#a bill was put forward that would make it illegal for the government to prohibit landlords from not accepting section 8 vouchers | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

troger · 4 years

Text

the atlantic: This is your last free article.

me: *shares the fuck out of it*

Trump Has Justified Breaking One of America’s Most Sacred Norms

The tradition of granting post-term immunity from prosecution to those who leave the White House now comes at too great a cost.

12:33 PM ET

Paul Rosenzweig

Principal at Red Branch Consulting

In the 240 years since America’s founding, no former president has been indicted for criminal conduct. This isn’t because they were angels—far from it. And it isn’t because post-term indictment is not legally allowed. Instead, it is because Americans don’t like the idea of criminalizing politics. Both parties and the public see the prospect of post-term immunity as a guarantee that the country’s politics will remain civil and that power will transition peacefully from one party to the other. That is what drove President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon. And it’s one reason why the Office of the Independent Counsel decided not to indict former President Bill Clinton.

The presidency of Donald J. Trump has upended those calculations, and the resistance to post-term investigation may now come at too great a cost. When he leaves office, whether in January or four years later, the next administration or one of the states can and should investigate citizen Donald Trump—a former president whose legal status will be no different from that of any other American. The risk of politicization of such an investigation is far outweighed by the danger posed by failing to uphold our nation’s values. To protect future presidents from retributive investigations once they leave office, however, any investigation should be limited to Trump’s conduct before and after his presidency, not his behavior while he was president. If the findings of such an investigation justify it, prosecutors should indict the former president for violations of criminal law.

I come to this view reluctantly. The risks in the approach are both real and substantial. But after having served as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, as a senior counsel in the Whitewater investigation of Clinton, and as a Bush appointee at the Department of Homeland Security, I’ve come to recognize that challenging, balanced judgments of the sort necessary today are sometimes forced on us by circumstances beyond our control. Hard choices do, sometimes, make bad law, but they cannot always be avoided. To decline to investigate Trump’s alleged criminality after he has left office is itself a choice—and it’s the wrong one.

The biggest danger of countenancing the investigation of ex-presidents is also the most obvious: an ever-escalating cycle of retribution. One can easily imagine a losing president resisting the call to leave the White House at least in part because he feared subsequent prosecution, or a winning president prosecuting her opponents over normal political differences. Indicting one former president risks making a habit of doing so, and reducing America to little more than a revolving-door banana republic. That’s why, for example, former Attorney General Eric Holder has reacted with grave concern to calls for Trump’s post-presidency prosecution. As Holder might put it—with substantial justification—if you thought “Lock her up” was the wrong thing to say about Hillary Clinton, you shouldn’t support a “Lock him up” perspective on Trump.

But a reluctance to prosecute does not mean there should be a prohibition against doing so. The idea of absolute presidential impunity from prosecution for all time and for all actions is just a re-instantiation of the kingly prerogative—“The king can do no wrong”—that was one of several reasons America had a revolution. Should a president who committed murder before his election that was only discovered once he was in office be immune from prosecution after impeachment and removal? Surely not.

And yet the promise not to prosecute after a term ends is part of the price we pay for the routine peaceful transition of power. One can readily imagine, for example, the violent reaction of some presidential supporters to even the hint of a possible criminal investigation.

This is true even in normal times, but it is all the more true during periods of deep political hostility. The prosecution of Trump after he leaves office, as the conservative journalist Jonathan V. Last recently wrote in his newsletter, The Triad, is of secondary importance to the more important value of preserving the nation: “Buttressing the rule of law today won’t matter if we descend into widespread, open civic unrest that undermines the legitimacy of the political system itself. That would be a generational, ongoing crisis. And once the toothpaste is all the way out of that tube, then there is no going back until the people who have decided to be against the system die off.” That’s a pretty grim prospect, and if that were the choice, it might be wise to buy civil peace with the coin of prosecutorial deferral.

But is that the standard we aspire to? Do we think so little of our civil society that we set rules of behavior based on fear of mob rule? America is often said to be a nation of ideals, not of cultural groups. It exists as a collection of aspirational principles—equality of opportunity, freedom of expression, and, ultimately, the rule of law. If we discard those ideas to save the nation, have we actually saved the nation? If we truly believe in those principles, then, without prejudging the result, it would be a dereliction of duty for the next president—or for any state with cause to investigate—to refrain from examining the potentially illegal actions of former President Trump just because of his previous title. As Teddy Roosevelt famously said, “No man [should be] above the law and no man [should be] below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.” To categorically say otherwise is to undermine the foundation of American democracy.

