Trump to almost for sure end the Dreamers Program (illegal immigrants)

[Desk trauma]

Where do you get that illegals have the right to a trial,
and not just a legal proceeding in front of a judge with
a rubber stamp?

If accused of a crime they enter the same legal system as the rest of us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You said "all persons" which includes illegals and invaders.

The Constituion says "persons," which any intelligent reader can construe as meaning, anyone subject to the jurisdiction of US laws.

 

[Desk trauma]

We wouldn't even need that, just a SC decision saying
that the purpose was to make citizens of freed slaves,
not the child of every invader who crosses our borders
while pregnant.

The SC cannot "modify or void" an amendment.

 

[mark kennedy]

We wouldn't even need that, just a SC decision saying
that the purpose was to make citizens of freed slaves,
not the child of every invader who crosses our borders
while pregnant.

The law, a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right, says if your born or naturalized here you are a citizen. That's the law, if you want to change it expect to have to do more then sign a bill. It would take a Constitutional Convention.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We wouldn't even need that, just a SC decision saying
that the purpose was to make citizens of freed slaves,
not the child of every invader who crosses our borders
while pregnant.

What if they get pregnant after crossing the border?

 

[SolomonVII]

It's like some people have never heard that there is a Constitution:

Children of undocumented immigrants who were born in the United States become U.S. citizens automatically. The parent(s)' immigration status is not taken into account. This is due to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. (All Law)
​

Last time I checked the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.

Good for you. You recognize the importance of the American constitution for defining citizenship.
And, what does that have to do with DACA aka Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals?

 

[SolomonVII]

So tell me this...

I understand that many of these DACA people are serving in your military, or are working as first responders in disaster situations. Many of them would therefore be placing their lives on the line in service to their host country.

You comfortable in unceremoniously showing these people the door...? What of those who have recently signed up for a term of several years? You going to cause their units to be depleted?

I have no idea.
I am only interested in the law being respected.
I am comfortable with the law being followed, and with Congress designing new laws to fill in the gaps.
If they fail to do so, that is on Congress and not on what falls into my comfort zone, or whatfalls in yours for that matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

Good for you. You recognize the importance of the American constitution for defining citizenship.
And, what does that have to do with DACA aka Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals?

Not much eccept this:

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
​

No, if they are born before they cross the boarder illegally they don't have any right to citizenship but that's not even an issue. The issue is whether or not the law at the time they arrived allowed them to become naturalized citizens and the dreamers can't be declared criminals retroactively. Now if their protections expire, that's another issue.

 

[SolomonVII]

Not much eccept this:

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
​

No, if they are born before they cross the boarder illegally they don't have any right to citizenship but that's not even an issue. The issue is whether or not the law at the time they arrived allowed them to become naturalized citizens and the dreamers can't be declared criminals retroactively. Now if their protections expire, that's another issue.

Actually, their citizenship is the issue.
It is the only issue.
If they had citizenships, there would be no issue to be discussed. American citizens have full rights to be in America. Their presence in America is fully lawful and fully legitimate.
I am sure you must already know this though.

And by the way, my original post in this part of the thread did not call them criminals. It was very specifically rejecting that kind of depiction.
Therefore the very premise of your further conversation with me is based on a false reading of my post and is thereby all null and void, and otherwise off base.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, their citizenship is the issue.
It is the only issue.
If they had citizenships, there would be no issue to be discussed. American citizens have full rights to be in America. Their presence in America is fully lawful and fully legitimate.
I am sure you must already know this though.

Of course.

And by the way, my original post in this part of the thread did not call them criminals. It was very specifically rejecting that kind of depiction.
Therefore the very premise of your further conversation with me is based on a false reading of my post and is thereby all null and void, and otherwise off base.

Your forgetting one important element of the Constitutional law here. There is such a thing as a naturalized citizen. That depends on the prevailing laws of the time and you cannot criminalize their actions retroactively. Especially if they were children at the time and have spent their entire lives, since then, in this country. If the courts decide that DACA was unconstitutional then sure we can deport them but that hardly seems likely. If it expires or otherwise they lose their protections, well, that's another issue entirely.

 

[Allandavid]

I have no idea.
I am only interested in the law being respected.
I am comfortable with the law being followed, and with Congress designing new laws to fill in the gaps.
If they fail to do so, that is on Congress and not on what falls into my comfort zone, or whatfalls in yours for that matter.

I used to be a professional sports official. One of the people that trained me used to say..."Rules (read 'laws') are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

In other words, he was suggesting that there are times, albeit rarely, when it is wise to toss the 'rule book' to one side and to use the particular circumstances before you to guide your decision...

 

[SolomonVII]

I used to be a professional sports official. One of the people that trained me used to say..."Rules (read 'laws') are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

In other words, he was suggesting that there are times, albeit rarely, when it is wise to toss the 'rule book' to one side and to use the particular circumstances before you to guide your decision...

Who decides to toss the rules?
Do people on the team get to toss the rules? Do their fans?
Or the officials?
And who is the officials in this case?

