DACA

[humbleman]

http://www.aecf.org/blog/our-statem...CF Site&utm_term=DACA&utm_content=Ending DACA

Our nation is strongest when we embrace the diversity of ideas and contributions from our young people. Today’s decision to end the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) policy effectively disrupts the futures of the nearly 800,000 young people who have called the United States home since childhood — and represents an incredible loss for America, undermining the very foundation on which this country of immigrants was built.

Beautiful.

Is it?

There is a current "compromising" with a group of congressmen to set regulations for solving the status situation of immigrants, who were brought to the US by their parents when they were children.

Here are many gaps which are clouding this attempt for a "solution" of the problem.

If I was part of the members deciding for continuing with DACA, and the correspondent documentation arrives to my desk, I might ask for some details.

In reality, not rough estimates but real numbers, what is the amount of people which will be considered under this program? In other words, if the number is three million or 800,000, will this program passed as law or regulation, will also accept future children brought illegally by their parents? Will this be just a one time deal?

How to prove who was brought by their parents and who came by his own resources? I ask this question because in the past it has happened already a great migrating wave of children crossing the US borders. It is understood that these children are not included in this program DACA. How to know who is whom?

Another detail is the percent of these children who are "contributing" to the benefit of this nation. Many of them are teenagers and many are adults. How many are studying and how many are working?

Also, how many are doing nothing, how many are currently(*) drug addicts, how many are currently(*) members of gangs.... how many?
(*past records won't be considered if they have changed to become people contributing for the best of our society)

Before doing any decision, facts must be presented.

A law can't be passed with gaps rather than facts.

Isn't fair to investigate first what is the current status of these individuals before passing any regulation providing them a permanent residence status just because they were brought by their parents illegally crossing the US border?

I mean, I agree giving such permanent residence status to the ones "contributing" in society, but if this regulation will also benefit to the "bad apples", then... no deal.

Facts first and later checking what can be made to help them.

My humble opinion.

 

[Harry Bosch]

http://www.aecf.org/blog/our-statem...CF Site&utm_term=DACA&utm_content=Ending DACA


View attachment 14057

Our nation is strongest when we embrace the diversity of ideas and contributions from our young people. Today’s decision to end the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) policy effectively disrupts the futures of the nearly 800,000 young people who have called the United States home since childhood — and represents an incredible loss for America, undermining the very foundation on which this country of immigrants was built.

Beautiful.

Is it?

There is a current "compromising" with a group of congressmen to set regulations for solving the status situation of immigrants, who were brought to the US by their parents when they were children.

Here are many gaps which are clouding this attempt for a "solution" of the problem.

If I was part of the members deciding for continuing with DACA, and the correspondent documentation arrives to my desk, I might ask for some details.

In reality, not rough estimates but real numbers, what is the amount of people which will be considered under this program? In other words, if the number is three million or 800,000, will this program passed as law or regulation, will also accept future children brought illegally by their parents? Will this be just a one time deal?

How to prove who was brought by their parents and who came by his own resources? I ask this question because in the past it has happened already a great migrating wave of children crossing the US borders. It is understood that these children are not included in this program DACA. How to know who is whom?

Another detail is the percent of these children who are "contributing" to the benefit of this nation. Many of them are teenagers and many are adults. How many are studying and how many are working?

Also, how many are doing nothing, how many are currently(*) drug addicts, how many are currently(*) members of gangs.... how many?
(*past records won't be considered if they have changed to become people contributing for the best of our society)

Before doing any decision, facts must be presented.

A law can't be passed with gaps rather than facts.

Isn't fair to investigate first what is the current status of these individuals before passing any regulation providing them a permanent residence status just because they were brought by their parents illegally crossing the US border?

I mean, I agree giving such permanent residence status to the ones "contributing" in society, but if this regulation will also benefit to the "bad apples", then... no deal.

Facts first and later checking what can be made to help them.

My humble opinion.

