I don’t get DACA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am only on page 1 so I am sorry if it has been said already.
But while I understand the human appeal, does anyone realize that any step towards legalization of those who entered illegally will open the floodgates?

I'm okay with legal status to DACA recepients if we secure the border first, but not before.

I am *COMPLETELLY* sympathetic to the fact that may DACA recipients are probably more "American" in terms of cultural attachment than me, as an immigrant who came to the US at 11. However, I am also *COMPLETELY* against any type of amensty type program that is insitutted prior to instituting effective measures to combat illegal immigration.

I don’t see how it can be done, without running into issues of human rights violation.
It would be easy if police could check for IDs, e-verify mandatory, no benefits in any states without proof of legal status. Yet this won’t fly. Oh and birthright citizenship.
But no politician is suicidal enough to implement any of it. Let alone its against the laws...

How what can be done? Secure our borders? Build the wall. Physical barrier is not 100% effective, but it will be effective enough.

It’s better than nothing, but!
What to do with 11-22 m ppl already here?
And what about visa overstays? People smuggling?
But a non penetrable physical barrier is indeed better than nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real problem is not daca- its the archaic 14th amendment that was created to make sure states recognized former slaves and descendants of slaves as citizens.
It turned into the shit show of birth tourism and anchor babies.

DACA is a rounding error compared to that, while good intended, stupidly worded train wreck of work.

Agreed...I would use DACA people as leverage to change the 14th amendment as opposed to building a wall.

In the long run fixing 14th Amendment loop hole would do more for security than a border wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am only on page 1 so I am sorry if it has been said already.
But while I understand the human appeal, does anyone realize that any step towards legalization of those who entered illegally will open the floodgates?

I'm okay with legal status to DACA recepients if we secure the border first, but not before.

I am *COMPLETELLY* sympathetic to the fact that may DACA recipients are probably more "American" in terms of cultural attachment than me, as an immigrant who came to the US at 11. However, I am also *COMPLETELY* against any type of amensty type program that is insitutted prior to instituting effective measures to combat illegal immigration.

I don’t see how it can be done, without running into issues of human rights violation.
It would be easy if police could check for IDs, e-verify mandatory, no benefits in any states without proof of legal status. Yet this won’t fly. Oh and birthright citizenship.
But no politician is suicidal enough to implement any of it. Let alone its against the laws...

How what can be done? Secure our borders? Build the wall. Physical barrier is not 100% effective, but it will be effective enough.

It’s better than nothing, but!
What to do with 11-22 m ppl already here?
And what about visa overstays? People smuggling?
But a non penetrable physical barrier is indeed better than nothing.

DACA can stay, I think. Other illegals who did not come here as minor children must be deported if found. Same for visa overstays, people smuggling, and etc.

The reason why wages have been stagnant for the bottom 50% of American income earners is the flood of low-skill immigrants. It's plain economics that increased labor supply = lower wages. The ones who benefit are the businesses and employers. You want to lower income inequality, then stop the flow of low skilled immigration. This will lead to wage growth for the lower income earners. Be ready/willing to pay more for your food, housing construction, yard work, domestic help, motel stays - put your money where your mouth is.

[Anonymous]

The US destabilized these countries that people are coming from now for our own purposes. NOW you think we should mind our own business and no longer let people go through the legal process of applying for amnesty?

Typical GOP. It all comes down to race, doesn't it.

ok . . .

So here's a response to your simplistic post.

I am not responsible for the sins of the father. But, I never rubber stamped any of those measures either. So while this country interfered, at what point do we shut down the past and move on?

We have our own problems here. We talk about gang warfare in El Salvador. What about our inner cities? ever teach in an urban school, folks? It's pretty ugly on many days . . .

But yeah - let's blame the GOP and keep enabling people to break laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am only on page 1 so I am sorry if it has been said already.
But while I understand the human appeal, does anyone realize that any step towards legalization of those who entered illegally will open the floodgates?

I'm okay with legal status to DACA recepients if we secure the border first, but not before.

I am *COMPLETELLY* sympathetic to the fact that may DACA recipients are probably more "American" in terms of cultural attachment than me, as an immigrant who came to the US at 11. However, I am also *COMPLETELY* against any type of amensty type program that is insitutted prior to instituting effective measures to combat illegal immigration.

I don’t see how it can be done, without running into issues of human rights violation.
It would be easy if police could check for IDs, e-verify mandatory, no benefits in any states without proof of legal status. Yet this won’t fly. Oh and birthright citizenship.
But no politician is suicidal enough to implement any of it. Let alone its against the laws...

How what can be done? Secure our borders? Build the wall. Physical barrier is not 100% effective, but it will be effective enough.

It’s better than nothing, but!
What to do with 11-22 m ppl already here?
And what about visa overstays? People smuggling?
But a non penetrable physical barrier is indeed better than nothing.

