• 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

«  

July

  »
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 News Room

Trump promises to legalize DACA - Page 2

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
Closed Thread
  • ‹ previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • next ›
#11
09-06-2019, 11:07 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2017
2,169 posts
jwxie518's Avatar
jwxie518
jwxie518
View Public Profile
Send a private message to jwxie518
Find all posts by jwxie518
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red neck View Post
At this point ill take the four pillars as long as we get greencards

I mean he already got money for the wall and detention centers.

which organizations like UWD were against and he got all that for free.
I honestly do not recall what the poisons were.

https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-pa...migration-plan

I have faith in our Leader winning 2020. DM really stands no chance I feel. Moderates ain't happy with either side, but will pick Trump on economy.
__________________
All I want is to travel freely where I like.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#12
09-06-2019, 11:55 AM
Senior Member
From SoCal, USA
Joined in Sep 2016
2,734 posts
vft1008's Avatar
vft1008
vft1008
View Public Profile
Send a private message to vft1008
Find all posts by vft1008
0 AP
Nothing will happen. Nothing will change. Congress is completely dysfunctional. Look at the government shutdown that happened and affected tons of USC federal workers. They didn't give a shit. Look at the first responders issues over the last 9 months. They don't give a shit and are fine with politics roadblocking things.

The compromise from the right will be something like the Goodlatte Bill or some other nationalist undertone shit they previously proposed. To them, that is what is right and fair.

Trump is not saving us. Congress sure as hell is not saving us.
__________________
“Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right."
-Albus Dumbledore
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#13
09-06-2019, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2011
5,711 posts
IamAman's Avatar
IamAman
IamAman
View Public Profile
Send a private message to IamAman
Find all posts by IamAman
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambo Mercy View Post
Legalize us or deport us and be done with it
Careful now... When Obama was president, Jose Antonio Vargas would go on TV and say that because he know they weren't going to touch him. If you notice, since Trump has been president, he isn't really talking that much.
__________________
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.
#14
09-06-2019, 01:05 PM
Senior Member
From California
Joined in Dec 2010
3,448 posts
BestBefore1984's Avatar
BestBefore1984
BestBefore1984
View Public Profile
Send a private message to BestBefore1984
Find all posts by BestBefore1984
0 AP
Is it bad that I chuckled when I saw "Trump promises..." on the preview of this thread that you see on the front page of the forum?

The only people Trump makes promises to are those who benefit him monetarily, such as the Russian, Saudi, Emirati, Egyptian, and Israeli government -and this is even questionable.

Let's be real. Trump has no interest in helping the American people if it doesn't make a profit for him, let alone dreamers. I hate to be pessimistic, but when dealing with a narcissistic compulsive liar and mentally unstable person, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

I hope I'm wrong but one has to be realistic.
__________________
5th EAD
Sent to Phoenix Lockbox: 12/14/19
Received: 12/16/19
Biometrics/Approved: TBD
Expiring: 05/14/20
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#15
09-06-2019, 01:06 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2008
729 posts
legendver2
legendver2
View Public Profile
Send a private message to legendver2
Find all posts by legendver2
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogJuiceMan View Post
Well he isn't wrong. Something has to happen if they strike Daca down. We can't just get left to get screwed.


Even if something has to happen, doesn't mean it will. Prepare for worst hope for best.
Lol then you haven't been paying attention.
__________________
Exp 9/20/2018
3rd Renewal sent 1/29/2018 Arrived 1/30/2018
Accepted 2/2/2018 Bio Appt. Notice 2/5/2018
Bio scheduled for 2/23/2018
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#16
09-06-2019, 01:13 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Dec 2010
1,061 posts
Tacvbo's Avatar
Tacvbo
Tacvbo
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Tacvbo
Find all posts by Tacvbo
0 AP
Those of you who truly believe congress will reach a deal after DACA gets revoked are stupid and most likely weren't adults during the 2009-2012 era when the dream act was in congress.

No party will allow the other to pass the dream act, especially when Trump is in office.

I don't have time to spoon feed you information about this. Go do your own research.
__________________
“Life is not just the passing of time. Life is the collection of experiences and their intensity.”

- Jim Rohn
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#17
09-06-2019, 01:14 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2008
729 posts
legendver2
legendver2
View Public Profile
Send a private message to legendver2
Find all posts by legendver2
0 AP
What's with this sudden tweet tho? Is something happening?
__________________
Exp 9/20/2018
3rd Renewal sent 1/29/2018 Arrived 1/30/2018
Accepted 2/2/2018 Bio Appt. Notice 2/5/2018
Bio scheduled for 2/23/2018
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#18
09-06-2019, 01:16 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Dec 2010
1,061 posts
Tacvbo's Avatar
Tacvbo
Tacvbo
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Tacvbo
Find all posts by Tacvbo
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogJuiceMan View Post
Hahahahaha UWD failed to block anything. Lmao you useless beaners lost again. Doesn't matter if Daca dies, as long as UWD gets fucked I am satisfied.