A post-term investigation would be on solid legal footing. Post-term immunity is fundamentally inconsistent with the ground that is offered by the Department of Justice for immunity from prosecution while a president is serving. The DOJ has long been of the view that sitting presidents cannot be criminally charged. It justifies that position in two ways.

First, it looks to practical questions of implementation. The DOJ has argued, broadly, that the possibility of an indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president would “undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” It is difficult, they say, to imagine a president running a government while sitting in jail. While other, lesser officials have successfully continued in office from prison (the example of James Michael Curley, who served as the mayor of Boston while in prison for mail fraud, springs to mind), it is not unreasonable to think that doing so would be impossible for the president of the United States.

In addition to the practical difficulties created by a requirement for the president’s physical presence at a trial or in jail, the DOJ has relied on the intangible but significant effects that an indictment and trial could have on presidential power. As Nixon’s DOJ put it in a memorandum prepared in 1973, “The President is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.”

Notably, for our purposes, both the analysis and the import of the DOJ’s views are limited to a time when the president is still in office. After the president’s term is over, there is no longer the practical problem of running a government. Nor are there the same sorts of intangible effects on presidential symbolism; he is, after all, no longer the “head of the Nation.”

All of this is precisely why the DOJ has long justified its term-based immunity argument by contending that a president would be subject to prosecution “after he left office” (albeit while noting the possibility that a lapse in the statute of limitations might create a gap in criminality). In other words, in the department’s view, it is the office itself that commands the immunity, not the person. It would be strange and ironic if the argument for immunity during a term of office were somehow converted into a prohibition on post-term indictment as well.

Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: How to corrupt the Justice Department

It is likely that even the DOJ would argue against this sort of impunity. To do so would be, in effect, to recant much of what they said in 1973 and later repeated in 2000, with respect to Bill Clinton. As a formal matter, no legal barrier to post-term indictment exists.

Thus the ultimate question is not whether a former president can be investigated but whether one should be. What is best for our country? How can the country uphold the rule of law and the idea that no one is above the law, without driving itself into civil discord and risking fatal polarization?

There are no easy answers here. The best one can offer is a discretionary judgment that has some convincing rationale and offers a plausible way forward. In my view, the outlines of this are clear: It would be too great an affront to law for a president to have perpetual immunity. At the same time, the risks of polarization from criminalizing decisions that were made by the president during the course of a presidency is substantial. Alternatives, such as impeachment and loss of an election, exist that can address those wrongs.

Hence, let us try to thread the needle: Forgo the prospect of prosecution for actions undertaken while in office, but recognize that crimes a president commits while a regular citizen should not be excused just because he or she has served as the president of the United States.

This is not, by any means, a perfect solution. In our parade of horribles, there might be edge cases of conduct that occurred while the president was in office that would be so egregious we would want them to be criminally addressed. If, say, a hypothetical future president committed murder while in office, we would hope that a post-term prosecution for that offense would be permissible.

This example suggests that a ban on temporally based prosecution may be too broad and would, if strictly interpreted, revive the kingly prerogative against which we rebelled. On the other hand, any bright-line temporal rule that we adopt as a prudential matter has the virtue of being easy to administer and of avoiding post-term disputes about the level of egregiousness necessary for certain conduct to be prosecuted.

As a theoretical matter, the discretionary policy of not prosecuting an ex-president for acts committed while in office (especially those involving even tangentially the execution of his official duties) would have to yield in extreme cases. And while we cannot, with precision, define what those extreme cases might be, one hopes we would know them when we saw them.

Thankfully, we have yet to confront this degree of egregious behavior. For now, it is sufficient to articulate a general rule: A president should not be prosecuted after he leaves office for actions that occurred while he was the head of state, but he should remain subject to investigation for actions that occurred before or after his term.

To say anything else would be an affront. The powerful should be held to account. For society to function, all Americans must believe that crime doesn’t pay and that everyone is equal before the law. To avoid strife, we may exempt a president from criminal investigation for his political actions (however heinous and criminal they may be), but if we go further, and extend to him the kingly prerogative of impunity for his lifetime, we go a long way to destroying the faith in the rule of law that undergirds democracy.

With those concerns somewhat resolved, how do we decide whether to investigate former President Trump?

In many ways, the investigation of an ex-president should be no different from that of anyone else. As in other cases, a prosecutor would conduct interviews, subpoena documents, serve search warrants, convene a grand jury, and, in the end, if appropriate, ask the grand jury to return an indictment. There may be plea agreements, or trials, and then convictions, appeals, and, ultimately, perhaps, a prison sentence.