Trump's DACA decision was one of the most shameful decisions in history. Trump is such a chicken shit that he couldn't even rescind the act himself, he had to have his henchman Sessions announce it. It's fucking cruel. These kids had no say in coming to America. They grown up here and are Americans. Many don't speak Spanish. If they were white, they'd be allowed to stay....

 

[TV and credit cards]

Can you imagine the emotional distress these people must be going through while our reprehensible representatives toy with their lives?
But why such concern? Are you worried the United States might inadvertently be nice to undeserving people? Does it matter if a ten year old was brought by his mother from Honduras or made his way north on his own? You set a high bar for these people. We need not find out how many are attending college, working, or committing crimes. The breakdown is at least equal to that of the general population. Likely much more favorable. People so desperate that they flee their country with nothing tend to be more appreciative of opportunity. What facts do you think can be dug up on these people? Do you know what that entails? Paying people to go back to their home villages and digging through any local records and talking to neighbors. You really want to pay for that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.aecf.org/blog/our-statem...CF Site&utm_term=DACA&utm_content=Ending DACA


View attachment 14057

Our nation is strongest when we embrace the diversity of ideas and contributions from our young people. Today’s decision to end the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) policy effectively disrupts the futures of the nearly 800,000 young people who have called the United States home since childhood — and represents an incredible loss for America, undermining the very foundation on which this country of immigrants was built.

Beautiful.

Is it?

There is a current "compromising" with a group of congressmen to set regulations for solving the status situation of immigrants, who were brought to the US by their parents when they were children.

Here are many gaps which are clouding this attempt for a "solution" of the problem.

If I was part of the members deciding for continuing with DACA, and the correspondent documentation arrives to my desk, I might ask for some details.

In reality, not rough estimates but real numbers, what is the amount of people which will be considered under this program? In other words, if the number is three million or 800,000, will this program passed as law or regulation, will also accept future children brought illegally by their parents? Will this be just a one time deal?

How to prove who was brought by their parents and who came by his own resources? I ask this question because in the past it has happened already a great migrating wave of children crossing the US borders. It is understood that these children are not included in this program DACA. How to know who is whom?

Another detail is the percent of these children who are "contributing" to the benefit of this nation. Many of them are teenagers and many are adults. How many are studying and how many are working?

Also, how many are doing nothing, how many are currently(*) drug addicts, how many are currently(*) members of gangs.... how many?
(*past records won't be considered if they have changed to become people contributing for the best of our society)

Before doing any decision, facts must be presented.

A law can't be passed with gaps rather than facts.

Isn't fair to investigate first what is the current status of these individuals before passing any regulation providing them a permanent residence status just because they were brought by their parents illegally crossing the US border?

I mean, I agree giving such permanent residence status to the ones "contributing" in society, but if this regulation will also benefit to the "bad apples", then... no deal.

Facts first and later checking what can be made to help them.

My humble opinion.

FYI, facts were presented. That you feel that it is unnecessary to look at them is your problem. So stop asking questions you don't want the answers for.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

 

[Juma]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

No, it wouldnt be fair. To the immigrants.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

No, it wouldnt be fair. To the immigrants.

If that is not fair, what would be fair?

It does have the appearance of fairness. "This is how country X treats immigrants, so we will apply the laws of country X to immigrants from country X."

 

[dismal]

Is the goal of an immigration policy to be "fair"?

One view would certainly be it would be to benefit the citizenry of the country whose policy it is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Good point. Fair to the country and fair to the immigrants are two different topics. A policy might be one, or the other, or both (or even neither), so who should the policy be fair towards?

 

[Derec]

The problem with DACA as devised by Obama's executive order is that it is too broad. When DACA is sold it is always using somebody being brought to the US as a toddler, and who graduated from college (including in the photo in the OP). Nice. But the reality of the program is that it applies to those who came when they were 15. Including those who came by themselves, and who really cannot claim that they did not have any say in breaking the law. There is no requirement to get a real college degree. And "dreamers" are allowed two misdemeanor convictions, and are thus not necessarily law abiding.

