How Do We Get Rid of DACA?

[jonny5]

What you just posted is that...

One politician should ignore the law and courts.

Would you say the same thing about Hillary? Or a criminal?

I would. If the courts are making laws, they should be ignored. Only congress is allowed to make laws.

 

[jonny5]

In theory, since it was implemented via executive order, not legislation, it could also be repealed via executive order. However, we have certain activists in the judiciary who are twisting the laws to give their benefactors on the left a reason to keep inviting them to cocktail parties

It was not an executive order. It was a DHS memo.

 

[jonny5]

They were brought here, by and large, as small kids, by their parents.

They have been hard-working and are not “victimizing” anyone.

Ridiculous to say they’re “not American” when America is all they’ve known.

If you were born in New York City, but only lived there a day and then spent the rest of your life in Idaho, would you really say you were a New Yorker?

I think yall are missing the point. No one, including Trump, is planning on deporting them. He is trying to force congress to deal with it by using his executive power to direct the policies of agencies like DHS. And by doing so, return our immigration system to one that keeps illegals out. Instead our system encourages people to sneak in and hide long to enough to get some form of amnesty. And so the topic is, if the courts wont let us do away with the policy, and congress wont replace it, what next? We have to keep this policy forever?

 

[Lutherf]

It was not an executive order. It was a DHS memo.

You're right. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was done through administrative process, not law, and SHOULD be able to be undone through administrative process. If the Obama administrative branch had the legal right to do it without passing legislation then there is no reason that the Trump administration should be prohibited from undoing it the same way.

 

[lwf]

"An unprivileged entry on property possessed by another is a trespass. When, however, one possesses another's property in a manner that is exclusive, visible ("open and notorious"), continuous, and without the owner's permission ("adverse or hostile") for a period defined by state statute, the rules in force transfer title from the title holder (the "true" or "record" owner) to the adverse possessor. If possession lasts for more than the period defined by the relevant statute of limitations, the owner is barred from bringing an action in ejectment against the possessor."





So, yes, it is about knowing abandonment of property rights, and no, it has nothing to do with "human rights".

...KNOWING. Or if you like "visible ("open and notorious")"

"Visible, open, and notorious" applies to the actions of the squatter, not the property owner. Hence, it is not "knowing abandonment of property rights," it is knowing possession by the squatter. The property does NOT have to be knowingly abandoned. I'm sorry if you thought you knew this with 100% certainty, but you just might want to peruse the case law on that one.

 

[Mr Person]

You should look up "Adverse Possession." There is a reason why for centuries courts have sided with squatters in long term situations. You may think you are entitled to do as you please to anyone who happens to step foot on your legal property, but the reality is that their human rights far outweigh your property rights. And that's how it should be.

Adverse possession is about knowing abandonment of property rights by the owner, not a placement of "human rights" above property rights.

Not necessarily. A property need not have been knowingly abandoned. All that's required is that the squatter have lived there uninterrupted without permission for the minimum statutory time. And the reason why that law exists is because it is assumed in those cases that the squatter has through constant care made the property more of a home to herself than the legal owner has to himself.

I'm not suggesting the law applies to Dreamer cases, but the reason for it does.

Yeah I just love being told I'm wrong when I know for a fact I'm right. Love it. Fine, I'll dig out my old property law textbook: Here's part of the opening explanatory paragraph (I'm not going through the whole 50 pages of caselaw snippets):

"An unprivileged entry on property possessed by another is a trespass. When, however, one possesses another's property in a manner that is exclusive, visible ("open and notorious"), continuous, and without the owner's permission ("adverse or hostile") for a period defined by state statute, the rules in force transfer title from the title holder (the "true" or "record" owner) to the adverse possessor. If possession lasts for more than the period defined by the relevant statute of limitations, the owner is barred from bringing an action in ejectment against the possessor."

So, yes, it is about knowing abandonment of property rights, and no, it has nothing to do with "human rights".

I'm not paging through the next 50 pages of caselaw snippets because I now I am 100% correct. The only variations you'll find are in quirks about specific state laws. But yes, KNOWING. Or if you like "visible ("open and notorious")"

"Visible, open, and notorious" applies to the actions of the squatter, not the property owner. Hence, it is not "knowing abandonment of property rights," it is knowing possession by the squatter. The property does NOT have to be knowingly abandoned. I'm sorry if you thought you knew this with 100% certainty, but you just might want to peruse the case law on that one.

