The President Trump Immigration Thread

[jamil]

If DACAs entered the nation prior to age 16, they should be granted legal permanent residence, and to obtain citizenship they must apply. Then set a clear date, that anyone not identified by that time as being DACA, if discovered, would be repatriated back to their home nation.

Seems legit, with the caveat that the 5 years to be a citizen starts to run when they are actually granted permanent legal resident status...and no "anchor babies" or "anchor dreamers". They can stay, you can't. The U.S. isn't breaking up your family, you are.

I am good with that.....

Okay. INGO has solved the immigration problem. Next?

 

[HoughMade]

This seemed pretty reasonable to me.

[video=youtube;_nLPsFeSw4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLPsFeSw4Y[/video]

Ignore the "silver bullet" graphic.

 

[jamil]

This seemed pretty reasonable to me.

[...]

Ignore the "silver bullet" graphic.

1) this is not just reasonable but practical.

2) I can't ignore the silver "bullet". But I can forgive it.

 

[Sylvain]

What is the meaning of "DACA"?

I know about MAGA but not DACA.

 

[jamil]

What is the meaning of "DACA"?

I know about MAGA but not DACA.

Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals. It's part of Obama's wet dream act signed by executive order.

 

[Sylvain]

Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals. It's part of Obama's wet dream act signed by executive order.

That's people who entered the country illegally as a child?

 

[jamil]

That's people who entered the country illegally as a child?

Yes. Deferred action allows procecutors to defer deportation of people who came here illegally as minors for some period of time.

 

[BugI02]

Seems legit, with the caveat that the 5 years to be a citizen starts to run when they are actually granted permanent legal resident status...and no "anchor babies" or "anchor dreamers". They can stay, you can't. The U.S. isn't breaking up your family, you are.

Ab.so.lute.ly

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HoughMade again.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's people who entered the country illegally as a child?

Yes. Deferred action allows procecutors to defer deportation of people who came here illegally as minors for some period of time.

No. You might think it splitting hairs, but in the vast majority of the cases the minors committed no illegal action, their parents did.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No. You might think it splitting hairs, but in the vast majority of the cases the minors committed no illegal action, their parents did.

Their importation was illegal regardless of who made the decision. This is like arguing that I should get to keep the really cool unregistered FA MP5 because someone else smuggled it into the country.

 

[dozer13]

 

[jamil]

No. You might think it splitting hairs, but in the vast majority of the cases the minors committed no illegal action, their parents did.

It's not a question of who broke the law. They're still here illegally regardelss of who committed the illegal action. The question is what do we do about it? We can't just take in every case. We need to find the most compassionate solution which also upholds responsibility, duty to citizens, and rule of law.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 58775

Well, that's a strawman.

 

[bwframe]

View attachment 58775

Everyone is welcome, as long as they come in through the door and follow our laws. The issue is with those that don't.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Their importation was illegal regardless of who made the decision. This is like arguing that I should get to keep the really cool unregistered FA MP5 because someone else smuggled it into the country.

No, not even close, it's more along the lines of a parent takes their 10 year old to a bank robbery, and when they're caught the 10 year old has to serve the same sentence as the parent. Children who are brought to this country, under such circumstances, where they know nothing or very little about their birthplace, and have lived under the jurisdiction of the United States, through childhood to young adulthood, IMO should not be deported.

 

[Trigger Time]

No, not even close, it's more along the lines of a parent takes their 10 year old to a bank robbery, and when they're caught the 10 year old has to serve the same sentence as the parent. Children who are brought to this country, under such circumstances, where they know nothing or very little about their birthplace, and have lived under the jurisdiction of the United States, through childhood to young adulthood, IMO should not be deported.

They need to go regardless

 

[churchmouse]

No, not even close, it's more along the lines of a parent takes their 10 year old to a bank robbery, and when they're caught the 10 year old has to serve the same sentence as the parent. Children who are brought to this country, under such circumstances, where they know nothing or very little about their birthplace, and have lived under the jurisdiction of the United States, through childhood to young adulthood, IMO should not be deported.

This is a catch 22 KUT. As we have allowed this stupid **** to keep going with no control over it under the existing laws now we are faced with a serious issue.

My heart gets shredded when children suffer. It is not their fault most times when the parents (reference the robbery) make decisions that eventually puts them in the hurt locker. So now, we are stuck. If we follow the law as many feel we should the parents and the kids have to go. If we skirt the law then we are chipping away at our base....again. Some more. This would not be an easy thing to be in charge of.

Something has to be done. The borders are leaking like the Titanic on both sides. Hispanics from the south and people from the east coming in from the North. It is a freaking flood. They do not assimilate as they have no guidelines to actually follow towards citizenship. So many just can not and should not drive. It is getting to be a bit to much.

So......how do we do this. I ask this same question all the time with these issues. How do we as a society remain inside the law and deal with the people that those who write and hand down the laws have allowed to swarm into our lives.