Kevin Wack: American justice isn’t impartial anymore

In that context, a prosecutor would typically ask two interrelated questions: First, is there sufficient admissible evidence of criminality that could sustain a conviction on the crimes to be charged? If not, the prosecutor should let the matter drop.

In Trump’s case, it seems clear that multiple credible criminal investigations are warranted. While not all of them may prove well grounded, the existing public record of well-documented allegations of criminal misconduct provides plentiful predication for opening an inquiry. This record includes but is not limited to a New York Times investigation that has described potential tax and mortgage fraud by Trump and the Trump organization; a narrower investigation of a series of transactions in the run-up to the 2016 election that has suggested the possibility of both tax fraud and campaign-finance fraud; a claim in Bloomberg that Trump may have committed insurance fraud; the uncovering of evidence by ProPublica of Trump’s alleged mortgage and tax fraud; the allegations of Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, that the Trump family committed fraud in the probate of her father’s will; and multiple alleged incidents of sexual assault (to the extent not barred by a statute of limitations).

There are other investigations for which there is likewise predication, but that, as a matter of prudence, we ought to forgo because they involve actions the president took while in office. For example, more than 1,000 prosecutors have concluded that the Mueller report uncovered ample evidence of Trump’s criminal obstruction of justice, and, additionally, former Trump staffers have reported the president’s corrupt offer of a pardon for illegal conduct that advanced his political interests.

One cannot, of course, know what an investigation of the allegations of pre-term criminal conduct might ultimately uncover (and, indeed, at least one, and possibly three, investigations are ongoing). But were Trump just an average citizen, there would be a basis to open up an inquiry into his behavior.

Which brings us to the second question: If prosecutors (at least those in the federal system, with which I am more familiar) conclude that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, they will ask if reasons of public policy exist that suggest that the prosecution should not be brought. Typical reasons might be that it’s a small enough infraction that it’s not worth their time, that they don’t have enough resources, or that the prosecution won’t have any deterrence value.

The Principles of Federal Prosecution are intended to guide prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion, and offers nine (admittedly flexible) factors for assessment and consideration.

The first of these, which asks what the current federal priorities are, is not specific to any individual. It allows, for example, for an administration to say that it is focusing on drug crimes or for another to devote resources to fighting child pornography or white-collar crime.

The remaining factors, however, deal with the specifics of the offense and the nature of the defendant. How serious is the crime? How culpable is the accused in the scheme, and what is his role? What is his criminal history? And, more generally, what would be the deterrent value of the prosecution?

Here, it is fair to say that any balance we can strike at this stage, before all the facts are known, strongly suggests that an investigation of former President Trump would be consistent with these principles and that they would not bar an investigation of his conduct were he just a typical citizen. Trump’s pre-term conduct (if it is proved) would indicate a long-standing scheme of fraud (akin to that perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, for example) and significant financial abuse—exactly that sort of pattern of conduct and severity of offense that, in normal cases, would demand the investment of federal resources. If Americans are to have any confidence in the concept of the rule of law and equality before the law, and if the Principles of Federal Prosecution are to be applied in a neutral manner, the same result must obtain here.

Focusing exclusively on potentially illegal conduct that occurs outside the presidency is unlikely to solve the problems that lie ahead. Trump’s supporters will not be mollified by the distinction. And leaving unaddressed criminal activity that occurred during the presidential term may be too high a price to pay. But this sort of uncomfortable compromise is the only way to maintain accountability for crimes without making political differences a criminal offense. At least, I hope that is so.

The real shame, of course, is that we even have to contemplate this issue at all. Three times in the past half century, Americans have had to ask whether a president should be prosecuted after he leaves office. Perhaps the better solution would be to be more careful in the person we elect.

PAUL ROSENZWEIG is a principal at Red Branch Consulting. Twenty years ago, he served as a senior counsel in the investigation of President Bill Clinton.

5 notes · View notes

freelancesumandas · 5 years

Text

Duties that you owe to your spouse in marriage

Divorce Lawyer in Houston: A lot of prospective clients that come in for a free consultation with one of the licensed family law attorneys with the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC will do so with questions about their marriage. These folks are not necessarily looking to file for divorce but want to know whether or not an expectation that he or she has regarding their spouse specifically and marriage generally is valid. If you are a person who finds yourself wondering if something your spouse said or a family member told you about marriage is accurate then you ought to stick around and see if one of today’s subtopics on this subject correlates to your particular situation.

