Supreme Court Appears Ready to Let Trump End DACA Program
This is going to be interesting and will bring a barrage of "but the court is loaded" claims by heart bleeding liberals............if it turns out against their "feelings".
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
“I assume that was a very considered decision,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said of a second set of justifications offered by the administration in a memorandum last year after its decision to end the program was challenged in court.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he saw little point in requiring the administration to come forward with better or more elaborate reasons. “What good would another five years of litigation over the adequacy of that explanation serve?” he asked.
Still, the justices agreed that the young people who signed up for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, were sympathetic and that they and their families, schools and employers had relied on it in good faith. “I hear a lot of facts, sympathetic facts, that you’ve put out there, and they speak to all of us,” Justice Gorsuch said.
And while Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that the administration was on solid legal footing in saying the program was unlawful, he said the Supreme Court could rule in a humane way, minimizing the hardships people participating in the program would face if it were ended.
“It’s not always the case when the government acts illegally in a way that affects other people,” he said, “that we go back and untangle all of the consequences of that.” The program, he suggested, could be wound down in measured steps.
Chief Justice Roberts added that both the Obama and Trump administrations have said they would not deport people eligible for the program, meaning that the main practical questions if the program is ended would be their ability to work legally, obtain driver’s licenses and the like.
“The whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits,” the chief justice said. “Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport the people.”
The arguments in the case, one of the most important of the court’s term, addressed the president’s power over immigration, a critical issue for Mr. Trump and a divisive one, especially as it has played out in the debate over DACA, a program that has broad, bipartisan support.
The program, announced by President Barack Obama in 2012, allows young people brought to the United States as children to apply for a temporary status that shields them from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years and is renewable, but it does not provide a path to citizenship.
In the past, Mr. Trump has praised the program’s goals and suggested he wanted to preserve it. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?” he asked in a 2017 Twitter post.
But as the court took up its future on Tuesday, Mr. Trump struck a different tone. “Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels,’” he wrote on Twitter. “Some are very tough, hardened criminals.”
In fact, the program has strict requirements. To be eligible, applicants had to show that they had committed no serious crimes, had arrived in the United States before they turned 16 and were no older than 30, had lived in the United States for at least the previous five years, and were in school, had graduated from high school or received a G.E.D. certificate, or were an honorably discharged veteran.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the DACA recipients were justified in relying on Mr. Trump’s earlier statements. Mr. Trump, she said, had been “telling DACA-eligible people that they were safe under him and that he would find a way to keep them here.”
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, said the program was by its nature an interim step.
“DACA was always meant to be a temporary stopgap measure that could be rescinded at any time, which is why it was only granted in two-year increments,” he said. “So I don’t think anybody could have reasonably assumed that DACA was going to remain in effect in perpetuity.”
But Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that many people and groups had indeed relied on the program to continue indefinitely, judging by the supporting briefs filed in the three cases before the court, including the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587.
“There are 66 health care organizations,” he said. “There are three labor unions. There are 210 educational associations. There are six military organizations. There are three home builders, five states plus those involved, 108, I think, municipalities and cities, 129 religious organizations and 145 businesses.”
The roots of the decision to shut down the program figured in the argument, as the justices parsed two sets of rationales from successive heads of the Department of Homeland Security.
After contentious debates among his aides, Mr. Trump announced in September 2017 that he would wind down the program. He gave only a single reason for doing so, saying that creating or maintaining the program was beyond the legal power of any president.
“I do not favor punishing children,” Mr. Trump said in his formal announcement of the termination. But, he added, “the program is unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court.”
That decision was reflected in a bare-bones memo from Elaine C. Duke, then the acting secretary of homeland security. She offered no policy reasons for the move, just that DACA was unlawful.
Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for the DACA recipients, said the memo allowed the administration to avoid taking political heat on the issue. “The administration did not want to own this decision,” he said.
Mr. Francisco disagreed. “We own this,” he said.
