DACA at Supreme Court (percentage, Presidents, prosecute, graph)
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.
you've got a winning argument there, describing retirees as takers vs these "giving DACA's", and our US citizen kids as takers too, who should be grateful for the DACA workers.
I daresay that should be a Dem Presidential platform.
Yes, that's horrible. Liberals describing retirees as takers while pretending illegal aliens are the makers.
Actually 91% of them work, pay taxes and are productive. Compare that to the US LFPR rate od 63%. They are contributors, not takers, which is why it doesn't make sense to make them the priority, but I guess it comes back to the "undoing Obama" childishness.
Once again with the phony stats. Paying taxes does not mean you are a net contributor.
Once again with the phony stats. Paying taxes does not mean you are a net contributor.
And it also depends on what taxes you pay. Finn is considering sales tax in there. That means that when I was 13 years old and took the bus to the drugstore to buy Clearasil, the 20 cents I paid in taxes meant I was "contributing" to society. Never mind the $10,000 (or whatever it was) that taxpayers were paying for my education.
It's worth noting none of the these rulings meant that DACA would survive, only that the Trump administration must come up with a better way of ending it.
As a side point, I'd like someone to show me in our Constitution or laws where it says one branch of government has to provide reasons to the liking of another branch when exercising their prescribed powers.
No, you are. Foreign citizens/subjects cannot obtain a US passport unless they have US citizenship. Why not? The US does not have jurisdiction over their nationality unless they choose to legally naturalize.
You could not possibly be more wrong. "Jurisdiction" refers to whether US laws apply to you and whether US civil and criminal courts have the ability to adjudicate and enforce those laws against you. Whether you can get a passport or citizenship is not a question of whether the laws do apply to you - the laws apply and mandate that no such passport/citizenship shall issue. That is a question of how the law applies to you, not whether it applies at all.
Undocumented aliens can be haled into civil and criminal Court. They can sue and be sued. They are required to follow US criminal, civil and administrative law. They can be fined. They can be imprisoned. Their assets can be levied. They are within the jurisdiction of US laws.
If illegal aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction of US laws, then law enforcement would have no authority to detain then and US administrative (e.g., immigration) courts would have no right to adjudicate and order their removal. Obviously that is not the case.
The "jurisdiction" language in the 14th Amendment was discussed amongst the drafters at the time and was meant only to carve out two classes of people: "Wild Indians" (who lived on tribal land and were neither required to abide by US law nor could they be sued in a US court - as the drafters put it "we [cannot] sue a Navajo in Court" ) and diplomatic families (who could not be civilly or criminally prosecuted in a US Court due to diplomatic immunity). Everyone else? If they were in the US and begot children, those children were citizens, whether "mongols" in California or "gypsies" in Pennsylvania.
We know this because the drafters expressly said it at the time. Sen. Conness made it a point, with the exception of diplomatic families and "Wild Indians", "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever . . . should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States." "[A]ll parentage whatsoever" could not possibly be more clear.
you've got a winning argument there, describing retirees as takers vs these "giving DACA's", and our US citizen kids as takers too, who should be grateful for the DACA workers.
I daresay that should be a Dem Presidential platform.
I don't think it is a good platform for Dems. I would leave DACA and all other illegals out of their platform if I were them. They should talk about immigration reform in general, but not 600K groups of people, especially when this will be decided before the elections.
You could not possibly be more wrong. "Jurisdiction" refers to whether US laws apply to you and whether US civil and criminal courts have the ability to adjudicate and enforce those laws against you.
Incorrect. Jurisdiction means exactly that: jurisdiction over subject matter, geographical region, etc., and it applies to local, state, and/or federal laws. Given that, post the law that allows foreign subjects/citizens who are NOT also US citizens to obtain a US passport.
Oops!!! NOT under US jurisdiction.
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.
