DACA at Supreme Court (nativist, programs, poverty, schools)
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.
If he had taken the time to explain his rationale in recinding, we wouldn't be here. Additionally, failing to give the public a chance to comment before a final rule issues, & without explanation, is not only “arbitrary & capricious" it is why the US is not considered a 'banana republic'.
Who are these public that needs the chance to comment?
How bad should enforcing legal immigration laws passed by Congress be?
Why does the US have immigration laws when it will not be enforced. It might as well be scrapped.
So now we all can agree that US babies born by illegal(DACA recipient) are Anchor Babies
Bush was right then.
This is a dumb argument. Having laws matter, and no one is arguing that laws shouldn't be followed. But shouldn't the laws on the books also make sense? Should that not address real ground conditions? A law existing doesn't automatically make it correct or that it doesn't arguably create even more problems. History is littered with such laws. Immigration laws are vastly outdated and need to be changed.
who are these public that needs the chance to comment?
The people, US, anyone & everyone:
Quote:
The day before DACA was announced, no one had a right to expect it, and no one had made use of it. But after DACA went into operation, nearly 900,000 people took advantage of it. Relying on the government’s description of the program, they risked eventual deportation by revealing their personal information to DHS; in exchange, they received “work authorization,” which meant they could apply for driver’s licenses, attend school, and hold jobs like other residents. Rescinding the program without warning would jerk the rug out from under them. Their “reliance” on the program might make the “notice and comment” issue different.
This is a dumb argument. Having laws matter, and no one is arguing that laws shouldn't be followed. But shouldn't the laws on the books also make sense? Should that not address real ground conditions? A law existing doesn't automatically make it correct or that it doesn't arguably create even more problems. History is littered with such laws. Immigration laws are vastly outdated and need to be changed.
Correct.
And so that should be the job of Congress to make such changes to outdated immigration laws and not the president.
The fact that the DACAs have 200 000 kids which were born in US complicates the issue, because the kids are Citizens and cannot be deported. Trump might have to go with amnesty with this thing.
This is why they want to end birthright citizenship. The ultimate goal is to get rid of everyone they don't like, regardless of birthplace. If no one believes that wouldn't be used against citizens, they're naïve.
I daresay that most of the DACA recipients contribute more to our society that many of our native born.
I have no doubt that we could identify 800K people in the same demographic that, as a whole, don't contribute as much - ie, tax revenues, work production, intellectual capacity - as the Dreamers.
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.
