Dems unveil immigration plan B - Page 4
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2MoreYears
Thanks to a Democrat you have DACA. Don't need to agree with everything they stand for but at least you have to recognize they're the ones trying to help you, and for the record, have helped you.
Obama literally put his junk in the fire for us, that lifeline handed out to us is priceless. Idiotic you and others alike prefer Trump's balls instead. |
IMHO, Harry Reid was a better majority leader than the current one we have.
Last edited by Sorrybrah; 09-21-2021 at 10:06 PM..
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demise
I guess that it's not a fundamental change of law. You're just striking out one date and putting in another rather than establishing a completely new process.
245(i) would help IRs who entered without inspection, and anyone that can get some kind of immigration petition for them. Also going further 245(i) should have no date limitation attached to it. The immigration system needs a safety valve for any future undocumented population to bleed out into legal status through. |
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ralsingh
It is difficult to understand after the parliamentarian's "plan A" ruling, how she could agree on any provision that gives legal status to those who have NO status at all.
Democrats, who clearly don't seem to be serious to solve this (given their genius plan Bs and Cs), can ask to move registry date, changes to section 245(i), etc... as long as it legalized those who have NO status, I don't see how the parliamentarian will walk back on her initial ruling. The only sliver of hope is to give PERMANENT legal status to those who already have some form of TEMPORARY legal status (like DACA, TPS, EBV etc.). From a policy change perspective, temporary to permanent is less of policy change THAN no status to permanent status. The scale of policy change is what she is worried about. Again, even this is on shaky grounds. |
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demise
I guess that it's not a fundamental change of law. You're just striking out one date and putting in another rather than establishing a completely new process.
245(i) would help IRs who entered without inspection, and anyone that can get some kind of immigration petition for them. Also going further 245(i) should have no date limitation attached to it. The immigration system needs a safety valve for any future undocumented population to bleed out into legal status through. |
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DACAgogue
Lucky for you, DACA is not legal status. You killed your own argument so quickly
|
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ralsingh
It is difficult to understand after the parliamentarian's "plan A" ruling, how she could agree on any provision that gives legal status to those who have NO status at all.
Democrats, who clearly don't seem to be serious to solve this (given their genius plan Bs and Cs), can ask to move registry date, changes to section 245(i), etc... as long as it legalized those who have NO status, I don't see how the parliamentarian will walk back on her initial ruling. The only sliver of hope is to give PERMANENT legal status to those who already have some form of TEMPORARY legal status (like DACA, TPS, etc.). From a policy change perspective, temporary to permanent is less of policy change THAN no status to permanent status. The scale of policy change is what she is worried about. Again, even this is on shaky grounds. |
That is what I was thinking, too. DACA recipients despite having no legal status are allowed to work, travel, and buy houses, etc. due to having work permits. So, the parliamentarian’s argument falls flat at least when it comes to DACA recipients. One of her core arguments against granting legal status was that those who don’t enjoy the same benefits as legal immigrants and citizens get to enjoy those same benefits once they are legalized and that it is hard to measure those benefits…. Or something along that line… We already enjoy a lot of benefits that legal immigrants and citizens enjoy. There are limits, but she can’t argue those things can’t be measured or something.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ralsingh
It is difficult to understand after the parliamentarian's "plan A" ruling, how she could agree on any provision that gives legal status to those who have NO status at all.
Democrats, who clearly don't seem to be serious to solve this (given their genius plan Bs and Cs), can ask to move registry date, changes to section 245(i), etc... as long as it legalized those who have NO status, I don't see how the parliamentarian will walk back on her initial ruling. The only sliver of hope is to give PERMANENT legal status to those who already have some form of TEMPORARY legal status (like DACA, TPS, etc.). From a policy change perspective, temporary to permanent is less of policy change THAN no status to permanent status. The scale of policy change is what she is worried about. Again, even this is on shaky grounds. |
So 1)the 245i does not give status so the Parliamentarian shouldn't have a problem with it, 2) the 245i requires the applicant to pay a penalty fee which has budget implications and 3) and most important, the 245i has been approved at leat 2 times in the past so there's precedence.
OK so my thinking is that at the very least we should be able to get a new form of 245i approved by the Parliamentarian.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
__________________
Late 40's Dreamer (Holy Fucking shit I'm almost 50 and still dealing with this), aged out of original DACA and didn't have a chance to apply for extended DACA after Republicans killed it on the vine.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»