• 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

«  

March

  »
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

DACA backers ask judge for reprieve until Biden administration - Page 2

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
  • ‹ previous
  • 1
  • 2
#11
12-26-2020, 01:51 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2016
3,631 posts
eva02's Avatar
eva02
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer12345 View Post
I don't really see this as a win. Hanen's basically saying "I may strike it down using the same DAPA logic and Biden can re-institute by adding the notice-and-comment period". Or "I may extend reprieve and allow the program to exist in quasi limbo and let Biden re-submit the EO w/a notice-and-comment period".

Interestingly, every Trump EO is illegal by the same logic.
How is that not a win? The reason Hanen is ruling this way is because he knows Biden will be the president. That is why they’ve delayed this decision until after the presidential election. If trump had won, Hanen’s argument would be much different.
__________________
Expiration: 04/09/2020
Renewal Accepted: 02/05/2019
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
eva02
View Public Profile
Send a private message to eva02
Find all posts by eva02
#12
12-26-2020, 11:27 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2016
1,674 posts
dreamer12345
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva02 View Post
How is that not a win? The reason Hanen is ruling this way is because he knows Biden will be the president. That is why they’ve delayed this decision until after the presidential election. If trump had won, Hanen’s argument would be much different.
Hanen's argument would've been the same under Trump, "we're striking this under same DAPA precedent, DACA EO having not instituted the required commenting period".

The reprieve (and still remains to be seen if Hanen grants it) is still overshadowed by the fact that DACA remains in peril until/if Biden rewrites the EO and allows commenting period.

A proper win would've been dismissal of the lawsuit, the only thing this did is bought us a month at which point Hanen/Texas can revisit the topic if Biden hasn't acted.
Last edited by dreamer12345; 12-26-2020 at 11:31 AM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
dreamer12345
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dreamer12345
Find all posts by dreamer12345
#13
12-26-2020, 09:13 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2016
3,631 posts
eva02's Avatar
eva02
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer12345 View Post
Hanen's argument would've been the same under Trump, "we're striking this under same DAPA precedent, DACA EO having not instituted the required commenting period".

The reprieve (and still remains to be seen if Hanen grants it) is still overshadowed by the fact that DACA remains in peril until/if Biden rewrites the EO and allows commenting period.

A proper win would've been dismissal of the lawsuit, the only thing this did is bought us a month at which point Hanen/Texas can revisit the topic if Biden hasn't acted.
What I’m saying is this argument appears to be new in that before it was never really brought up because Trump was the president and the outcome of the election was uncertain. If trump had won I don’t think there would be talks of trump fixing the EO etc. Hanen would have probably dismissed the suit at that point, but he knows he’s dealing with a sympathetic administration now that’s going to do anything in its power to preserve daca. Hanen could say look I tried and they fixed the EO now what
__________________
Expiration: 04/09/2020
Renewal Accepted: 02/05/2019
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
eva02
View Public Profile
Send a private message to eva02
Find all posts by eva02
#14
12-28-2020, 10:33 PM
Senior Member
From Minnesota
Joined in Nov 2009
6,007 posts
Demise's Avatar
Demise
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva02 View Post
What I’m saying is this argument appears to be new in that before it was never really brought up because Trump was the president and the outcome of the election was uncertain. If trump had won I don’t think there would be talks of trump fixing the EO etc. Hanen would have probably dismissed the suit at that point, but he knows he’s dealing with a sympathetic administration now that’s going to do anything in its power to preserve daca. Hanen could say look I tried and they fixed the EO now what
Honestly the best thing Hanen could do is flee out the window. Basically dismiss the case for lack of standing because plaintiff didn't prove injury to themselves, like yeah they have to issue us licenses, but at the same time benefit from having fewer unlicensed motorists on the roads, benefit from income taxes (in states that have them) and benefit from our work basically turning the gears of capitalism, even if a state doesn't have an income tax you still generally get taxed on your income via a sales tax.

Only state that has neither an income or sales tax is Alaska and that's mainly because it funds itself with oil.

Once the case is dismissed for lack of standing he doesn't need to make a ruling about legality of the program.
__________________
LPR these days
Last edited by Demise; 12-28-2020 at 10:37 PM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Demise
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Demise
Find all posts by Demise
#15
12-29-2020, 10:17 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2016
1,674 posts
dreamer12345
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demise View Post
Honestly the best thing Hanen could do is flee out the window. Basically dismiss the case for lack of standing because plaintiff didn't prove injury to themselves, like yeah they have to issue us licenses, but at the same time benefit from having fewer unlicensed motorists on the roads, benefit from income taxes (in states that have them) and benefit from our work basically turning the gears of capitalism, even if a state doesn't have an income tax you still generally get taxed on your income via a sales tax.

Only state that has neither an income or sales tax is Alaska and that's mainly because it funds itself with oil.

Once the case is dismissed for lack of standing he doesn't need to make a ruling about legality of the program.
yup, exactly
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
dreamer12345
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dreamer12345
Find all posts by dreamer12345
#16
12-30-2020, 07:27 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2017
111 posts
Catcherenme
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demise View Post
Once the case is dismissed for lack of standing he doesn't need to make a ruling about legality of the program.
I hope Hanen figure this out by himself.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Catcherenme
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Catcherenme
Find all posts by Catcherenme
#17
12-30-2020, 06:29 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2016
1,674 posts
dreamer12345
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catcherenme View Post
I hope Hanen figure this out by himself.
It's not in his interest; he's not our ally.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
dreamer12345
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dreamer12345
Find all posts by dreamer12345
  • ‹ previous
  • 1
  • 2


« 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 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.