There Is No Such Thing as a 'Deserving DREAMer'

[jimnyc]

Dang McSkippy spot on the truth!

---

There Is No Such Thing as a 'Deserving DREAMer'

Over and over again, from the mouths of politicians in both parties, identity politics purveyors and cheap labor lobbyists, we hear the same refrains about President Obama's 800,000 amnestied illegal alien youths:

"They don't deserve to be punished."


"They deserve protection."

"They deserve the American dream."

Deserve, deserve, deserve.

Over and over again, in countless cookie-cutter op-ed pieces published over the past month, so-called DREAMers have vociferously lamented President Donald Trump's push to eventually undo their unconstitutional five-year reprieves from deportation plus coveted work permits:

"DREAMers like me have flourished under DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Trump might take it all away."

"If Trump ends DACA, DREAMers like me will return to a life of anxiety and doubt."

"I feel exhausted, I feel frustrated, I feel angry, and in the worst moments, I feel helpless. I feel terrified that at any moment this program is going to be taken away and once again I won't be able to work -- how will I pay my bills? ... What is going to happen to me if I get stopped on the street and I no longer have DACA? What's going to happen to me if I get put into deportation proceedings and I don't have thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to stay in this country?"

"I will lose my job, my ability to finish college, my driver's license, and will be subject to deportation. I am not alone either. Almost one million young immigrants like myself will be affected in the same way and possibly even worse."

I, I, I. Me, me, me. My bills. My ego. My education. My job. My anxiety.

Since when did DACA become the Depression and Anxiety Cure for Amnesty-seekers?

It's this insatiable appetite for collective entitlement that demonstrates the perils of blanket amnesty. Give a privileged political class an inch and they'll take, take, take until feckless public servants give away their country.

The proper response to illegal alien activists demanding that Washington act "NOW!" to preserve their comfort, allay their anxieties and extend their unconstitutional protections indefinitely is this:

Why?

Americans in uniform who've dedicated their lives to defending our nation are struggling to gain access to quality health care they've earned by action, not by accident or circumstance. Imagine their stress.

Five million American young people between 16-34 were unemployed last year and 50 million more are not even in the labor force. Imagine their anxiety.

Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people from around the world are waiting patiently for their backlogged visa and green card applications to be reviewed. Imagine their frustration.

Why don't their dreams come first?

Rest - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/09/06/there_is_no_such_thing_as_a_deserving_dreamer_1349 13.html

[revelarts]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21272501_493615707664443_5483408012881076343_n.jpg ?oh=0940ed7fc32d3d5f14031f2d97ec2b8a&oe=5A227CB0

[pete311]

Why don't their dreams come first?

Because in society, minors get treated differently. They aren't held responsible for their parent's sins.

[Gunny]

Because in society, minors get treated differently. They aren't held responsible for their parent's sins.:smoke:

Uh huh. Tell that to someone who's had to pay off their parent's debt when they died; yet, had no part in creating it.

[jimnyc]

Because in society, minors get treated differently. They aren't held responsible for their parent's sins.

That doesn't answer the question. TONS are backlogged and waiting, and of course many of them are families and children involved. Those taking the legal route should get their access first, IMO. There's no valid reason to place illegal folks ahead of folks going the legal route.

[pete311]

:smoke:

Uh huh. Tell that to someone who's had to pay off their parent's debt when they died; yet, had no part in creating it.

This is true only in some states

[pete311]

That doesn't answer the question. TONS are backlogged and waiting, and of course many of them are families and children involved. Those taking the legal route should get their access first, IMO. There's no valid reason to place illegal folks ahead of folks going the legal route.

The reason I hear is that many have years of US education and work history. We've invested in them. You don't train people and then deport them to a country they haven't really lived in. You may not like it in principal, but in reality, passing a dream act is beneficial for these kids and america. Deporting them achieves nothing and is in fact cruel. It's very easy to dehumanize them. Don't punish kids just because we can't pass a reasonable immigration reform.