I would submit in this case the officials in this case would be the judges, who could potentially toss the rules on a case by case basis. That has been a part of English common law before America existed even. Such leniency is a thing.
Otherwise, the other solution is to rewrite the rule book. Here, the officials would be the law makers.
The way to make deals there is by wheeling and dealing, and to do that people need to have a sound understanding of who they are horse trading with, and what they want.
If this is of such critical importance, what would people who believe so be willing to trade for it that the other side might want even more.
The Clemency of 1986 came to be viewed as a disaster by Reagan. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
I submit that is what those who are again seeking clemency to the broken system are up against when it comes to what the other side is thinking.

 

[Arcangl86]

Two things:
We were talking about illegals, not the outside world at large.
If they have a visa or green card, they have the permission of
the government to be here, which may not be citizenship, but
does give them certain privileges or rights.

You said "all persons" which includes illegals and invaders.

The SCOTUS has determined that even those here illegally have certain due process rights.

 

[Stormy]

If people would just stop and listen rather than draw crazy conclusions, they would see that Trump said nothing about the "dreamers".
Trump repeated Obama's statement that it is unconstitutional for a president to perform such an act as DACA. He allowed it to stand for 6 months awaiting congress to act.
Congress is who you should be petitioning. Congress is responsible to change immigration laws.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Good for you. You recognize the importance of the American constitution for defining citizenship.
And, what does that have to do with DACA aka Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals?

The Constitution created an Executive branch to decide how best to enforce the laws... including immigration laws. As chief executive, the president has the discretion to determine what to prioritize, and what to defer. That's what it has to do with DACA aka Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It costs six times what it would to deport them to keep them:

... according to a new report being released Thursday by a think tank that wants to see stricter immigration limits.​

This is hardly a neutral organization. People have argued for a long time about what the net value or cost of illegal immigration is. The issues are ridiculously complex, and most of these estimates are based on pretty shallow assumptions.

For instance, we know from recent experience that citizens will not immediately leap to take the jobs vacated by illegals, because crackdowns on illegals have lead to crops rotting in the fields in some places, with huge losses to business.

"All of this is to say if you're going to stop illegal immigrants from doing a job you should be prepared for the job, and perhaps even the business itself, to go away. You may think this is worth it, but you should at least be acknowledging the risks and weigh them against what, if anything, you think is being gained."

 

[SolomonVII]

The Constitution created an Executive branch to decide how best to enforce the laws... including immigration laws. As chief executive, the president has the discretion to determine what to prioritize, and what to defer. That's what it has to do with DACA aka Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Executive order are constitutional. They may or may not be legal, as to be determined by courts.
There is every chance that this one would be struck down by the courts.
Either way, it is an executive order that solves nothing, but merely kicks the can down the road, leaving a group of 800k or so people with quasi-legal status, which is to say in a semi-permament underclass status.
This works well for the people at the top who like to have continued access to a large pool of cheap labour. If that works well for you, then DACA is what you want to support.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Executive order are constitutional. They may or may not be legal, as to be determined by courts.
There is every chance that this one would be struck down by the courts.

There certainly was every chance -- but it seems the GOP never bothered to take it.

Consider: Obama signed DACA back in 2012... With a GOP-controlled Congress, and a right-leaning Supreme Court, any legal challenge which had even a whiff of legitimacy would've likely succeeded. Yet none came.

Why do you suppose that is?

Either way, it is an executive order that solves nothing, but merely kicks the can down the road, leaving a group of 800k or so people with quasi-legal status, which is to say in a semi-permament underclass status.
This works well for the people at the top who like to have continued access to a large pool of cheap labour. If that works well for you, then DACA is what you want to support.

Perhaps that's why Congress never challenged it?

I'll give Donald credit, though: he knows the value of cheap labor. He wants the DREAMers to stay, so he gave Schumer and Pelosi the ammo they need to force the GOP to the bargaining table in December.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is hardly a neutral organization. People have argued for a long time about what the net value or cost of illegal immigration is. The issues are ridiculously complex, and most of these estimates are based on pretty shallow assumptions.

For instance, we know from recent experience that citizens will not immediately leap to take the jobs vacated by illegals, because crackdowns on illegals have lead to crops rotting in the fields in some places, with huge losses to business.

"All of this is to say if you're going to stop illegal immigrants from doing a job you should be prepared for the job, and perhaps even the business itself, to go away. You may think this is worth it, but you should at least be acknowledging the risks and weigh them against what, if anything, you think is being gained."

You make a strong point here, we need these immigrants. But with illegal immigrants here in the millions something needs to be done. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump handled the deportations badly, he showed no respect for the fact that many obtained visas and permission to stay under DACA. If you want to repeal it then go right ahead but that doesn't mean deport everyone who benefited from it for something as innocuous as traffic violations.

I realize that migrant workers are doing important work but is it really that hard to get a visa? Especially if your going to be making the trip on a yearly basis.

 

[Arcangl86]

I realize that migrant workers are doing important work but is it really that hard to get a visa? Especially if your going to be making the trip on a yearly basis.

Actually, yes.