DACA

[MilSpecs]

your metaphors are bad, and you should feel bad.

I can't. I'm laughing too hard at the idea of hanging out with antifa at Starbucks.

[Okeefenokee]

They are not inheriting guilt at all. They are not citizens. They don't belong here.

They are here because of crime committed by someone else.

They didn't build that.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am not saying they should be hanged or harmed, or separated from their family, just that they should be sent back to their parents country with their parents. Maybe to some people that seems like a punishment. To me its upholding those arbitrary distinctions we were talking about earlier. Pretty much everything Americans value is man made and magical. The way we agree that money has value. Our laws. Our Bill of Rights and Constitution. Our ideas about inheritance and marriage and private property. Many people see the border as an imaginary line that does not matter, but its just as valid as any of those other things I just mentioned. How would you feel if over the next five or ten years, 10 million illegals had children in the United States? I am using an extreme number for effect, but if that happened it would call into question a lot about our sovereignty, economy, how we run entitlement programs, our defense etc. Its not just being mean to children who crossed an invisible line.
I've argued this on here before, but if any of these nightmare climate change scenarios happen, millions and millions of people will attempt to flee the Southern Hemisphere and cross the rio grande or anywhere they can into America. Historically, such as in Lebanon or the Democratic Republic of Congo, this does not end well. In my opinion, we should start discussing how to protect our borders now, before we have to make even more difficult decisions.
Anyway, this post is getting long dude, so sorry about that. In your opinion, what should happen to these children? You seem to be admitting that their parents did break the law. If their parents broke the law, should they be sent back to Mexico? If so, couldn't you argue that you are punishing the children for their parents' crimes by separating them from the biological family? If you don't think the parents should be sent back, aren't you sort of rewarding them for breaking the law by allowing them to stay in a nicer country by taking advantage of our leniency?
I am not trying to give you trick questions or sound like an asshole, I am genuinely curious about your opinion on this.

For DACA candidates who are over 18, I have no problem whatsoever separating them from their families. Boot the parents out and let the kids decide if they want to stay in the country they are familiar with, or leave with their folks. They are adults, and can choose for themselves. Hell, I would even add that, even if they stay, their law breaking parents have forfeited their rights to be considered for citizenship for all time, what with them having already shown themselves to be law breakers.

Illegal immigrant families with pre-adult children is a tougher problem that I don't have a specific solution to. This is why a vigorous, pluralistic democratic process for deciding law is important.

Arguing over what percentage of the population can be immigrants before our institutions are compromised is fruitless. I happen to believe that our institutions are quite robust, but that is an opinion from the chair about the strength of modern, pluralist, liberal (small l) democracy. Some people think it is feeble and precariously teetering on the brink of destruction wrought by hoards of the uncivilized. I think that is a bunch of panicked nonsense.

Climate change and border security are nuts I won't attempt to crack. I lack the expertise to even begin to solve either of those problems, but I think border security is important and hope that I am dead before climate change disrupts my decadent, libertine life too much.

[Haumana]

They are not inheriting guilt at all. They are not citizens. They don't belong here.

They are here because of crime committed by someone else.

They didn't build that.

Thanks, Obama.

[Okeefenokee]

[heydaralon]

I am not saying they should be hanged or harmed, or separated from their family, just that they should be sent back to their parents country with their parents. Maybe to some people that seems like a punishment. To me its upholding those arbitrary distinctions we were talking about earlier. Pretty much everything Americans value is man made and magical. The way we agree that money has value. Our laws. Our Bill of Rights and Constitution. Our ideas about inheritance and marriage and private property. Many people see the border as an imaginary line that does not matter, but its just as valid as any of those other things I just mentioned. How would you feel if over the next five or ten years, 10 million illegals had children in the United States? I am using an extreme number for effect, but if that happened it would call into question a lot about our sovereignty, economy, how we run entitlement programs, our defense etc. Its not just being mean to children who crossed an invisible line.
I've argued this on here before, but if any of these nightmare climate change scenarios happen, millions and millions of people will attempt to flee the Southern Hemisphere and cross the rio grande or anywhere they can into America. Historically, such as in Lebanon or the Democratic Republic of Congo, this does not end well. In my opinion, we should start discussing how to protect our borders now, before we have to make even more difficult decisions.
Anyway, this post is getting long dude, so sorry about that. In your opinion, what should happen to these children? You seem to be admitting that their parents did break the law. If their parents broke the law, should they be sent back to Mexico? If so, couldn't you argue that you are punishing the children for their parents' crimes by separating them from the biological family? If you don't think the parents should be sent back, aren't you sort of rewarding them for breaking the law by allowing them to stay in a nicer country by taking advantage of our leniency?
I am not trying to give you trick questions or sound like an asshole, I am genuinely curious about your opinion on this.

For DACA candidates who are over 18, I have no problem whatsoever separating them from their families. Boot the parents out and let the kids decide if they want to stay in the country they are familiar with, or leave with their folks. They are adults, and can choose for themselves. Hell, I would even add that, even if they stay, their law breaking parents have forfeited their rights to be considered for citizenship for all time, what with them having already shown themselves to be law breakers.