[Gunny]

This is true only in some statesPoint is, no one "deserves" anything merely for existing. You can continue to exist as long as you maintain it. You have no Right to it. You earn it normally by conforming to societal law. Our law has specific rules for immigration. Article I. doesn't say a thing about you're excused from obeying the law because it is inconvenient for you. The Constitution is the law in THIS country. It only presumes to set the rules for others.

The USA was created by us for us. If the law should be changed, it should be changed to reflect our reality, not some BS dreamer's. This isn't 1900. We can't support our own, much less someone else's. There is NO good reason to allow criminals to remain illegally in this country.

[pete311]

If the law should be changed, it should be changed to reflect our reality
Totally agree. Looking forward to the new dream act.

[jimnyc]

The reason I hear is that many have years of US education and work history. We've invested in them. You don't train people and then deport them to a country they haven't really lived in. You may not like it in principal, but in reality, passing a dream act is beneficial for these kids and america. Deporting them achieves nothing and is in fact cruel. It's very easy to dehumanize them. Don't punish kids just because we can't pass a reasonable immigration reform.

If these folks were brought into America awhile back, and are blaming their parents... And their objective is to work and stay - are they all legally signed up and going through the appropriate channels to gain citizenship? Or are they simply going along with DACA? Or are there tons just remaining behind the scenes?

No matter who you are, if you're not an American citizen, then you need to at least make an effort to get the paperwork going, and if getting a job, then also getting sponsorship and what not.

Show me those out of the 800,000 that are gainfully employed, have all of their paperwork with DACA and also with the US Govt to gain citizenship the proper way... paying taxes and everything is above the water - then I see no reason not to work with those folks in the same manner in which the TEMPORARY fix was in place. I won't have an issue if congress passes something that covers those folks just as I outlined.

I said all along, the criminals that are also here illegally, they are the first to go, the worse the crime the quicker the door hits you in the ass. The more someone wants to live here, assimilate and obey US laws, the more we should help those types of folks.

[NightTrain]

Deport them all.

It's not our fault that their shithead parents broke the law and sneaked into the country.

They can apply to enter just like any other foreign national that would like to become an American.

[Kathianne]

Geez guys, it's going to be a 'bi-partisan effort' as has been demonstrated by the tweets. Chuck and Nancy are great, GOP leadership sucks. MAGA

[jimnyc]

Congress is responsible for making any plan, as it should have been from day one. It's up to them to decide what they believe is in the best interest of our country and these illegal aliens. I don't think "maga" has anything to do with this, and Trump has no blame whatsoever - he gets all of the CREDIT, for placing this where it should have been to begin with and having this done in a constitutional manner.

How congress goes forward with this is anyone's guess. Hopefully none will be going into this with a thumbs down Mccain'esque attitude, but rather with the realization of how important this is, for the current time and into the future.

But at least its time to place it on the table and get into all the details and come up with a plan that works for the country, and for those in limbo.

I believe those that have all their ducks in a row, and having all their cards in with the government to get their citizenship, to get first priority. Criminals last.

[Kathianne]

Congress is responsible for making any plan, as it should have been from day one. It's up to them to decide what they believe is in the best interest of our country and these illegal aliens. I don't think "maga" has anything to do with this, and Trump has no blame whatsoever - he gets all of the CREDIT, for placing this where it should have been to begin with and having this done in a constitutional manner.

How congress goes forward with this is anyone's guess. Hopefully none will be going into this with a thumbs down Mccain'esque attitude, but rather with the realization of how important this is, for the current time and into the future.

But at least its time to place it on the table and get into all the details and come up with a plan that works for the country, and for those in limbo.

I believe those that have all their ducks in a row, and having all their cards in with the government to get their citizenship, to get first priority. Criminals last.

I know, get the GOP swamp dwellers out! MAGA!

[jimnyc]

I know, get the GOP swamp dwellers out! MAGA!

