DACA

[humbleman]

My solution is simple: to every illegal immigrant never have the opportunity to receive permanent residence under any circumstances.

That is simple, yes.

Would that apply to yourself, though?

I mean, I BELIEVE I was born in the US. I have a birth certificate from a tiny little town in Idaho. But I only really have the word of my parents about that. I don't remember it. It's possible I was born in some other country and entered the US illegally, where a sympathetic (or bribable) official provided documentation to support the story my parents later told.

I grew up pretty sure I was American. I served in the military, had a clearance above Top Secret, was 'Decorated,' and work as a contractor now. I've been voting since Reagan.

How's your stance if it suddenly comes out that my parents are frauds? As far as I know, as far as I live, I'm as American as anyone else in the room, any room, and suddenly I'm to be deported to god-only-knows-where because of a lie someone else told?
Do I get my service to the country back on the way out? You guys owe me 20 years.

In UK, migrants from Africa just used a boat and crossed the waters, reaching UK territory, having a child and the child was the UK citizen used by them to obtain benefits from the government.

What I hear is that in the UK, for a child born over there, the requirement to be consider as a UK citizen, the grandparents must be UK citizens. I asked, why no just the parents? The answer was, no, no only the parents but the grandparents.

Apparently they had a huge, but a huge problem with many Africans crossing the waters with the purpose of having children and the children become UK citizens. After that, the benefits to the child were "shared" by the fathers who later on became also citizens of the UK.

What I wrote above was a conversation made a decade ago with a guy from UK, I don't know if this law existed or has expired or still in place, or if this law was just an initiative which never passed.

The point is that not only the US has a similar problem. Years ago a newspaper wrote an article of how Mexican pregnant women just crossed the US border, had their child here in the US and returned back to Mexico, and coming and going, appearing at the social service office to receive food stamps and other benefits.

The idea input in people is that these illegal immigrants are people without school, poor people, and more. Reality is that you don't need school to commit felonies, you don't need school to make what is illegal.

They laugh of you when you concede to their smart moves and obtain what they want.

From my part, look, I have not a single problem when smart people take advantage of others. The problem is when the government supports them.

The government must care for the US citizens, not so for illegal immigrants who take advantage and make mocks of the law.

My position is never give them what they want because goes against the law and affects the ones who are in their countries and want to come to the US the legal way.

Not because a party crasher is in your house drinking and eating and dancing, means that he also will be treated as your friend. You decide to take him out, that is your right. He has no rights to stay, you have the right to decide about it. He can't demand to stay, you can decide what to do and no one can judge your decision.

The US government must be very cautious about these dudes from DACA. Before making any decision, all the consequences must be considered, from three million obtaining legal status, it will become more than 10 million in a period of 6 or more years.

Houston, we have a problem.

 

[SimpleDon]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

I remember when I worked for US government, all cleaning ladies were mexican and none of them spoke english. I wonder whether or not they were legal.

It is very likely that they were illegals. The government probably puts the contract for the services for cleaning to bid and they have to accept the lowest bid and all that the janitorial services has to do is instead of hiring the individual cleaners they get their cleaners by subcontracting with a contractor who is probably an illegal, who won't be fined for hiring illegals he will just be deported. The extra layer of subcontracting insulates the janitorial service company from the liability for hiring the illegals. They just say that it was the obligation of their subcontractor to make sure that their employees are legal.

I was an industrial contractor. I built all kinds of processing plants for the building materials industry and all kinds of mineral and mine recovered minerals. I probably hired more than ten thousand people either directly or by subcontracting, about half in the US and the others in the rest of the world, mainly Asia for me.

We were a German company and my supervisors, engineers, designers and the commissioning and start up crew came from many different countries. I had to make sure that my people had the required paperwork for the country that we worked in. Before 1986 in the US I was responsible to make sure that all of my subcontractors employees were legal because my client had the same responsibility to the INS that he passed through to me. After 1986 my subcontractors were responsible for their people and I didn't care. I was only responsible for my own people.

 

[bilby]

My solution is simple: to every illegal immigrant never have the opportunity to receive permanent residence under any circumstances.

That is simple, yes.

Would that apply to yourself, though?

I mean, I BELIEVE I was born in the US. I have a birth certificate from a tiny little town in Idaho. But I only really have the word of my parents about that. I don't remember it. It's possible I was born in some other country and entered the US illegally, where a sympathetic (or bribable) official provided documentation to support the story my parents later told.

I grew up pretty sure I was American. I served in the military, had a clearance above Top Secret, was 'Decorated,' and work as a contractor now. I've been voting since Reagan.

