|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals otherwise known as DACA
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
When Obama was president he set up a program that deferred repatriation of any child that was illegally brought into the United States by their parents.
Many of those children have now grown up. A number are in college. Several have served in the American Armed Forces. One of the people involved in the rescue of trapped residents in Houston is a DACA recipient. Now those children are beginning to have children of their own--in other words, they have become parents of American citizens.
When Trump first spoke about DACA, he said the program has to end. After he became president, he has vacillated between killing it or keeping it. Now seven Republican led states are threatening to sue the Trump administration to force him to end the program. Yet the Republican leadership of Congress is urging him to keep the program and give the Congress the chance to work it all out.
Most manufacturers, businesses, and unions are also urging Trump to continue the program.
Some very conservative people say that when Obama set up the program, it was executive overreach. But, in reality, all he said was that he was deferring deportation until Congress could determine how to handle the issue.
As I look at the whole program, I wonder what King Solomon would have done if the issue had ever gone to his court.
Any ideas on what should be done?
BTW any person under the DACA program cannot apply for a Green Card or citizenship. As one said, the normal lines leading towards them becoming legal have never been there.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I saw a PBS report on this yesterday, which seemed to say that Pat Robertson/Robinson and Rush Limbaugh/Limberg/Lumbergh both supported allowing DACA people to stay in the United States. That doesn't make them nice people, but still...
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The only reason that Obama ha to make it an executive order is that Congress wouln't step up to the plate. It is indee their job; they were too busy looking up their bumholes.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Congress wouln't step up to the plate. It is indee their job; they were too busy looking up their bumholes.
They went with their strength
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I have a number of DACA students in my college classes. I am heartbroken at this decision, as well as the insecurity they have endured the last 8 months as Tump has kept them on pins & needles. Many of these students came as infants, none of them chose the way they came. It is a horrible, horrible decision to punish them in this way-- they have so much to offer us. Tragic. Shortsighted. Cruel.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
I appeal to the American shipmates with some legal knowledge here (I have some, but not enough for this).
On the WaPo website today, Jeff Sessions is quoted as saying that DACA was constitutionally indefensible, executive overreach, etc. Here's my question: since the courts have, over the decades, permitted an expansion of executive privilege, and since, as pointed out above, and is my understanding, DACA is by its nature provisional until legislation addressing the issue can be passed, how credible is Sessions's legal argument? My sense: not very. It strikes me as a cynical throwing of a bone to Trump's political base. After all, executive orders have often been used as bridging, often on rather boring questions, and Trump has not been shy about using them once in office. Moreover, given the ever growing mountain of tough legislation that Congress will have to address (health care, debt ceiling, NAFTA2.0* ratification, etc., etc.), is it at all feasible that Congress can come up with a replacement for DACA by October 2018?
Leaving aside the substance of the policy, it strikes me that at every turn, this administration keeps digging holes that it can't possibly fill, in terms of the logistics of passing legislation. Even in the absence of the dysfunctionality, both institutional and personal, it would be a daunting agenda.
*The US wants NAFTA renegotiation concluded by the end of the year, and is now unpleasantly surprised that Canada and Mexico have their own issues. The Americans asked for this dog and pony show, and are now complaining that Canada and Mexico have their own dogs and ponies, and are therefore uncooperative, obstructionist, etc. On the bright side, for Congress, there might not be anything for them to ratify. Even if there is, I sincerely doubt that it will be done by the New Year, unless the Americans stop with the bullying..
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
On the WaPo website today, Jeff Sessions is quoted as saying that DACA was constitutionally indefensible, executive overreach, etc. Here's my question: since the courts have, over the decades, permitted an expansion of executive privilege, and since, as pointed out above, and is my understanding, DACA is by its nature provisional until legislation addressing the issue can be passed, how credible is Sessions's legal argument? My sense: not very. It strikes me as a cynical throwing of a bone to Trump's political base.
Your sense seems correct, particularly when Trump's DACA position is compared with his position on his Muslim Ban.
quote:
For now, I simply want to make the point that the administration's position on the statutory question in the Travel Ban case is more or less what one would expect from most administrations: presidents typically assert that acts of Congress grant them broad discretion.
Contrast that position with the view that Trump would be taking by canceling DACA after a six-month delay. The delay would enable Congress to enact DACA-like protections for Dreamers, which, presumably, Trump would sign. Why? If Trump disagrees with the policy of DACA, why kick it over to Congress? Why not just end DACA immediately?