Is that sarcasm? Not sure what you mean? I gave a well thought out response that took me a few minutes, and you just come back with "maga" again? I usually only reserve taking my time with a post like I did for the folks I respect the most and that I know I'm not wasting my time with anyway.

But whatever, MAGA it is then I guess. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Is that sarcasm? Not sure what you mean? I gave a well thought out response that took me a few minutes, and you just come back with "maga" again? I usually only reserve taking my time with a post like I did for the folks I respect the most and that I know I'm not wasting my time with anyway.

But whatever, MAGA it is then I guess. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Once again I find myself getting way wound up by what is happening and where the country appears to be heading. It simply is going full 'Euro Liberal' and there will be no moderate conservatives left. The extreme right will survive, just be impotent.

I am seriously going to be looking for Democrats or Independents who at least cross over in what I consider important. Hopefully I'll find some to vote for that are at least consistent in what they believe and do.

[Kathianne]

Here's one bit, that covers it quite well. I know it's a 'liberal source' but wth:

https://www.axios.com/trumps-next-move-stick-it-to-hardliners-2482872363.html


It's like a fictional movie scene: A president wins election with harsh, anti-immigration rhetoric, then moves to terminate protections for kids of illegal immigrants. He's ridiculed on both sides for his heartlessness — but cheered by a band of white voters who helped put him in office.




Then he suddenly realizes he looks like a cold-hearted jerk — and starts musing about going farther than President Obama got in providing permanent protections to those children of illegal immigrants.

Liberal, Trump-hating Democrats see him wobbling — and Nancy Pelosi herself asked him (https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/905790214844686336) to tweet that the "Dreamers" have NOTHING to fear. And he does! (See above.)

Trump does this the same day CBS News airs "60 Minutes" footage (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-bannon-on-trump-daca-decision-60-minutes/) of Trump's campaign architect Steve Bannon not only defending a hardline approach, but accusing the Catholic Church of needing "illegal aliens to fill the churches."





Why it matters: Like the debt-ceiling fight, Trump forfeited all his leverage before the negotiation. He has virtually no choice but to sign permanent protections into law — and little power to get significant wall funding in exchange.


Sound smart: There's a chance this Republican president, with a Republican Congress, ends the year with this list of accomplishments: increasing spending, permanently lifting the cap on debt, propping up Obamacare after failing to repeal it, and offering new protections to children of illegal immigrants.



P.S. "Trump's decision leaves 'Dreamers' unable to travel," by L.A. Times' Kate Linthicum (http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-kate-linthicum-staff.html) in Mexico City: "A Homeland Security memorandum said the department would stop approving new applications for travel permits, known as advance parole."

[Black Diamond]

Geez guys, it's going to be a 'bi-partisan effort' as has been demonstrated by the tweets. Chuck and Nancy are great, GOP leadership sucks. MAGA
Yeah too bad Kerry wasn't nominated. You would have voted for him over trump. He would have hated Nancy and chuck and loved GOP leadership. Lol

I am sure he would have curtailed abortion worldwide, approved the keystone pipeline, stopped the war on coal, put gorsuch or someone like him on the court, pulled us out of the glow bull warming deal, at least tried for tax reform, and I am sure his health care plan would have been rooted strongly in free market ideals.


You really missed out on a true conservative.

[Black Diamond]

Is that sarcasm? Not sure what you mean? I gave a well thought out response that took me a few minutes, and you just come back with "maga" again? I usually only reserve taking my time with a post like I did for the folks I respect the most and that I know I'm not wasting my time with anyway.

But whatever, MAGA it is then I guess. :rolleyes:
Your sarcasm meter is broken. Probably due to the fact you are basking in the joy of the steelers having a better record than the patriots.

