seized in an emergency, the court had suspended his decision, offering a reprieve for “Dreamers”. The government had then appealed to the highest court, which finally decided to give him wrong for reasons of procedure.
Read our complete file
Donald Trump, president of the United States
United States : Trump freezes the green cards and many work visas until 2021 At its first meeting post-containment, Donald Trump calls for “less testing” Donald Trump says his ex-advisor Bolton will pay the price “strong” for his book, Your support is essential. Subscribe for $ 1 support Us
“We do not say if DACA or its elimination were political based. The ‘wisdom’ of these decisions is not our responsibility'”, writing in the judgment the chief justice John Roberts, who has joined his voice to his four fellow progressives. “We have only sought to know whether the government had followed the procedural obligations and provided an explanation reasoned to his action”, he continued. And in this folder “it has failed,” he concluded.
