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

Adjust Comment Print

The Trump administration has resumed receiving renewal applications for individuals eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

"Until further notice, and unless otherwise provided in this guidance, the DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded on September 5, 2017", the update said.

"The government can still appeal, and a higher court can overrule and stop the process again", he said, adding that Congress could also enact a new federal law covering the Dreamers if negotiations over DACA are successful in the coming weeks.

"Hello my people just got the news that USCIS will be accepting DACA applications starting now". At a minimum, members would like to see these principles included: a permanent legislative solution for DACA recipients, increased border security measures, and reforms to address the backlog of immigration cases in our courts.

Young undocumented immigrants, known as "Dreamers", rally outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu set to arrive in India today
In July a year ago , Modi visited Israel as the first Indian Prime Minister since the establishment of bilateral ties in 1992. He said the Indian prime minister will host Netanyahu in his home state and termed it as an "important gesture".

More: What is DACA and who qualified?

The USCIS announcement comes on the heels of U.S. District Judge William Alsup's issuance on Tuesday of a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration's effort to rescind the program. As of the end of March, more than 200,000 people had been initially approved for the program, meaning they could legally work and were protected from deportation.

The agency said it won't be processing applications for those who have never before received DACA protections and no new applications will be accepted.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the ruling.

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.