DACA can stay, I think. Other illegals who did not come here as minor children must be deported if found. Same for visa overstays, people smuggling, and etc.

The reason why wages have been stagnant for the bottom 50% of American income earners is the flood of low-skill immigrants. It's plain economics that increased labor supply = lower wages. The ones who benefit are the businesses and employers. You want to lower income inequality, then stop the flow of low skilled immigration. This will lead to wage growth for the lower income earners. Be ready/willing to pay more for your food, housing construction, yard work, domestic help, motel stays - put your money where your mouth is.

+ 1 million

I am more than willing to pay more for food/construction/etc. People who do these jobs deserve more money. And, if we pay more money, we'll get legal immigrants and/or US citizens to do the jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am only on page 1 so I am sorry if it has been said already.
But while I understand the human appeal, does anyone realize that any step towards legalization of those who entered illegally will open the floodgates?

I'm okay with legal status to DACA recepients if we secure the border first, but not before.

I am *COMPLETELLY* sympathetic to the fact that may DACA recipients are probably more "American" in terms of cultural attachment than me, as an immigrant who came to the US at 11. However, I am also *COMPLETELY* against any type of amensty type program that is insitutted prior to instituting effective measures to combat illegal immigration.

I don’t see how it can be done, without running into issues of human rights violation.
It would be easy if police could check for IDs, e-verify mandatory, no benefits in any states without proof of legal status. Yet this won’t fly. Oh and birthright citizenship.
But no politician is suicidal enough to implement any of it. Let alone its against the laws...

How what can be done? Secure our borders? Build the wall. Physical barrier is not 100% effective, but it will be effective enough.

It’s better than nothing, but!
What to do with 11-22 m ppl already here?
And what about visa overstays? People smuggling?
But a non penetrable physical barrier is indeed better than nothing.

DACA can stay, I think. Other illegals who did not come here as minor children must be deported if found. Same for visa overstays, people smuggling, and etc.

The reason why wages have been stagnant for the bottom 50% of American income earners is the flood of low-skill immigrants. It's plain economics that increased labor supply = lower wages. The ones who benefit are the businesses and employers. You want to lower income inequality, then stop the flow of low skilled immigration. This will lead to wage growth for the lower income earners. Be ready/willing to pay more for your food, housing construction, yard work, domestic help, motel stays - put your money where your mouth is.

+ 1 million

I am more than willing to pay more for food/construction/etc. People who do these jobs deserve more money. And, if we pay more money, we'll get legal immigrants and/or US citizens to do the jobs.

+1. Absolutely. None of those services should be as cheap as they are now. It’s not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

Can you clarify? How is that inappropriate?

In both cases, the parent is breaking the law. In one case, you feel the kids shouldn't be rewarded. In the other, you feel the kids should be rewarded.

DP. In both cases I feel like the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. Not being a millionaire isn't a punishment. Being dropped off in the middle of a country where you know no one and don't speak the language can be a literal death sentence.

Oh the drama. As others have pointed out, most of them do speak the language, or enough to easily learn it. And many of the countries are not as violent or dangerous as they make them out to be. In fact, their countries would benefit from an influx of American-educated young people. We would be doing those countries a service to send them back, in addition to ourselves.

tell this to the guy with diabetes who was dropped off in lebanon and died because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The US destabilized these countries that people are coming from now for our own purposes. NOW you think we should mind our own business and no longer let people go through the legal process of applying for amnesty?

Typical GOP. It all comes down to race, doesn't it.

ok . . .

So here's a response to your simplistic post.

I am not responsible for the sins of the father. But, I never rubber stamped any of those measures either. So while this country interfered, at what point do we shut down the past and move on?

We have our own problems here. We talk about gang warfare in El Salvador. What about our inner cities? ever teach in an urban school, folks? It's pretty ugly on many days . . .

But yeah - let's blame the GOP and keep enabling people to break laws.

You added exactly zero to the conversation. We disrupted the countries. And we (through our massive outsized contributions to global warming) have disrupted and are continuing to disrupt other countries. Global migration because of climate change is happening now and it will only get worse. These sins are yours and mine. They aren't our parents'.

[Anonymous]

^^^ They aren't JUST our parents'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

Can you clarify? How is that inappropriate?

In both cases, the parent is breaking the law. In one case, you feel the kids shouldn't be rewarded. In the other, you feel the kids should be rewarded.

DP. In both cases I feel like the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. Not being a millionaire isn't a punishment. Being dropped off in the middle of a country where you know no one and don't speak the language can be a literal death sentence.

Oh the drama. As others have pointed out, most of them do speak the language, or enough to easily learn it. And many of the countries are not as violent or dangerous as they make them out to be. In fact, their countries would benefit from an influx of American-educated young people. We would be doing those countries a service to send them back, in addition to ourselves.