Mr. Francisco pointed to a second memo, issued last year by Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary at the time. It mostly relied on the earlier rationales in Ms. Duke’s memo, but added one more, about the importance of projecting a message “that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws against all classes and categories of aliens.”
That policy justification, Mr. Francisco said, was sufficient even if the administration was mistaken in its legal rationale.
Michael J. Mongan, California’s solicitor general, who argued in favor of the program, disagreed, calling Ms. Nielsen’s new rationale “a boilerplate assertion.”
Mr. Olson acknowledged that it was theoretically possible for the Trump administration to end the program without violating the law. Asked by Justice Kavanaugh if “the executive has the legal authority to rescind DACA,” Mr. Olson said yes.
But Mr. Olson said the administration’s justifications for doing so had to make sense, particularly given what was at stake.
“The government’s termination of DACA triggered abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individuals, their families, employers, communities and the armed forces,” he said. “That decision required the government to provide an accurate, reasoned, rational and legally sound explanation. It utterly failed to do so.”
The Trump administration’s argument that the program was unlawful was based on a 2015 ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. But that decision concerned a different, much larger program. Lower courts have ruled that the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration’s legal analysis.
On Tuesday, Justice Sotomayor appeared to agree, saying that said she had not seen an adequate explanation for the termination. “This is not about the law,” she said. “This is about our choice to destroy lives.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that it was impossible to disentangle the administration’s legal rationale from its later policy justification. “We don’t know how she would respond,” Justice Ginsburg said of Ms. Nielsen, “if there were a clear recognition that there was nothing illegal about DACA.”
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
While I have some sympathy for the DACA "kids" because their parents broke the law, they were looking for a better life........kids or no kids. But we still have to remember this........
“This is not about the law,” she said. “This is about our choice to destroy lives.”
Soyna - you'd better read what SCOTUS's function is - upholding the Constitution which is the "Law of the Land". Feelings/opinions do not constitute law.
Thanks Jim
1st,
Again, the law of the land has been very fuzzy about EO's. They have been done since the beginning of this country and no other president has reversed them.
So, either clarify the role of EO's or do away with them.
Perrie - DACA/DAPA/DREAMERS - none are Executive Orders. They are all "Memorandums". The Dream Act was proposed by the House and defeated by the Senate, but, some folks in Congress really don't give a shyte about following the law and are still trying to enforce it.
The DREAM Act (short for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) was a bill in Congress that would have granted legal status to certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and went to school here. Although several versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress since 2001, it has never passed.
So what is your position 1st...Do you want to depot all of the dreamers?
should read deport not depot.
Follow the LAW - each group of "exemptions" is hurting hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have/are attempting to follow the Immigration LAWS - not memorandums - not agreements - not EA's/EO's. The children of Illegal Aliens are responsible for their plight. They've had/will have opportunities to follow the LAWS and obtain the right to file for Citizenship/Naturalization. If they are over the age of 18 - and most of them are - all they have to do is get off their boo-hoo train and follow the steps laid out for them by the Existing/present/current Federal Immigration Laws - simple friggin' steps.
My wife is a Naturalized U.S. Citizen. We went through the process and paid a total of $1,825 over a five year period - but, by following the standards/laws, she is now a U.S. Naturalized Citizen. It ain't so friggin' hard. Follow the steps as outlined - period - quit crying and DEMANDING special favors.
Congress has had AMPLE opportunity to get together and hash out a very reasonable immigration system - AMPLE opportunities. Instead, they have battled and battled and bitched and moaned for many years. Bill Clinton stated that we don't need Illegal Aliens in this country and they should be deported. Little George said the same thing. Obama said the same thing. Trump tries to enforce the existing Congressionally passed Federal Immigration laws - that are on the books - and the Dems/Libs have friggin' hysterics.
If a person is in the U.S. ILLEGALLY, they are eligible for deportation. If they don't meet the existing standards/laws for residing in the U.S. - deport them - and that includes the DACA/DAPA/Dreamers.
That's my position. If you're not making an effort, don't bitch when you're deported.