One answer might be that Trump dislikes DACA on policy grounds but wants to make a deal with Congress: He would sign DACA-like legislation in exchange for funding of his border wall. Maybe, but that doesn't quite explain why Trump would make this particular deal rather than some other deal that includes border wall funding. If Trump really dislikes the DACA policy, one would think that he would want to use something else as leverage to get border wall funding.
Meanwhile, many people on the right who don't disagree with DACA as a policy matter have nonetheless opposed DACA on separation-of-powers grounds. The president, they say, has a duty to enforce the immigration laws and DACA doesn't satisfy that duty. Is this Trump's position?
Possibly, but if so, that is a very peculiar position for his administration to take. It amounts to saying that the immigration laws constrain his prosecutorial discretion to withhold deportation, even as the administration says that the law at issue in the Travel Ban case maximizes his discretion.
Italics and links from original, bolding added by me.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
IMHO he simply wants to kill the DACA program and be able to foist the blame for it onto Congresss. He trusts that Congress won't be able to pull anything together in six months and thus will get the blame.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Even if you accept that Obama's decision was a case of executive overreach, President Trump could simply firmly say that all DACA children be protected, and congress simply make that protection a firm and legal reality. If the principle of DACA is correct and a good one but the way it was implemented was faulty, Trump could simply say, point blank, no one who is affected by DACA is getting deported, period.
My sense is that politically Trump wants to put the Democrats in a horrible bind, he will save the DACA kids, but only if they fund his wall.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
Obama created this problem.
DACA is DOA through a 9 member SCOTUS.
He gave congress 6 months to come up with a fix on a Deferred Action arrangement. Threw them a bone really...
If congress can't fix it in 6 Months, knowing that Trump would sign the fix, they deserve the blame.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
Actually, Obama didn't create the problem - Congress did by failing to act for years.
I realise that the ideological balance on the Court is 5/4, but is it a given that they would rule in favour of the states* threatening to sue? I'm aware of Gorsuch's conservative credentials, but as I remember from my course in American constitutional law, Justices have a nasty tendency to disappoint those who appoint them. The framing of the question, as well, would have a bearing on how the Justices would fall. Given the circumstances of Obama's executive order (acting to bridge a legislative vacuum), I don't think that it's a slam dunk.
*And a strange collection they are - Idaho has a problem with illegal immigrants?!? Nebraska? West Virginia? Oh, right their economies don't rely on the labour of illegal aliens.
[ 05. September 2017, 23:22: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Actually, Obama didn't create the problem - Congress did by failing to act for years.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) It is Obama's fault. Illegal aliens? Obama's fault. Extraterrestrial aliens? Obama's fault. WWII? Obama's fault. 100 years War, Obama's fault. Jesus' crucifixion? Obama's fault? Original Sin? Well, you get it now.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
They are obviously the wrong colour. Which is why this: Nearly 7,000, mostly Haitans crossing into Canada. Which is creating a crisis here.
"I don't believe in guarded borders and I don't believe in hate."* Which if we had any fairness in the world, where we didn;t encourage gov'ts to screw over their own people when we aren;t screwing them over directly.
(*Rocket Launcher, Bruce Cockburn)
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Where can one go to get a, preferably unbiased, i.e. warts and all, analysis of what led the US to this situation?
I realise a land border is clearly breachable, but how can so many undocumented persons exist in a country not at war or neighbouring one at war, and how has the situation been allowed to go on for so long?
I feel for these people. And given they are in the US through practices that seem odd to me, there is only one humane solution. I am reluctant to say as it is not of their making they should stay, as that seems to be setting an interesting precedent, but the fact they are in the US seems to be crying out for reformation of some kind. I don't know...
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Ian, illegal immigration is partly, the US's own fault. In pursuing economic globalization, the US has weakened several emerging economies, especially in Latin America. If there is no work in your country and you need to feed your family, you go to where the jobs are. And America has this image as being a land of opportunity and success.
I don't know a lot about the legal immigration system in the US, but there wouldn't be illegal immigration if getting into a country legally was easy. I suspect that some who are fervent opponents of illegal immigration are not rushing to make the legal immigration route any easier. Being against "illegal immigration" thus is a convenient smokescreen to avoid the label "racist" one receives if one argues against any immigration.
