Charles Kuck: President Obama: Publish the DAPA and Extended DACA Regulations - Page 4

The whole "helping themselves thing" kind of irks me. It gives the impression that there is something very simple in front of us, but we're too stupid and lazy to get it. I had a falling out with an attorney friend of mine who knew nothing about immigration law since that wasn't her specialty but every time the subject of my status would come up, she'd say "you're probably making a mistake. there is no way there are no options for you".

The kicker was she called me out of the blue one night saying another one of her friends just became an immigration lawyer and she's agreed to work on my case for free.
"I talked to my friend about you and she said a new law is out there that can totally help you".
"Is it DACA? I'm too old for that, your friend should know that".
"I don't know, but your lawyer is a complete shyster. You should come to my city this weekend and meet with my friend"
She was convinced that she knew better than me about my case without knowing the details of my case. In her mind, I was just a stupid and lazy person who couldn't help myself and all it took to rescue me was to hook me up with her inexperienced first year attorney and dump my lawyer who's been in practice since the 80's with a proven track record. I politely declined and we haven't spoken sense.

Why do I mention the above rant? Because you are convinced that you have the answer and everybody else is a moron. Out of the entire Democrat party, all the lawyers in the justice department, the president himself who is a constitutional scholar, 99.9% of the immigration lawyers who could stand to make a lot of money if DAPA was in progress now, all of the pro immigration groups, etc., YOU and your two or 3 lawyers are the ones who have the answer. Everybody else is a moron who refuses to help themselves.

I am only saying that before 2012 people were told by some lawyers,members of Democratic party and "the President himself who is a constitutional scholar"that there was no answer and suddenly the answer came very quickly.

@Collins22 and I are on the same train of thought: Those of you, you included, who could be helped tomorrow by issuing a notice and comment notice, are actually against it! Lol...

Help yourself - and those in the same situation as you (we) -by supporting something very simple and currently available. That is my point, not to condescend you. Condescension is utterly disrespectful. If we were in the White House protesting and pointed this potential, but very real solution, we'd be thrown out and probably told "this is the deal: I'm the president and you are not. Take them out!" and we'd be escorted out by the secret service. Probably. Do you really want to wait until 2017 to see if - if - you might still be allowed to get DACA? One does not need to be an attorney to be informed.

P.S. The DOJ is using civil rights attorneys, NOT experienced immigration attorneys for the Texas lawsuit.

Republicans got really angry after Administration published APA regulations for 2012 Daca

As was widely reported in many television and print media outlets, the program started taking applications from illegal aliens on August 15 — note the date. Yet, it wasn't until a day later, August 16, that a Federal Register notice appeared soliciting public comments on this deferred action initiative. And the notice is a masterpiece of fuzzy obfuscation: It offers for review and comment no actual, detailed rules that will be applied in adjudicating the requests; instead, it only solicits comments on the questions to be posed on the form DHS has developed to accept DACA applications, categorizing the notice as an "information collection" exercise. But how serious can an agency be in posting anything for review and comment when it has already begun
taking applications?
http://cis.org/reasoner/dhs-belatedl...d-daca-process

Okay, it seems we are letting our egos (me included) more than actually trying to figure out what is going on. Most of you are pretty good at carrying a conversation and actually allowing us to learn from one another. Sadly, some people are more interested at insulting other people and lowering the intellect of a conversation or debate without saying anything important and doing it without any class or wit.

In rhetoric Aristotle mentioned the three things that make an opinion an argument and therefore worthy of mentioning. Emotion, character and logic. Of the three for Aristotle logic was the most important. Appealing to emotion if effective to win a fight but not to learn about a issue. If any of you want to win, be my guess. My ego is more bruised by the current situation than by losing to someone on DAP. Mostly, an accurate estimate of what is going on, will allow me to make educate choices about my future, which is more important than proving someone is smarter or dumber than me either in DAP or any other place in the world.

Going back to Aristotle, if logic is the most important aspect, why is character being debated in this thread so much? Furthermore, this is not global warming or the effects of tobacco. In that nor the Obama Administration, other lawyers or anyone with knowledge has said anything against Mr. Kuck. We cannot assume they are against this opinion because nothing is being said. Furthermore, if any lawyer or group believed he was in the right, it would not be made public, rather they would go directly to the Obama Administration. There have been many instances when popular opinion has been wrong, the War in Iraq, the 2007 Recession and one of my favorite movies, the Night of the Hunter. That is why in some circles, it is considered a logical fallacy.

Mostly, that is what I'm against. Now, because someone double mentioned something that I believed I had read well mentioned that I should re-read. I did. The blog in justia talks about the APA 30 day wait. Meanwhile Mr. Kuck (he has a funny name) mentions an emergency rule that can be effective in 60 days. He is not talking about a 30 APA but an emergency APA of 60 days. Thus, because my original inquiry was not reply, I had to go and find out for myself what is the difference between the 30 day APA and the 60 day APA.

Basically, the government can give itself the time line it believe it fits. It seems there are several ways how to tackle this. Mostly, they are look very unappealing and with several caveats. From involving Congress to making this a 180 day comment session. Furthermore, we the ppl reserve the right to fill a lawsuit if we believed that the APA is "capricious" in nature.

Mostly, I'll go with NILC we have several options and none are unappealing. My personal opinion is that this thing is going a take a couple of years. I dunno. I hope I'm wrong and that the 5th Circuit of Appeals votes in favor of the DoJ. Still, I advice people to NOT make decisions based on my hopings but in your thinkings.

P.S. Whether it is a political conspiracy or just something that came to the Dems, it is clear they are benefiting from the situation. It is something I'm not happy with. In the future, history will prove us right or whatevs. I rather quote Keynes " In the future, we all be dead." We need something now and not eventually when the political system feels like it.