This is simply not true. Would you be cool being dropped off in Belarus tomorrow?

It is a crap analogy anyway because it doesn't really accurately get to the heart of the matter. A better analogy would be, what do you do with the children of someone who robbed a bank 30 years ago and acquired generational wealth as a result of that original crime. Their education childhood were funded by that crime. Do you bankrupt them as adults for reaping the benefits of that crime?

The answer is no. Courts would strip the parents of wealth, but they would not ruin those kids' lives. Even though they were clearly given a huge leg up in life because they benefited from the fruits of that crime. But they themselves have done nothing wrong, the benefited in ignorance. Their own assets were not acquired by any illegal actions of their own.

Oh boy. Talk about a crap analogy. And what’s wrong with Belarus?

There's nothing wrong with Belarus. Except I don't live there and don't speak the language and if dumped off there tomorrow night I would probably end up homeless.

What is wrong with my analogy?

In your analogy, the children did not commit a crime. In reality, Dreamers broke the law as children by coming here. And that violation of law continued as adults when they remained here unlawfully, with many seeking to work illegally, etc. Without DACA, they would still be breaking the law. And the consequence of that is removal.

Spending stolen money is a crime. Every time their parents gave the analogy kids $50 they were becoming part of the crime. But for all intents and purposes they didn't intellectually engage in the crime, same as DACA kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

Can you clarify? How is that inappropriate?

In both cases, the parent is breaking the law. In one case, you feel the kids shouldn't be rewarded. In the other, you feel the kids should be rewarded.

DP. In both cases I feel like the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. Not being a millionaire isn't a punishment. Being dropped off in the middle of a country where you know no one and don't speak the language can be a literal death sentence.

Oh the drama. As others have pointed out, most of them do speak the language, or enough to easily learn it. And many of the countries are not as violent or dangerous as they make them out to be. In fact, their countries would benefit from an influx of American-educated young people. We would be doing those countries a service to send them back, in addition to ourselves.

This is simply not true. Would you be cool being dropped off in Belarus tomorrow?

It is a crap analogy anyway because it doesn't really accurately get to the heart of the matter. A better analogy would be, what do you do with the children of someone who robbed a bank 30 years ago and acquired generational wealth as a result of that original crime. Their education childhood were funded by that crime. Do you bankrupt them as adults for reaping the benefits of that crime?

The answer is no. Courts would strip the parents of wealth, but they would not ruin those kids' lives. Even though they were clearly given a huge leg up in life because they benefited from the fruits of that crime. But they themselves have done nothing wrong, the benefited in ignorance. Their own assets were not acquired by any illegal actions of their own.

Oh boy. Talk about a crap analogy. And what’s wrong with Belarus?

There's nothing wrong with Belarus. Except I don't live there and don't speak the language and if dumped off there tomorrow night I would probably end up homeless.

What is wrong with my analogy?

In your analogy, the children did not commit a crime. In reality, Dreamers broke the law as children by coming here. And that violation of law continued as adults when they remained here unlawfully, with many seeking to work illegally, etc. Without DACA, they would still be breaking the law. And the consequence of that is removal.

Spending stolen money is a crime. Every time their parents gave the analogy kids $50 they were becoming part of the crime. But for all intents and purposes they didn't intellectually engage in the crime, same as DACA kids.

Nope, the kids in your example did not commit a crime, unless they knew the money was stolen and spent it. DACA kids broke the law by coming here and then by staying as adults without lawful admission. Immigration law does not differentiate by age, unlawful presence is unlawful presence.

[Anonymous]

How Latinos saved American cities
After whites fled and before the ‘creative class’ moved in, immigrants kept urban neighborhoods alive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/08/how-latinos-saved-american-cities/?arc404=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

Can you clarify? How is that inappropriate?

In both cases, the parent is breaking the law. In one case, you feel the kids shouldn't be rewarded. In the other, you feel the kids should be rewarded.

DP. In both cases I feel like the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. Not being a millionaire isn't a punishment. Being dropped off in the middle of a country where you know no one and don't speak the language can be a literal death sentence.

Oh the drama. As others have pointed out, most of them do speak the language, or enough to easily learn it. And many of the countries are not as violent or dangerous as they make them out to be. In fact, their countries would benefit from an influx of American-educated young people. We would be doing those countries a service to send them back, in addition to ourselves.

tell this to the guy with diabetes who was dropped off in lebanon and died because of it.

Please tell the whole story. He was deported to Lebanon after committing some crimes and after he had been here for decades without applying for citizenship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

Can you clarify? How is that inappropriate?

In both cases, the parent is breaking the law. In one case, you feel the kids shouldn't be rewarded. In the other, you feel the kids should be rewarded.

