4 ms·

It's legally correct. The H-4 expansion Obama did, just like his DACA expansion, was illegal, as the Fifth Circuit has already established. The Trump administr

It's legally correct. The H-4 expansion Obama did, just like his DACA expansion, was illegal, as the Fifth Circuit has already established. The Trump administration is simply following the law by withdrawing the illegal expansion that the DHS lacked legal authority to do. The H-4 specific lawsuit from Save Jobs USA is using the same principle from the Fifth Circuit decision. The legal way to have done H-4 or DACA was with appropriate legislation during the time the Democrats held the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof Senate majority... yet they chose to do absolutely no changes in immigration law (DACA or other amnesty, H-4 or other expansion). In fact, Senator Schumer railed against amnesty himself in multiple floor speeches. Now, ask yourself why that is.

lm28469 7y ago
> The Trump administration is simply following the law How is that an argument for anything. The nazis also followed the law ... The law is made by people, contrary to what a lot of Americans think, especially concerning the constitution, it's not some kind of immuable magical code that's written in stone. There are human being behind these numbers and visa codes, living in the US for a while and paying taxes as everyone else.
onlydeadheroes 7y ago
Sir, you are interrupting the circle jerk.
diebeforei485 7y ago
I'm not even sure where to begin. 1. There is plenty of distinction from the Fifth Circuit decision - for example DAPA and expanded DACA deal with folks present in the country illegally, while H-4 spouses have legal status. Another distinction is that the H-4 work authorization is interstitial - it only applies to those with an approved green card petition, and bridges the gap until the green card is received. That does not apply to DAPA. 2. That Fifth Circuit case was never decided on its merits - it just upheld a preliminary injunction from the district court.
- masonic 7y ago
  That Fifth Circuit case was never decided on its merits - it just upheld a preliminary injunction from the district court. That's all the Courts of Appeal ever do; they don't retry the testimony or evidence of a case in search of its "merits". What distinction are you trying to make?
messick 7y ago
If you're going to bring up the bullshit argument of "but the Dems owned all three branches of government!", at least get the Senate Majority Leader correct.
- masonic 7y ago
  Present Senate Majority Leader. I didn't write "then-Majority Leader" for exactly that reason. Are you saying that when one ascends to party leader, s/he becomes exempt from having hypocrisy of longstanding past positions pointed out?

lm28469 7y ago

> The Trump administration is simply following the law How is that an argument for anything. The nazis also followed the law ... The law is made by people, contrary to what a lot of Americans think, especially concerning the constitution, it's not some kind of immuable magical code that's written in stone. There are human being behind these numbers and visa codes, living in the US for a while and paying taxes as everyone else.

onlydeadheroes 7y ago

Sir, you are interrupting the circle jerk.

diebeforei485 7y ago

I'm not even sure where to begin. 1. There is plenty of distinction from the Fifth Circuit decision - for example DAPA and expanded DACA deal with folks present in the country illegally, while H-4 spouses have legal status. Another distinction is that the H-4 work authorization is interstitial - it only applies to those with an approved green card petition, and bridges the gap until the green card is received. That does not apply to DAPA. 2. That Fifth Circuit case was never decided on its merits - it just upheld a preliminary injunction from the district court.

masonic 7y ago
That Fifth Circuit case was never decided on its merits - it just upheld a preliminary injunction from the district court. That's all the Courts of Appeal ever do; they don't retry the testimony or evidence of a case in search of its "merits". What distinction are you trying to make?

messick 7y ago

If you're going to bring up the bullshit argument of "but the Dems owned all three branches of government!", at least get the Senate Majority Leader correct.

masonic 7y ago
Present Senate Majority Leader. I didn't write "then-Majority Leader" for exactly that reason. Are you saying that when one ascends to party leader, s/he becomes exempt from having hypocrisy of longstanding past positions pointed out?