• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

August

  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The Lounge

Marie G. cont.

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
#1
01-27-2008, 12:22 AM
Senior Member
From Texas
Joined in May 2007
603 posts
free2be's Avatar
free2be
0 AP
Does anyone know, or know someone who would know, the exact legal basis behind the decision to let Marie stay while deporting her parents by the judge overseeing the Gonzales case? Or was it simply due to media exposure/Congressional intervention? Same question for the basis behind letting Juan Gomez stay.

All of the stories that I've read about her, Juan, and Tam Tran never go into that much detail on the exact how and why, and I really need the exact details. Any info. would be GREATLY appreciated.
__________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead


  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
free2be
View Public Profile
Send a private message to free2be
Find all posts by free2be
#2
01-27-2008, 12:28 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Sep 2007
1,507 posts
Youguysareawesome's Avatar
Youguysareawesome
0 AP
Marie's and Juan are both members. Although marie only posted once or twice. They are also both on facebook. I would try asking them but they both go to school so they may not get back to you right away.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Youguysareawesome
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Youguysareawesome
Find all posts by Youguysareawesome
#3
01-27-2008, 01:02 AM
Senior Member
Joined in May 2006
6,569 posts
Ianus's Avatar
Ianus
0 AP
It was the private bills that were introduced on their behalf,I think.I believe Homeland Security has a policy of issuing a stay of removal/deportation but as always it is still all up to Homeland Security.
Quote:
Stays and Administrative Review. As noted above, under the rules of both
the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship and the
House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, no private bill
shall be considered or acted upon by the Subcommittee until all avenues for
administrative and judicial relief have been exhausted.

If the beneficiary is subject
to removal/deportation, the mere introduction of a bill does not stay such
removal/deportation.
A stay will generally be authorized by the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) in the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) when it receives
a request for a report on information concerning a beneficiary’s case from either the
Senator House Subcommittee Chairman.
12
However, this stayi s granted as a matter
of custom and courtesy by the agency to the congressional subcommittee and thus is
purely discretionary, not legally mandated.
13
Under the Senate Subcommittee rules,
requests for reports on private bills will be made by the Subcommittee Chairman only
upon a written request addressed to the Chairman by the author of the bill.

The Senate Subcommittee will not request a report or make other communications to
defer deportation of beneficiaries who entered the United States as nonimmigrants,
stowaways, in transit, deserting crewmen, or without inspection through the land or
sea borders. The Subcommittee may make an exemption from this rule where the
bill is intended to prevent “unusual hardship” to the beneficiary or to U.S. citizens
related to the beneficiary and the author of the bill has submitted complete

House Subcomm. Rule no. 9 provides that the Subcommittee shall take no further action
on a private bill that has been tabled by the full Judiciary Committee. The House Sub comm.
Rules Statement of Policy further provides that the Subcommittee is reluctant to reconsider
bills tabled by the full Committee in previous Congresses absent new evidence or
information not available at the time of initial consideration. Senate Sub comm. Rule no. 6
provides that bills previously tabled shall not be reconsidered unless new evidence is
(continued...)
documentary evidence to the Subcommittee in support of a request to make an
exception to the rule
__________________
We shall win our Dream!
Last edited by Ianus; 01-27-2008 at 01:33 AM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Ianus
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ianus
Find all posts by Ianus


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.