I don’t get DACA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem overly complicated to me. If my parents stood money from a bank or embezzled a bunch of money and gave it me I do not get to keep it; or do I?

I just do not see what the big deal is to have the kids go through the normal immigration process, or am I missing some other part of this debate?

Republican here. From my point of view, it’s simple: we paid for their education and deserve to benefit from their skill sets. Makes zero sense to be to deport young people who speak perfect English, understand our customs and history, and have been through our public school system. That is throwing our money away.

Fine. Then why haven't Republicans nor Democrats had the political will to protect this group? We all know they are a bargaining chit. Our school district's education budget is astronomically high. It doesn't matter since our education budget in my county has been a source of angst since the first educational budget of $75,000 over a hundred and fifty years ago: had to educate the stonecutters' children. The stone masons were needed to build all the buildings in the new capital. Nothing's changed. Nothing.

What I find offensive is E.O. "protecting" these people, campaigning on protecting DACA recipients when the last administration just prolonged their agony. President Trump nullified the E.O. - in order to settle their anxiety once and for all - and these jerks sue him for nullifying a precious President's e.o.? For he love of God...it is times, such as these, I wish I never studied political science.

Y'all are desperately trying to rewriting the office of the American Presidency, the election of 2016, and you will fail based on the Constitution and precedent. You have perfected that boomerang throw. So. Dumb.

I was the poster above that said SCOTUS should rule that what Trump did was constitutional - and what Obama did was not constitutional.
I think there has been no movement on DACA in Congress for two reasons:

1. Democrats want the parents of DACA people to be able to remain also. Republicans are against it because they were the ones who willingly broke the law.
2. Democrats want the DACA kids to have automatic citizenship. Republicans are not opposed to a path to citizenship - but believe it is something that needs to be done over a length of time and with conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem overly complicated to me. If my parents stood money from a bank or embezzled a bunch of money and gave it me I do not get to keep it; or do I?

I just do not see what the big deal is to have the kids go through the normal immigration process, or am I missing some other part of this debate?

I think that's correct: If the people covered by DACA (passed in 20120 just went through the normal immigration process wouldn't they be citizens by now?

sorry: passed in 2012

No not likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

The opportunity to naturalize without going through the hassle that the others did.

DACA recipients have no path to naturalization. You are making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does seem overly complicated to me. If my parents stood money from a bank or embezzled a bunch of money and gave it me I do not get to keep it; or do I?

I just do not see what the big deal is to have the kids go through the normal immigration process, or am I missing some other part of this debate?

Republican here. From my point of view, it’s simple: we paid for their education and deserve to benefit from their skill sets. Makes zero sense to be to deport young people who speak perfect English, understand our customs and history, and have been through our public school system. That is throwing our money away.

Fine. Then why haven't Republicans nor Democrats had the political will to protect this group? We all know they are a bargaining chit. Our school district's education budget is astronomically high. It doesn't matter since our education budget in my county has been a source of angst since the first educational budget of $75,000 over a hundred and fifty years ago: had to educate the stonecutters' children. The stone masons were needed to build all the buildings in the new capital. Nothing's changed. Nothing.

What I find offensive is E.O. "protecting" these people, campaigning on protecting DACA recipients when the last administration just prolonged their agony. President Trump nullified the E.O. - in order to settle their anxiety once and for all - and these jerks sue him for nullifying a precious President's e.o.? For he love of God...it is times, such as these, I wish I never studied political science.

Y'all are desperately trying to rewriting the office of the American Presidency, the election of 2016, and you will fail based on the Constitution and precedent. You have perfected that boomerang throw. So. Dumb.

I was the poster above that said SCOTUS should rule that what Trump did was constitutional - and what Obama did was not constitutional.
I think there has been no movement on DACA in Congress for two reasons:

1. Democrats want the parents of DACA people to be able to remain also. Republicans are against it because they were the ones who willingly broke the law.
2. Democrats want the DACA kids to have automatic citizenship. Republicans are not opposed to a path to citizenship - but believe it is something that needs to be done over a length of time and with conditions.

1) While possibly true this is not why it has stalled in congress. It has stalled in congress because this is a program that has broad bipartisan support so it can't be used as an effective leverage chip. IE, Democrats want it and know that Republicans want it and will pay the political price if it fails go so are unwilling to make major concessions to get it. Republicans know that it will do little for their political aspirations and be perceived as a huge win for the Democrats so they refuse to do it without some kind of concession to make it look like they 'won'.

2) No. They want a path. Just like Republicans. Or at least would be entirely fine with a path. This point would be more true if you made it about the parents. Democrats want a path for the parents. But they'd happily settle without it.

