DACA

[doc_loliday]

I'd make a bargain, amnesty for the Dreamers, in exchange for 100% compliance for the next 70 years. Everyone wins there.


I used to hold the liberal opinion btw, which is weird.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What sense does it make to continue to quibble about a fraction of a percent when you're talking about a city that is 10% illegal immigrants and a state that is 7% percent? That's millions, all in one place. You keep spreading it out, which makes no sense.

Regarding your DACA only statement, rational folks recognize that your 800,000 figure DACA is also misleading. If you grant DACAs, or other forms of amnesty, which we will periodically do, we'll have illegal immigration forever. That's why it's not a "unique case." There would be far less "punishment", if the law were enforced because fewer would come over, which is what is happening now.

Now we have come to the root of it.

Can we realistically separate out current DACA candidates from illegal immigrants? How can we enforce our border, and maintain our laws to improve security, save money, and usher in a new era, free from our past immigration failures?

Earlier in the thread the argument that DACA would encourage more law breaking, and that it was more expedient not to bother, came up. I honestly don't have solutions to those problems, and never claimed to. Expedient is expedient. I was simply trying to argue for the special legal and ethical case of DACA candidates.

Or, as Okee put it, a justification for more lusty, Latin slave-boys for me to ogle during the commercial breaks of "my stories." I can't work, on account of swollen cankles, so I have a lot of time at home.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

They also won't be solved with the extra .002% more people, making that entire point irrelevant.

Might as well say our educational issues won't be fixed with 10% fewer basketballs - which is true, but they also wouldn't be fixed with 10% more basketballs, or any percentage more or less because basketballs are entirely irrelevant to learning English, math, etc.

How exactly are you suggesting illegals are related to our infrastructure?

I agree, the budget issue and the DACA issue are separate. I am glad someone finally agrees with me.

You said "infrastructure", I said " infrastructure", now you're saying "budget issue" as if they are the same thing.

Infrastructure in news-speak these days refers to highways, bridges, sewage/water systems, etc. When they say the US rates a "D-" in infrastructure that's what they are talking about.

Budget is an entirely different issue, which budget? Medicaid that .002% can have a large impact if they are claiming "free" healthcare benefits somehow. Same with education budgets in their locale (especially with large numbers in say SoCal). Increased crime could increase local police budgets. None of those things are related to infrastructure really.

Crafty move, switching words in the middle of things... You should work in the mainstream media, that's their specialty - crafting a narrative by selective use of language.

Well, if we can have infrastructure without a budget, then what is the complaint? There is no cost, apparently.

I was under the impression that we all shared the understanding that infrastructure issues are tied to cost, and thus budget... apparently, in Ph64 land there is magical, free infrastructure that we still need to be concerned about for some reason.

My bad ya'll.

[doc_loliday]

Can we realistically separate out current DACA candidates from illegal immigrants?

Sure, the ones that enrolled for the DACA program don't get deported.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Why not? The ones that enrolled for the DACA program won't be deported. Just look it up.

When this thread started, the status of DACA-enrolled candidates was being questioned.

I think we can separate them. And I think their parents should be barred form citizenship for life, on account of their history of ignoring our laws.

I also believe in clearer, simpler, but MUCH more restricted paths to citizenship for any potential immigrants, combined with more consistent border security. But none of that really relates to the case for DACA.

[doc_loliday]

When I jumped in this thread, the argument was that kids in general, are being punished, and that it was wrong for them to have to endure the crimes of their parents. Many times it was brought up that they should not have to suffer the punishment of the crimes of the parents. The morality of such a thing was questioned, and there were denunciations of inherited guilt. I demonstrated why it was not inherited guilt; just because you grow accustomed to something that is not rightfully yours, does not mean you get to keep it. And we quibbled over this specifically. Only when the focus naturally shifted to the source of the problem did you specifically raise Dreamers to me. This is not a step that only lets the dreamers in, because if its wrong to punish anyone that has "not committed a crime" now, its not reasonable to ever punish them. Hence the deal. I'm not saying indefinitely. Just 70 years.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

When I jumped in this thread, the argument was that kids in general, are being punished, and that it was wrong for them to have to endure the crimes of their parents. Many times it was brought up that they should not have to suffer the punishment of the crimes of the parents. The morality of such a thing was questioned, and there were denunciations of inherited guilt. I demonstrated why it was not inherited guilt; just because you grow accustomed to something that is not rightfully yours, does not mean you get to keep it. And we quibbled over this specifically. Only when the focus naturally shifted to the source of the problem did you specifically raise Dreamers to me. This is not a step that only lets the dreamers in, because if its wrong to punish anyone that has "not committed a crime" now, its not reasonable to ever punish them. Hence the deal. I'm not saying indefinitely. Just 70 years.

Ah, then I am not sure we really disagree on this in any important way.

[Speaker to Animals]

“There will be chain migration. There always has been in amnesties,” Center for Immigration Studies Policy Director Jessica Vaughan told Breitbart News.

According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, for every one new Mexican immigrant to the U.S., an additional 6.38 Mexican nationals come to the U.S. through family-chain migration.

Based on the Princeton research, the 618, 342 illegal aliens from Mexico who are covered by DACA would be able to bring upwards of four million additional relatives and family members to the U.S. in the years to come.

If the remaining estimated 180,000 DACA recipients brought in three family members each after being amnestied, it would result in additional 540,000 immigrants. Should the remaining 180,000 DACA recipients bring four family members each to the U.S., it would result in more than 700,000 new immigrants.

But if the remaining roughly 180,000 DACA recipients were to bring the same number of family members as Mexican DACA recipients are expected to bring to the U.S., it would result in nearly 1.2 million more legal family-based immigrants coming to the country.

On top of the legal chain migration that could occur following a DACA amnesty by Trump, there is also the potential for a massive border surge, like the one that occurred following former President Obama’s creation of the DACA program.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -not-800k/


Fucking insane.

[DBTrek]

No, no, no, it's perfectly sane. Didn't you hear HM? You can't punish illegal immigrants for entering the country illegally if family brought them here.
It all makes sense.
In lefty upside down world.

[TheReal_ND]

Based on the Princeton research, the 618, 342 illegal aliens from Mexico who are covered by DACA would be able to bring upwards of four million additional relatives and family members to the U.S. in the years to come.

Like Reagan did to California this will do to Texas. Bye bye Republic.