Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing unusual, at all. The US citizen children of US citizen parents are punished when their parents are sentenced to prison for committing crimes. Illegal presence in the US is a crime. Illegal aliens' children have no special rights above and beyond those of US citizens.
Illegal presence in the US is not a crime and children are not being "punished" when a parent are sent to prison (a better term is "collateral damage"). Its amazing to me that people weigh in on these discussions when they don't even have the most basic of facts down.
Nothing unusual, at all. The US citizen children of US citizen parents are punished when their parents are sentenced to prison for committing crimes. Illegal presence in the US is a crime. Illegal aliens' children have no special rights above and beyond those of US citizens.
How many US citizen kids have been thrown out of the country because of something their parents did?
The issue when it comes to DACA is that certain people are more wrapped up in emotional concern about what DACA recipients "deserve" (as set forth in the quoted post, for example) rather than considering whether deporting them is an objectively good idea from a socioeconomic perspective. By all statistical measures they are high-functioning, integrated net contributors to society. Especially, after having already invested in educating them, why would we want to force them to leave?
The argument for deporting DACA recipients is fueled 100% by emotion and 0% by logic and reason.
well, DACA is "deferred action", meaning they wouldn't be prosecuted under certain circumstances. So, from a "legal" perspective - which would flow into "logic and reason" - they could most certainly be deported.
Now, if we go back to the original DACA terms (the window of eligibility - see below), and put this group of ~ 800K people on a path to citizenship of 5 years (how long they must be here legally under current immigration law), then you can debate or negotiate that. You're still going to have to send the parents back, and some Dreamers may choose to go.
Personally, I agree that the compromise is going to be to give them a path in exchange for the needed border security and other measures (like improving e-Verify)
Quote:
individuals could apply for deferred action if they had come to the U.S. before their 16th birthday; were under age 31; had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; and were in school, graduated or had obtained a certificate of completion from high school, obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or were an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. Significantly, individuals were ineligible if they had been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor, but were considered eligible even if they had been convicted of up to two other misdemeanors.
note that any children brought here illegally after June 15, 2007 are NOT eligible, and the entire family will be deported.
Don't be absurd. Sending a few thousand people back to various third-world countries would be like a drop in the ocean - they aren't going to transform those economies, much less obviate geopolitical aid. The suggestion that they would somehow "elevate" those countries betrays your straw-grasping approach to trying to conjure up ways to objectively justify your emotion-driven desperation to deport DACA recipients.
that's just what someone suggested was their fervent wish - that we do deport them and they make their countries great (again).
well, DACA is "deferred action", meaning they wouldn't be prosecuted under certain circumstances. So, from a "legal" perspective - which would flow into "logic and reason" - they could most certainly be deported.
Now, if we go back to the original DACA terms (the window of eligibility - see below), and put this group of ~ 800K people on a path to citizenship of 5 years (how long they must be here legally under current immigration law), then you can debate or negotiate that. You're still going to have to send the parents back, and some Dreamers may choose to go.
Personally, I agree that the compromise is going to be to give them a path in exchange for the needed border security and other measures (like improving e-Verify)
note that any children brought here illegally after June 15, 2007 are NOT eligible, and the entire family will be deported.
Oh, I have no doubt that - from a legal perspective - the Trump Administration may promulgate a properly-issued EO to have them deported. My point was that, when asked whether doing so is a good idea, the reasons for answering "yes" are entirely emotion-driven.
Oh, I have no doubt that - from a legal perspective - the Trump Administration may promulgate a properly-issued EO to have them deported. My point was that, when asked whether doing so is a good idea, the reasons for answering "yes" are entirely emotion-driven.
there may well be some for whom it is "emotional" or in others' opinions illogical.
It's also quite logical that they ARE HERE illegally, and so the remedy for such a condition is deportation. I'm not saying many DACA kids made the conscious and informed decision to cross illegally. Now, you're saying "pick and choose the good ones", which might be considered emotion not logic/reason by others, wouldn't it?
I've said a path is likely, others have pointed out that some portion of 800K will be allowed to stay. And it's in exchange for somewhere between 5 and 15MM (depending on how aggressive we get with deportations) and keeping a current rate of almost 1MM annually out (border security).
Illegal presence in the US is not a crime and children are not being "punished" when a parent are sent to prison (a better term is "collateral damage"). Its amazing to me that people weigh in on these discussions when they don't even have the most basic of facts down.
The issue when it comes to DACA is that certain people are more wrapped up in emotional concern about what DACA recipients "deserve" (as set forth in the quoted post, for example) rather than considering whether deporting them is an objectively good idea from a socioeconomic perspective. By all statistical measures they are high-functioning, integrated net contributors to society.
No, they are clearly net drains on society.
Quote:
My point was that, when asked whether doing so is a good idea, the reasons for answering "yes" are entirely emotion-driven.
There's no reason to think that, and it's absolutely false. They reduce per-capita wealth and income of the natives, and their offspring (and perhaps they themselves someday) get to vote to transfer even more of our wealth to themselves. Support for their deportation is perfectly rational.
Actually, it is, which is why such illegal aliens are disqualified from legal immigration to the US. DACAs fall into that category.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