[Kathianne]

Yeah too bad Kerry wasn't nominated. You would have voted for him over trump. He would have hated Nancy and chuck and loved GOP leadership. Lol

I am sure he would have curtailed abortion worldwide, approved the keystone pipeline, stopped the war on coal, put gorsuch or someone like him on the court, pulled us out of the glow bull warming deal, at least tried for tax reform, and I am sure his health care plan would have been rooted strongly in free market ideals.


You really missed out on a true conservative.

MAGA! We're really on a roll!

[aboutime]

Deport them all.

It's not our fault that their shithead parents broke the law and sneaked into the country.

They can apply to enter just like any other foreign national that would like to become an American.

NightTrain. Since petey, and other totally uninformed liberals actually believe that is what is going to happen (rather than getting the honest facts first). We should let petey be the FIRST to be deported as an example to other Dumb Liberals who are convinced DACA is constitutional, and means the Dreamers will all be deported.

Poor petey. More Dain Brammage that makes him think like a toad in boiling water.

[Kathianne]

The "New" Conservatives: https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/06/the-pivot-is-real-and-its-spectacular/


The Pivot Is Real, And It’s Spectacular
(https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/06/the-pivot-is-real-and-its-spectacular/)
Trump doesn’t like McConnell and Ryan, and never did. He likes Chuck Schumer, and knows Chuck always makes money for his partners.

So President Trump calls the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats into the Oval Office today for a meeting about what to do about the debt ceiling and funding the government, and he promptly does something that Washington should’ve expected, but didn’t because they’re locked in to bad conventional wisdom: he overruled his aides to side with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi over Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. The pivot is real, and it’s spectacular.
Ryan and McConnell were flabbergasted. (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/schumer-and-pelosi-offer-support-for-harvey-aid-and-debt-limit-boost-242376)

...


Yeah, it's going to be great!

[Kathianne]

Schumer, Durbin, Flake, and Graham! Unlikely company, but maybe not?

New bill for the Dreamers:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-crime-and-immigration-whats-in-the-dream-act/article/2633792


Byron York: Crime and immigration: What's in the Dream Act

by Byron York (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/byron-york) | Sep 7, 2017, 10:15 PM (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-crime-and-immigration-whats-in-the-dream-act/article/2633792#)

Commentary on the DACA controversy frequently notes that the nation's nearly 700,000 so-called Dreamers are a law-abiding group. But a new bill (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s1615/BILLS-115s1615is.pdf)to give DACA recipients full legal status, sponsored by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake and Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer, would allow newly legalized Dreamers to have many run-ins with the law -- arrests, charges, convictions -- and still receive benefits. Schumer, the Democratic leader, is demanding quick passage.

Former President Barack Obama's original 2012 executive action (https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf) creating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals stipulated that to be eligible, recipients must have "not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offense, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety." When Obama announced the criteria for renewing DACA status (https://www.uscis.gov/news/secretary-johnson-announces-process-daca-renewal) in 2014, the standard was "have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety."


The Obama administration defined a "significant misdemeanor" as a crime with a maximum sentence of one year, or, regardless of length of sentence, "an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence."

With the Dream Act of 2017, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer have adopted much of the existing Obama-era criteria about crime, but in a way that would allow Department of Homeland Security officials to be more generous with newly legalized DACA recipients.

The Dream Act would exclude anyone who has been convicted of "any offense under federal or state law, other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status, that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year; or three or more offenses under federal or state law, other than state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses and imprisoned for an aggregate of 90 days or more."

The phrase "other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status" could excuse a lot of criminal activity. "It would grant status to illegal aliens who have been convicted of felony ID fraud or other crimes that could be considered to be related to their immigration status," noted Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration. "You could say human smuggling, document fraud, benefits fraud, false claims to citizenship, illegal voting, and many other felonies have an essential element that involves immigration status."

In addition, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer throw in the phrase "for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses" when referring to misdemeanor convictions. Many crimes involve multiple charges. The Dream Act of 2017 would require a young Dreamer to have committed offenses on not one, not two, but three separate occasions, and been convicted of all before he or she is ineligible for legalization.