Do you have to work if you are married in Texas?

What if, after you’ve taken your vows of marriage, your spouse suddenly refuses to go to work one morning. More days pass by and your spouse tells you that she will not be returning to work- possibly for good. To that point you had been a stay at home spouse taking care of the home and all of the responsibilities that come along with it. That was the understanding that you and your spouse had before you got married as well. Now, you have been married for a significant amount of time and that decision has been forced upon you.

A question you may be asking is: can you force your spouse to go back to work? As in, can you file a lawsuit against your spouse and ask a judge to force your spouse back into the workforce? After all- your spouse told you that she would be the primary income earner in your marriage. Now that promise has been broken. What are your rights in regard to that promise?

If you and your spouse are married, living together and not filing for divorce then a judge cannot force either one of you to get a job to support the other. If you are familiar with family law courts and family lawsuits, then you know that the friends and neighbors that we have in our community do more than enough to keep these judges busy on any given day. The last thing a judge will want to do is weigh in on a private, family matter that does not relate to a law contained in the Texas Family Code.

What about after a divorce- can a court force you to work in that situation?

A court cannot mandate that you find a job outside of your home after a divorce. However, it can make it virtually certain that you do so. In situations where it is determined by the judge that you owe a duty to your ex-spouse to support him or her for a period of time after the marriage then you may be essentially forced into working in order to pay spousal maintenance. The consequences for the failure to pay the ordered amount of spousal maintenance on a monthly basis could be being found in contempt of court. Fines, penalties and jail time come along with this particular finding of a court.

Can you sue your spouse independent of a divorce lawsuit?

Yes you and your spouse can sue one another for various causes of action. If you and your spouse have engaged in a financial transaction of some sort where one of you operated in bad faith then either of you may sue the other. Many times you can utilize this sort of premise as a “fault” that led to your divorce. The end result of citing a specific fault ground for your divorce may be that you are able to convince a judge to award you a disproportionate (greater than 50% share) of the community estate in your divorce.

If your divorce goes to trial will you be able to potentially testify against your spouse?

Houston Divorce Lawyer: Some folks are under the impression that there is still a law on the books that prohibits one spouse from testifying against the other spouse regarding communications that they made to one another during their marriage. This is no longer the case, however. It is common for spouses to testify against one another in conjunction with their divorce cases in today’s legal world. This is also true in most instances where you or your spouse have filed a lawsuit against the other that is not in conjunction with a divorce.

What if you are not married to the person that you are living with? Can you create a property agreement with that person that is enforceable in court?

Many people are involved romantically with a partner with whom he or she is not married. There are various statistics out there that will tell you that this is a more common form of cohabitation than cohabiting with your spouse, at least in the United States. The law does not treat unmarried persons living together as being married. For instance, the laws of community property in Texas would not apply to you and your partner unless you qualify as being common law married. That is a topic for another blog post, however, and for the sake of clarity and brevity we will assume moving forward that you and your partner are not married- common law or otherwise.

However, if you and your partner are willing, you can enter into an agreement regarding property that can be enforceable in a courtroom. This is a type of contract that would be governed in many ways by general contract law rather than the laws regarding the family. If you and your partner choose to agree on what bills you or your partner will pay or what share of certain property each of you own relative to the other person then a Texas court will find that to be an enforceable agreement in most circumstances.

Keep in mind that the general guidelines that I gave in yesterday’s blog post on premarital agreements would typically hold true in a situation involving you and your unmarried partner. It is always best for both of you to have an attorney advising you and to have that agreement put in writing. An oral contract may be enforceable but it is going to take time, money, and lawyering to have a court see it that way. There must be sufficient consideration for the agreement to be held to be valid. That means both sides but give and take in the agreement.

What about an exchange of the home for support in an unmarried relationship? Will this be held to be valid by a court?

From my experience and to my knowledge it is unlikely that a court would find this to be a valid agreement that is enforceable. You probably won’t be able to get a promise like this from your partner in writing. Usually this type of promise is also based on your relationship continuing. Fairly vague, oral promises like this are unlikely to be enforced by a court barring other circumstances that I couldn’t take into account in a blog post.

The other consideration I would want you to take in is the age old bargain of “financial support in exchange for sexual relations.” In my opinion it would not be a stretch for a court to assume that this was the sort of agreement that you and your partner hatched together. The look and the feel of it is close to something that is illegal. Even if this was not your intent, a court could easily read this into your situation and declare the agreement void.

