A group of Republican attorneys general is picking a fight with Trump on immigration - Page 2

Obviously I don't want an injunction at all...

One question for all of you guys (sorry if its off topic) If you apply for DACA as soon as you turn 18 do you start to acquire illegal presence or no?

it sucks that we have to deal with worst case scenario hypotheticals. very sad....

10 people have the power to destroy the lives of one million young adults.

You need to have been approved within 3 months of turning 18, not just having applied. Research time penalties for unlawful presence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, daca isn't going anywhere unless there is a permanent solution for us

i hope you are right brother daniel but there might be a lapse if there is an injunction.

My take on this is the following.

Hanen will block DACA indefinitely, which means, no renewals and a lot of us will lose our jobs. Following the injunction, the supreme court will take the case and because we have a conservative supreme court, the decision will be a 5-4 against DACA. There is no way out of this really. The only solution is legislation, but I am confident that nothing can pass congress at this point.

Looking for legalization paths should start now... so I recommend to start acting.



I will leave the following, perhaps it can give us clarity.


Preliminary Injunction in States’ Lawsuit
On February 16, 2015, Brownsville, Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, temporarily enjoined DAPA and the planned expansion of DACA pending a higher court’s contrary order or a trial on the merits. Highlights of the court’s reasoning include:

Texas has standing to bring this lawsuit because DAPA and expanded DACA will create a new class of individuals eligible to apply for state-subsidized driver’s licenses, which would impose additional processing and issuance costs on the state. The court did not address the offsetting economic benefits that states also would realize from DAPA and expanded DACA, including higher wages, increased tax revenue, and new jobs. The court rejected other standing arguments by the plaintiffs, namely, that DAPA would impose indirect costs on states such as for public education and uncompensated medical care.
Judge Hanen based his ruling on narrow procedural grounds—that the Government did not comply with certain technical requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including notice-and-comment rulemaking.
In reaching this conclusion, Judge Hanen found DAPA and expanded DACA to be substantive rules subject to notice-and-comment procedures, rather than general statements of policy, which would not require such procedures. However, as DHS pointed out, the expanded DACA and DAPA initiatives are policies, under which DHS must decide on a case-by-case basis whether to grant a particular individual’s request. DHS national procedures for officers reviewing DACA claims specifically allow discretionary denials, which are consistent with a general statement of policy. The procedures provide a form with a box permitting denials solely on the basis of discretion—even where eligibility guidelines are met, as well as another box permitting denial where a requestor “do[es] not warrant a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion because of national security or public safety concerns.” Notably:

The ruling did not address the constitutionality of President Obama’s initiatives. Indeed, the decision affirmed the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority to set the Department’s enforcement priorities and to marshal its resources accordingly.

The court explicitly did not enjoin original DACA. DHS reinforced this point, recalling that “individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.”

Regarding the public interest, the court found the cost of issuing drivers’ licenses and other benefits to prospective deferred action beneficiaries to be decisive. This is contrary to evidence that President Obama’s policy helps, not harms, the public interest, as an amicus brief by the American Immigration Council and others argued. Conversely, halting President Obama’s policy will harm the economy and affected individuals, who have significant ties in the United States.

Fifth Circuit Appeal in States’ Lawsuit
The government subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision granting the preliminary injunction to the higher federal court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, the government asked Judge Hanen to “stay” the injunction (i.e., stop the injunction from being in effect), and then made the same request—on an emergency basis—to the Fifth Circuit when Judge Hanen did not rule promptly.

A broad spectrum of states, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, legislators, and other organizations supported the federal government’s appeal with “friend of the court” or amici briefs. These amici include 15 states and the District of Columbia, 73 U.S. mayors and county officials (led by New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston ), over 30 heads of local law enforcement agencies, 181 U.S. Representatives, four U.S. Senators, over 150 civil rights, labor, and immigrants’ rights groups, 19 faith organizations, organizations representing educators and children’s advocates, and businesses and trade associations. The cities supporting the President’s initiatives contain more undocumented immigrants than the states opposing them.

On May 26, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction, with the result that the hold on implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA remained in place while the Fifth Circuit considered the appeal of the preliminary injunction itself.

Not unless they can work on a compromise that includes legal status for DREAMers in exchange for more border security or something related to that But, I'm just speculating.

I thought eDACA/DAPA was effectively done? Why is DAPA mentioned?