I'm a dem and I'm not having friggin' hysterics. Don't throw that blanket out, it don't work. You should know better than that.
Happy that your wife became a naturalized citizen but that doesn't have anything to do with the DACA program.
As far as laws that are on the books and not being followed or violated the list is quite long, as you should well know.
If given longer to apply, say a year and than end the program would that be acceptable to you?
I know you're a Dem - but you are not in Congress and you are not whining and crying about not getting your way with the system that doesn't allow you to Bend as you see fit. I know a lot of Dems who want DACA/Dreamers stopped because the programs are not legal programs.
The reference to my wife was simply an example of doing and following the processes that are set out for the existing program. When the program is Congressionally modified/changed - fine. Until then, the DACA/Dreamer's can follow the existing processes - as we did.
Oh yeah - hell, there's still laws on the books that have absolutely no reality to their being - having to walk, carrying a lantern 25 feet in front of a horse drawn carriage so it will be seen???? Or, in Arizona, you can't keep a donkey in the bathtub?
As it stands now, DACA/Dreamers are "approved" for two years. At the end of that time, they can resubmit their application for approval. There is no listed "ending date" for the renewals, so those folks have ample time to comply with the immigration requirements.
Those are not the laws I was speaking of, I'm sure that you know that.
This all hinges on the SCOTUS ruling. If DACA is declared illegal than what? Deport them all on day one or give them 6 months to a year to apply?
That is the question.
My solution is to end the DACA program but let the current DACA people stay and become citizens.
Problem solved.
Sorry, no cutting in line.
They can go through the process like everyone else. They don't like it, no one is stopping them from leaving. The process for becoming a citizen is difficult; just because someone's parents dragged them here as a kid illegally doesn't mean they get special privileges.
In January of this year, Trump offered renewal of the TPS program and extended time periods for DACA and Dreamers.
The Dems in Congress, especially Schumer, said screw you.
And before that Trump had his money for the wall and an agreement on DACA and he pissed backwards on the deal. And I gave you that link before.
BTW the majority of Americans want the Dreamers to have a legal status and be allowed to stay in the US.
So there ya go, 1st.
Sorry, the majority of Americans disagree with you as they in numerous polls have said they want legal status for the dreamers and for them to be allowed to stay in the US.
CNN poll - of course. Oh yeah - and Trump gave Congress six months - twice - to come up with an alternate plan. Schumer said, in essence, that that wasn't his job. Evidently the vibes resonated throughout the Dems/Libs Halls of Congress 'cause they didn't do/haven't done crap except start trying to impeach Trump.
Then why haven't the Repubs done anything at all either? They've had control of the House and Senate for some time until the Dems recent take over, and they didn't do anything either. So why put all the blame on the Dems as if they are the only ones in Congress that can do anything?
Are the Repubs that inept? Just don't care? Simply hate the Dreamers?
Or all of the above?
That's the best you can do...LOLOL...do some research 1st. It's every poll taken from the Washington Post and the NY Times to the Hill and Newsmax, NPR and FOX NEWS.
Now you jump to a strawman with impeachment. We are talking about DACA in case you forgot.
Polls? After the last presidential election who trusts those anymore?
Just like every other time we have given an inch on immigration; it ill never be a one off deal. Those down the road will want the exact same special treatment for themselves. End DACA and let these Dreamers have citizenship. There will be a next batch of Dreamers, and another, and another, etc. All of them will demand the same system for themselves.
Amnesty was supposed to be a 1 off with Reagan. No wall from the Democratic Congress in return; and Bush Jr tried to get amnesty part II. Thankfully the Republican Congress told him no. Even if Bush Jr would have gotten his way, amnesty part III would be quickly upon us. Just look at the Democratic candidates tripping over each other to offer the most benefits they can to illegals. Ringing the dinner bell for future illegals at the same time.
Since even the right-wing poll shows that the majority favors allowing the dreamers to stay I'd say the polls just might be accurate.
It's great that you can see into and predict the future.