And maybe not even then, because Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer would also allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any denial of legalization for those crimes, or for more serious crimes, "for humanitarian purposes or family unity or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest." In other words, Department of Homeland Security can legalize whomever it chooses.

...

[Gunny]

Totally agree. Looking forward to the new dream act.The one that is as Constitutional as Obama's? Face it ... WHAT change can you make that is not discriminatory? You can't let "some" in. The law is a black line, not yellow dashes to be implemented on whim. Without law, we are also without a Nation. If I so much as steal a soda my ass will spend who knows how long in the justice system and paying legal fees. Yet these people are stealing from taxpayers every day and you're fine with it.

Nonsensical. They are on US soil illegally; therefore, are criminals and should be treated as such.

[Kathianne]

The one that is as Constitutional as Obama's? Face it ... WHAT change can you make that is not discriminatory? You can't let "some" in. The law is a black line, not yellow dashes to be implemented on whim. Without law, we are also without a Nation. If I so much as steal a soda my ass will spend who knows how long in the justice system and paying legal fees. Yet these people are stealing from taxpayers every day and you're fine with it.

Nonsensical. They are on US soil illegally; therefore, are criminals and should be treated as such.

Yet, the new 'legislation' if passed could make all those 'illegals' legal. That is what is wanted, not by just the 'liberals' either. Truth is, most are now 'liberals,' they just haven't realized it yet.

[Trigg]

My two cents. Dreamers IMHO aren't paying for their parents mistakes. They were given 5 years to make their status something other than illegal. I feel for them, but they are here illegally. We've already seen that amnesty encourages more people to come to this country illegally. Obama was wrong by to enact daca in the first place.

[Kathianne]

My two cents. Dreamers IMHO aren't paying for their parents mistakes. They were given 5 years to make their status something other than illegal. I feel for them, but they are here illegally. We've already seen that amnesty encourages more people to come to this country illegally. Obama was wrong by to enact daca in the first place.

It'll be better when legislation is passed, if not President Trump has promised to 'revisit' the issue.

[aboutime]

I am a pragmatist American. And I am here to say:

Until EVERY PERSON in America finally understands, and practices what Obeying the Law means. We will have the problem.

TRUTH IS, and Nobody can deny it. ANYONE who is here in the United States Illegally, IS breaking the LAW.
No other way to put it, say it, or describe it.

The Laws of the United States of America must ALL be obeyed, or....we have Anarchy.

PERIOD....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy



Definition of anarchy

1
a : absence of governmentb : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchyc : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the ghettob : absence of order : disorder

[Kathianne]

Once it's legal, no one will be breaking that law.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because in society, minors get treated differently. They aren't held responsible for their parent's sins.

First-- They were not sins! They were crimes! --illegal entry!

Now you libs after doing everything possible to allow those crimes to not only go unpunished but to continue bust your sorry asses trying to see that these offspring (Dreamers)(automatic replacements ) get to enjoy the fruits of that criminality!

And do that to get their damn votes!!!!

Sell this nation down the river -all to gain and maintain you damn corrupt power..

You ffing dems are the damn scourge on this nation, and have became so since the 1960's-- getting worse every decade.

You damn right, I have nothing but -- contempt -- and its called righteous contempt--
no different than that which I hold for child molesters,rapists, drug dealers, murderers, arsonists, etc....(as all are criminal acts)

There is a place for righteous contempt -- it is called -- Honor... Decency, Moral values.....

Something that you and your liberal ilk --have no damn clue about..

By this insane concept of DACA - Then one can reasonable say , if Madoff had simply transferred his stolen billions to his kids--they'd get to keep those ill-gotten gains-- same as you think the dreamers should get rewarded!
ALL SUDDENLY MADE LEGAL--BY THE STROKE OF A DEM/LIB/SOCIALIST MISGUIDED PEN!