All told, if you and your partner contract an exchange of property that has a specific, tangible value to it that is usually the basis for an enforceable agreement. Once you get into a situation where you are asking your spouse to pay you for an intangible, hard to quantify or value service then you get into the zone of unenforceability.

Money and Marriage- tomorrow’s blog post topic

Spring Divorce Lawyer: Please come on back to our blog tomorrow as we discuss the popular topic of money and marriage. If you are interested in learning more about the impact of these subjects on one another then you cannot do any better than that blog post.

If you have any questions about todays blog post subject matter please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC. We offer free of charge consultations six days a week with a licensed family law attorney where your questions can be addressed and answered ... Continue Reading

#divorce #Divorce Attorney #divorce lawyer #family #Family Law #Family Law Attorney #fagan #attorney #attorneys #law #lawyer #Houston #houston texas #Houston law #Houston lawyers #Houston family law #texas lawyers #Texas

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Many Republicans Voted For Daca

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-voted-for-daca/

How Many Republicans Voted For Daca

Arkansas Republicans Help Give Professional Licenses To Illegal Aliens

Republicans say there won’t be a DACA vote this week. How will Democrats respond?

Arkansas Republicans, including Gov. Asa Hutchinson , have helped secure professional licenses for illegal aliens enrolled in former President Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program thanks to the passage of new state law.

The law, which took effect July 1, will now allow the states nearly 5,000 DACA illegal aliens, along with illegal aliens who hold federal government-issued work permits, to obtain professional licenses to hold jobs in education and healthcare, among other industries.

Hutchinson said all of Arkansas benefits when DACA illegal aliens can obtain professional licenses to take jobs in the state. Only State Sen. Trent Garner and;State Reps. Joshua Bryant , Bruce Cozart , and Gayla;McKenzie voted against the legislation.

The passing of this law was a special moment in Arkansas history, Hutchinson said.

Arkansas Nonprofit News Network reports:

Arkansas Republicans passage of professional licenses for DACA illegal aliens comes after the sanctuary state of Colorado passed similar legislation this year with lobbying from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerbergs FWD.us group.

Likewise, New Jersey;passed;similar legislation last year, and illegal aliens in the state are now applying for and receiving professional licenses.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter;here.;

Forced Daca Vote May Happen In June

When members of Congress departed for the Memorial Day break, a small group of pro-immigration Republican members felt confident they could get the necessary 218 votes on a discharge petition that would force a vote on a DACA bill. At last count, if all Democrats sign-on, the count stood at 215 just before the break. They feel they have the 218.

There are two key dates for a discharge: June 11 and June 25. Once a bill reaches the 218, it has to wait for seven legislative days and then can only be voted on the second and fourth Mondays of the month when the House is in session. That means under the current schedule the only opportunity will be Monday June 25th and Monday July 23rd. There would have to be the 218 signatures by at least June 11th or July 9th.

One of CWLAâs key talking points from the recent Hill Day visits is to get Congress to act on DREAMERS legislation. The Dreamers Act or Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2017 would grant DACA beneficiaries permanent resident status on a conditional basis.

Put Every Senator On The Record: Do You Support Daca Or Not

Damian Dovarganes / AP

In this Sept. 1, 2017 file photo, Loyola Marymount University student and a DACA recipient Maria Carolina Gomez joins a rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program, outside the Edward Roybal Federal Building in Los;Angeles.

Tuesday, July 27, 2021 | 2 a.m.

View more of the Sun’s opinion section

Write a letter to the editor

Congressional Republicans have come up with all sorts of ways to dodge responsibility to protect Americas Dreamers, while hypocritically claiming they support the protections offered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Some of these GOP extremists blame their Democratic counterparts for packaging DACA with immigration measures they say are too lenient. Some say they cant approve DACA without it being coupled with more stringent legislation to secure the border. Some contend its irresponsible to consider a pathway to citizenship for any immigrants during the current surge in border crossings.

But with all eyes on Congress following the recent legal ruling against DACA, and with the House having already approved protections, its time for Senate Democrats to hold the Republicans feet to the fire on the issue by doing an up-or-down vote on DACA alone.

Americans have had enough of this ping-ponging on DACA. As shown unfailingly in polling, Americans across the political spectrum fervently support a pathway to citizenship for the Dreamers.

And why wouldnt they?