Who needs to predict the future. All one has to do is look at the past. It is a reoccurring cycle.
Congress is unwilling to do it's job to end it.
what the majority wants means nothing.
as congress refused to act the dreamers are in for a rude awakening.
perhaps congress should have worked on some legislation instead of the impeachment circus. ~ just sayin.
I never said it meant anything in the legal sense...What I said is the majority of Americans favor a resolution that will allow the dreamers to stay in the US.
BTW, public pressure can and has made a difference.
Just sayin.
If you feel that congress won't do its job vote them out and quit whining about it.
Simple enough.
not when it comes to enforcing existing law.
however, they can influence changes in the law. tell congress to end the impeachment circus and get busy,
tick tock / time is wasting away
the dreamers need congressional action ( not shiff and pelosi's BS )
Wrong, it's being done as we speak.
I agree it can and has an influence in changing existing law.
It's in SCOTUS hands now not Trumps.
Cheers
yepp... and daca is going to die at their hands
so, what's the new legislation in congress look like?
Kavika - polls predict what the originator wants them to predict, and that has been proven time and time again. All one has to do is to field a loaded question/loaded questions into a preselected demographic and they'll get the exact results they want to get.
Once the Supreme Court reverses DACA the democrats in Congress will have to make a compromise deal with the President on the issue along with citizenship and the border wall.
I'm well aware of that 1st.
Why do you think that the Fox poll showed that the majority of Americans want the dreamers to stay in the US.
You would think that the right-wing Fox News would word it so that it would show that the majority of Americans want them thrown out...Strange.
Best to wait to see what SCOTUS has to say before any new legislation.
Cheers.
They already had a deal for the wall and DACA and Trump pulled out of it.
LOL
you can wait,
however, daca will die at the supreme court. of this I have no doubt.
I have not gotten a forthcoming supreme court decision wrong in well over 20yrs. this one is very easy to predict. I said daca would die at the supreme court before it even went to court.
Wow, I'm really excited that I've met the real ''Great Karnac''....
Quite amazing that you called the Crow Tribe vs Wyoming SCOTUS decision. That was a really tough one and yet you called it...WOW, just WOW.
Cheers
??? - you're referring to the Herrera case on hunting??
I musta missed something.
Yes, Herrera Crow Tribe vs Wyoming. 5 to 4 decision in favor of Herrera.
Really, vote them out. Who would have damn well figured that out.
Would love to do that; but I only count for one damn vote. Since we have a corrupt Establishment two party system and people refuse to vote for the best candidate- rather than taking the lesser of two evils; that makes it kind of difficult to do.
Since you believe that the two party establishment is corrupt looks like you're going to have to live with it. So you can keep on complaining and the system isn't going to change.
Of course, not everyone believes that the established two-party system is corrupt.
Cheers
Honestly there's a Supreme court case that Im more interested in and ironically enough the DOJ is arguing FOR a company who wants to OPENLY discriminate...unprecedented!
"Congress" makes "Laws", not the "Supreme Court" !
Obama bypassed congress, even though he himself said he shouldn't be allowed to do it , when he ….Mr. Obama....went against his own knowledge of what he can do, and did it anyway.
Ok...this argument again...so Trump can do a Muslim ban and you all claim its perfectly legal but Obama cant give people amnesty because you all claim its illegal??!!
Obama said it was "Illegal"....all by himself...in his own words.
I don't think you thought this through prior to posting. One stops people (and it wasn't a fucking Muslim ban but rather a ban on people, perhaps Muslim, from countries who have no vetting system to ensure we know who the hell they really are) from coming in, the other is saying "Thank you sir may I have another..........couple of dozen" that are here and came without enforcement of immigration laws. I don't really care if the kids had no say. The parents are law breakers and should have been stopped or deported post haste and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that these very same people provide instruction and aid to get other "family" members here. You are comparing apples to tire irons.
Perhaps you should tell that to Trump...
