Jump to content

fuggled

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fuggled

  1. Missed this before my prior post.  Sounds like deportees are already getting loaded onto buses after less than 24 hours notice.  DHS might be trying to test the Supreme Court's definition of "reasonable".

     

    • Rage+1 5
  2. 1 minute ago, achooloco said:

    wrong. He was granted asylum, nothing questionable at all about it. He is a legal resident, full stop. If you don’t agree you’re wrong and you need to educate yourself 

    To clarify, he wasn't granted asylum.  He applied for asylum, but you have to apply within a year of entering the country so it was denied.  He was granted protection from removal, which I've heard is more rare and a higher bar to clear than asylum.

    • Hook 'Em 5
  3. 1 minute ago, JBJ said:

    I believe it was on purpose.  They likely couldn't proceed with this case because the habeas case would happen first.  If Abrego wasn't aware of this, his lawyers should be the ones in the Salvadorian prison.

    One other thought here...it's pretty weak to blame this guy and his lawyer for creating a constitutional crisis by not moving fast enough.  The government ignored his court ordered protection from removal and then they ignored a court order to stop deportations, turn the plan around and bring people back.  Why should anyone expect that a new/different filing would change anything?

    • Hook 'Em 5
  4. 25 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Yes.  He was being held in Texas, I believe.  They even amended their initial filing before he was deported, so they had time to file a separate case.

    You have a link outlining any of this?  Pretty sure nobody knew where he was until his wife identified his tattoos in photos taken in El Salvador.

  5. Hard to know what to make of this, but there's noise that people are worried about deportations to El Salvador under AEA today.  Here's a lengthy thread about lawyers who say their clients in the Bluebonnet detention center (outside Abilene) are calling and saying they've been told they are getting deported.

     

     

    • Rage+1 1
  6. 13 minutes ago, bluto said:

    I could be wrong both understanding your question and my grasp of the system, but the ‘$6500’ follows the student at least in terms of the pub school loses that money bc the kid is no longer enrolled. 
    There was talk about giving rural schools a wad of cash to offset this for a yr or two, not sure if that ended up in play. 
    worth noting that vouchers are funded by the general fund pool from the state, it’s an entirely new expense technically separate from school funding (tho it will impact school funding due to enrollment shifts)

    Yeah, that gets at what I'm wondering about.  Very curious to hear about any mechanisms to keep the public school "whole" when voucher kids leave.  If a few kids take vouchers, schools can't just hire 90% of a teacher.  Unfortunately I expect the answer is just cut teachers and cram more kids into fewer classrooms.

    • Rage+1 1
  7. I haven't seen this explained anywhere, so hoping someone can clarify.  How do the senate and house voucher bills impact the basic allotment?  If the allotment is $6500 and vouchers are $10,000, does the private school get $10K and the public school lose $6500?  Or does the public school keep the allotment? 

  8. The judge in the Abrego Garcia case quickly updated her orders last night.  DOJ has a deadline in about 20 minutes to explain what steps they've taken so far and what other steps they plan to take.

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...