A day after President Trump and US Attorney General Jeff Sessions officially ended the Obama-era DACA program, protests evolved and continue today. In front of Trump Tower in New York City, DACA supporters arrested by NYPD cops were boarded in police transport vans while beat cops kept careful crowd control measures.
Protesters who decided it was a good idea to link arms and sit across ordinarily-busy Fifth Avenue, blocking traffic in front of Trump Tower while refusing lawful orders to vacate the public roadway, were arrested by NYPD officers. Besides obstructing vehicular traffic, protesters also impeded pedestrian flow at the front doors of Trump Tower; atop the doors are the words “Open to the Public.”
"Dreamers" currently vandalizing Trump Tower with rocks, bottles, bricks, NYPD just moved in & made 16 arrest so far pic.twitter.com/0xeergfHU1
— Whitehouse Plumber (@rharrisonfries) September 5, 2017
On September 5, 2017 the Trump administration, via Live broadcast of a statement read by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announced the draw-down of Obama’s 2012 program–Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Obama’s DACA is a long-held initiative deemed unconstitutional and highly controversial regarding the tacit skirting of immigration law. DACA provided ample benefits to children brought here illegally by parents who sidestepped US immigration laws by crossing the border without achieving citizenship through naturalization. Some of those in that tacit approval box are federal, state, and city elected officials.
On the heels of announcing an end to DACA and multiple cities’ warranted arrests of protesters, several state attorneys general linked their arms together and invoked a lawsuit to thwart President Trump’s efforts to enforce immigration laws. Primarily, mostly Democrats seek to legally forestall DACA-based deportations.
NY State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was among the cadre of state officials whose intent is to litigate DACA in the courts and protect so-called “dreamers” from being sent back to their origins.
NY State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was among the cadre of state officials whose intent is to litigate DACA in the courts and protect so-called “dreamers” from being sent back to their origins. Via Twitter, News Channel NYC announced:
— News Channel NYC (@NewsChannelNYC) September 6, 2017
Mr. Schneiderman prepared a statement argues “due process rights” and spread himself thin on multiple media outlets to defend DACA.
I want to speak directly to the tens of thousands of DREAMers in NY:
We see you. We hear you. We care about you.
And we have your back.
— Eric Schneiderman (@AGSchneiderman) September 6, 2017
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has also been hitting the airwaves about suing President Trump over the end of DACA, as reported by The Seattle Times, saying, ““There’s a lot of conversation going on right now amongst a handful of Democratic AGs” about DACA and how they collectively feel “it’s immoral and it’s illegal.” At this point composed by 15 states, their lawsuit seeks to undermine President Trump’s plans to end DACA by possibly using a legal strategy known as “estoppel.” By definition of Merriam-Webster, estoppel is “a legal bar to alleging or denying a fact because of one’s own previous actions or words to the contrary.”
Washington State Governor Jay Inslee described it as a legal tenet to thwart the government from rescinding earlier promises or directives. Relating to DACA, Gov. Inslee asserts we as a nation formed a pact with children brought here illegally (dreamers) to reside and attain employment here providing they stay trouble-free. That was the handshake involving Obama (and all those on Capitol Hill who tacitly went along with it), not President Trump.
In this particular context, I see that legal principle flying like a wingless bird: not at all.
“There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so,” Wikipedia material included. To me, that sounds quite subjective in nature. Moreover, the “inequitable” factor also applies to taxpaying citizens who certainly have their say by way of citizenship and principles of legitimate investment.