Any legislative fix for DACA should be much more narrow than that. But Democrats want to go the other way. For example, Nancy Pelosi thinks people coming here illegally with children is something praiseworthy. That is very different than saying illegal immigration is wrong, but these were kids when they came here so letting them stay is the lesser evil, etc. etc. Pelosi clearly doesn't think there is anything wrong with illegal immigration. That means that there will be no House Democratic support for any legislation protecting the border or in any way fighting illegal immigration.

 

[dismal]

Good point. Fair to the country and fair to the immigrants are two different topics. A policy might be one, or the other, or both (or even neither), so who should the policy be fair towards?

I'm not sure the goal "we want the US immigration policy that's best for the US" is necessarily fair to anyone. We may bring in someone who takes your job. We may exclude you from immigrating because we have too many neurosurgeons and not enough HVAC repairmen. or we way want a neurosurgeon but we have other more suitable neurosurgeons than you.


Of course, I'm not sure that's the right policy goal, or how exactly one would assess what's best for the US.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.aecf.org/blog/our-statem...CF Site&utm_term=DACA&utm_content=Ending DACA

There is a current "compromising" with a group of congressmen to set regulations for solving the status situation of immigrants, who were brought to the US by their parents when they were children.

Here are many gaps which are clouding this attempt for a "solution" of the problem.

What "gaps"

If I was part of the members deciding for continuing with DACA, and the correspondent documentation arrives to my desk, I might ask for some details.

Or... you might familiarize yourself with the information that is already available to you before you start complaining about "gaps"

In reality, not rough estimates but real numbers, what is the amount of people which will be considered under this program? In other words, if the number is three million or 800,000, will this program passed as law or regulation, will also accept future children brought illegally by their parents? Will this be just a one time deal?

In order to be eligible for DACA, the applicant had to have been under the age of 16 at the time of entry into the United States; under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012; maintained continuous residence in the United States for at least five years before June 15, 2012 (that is, since June 15, 2007); have a physical presence in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time of making the request for consideration of deferred action.

In other words, a very narrow and somewhat arbitrarily chosen group of people qualify for DACA. It does not apply to anyone of any age who entered the U.S. after June 15, 2012; and does not apply to anyone who was 16 years or older when they entered.

In "real" numbers, as of September 4, 2017, (the day the bastard Trump rescinded the program) there were 690,000 people approved for DACA. That number will be shrinking unless Congress does something because the DACA approvals have to be renewed every two years, and no renewals are being allowed since October 6, 2017.

How to prove who was brought by their parents and who came by his own resources? I ask this question because in the past it has happened already a great migrating wave of children crossing the US borders. It is understood that these children are not included in this program DACA. How to know who is whom?

You understood wrong. Arriving with or without a parent is not one of the criteria for DACA

Another detail is the percent of these children who are "contributing" to the benefit of this nation. Many of them are teenagers and many are adults. How many are studying and how many are working?

A DACA recipient must be "in school, graduated from high school or obtained general education development certificate", in the military or have been honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces or the Coast Guard. Further, there was a $495 application fee plus attorney's fees for DACA, which precluded "deadbeats" from applying.

Also, how many are doing nothing, how many are currently(*) drug addicts, how many are currently(*) members of gangs.... how many? (*past records won't be considered if they have changed to become people contributing for the best of our society)

None. And yes, past records were considered. If an applicant was ever "convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors," or "otherwise a threat to national security or public safety" they were ineligible for approval or renewal.

Before doing any decision, facts must be presented.

Facts have already been presented

A law can't be passed with gaps rather than facts.

Can't force the wilfully ignorant to read the facts

Isn't fair to investigate first what is the current status of these individuals before passing any regulation providing them a permanent residence status just because they were brought by their parents illegally crossing the US border?

Already done.

I mean, I agree giving such permanent residence status to the ones "contributing" in society, but if this regulation will also benefit to the "bad apples", then... no deal.

How nice of you

Facts first and later checking what can be made to help them.

My humble opinion.

Checking facts first before posting is helpful, too.

My humble opinion.

 

[bilby]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

That is, by and large, the starting point for the bilateral negotiations between countries when establishing visa and immigration rules and regulations.

