Expanded Daca /Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

So there has been a lot of hoopla surrounding expanding DACA and this Administrative Procedure Act (APA) The texas judge of course is using this as 1 of the reasons for halting the program. I personally have been made aware in just the last couple of years how the right wing side of the republican party gets down. They are manipulative, vindictive, spiteful, pathological liars and they have mastered the art of fighting DIRTY by any MEANS NECESSARY.

They are actually quite good at this...Government shutdowns, constant gridlock, throwing out babies with the bathwater, Cut off your nose to spite your face kind of tactics. The thing that some people don't seem to get is that Winning the lawsuit is not the republican goal here. They are not that ambitious because they know that they are full of shit & DEAD WRONG. Victory for them is throwing everything that sticks at this immigration order because all they need to DO right now is STALL IT & RUN OUT THE DEMOCRATIC CLOCK so expanded daca will not get implemented before Obama leaves the white house. Thats it! This is their goal. Part 2 of their plan I guess is is they are going to throw every republican Gremlin into the 2016 race and do their best to have a winning candidate, which by this time daca will have gone through the courts coming out victorious just in time to be gutted by a republican president. Oh yeah and OBAMA CARE...well actually everything Obama put in place they would most likely spend the next 8 years trying to undo, it seems that is all their very existence is based on. They have a Hard on for this President like no other and do not want him to have a legacy.

I see a few posters saying the administration should have done APA and then everything would be peachy but it was not a requirement. Judge Hanen is a sack of sh!t employed by conservatives. Just because HANEN say the admin needed to follow APA and is using this amongst other frivolous nonsense as their reason does not mean he is RIGHT. He just needed to come up with something ------Anything to halt the program. Hanen and his team probably overdosed on adderall and went 3 months straight without sleep after the DACA Exp was announced trying to figure out what he could come up with to Derail it. Nothing gets republicans rabid and frothing at the mouth like an obama policy, they have so much contempt for him it is on a bipolar level. Just my humble opinions based on the little research I've done If anybody else is more versed on the legal lingo and knows otherwise please join in.



I have copied and pasted and article below about how APA relates to DACA extension

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012 the Department of Homeland Security created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, which provided that DHS would not deport (that is what deferred action means) immigrants who were brought as children into the United States; have lived their lives here; were in school or had graduated, or served in the military; and had made their way through life without committing serious crimes. More than a million undocumented immigrants qualified for this program.

In 2014, DHS both expanded DACA and created DAPA. DAPA applies to undocumented immigrants who are parents of American citizens or lawful permanent residents, and meet certain other criteria, including continuous residence in the United States and a clean criminal record. DAPA could help as many as 4 million people.

Together, DACA and DAPA could “defer action” for as much as half the population of undocumented immigrants. But these programs do not turn them into “legal immigrants” or provide amnesty or immunity from deportation. The major effect of DACA and DAPA is a kind of statement: We are not planning to deport you. And the statement does not even bind DHS; the department could change its mind on a moment’s notice. A further wrinkle is that DHS claims (most likely correctly) to have the legal authority to give work permits to people whom it has decided not to deport. So this means that employers can hire immigrants with such work permits without violating the law.

The law is the law, and the law governing Judge Hanen’s own authority is clear.
Critics of DAPA argued that, by not enforcing immigration law, which says that undocumented immigrants should be deported, Obama violated the clause of the Constitution that says the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The Obama administration has argued that the president has the authority under the Constitution to allocate resources among enforcement priorities, especially in the area of immigration law, where historically, and as a result of the foreign policy implications of immigration, an unusual amount of power is given to the president to set priorities. Obama, like all his predecessors, has sought to use limited resources given him by Congress to deport violent and dangerous undocumented immigrants rather than hardworking and peaceful ones. DAPA (and DACA) is just an expression, a kind of formal acknowledgment, of this long-standing policy.

Judge Hanen did not rule on the constitutional arguments, though his opinion is pregnant with constitutional rhetoric that suggests he sympathizes with the critics’ arguments. His ruling rests on an obscure but important statute called the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA governs the federal bureaucracy—it tells regulators how they are supposed to issue regulations. It was enacted in the wake of the New Deal amid concerns that Congress’s traditional policymaking role had been transferred to (or, to critics, usurped by) the executive branch, which was given vast powers to regulate the economy. The APA tries to subject this type of executive regulation to democratic controls. Generally, when the executive branch seeks to issue a new regulation, it must first give notice to the public and an opportunity for people to comment on it. Only after reading through the comments and providing a reasoned explanation for the regulation can the government give the regulation legal force.

DHS did not give notice and ask for comment before issuing DAPA. The reason it didn’t was that there is an exception in the APA for general statements of policy, as opposed to legislative rules. This exception reflects an unavoidable fact about legal enforcement: The “enforcers”—the regulators—must constantly make and change priorities. For example, when the U.S. government shifted law enforcement from drug crimes to terrorism after 9/11, this was a policy change, but no one believed that the government had to first go through the lengthy process of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Statements of policy simply alert people that enforcement priorities have changed. In this way the statement benefits people rather than imposing new restrictions on them; that’s why notice and comment are not required.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ll.single.html

So what do you think will happen to DACA Expansion?

Include a source for your article, please.

sure...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ll.single.html

your guess is as good as mine right now, I'm hoping after the July hearings we might have a better idea if this is gonna be years of legal limbo or maybe a nail biter thats get's resolved just in time before the president leaves office.

1)The hearing in July is the real deal - it will be to decide whether judge Hanen's decision gets upheld or voted down.

2) See the following:

So what was the April hearing? Are both decisions over the injunction or is there more to the July hearing?

Yeah, I know... but if this conservative court rules in favor of Hanen and the case has to make its way to the supreme court, this is where the uncertainty lies. We will just have to cross that bridge if we get to it I guess. By the way the link you posted is from an article written in 2012. It is not related to DACA extension in any way.

From what I understand the april hearing was about the injuction. The administration lost on that so they thought it wise to stop wasting time fighting the injunction and just have the court hearing on the case itself.

Just keep in mind that this whole thing is about legal gridlock for DACA expansion. They chose Hanen because of his conservative and anti immigration mentality. This made sure that the case itself has to go through the 5th district court which is historically very conservative. Even though the judges are supposedly choosen randomly, they are more conservative judges there so you do the math. If the july hearings are not in favor of the administration then this is where the real hell starts I guess. Because its the long road to the supreme court. The is exactly what the republicans are counting on.