If you rent or own a home which you reside in as your primary residence for a period of time greater than some number of months then by definition you are a resident of the state. That's how state law defines it. It makes no demarcation if you are in the country legally or not in the definition of residency.
For all the DACA people out there.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
If you rent or own a home which you reside in as your primary residence for a period of time greater than some number of months then by definition you are a resident of the state. That's how state law defines it. It makes no demarcation if you are in the country legally or not in the definition of residency.
Yep, except there are plenty of times in congress when the "do-nothing alternative" is just situation normal without immediate consequences. That isnt the case here. I don't see Trump saying "oh you did nothing so why don't I just extend daca another six months to give you some more time." I don't see it.
So homeless people can't be residents? That seems heartless.
You understand very well my point. If you are not legally allowed to be in a state, it is preposterous to treat you as a resident. You are not a resident. You are an invader.
Somewhat true I guess. States get to define who is a resident when the money or services they are handing out is 100% state funded. The problem is, of course, that lots of federal money is handed out to residents of states to be administered by states and you have to meet the feds definition of resident unless the enabling statute defers to the states definition. Over the years, this issue has created a cottage industry of lawyers working on legal cases related to this so it is very program, state, and fact specific.
Could be... if nobody upholds the law and boots you out... like some sort of "squatter's rights".
Sure, and if you were Debbie Wasserman's IT consultant you might even take out a home equity loan right after you broke in.
It's my impression is that the assertions here may be on somewhat shaky legal grounds, established by legal precedent and possibly appeals court rulings (stare decisis). We may be about to find out, but my guess is the administration is making pubic bluster to play to Trumps low information constituency, but is simultaneously instructing authorities to go slow until Congress acts. (More Trump bullshit in other words.) The administration knows full well they'll have vietnam-like demonstrations on college campuses throughout the nation if they start deporting DACA kids. Congress will Act to save DACA, possibly modifying it minimally for best political affect on Republican low information voters. (The ones that get all their information from YouTube conspiracy videos or Peilthetraveler posts.) Dumping DACA is hugely unpopular among the general population.
Last edited:
Probably a lot of them will fly the mexican flag too as they usually do. See if that helps.
I would say you're exactly right, except for those vietnam-war-era-like campus demonstrations that are just now heating up. DACA is hugely popular among the general population, the Republicans know this of course, and that gives the Democrats the upper hand here. If the Republicans don't save DACA they'll get the blame! I'm very serious about the demonstrations that will quickly erupt into violence. Canning DACA isn't just unpopular, its calling for your school and family friends who you've grown up with, and are as American as apple pie and Taco Bell, to be kicked out of the country. People simply won't stand for this!!! There will be civil war over it! Seriously!
Last edited: