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.
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'.
You are confused. Our government has never carried out their duties by "rational persuasion". The rational persuasion in our system is called... elections. Candidates outline their goals and ideals and try to rationally persuade the citizens to vote for it. Trump's position on illegal immigration was clear. He had said on the campaign trail he would "immediately terminate DACA" if elected. The people elected him. Trump didn't do it "immediately" but when he did, it came as no surprise. This wasn't a move that came out of nowhere.
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.
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.
So what about the kids brought here in 2008, who now work and pay taxes, who now have citizen spouses dependent on them, who now have kids who only speak English? Where is your concern for them?
[quote=BoBromhal;56635085]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).[/quote]
Well you were barking up the right tree for the first part of your statement. Sorry to burst your bubble but Government policy needs specifications so someone needed to put the work in and again not wing it. I know it seems like a lot but they wanted to be in Government not us, we didn't sign up to write 100's of pages of detail, they did.
Second part of your statement (bolded) is a political power move which the court could care less about. If the intent was to move Democrats and not write effective policy then it should be no mystery why the court has an issue here. DACA was an executive order and did not require the movement of Democrats anywhere to end the program. They decided to do it in the most haphazard way possible for political reasons, again not a concern for the court.
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).
Basically agree. Although it could be said that President Obama was attempting the same thing i.e. he could not find a compromise which ultimately led to his EO. President Trump could not find a compromise either so rescinded President Obama's EO.
The reason why President Trump's actions here are so problematic is because they are considered arbitrary & capricious:
Quote:
Arbitrary and capricious
In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling where in an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard.
Also think it's worth noting here the Trump administration does not seem to be as interested in 'rationally persuasive' arguments &/or they do not feel this particular issue is a significant factor in obtaining their overall objectives.
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.
This was Obama's plan all along and it worked. He knew the longer he could keep them here - just give them enough time to grow up, get jobs, marry, have kids - and they would become too integrated to remove.
If Hillary had been elected, we would not only have DACA but it would be held up as a huge success and she would be proposing DACA2 for the kids brought here after 2008.
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).
In other words, carve out enough exceptions that no one in DACA has to leave.
So what about the kids brought here in 2008, who now work and pay taxes, who now have citizen spouses dependent on them, who now have kids who only speak English? Where is your concern for them?
They are not DACA, and therefore not a part of this discussion. Like I said, the door is closed, and I said that in response to your post assuming the door is still open. It is not open.
So, you would go from being a legal UC citizen to being illegal immigrant in Mexico. Sure......
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.