Subscribe
Sign In

Enter News, Quotes, Companies or Videos

Opinion Commentary

End Nationwide Injunctions
The Dreamers case shows how willful courts can ruin the chance for political compromise.
By William P. Barr
Sept. 5, 2019 6:37 pm ET

Share
Text
304

Illustration: Chad Crowe

When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case. Over the past several decades, however, some lower court federal judges have increasingly resorted to a procedural device—the “nationwide injunction”—to prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone in the country. Shrewd lawyers have learned to “shop” for a sympathetic judge willing to issue such an injunction. These days, virtually every significant congressional or presidential initiative is enjoined—often within hours—threatening our democratic system and undermining the rule of law.

During the eight years of the Obama administration, 20 nationwide injunctions were issued while the Trump administration has already faced nearly 40. Partisans who cheer this trend should realize that someday the shoe will be on the other foot. One can easily imagine the signature policies of a future Democratic administration—say, on climate change, immigration or health care—being stymied by courts for years on end.

The best example of the harm done by these nationwide injunctions is the current litigation over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. In 2012, after Congress repeatedly failed to grant legal status to so-called Dreamers, the Obama administration declined to enforce the immigration laws against them. Five years later, the Trump administration announced it would restore enforcement of federal law, prompting Democrats to negotiate in search of a broad solution. Just as a compromise appeared near, a district court judge in San Francisco entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from ending DACA, thus awarding the Democrats by judicial fiat what they had been seeking through a political compromise.

Far from solving the problem, the DACA injunction proved catastrophic. The program’s recipients remain in legal limbo after nearly two years of bitter political division over immigration, including a government shutdown. A humanitarian crisis—including a surge of unaccompanied children—swells at the southern border, while legislative efforts remain frozen pending Supreme Court resolution of the DACA case.

Under Article III of the Constitution, courts are supposed to apply the law to the parties before them—not to thousands or millions of third parties. The Framers rejected the idea that the courts should act as a “council of revision” with sweeping authority to reach beyond concrete controversies and rule on the legality of actions taken by the political branches. Moreover, the power of federal courts to issue injunctions derives from English practice, which allowed courts to restrain a defendant to the extent necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiffs in the case. Nationwide injunctions are a modern invention with no basis in the Constitution or common law.

Nationwide injunctions are also inconsistent with the mechanism the law recognizes to provide relief to nonparties: a class action, in which class members are bound by the result, win or lose, unless they opt out. Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, create an unfair, one-way system in which the democratically accountable government must fend off case after case to put its policy into effect, while those challenging the policy need only find a single sympathetic judge.

Proponents of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to ensure that the law is uniform throughout the country. But the federal judiciary wasn’t made to produce instant legal uniformity. To the contrary, the system—in which local district courts are supervised by regional courts of appeal—was constructed to allow a diversity of initial rulings until a single, national rule could be decided by the Supreme Court.

This system has many virtues. It prevents a solitary, unelected, life-tenured judge from overriding the political branches and imposing on the nation potentially idiosyncratic or mistaken views of the law. A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn’t convince anyone.

When the system works as it should, it encourages what one leading jurist has called “percolation”—the salutary process by which many lower federal courts offer competing and increasingly refined views on a legal issue before higher courts definitively resolve it. Allowing a single district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction against the government short-circuits this process. The first judge to issue an injunction effectively nullifies the decisions of all other courts that have already been issued—not only other courts’ decisions, but even those of higher appellate courts in other circuits.

For example, even though the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—often called the second-highest court in the land—vacated an injunction against the Trump administration’s policy on transgender military service, that decision had no practical effect. Two district judges had enjoined the policy nationwide. The Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to fix this backward state of affairs.

By short-circuiting the process of percolation, nationwide injunctions cause critical policies to be litigated through a truncated, emergency process. When an important statute or policy is enjoined, the Justice Department must seek emergency relief from higher courts. The alternative is for the government to wait years for an appeals court to overturn the injunction before implementing a statute or policy. As a result, nationwide injunctions threaten to turn every case into an emergency for the executive and judicial branches.

Nationwide injunctions “are legally and historically dubious,” noted Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in Trump v. Hawaii (201. “If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” It is indeed well past time for our judiciary to re-examine a practice that embitters the political life of the nation, flouts constitutional principles, and stultifies sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions.

Mr. Barr is U.S. attorney general.

WTF is your deal calling people "beaners"? smh

How old are you? 12 ?
__________________
“Life is not just the passing of time. Life is the collection of experiences and their intensity.”

- Jim Rohn
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#19
09-06-2019, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2016
1,720 posts
isk84life
isk84life
View Public Profile
Send a private message to isk84life
Find all posts by isk84life
0 AP
We would just get an extension if something happens. Trump was talking about giving TPS to vVenezuelans to try and pry some hispanic votes from Dems. He wont let DACA end a couple of months away from the election...

Now, we are fucked after the election.
__________________
Human-Computer Interaction Engineering MS
Senior User Experience Designer @ Facebook
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#20
09-06-2019, 01:22 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2011
5,711 posts
IamAman's Avatar
IamAman
IamAman
View Public Profile
Send a private message to IamAman
Find all posts by IamAman
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by legendver2 View Post
What's with this sudden tweet tho? Is something happening?
He needed to change the subject from Sharpie-gate
__________________
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
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • next ›
Closed Thread


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


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