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?

"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.

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

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 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 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 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.