DP. In both cases I feel like the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. Not being a millionaire isn't a punishment. Being dropped off in the middle of a country where you know no one and don't speak the language can be a literal death sentence.

Oh the drama. As others have pointed out, most of them do speak the language, or enough to easily learn it. And many of the countries are not as violent or dangerous as they make them out to be. In fact, their countries would benefit from an influx of American-educated young people. We would be doing those countries a service to send them back, in addition to ourselves.

This is simply not true. Would you be cool being dropped off in Belarus tomorrow?

It is a crap analogy anyway because it doesn't really accurately get to the heart of the matter. A better analogy would be, what do you do with the children of someone who robbed a bank 30 years ago and acquired generational wealth as a result of that original crime. Their education childhood were funded by that crime. Do you bankrupt them as adults for reaping the benefits of that crime?

The answer is no. Courts would strip the parents of wealth, but they would not ruin those kids' lives. Even though they were clearly given a huge leg up in life because they benefited from the fruits of that crime. But they themselves have done nothing wrong, the benefited in ignorance. Their own assets were not acquired by any illegal actions of their own.

Oh boy. Talk about a crap analogy. And what’s wrong with Belarus?

There's nothing wrong with Belarus. Except I don't live there and don't speak the language and if dumped off there tomorrow night I would probably end up homeless.

What is wrong with my analogy?

In your analogy, the children did not commit a crime. In reality, Dreamers broke the law as children by coming here. And that violation of law continued as adults when they remained here unlawfully, with many seeking to work illegally, etc. Without DACA, they would still be breaking the law. And the consequence of that is removal.

Spending stolen money is a crime. Every time their parents gave the analogy kids $50 they were becoming part of the crime. But for all intents and purposes they didn't intellectually engage in the crime, same as DACA kids.

Nope, the kids in your example did not commit a crime, unless they knew the money was stolen and spent it. DACA kids broke the law by coming here and then by staying as adults without lawful admission. Immigration law does not differentiate by age, unlawful presence is unlawful presence.

Most of those kids have no idea they are here illegally until they encounter some bureaucratic institution that alerts them to the problem. You think 3 year olds are consciously making a choice to break the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is they could get deported back to a country they don’t know or have any connection to. This gives them safety. What’s your problem with that?

So back to OP, your logic is that Madoff family should have kept the money he embezzled?

Kids did not commit the crime, they should keep the billions.

Solid plan.

This is an inappropriate comparison.

Can you clarify? How is that inappropriate?

In both cases, the parent is breaking the law. In one case, you feel the kids shouldn't be rewarded. In the other, you feel the kids should be rewarded.

DP. In both cases I feel like the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. Not being a millionaire isn't a punishment. Being dropped off in the middle of a country where you know no one and don't speak the language can be a literal death sentence.

Oh the drama. As others have pointed out, most of them do speak the language, or enough to easily learn it. And many of the countries are not as violent or dangerous as they make them out to be. In fact, their countries would benefit from an influx of American-educated young people. We would be doing those countries a service to send them back, in addition to ourselves.

This is simply not true. Would you be cool being dropped off in Belarus tomorrow?

It is a crap analogy anyway because it doesn't really accurately get to the heart of the matter. A better analogy would be, what do you do with the children of someone who robbed a bank 30 years ago and acquired generational wealth as a result of that original crime. Their education childhood were funded by that crime. Do you bankrupt them as adults for reaping the benefits of that crime?

The answer is no. Courts would strip the parents of wealth, but they would not ruin those kids' lives. Even though they were clearly given a huge leg up in life because they benefited from the fruits of that crime. But they themselves have done nothing wrong, the benefited in ignorance. Their own assets were not acquired by any illegal actions of their own.

Oh boy. Talk about a crap analogy. And what’s wrong with Belarus?

There's nothing wrong with Belarus. Except I don't live there and don't speak the language and if dumped off there tomorrow night I would probably end up homeless.

What is wrong with my analogy?

In your analogy, the children did not commit a crime. In reality, Dreamers broke the law as children by coming here. And that violation of law continued as adults when they remained here unlawfully, with many seeking to work illegally, etc. Without DACA, they would still be breaking the law. And the consequence of that is removal.

Spending stolen money is a crime. Every time their parents gave the analogy kids $50 they were becoming part of the crime. But for all intents and purposes they didn't intellectually engage in the crime, same as DACA kids.

Nope, the kids in your example did not commit a crime, unless they knew the money was stolen and spent it. DACA kids broke the law by coming here and then by staying as adults without lawful admission. Immigration law does not differentiate by age, unlawful presence is unlawful presence.

Most of those kids have no idea they are here illegally until they encounter some bureaucratic institution that alerts them to the problem. You think 3 year olds are consciously making a choice to break the law?

It doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what the law says. Why pass laws if we aren’t going to enforce them?