How's your stance if it suddenly comes out that my parents are frauds? As far as I know, as far as I live, I'm as American as anyone else in the room, any room, and suddenly I'm to be deported to god-only-knows-where because of a lie someone else told?
Do I get my service to the country back on the way out? You guys owe me 20 years.

In UK, migrants from Africa just used a boat and crossed the waters, reaching UK territory, having a child and the child was the UK citizen used by them to obtain benefits from the government.

What I hear is that in the UK, for a child born over there, the requirement to be consider as a UK citizen, the grandparents must be UK citizens. I asked, why no just the parents? The answer was, no, no only the parents but the grandparents.

Apparently they had a huge, but a huge problem with many Africans crossing the waters with the purpose of having children and the children become UK citizens. After that, the benefits to the child were "shared" by the fathers who later on became also citizens of the UK.

What I wrote above was a conversation made a decade ago with a guy from UK, I don't know if this law existed or has expired or still in place, or if this law was just an initiative which never passed.

The point is that not only the US has a similar problem. Years ago a newspaper wrote an article of how Mexican pregnant women just crossed the US border, had their child here in the US and returned back to Mexico, and coming and going, appearing at the social service office to receive food stamps and other benefits.

The idea input in people is that these illegal immigrants are people without school, poor people, and more. Reality is that you don't need school to commit felonies, you don't need school to make what is illegal.

They laugh of you when you concede to their smart moves and obtain what they want.

From my part, look, I have not a single problem when smart people take advantage of others. The problem is when the government supports them.

The government must care for the US citizens, not so for illegal immigrants who take advantage and make mocks of the law.

My position is never give them what they want because goes against the law and affects the ones who are in their countries and want to come to the US the legal way.

Not because a party crasher is in your house drinking and eating and dancing, means that he also will be treated as your friend. You decide to take him out, that is your right. He has no rights to stay, you have the right to decide about it. He can't demand to stay, you can decide what to do and no one can judge your decision.

The US government must be very cautious about these dudes from DACA. Before making any decision, all the consequences must be considered, from three million obtaining legal status, it will become more than 10 million in a period of 6 or more years.

Houston, we have a problem.

You are (as usual) mistaken.

The UK allows automatic entry to any person who has (or had) at least one grandparent who is or was a UK citizen. Or who has or had at least one parent who is or was a UK citizen.

This provision largely affects the children and grandchildren of people who emigrated FROM the UK; it's quite uncommon, for example, to find an Australian who doesn't qualify.

There has never been any provision in UK immigration law that favoured people with UK citizen grandparents over people with UK citizen parents.

My first wife was able to live and work in the UK (where we met) due to the fact that her parents were UK dual citizens. Nobody asked about her grandparents.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I just read something that confuses me about this whole DACA debate.

The DACA order wasn't a law, it was an executive order. Signed by President Obama. It included a sunset in the law, so if whomever took the office next were to doing nothing the order would be repealed. Is that correct?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good, then "trust" those illegal immigrants who applied to DACA.

This is the "simple" process they want.

First, they will become permanent residents in the US.

Second, after 5 years they will apply for citizenship.

Third, after obtaining their citizenship they will make "petitions" for the permanent residence of their parents and other family who didn't fit in DACA.

At the end, in a period of six to ten years, the three million individuals who obtained permanent resident thanks to the DACA program will become ten to twelve million, probably more.

1) I would not mind a DACA solution that did not allow them to sponsor anyone.

2) The parents have at a minimum a 10 year ban. They very well might have a lifetime ban.

In order to stop illegal immigration, a good initiative is never ever giving them any opportunity to become legal residents of the US and not giving them any official ID like driver licenses.

There is no other way.

Giving them driver's licenses is about protecting the other drivers on the road. You can't get insurance without a license, thus such people are always uninsured. It's a hassle for them if they're in an accident but it guarantees that if they hit you you're not going to collect other than from your own insurance.

It also means their driving is likely to get tested--those who learned inadequately will shape up.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

 

[Trausti]

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

Or do those who want to keep DACA feel that Trump should have the power to rule by fiat and ignore Congress if Congress doesn't pass the laws he wants? He should just go ahead and build the wall, right? He's got a pen and a phone, after all.

 

[RavenSky]

I just read something that confuses me about this whole DACA debate.

The DACA order wasn't a law, it was an executive order. Signed by President Obama. It included a sunset in the law, so if whomever took the office next were to doing nothing the order would be repealed. Is that correct?

DACA was not an Executive Order nor was it a law, and it did not have a "sunset clause". It was an enforcement policy - Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

All DACA ever did was allow a very small select group of undocumented immigrants to become documented and not have to fear deportation until such time as Congress would get their act together to pass a law to provide a path to citizenship.