Don’t Miss: What Republicans Are Voting Against Trump

What Has Changed In The Two Years Since The Senate Voted Down Daca Legislation

Two years ago this week, the Senate voted on four different immigration billsthree that proposed permanent fixes for Dreamers and one on sanctuary cities. Each failed to reach the 60-vote threshold for passage. Later this year, the Supreme Court is expected to rule with the Trump administration in favor of terminating the DACA program, ultimately triggering a chaotic election-year fight over Dreamers, immigration reform, and border security.;

Much has changed in the 735 days since the Senate last took up this contentious issue, but advancing a DACA deal still remains unlikely. Here are five developments to the politics and policy around DACA since the last showdown in the upper chamber.;

Can Daca Recipients Vote

People granted DACA status do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens when it comes to taking part in elections. They are considered permanent residents living in the U.S. with a green card; hence they are non-U.S. citizens. They also have the ability to obtain scholarships to pay for an education in the U.S.

Barring only a few states, DACA recipients and immigrants holding other statuses are not allowed to cast their votes in federal elections. Some states and municipalities that allow DACA recipients to vote include Chicago and San Francisco, among others. If theyre undocumented immigrants, then voting is entirely prohibited.

You May Like: Why Do Republicans Like Donald Trump

Hold Your Own Hearings

You can share personal stories that reflect the importance of DACA and how it has helped you. People will be more receptive to such messages than blunt political ads. In fact, many teenagers and adults who benefited from DACA are sharing their own stories of how it changed their lives. And these stories are circulating on the Internet, inspiring millions.

How Can Dreamers Get Their Voices Heard At The Polls

Even though they cannot cast their vote in the elections, all is not lost for DACA recipients. Nearly 700,000 people are living in the U.S. with DACA status. So changing or abandoning a policy on which so many people rely is not an easy undertaking.

Some of the DACA recipients are taking things into their own hands and trying their best to keep DACA intact. While this may not be directly effective, it is certainly a way for them to try to make an impact this election season.

Recommended Reading: Are There More Democrats Or Republicans In The Senate

What Are The Big Concerns Facing Dreamers This Election

Elections are always important to a country, and most importantly, to its people. These people are both citizens and non-citizens, each with their own hopes and concerns for the election. DACA recipients look forward to the upcoming 2020 election with anticipation.

The DACA policy first came into effect in 2012, and within the last eight years, it has undergone a roller coaster ride of policy shifts. 2020 is going to be no different, and there are some big concerns looming for DACA status holders. Among all the major concerns, the most important ones for these non-citizens are:

How Can They Force A Vote

What Republicans want from a DACA deal

Moderate Republicans are using a rarely-used and rarely-successful procedural maneuver called a discharge petition. Stick with me: A discharge petition forces a vote by the whole House of Representatives on specific bill or bills. In this specific instance, this petition would force a vote as early as June on four different immigration plans. This would bypass going through committee and whole array of other roadblocks Republicans leaders could typically use to stop legislation they dont like.

Read Also: Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The Senate

Republicans Split Up: Tillis And Cornyn Pushing For Amnesty For Daca Recipients Betraying Americans Again

Republican donors and Republican voters are about ready to get a divorce over some critical issues, like Amnesty, which is hugely unpopular with the Voters and highly favorable with the donors.

Some Republicans can not stop themselves from lying to their voters and pushing for far-left policies like Amnesty for DACA recipients.;

Most Republicans support DACA. As do these Republican Members of Congress and former members: Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, John Coryn, Thom Tillis, Adam Kinzinger, Leonard Lance, Carlos Curbelo, Jeff Flake, Mike Coffman, Ileana Ros-Lehinen, Will Hurd, Jeff Dedham

Whatever

According to many of his constituents, Thom Tillis from North Carolina is one of the most deceitful people on the Hill on immigration issues. So is John Cornyn. Together they have devised another Amnesty scheme that represents donors and not voters.;

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, Cornyn and Tillis are pushing for things that will make them some money but which their constituents will not be happy about:

In making their case, the Republican senators stated that there is no clear and politically viable path forward for the American Dream and Promise Act, which would amnesty at least 4.4 million illegal aliens, and that a narrower bill is more viable.;

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;data, there are approximately 616,030 illegal aliens who are active DACA recipients.

House Votes To Give Millions Of Dreamers And Farmworkers A Path To Citizenship

Democrats vowed the votes would be the first step toward enacting President Bidens immigration agenda. But Republicans galvanized by border politics promised to stop even the most popular measures.

By Nicholas Fandos

The Democratic-led House voted on Thursday to create a path to citizenship for an estimated four million undocumented immigrants, reopening a politically charged debate over the nations broken immigration system just as President Biden confronts a growing surge of migrants at the border.

