After protesting against a President they support, for policies he supported but didn't really support, but that U.S. Citizens actually did support, they won. POTUS has backed down. Who is they? Well, we're not really sure but whoever they are they support people being in the country who did not have the proper authorization to do so. That makes me think "they" are probably very ethical people who believe in the rule of law. So what does all this gibberish mean? It means the U.S. Federal Government is no longer enforcing the laws of the United States because they've decided their efforts could be better directed elsewhere. Where you ask? Well toward immigrants who came to the country in violation of immigration law who also happen to have "criminal" backgrounds. What's the difference you ask? Semantics, I answer. Did you know that speeding is technically not "criminal" but you'd probably say it's still illegal wouldn't you? I mean you went faster than the law permitted.... so that's not complying with the law. It's "illegal" then no? Ah, oh well. Here's a map of the estimated population of "unauthorized" immigrants who reside in the country. As of three years ago. Imagine what it is today.
Also, they have decided, at least in part, to overule the law which has already been adjudicated. The head of the Department of Homeland Security recently said this: Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance" on how to provide for "appropriate discretionary consideration" for “compelling cases” in instances where someone has already been ordered out of the country by a judge. SOooo, here we have the Administration saying they want to make a better use of their resources by focusing on high priority cases. However, the woman charged with keeping us safe has said she will provide "guidance" to revisit cases which were "compelling." What the heck does that mean? It means they are getting a group of people together (i.e. "resources") and making them spend time, effort and money on re-reviewing cases which were "compelling" (i.e. involving people of influence) to provide "guidance" (i.e. obfuscation of the law) so that "justice" (i.e. garnering political votes) may occur.
In the end, the U.S. Secretary of the DHS has openly announced that she intends to overrule a judges decision. How is that possible? What POSSIBLE guidance could you give to a judge who has already ruled a person should be deported pursuant to the law of the United States of America?!?! What the hell is going on in this country?