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.
What is done by one president by the stroke of a pen can be undone by the next president, this is not the long term issue. The major issue is that we are seemingly unable to competently solve problems, including this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Kids don't like it when the grown ups argue.
Seems to be one POTUS use to honor the one before them; keeping all moving in a direction. Now there's no honor and here we are.
Other countries are tired of the mickey mouse way the u.s. has of doing things too.
One of the reasons I keep harping on the fact the Trump administration should have provided a fuller explanation for its actions in rescinding or winding down DACA rather than by using the 'brute force' of an EO is that it would be a demonstration of 'rational persuasion'.
There's many reasons why our government was created the way it was. We didn't want a monarchy ~ what would be the point of leaving one to set up another? Fr'instance there was purpose & intent in the creation of the three branches of government, the system of checks & balances, & much more.
Ronald Dahl has described the various ways various government tend to use influence:
• Rational Persuasion ~ the nicest form of influence, means telling the truth & explaining why someone should do something, like your doctor convincing you to stop smoking.
• Manipulative Persuasion ~ a notch lower, means lying or misleading to get someone to do something.
• Inducement ~ still lower, means offering rewards or punishments to get someone to do something, i.e. like bribery.
• Power ~ threatens severe punishment - such as jail or loss of job.
• Coercion ~ is power with no way out; you have to do it.
• Physical force ~ is backing up coercion with use or threat of bodily harm.
~Robert A. Dahl, Democracy & Its Critics, 1989
What is done by one president by the stroke of a pen can be undone by the next president, however if done by using 'rational persuasion' some movement, ... even incremental movements, tend to be the outcome or result. Rather than inertia. Sometimes one needs to 'chip away' when attempting problem solving, or troubleshoot leading to 'chipping away', & so on.
Although I do not necessarily agree with all that's been discussed here, I do very much appreciate the 'rationally persuasive' thoughtviews.
I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation to expect the same from government representatives.
Sometimes I think some of our representatives should consider the 'first law of holes', or the 'law of holes', the adage which states that "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
Or maybe she has to scale back her standard of living. Or maybe get a job. What do you think the wife is going to do when the guy making $80k gets deported? Stay here on welfare and be married to a guy living in another country?
What would you do? If you are a US citizen and your whole life is in US, your parents and all your friends live here, and your kids go to local schools, and suddenly the government gets rid of your husband? Would you just pack up and move to Honduras, one of the most dangerous nations in the world and put your kids to schools there when they don't even speak the language.
So every kid dragged across the border should be given a free pass ?
Ridiculous, isn't it? It sets a precidence that all you have to do is drag your kids across our border illegally and they will be home free. What kind of idiotic policy would that be? No child should benefit from their parent's law breaking.
So every kid dragged across the border should be given a free pass ?
No.
The topic here is DACA, who are people who were brought in as kids before 2007, and who have remained here since then. No one who has been brought in since 2007 are in that group of people.
The door is closed, so they are just trying to decide what to do with those people who were brought in as kids 12+ years ago, and grew up in US, and don't have a home country. There are issues with deporting them, like the fact they now have 200 000 kids who were born in US and are Citizens. They also have spouses who are citizens, and 91% are employed etc. They question is whether or not it makes sense to deport that group of people.
I disagree and here's why. What would happen to the parent's of these DACAs if they are allowed to remain here? Shouldn't the parents be deported as they are the ones who broke the law? If not, then that would be amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and rewarding their parents for bringing their kids here illegally. If the parents are deported as our laws state that would mean a separation of families, wouldn't it? Why would the DACAs want to remain here while their parents are deported? I thought their culture was all about family values.
All of the above is why I oppose DACA and why the whole family should be deported together. It's the only fair thing to do. Legalizing millions of illegal aliens (the DACAs and their parents) would negate our sane annual quotas for legal immigration and isn't fair to immigrants who came here the right way. Thoughts?
Nah, if the court rules against the Trump Administration then they will likely put a guide or give detail on why they ruled against which will serve as a plan to do it without so much carelessness. Your pointing to the issue at hand, the Administration did not specify what to do with current DACA recipients which is REALLY important and a NEED to KNOW before you implement a policy.