Furthermore, it must be noted that there is widespread agreement that undocumented immigrants who commit violent crime get deported. Obama, under his administration, was actually tougher on violent offenders than previous administrations
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ian--
Maybe some of this will help:
--The legal immigration system here is totally messed up, backlogged, and slow. I think a lot of politicians prefer it that way.
--NPR has a great radio show called "Latino USA". I listen as often as I can--it helps me learn, and I like Maria Hinajosa, the host.
This will take you to their immigration articles, most recent first. The "Episodes" tab will take you to radio episodes.
--"YES magazine: Powerful Ideas, Practical Actions" has some good articles on the DACA situation, like
" What Will Happen to DREAMers and the Lives They’ve Built? Trump’s repeal of DACA has DREAMers and their advocates vowing to fight back and scrambling to find Plan B."
There are related links at the bottom of that page.
--At various times, people have come to the US via legal guest worker programs. I gather that some of those people were just abandoned, afterwards, because locals didn't want "THEM" around. (It's possible I misunderstood some of that, FYI.)
--A catch-all:
Search results: "history of us immigration practice and policy objective" (DuckDuckGo).
You'll probably run into a spectrum of opinions. If a site makes a big deal of being patriotic, it's probably going to be anti-immigration.
Good luck!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Here is an example of how messed up the immigration program is under Trump.
We had a Brazilian Veterinarian over for dinner this last Sunday. He had applied for post doc work here at Washington State University. He has been working on this for the past two years. When he was accepted at WSU, he was told he would have an OPT permit within six months after acceptance.
Now Trump has put the kibosh on this program. Instead, he has had to reapply as a Masters Student to get an F1 visa. That means he has to do a masters level program just to stay in the US.
He does hope to get an OPT in a couple of years. But it is so very uncertain.
And now that DACA is going to be phased out, it is a real mess.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
*The US wants NAFTA renegotiation concluded by the end of the year, and is now unpleasantly surprised that Canada and Mexico have their own issues...
The phrase you want is "the Trump administration wants NAFTA renegotiation concluded by the end of the year..." Please, please, please never confuse "Trump administration" with the US people.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555
|
Posted
I'm not from the USA but it does worry me that people call themselves Christians but want to shun/throw out anyone who is a different race/religion from themselves.That's not what Jesus taught - read the Good Samaritan!
We had the situation, here in Britain, of a lad, legally adopted by a British family, and accepted for Oxford, being told he had to leave. Thankfully that has been reversed.
It worries me that thousands of legally adopted kids are now in danger of being sent to countries, some with horrendous human rights records, where they know no one and don't even speak the language because they were born there.
How on earth can a civilised society and one that claims to have Christian values, chuck people who have been living there most of their lives, out to a completely alien country where they know no one, with impunity and call it Christian values?
Let's face it, most of us are immigrants. Perhaps, in USA, everyone should be expelled except the Native Americans! USA is a country of immigrants - even Trump's family were immigrants (I wonder how "legal" they were) - maybe all non undiginous Americans should be sent back from whence their antecedents came.
In Britain everyone except the Picts (yes even the Celts were immigrants) should go back to their countries of origin. Anglo Saxons back to Germany and Denmark!!
How far are we going to go in this racist and unfair policy in our so-called civilised world? Fellow immigrants who are rich and powerful sending poorer immigrants packing?
--------------------
wild haggis
Posts: 166 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thanks for the explanations and links. I shall take a look tomorrow (having 4 glasses of wine at a conference social has me not firing on all cylinders!)
I am just fascinated how it got to this scale. And why "illegal" or undocumented immigration was not halted earlier. It seems, and I may be wrong, that people were happy for people to come and work for a pittance, but making it "legal" was a step too far. I understand there needs to be some restrictions, and I may need to hand in my liberal card for agreeing with the need for some restrictions, but the situation many find themselves in now just seems appalling.
Thanks again.
[ 06. September 2017, 13:22: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Thanks for the explanations and links. I shall take a look tomorrow (having 4 glasses of wine at a conference social has me not firing on all cylinders!)
I am just fascinated how it got to this scale. And why "illegal" or undocumented immigration was not halted earlier. It seems, and I may be wrong, that people were happy for people to come and work for a pittance, but making it "legal" was a step too far. I understand there needs to be some restrictions, and I may need to hand in my liberal card for agreeing with the need for some restrictions, but the situation many find themselves in now just seems appalling.
Thanks again.