Why you imagine that this is not already how it is done I don't know - but it usually is, and any deviation from it is as a result of negotiations between the nations involved.

As the US has a lot of clout on the international stage, it is common for it to be more difficult to migrate to the US than it is for US citizens to migrate to other nations. It is very rare for it to be the other way about; Can you give an example of ANY nation, where it is more difficult to migrate there from the USA than it is to migrate to the USA from that nation?

It's pretty damned easy for an American to migrate to Mexico, compared to the difficulty of migrating in the opposite direction.

 

[Trausti]

Is the goal of an immigration policy to be "fair"?

One view would certainly be it would be to benefit the citizenry of the country whose policy it is.

It's a curious development that the American political elite have adopted a preference for leapfrogging loyalties. They will chastise and insult their neighbor while feigning some nebulous allegiance to a foreigner in a far away land, with different cultural values, and whom they've never met. Conversely, those foreigners entering the US by and large practice concentric loyalties; banding with their co-ethnics often detrimentally to the native population. Indeed, they'll even work with their co-ethnics in foreign lands to meddle and change US governance to their favor.

MEXICO CITY — California Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa thanked President Ernesto Zedillo here Tuesday for helping defuse Proposition 187, saying the Mexican leader played a key role in scuttling the controversial state measure that denied benefits to illegal immigrants.

"As leader of the state Assembly, I say President Zedillo had great impact in defeating Proposition 187," Villaraigosa told a news conference after he and a state delegation met the Mexican chief executive. Zedillo's visit to California in May "pushed the process" that eventually invalidated most of the measure, the speaker said.

Villaraigosa's declarations were perhaps the clearest sign yet of California's radical change in relations with Mexico and of the rise of a new phenomenon: cross-border politics. Once a distant neighbor, the Mexican president has become a prized ally for California politicians eager to court the Latino vote.

"The emergence of cross-border coalitions and issues shows the advent of a whole new era in U.S.-Mexican and Mexico-California relations," said Denise Dresser, a visiting fellow at the Pacific Council think tank in Los Angeles.

The meeting with Zedillo was the centerpiece of a four-day visit to Mexico by Villaraigosa, a Los Angeles Democrat who is trying to promote economic and political ties between California and its southern neighbor. He is also considering a run for mayor of Los Angeles.

A senior Mexican official who attended Tuesday's meeting said Villaraigosa told Zedillo that the latter's trip to California was "decisive" in invalidating Proposition 187.

"He gave thanks on behalf of Mexican Americans," said the official, Deputy Foreign Minister Juan Rebolledo.

"I was surprised he was so explicit," Rebolledo added.

Zedillo Key to End of Prop. 187, Villaraigosa Says

But, hey, it's not collusion and foreign meddling when Democrats do it.

 

[barbos]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

That is, by and large, the starting point for the bilateral negotiations between countries when establishing visa and immigration rules and regulations.

Why you imagine that this is not already how it is done I don't know - but it usually is, and any deviation from it is as a result of negotiations between the nations involved.

As the US has a lot of clout on the international stage, it is common for it to be more difficult to migrate to the US than it is for US citizens to migrate to other nations. It is very rare for it to be the other way about; Can you give an example of ANY nation, where it is more difficult to migrate there from the USA than it is to migrate to the USA from that nation?

It's pretty damned easy for an American to migrate to Mexico, compared to the difficulty of migrating in the opposite direction.

I think Switzerland is probably harder for an american to immigrate than other way around.
But yeah the best way fix US immigration problem is to make it less attractive and the best way to do that is to let immigrants from shithouse countries of course, someone should tell Trump that

 

[bilby]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

That is, by and large, the starting point for the bilateral negotiations between countries when establishing visa and immigration rules and regulations.

Why you imagine that this is not already how it is done I don't know - but it usually is, and any deviation from it is as a result of negotiations between the nations involved.

As the US has a lot of clout on the international stage, it is common for it to be more difficult to migrate to the US than it is for US citizens to migrate to other nations. It is very rare for it to be the other way about; Can you give an example of ANY nation, where it is more difficult to migrate there from the USA than it is to migrate to the USA from that nation?