 

[jamil]

No, not even close, it's more along the lines of a parent takes their 10 year old to a bank robbery, and when they're caught the 10 year old has to serve the same sentence as the parent. Children who are brought to this country, under such circumstances, where they know nothing or very little about their birthplace, and have lived under the jurisdiction of the United States, through childhood to young adulthood, IMO should not be deported.

No, your analogy isn't even close. What's right about your scenario is that the 10-year-old kid isn't breaking any laws because he's not responsible for the acts of his parents acting in the capacity with the authority of parents. What's wrong with your scenario, it doesn't allow for the reality that the kid is still here illegally even though he didn't break the law. Your scenario doesn't account for his status.

So again, I say the real question is, what do we do about that? Do we have rule of law or don't we? Is it responsible to make every downtrodden kid in the world the collective responsibility of the United States? What is the duty of the United States government to ITS citizens? Is it to burden them with what it decides is the highest priority charity?

Clearly, borders and immigration is in the wheel house of the Federal government. As individual citizens, of course, we want our government to reflect our compassion for the downtrodden. We should want to influence our government to find the most compassionate solution. But there is a responsible component to compassion too. So we also need a solution which also upholds that responsibility, upholds the government's duty to citizens, and rule of law.

Encouraging parents by our policies, to illegally bring their kids into the land of milk and honey to make them the collective responsibility of the United States does not fully implement the responsibility, duty to citizens, and rule of law.

 

[churchmouse]

No, your analogy isn't even close. What's right about your scenario is that the 10-year-old kid isn't breaking any laws because he's not responsible for the acts of his parents acting in the capacity with the authority of parents. What's wrong with your scenario, it doesn't allow for the reality that the kid is still here illegally even though he didn't break the law. Your scenario doesn't account for his status.

So again, I say the real question is, what do we do about that? Do we have rule of law or don't we? Is it responsible to make every downtrodden kid in the world the collective responsibility of the United States? What is the duty of the United States government to ITS citizens? Is it to burden them with what it decides is the highest priority charity?

Clearly, borders and immigration is in the wheel house of the Federal government. As individual citizens, of course, we want our government to reflect our compassion for the downtrodden. We should want to influence our government to find the most compassionate solution. But there is a responsible component to compassion too. So we also need a solution which also upholds that responsibility, upholds the government's duty to citizens, and rule of law.

Encouraging parents by our policies, to illegally bring their kids into the land of milk and honey to make them the collective responsibility of the United States does not fully implement the responsibility, duty to citizens, and rule of law.

Pretty much my point you just elaborated it much better.

 

[BugI02]

No, your analogy isn't even close. What's right about your scenario is that the 10-year-old kid isn't breaking any laws because he's not responsible for the acts of his parents acting in the capacity with the authority of parents. What's wrong with your scenario, it doesn't allow for the reality that the kid is still here illegally even though he didn't break the law. Your scenario doesn't account for his status.

[You are correct. A more correct analogy is the parent(s) and ten year old are squatters in a vacant home in a modest neighborhood. When the owners exercise legal control of their property and have the parent(s) evicted, is he saying the ten year old should be allowed to stay because the child has known very little of life in the old country before the family illegally occupied others property? Is there a statute of limitations on being in the country illegally? Should how long people managed to break the law and avoid the consequences matter in its adjudication?]

So again, I say the real question is, what do we do about that? Do we have rule of law or don't we? Is it responsible to make every downtrodden kid in the world the collective responsibility of the United States? What is the duty of the United States government to ITS citizens? Is it to burden them with what it decides is the highest priority charity?

Clearly, borders and immigration is in the wheel house of the Federal government. As individual citizens, of course, we want our government to reflect our compassion for the downtrodden. We should want to influence our government to find the most compassionate solution. But there is a responsible component to compassion too. So we also need a solution which also upholds that responsibility, upholds the government's duty to citizens, and rule of law.

Encouraging parents by our policies, to illegally bring their kids into the land of milk and honey to make them the collective responsibility of the United States does not fully implement the responsibility, duty to citizens, and rule of law.

Moreover, the Federal Government should not be compassionate or incompassionate, it should solely be responsible to the will of its people and limited by the will of its federal constituents (the states). Obama, as the figurehead of FedGov during his tenure, interpreted the will of his constituents to be for more open borders and enhanced/increased asylum and integration. That view has now been repudiated at the polls within the normal functioning of our system of government. Trump, as the current figurehead ofFedGov, is perfectly within his rights to interpret the will of his constituents as in favor of more restrictive system of immigration/asylum. Two sides of the same coin.

I hear the argument advanced that a president should represent all the people, but I did not see evidence of it when Obama held the reins. Much of what he did, he did over the vociferous objections of many Americans without batting an eye. Trump is a reaction to backing the non-Democrat part of America into a corner and leaving them little recourse. I think it is disingenuous of Progressives to conduct their own affairs governed by "Do what thou wilt ..." while in power, but call for our better angels when that power is lost

Please note that this commentary was written after the fact of the jamil post, using it as a framework. My use thereof in no way implies or indicates that jamil would or does agree with me