It wasn't all nations full of Muslims or ALL Muslims. FFS go beyond some words. There were seven countries proposed in that ban. They were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. You see my friend *snicker* what do those places, especially Somalia and Yemen, have in common? They don't even know their own populations demographic OR whether or not they are citizens. Many were "passers through" at the time to be able to secure documentation that they were citizens and free to travel if they wanted to. THAT is why it had to be stopped. Just as some of the southern border crossers aren't even from Mexico, Central or South America.
And, the ban was approved by the Federal courts.
Really? Care to cite when he SPECIFICALLY said it was ILLEGAL for him to do that EO?
Did you click on the Little Blue colored statement in my comment #4.1 ?
You still havent answered my question....Trump and Obama BOTH use executive orders regarding immigration....but yet somehow one is illegal but the other isnt? Why?!
Kind of like the talking point Trump started claiming DACA recipients are "hardened criminals" as one of his reasons for wanting to get rid of it?!
And you still haven't clicked the link - it answers your question.
What do they have in common? None have been responsible for any domestic terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the lead terrorist exporter and responsible for 9/11, if the ban was to protect the country, why weren't they included?
People were coming through some of those countries and obtaining passports "showing" they were citizens of say.......Yemen and it was proven that they weren't. Saudi Arabia has records on and keep track of actual citizens. And you just made my point for me Hint, it wasn't ALL Muslims.
Iraq and Syria and IRAN don't hate the US?
Here is the list............again.
Iran: Entry is suspended for Iranian nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants, with the exception of individuals traveling on valid student and exchange visitor visas. Those temporary visitors will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting.
Libya: Entry is suspended for Libyan nationals as immigrants, as well as nonimmigrants on business and tourist visas.
Somalia: Entry is suspended for Somalian nationals as immigrants. Nonimmigrants traveling to the U.S. will be subjected to enhanced screening and vetting.
Syria: Entry is suspended for Syrian nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants.
Yemen: Entry is suspended for Yemeni nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants traveling on business and tourist visas.
North Korea: Entry is suspended for North Korean nationals as immigrants and nonimmigrants.
Venezuela: Entry is suspended for certain Venezuelan government officials and their immediate family members traveling on business and tourist visas.
So your claim is that it is okay to ban Muslims as long as you ban some other people as well?
So? Their citizens, that they keep track of, were still the major players in 9/11.
Those who have criminal records or commit a crime are not eligible for the DACA program.
Ozzwald - 1
Jim - 0
Here is my problem with this whole issue.
Presidents have been handing down executive orders since Washington. Other presidents honored them. Because this precedent was established, people trusted EO's
So President Obama told these children of illegals to come out of the darkness and make themselves known, and they trusted in this executive order. Now they stand a chance of being screwed because they trust in our government. This is not a good precedent to start.
We all know that EO's are not laws, and maybe that needs to be addressed but to punish those who trusted in our government, is ethically wrong.
Perrie - this is an issue that is as much the parent's problem as it is the kids.
The "two year window" for renewal of their application GAVE the Illegal Alien children the time needed to file for LEGAL residency. All they had to do was complete an immigrant petition and a Green Card application (Form I-485) - a 45 minute process. File the applications with the appropriate USCIS regional office and wait for approval. IF they were approved, there will be a five year waiting period for continuity of living in the U.S. LEGALLY.
There are many other steps that have to be taken, but the DACA/Dreamers, when they reach the age of 18, have had all the opportunity in the world to apply for citizenship/naturalization. If they haven't taken those opportunities - quite frankly, they can go back to where their parents brought them from since they are still considered as permanent residents of their home country.
Obama also told the world that he DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do what he was going to do - but, he also said "I have a phone and I have a pen" - which he used very unwisely.
1st, It was never as easy as just applying. I know so from my daughter's own boyfriend, who is Italian. He was supposed to be able to apply to stay since he had a great job here, and that was all reversed the moment Trump came to office. He tried to do things legally and ended up getting deported for about 2 years. Why would these people who came over illegally by their parents trust our government to honor any agreement? Look when they finally did, they are getting screwed.