Everything you are saying backs me up and you don't know it because you seem to have some bizarre definition of "knowing" in your head that you're convinced I had in my head, when I didn't have whatever definition you were using in my head. They literally explain this:

"Open and notorious". Courts generally agree that the possessory acts must be sufficiently visible and obvious to put a reasonable owner on notice that her property is being occupied by a non-owner with the intent of claiming possessory rights. Smith v. Hayden, 777 P.2d at 52; Grappo v. Banks, 400 S.E.2d 168 (Va 1991)." From the very beginning subsection on that element. I am not typing up the rest for you.

And that is exactly what I meant with knowing, which I already put you directly on notice about in the last post when I said

"...KNOWING. Or if you like "visible ("open and notorious")""

Stop playing lawyer. You're wrong. I was right. My casebook is right. You don't get to invent some alternate definition of "knowing" and tell me that it's the one I mean and that it's wrong, when I've just explicitly explained to you that by knowing I meant what is meant by "Visible ("open and notorious"). And you most certainly do not get to complain that on a message board I spoke colloquially rather than quoting caselaw at someone from the outset.

If someone looks at this exchange and concludes that you're right that adverse possession is actually about some kind of bizarre balancing of human rights vs. property rights, rather than the straight-up legal elements in play, let it be on their head. I'm done with this aggravating ****.



___________________
Edit: for copyright/fair use stuff, the source was: "PROPERTY LAW Rules, Policies, and Practices", (Singer, Aspen Law & Business, 3rd Ed. 2002) There's probably a newer version by now as this one is nearly 20 years old, but ancient doctrine like adverse possession tends not to change radically in that time.

 

[TheParser]

DACA or no DACA, the "Dreamers" are staying here.

I agree with the bleeding hearts that it would be cruel to force hundreds of thousands of undocumented residents to return to countries that are as foreign to them as they are to us.

No way on earth would the American people tolerate seeing hundreds of thousands of undocumented residents being dragged to planes (they certainly won't go willingly) and sent back to the land of their parents. It ain't going to happen.

Nancy and Chuck know that, so they are in no hurry to make a deal with the President.

And the Supreme Court would never, ever allow their mass deportation. This is 2019, not the 1940s when Japanese Americans in California were rounded up and sent to detention camps.

 

[lwf]

"Open and notorious". Courts generally agree that the possessory acts must be sufficiently visible and obvious to put a reasonable owner on notice that her property is being occupied by a non-owner with the intent of claiming possessory rights. Smith v. Hayden, 777 P.2d at 52; Grappo v. Banks, 400 S.E.2d 168 (Va 1991)." From the very beginning subsection on that element. I am not typing up the rest for you.

And that is exactly what I meant with knowing, which I already put you directly on notice about in the last post when I said

...KNOWING. Or if you like "visible ("open and notorious")"

Stop playing lawyer. You're wrong. I was right. My casebook is right. You don't get to invent some alternate definition of "knowing" and tell me that it's the one I mean and that it's wrong, when I've just explicitly explained to you that by knowing I meant what is meant by "Visible ("open and notorious"). And you most certainly do not get to complain that on a message board I spoke colloquially rather than quoting caselaw at someone from the outset.

Well, you did originally say:

"Adverse possession is about knowing abandonment of property rights by the owner"

and then changed it to:

"the possessory acts must be sufficiently visible and obvious to put a reasonable owner on notice that her property is being occupied by a non-owner"

I would say you are the one playing lawyer here if you equate the last sentence to knowing abandonment of one's right to property, since in almost every disputed case of adverse possession the legal property owner specifically argues that his or her property was NOT knowingly abandoned, in fact, it was "knowingly retained," but just "temporarily" unoccupied. When that argument is made in court, the squatter can still win possession of the property. Therefore, your original statement was incorrect at face value. You can say now that you really intended to mean something different than your face value comment, but don't get mad at me for your ignorance of the law.

