The announcement was an effort by Mr. Trump to honor his campaign pledge to end Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, while avoiding an immediate termination of protections and work permits for the so-called “dreamers,” many of whom have lived in the United States since they were small children.As Trump put it in his tweet: "Congress, get ready to do your job - DACA!"
It is Congress's job, and whether Obama should have picked up the slack for Congress or not, he did, and that's the situation Trump inherited. Trump made a strategic move, and people will say it's cruel, even as Obama was kind, but that's nothing new for Trump.
ADDED: Last June, we were discussing a NYT article with the headline "Trump Will Allow ‘Dreamers’ to Stay in U.S., Reversing Campaign Promise." (The headline has changed since then.) My post was titled "Did he really ever promise?" I said:
The link goes to the NYT, where I imagine them getting any news about Trump and thinking: Trump did it... why is it bad?I said: "I never believed he'd deport 'Dreamers'" — and I still don't. Here are the results of a poll I did back in June when the issue was Trump breaking what was perceived as a campaign promise:
This is a case of Trump doing something that policy-wise is what the NYT wants. But Trump did it, so why is it bad? Trump broke a promise!
I still don't think the "Dreamers" will be deported. That's not what ending Obama's program means.
Posts
296 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 296 of 296Brookzene: you don't like the analogy, but we as a nation have immigration laws, and those laws represent our consent. Violations of that law violates our consent, doesn't it? Lots of people are arguing that it's wrong to change or rescind our consent, but smart Lefty people have been telling me for many years now that one party to a transaction can rescind their consent at any time.
Right? President Trump is rescinding the consent President Obama gave. President Trump is doing so openly, with fair notice to all.
Are you saying that some people have a right to ignore the withdrawal of consent? That's...that's not the kind of thing smart empathetic people allow, Brookzene.
"Marcus Aurelius couldn't have said this better."
I think you may want to check with Cicero for this sort of thing.
Why not just call them sp*cks, Darrell? You know you're itchin' too.
It's "spics" (from Hispanic) and "to", not too.
Implying other people are racist is truly a winning gambit.
The fact that the EO almost certainly exceeded the Executive's proper power--that the program went well beyond actual discretion--didn't really matter, since at worst it'd be tied up in the courts for a number of years.
Instead of compromising on a bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate the Obama Admin instead used executive orders to get more than they could have gotten otherwise, and more than they should have been allowed to get. They assumed that no one would have the balls to deal with the shrieking Media shitstorm that'd result from undoing what was done with a pen.
There's now way someone like Trump could win, anyway. Inconceivable!
Someone who knows more might be able to refute this or not. But why should this be tied up in the court for years rather than months?
Everythings coming across the border with Mexico it's like vomit
Or the ritual stoning of images of Cesar Chavez.
Why? Chavez was on our side..he opposed illegal immigration.
Implying other people are racist is truly a winning gambit.
Calling Mexican children who had no responsibility in this "thieves" is a step away in my book.
Very well then, I overstepped and I apologize. I couldn't feel any less of a sneer for what he actually said, however.
"Dreamers" is an interesting term for this group. Is it to contrast them from all those who were born here whose entry-level jobs have disappeared due to a combination of illegal labor and minimum wage laws? Maybe they, whether white or black, don't deserve dreams too.
It's funny that so many big-city Dems would argue that breaking immigration laws should you ahead. That it should protect you from and mitigate impact of laws affecting normal citizens, that it should give you special privileges for education, etc. For an example, just imagine an actual citizen who let their minor children travel without chaperone. They would end up in jail, and their children taken by CPS. Indeed, in many states even letting your kids play in the yard without you watching over them will result in a visit from the police, the sheriff's boys, CPS or all of them.
(I'm an immigrant, and I know there are likely hundreds of millions of people all over the world who would jump at the chance to come to the US and start their lives over. Most for economic reasons just like our south-of-the-border illegal immigrants, but many like me for the liberty that is at the heart of our social contract. Of course, some libertarians argue that south-of-the-border illegal immigrants are just as pro-liberty as anyone else, though that only works if you ignore the way they vote.)
Why? Chavez was on our side..he opposed illegal immigration.
Yes, as founder and leader of the National Farm Workers Assn, he opposed illegal immigration because it undercut the wages of the union farm workers. During the grape boycott of the 1960's I picketed Safeway.
I still don't like Safeway. ;-)
Are you saying that some people have a right to ignore the withdrawal of consent? That's...that's not the kind of thing smart empathetic people allow, Brookzene.
See, HoodlumDoodlum - you actually made your argument here by sticking to the point and without demeaning real rape victims. No one's gonna tell me you aren't a worthy opponent when you want to be.
I expect this is the opening gambit to build the wall.
The Democrats are going to be given a chance to look sane.
They won't.
Brookzene said...Someone who knows more might be able to refute this or not. But why should this be tied up in the court for years rather than months?
Well: DAPA was announced in Nov 2014. A bunch of states sued in Dec 2014 and got a temporary injunction in Feb 2015. The Obama Admin appealed and pushed as hard as they could for a quick court resolution. They lost a motion for a stay of the injunction in May 2016. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction (against DAPA being implemented) in Nov 2016--so that's a year later. The case then went back to the district court, and that court in Nov ruled against the Obama admin again. I think that was still Nov 2016. The Obama admin appealed to the Supreme Court; the states asked for more time (so that the Court would hear the case the next session) but the Court didn't agree to that extension. The Obama admin also waived their right to file a reply brief (which is apparently very unusual) in order to get the ruling more quickly. The Court granted cert in Jan of 2016 and delivered a ruling (4-4) late June 2016. Since the Court tied the lower court's injunction stands.
