Anonymous wrote:

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

If she broke the law, then she should be punished for doing so.

By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

And I would be fine with that. Just because we were bad about enforcing the law in the past does not mean that we shouldn't enforce it now. Again, I am open to the idea of changing bad laws, but not to the idea of selective enforcement.

Anonymous wrote:

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

If she broke the law, then she should be punished for doing so.

By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

And I would be fine with that. Just because we were bad about enforcing the law in the past does not mean that we shouldn't enforce it now. Again, I am open to the idea of changing bad laws, but not to the idea of selective enforcement.

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.

You mean the way Melania illegally got a visa, overstayed it and then got her chain migration parents citizenship?

By your definition, some of your ancestors should've been deported.

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.

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.

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.

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 am assuming you are asking these questions genuinely. Suppose you adopt a child from say, China, and bring that child (may be months old or a toddler) into the U.S. for living with you. The child had no say in your bringing the child to the U.S. Then you bring the child up to be an adult in the U.S. The child knows only the American society and life in the U.S. All known people to the child are in the U.S. only. The child never visited China, doesn't know anyone in China, and may or may not speak Chinese language. After the child became an adult, having graduated from a college, gainfully employed, and never committed any crime, suppose the Government says you should send the now adult back to China (suppose your earlier adoption process had a flaw and so deemed invalid) and should follow existing immigration procedures to come back to the U.S. and not rely on your sponsorship (since parents of DACA children are themselves unauthorized to live in the U.S. they can't sponsor DACA children for U.S. citizenship).

How would you feel? How would your now grown adopted son/daughter feel?

They came legally.

DACA is a problem and could have been solved by Congress long ago if either side was willing to compromise. But, as long as you give these kids citizenship, they will keep coming. That's one reason we have the issue with unaccompanied minors.

Obama should have put pressure on Congress, not issued an EO.

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.

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.

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 am assuming you are asking these questions genuinely. Suppose you adopt a child from say, China, and bring that child (may be months old or a toddler) into the U.S. for living with you. The child had no say in your bringing the child to the U.S. Then you bring the child up to be an adult in the U.S. The child knows only the American society and life in the U.S. All known people to the child are in the U.S. only. The child never visited China, doesn't know anyone in China, and may or may not speak Chinese language. After the child became an adult, having graduated from a college, gainfully employed, and never committed any crime, suppose the Government says you should send the now adult back to China (suppose your earlier adoption process had a flaw and so deemed invalid) and should follow existing immigration procedures to come back to the U.S. and not rely on your sponsorship (since parents of DACA children are themselves unauthorized to live in the U.S. they can't sponsor DACA children for U.S. citizenship).

How would you feel? How would your now grown adopted son/daughter feel?

They came legally.

DACA is a problem and could have been solved by Congress long ago if either side was willing to compromise. But, as long as you give these kids citizenship, they will keep coming. That's one reason we have the issue with unaccompanied minors.

Obama should have put pressure on Congress, not issued an EO.

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.