 

[Anagram]

Given Trumps offer to not try to rescind DACA for three years if the Dems agree to border control funding, it leads me to an interesting question about the status of DACA. How do we get rid of such that the court wont object?

Lets assume DHS actually did have the authority to defer deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegals (via DHS memo, not Executive Order). And that DHS recision 5 years later was arbitrary and thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as the court claimed.

Ok, so the court wont let it die, and the SC wont hear the appeal. The congress wont pass any laws legalizing the "Dreamers". How do we then get rid of the policy such that it is not done in an arbitrary way? Propose to rescind it on valid grounds, have hearings for 6 months, and then do it? Would the 9th circus allow that? What if we just stop taking new applicants and allow the existing to continue staying here? Would the courts allow no new deferments?

I believe that each of the courts that have ruled against it so far have stated that if it was rescinded on valid grounds the rescission would no longer violate the APA. I do think the current APA arguments have some merit and that the DHS did a poor job in justifying its reason for rescinding DACA, but if it were to do so properly I don't think there are any non-frivolous arguments against it.

 

[Mr Person]

I believe that each of the courts that have ruled against it so far have stated that if it was rescinded on valid grounds the rescission would no longer violate the APA. I do think the current APA arguments have some merit and that the DHS did a poor job in justifying its reason for rescinding DACA, but if it were to do so properly I don't think there are any non-frivolous arguments against it.

Right. A colloquial description from when I skimmed the 30ish page decision: It had to do with the kind of procedures the APA requires, generally having to do with fact-finding, when an agency has already implemented one policy and then seeks to revise or end that policy. The admin basically just had them make factual assertions that contradicted the prior fact-findings, but didn't jump through the right hoops in doing so.

So this is all rather amusing to me, since the Admin could have ended DACA long ago had they not tried to cut corners. I have to wonder whether they're simultaneously trying to do that right now. If all they're doing is appealing the past injunctions against ending DACA thinking their prior efforts will be approved of in the end, they're probably going to screw themselves again, which is fine by me because I like DACA...

(I'm on a little shakier ground now because I suddenly am only about 80% certain that the prior order was an injunction against recision while the merits were decided, and the circuit court ruling was about upholding the injunction. And generally, injunctions only rule on the probability of the parties success on the merits, and so the rulings only mean that to X degree of likelihood, the recision violated the APA; I have no memory of what the standard is for a preliminary injunction, but I recall you have to be pretty damn likely to win to get an injunction you are requesting).

 

[Mr Person]

Well, you did originally say:

"Adverse possession is about knowing abandonment of property rights by the owner"

and then changed it to:

"the possessory acts must be sufficiently visible and obvious to put a reasonable owner on notice that her property is being occupied by a non-owner"

I would say you are the one playing lawyer here if you equate the last sentence to knowing abandonment of one's right to property, since in almost every disputed case of adverse possession the legal property owner specifically argues that his or her property was NOT knowingly abandoned, in fact, it was "knowingly retained," but just "temporarily" unoccupied. When that argument is made in court, the squatter can still win possession of the property. Therefore, your original statement was incorrect at face value. You can say now that you really intended to mean something different than your face value comment, but don't get mad at me for your ignorance of the law.

Duder: just about any time I start by quoting the exact caselaw, people stop listening. So I went colloquial at first. After all, you did the same at first. Outside of a few areas of law (ie, fraud; 1st vs. 2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter), the degree of 'knowing' someone must have is in fact phrased in terms of what could be expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances, and not what was literally inside the specific person in question's head.

But, by the second post, I realized you might be quibbling about whether by knowing I meant "literally proven to be inside the homeowner's head" or somesuch, so I made clear that when I said "knowing", I was referring to the term of art "open and notorious", which itself is then phrased in terms of what one could expect of a reasonable property owner. Do note that the casebook itself uses the shorthand term "visible", only putting the exact term in parentheses ("open and notorious").



And I am not the one ignorant of the law. Your opening gambit was 100% false. There is no balancing of human rights vs. property rights. You just decided to play a cheap semantic game, and you kept playing it after I clarified exactly what I was saying in the second post. Again, that was when I said:

"...KNOWING. Or if you like "visible ("open and notorious")""

And absolutely none of this defends your original position.