In a near party-line vote of 228 to 197, the House first moved to set up a permanent legal pathway for more than 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, including those brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, and others granted Temporary Protected Status for humanitarian reasons. Just nine Republicans voted yes.

Hours later, lawmakers approved a second measure with more bipartisan backing that would eventually grant legal status to close to a million farmworkers and their families while updating a key agricultural visa program. This time, 30 Republicans, many representing agriculture-heavy districts, joined nearly every Democrat to vote in favor.

In moving swiftly to consider both bills, House leaders wagered that singling out relatively narrow but publicly popular immigration fixes could shake up a deadlocked policy debate after years of failed attempts at more comprehensive immigration legislation and deliver for a key constituency.

Recommended Reading: Who Controls The House Of Representatives Republicans Or Democrats

Senator Charles Grassley On Daca

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Charles Grassley has been a supporter of DACA for awhile, and this support largely comes from his belief in the e-Verify system. Mr. Grassley has said that all employers should be required to use the E-verify system in order to check on a potential employees working eligibility, for a system like this would make deportation of criminals easier and it would as well speed up deportation of asylum seekers who are unable to support their claims.

Republicans And Democrats Remain Divided On Fate Of Daca

EmbedEmbed

As the White House may be inching closer to a deal that will decide the fate of 800,000 DACA recipients, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez shares her viewpoint on the current negotiations.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

We’re going to start the program today talking about new tensions around the program known as DACA, short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. That’s an Obama era rule that allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation. The Trump administration has said it wants to cancel the program in six months.

But President Trump met with Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi last week. And they reportedly agreed to work together to protect DACA recipients somehow. Until they come up with an actual plan, though, some 800,000 young people remain in limbo. And we will hear from one of those young people in just a few minutes.

But first, to the tensions. Neither President Trump supporters nor many of the Democratic lawmakers are pleased that the two are moving ahead on a deal without consulting with their respective bases. Joining us on the line to talk about this is Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Democrat of California. She’s the former chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. And she’s now vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus. Congresswoman, thank you so much for speaking with us.

LINDA SANCHEZ: Yeah. It’s great to be with you.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, my pleasure.

Read Also: Do Republicans Support Same Sex Marriage

Four Immigration Bills Were Put On The Senate Floor And Four Bills Failed

The Senate voted on four immigration bills on Thursday afternoon; they needed 60 votes to advance. Each of the bills, from the most conservative to the most liberal, failed.

First up was a plan by Sens. Chris Coons and John McCain . The Coons-McCain bill would have:

Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children

Offered no money for Trumps border wall, though it did include some border security measures

It failed 52 to 47, with Democrats almost united in favor and Republicans mostly voting against it.

What it means:The failure of the Coons-McCain plan underlined that with the Republicans controlling every lever of power in Washington, a bill without any funding for Trumps infamous border wall is a nonstarter.

The second vote, on an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey , did not actually address DACA or border security. The Toomey amendment would have penalized so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration policy, by withholding federal funding from those municipalities. The issue has been a fixation for Trump and some of the conservative hardliners in Congress.

It failed 54 to 45. Republicans and a few Democrats supported it, but most Democrats were opposed.

Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children

Offered $25 billion for border security

Prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for legal status

Its Time: As Congress Debates Citizenship Legislation Yet Again A Daca Recipient Grows Frustrated

Patients sometimes look up at Javier Quiroz, an acute-care nurse in one of Houstons busiest hospitals, and ask if he is in the United States legally.

No, he says.

Then he tells them about the journey that has never ended. He crossed the U.S.-Mexico border at age 3 and, nearly three decades later, is among 11;million undocumented immigrants rooted inside the United States without a permanent legal claim to this country.

Quiroz is a foreigner with a Tennessee accent, a registered nurse who paid his way through college and then fought to save lives in a pandemic that nearly took his father and infected him, his wife and their baby girl.

He has watched Congress debate his future for decades, but a bill that would offer him U.S. citizenship has never reached the presidents desk.

With Congress set to return to Washington on Monday, Democratic congressional leaders say legislation establishing such pathways ranks as one of their top priorities. But progress has been stymied, both by uncertain Democratic support and Republican recalcitrance amid an influx of migrants crossing the southwest border, following the same path Quiroz once took.

Failure is not an option, Schumer wrote to colleagues, saying they would address immigration and a host of other measures when the recess ends Monday.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Voted Against Budget

The Daca Population Numbers

787

President Donald Trump said he has heard varying numbers on the DACA population from 650,000 to 3 million. In fact, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said there were 689,800 active DACA recipients as of Sept. 4, 2017.