While our children and grandchildren suffer from the negatives of this invasive scourge--you and your ffing ilk--work to keep in going and reward its offspring --to tend to and reward your damn current and future dem voting herd..

Now you try to point out and prove that there are errors in truth and logical reasoning in my post.. I dare you...--Tyr

[Kathianne]

First-- They were not sins! They were crimes! --illegal entry!

Now you libs after doing everything possible to allow those crimes to not only go unpunished but to continue bust your sorry asses trying to see that these offspring (Dreamers)(automatic replacements ) get to enjoy the fruits of that criminality!

And do that to get their damn votes!!!!

Sell this nation down the river -all to gain and maintain you damn corrupt power..

You ffing dems are the damn scourge on this nation, and have became so since the 1960's-- getting worse every decade.

You damn right, I have nothing but -- contempt -- and its called righteous contempt--
no different than that which I hold for child molesters,rapists, drug dealers, murderers, arsonists, etc....(as all are criminal acts)

There is a place for righteous contempt -- it is called -- Honor... Decency, Moral values.....

Something that you and your liberal ilk --have no damn clue about..

By this insane concept of DACA - Then one can reasonable say , if Madoff had simply transferred his stolen billions to his kids--they'd get to keep those ill-gotten gains-- same as you think the dreamers should get rewarded!
ALL SUDDENLY MADE LEGAL--BY THE STROKE OF A DEM/LIB/SOCIALIST MISGUIDED PEN!

While our children and grandchildren suffer from the negatives of this invasive scourge--you and your ffing ilk--work to keep in going and reward its offspring --to tend to and reward your damn current and future dem voting herd..

Now you try to point out and prove that there are errors in truth and logical reasoning in my post.. I dare you...--Tyr


Not defending Pete in any way, much less how he posts.

My question to you though, what if it's Trump and a 'bi-partisan effort' to codify DACA, likely even more liberally about who qualifies?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not defending Pete in any way, much less how he posts.

My question to you though, what if it's Trump and a 'bi-partisan effort' to codify DACA, likely even more liberally about who qualifies?

Then I will soundly and vehemently criticize Trump..--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Then I will soundly and vehemently criticize Trump..--Tyr

That appears to be what is happening. Now if his "base' actually holds him accountable, rather than calling others cucks or librals or whatever, maybe it might get through. Maybe not.

[jimnyc]

Not all folks are running around out there looking to get rid of teenagers, although I think any criminals should go. It's more about the law IMO, and following the COTUS. 800k, minus criminals, isn't the worst thing in the world. There are a LOT more illegals in front of them, career illegals and criminals. It's laughable to think Trump got us where we're at, or that he did anything unconstitutional. This is all - 100% on congress. SHOULD Trump be able to hit this solo? Should he be able to work alone and ensure all illegals here from DACA get deported? No, that's not his job. He sent the job right where it needs to go.

If what they choose is similar or more liberal, then that's thanks to the democrats and the crappy republicans in congress. If it's stronger than currently, then thanks goes to the republicans in congress and any dems that went along with following our laws on immigration.

If Trump should make an executive order that folks don't like - do we blame congress or the Dems for that?

[Kathianne]

Not all folks are running around out there looking to get rid of teenagers, although I think any criminals should go. It's more about the law IMO, and following the COTUS. 800k, minus criminals, isn't the worst thing in the world. There are a LOT more illegals in front of them, career illegals and criminals. It's laughable to think Trump got us where we're at, or that he did anything unconstitutional. This is all - 100% on congress. SHOULD Trump be able to hit this solo? Should he be able to work alone and ensure all illegals here from DACA get deported? No, that's not his job. He sent the job right where it needs to go.

If what they choose is similar or more liberal, then that's thanks to the democrats and the crappy republicans in congress. If it's stronger than currently, then thanks goes to the republicans in congress and any dems that went along with following our laws on immigration.

If Trump should make an executive order that folks don't like - do we blame congress or the Dems for that?