Where there may be confusion regarding expirations is that the individual deferments (DACA-recipients) expire after two years, and have to be renewed. This allowed the U.S. government to re-assess each individual recipient on a regular basis to reconfirm that the person met all of the requirements with regard to no criminal history, and still being in school or employed.

The orange turd used an Executive Order to rescind President Obama's policy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

Or do those who want to keep DACA feel that Trump should have the power to rule by fiat and ignore Congress if Congress doesn't pass the laws he wants? He should just go ahead and build the wall, right? He's got a pen and a phone, after all.

The "current" DACA order was an executive order and not a law, an order written and signed by the previous president. Moreover Obama included a sunset in his executive order, which is why this is an issue now. Trump failed to renew the order. If those who want the Dreamers to stay are opposed to ruling by fiat, they're confused.

 

[RavenSky]

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Incorrect. DACA did not "declare a certain group of people exempt from that law."

DACA said that DACA-recipients would be the absolute lowest priority for deportation.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

The point of DACA was to give this very small group of immigrants a measure of security until such time as Congress passed the DREAM Act or some other comprehensive immigration law with a path to citizenship for the DACA recipients.

- - - Updated - - -

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

Or do those who want to keep DACA feel that Trump should have the power to rule by fiat and ignore Congress if Congress doesn't pass the laws he wants? He should just go ahead and build the wall, right? He's got a pen and a phone, after all.

The "current" DACA order was an executive order and not a law, an order written and signed by the previous president. Moreover Obama included a sunset in his executive order, which is why this is an issue now. Trump failed to renew the order. If those who want the Dreamers to stay are opposed to ruling by fiat, they're confused.

You are incorrect on all counts

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The "current" DACA order was an executive order and not a law, an order written and signed by the previous president. Moreover Obama included a sunset in his executive order, which is why this is an issue now. Trump failed to renew the order. If those who want the Dreamers to stay are opposed to ruling by fiat, they're confused.

You are incorrect on all counts

So it wasn't an executive order, it was a law, it wasn't signed by the previous president. Got it.

 

[RavenSky]

The "current" DACA order was an executive order and not a law, an order written and signed by the previous president. Moreover Obama included a sunset in his executive order, which is why this is an issue now. Trump failed to renew the order. If those who want the Dreamers to stay are opposed to ruling by fiat, they're confused.

You are incorrect on all counts

So it wasn't an executive order, it was a law, it wasn't signed by the previous president. Got it.

Wrong.

Read the detailed response I already gave you or, if you doubt me, go research factual sources for yourself. Spreading misinformation doesn't help anyone

 

[humbleman]

Good, then "trust" those illegal immigrants who applied to DACA.

This is the "simple" process they want.

First, they will become permanent residents in the US.

Second, after 5 years they will apply for citizenship.

Third, after obtaining their citizenship they will make "petitions" for the permanent residence of their parents and other family who didn't fit in DACA.

At the end, in a period of six to ten years, the three million individuals who obtained permanent resident thanks to the DACA program will become ten to twelve million, probably more.

1) I would not mind a DACA solution that did not allow them to sponsor anyone.

2) The parents have at a minimum a 10 year ban. They very well might have a lifetime ban.

In order to stop illegal immigration, a good initiative is never ever giving them any opportunity to become legal residents of the US and not giving them any official ID like driver licenses.

There is no other way.

Giving them driver's licenses is about protecting the other drivers on the road. You can't get insurance without a license, thus such people are always uninsured. It's a hassle for them if they're in an accident but it guarantees that if they hit you you're not going to collect other than from your own insurance.

It also means their driving is likely to get tested--those who learned inadequately will shape up.

Nope.

The best protection is denying them a driver license. Any mistake or breaking of traffic law will identify them as committing fraud using fake ID and be deported.

This is the best solution: not to give them any opportunity to take advantage after their crossing of the border illegally.

Of course the ones already in the US will suffer a lot, but at the end of the day, discourage will work very well and less migrants will see the US as a place to get inside illegally.

 

[Harry Bosch]

1) I would not mind a DACA solution that did not allow them to sponsor anyone.

2) The parents have at a minimum a 10 year ban. They very well might have a lifetime ban.



Giving them driver's licenses is about protecting the other drivers on the road. You can't get insurance without a license, thus such people are always uninsured. It's a hassle for them if they're in an accident but it guarantees that if they hit you you're not going to collect other than from your own insurance.

It also means their driving is likely to get tested--those who learned inadequately will shape up.