You should look up "Adverse Possession." There is a reason why for centuries courts have sided with squatters in long term situations. You may think you are entitled to do as you please to anyone who happens to step foot on your legal property, but the reality is that their human rights far outweigh your property rights. And that's how it should be.

No. Absolutely wrong. Human rights don't come into adverse possession at all.

And there is no tie to DACA, either. Now many you're one of those people who want unrestricted immigration because of "human rights", but that's not what the rest of the people who support DACA are talking about. They are talking about legal responsibility at the time the children were brought over the border, more specifically, their complete lack of legal responsibility for what their parents did. It's not about a human right, but about the fundamental unfairness of deporting someone now to a country they will struggle to survive in, after letting them stay here for so many years, and where they were not responsible for being brought here.

 

[trouble13]

Doesnt help if the Supreme Court wont even hear the appeal. Or that lower courts will keep ruling against the unmaking of regulations.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/is-daca-stuck-in-limbo-at-the-supreme-court

A new court may come to a different conclusion and take the case

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Irwin Corey]

How Do We Get Rid of DACA?

We establish sensible and fair laws to deal with immigration. We need to recognize that workers from South of our boarder have been coming here, to work, for over 100 years. That the American business/immigrant labor relationship has benefited both parties and usually the American side most; that is absolutely true. Or pResident tRump uses immigrant labor in his business now and for years in the past. It's a way of life for both Americans and Mexicans.<-period

Very few, very few immigrant workers are terrorists or criminals. IF were going to solve this problem we need to evaluate it honestly with out charged rhetoric. And like it or not they do work that Americans, (1) don't want to do, (2) and/0r aren't qualified to do.
Maybe they do lower wages in our country, maybe not; I don't know, we should study that. Do they vote in our elections and receive benefits created for Americans; probably not; that needs to be honestly looked into as well. The point is when you strip away charged rhetoric WE really don't know the truth.

There are many immigrants that have been here from birth and quite probably don't have legal citizenship … anywhere. Right now if someone is here illegally, no matter how long, they have to go "back" (to where ever that is) and wait up to 10 years to come back legally; they may have "legal" children here and business ties … 10 years is a LONG time to wait. Many American business, agriculture, hospitality, maintenance and construction are impacted by the lack of immigrant labor. The point is we need to come up with sensible legislation that serves American and immigrants and their mutual needs fairly and sensibly.

This is, by far, a more important and pressing need for legislation that boarder control. IMHO, IF/ONCE we deal with those issues the need for boarder security is, at best, next OR might take care of itself. Building a wall without fully and honestly understanding the problem is a waste of time and money. We have to define the problem before we can deal with it. We have to recognize that systemic nature of the problem and act in OUR best interest. We CAN'T do that if we don't honestly evaluate OUR needs first.

 

[marke]

Given Trumps offer to not try to rescind DACA for three years if the Dems agree to border control funding, it leads me to an interesting question about the status of DACA. How do we get rid of such that the court wont object?

Lets assume DHS actually did have the authority to defer deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegals (via DHS memo, not Executive Order). And that DHS recision 5 years later was arbitrary and thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as the court claimed.

Ok, so the court wont let it die, and the SC wont hear the appeal. The congress wont pass any laws legalizing the "Dreamers". How do we then get rid of the policy such that it is not done in an arbitrary way? Propose to rescind it on valid grounds, have hearings for 6 months, and then do it? Would the 9th circus allow that? What if we just stop taking new applicants and allow the existing to continue staying here? Would the courts allow no new deferments?

Ironically, while politicians continue their debate on how to fix the illegal immigration mess our politicians have gotten us into illegal aliens continue to find illegal jobs to feed themselves and their families in spite of Congress' failure to solve the continuing problem. I have illegally hired several illegal aliens over the years. I don't want their kids starving because adults don't have enough sense to work together to solve the mess they are in. Illegals make good workers, BTW.

 

[JayJay]

I think yall are missing the point. No one, including Trump, is planning on deporting them. He is trying to force congress to deal with it by using his executive power to direct the policies of agencies like DHS. And by doing so, return our immigration system to one that keeps illegals out. Instead our system encourages people to sneak in and hide long to enough to get some form of amnesty. And so the topic is, if the courts wont let us do away with the policy, and congress wont replace it, what next? We have to keep this policy forever?