So he was illegal? Most people I know are on work visas or green cards already and they have been here since 2008. And they basically had a "corporate sponsor" to back that up. Hell, right here in Charlotte we have illegals with pizza shops, lawn grooming, cleaning services and other businesses. How in the world do they get loans or business licenses if they don't belong here? Turn the other cheek that's how.
Sorry about the daughter's boyfriend but I would be interested to know the real story of why he would have to leave. No one waved a magic wand when Trump was elected and started mass deportations that I know of. There has to be an underlying reason (which of course for privacy sake you don't have to share) why all of a sudden he had to go. Who knew he was here? Who turned him in? Did he commit a crime? Lots of holes to fill Perrie but I won't push it and NOW I understand why you are so adamant about this subject...........at least partially.
What was he doing "Before" Trump was "Voted" into office ?
Jim,
He had an H1B visa so he had a corporate sponsor. He was working for a major financial company before the rules changed for the lottery. One of the first things that Trump did when he came to office, was change cut down the lottery size for permanent status. That is why he had to suddenly go and relocated for 2 years to England, where they don't do this crazy kind stuff until he got back into the US with the lottery and legal help from his company. Why would you think someone turned him in or that he was a criminal? For goodness sake, do you realize how insulting that is? I am dumbfounded by the assumptions you made. He is an Honor graduate of Johns Hopkins and this is the kind of applicant who our brilliant president deports.
And I am adamant about the subject for the reasons I stated, including what happened to my daughter's boyfriend. He did everything right, and he got screwed. But given some of the assumptions made here, I think I am done with this discussion.
Working for one of the largest financial firms in NYC, in a high paying professional position.
There was no insult meant nor was I assuming any of what I asked was the reason and if you took it that way, I apologize. It just sounded a little too easy for him to just be "put on the list" for having to leave. Again, sorry for him he got caught up in a mess.
Notice how Trump let his illegal immigrant wife's parents get their citizenship before he cut off the rule that allowed them to become citizens?
If you're a beautiful girl who's willing to have sex with Trump, illegal immigration is apparently just fine.
Melania was bought and paid for a long time ago.
Weinstein's reputation was well known before it became a [scandal.Deleted]
Neither of President Obama's daughters are whores. Melania is a straight up whore. He would have to pay her to have sex with him, no other way she would have.
Well when it's not your daughter because your wife is actually a man.....
President Obama never pimped out his daughters. Where the fuck did you get that nonsense from?
Lets not drag the horse faced Chelsea into this.
I appreciate your comment. Thanks Jim. And yes it was a horrible mess but because of the company's layers, he is back in NY, thank goodness.
[Removed]
NOPE.
President Trump never pimped out Ivanka. Where the fuck did you get that nonsense from?
Not a word of that is true Loki. [Deleted]
Should one assume you have no proof of that wild claim?
Since you posted none...………..
YES!
How are you allowed to post this?
You might want to let the following sources know that, miraculously, they all reported what you now claim to be nothing but a lie:
...
.
All too true.
[Deleted] Summer something I think her name is, who keeps getting threatened. She was only 13 when that incident occurred.
[Deleted]
If tessy's comments regarding Ivanka are off limits, so are similar comments regarding the Obama girls. You'll notice tessy also has a ticket, from me, in this thread.
Gee, if someone is being threatened, they should call the police and report that!
Obama never gave anyone permission to refer to his daughters as fine pieces of ass unlike Trump did to Howard Stern in regards to Ivanka. Obama has never said that if his daughters were not his daughters, he would date them. The Obama girls never gave daddy lap dances. Obama has never asked if it was wrong to be sexually attracted to his daughters, like Trump has about Ivanka. Obama is a fine family man, unlike Trump who has the maternal instincts of a cactus.
Unfortunately, it wasn't our government as a whole. It was one man trying to be a hero and build a legacy and that alone. It was an EO and therefore "accepted" only by many. As far as trusting our government, an old saying comes to mind................"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Simon and Garfunkel.
