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.
Most of the DACA are legally adults. But we should definitely deport the parents, with no chance of ever becoming legal.
Gleefully wanting to see families split up is some classy stuff. What would prevent policy that institutes fines and other consequences instead? You really need revenge and spite?
Just doesn't seem right to me to allow these DACAS whether they be adults or not to benefit from their parent's law breaking. The whole family should be returned to their own homelands. It's the only fair thing to do.
So you are for punishing the families of those who commit crimes regardless of their own innocence? So why wouldn't that apply to natives? Is this what you think is justice?
I think they should be deported. Do the children of prosecuted bank robbers get to keep the stolen money? No. This is the same. DACAs shouldn't benefit from their parents' illegal acts.
I'd rather deport you, honestly. Make America Decent Again.
I am delighted this Strict Constitutionalist SC will hear this important case.
What exactly is a "Strict Constitutionalist"? Are we talking the original document with no subsequent amendments? How can you strictly follow something that is constantly changing and being interpreted in different ways? For example, for at least the first century after it was ratified, the 2nd didn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms. That interpretation came much later. Which version of the Constitution should be strictly followed?
Blame their parents. They should go back to where their parents came from. Again, blame the parents. Not the US government.
No, we should blame the people who lack the imagination to find practical, fair solutions that aren't cruel and spiteful. All immigration issues can be solved with win-win solutions that benefit all parties, but some people just need to see other people suffer.
What exactly is a "Strict Constitutionalist"? Are we talking the original document with no subsequent amendments? How can you strictly follow something that is constantly changing and being interpreted in different ways?
You stop interpreting, and read it and follow it basing decisions on what you think the signers meant it to be.
You stop interpreting, and read it and follow it basing decisions on what you think the signers meant it to be.
That means the literal meaning is your guide.
You didn't answer the question. Which version would be acceptable? If you go with the original, there are a whole lot of amendments that get removed. More than half the US population would lose the right to vote, for example.
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.