Read the post of the person to whom I was responding.

 

[Mr Person]

I think yall are missing the point. No one, including Trump, is planning on deporting them. He is trying to force congress to deal with it by using his executive power to direct the policies of agencies like DHS. And by doing so, return our immigration system to one that keeps illegals out. Instead our system encourages people to sneak in and hide long to enough to get some form of amnesty. And so the topic is, if the courts wont let us do away with the policy, and congress wont replace it, what next? We have to keep this policy forever?

Ummm...hold on a sec.

He does want to deport them. He just did it in a very hamfisted manner and the courts blocked it because his executive agency's action violated the Administrative Procedure Act - a very useful tool created by the legislature so that executive agencies had oversight both from them and the judiciary.

I don't see the slightest bit of reason to suppose Trump is a secret constitutional scholar and was somehow worried about government overstepping its authority. That's just the attack conservatives threw at Obama when he exercised age-old prosecutorial ('executive', more broadly) discretion in saying no, don't deport those, but focus on the violent ones in prison first. That is not what Trump thinks.

(Really...why suppose that a guy who has to be constantly told by the people around him that he's not allowed to just go do this or just go do that because it's against the law, is actually concerned about some constitutional limit on prosecutorial discretion that makes DACA invalid?)




I suggest you read some of the later pages, because the nature of the ruling and what it means for the future has been addressed....

 

[jonny5]

You're right. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was done through administrative process, not law, and SHOULD be able to be undone through administrative process. If the Obama administrative branch had the legal right to do it without passing legislation then there is no reason that the Trump administration should be prohibited from undoing it the same way.

Well, to be fair, according to the court there is the Administrative Procedure Act which says you cant just make regulations arbitrarily. Though it doesnt say unmake, so ...

 

[jonny5]

I believe that each of the courts that have ruled against it so far have stated that if it was rescinded on valid grounds the rescission would no longer violate the APA. I do think the current APA arguments have some merit and that the DHS did a poor job in justifying its reason for rescinding DACA, but if it were to do so properly I don't think there are any non-frivolous arguments against it.

Im not so sure. Part of the argument they made was there would be harm done to the plaintiffs who employ the dreamers.

 

[Anagram]

Im not so sure. Part of the argument they made was there would be harm done to the plaintiffs who employ the dreamers.

I could be misremembering. I haven't looked at these since they came out. However, I believe that part of the ruling dealt with the injury requirement for the plaintiff's standing.

 

[jonny5]

Ummm...hold on a sec.

He does want to deport them. He just did it in a very hamfisted manner and the courts blocked it because his executive agency's action violated the Administrative Procedure Act - a very useful tool created by the legislature so that executive agencies had oversight both from them and the judiciary.

I don't see the slightest bit of reason to suppose Trump is a secret constitutional scholar and was somehow worried about government overstepping its authority. That's just the attack conservatives threw at Obama when he exercised age-old prosecutorial ('executive', more broadly) discretion in saying no, don't deport those, but focus on the violent ones in prison first. That is not what Trump thinks.

(Really...why suppose that a guy who has to be constantly told by the people around him that he's not allowed to just go do this or just go do that because it's against the law, is actually concerned about some constitutional limit on prosecutorial discretion that makes DACA invalid?)




I suggest you read some of the later pages, because the nature of the ruling and what it means for the future has been addressed....

He doesnt want to deport them. He wants congress to fix it instead of Presidents doing defacto amnesty. Hes trying to prevent further abuse, which was his whole platform. He even just said recently he would use amnesty as bait for something else. He has no principle of deporting people who have been good residents. No one has that principle. They just dont want to do amnesty now, and then again in 20 years, and again in 20 years, because no one ever actually prevents illegals from sneaking in.

The case even mentions it

On this point, we seem to be in the unusual position wherein the
ultimate authority over the agency, the Chief Executive, publicly favors the very program the
agency has ended. In September, President Trump stated his support for DACA, tweeting:
“Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who
have jobs, some serving in the military? Really! . . . .” He has also called upon Congress to
ratify DACA, tweeting, “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama
Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”

 

[jonny5]

I could be misremembering. I haven't looked at these since they came out. However, I believe that part of the ruling dealt with the injury requirement for the plaintiff's standing.