Trump Admin. could have done this without all the drama by simply slowing down and detailing how the program would end. Not defining the impact of an immediate change to the program without specifying what to do with those say in Active Duty, in Government offices, or those that own businesses and function as a citizen otherwise was shortsighted and stupid honestly.
That seems to be the objection from the court, NOT the ability for a President to change an executive order. In fact I think Trump could have backed off and created some rules for DACA persons to transition or deport without any pushback from the courts, politically might have been ugly but fine with the courts. The Administration just winged it without any thought and now just seems like they want a court fight and do not want to specify how to deal with DACA persons.
Has anyone in the Trump Administration stated what should happen to DACA recipients in a official capacity? Lots of conjecture on television but has someone OFFICALLY put the plan out there if there is one?
It happens when the main source of income is suddenly eliminated. You know, like if a guy brings in $80K a year, and suddenly Trump gets rid of him. The wife will probably need public assistance.
Easy to tell them to just find another spouse, and to be honest it is mostly likely what Trump will tell them.
what you're describing is a DACA male earning $80K a year, whereby his female spouse married him for the purpose of helping him gain citizenship. And then had baby/ies with him. All since late 2012. Even though DACA was a 2 year, renewable reprieve under fairly strict circumstances.
what you're describing is a DACA male earning $80K a year, whereby his female spouse married him for the purpose of helping him gain citizenship. And then had baby/ies with him. All since late 2012. Even though DACA was a 2 year, renewable reprieve under fairly strict circumstances.
No, I am not saying those things. YOU are.
- Why do you assume they marry just to get citizenship? Is that the only reason you'd consider marriage?
- What do you mean since 2012? These are people who arrived 2007 or before, so come could have been married for quite a long time.
Nah, if the court rules against the Trump Administration then they will likely put a guide or give detail on why they ruled against which will serve as a plan to do it without so much carelessness. Your pointing to the issue at hand, the Administration did not specify what to do with current DACA recipients which is REALLY important and a NEED to KNOW before you implement a policy.
Trump Admin. could have done this without all the drama by simply slowing down and detailing how the program would end. Not defining the impact of an immediate change to the program without specifying what to so with those say in Active Duty, in Government offices, or those that own businesses and function as a citizen otherwise was shortsighted and stupid honestly.
That seems to be the objection from the court, NOT the ability for a President to change an executive order. In fact I think Trump could have backed off and created some rules for DACA persons to transition or deport without any pushback from the courts, politically might have been ugly but fine with the courts. The Administration just winged it without any thought and now just seems like they want a court fight and do not want to specify how to deal with DACA persons.
Has anyone in the Trump Administration stated what should happen to DACA recipients in a official capacity? Lots of conjecture on television but has someone OFFICALLY put the plan out there if there is one?
so instead of just saying "beginning 6 months from now, we won't take new applications and we won't renew any expiring applications" the WH could/should have said:
"beginning 6 months from now, we won't take new applications and we won't renew any expiring applications, except for those serving in the military, or honorably discharged with employment that ensures they do not require public assistance, or those currently enrolled in secondary education who promise not to need public assistance. And these people will be given a ____ year path to citizenship. Once citizens, they have all the rights including public assistance".
What the WH did is attempt to force the Dems hand on immigration reform with a 6 month deadline. He in fact during that 6 months OFFERED a path to citizenship to DACA recipients, in exchange for changes to the immigration system including border security and ending chain migration (among others I can't recall at the moment).
- Why do you assume they marry just to get citizenship? Is that the only reason you'd consider marriage?
- What do you mean since 2012? These are people who arrived 2007 or before, so come could have been married for quite a long time.
an illegal that marries a citizen becomes a citizen at some point, yes?
DACA went into place in 2012. It also established a deadline of being here continuously from 2007 to 2012. Nobody that came after 2012 qualifies. Any child brought here after 2007 doesn't qualify. Any child brought prior to 2012 that was > 16, also doesn't qualify.
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.