As with Mr. Trump, believe what he DOES and not what he says. Mr. Obama DID what he said he was going to and very few questioned it because, once again, "it felt good" and they possibly knew is wouldn't survive muster. And it didn't. Otherwise Congress would have taken it up instead of just saying "he can do that". They had an inkling that it wouldn't stand muster with their constituents either. It was a hot potato issue and they didn't want to touch it.
Jim,
Have you looked at our past presidents' EO's? And it doesn't matter what his motivation was, it was that the people trusted in our government. If the president says "Come out of the darkness", should they not believe him? And as for that expression, please come on. We have a president who says stuff one day and takes it back the same day. What are we supposed to believe? Double standards don't hold up well with me. I didn't like Obama, and I don't like Trump, but I know when something is wrong, and this is wrong.
Your assumption that these DACA people knew any better is just that, an assumption. They trusted in the process and registered. Now it is a way of hunting them down. It is just unethical and I can't go along with it.
Yep. If DACA is struck down it will more than likely be used as a tool for deportation.
Loki,
The issue then is if we should allow EO's, not DACA and we have since the beginning of this country. I keep showing that over and over.
I am all for border security. Here are my 2 questions
1. Why are these DACA people being used as bargaining chips instead of as human beings.
2. What are we doing with our nothern border, Florida and the gulf?
In the words of Renaldus Magnus "Trust but verify.". If they knew anything about the US except their perception of "the system", they should have known that it wouldn't necessarily hold after his term(s) were up. Too much opposition. But, as stated above, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. In this case, to his own peril. How in the world could someone be here for 15,20, even 25 years not know that eventually the chickens would come home to roost and they should pursue citizenship? Boggles the mind. Seems they were waiting for the US to "come around" because they were fed that line without taking the pulse of the country as a whole.
Well, historically speaking, they have been allowed and also not overturned by the next president.
But the legality of them is worth a discussion.
Now that is funny. You are referring to a comment made to Ronald Regan when dealing with the Russians, as if that was a national policy or that more than half of our electorate wouldn't know about to justify these actions, and I'm am sorry, but they don't. Why would they have known? Heck, I'm pretty well read and I didn't know.
And that goes to the root of this whole discussion. This is why they didn't apply. They didn't trust the system and guess what, they were right. INS was always deporting and they knew that first hand. Who would have taken such a risk after they had families here?
And guess what? In the past, a huge number of "Americans" came here illegally, including my grandmother. Maybe they should all be deported, too.
And you would deport them. There is only black and white.
Were you born here? Did she attain citizenship? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then you're good.
And besides, was your grandmother also your mother? Did she bring you with her? If the answer is no, then you have nothing to worry about.
Yes I was born here. No she didn't get citizenship, like many at the time.
These Daca adults now have children who were born here. By what you just set up, they are citizens, too.
As for my mother, she was born in a Siberian work camp, escaping the Nazis. She was a British national, by way of her father. When she came here she chose to become a US citizen, but you could do that back then much easier by marrying an American which she did.
So you would let them stay but not give them any rights because you think they would vote Dem.
Agreed but their parents aren't. Just like the DACA "participants" parents aren't. Not very bright a person who thinks an anchor baby is going to get them home free. If indeed I was looking over my shoulder (supposedly) every day that is the last thing I would do. Have children I may need to leave behind.
The whole northern border is unprotected. I gave you a link to the terrorists that have tried to come over.
But your PM joke was funny.
I think that is the crux of this issue for many.
I have no idea what happened to the Nikki Haley argument but as I went to post it, it disappeared and I can't find it anywhere now. So I'll leave you with what I wrote in reply to your nonsense.
LOL. wow, you guys and your strawman logical fallacies are so pervasive, you really should go back to school to learn what they are and how to avoid them. I never once said she wasn't a natural born citizen, I said she was an anchor baby . Do you know the difference?
Of course I don't believe she's not ineligible to run for the office of the presidency. Why would you even post such drivel? I never eluded to any such bullshit.