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Regents-v-DHS-prelim-injunction-2018-01-09.pdf

Defendants, of course, are correct that when an agency reverses policy it “need not
demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the
reasons for the old one.” Ibid. Where, however, an agency abruptly changes course and
terminates a program on which so many people rely, the APA requires “a more detailed
justification.” Ibid. Indeed, “t would be arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters.”
Ibid. In such cases, “it is not that further justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy
change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that
underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” . Defendants’ attempt to portray
DACA as a program that did not generate reliance interests is unconvincing. As plaintiffs’
evidence shows, DACA recipients, their employers, their colleges, and their communities all
developed expectations based on the possibility that DACA recipients could renew their deferred
action and work authorizations for additional two-year periods.

This is basically the argument being made, that changing the rule would harm expectations of people who "developed expectations"

 

[Mr Person]

He doesnt want to deport them. He wants congress to fix it instead of Presidents doing defacto amnesty. Hes trying to prevent further abuse, which was his whole platform. He even just said recently he would use amnesty as bait for something else. He has no principle of deporting people who have been good residents. No one has that principle. They just dont want to do amnesty now, and then again in 20 years, and again in 20 years, because no one ever actually prevents illegals from sneaking in.

The case even mentions it

At this point, all I can say is "yuh-huh" and you "nuh uh", since I simply cannot accept the premise that suddenly Trump is concerned about respecting the balance of powers. Not only can I not accept that premise, it's a premise that completely contradicts the bulk of his anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric, and his actions against both legal AND illegal immigration since taking office.

:shrug:



If he wanted congress to legally implement DACA, he'd have spent the last two years soapboxing against the GOP for it. If they refused, he wouldn't end it. (Again, he does NOT care about too much executive authority being a problem; everything we've seen indicates the opposite. It's not enough for him). And he could, right now, urge the GOP to offer permanent DACA for all eligible, for his entire wall. The Dems would take that, I'm sure. And he'd get what he wanted, if you were right that he wanted it.

Also note: he ended Obama's policy of focusing resources on the violent illegals, and instead implemented an anyone, wherever they are found, policy.


Everything that has happened shows what you are saying about Trump's motives is wrong.

 

[Anagram]

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Regents-v-DHS-prelim-injunction-2018-01-09.pdf



This is basically the argument being made, that changing the rule would harm expectations of people who "developed expectations"

Thank you. That is slightly different than what I was remembering, but maybe the standing issue was in Judge Bate's DC hearing. That's in relation to the DHS not providing reasoned expectations. They're not really saying that the injury to the DACA applicants prevents the DHS from rescinding the policy though. If that were the case, almost no rule could be made/rescinded by any injury as people would have developed reliance interests on the current policy. The ruling says that the DHS provided basically no reasoning at all for their decision.

I don't think it's that high a bar. I think it's likely that even if the DHS rescinded the policy and provided the reasoning that their priorities in controlling the border have changed (this was not one of the justifications in the acting secretary's rescission memo), that would probably be enough.

 

[jonny5]

At this point, all I can say is "yuh-huh" and you "nuh uh",.

Whateva

 

[jonny5]

Thank you. That is slightly different than what I was remembering, but maybe the standing issue was in Judge Bate's DC hearing. That's in relation to the DHS not providing reasoned expectations. They're not really saying that the injury to the DACA applicants prevents the DHS from rescinding the policy though. If that were the case, almost no rule could be made/rescinded by any injury as people would have developed reliance interests on the current policy. The ruling says that the DHS provided basically no reasoning at all for their decision.

I don't think it's that high a bar. I think it's likely that even if the DHS rescinded the policy and provided the reasoning that their priorities in controlling the border have changed (this was not one of the justifications in the acting secretary's rescission memo), that would probably be enough.

Its the same argument the 9th circus made about the travel ban, that it would hurt universities who expected people to come talk. No basis in law. They just make it up as the go, and use some other courts similar ruling for justification. But that my whole point here. Its stuck in limbo. Cant remove it, congress wont do anything, courts wont do anything.