You are absolutely right that there is a reason-- a fiscal one-- why immigration, particularly from Mexico, has remained difficult, if not impossible, to obtain legally and rather easy to achieve illegally. Living for several years in the San Joaquin valley, one of the worlds most fertile agricultural regions, I was able to see this firsthand.
Having a large, steady supply of illegal labor means the employer has tremendous control-- they can pay below market wages, lower than minimum wage, and provide substandard housing and medical care. They can commit OSHA violations, and violate labor, safety or environmental laws-- all without fear of repercussions, as their work force is not going to report them. Sure, every now and then ICE will come thru and deport all your workers and slap you with a fine-- but that's a minor annoyance-- the cost of doing business, especially compared to the profits to be made in between those crack-downs.
If Trump's base were really worried about unemployment and wage stagnation, they would make immigration easier, have a viable work-visa program, to bring these workers out of the shadows and bring up wages for everyone.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
nickel
Shipmate
# 8363
|
Posted
This could actually be a "win win" for Trump. In six months, if Congress has acted, he can say "See, now these kids are safe and it's been done the constitutional way." If Congress has failed, he says "I love these kids, it's so unfair, here's another six month extension." I wonder how he'll mess up this time? because undoubtedly he will.
Never minding the actual people involved, of course. How vile to mess with people's lives like that.
Posts: 547 | From: Virginia USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yep, it's always win-win for Trump. I'm not sure how an H-bomb air burst over Seoul will be a win, but I'm sure it will be. At least it won't be Guam. And they ain't got any mo
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I realise a land border is clearly breachable, but how can so many undocumented persons exist in a country not at war or neighbouring one at war, and how has the situation been allowed to go on for so long?
Who said none of the countries these people came from weren't at war? A lot of Central American nations have had recent wars, many of them fought as proxies for various U.S. interests. A lot of the more recent immigrants are fleeing what are essentially low-level guerilla wars between rival gangs competing for shares of the U.S. drug market.
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I am just fascinated how it got to this scale. And why "illegal" or undocumented immigration was not halted earlier.
Interestingly the increase in undocumented workers seems to be a byproduct of increased border enforcement. People have been moving back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border since before there was a border there. Given the geography involved it's almost impossible to prevent all movement of people. The old pattern would be for workers to slip into the U.S., do seasonal work (typically agricultural) and then slip back to Mexico. Heightened border enforcement means every trip now carries heightened risk of legal entanglements and problems, which caused a shift among the undocumented to crossing the border only once and then staying. Hence the large population of people without official documents allowing them to be in the U.S. and an increase in the number of folks bringing their families (including minor children, a.k.a. the Dreamers) to live with them. This may fall under the Law of Unintended Consequences, but it seems like an easily anticipated consequence.
It should be noted that despite their rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans are also generally opposed to legal immigration as well.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
The thing that really upsets me is that the DACA immigrants had no choice about being brought here. Yes, they are undocumented, but not through any fault of their own. How does a babe in arms (or a toddler) convince parents that going into another country illegally is a bad idea? Is punishing them for the acts of their parents really necessary? Especially since Congress doesn't have a good record of getting anything done.
And Trump has said that he's after the "bad hombres" who are gang members and criminals. I have yet to see much evidence that this is actually what is happening.
Meanwhile, as already mentioned on this thread, DACA immigrants are (for the most part) contributing to society, paying taxes, serving in the military, etc. etc.
sabine
[ 06. September 2017, 15:02: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
And of course, if any Dreamers are "bad hombres" the program already deals with that-- one of the requirements of DACA is that they maintain an absolutely spotless criminal record. The minute they commit any crime, no matter how minor, the deal is off and they are deported.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
FWIW the religious community is pretty well taking a solid stand against deporting Dreamers. Even some of the people who grovel before Lyin' Don.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
*The US wants NAFTA renegotiation concluded by the end of the year, and is now unpleasantly surprised that Canada and Mexico have their own issues...
The phrase you want is "the Trump administration wants NAFTA renegotiation concluded by the end of the year..." Please, please, please never confuse "Trump administration" with the US people.
I understand your sentiment, but I'm not confused, and when sitting across the table from an American delegation, the delegation is "the US" because that delegation is acting in the name of your country. As congenial as you, individually and severally, might be, you are not the ones who demanded a renegotiation and are now making (vague, very vague) demands of Canada, but there are those who are, and they are acting on your behalf, whether you like it or not. If you want the international face of "the US" to change, get out and do something to change it. Talk to your Trump supporting friends and neighbours. Letters to the editor. Organise. Whatever. No hanky-wringing.