I'm criticizing what I don't like, just as I've given him credit where due. Never said that I was totally against the idea of DACA, rather DACA wasn't run the way it was claimed to be when established-as unconstitutional as it was. For the past 8 months, it continued in the very same fashion. Now they are looking at codifying it by law, while loosening the restrictions that were supposed to be there to begin with. Yeah.

Something you may or may not find of interest: https://www.axios.com/why-trump-hopes-the-new-trump-sticks-2483311761.html

[jimnyc]

I'm criticizing what I don't like, just as I've given him credit where due. Never said that I was totally against the idea of DACA, rather DACA wasn't run the way it was claimed to be when established-as unconstitutional as it was. For the past 8 months, it continued in the very same fashion. Now they are looking at codifying it by law, while loosening the restrictions that were supposed to be there to begin with. Yeah.

Something you may or may not find of interest: https://www.axios.com/why-trump-hopes-the-new-trump-sticks-2483311761.html

I laid blame to the way Obama handled things via his orders and bypassing congress, however lame his reasoning. It was claimed to be temporary, but it appears it wasn't. I lay blame towards him for his overreach.

Trump did the right thing and took away the overreach and put it back where it belongs with congress. What they come up with and who votes for what is up to them. Trump may not do a lot right, but he was spot on here, and he shouldn't be blamed if a republican lead congress doesn't come up with a plan that they can live with.

My personal stance I laid out many times here. I'm more concerned with the huge numbers coming in over the years, the amount that turned into criminals, folks that took advantage of all America offered - even though they were here illegally & coming up with a solution for going forward. I think the harsher end of illegal immigration is being tended to, and I think it's been better than I could have thought up until now. A wall of course would be nice. Stopping with freebies, sanctuary cities and coddling them would also be nice! I think that's begun as well.

DACA placed back in congress is done. I hope they do something that protects us more in the future than I am with the current talked of 800k in here, minus any criminals. With the republicans in control, I would like to see them come up with something harsher for the future, as in END the program, and maybe work with those already here. All starts with any plan they come up with, and who supports it or not. I hope we won't have nightmares over an Obamacare repeal/replace though. :(

[Kathianne]

I laid blame to the way Obama handled things via his orders and bypassing congress, however lame his reasoning. It was claimed to be temporary, but it appears it wasn't. I lay blame towards him for his overreach.

Trump did the right thing and took away the overreach and put it back where it belongs with congress. What they come up with and who votes for what is up to them. Trump may not do a lot right, but he was spot on here, and he shouldn't be blamed if a republican lead congress doesn't come up with a plan that they can live with.

My personal stance I laid out many times here. I'm more concerned with the huge numbers coming in over the years, the amount that turned into criminals, folks that took advantage of all America offered - even though they were here illegally & coming up with a solution for going forward. I think the harsher end of illegal immigration is being tended to, and I think it's been better than I could have thought up until now. A wall of course would be nice. Stopping with freebies, sanctuary cities and coddling them would also be nice! I think that's begun as well.

DACA placed back in congress is done. I hope they do something that protects us more in the future than I am with the current talked of 800k in here, minus any criminals. With the republicans in control, I would like to see them come up with something harsher for the future, as in END the program, and maybe work with those already here. All starts with any plan they come up with, and who supports it or not. I hope we won't have nightmares over an Obamacare repeal/replace though. :(


One has to wonder, if all the time the plan was what you say, he didn't act until several state attorney generals were taking the order to court. Last possible day.

Immediately undermined his own attorney general's declaration that DACA was unconstitutional, when he twitted that if legislation not done, he'd 'revisit.'

Then there's the whole GOP drain the swamp, (shhh about Lerner, Lynch being let off the hook. Double shush on Hillary), meanwhile he's ever so thrilled with the press he's getting for giving into what Chuck and Nancy wanted, especially the 'revisit' tweet Nancy asked for and he delivered so graciously.

