Trump by name......

I take it you are not familiar with the concept of setting priorities to make good use of limited resources and time regarding the enforcement of immigration laws...?

I'm sure Hannibal or someone else with similar experience could explain it better than I, but it should be a relatively simple concept.

 

Umm not really. You can't be an American citizen unless born here or "naturalized". Since the parents of DACA children (many are over 20 now) are illegally in the U.S., their children are not citizens. What defines being an American is transitional at best. Trumps decision to rescind or revise an executive order that Obama said, on numerous occasions, he didn't have the authority to execute is just going back to legal precedence.

 

When the dreamers were granted permits (meaning they're legally allowed to stay,) there was nothing to enforce and they were on course as productive members of society. They go to school, work, join the military - in the one and only country the vast majority of them have ever known. This applied to about 800,000 undocumented immigrants out of over roughly 12 million in the country. The ones who were brought and raised here, as children with no say, enrolled or graduated from school, and have no notable criminal records.

It's not realistic to think we can just round up 12 million people and kick them out of the country. DACA allowed these particular individuals to not live in the shadows and to have the opportunity for a better future. Rather than give them hope for a clear path to citizenship, Trump has thrown their future into doubt and disarray. Him and his administration also falsely tried to link DACA with the surge of minors crossing the border and the gang MS-13. This is a clear step backward for positive immigration reform.

This particular issue isn't about whether or not the US should enforce immigration laws. It's about badly needed immigration reform, and more specifically a group of productive members in society who have known no other home. It would be a small step in the right direction for Congress to give the dreamers a clear path to citizenship.

 

Ok, MS13 first: They have been an issue since the early 90's and neither party has enforced border policies that would have stemmed the amount of illegal crossings. I left corrections in 1995 and I was already seeing an up tick in the amount of El Salvadorian illegal aliens in and around the D.C. metro area. Again, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was signed by Bush II and never funded. The Immigration Reform Act signed by Reagan was a blanket amnesty for 100's of thousands of illegal aliens with a "promise" of tougher border enforcement and harsher penalties. Nothing happened. Bush Sr., Clinton, Shrub, and Obama all stated they were against illegal border crossings but none of them made it a priority.

The idea we "round them all up" is ludicrous but we can enforce the immigration laws and policies, already in place, to the point where illegals would want to leave. The debate now is how will that work/look? Do we make them self-deport and get in line? Do we allow them to stay and make them pay a fine/penalty and get in line?

DACA did create a surge of illegal minors crossing the border. What Brookings Scholars Are Saying about the Surge of Unaccompanied Children at the U.S. Border

Now you can find articles to counter the link I posted as easily as I found ones to support my argument. I have seen the attempt to "tie" dreamers to MS-13 and, though a few gang-bangers may have gotten through, they are a very small minority. MS-13 has it's own network to get their soldiers to the U.S. Coyotes, established "relatives", papers, visas, etc.

How many "dreamers" is enough? When should we terminate the program? How to prevent others from taking advantage of the border policies? Do we accept visa over-stays as well? In other words, "how many" illegal immigrants get to stay simply because they violated our border policies? These are the questions that are not answered by the people supporting DACA and Dreamers. Again, if we follow the Constitution, the issue is simple.

 

All good questions that need to be addressed, however they aren't directly related to DACA (except for when to stop renewing permits for DACA recipients.) There were specific eligibility requirements which did not include newer (or older) arrivals. As I mentioned before, I support congress giving DACA recipients a clear path to citizenship.

Not sure why you brought up the Constitution, as that doesn't really have anything to do with how Congress should go about comprehensive immigration reform (Which is what the questions you posed are related to.) That's a whole other issue for another thread though.

There is a good argument that the courts would eventually reverse the original executive order, which is why I think congress needs to take action on this.

Trump's recent tweet about revisiting DACA in six months if congress doesn't act is ridiculous.

 

Because we have strayed from the separation of powers. Congress should write the laws. The executive executes and enforces the laws. Obama's D.A.C.A usurped power not assigned to the executive branch (making or changing law).

Aye! A lot of what he does is ridiculous.

 

I dont think you udnerstand how poltiics works, everything bad that happens when republicans are in power are the Democrats fault and eveyrhting bad which happens when the demcorats are in power is the republicans fault. Or neo nazi's.

 

The link you provided does not support that assertion. Here's a more in-depth look at that specific claim:
Sessions' questionable claim that DACA helped bring minors

 

As I said, you can easily find articles against my position. Point is, DACA, and other policies that encourage illegal immigration, have been selling points for many traffickers from South America. MS-13 has it's own network set up to smuggle people. Freelance coyote have networks. Organized smuggling operations. Heck, some countries have printed out pamphlets to help illegals cross and what to say if they are apprehended.

Please don't read my statements as supporting Frump (I wanted Vermin Supreme). His decision changes nothing. Nobody is going anywhere. He has put the responsibility back in Congress' hands where it belongs. If they refuse to act, Frump wants to continue DACA. Of course there are already lawsuits against Trump's decision on the basis that the decision is "racist". 15 states plus D.C. have filed a lawsuit. It's AWESOME! ;-)

 

from Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security---


To become a citizen at birth, you must:

• Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
• had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

I imagine you know this but just for clarification for other readers.

Nice to see someone wanted Vermin.Haven't seen him since before... I think it was before his 2000 run.

 

If we're discussing incentivization, I think it's fair to bring up what a repeal of DACA would incentivize; these people came forward to try to legally obtain citizenship. That's unlikely to happen again, at least in living memory. With the pardoning of Joe Arpaio, I think it's fair to say that Latino/a citizens have very little reason to trust the US government, or believe that engaging with it in terms of services or support will yield good results for them. If we're interested in creating a permanent underclass in the United States, segregated by their ancestry, we seem to be on a good path towards that.

 

I agree completely! It reminds me of what happened after the "war on drugs" was declared. In essence, it just enabled some really bad people to get very rich and very violent.
The world seems to be undergoing a societal change of thought where everyone now has limited focus and short sighted thoughts. Not sure what can be done about it though.

 

My question about policy is always: "What will this actually do?" Not what does it aim at, what's legalistically coherent, but how does it function. So let's say you cut off avenues for illegal immigrants to become citizens. You make them afraid of the police who start asking about immigration services. You start picking up parents who are dropping their kids off at schools. You start looking at people's immigration status when they're evacuating from hurricanes. All legal, all simply enforcing the law, but end of the day we're not going to deport every single illegal immigrant - too many businesses in the US depend on them for cheap labor. No one wants that anyway. So big picture, I think this action is about securing and maintaining that cheap labor. This doesn't help America: we have historic examples of what happens when you isolate a community and make it impossible for them to access government services and it's not pretty. But yeah, as PGsmith said, I think it improves some folk's bottom line.

 

Indeed! Hence the reason that, so-called, Republicans won't enforce border policies or build barriers to stop illegal immigration. The Chamber of Commerce (aka the Chamber of Crony Capitalism) loves the cheap labor. Funny thing is that it years ago the United Farm Workers union was vehemently against illegal immigration because it threatened their members. Now, they are all about protecting "undocumented" populations.

As to the point of "deporting" every single illegal immigrant, I don't see that being a goal of anyone. As I have stated before, 40%+ of illegal immigrants are from Visa overstays. These aren't poor, immigrant laborers. These folks filled out documents in their home nation and here stating they would leave at the time their visa expired. They have committed fraud. The Reagan era amnesty left a sour taste in the mouth's of conservatives who simply want to stop illegal border crossings (impossible I know) and enforce immigration laws already passed.