Both her parents were born in India, and were not US citizens till after they immigrated. Obama's mother was a natural born US citizen as much as you hate that fact. He was not only a natural born citizen born in Hawaii, he was not an anchor baby because his mother was also a natural born US citizen.
If you look at Nikki Haley's bio, she was born in 1972. Her parents first immigrated to Canada and then to the US in 1969. That's 3 years from touch down to birth, when it takes 5 years of being settled in the US at least before they can even meet the eligibility requirements, which makes her an anchor baby. Which is a disgusting term your side came up with to minimize the legality of US natural born children of immigrants. I was pointing out another of your disgusting hypocrisies.
Maybe the left should be calling her out as an anchor baby so you guys get a taste of your own bullshit. Fair play and all that shit.
Here's the requirement of US citizenship.
Citizenship Eligibility Requirements
In most cases, you must meet the following requirements before you can file an application for U.S. citizenship :
The point was, If the laws had been what they were at the time of their births, Neither could run for POTUS or VPOTUS. and yes she was an anchor baby. What got your panties in such a wad?
"Maybe the left should be calling her out as an anchor baby so you guys get a taste of your own bullshit. Fair play and all that shit."
Have at it. It will go nowhere.
I don't think they should be punished for their parents actions either.
Sounds like being a little upset they might vote.
There have been cases of some in the military and they still tried to deport them.
Letting people stay in the only home they have ever known is hardly rewarding them.
Drug dealers and money is a strawman argument. has nothing whatsoever to do with DACA. It is also an attempt to get the words all together. Make some sort of connection.
And again letting people stay in their homes is not a reward.
You think all laws have been just? In sentencing or how they are carried out? Or who, when, where was impacted?
How is that a stupid question? I noticed you didn't want to answer.
Again, not everything is black and white like you try to make it.
So presidents not enforcing the law? So all the people that came while trump is president, is that him not enforcing the law?
"So all the people that came while trump is president, is that him not enforcing the law?"
That is the whole crux of the conversation. Mr. Trump decides to follow the law and we have a country full of SCREAMERS because he is.
I had someone on the right tell me Obama deported more people than trump.
So I guess Obama was following the law more closely than trump.
That makes zero sense. You said Bush, Obama, Clinton, didn't follow the law because they let people come here. Did no people come here under trump? So according to your logic, trump is not following the law either.
And you were told the truth.
Which is why some people wonder why so many on the left are crying over Trump deporting fewer people, after cheering everything Obama.
Not really. You trapped yourself and are now making excuses.
Unlike the trumpers, a lot of people on the left didn't like everything Obama did.
Obama Signs $600 Million Bill to Boost U.S. Border Security
So that is Obama doing nothing about it?
So losing an argument the attacks start and now you are trying to attack my character.
That is pathetic.
Keep in mind, DACA stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals".
For as much as he is praised, Barack Obama basically said.. "you're still illegal as hell, but we're not going to do anything about it.....for now".
If you have lived in this country for most of your life (like DACA folks have), and you trust the government, you're a bit of an idiot. The entire Bill of Rights exists to restrain government because the framers knew it can't be trusted.
I have never once attacked you or went after your character and yet you are still trying to backhandedly call me something I am not.
Shows the true character of some alright.
Twist and spin. First saying I ask stupid questions and now putting words in your mouth.
What the hell do you think DACA is? Basically protection for Dreamers.
That would be temporary protection for dreamers.
Nice try. Obama cooked the books on his deportation numbers.
Obama wanted to look tough on illegal immigration, he wasn't.
First off, I am not the one that made the initial claim so talk to your brethren.
Second, deporting new arrivals is not deporting? He expanded a process started under Bush.
Touche.
He changed the way deportations counted period. If they didn't catch them near the border their chances of being deported were about nill under the Obama administration.
Deporter in Chief. Wonder what leftist campaign propagandist came up with that BS.
Again, according to your link, the change started under Bush.
say goodbye to daca - it is fixin to be burnt toast and in the garbage where it belongs.
have a great day