Illegal immigrant families with pre-adult children is a tougher problem that I don't have a specific solution to. This is why a vigorous, pluralistic democratic process for deciding law is important.

Arguing over what percentage of the population can be immigrants before our institutions are compromised is fruitless. I happen to believe that our institutions are quite robust, but that is an opinion from the chair about the strength of modern, pluralist, liberal (small l) democracy. Some people think it is feeble and precariously teetering on the brink of destruction wrought by hoards of the uncivilized. I think that is a bunch of panicked nonsense.

Climate change and border security are nuts I won't attempt to crack. I lack the expertise to even begin to solve either of those problems, but I think border security is important and hope that I am dead before climate change disrupts my decadent, libertine life too much.

Good response. I don't have real answers for border security either. I just feel as though a lot of people my age treat it like its this fake line that has no real authority. Many people find Trump boorish in the way he has approached it, but I am at least glad this is back on the public radar. I don't think many of the Republican proposals are feasible, but sometimes I feel as though many Democrats have a sort of contempt for even suggesting that illegal immigration is a problem.

The problem with the under 18's is that there is not really an outcome where they wouldn't be "punished" for the crimes of their parents. Its sort of like when a child gets abused by their parents, and then they are warehoused in a foster care home with other emotionally damaged children. Its like they went from one shitty environment to another one. To me, if we made clear that in our laws that having children would not give them or the parents citizenship, and we made a conscious effort to enforce this policy, it would serve as a deterrent for future illegals to try it. If we removed the gray area, we would have fewer gray cases. The problem is, our government does not seem to have a unified strategy for dealing with illegals. We have certain courts who defy ICE agents, sanctuary cities etc. This sends a mixed message across the border and allows illegals to game the system. If we made stricter laws about it and made clear that trying to use loopholes to stay would not be tolerated, less people would try it. It would still happen, but we could take the sharper edges off of future DACA type situations.

That is my take on the matter. When you talked about "democratic pluralistic process" what did you mean? Would you want a referendum on this?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Good response. I don't have real answers for border security either. I just feel as though a lot of people my age treat it like its this fake line that has no real authority. Many people find Trump boorish in the way he has approached it, but I am at least glad this is back on the public radar. I don't think many of the Republican proposals are feasible, but sometimes I feel as though many Democrats have a sort of contempt for even suggesting that illegal immigration is a problem.

The problem with the under 18's is that there is not really an outcome where they wouldn't be "punished" for the crimes of their parents. Its sort of like when a child gets abused by their parents, and then they are warehoused in a foster care home with other emotionally damaged children. Its like they went from one shitty environment to another one. To me, if we made clear that in our laws that having children would not give them or the parents citizenship, and we made a conscious effort to enforce this policy, it would serve as a deterrent for future illegals to try it. If we removed the gray area, we would have fewer gray cases. The problem is, our government does not seem to have a unified strategy for dealing with illegals. We have certain courts who defy ICE agents, sanctuary cities etc. This sends a mixed message across the border and allows illegals to game the system. If we made stricter laws about it and made clear that trying to use loopholes to stay would not be tolerated, less people would try it. It would still happen, but we could take the sharper edges off of future DACA type situations.

That is my take on the matter. When you talked about "democratic pluralistic process" what did you mean? Would you want a referendum on this?

In a free and open society there are bound to be a lot of disagreements. Democracy and pluralism are the best solutions to disagreements we have. The Obama order was a quick fix with an expiration date, and we need to look closely at how we deal with our past policy failures and how we are going to deal with immigration moving forward. It is currently being looked at by the legislative branch, which is good. I have little faith that they will arrive at a the conclusion I would if I were a tyrant with unchecked power to make law, but that doesn't mean I think our government isn't working the way it is supposed to. I just happen to disagree with it frequently, but it is probably a good thing that I am not personally responsible for all lawmaking, since I can be petty.

The byzantine nature of American law, and the rules about how it is executed, and by whom, does create a lot of confusion and conflict. And yes, there will be people who try to take advantage of that. Always will be.

Borders are fake, arbitrary lines, but that doesn't mean that states don't have the authority to make decisions about them. I don't really understand why people have a hard time holding those two axioms in their brain at the same time, but they do.

[apeman]

donde esta la zapateria

for some reason this one really killed me

[BjornP]

Borders are fake, arbitrary lines, but that doesn't mean that states don't have the authority to make decisions about them. I don't really understand why people have a hard time holding those two axioms in their brain at the same time, but they do.

If they were truly "fake and arbitrary", they'd not be recognized by any foreign states and their authority would be considered illegitimate. Most borders are recognized. Where there are exceptions, there is usually war or some form of tension. So, no,...borders are subject to negotiation, formalization and international legal recognization. The very opposite of "fake". Nor do they shift simply according to whim, so nor are they arbitrary. Maybe you meant they were "social constructs"? Like, you know, law or the very concept of government itself.

[TheReal_ND]

Denmark for Americans. Danes out