We recognise the internal complexity of the American situation, is why we have shifted our diplomacy to include the state and municipal levels to a much greater degree, seeing that at those levels we have some common cause. However sunny relations might be encouraged at that level, it's still the guys (I think that on your side of the table they're all guys - our Minister of Global Affairs is Chrystia Freeland) with the USA sign in front of them who have to addressed. That might be uncomfortable for you, but that's the fact of it.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
If you want the international face of "the US" to change, get out and do something to change it. Talk to your Trump supporting friends and neighbours. Letters to the editor. Organise. Whatever. No hanky-wringing.
Trust me: I (along with a couple million of my new closest friends) are doing ALL of that and a lot, lot more. Marches. Phone calls to congress, phone calls to voters in swing states, petitions, donations to ACLU and Refugees Int'l and every other organization working to end this nightmare. We are frankly exhausted, but there is too much on the line for us to quit now.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Sorry Crœsos...blame my island living naïvety and poor phrasing. I meant Canada and Mexico when I wrote neighbouring. I did not consider countries farther south. Thanks.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
wild haggis--
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Let's face it, most of us are immigrants. Perhaps, in USA, everyone should be expelled except the Native Americans! USA is a country of immigrants - even Trump's family were immigrants (I wonder how "legal" they were) - maybe all non indigenous Americans should be sent back from whence their antecedents came.
Something like this brilliant cartoon at Pinterest?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
The thing that really upsets me is that the DACA immigrants had no choice about being brought here. Yes, they are undocumented, but not through any fault of their own. How does a babe in arms (or a toddler) convince parents that going into another country illegally is a bad idea? Is punishing them for the acts of their parents really necessary? Especially since Congress doesn't have a good record of getting anything done.
Yes, I don't understand this.
British immigration policy is mostly designed by Vogons, and I do get the impression the US, Trump notwithstanding, is generally less hostile to immigration. And yet, if I understand Wikipedia correctly, a child who was actually brought up in the UK, even if illegally, would have a good prospect of settlement rights. (I've no personal experience of this so I don't know how it works in practice.) Is there no equivalent of this in the US?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
But, Ricardus, these particular innocent children are't white, they aren't "like us" -- at least to the people Trump cares about. So they must be alien and expelled, because they don't matter and pollute "us" and the way "we" live. Sure it's probably a minority that thinks like that...but he's so blinded to fact and reality that he thinks they are the majority. He may even agree with them.
John
[ 07. September 2017, 14:32: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
They don't need stars or other symbols on them. They are brown people.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, I don't understand this.
British immigration policy is mostly designed by Vogons, and I do get the impression the US, Trump notwithstanding, is generally less hostile to immigration. And yet, if I understand Wikipedia correctly, a child who was actually brought up in the UK, even if illegally, would have a good prospect of settlement rights. (I've no personal experience of this so I don't know how it works in practice.) Is there no equivalent of this in the US?
Not presently, though there use to be more plentiful options for "getting legal". Dara Lind at Vox provides a good and comprehensive (if lengthy) explanation of the current system and how it came to be.
And the U.S. is less hostile to immigration in the abstract, but it's gotten progressively more hostile to actual immigrants lately.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Ian, illegal immigration is partly, the US's own fault.
So here's the thing about illegal immigration - Americans want it. They want to have a supply of cheap labour prepared to work for peanuts in cash, and who won't complain about their treatment or working conditions because they're afraid of being deported.
And you know this must be true, because the vast majority of the enforcement actions are aimed against the illegal immigrants themselves, with their employers only occasionally getting a token slap on the wrist.
If you actually want to reduce illegal immigration, the way to do it is to have, and vigorously enforce, severe penalties for people who employ people who don't have authorization to work in the US.
But that would mean going after wealthy white Trump voters.
None of this is about reducing illegal immigration - it's about keeping the cheap labour in its place.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Our newspapers are reporting that Trump and the Democrats are doing a deal on DACA, hurricane relief and the debt ceiling. I think I'll go watch PBS Newshour.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
This is a highly positive thing. One of the grave worries about Lyin' Don was that he would actually stick to his fruitcake pronouncements. What a relief to learn that he was actually lying all along.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
