The End of DACA?
Comments
-
Those aren't even in the same ballpark. Both would be legal citizens in those instances.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.
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...0 -
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 Benigni0 -
It was never directly challenged.CM189191 said:
How did Obama overstep? Wasn't DACA challenged in the courts by Texas and upheld?Dirtie_Frank said:
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.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 !
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/dreamers-nightmare-deferred-by-supreme-court-immigration-split
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.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.
No analogy can make that right or humane.0 -
No one wants bad things to happen to children. At least we agree on that.dignin said:
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.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.
No analogy can make that right or humane.
Post edited by brianlux on"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.dignin said:
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.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.
No analogy can make that right or humane.
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...0 -
That is fair.tbergs said:
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.dignin said:
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.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.
No analogy can make that right or humane.
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.0 -
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?tbergs said:
Those aren't even in the same ballpark. Both would be legal citizens in those instances.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.
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.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;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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?0 -
The bigger question is why eject proven contributors to society who haven't committed crimes from a society.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?
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?0 -
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!rgambs said:
The bigger question is why eject proven contributors to society who haven't committed crimes from a society.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?
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!jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Ok...so if Obama did overstep, why wasn't he challenged on DACA like he was on DAPA?CM189191 said:
How did Obama overstep? Wasn't DACA challenged in the courts by Texas and upheld?Dirtie_Frank said:
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.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 !0 -
An Executive Order carries the weight as a law, so isn't an EO a law? Therefore people under daca are legal.0
-
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.0 -
I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal.tempo_n_groove said:
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.0 -
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.Go Beavers said:
I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal.tempo_n_groove said:
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.0 -
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 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal.tempo_n_groove said:
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law.0 -
DACA is constitutionalPJPOWER said:
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 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal.tempo_n_groove said:
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law."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."0 -
nevermind, misread your quote. Has there been any law professors notions to the contrary? Serious question, not setting a trapCM189191 said:
DACA is constitutionalPJPOWER said:
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 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal.tempo_n_groove said:
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law."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."Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
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.CM189191 said:
DACA is constitutionalPJPOWER said:
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 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
I know it's not a law by definition, but having it in place means daca folks aren't illegal.tempo_n_groove said:
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.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.
When it is actual law it takes, literally, an Act of Congress to overturn or amend the law."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."
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help