Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrt09
What I find odd about expanded DACA - and really, lawyer or not, if one uses logic - is that the administration stays quiet about having the authority to modify an existing program (DACA 2012). Notice how the article's main premise is about DAPA blah, blah, blah...and then, sort of throws 'oh yeah, and DACAx, too'. Same with the arguments at the 5th circuit: 99% of the opposition's reference to executive action is about DAPA, not DACA. This is a forum about the DreamAct, so we need to focus on how to make DACAx happen separately from DAPA.
|
I hope you're right. However, I have to point out two things. First, the one year expansion to regular DACA had nothing to do with DACAX or DAPA and was furiously halted by Judge Hanen. So, people who had three year permits have to return their cards because there is a hold on that as well as the hold on DACAX and DAPA. Second, the language used by the state of Texas threatens regular DACA as well. No one, not even my holiest of sources ever talk about this issue. Maybe because they do not want to scare people who are afraid to apply for DACA. In any case, if we lose in the Supreme Court, Texas and the other states can, and probably will, sue the government to stop regular DACA based on the outcome in the Supreme Court. And I don't want any DACA recipient to send me any hate mail because they're afraid to face the beans. Maybe if you were not so afraid, pro-immigrant organizations would talk frankly. I stated that the stay could harm the year expansion and more than one sensible dreamer jumped. I'm talking in the realm of possibility and not likelihood.
__________________
It is easier to debate the state of the world than to work to make it better.
-Larry Tramutola