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.
I'm trying to make a point, someone who came to the US before they could walk or say their first words would have no remembrance or understanding of the country they were born in, never would have gone to school there, never would have worked there, never would have made friends or acquaintances there, etc. All their ties and what they know would be here in the United States. Your line of argument is bureaucratic to the max
11% were between 31-36 at that time. y'all can figure out the POSSIBLE ages from this:
Quote:
This policy allowed certain immigrants to escape deportation and obtain work permits for a period of two years—renewable upon good behavior. To apply, immigrants had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012, must have come to the U.S. when they were younger than 16, and must have lived in the U.S. since 2007.
of course, I thought the 1986 Amnesty wiped out all the illegal aliens at that time. So the oldest would be 33, yes?
Yeah, Democrats are the bad ones when we have Republicans practically orgasming over the prospect of destroying their lives because of mistakes made by their parents. Sure.
Right, because "to hell with US Citizens!" Give me a break.
What about the victims? Can you muster any compassion for them/us?
DACA folks are allowed to serve in the military, and some do. They also have some 200 000 kids who were born here and are US citizens. There are some obvious issues about deporting them.
Imagine being on a 2 year reprieve from the law and deciding "well, I think I'll have a baby! I may not be here in 2 years, but my baby will be a citizen. and taken care of! By ... somebody else!"
I'm a Republican.
I'm fine with allowing DACA's to stay. Some of them have children and some Dreamers only speak English.
But the program should end. Now. And that's what SCOTUS will debate. A favorable ruling will mean Dreamers are no longer protected. Today, they are protected from deportation; tomorrow they may not be.
It's an Obama-created mess.
That man was really stupid.
Because they are citizens of that place, and are trespassers here.
Not only that but how did they communicate with their parents if they didn't know the language of their homelands? They learned it from their parents! Many I'm sure still have relatives in their homelands. Most DACAs were brought here after the age of six, so yes they did know their homelands. It's a lame argument anyway since people move all over the world and adapt to their new surroundings. The DACAs have been taught the language and the culture of their homelands by their parents.
"That plan included a 12-year path to citizenship and $1.6 billion for the president's border wall. While the overwhelming majority of DACA recipients come from Mexico, dreamers come from at least 200 different countries, according to government data.
Today, after failed attempts to pass legislation and strike a deal with the administration, the futures of roughly 700,000 people brought to this country as children lies with the Supreme Court. But the arguments heard by the justices may focus on very specific legal questions."
Basically what America's message is, on this (the lord giveth and the lord taketh away) and other issues ... it doesn't matter what we said before, what matters is what we are saying right now. Yep, that has trust all over it.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
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?
Strict constitutionalist=arch right winger to them
"Now, many have been forced out of the U.S. or left out of fear of deportation, finding they belong in neither country."
-------
They ought to do this at Christmas time, that would make it a clearer message.
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.
