DACA

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What are you asking? I am agreeing with you. DACA candidates aren't citizens. If they were citizens, the DACA program would not exist, since it would be meaningless.

Like I said in the beginning of the thread, there are issues of jurisprudence when it comes to DACA candidates that have nothing to do with feels. They still haven't really been addressed by anyone.

So what statute and/or case law are you relying on? Seems to me the law (the constitution) is pretty clear....


also, you ever going to answer the following?

1) do you not think DACA will incentivize more illegals to come?

2) If more come, will that not hasten the destruction of the middle class?

3) How is this fair to the middle class? -

4) do you think its responsibility of the middle class to provide for DACAs, and if so, why?

I have zero interest in answering those questions.

The question of jurisprudence is whether we should consider children guilty of the crimes of their parents. I am not sure what case law has ever addressed this, since it is so patently fucking immoral that no legal system would or should survive the principle of inherited guilt.

[Zlaxer]

What are you asking? I am agreeing with you. DACA candidates aren't citizens. If they were citizens, the DACA program would not exist, since it would be meaningless.

Like I said in the beginning of the thread, there are issues of jurisprudence when it comes to DACA candidates that have nothing to do with feels. They still haven't really been addressed by anyone.

So what statute and/or case law are you relying on? Seems to me the law (the constitution) is pretty clear....


also, you ever going to answer the following?

1) do you not think DACA will incentivize more illegals to come?

2) If more come, will that not hasten the destruction of the middle class?

3) How is this fair to the middle class? -

4) do you think its responsibility of the middle class to provide for DACAs, and if so, why?

I have zero interest in answering those questions.

So then how do you ever expect persuade people like me? My position is I'm tired of paying out the ass for taxes to prop up the DNC - You simply say FUCK YOU ZLAXER - I DON"T GIVE A SHIT- YOUR GONNA PAY....

Your actions are inline with the Far Left hacks - what do you think the long term consequence will be? IMHO - you're a monster.

[DBTrek]

I have zero interest in answering those questions.

The question of jurisprudence is whether we should consider children guilty of the crimes of their parents.

Bullshit.
That's the emotionally charged, intellectually devoid, leftist, tear-jerking, whine, version of the question.
The actual question is "Do these individuals qualify as citizens according to law"
And the answer is "no".

It's that simple.

[Fife]

"Guilt" is inartful. Think about status / classification / &c., not "guilt."

[Zlaxer]

I have zero interest in answering those questions.

The question of jurisprudence is whether we should consider children guilty of the crimes of their parents.

Bullshit.
That's the emotionally charged, intellectually devoid, leftist, tear-jerking, whine, version of the question.
The actual question is "Do these individuals qualify as citizens according to law"
And the answer is "no".

It's that simple.

There's no point to talking to him anymore DB - He doesn't care about you, or your family.....you're simply a cow.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So what statute and/or case law are you relying on? Seems to me the law (the constitution) is pretty clear....


also, you ever going to answer the following?

1) do you not think DACA will incentivize more illegals to come?

2) If more come, will that not hasten the destruction of the middle class?

3) How is this fair to the middle class? -

4) do you think its responsibility of the middle class to provide for DACAs, and if so, why?

I have zero interest in answering those questions.

So then how do you ever expect persuade people like me? My position is I'm tired of paying out the ass for taxes to prop up the DNC - You simply say FUCK YOU ZLAXER - I DON"T GIVE A SHIT- YOUR GONNA PAY....

Your actions are inline with the Far Left hacks - what do you think the long term consequence will be? IMHO - you're a monster.

Your questions have nothing to do with my argument, but I didn't intend that as a 'fuck you Zlaxer,' so:

DACA candidates account for about .002% of the population. I don't think that will crush the middle class, even if we assume that every single one of them is an economic loss, which is an unsafe assumption, but hard to prove otherwise. DACA is still nascent so there isn't really data on what candidates cost versus what they produce over an entire lifetime.

I am perfectly happy to change policies about employment and ag subsidies, as well as increase border security, to disincentivize more illegal immigration. The wall is probably the most expensive policy with the least security benefit, but since everyone dug their heals in over it, it has become a fetish.

It is not 'the responsibility' of the middle class to provide for DACAs. The point is that it is terrible law to treat non-citizen residents as criminals because of their parents' crime. If there is a responsibility, it is to support good laws and question bad ones. That might cost money, since laws require governments, and governments have costs... but I would rather pay for good laws than bad ones since I am going to be paying either way.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I have zero interest in answering those questions.

The question of jurisprudence is whether we should consider children guilty of the crimes of their parents.

Bullshit.
That's the emotionally charged, intellectually devoid, leftist, tear-jerking, whine, version of the question.
The actual question is "Do these individuals qualify as citizens according to law"
And the answer is "no".

It's that simple.

The actual question is "how do we deal with residents who aren't citizens, but haven't committed a crime."

"Are they citizens" is a stupid question since, as you pointed out, the answer is simple.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"Guilt" is inartful. Think about status / classification / &c., not "guilt."

For a DACA candidate to be an illegal immigrant, you have to be arguing that either:

1. you can commit a crime without volition

or

2. you can do something illegal without committing a crime

Those both seem absurd to me, so DACA candidates are non-citizen residents who haven't committed any crime. Their parents committed a crime. Their parents are illegal immigrants.

DACA is an attempt to deal with residents who aren't citizens who haven't committed a crime. Now, at one extreme end, we could say, hey all residents are automatically citizens. At the other end, non-citizens on our land take a bullet between the eyes. With those as our polls, DACA is prety much the middle ground.

Here is the version, without the inartful term, dealing with status.

[The Conservative]

Ummm, no. DACA is 100% for illegal aliens

You are arguing that all DACA candidates are illegal aliens, not that all illegal aliens are DACA candidates.

Christ on his rugged cross, what is hard to understand about this for everybody?

DACA candidates are 100% illegal aliens. So are at least one of their parents, if not both. Why is this so hard to understand?

[C-Mag]

The actual question is "Do these individuals qualify as citizens according to law"
And the answer is "no".

It's that simple.

The Law, what a novel fucking idea for all these bloviating Lawmakers in the body known as Congress.