Now I can see Chuck and Nancy and even Dick going along to get what they want. I'm not so sure though about their base, not at all. Folks here think it's only some 'liberal' conservatives that dislike Trump, but we ain't got nothing on the Democrat base.

[Kathianne]

From a fairly pro-Trump op ed:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-crime-and-immigration-whats-in-the-dream-act/article/2633792?platform=hootsuite


Byron York: Crime and immigration: What's in the Dream Act

by Byron York (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/byron-york) | Sep 7, 2017, 10:15 PM (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-crime-and-immigration-whats-in-the-dream-act/article/2633792?platform=hootsuite#)

Commentary on the DACA controversy frequently notes that the nation's nearly 700,000 so-called Dreamers are a law-abiding group. But a new bill to give DACA recipients full legal status, sponsored by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake and Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer, would allow newly legalized Dreamers to have many run-ins with the law -- arrests, charges, convictions -- and still receive benefits. Schumer, the Democratic leader, is demanding quick passage.


Former President Barack Obama's original 2012 executive action creating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals stipulated that to be eligible, recipients must have "not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offense, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety." When Obama announced the criteria for renewing DACA status in 2014, the standard was "have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety."


The Obama administration defined a "significant misdemeanor" as a crime with a maximum sentence of one year, or, regardless of length of sentence, "an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence."


With the Dream Act of 2017, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer have adopted much of the existing Obama-era criteria about crime, but in a way that would allow Department of Homeland Security officials to be more generous with newly legalized DACA recipients.


The Dream Act would exclude anyone who has been convicted of "any offense under federal or state law, other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status, that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year; or three or more offenses under federal or state law, other than state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses and imprisoned for an aggregate of 90 days or more."


The phrase "other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status" could excuse a lot of criminal activity. "It would grant status to illegal aliens who have been convicted of felony ID fraud or other crimes that could be considered to be related to their immigration status," noted Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration. "You could say human smuggling, document fraud, benefits fraud, false claims to citizenship, illegal voting, and many other felonies have an essential element that involves immigration status."


In addition, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer throw in the phrase "for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses" when referring to misdemeanor convictions. Many crimes involve multiple charges. The Dream Act of 2017 would require a young Dreamer to have committed offenses on not one, not two, but three separate occasions, and been convicted of all before he or she is ineligible for legalization.


And maybe not even then, because Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer would also allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any denial of legalization for those crimes, or for more serious crimes, "for humanitarian purposes or family unity or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest." In other words, Department of Homeland Security can legalize whomever it chooses.


"These standards are significantly more lenient than other legal immigration categories," noted Vaughan. "Green card and temporary visa categories have stricter requirements for good moral character and criminal behavior."


The Dream Act of 2017 differs in other ways from DACA. For example, Obama's order applied to people who were under the age of 16 when they came to the United States. In the Dream Act, the age is 18. Obama required recipients to have been living continuously in the United States for at least five years. In the Dream Act, it's four years. Obama required that a recipient "be present in the United States on the date of this memorandum," that is, on June 15, 2012, when DACA was announced. The Dream Act has no similar requirement.


Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer introduced the Dream Act of 2017 back on July 20, before the current DACA controversy. Since then some other senators have signed on as co-sponsors: Republicans Cory Gardner and Lisa Murkowski and Democrats Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Michael Bennet.


"We're ready to pass it," Schumer said Wednesday, calling on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan to bring the bill up for a vote in Senate and House.


"I am confident that, if put on the floor, it will garner overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle," Schumer continued. "But let us say this…if a clean Dream Act does not come to the floor in in September, we're prepared to attach it to other items this fall until it passes."

[Abbey Marie]

Because in society, minors get treated differently. They aren't held responsible for their parent's sins.

Unless they are aborted, of course.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unless they are aborted, of course.

Touché..
WAITING TO SEE PETEY'S REPLY TO THAT DEADLY THRUST...... :beer: :clap: :beer:--TYR