The End of DACA?

245678

Comments

  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,497
    Halifax2TheMax said:
     Because you know, in America, when a parent drives drunk with a six year old in the car, we put the six year old in jail for 90 days. Or when the 8 year old is present when dad shoots mom for over cooking the steaks, we put the 8 year old in prison for 15-20 as an accessory to 2nd degree manslaughter. Or when the 6 month old strapped in the car seat leads the police on a high speed chase, we make sure they do time and don't get their license until they're 21. You know, it's all about the rule of law. Sheriff Arpiao told me so.
    Those aren't even in the same ballpark. Both would be legal citizens in those instances.

    I will agree though that Arpiao is an asshat and never should have been pardoned. That fucker should be deported and his citizenship revoked. Teach him what it's like.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,760
    Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

    Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

    It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,497
    CM189191 said:
    Dirtie_Frank said:
    josevolution said:
    http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/new-york-attorney-general-to-file-multistate-daca-lawsuit-1.14114305
    He's back last time he stopped the Muslim ban !
    How is it unconstitutional because it harms latinos but constitutional because it benefits them? This falls on Congress and Obama.  Congress should pass immigration reform and Obama overstepped his powers as POTUS.  
    How did Obama overstep? Wasn't DACA challenged in the courts by Texas and upheld? 
    It was never directly challenged.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/dreamers-nightmare-deferred-by-supreme-court-immigration-split
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    brianlux said:
    Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

    Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

    It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.
    If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

    No analogy can make that right or humane.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,760
    edited September 2017
    dignin said:
    brianlux said:
    Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

    Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

    It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.
    If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

    No analogy can make that right or humane.
    No one wants bad things to happen to children.  At least we agree on that.
    Post edited by brianlux on
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,497
    dignin said:
    brianlux said:
    Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

    Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

    It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.
    If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

    No analogy can make that right or humane.
    I don't think what has been done should be undone because it was the order in place at the time. They followed the process that was established and if it is changed they should not be affected. Put in place a way to formally grant them citizenship.

    Congress then needs to pull it together or there will be no more protections for children of illegal immigrants until the current administration and Congress majority change parties.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    brianlux said:
    Hurricane Irma is now expected to hit Florida and we are quite concerned about my sister-in-law who lives there.

    Why do I post this here?  Because she is an immigrant and we supported her in coming to America and later becoming a  US citizen. We're not super close but her circumstances were such (long story) that it made sense to support her anyway.

    It's not all black and white and I am not cold and heartless.  In fact, I don't think any of us who post here are cold and heartless so I wish some of you would stop trying to push the wedge further.  Not agreeing with each other doesn't make us bad.
    If anyone thinks it's okay to throw these kids out of their home because of a bad law, then yes, I think that makes someone bad.

    No analogy can make that right or humane.
    I don't think what has been done should be undone because it was the order in place at the time. They followed the process that was established and if it is changed they should not be affected. Put in place a way to formally grant them citizenship.

    Congress then needs to pull it together or there will be no more protections for children of illegal immigrants until the current administration and Congress majority change parties.
    That is fair.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,073
    tbergs said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
     Because you know, in America, when a parent drives drunk with a six year old in the car, we put the six year old in jail for 90 days. Or when the 8 year old is present when dad shoots mom for over cooking the steaks, we put the 8 year old in prison for 15-20 as an accessory to 2nd degree manslaughter. Or when the 6 month old strapped in the car seat leads the police on a high speed chase, we make sure they do time and don't get their license until they're 21. You know, it's all about the rule of law. Sheriff Arpiao told me so.
    Those aren't even in the same ballpark. Both would be legal citizens in those instances.

    I will agree though that Arpiao is an asshat and never should have been pardoned. That fucker should be deported and his citizenship revoked. Teach him what it's like.
    So you still insist on punishing children for the sins of their parents? Children that are now adults? Children that are now adults who may have absolutely no connection language or culture wise with where they're supposed to be deported to? Are you the tin man?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • stuckinline
    stuckinline Posts: 3,407
    Can someone please explain DACA? Shouldn't the focus be on the people who brought the children to the USA illegally and hold them accountable?
    Why punish the children for the sins of their parents?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    stuckinline said:
    Can someone please explain DACA? Shouldn't the focus be on the people who brought the children to the USA illegally and hold them accountable?
    Why punish the children for the sins of their parents?
    The bigger question is why eject proven contributors to society who haven't committed crimes from a society.
    Makes no sense.
    These aren't migrant pickers, they aren't the guys on the corner looking for general labor work.
    They are proven contributors, at a much higher percentage than Trump supporters!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,062
    rgambs said:
    stuckinline said:
    Can someone please explain DACA? Shouldn't the focus be on the people who brought the children to the USA illegally and hold them accountable?
    Why punish the children for the sins of their parents?
    The bigger question is why eject proven contributors to society who haven't committed crimes from a society.
    Makes no sense.
    These aren't migrant pickers, they aren't the guys on the corner looking for general labor work.
    They are proven contributors, at a much higher percentage than Trump supporters!
    Exactly most of them are working students that are contributing way more to society than the Yahoo!'s who are sporting white robes and swastika arm bands at rallies!
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    CM189191 said:
    Dirtie_Frank said:
    josevolution said:
    http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/new-york-attorney-general-to-file-multistate-daca-lawsuit-1.14114305
    He's back last time he stopped the Muslim ban !
    How is it unconstitutional because it harms latinos but constitutional because it benefits them? This falls on Congress and Obama.  Congress should pass immigration reform and Obama overstepped his powers as POTUS.  
    How did Obama overstep? Wasn't DACA challenged in the courts by Texas and upheld? 
    Ok...so if Obama did overstep, why wasn't he challenged on DACA like he was on DAPA? 
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,654
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,814
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,654
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    CM189191 said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited September 2017
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."
    nevermind, misread your quote.  Has there been any law professors notions to the contrary?  Serious question, not setting a trap
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,887
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Go Beavers said:
    An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal. 
    No an EO is not "law".  It can be overturned by the next president if they choose to do so. Which happens with pretty much every incoming President.

    When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.
    I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal. 
    People are not illegal.  They may do illegal acts, and be convicted of a crime, in which case they would be criminals.  I believe the term you are looking for is undocumented immigrant. 
    Immigrating unlawfully is an illegal act, is it not?  If better systems were in play that reduced the ability to immigrate through unlawful means, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants (meaning they immigrated illegally).  My question is, why would an EO for DACA have ever taken place knowing that it was an unconstitutional EO that was completely open to being rescinded?  Seems like more political games with people as pawns.
    DACA is constitutional

    "As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical."
    If course it is. I too have been disturbed about the discourse surrounding this issue. It's cuckoo bananas IMO, and I'm a little taken aback by some of what those of you who are going on about "the law" have said.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata

Categories