DACA, which stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was instituted in 2012 under the Obama administration and enabled certain individuals who had come to the United States illegally as children to avoid deportation proceedings and obtain work authorization for two years, subject to renewal. The Trump administration announced an end to the DACA program on Sept. 5, 2017, saying no new applications would be accepted and a wind-down would occur for current enrollees.

Congress is negotiating a deal on what to do about DACA before a March 5 deadline set by the president. A bipartisan group of lawmakers met with the president to discuss immigration on Jan. 9, and the following day, Trump said in a cabinet meeting that they had agreed to pursue four major areas yesterday of reform: securing our border, including, of course, the wall which has always been included, it never changed; ending chain migration; canceling the visa lottery; and addressing the status of the DACA population. He then rattled off a few different numbers on the DACA recipients.

Now, lets look at the figures the president mentioned on the DACA population.

Legal Immigration Is Now The Real Hurdle To A Senate Deal On Daca

Republicans push for vote on Trump’s proposal to end shutdown

Even with the failed votes, there was little disagreement among the various plans on two major issues: the DACA recipients themselves and border security funding.

Every major plan from the Grassley/Trump proposal to McCain-Coons would have provided a path to citizenship for young people in the United States who are eligible for DACA. An estimated 1.3 to 1.8 million people who had been brought to the country illegally as children would have received protections under that provision.

On border security, the disagreement was lesser Democrats werent eager to give Trump his wall, but they did appear willing to fund it to save DACA. The White House wanted $25 billion, and the Grassley bill gave it to them. So did the latest bipartisan Common Sense compromise.

The real disagreement, then, came down to legal immigration. The White House wanted substantial legal immigration cuts through changes to family-based migration and the diversity visa program. Those provisions were incorporated into the Grassley plan, but it had trouble mustering even universal Republican support.

Now, senators will return to their home states, having done nothing yet again to solve the DACA crisis.

Will you support Voxs explanatory journalism?

Don’t Miss: Why Do Republicans Want To Get Rid Of The Epa

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years

Text

How Many Republicans Voted For Daca

Arkansas Republicans Help Give Professional Licenses To Illegal Aliens

Republicans say there won’t be a DACA vote this week. How will Democrats respond?

The passing of this law was a special moment in Arkansas history, Hutchinson said.

Arkansas Nonprofit News Network reports:

Likewise, New Jersey;passed;similar legislation last year, and illegal aliens in the state are now applying for and receiving professional licenses.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter;here.;

Forced Daca Vote May Happen In June

Put Every Senator On The Record: Do You Support Daca Or Not

Damian Dovarganes / AP

Tuesday, July 27, 2021 | 2 a.m.

View more of the Sun’s opinion section

Write a letter to the editor

Americans have had enough of this ping-ponging on DACA. As shown unfailingly in polling, Americans across the political spectrum fervently support a pathway to citizenship for the Dreamers.

And why wouldnt they?

Don’t Miss: What Republicans Are Voting Against Trump

What Has Changed In The Two Years Since The Senate Voted Down Daca Legislation

Can Daca Recipients Vote

You May Like: Why Do Republicans Like Donald Trump

Hold Your Own Hearings

How Can Dreamers Get Their Voices Heard At The Polls

Recommended Reading: Are There More Democrats Or Republicans In The Senate

What Are The Big Concerns Facing Dreamers This Election

How Can They Force A Vote

What Republicans want from a DACA deal

Read Also: Are There More Republicans Or Democrats In The Senate

Republicans Split Up: Tillis And Cornyn Pushing For Amnesty For Daca Recipients Betraying Americans Again

Republican donors and Republican voters are about ready to get a divorce over some critical issues, like Amnesty, which is hugely unpopular with the Voters and highly favorable with the donors.

Some Republicans can not stop themselves from lying to their voters and pushing for far-left policies like Amnesty for DACA recipients.;

Whatever

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, Cornyn and Tillis are pushing for things that will make them some money but which their constituents will not be happy about:

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;data, there are approximately 616,030 illegal aliens who are active DACA recipients.

House Votes To Give Millions Of Dreamers And Farmworkers A Path To Citizenship

Democrats vowed the votes would be the first step toward enacting President Bidens immigration agenda. But Republicans galvanized by border politics promised to stop even the most popular measures.

By Nicholas Fandos

Recommended Reading: Who Controls The House Of Representatives Republicans Or Democrats

Senator Charles Grassley On Daca

Republicans And Democrats Remain Divided On Fate Of Daca