It's pretty damned easy for an American to migrate to Mexico, compared to the difficulty of migrating in the opposite direction.

I think Switzerland is probably harder for an american to immigrate than other way around.
But yeah the best way fix US immigration problem is to make it less attractive and the best way to do that is to let immigrants from shithouse countries of course, someone should tell Trump that

Yes, Switzerland is (in)famous for being hard to get into, so that might be one example. I doubt there are many more - most of the 'shithole' countries are quite keen to get migrants (particularly skilled migrants) from the first world.

 

[SimpleDon]

What if the US set its immigration laws to "we will treat your country's immigrants to the US the exact same way you treat our people trying to immigrate to your country"? Would that be fair?

Not saying it would be easy, given that it means reviewing many different sets of immigration laws. Only asking it if would be fair.

That is, by and large, the starting point for the bilateral negotiations between countries when establishing visa and immigration rules and regulations.

Why you imagine that this is not already how it is done I don't know - but it usually is, and any deviation from it is as a result of negotiations between the nations involved.

As the US has a lot of clout on the international stage, it is common for it to be more difficult to migrate to the US than it is for US citizens to migrate to other nations. It is very rare for it to be the other way about; Can you give an example of ANY nation, where it is more difficult to migrate there from the USA than it is to migrate to the USA from that nation?

It's pretty damned easy for an American to migrate to Mexico, compared to the difficulty of migrating in the opposite direction.

If an American enters Brazil they take your thumbprint using an inkpad and a small square of paper about 5 cm on side. They then turn around and throw the piece of paper and the thumbprint away. They do this only to Americans because the US immigration takes a thumbprint of every non-American who enters the US as part of the never ending "war on terror". The Brazilians throw the thumbprint away because they don't have any system to store the thumbprint, they are just doing it in the interests of treating Americans the same way that the Americans treat Brazilians.

 

[Kusa]

They got their free ride, now it’s time for them to go back along with the parents that brought them here.

 

[southernhybrid]

Considering that 87% of Americans polled, want the "dreamers" to stay, this should be a no brainer. Besides that, we need a lot more immigrants to pay into SS and Medicare so old folks won't be thrown into the street or have to depend on their children for survival. It seems as if most people don't even realize that immigrants who are not citizens pay into these programs without ever benefiting from them, unless they become citizens. Even undocumented immigrants pay into these programs. The current conservative outlook on immigration is not only cruel, it's one of the most dumb ass things I've seen in a long time.

 

[Derec]

Considering that 87% of Americans polled, want the "dreamers" to stay,

The pro-DACA side had good propaganda. Grad school graduates who were brought to US as toddlers are used to sell the program but the reality is that
- you can be 15 years old, so the "know no other country" does not apply
- you can have brought yourself here, so the line about "through no fault of their own" does not apply
- you can have lived in Mexico for a time since initially coming illegally, so again the "know no other country" does not apply
- you can have two misdemeanor convictions, so "law abiding" does not apply.

Americans are being sold a vision of DACA that does not fit many recipients of DACA.

Besides that, we need a lot more immigrants to pay into SS and Medicare so old folks won't be thrown into the street or have to depend on their children for survival. It seems as if most people don't even realize that immigrants who are not citizens pay into these programs without ever benefiting from them, unless they become citizens. Even undocumented immigrants pay into these programs. The current conservative outlook on immigration is not only cruel, it's one of the most dumb ass things I've seen in a long time.

We cannot solve the SS problems through permanent population growth, because there is limited space and resources. We need to solve the SS issues with constant population frankly. And any needs for immigration should be done through legal immigration, not by tolerating illegals.

That said, I do think many of the so-called dreamers should stay, but the current program is too broad. And DACA protections should be linked to improved border security and to eventually deporting all illegals who do not get these protections. For starters, it should be made more difficult for illegals to work, drive, rent apartments etc. Romney was not that wrong that much of the problem can be solved through self-deportation if conditions of life as an illegal are made untenable.