Democrats essentially benefit from the issue remaining in limbo. It makes R's look cold and they have kludged together a solution that puts the kids in relative safety for the time being. Republicans would love it if it was just legalized and no one talked about it anymore but are unwilling to pay the short term political price for getting that done.

I work in immigration and have worked specifically on the DACA program.

[Anonymous]

Dreamers must be deported unless the democrats agree to a wall.

[Anonymous]

"SCOTUS should rule that what Trump did in overturning Obama's EO was legal due to separation of power.
If they don't, it sets very dangerous precedent for presidents in the future when it comes to EOs and Conogress' power to write law."

Agree. You can support the need for a legislative fix for the DREAMERS and still believe that it's not right for the President to just be able to blatantly announce they plan to formally ignore parts of the law like this.

Also I think PP at 11:36 nailed it on the politics of why it's stuck legislatively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

The opportunity to naturalize without going through the hassle that the others did.

DACA recipients have no path to naturalization. You are making stuff up.

So if they went down to Immigration and said I'm a DACA eligible person they'd be arrested or turned away from applying for citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

The opportunity to naturalize without going through the hassle that the others did.

DACA recipients have no path to naturalization. You are making stuff up.[/quote]

But this is impossible. I know people who came from other countries after 2012 and are citizens now. Is there something that prevents them form applying for citizenship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

The opportunity to naturalize without going through the hassle that the others did.

DACA recipients have no path to naturalization. You are making stuff up.[/quote]

But this is impossible. I know people who came from other countries after 2012 and are citizens now. Is there something that prevents them form applying for citizenship?

They are here and don’t have green cards. That prevents them from applying for citizenship.

[Anonymous]

So true.......


David Harsanyi
@davidharsanyi
The idea that a Dem president should be able to unilaterally implement DACA but a Republican president shouldn't be allowed to undo it in the same way is a just a microcosm of the liberal argument for governance these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won't this just encourage more foreigners to bring their children into the US illegally?

I get the argument about how the children were not at fault, but I also think that the US needs to enforce its laws. If there is something wrong with the law, then the law should be changed. But allowing people to break the law without penalty is a problem for me, as is anything that would encourage illegal behavior in the future.

DACA is only available for someone 15-32 years old. None are ‘children’

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. Why? Both parents committed a crime that benefitted the children. You want to penalize his children for his actions, reward the others.

DP.. Children of Madoff won't be completely destitute. There are social services that would help.

It's not an appropriate comparison. You're talking about kicking someone out of their own country. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it's their country. This is all they know. Imagine if they were brought here at the age of one or two. People like that were practically born here. I immigrated here at two (yes, legally, I'm now a citizen). When people ask if I was born here, I say, no, I'm an immigrant; I came here at two. Their response is usually, oh, you were practically born here.

The just deported Joe Guidice. Both he and illegals broke the law. Why can’t he stay when he has American citizen kids and an American citizen wife? You

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

The opportunity to naturalize without going through the hassle that the others did.

DACA recipients have no path to naturalization. You are making stuff up.

So if they went down to Immigration and said I'm a DACA eligible person they'd be arrested or turned away from applying for citizenship?

They would not be able to apply for citizenship.

[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.

DP. Why? Both parents committed a crime that benefitted the children. You want to penalize his children for his actions, reward the others.

DP.. Children of Madoff won't be completely destitute. There are social services that would help.

It's not an appropriate comparison. You're talking about kicking someone out of their own country. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it's their country. This is all they know. Imagine if they were brought here at the age of one or two. People like that were practically born here. I immigrated here at two (yes, legally, I'm now a citizen). When people ask if I was born here, I say, no, I'm an immigrant; I came here at two. Their response is usually, oh, you were practically born here.

The just deported Joe Guidice. Both he and illegals broke the law. Why can’t he stay when he has American citizen kids and an American citizen wife? You

He broke a criminal law and was deported and he should be deported.

People who want DACA children to have a path to citizenship are not talking about those that have broken criminal laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will note that all DACA does is protect them from deportation and make them eligible for work permits. It does NOT make them citizens.

The DREAM act provides a path to citizenship for them. Not automatic citizenship, but rather a path to it.

And allows all sorts of other benefits at the expense of other legal immigrants and citizens.

What benefits do they get that other legal immigrants and citizens do not?

The opportunity to naturalize without going through the hassle that the others did.

DACA recipients have no path to naturalization. You are making stuff up.

So if they went down to Immigration and said I'm a DACA eligible person they'd be arrested or turned away from applying for citizenship?

They would not be able to apply for citizenship.

O.k., thank-you. I learned something.