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.
For example, why would we allow anyone that came after 2012, when DACA was put in place, to get on a path to citizenship?
There were so many issues with the DACA implementation that we really ought to take it as a learning opportunity and give it another try. Way too many of the people who should have been eligible under DACA weren't able to take advantage of it for one reason or another.
Another reason is just practicality. First generation Americans tend to be, demographically, some of our more "desirable" citizens. Lower crime rates, higher civic participation, higher educational achievement, lower rates of unemployment, lots of small business ventures, higher rates of home ownership, etc. It's a subsection of the population that contributes financially and socially to the US. The sooner we can get contributing people legal and able to fully participate in economic structures, including paying taxes, the better it is for the US as a whole. If we give some kind of general amnesty to get right with immigration, the people who want to live right can take it. After that, deportation efforts can be focused on those who DIDN'T.
Sorry if I failed to respond to any salient points or good-faith questions upthread...I skimmed past a lot of repetitive barking and may have missed something.
But the Alaska/Hawaii part wasn't really my point. My point was that indigenous nations should have a strong voice in national immigration policy.
Yet you've never explained why they should have more a voice in our immigration policy than white, black, Asian, etc. Americans who were also born here.
There were so many issues with the DACA implementation that we really ought to take it as a learning opportunity and give it another try. Way too many of the people who should have been eligible under DACA weren't able to take advantage of it for one reason or another.
Another reason is just practicality. First generation Americans tend to be, demographically, some of our more "desirable" citizens. Lower crime rates, higher civic participation, higher educational achievement, lower rates of unemployment, lots of small business ventures, higher rates of home ownership, etc. It's a subsection of the population that contributes financially and socially to the US. The sooner we can get contributing people legal and able to fully participate in economic structures, including paying taxes, the better it is for the US as a whole. If we give some kind of general amnesty to get right with immigration, the people who want to live right can take it. After that, deportation efforts can be focused on those who DIDN'T.
Sorry if I failed to respond to any salient points or good-faith questions upthread...I skimmed past a lot of repetitive barking and may have missed something.
If that were the case then why don't we just import the whole world into our country so they can be tax contributors? If we need immigrants then we will import them legally not reward immigration law breakers nor allow these DACA kids to benefit from their law breaking parents by allowing them to remain here.
I am favor of a practical approach. How large a population can we contain comfortably with the enforcement force we are willing to establish? Once that is determined we provide legalization and deportation to reach that number. I think legalization will prove vastly cheater - in fact we may be able to charge those applying at least part of the cost of the process. So it will be a balancing act as we get deeper in those who have been here for years.
I know it's a typo, but laugh with me.
We don't seem to have a CBP/ICE staffing level issue.
We do need more judges, and a more robust court system, so that cases are adjudicated quickly but fairly.
If "advocates" weren't working so hard to get illegals into the country on unapprovable asylum conditions, it would help. It would remove a lot of friction so the ~20% of real asylees could get admitted (fewer cases ahead of them). It would lower the backlog, so maybe we wouldn't have to triple the size of the court system.
It would be interesting to have the more noteworthy advocates interviewed and asked - "Why are you encouraging people that you know don't really meet the criteria to come? Why do you work against the system in place for real asylees in order to coach so many non-approvable folks how to try and get approved?"
and yes, if we were to get to some place of "well, we'll let you stay because you've been here so long and you're not a violent criminal" then we damn sure should charge them 5-10X (or whatever the actual cost is) of what a legal immigrant pays to get their green card. Payable immediately.
We don't seem to have a CBP/ICE staffing level issue.
We do need more judges, and a more robust court system, so that cases are adjudicated quickly but fairly.
If "advocates" weren't working so hard to get illegals into the country on unapprovable asylum conditions, it would help. It would remove a lot of friction so the ~20% of real asylees could get admitted (fewer cases ahead of them). It would lower the backlog, so maybe we wouldn't have to triple the size of the court system.
It would be interesting to have the more noteworthy advocates interviewed and asked - "Why are you encouraging people that you know don't really meet the criteria to come? Why do you work against the system in place for real asylees in order to coach so many non-approvable folks how to try and get approved?"
yup a typo but my standard excuse of evil fingers will not work as t and p are too far apart.
Nothing is "unprovable". And it is not the new arrivals it is the millions who have been here for years.
The new arrivals will be much easier to deal with when we do not have 11 million here already.
There were so many issues with the DACA implementation that we really ought to take it as a learning opportunity and give it another try. Way too many of the people who should have been eligible under DACA weren't able to take advantage of it for one reason or another.
tell me more about this. Who wasn't able to apply for DACA that was eligible? Or do you think eligibility should have been expanded?
I did read somewhere the other day that some DACA's didn't apply because they didn't want to be "known to the system" in case DACA ever went away.
1. All for controlled and regulated immigration.
2. Foreigners apply for a temporary citizenship.
3. What can they bring to this nation? Onus on the immigrants to prove themselves. What are your skills and how do you plan on contributing?
4. Are you an asset or a liability? This country doesn’t need any more liabilities.
5. Bring them in and after 5 years the immigrant can prove they are an asset and not a liability, they are granted citizenship.
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.
If we need immigrants then we will import them legally not reward immigration law breakers nor allow these DACA kids to benefit from their law breaking parents by allowing them to remain here. 