Nope.

The best protection is denying them a driver license. Any mistake or breaking of traffic law will identify them as committing fraud using fake ID and be deported.

This is the best solution: not to give them any opportunity to take advantage after their crossing of the border illegally.

Of course the ones already in the US will suffer a lot, but at the end of the day, discourage will work very well and less migrants will see the US as a place to get inside illegally.

How does it feel to be the right of even Donald Trump? In this and in other threads, you seem to show great fear of a group of people. Why? What scares you about the dreamers? Why do you want them in the US to "suffer a lot"? Are you concerned that they won't pay their fair share of taxes? Fear that they won't vote republican? Fear that they will commit crimes? Rape women? What is it? What's driving you?

- - - Updated - - -

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

What law did the DACA children violate?

 

[humbleman]

How does it feel to be the right of even Donald Trump? In this and in other threads, you seem to show great fear of a group of people. Why? What scares you about the dreamers? Why do you want them in the US to "suffer a lot"? Are you concerned that they won't pay their fair share of taxes? Fear that they won't vote republican? Fear that they will commit crimes? Rape women? What is it? What's driving you?

Those people are mocking of the law.

Something else I'm trying to understand. We do have immigration laws in place, which is why the DACA children are such a hot topic. What Obama did with his executive order was to declare a certain group of people exempt from that law.

Do those wanting to keep the DACA children want to change immigration law, or simply not enforce it?

What law did the DACA children violate?

Indirectly they violated the law of no crossing illegally the US border.

If they receive permanent residence, such must be at the exchange of their parents deportation, who were the guilty ones causing their children breaking the US law.

 

[RavenSky]

It was mostly Republicans who killed comprehensive immigration reform in 2007; it was overwhelmingly Republicans who killed the DREAM Act in 2010; it was even more overwhelmingly Republicans who killed comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. It was a Republican president who canceled DACA in 2017, and it is exclusively Republicans who are blocking a wise and humane legislative replacement for DACA in 2018.

The real reason Schumer and Senate Democrats are struggling to secure help for DREAMers is that there are only 49 of them in a 100-person body (and you need 60 to pass legislation), their colleagues in the House are even more disempowered than they are, and the executive branch is controlled by people who are fundamentally hostile to the cause.

There are things that a determined Senate minority can do — like block big, filibusterable legislative changes. And on immigration policy, Senate Democrats are largely doing that. Trump and the immigration hawks among congressional Republicans want to make sweeping changes to American immigration policy. But they can’t because Senate Democrats won’t let them.

But a Senate minority can’t force the party that controls the House and the White House and the majority in the Senate to enact legislation they don’t want to enact. I’m not entirely sure why, exactly, Republicans leaders are so eager to ruin DREAMers’ lives but they do seem to be pretty determined. And that’s the core issue, not any question of legislative tactics.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/24/16927834/daca-deal-blame-game

 

[Playball40]

The thing is..........Mexicans are no longer flocking the border to get into the US. Legally or not. In fact, I believe we've had statistically 0% immigration from Mexico. So what the hell is the big deal with allowing young people that already identify as Americans and live as Americans the ability to not have to look over their shoulder all the time? Seriously, I do not understand the big issue with the DREAM ACT or DACA.

Many immigrants are imported by US companies through bullshit work VISAs (claiming the US employment pool doesn't have the skills - when in fact it's we don't have the ability to work for peanuts). Why aren't people (GOP) up in arms about that crap??

 

[Kusa]

If the dacas are allowed to stay here it will send out a message that others can do it and have no consequences.
They need to go back to Mexico and apply for entrance in the US legally.

 

[Elixir]

If the dacas are allowed to stay here it will send out a message that others can do it and have no consequences.

Who is feeding you that crap (as if we didn't know)?
Allowing people who grew up in the US to stay in the US is the moral thing to do. I suppose you think that allowing anyone born in the US to become a citizen also encourages every pregnant person in the world to sneak across the border... sheesh.

They need to go back to Mexico and apply for entrance in the US legally.

It would serve you right if ICE discovered tomorrow that your mom was an illegal from Shitholistan who brought you here at 8 weeks of age, and you got sent there to live in a mud hut for ten years while you applied for a visa.

 

[Kusa]

Allowing people who grew up in the US to stay in the US is the moral thing to do.

What do you reference to determine whether it is moral or not?

It would serve you right if ICE discovered tomorrow that your mom was an illegal from Shitholistan who brought you here at 8 weeks of age, and you got sent there to live in a mud hut for ten years while you applied for a visa.

My ancestors never lived in mud huts. If they did, I expect I would feel at home in one.