So that's a case moving at an unusually fast pace and the most recent ruling on it happened almost 2 years after the policy was announced. "That's months, not years" you may want to say. But wait! The district court that started all the proceedings outlined above, the court of one Andrew Hanen, hasn't actually heard the full case! All those actions were on Judge Hanen's preliminary injunction. So that sucker is technically still going, I guess. Maybe it's mooted by Trump's new EO/his Dept. of Homeland Sec.'s policies, but if we had a Pres. Hillary and they wanted to still fight for DAPA that original court case would sill be going.
"Years" therefore seems appropriate, no?
The phrase I hear, Brookzene, is "rape culture."
So arguments that withdrawal of consent shouldn't always be respected is a part of propping up a "rape culture."
If you want to argue that the idea of "rape culture" is demeaning to actual victims of rape and sexual assault--that it conflates unrelated political grievances with actual physical crimes--I'm right there with you, but that's an argument you'll have to have against people on the Left.
Oh and by the way: anyone who in any way supports "rape culture" (which can be done by denying that the US has or is a "rape culture") is instantly labeled a "rape apologist."
You certainly don't want to be one of those.
"Years" therefore seems appropriate, no?
Thanks for the detailed response. Someone who knows more than me will have to refute it, if they can. You won't get an argument on that from me.
"But why should this be tied up in the court for years rather than months?"
Because the left will try to avoid a decision which will certainly end it.
Nobody but his most ardent fans are going to believe his bullshit when he tries to place the blame on Congress.
No. His most ardent fans are going to understand that it was indeed Trump who did this, and they will love him for it. They get it.
If you want to argue that the idea of "rape culture" is demeaning to actual victims of rape and sexual assault--that it conflates unrelated political grievances with actual physical crimes--I'm right there with you, but that's an argument you'll have to have against people on the Left.
Funny enough, I was not actually engaging with people who traffic in the term "rape culture." I thought I was engaging with you about a bogus use of "nation-rape" when discussing immigration policy. I thought it was pretty bogus. Stick to your own unfortunate and offensive analogy if you want.
The only thing I'm actually "itching" to do, Brookzene, is to call you a Leftist cocksucker. In the classical sense, of course.
I think that the Dreamers should continue making ads of them giving Americans the finger--like they've been doing--"This is what I think about your plans." The campaign is very effective.
The only thing I'm actually "itching" to do, Brookzene, is to call you a Leftist cocksucker.
Go for it. With that your total contribution to this thread should make your mom proud.
mockturtle said...I still don't like Safeway. ;-)
If you don't like Dangerway, there's always King Stoopids, Shitty Market or Small*Fart. And so little time...
Funny enough, I was not actually engaging with people who traffic in the term "rape culture.
But you are! I've had to discuss that phrase before. I've been in discussions where people were called rape apologists, not for doing anything I would consider supporting or apologizing for rape, but for having the wrong political view (in that case on the correct standard of evidence that should be used for college tribunals).
Anyway we were talking about consent. The Left takes consent VERY seriously, you see, so I'm surprised that some folks on the Left seem to be arguing that it's somehow wrong for our nation, with policy set by Trump, to rescind consent. The Left respects that consent can be rescinded...right?
"Why? Chavez was on our side..he opposed illegal immigration."
He switched sides. The UFW became obsolete, gave up on fighting illegals, and Chavez went on to be more of a tribal nationalist/leftist. His old associates mostly followed him into that, including notably his old associate Dolores Huerta.
It's a sad situation and Trump did the right decision, to my surprise, dropping it back to where it belongs, Congress.
The current immigration system is a mess. Reagan did Amnesty 1, and it was supposed to include tougher enforcement. The tougher enforcement did not happen.
The overton window was moved so the term illegal immigrant became racist along with the idea of building a wall, and allowing unlimited immigration became the dream of the left.
Then along came Donald Trump, and made it so the term illegal immigrant could be used again, instead of undocumented immigrant.
The deal I hope happens:
- Entire immigration system redone to focus on useful skills - like Canada does.
- All employers are required to do eVerify.
- Process put in place for those here for X Years for legalization, especially Dreamers.
- Wall is funded and built.
- Stop bringing in refugees that can't assimilate.
- Focus the US System on assimilation.
We will see what happens. Some questions:
- Can Congress get it's act together to pass something on immigration?
- Will the Democrats gang up with the GOPe?
- Will a deal that is a win for all sides, the shuts down future illegal immigration happen?
Will the Democrats continue being the party of Resistance, allow a deal to die, and McConnell continues to allow the filibuster to allow Democrats to have a veto on legislation?
My guess is the Democrats will continue to be the party of Resistance, attempt to blame the Republicans and Trump for failure, it won't stick to Trump, and nothing will get passed. And this will result in lots of changes in the mid terms, with a more conservative congress.
Couple of Wildcards:
1. Terrorist attack that is traced to illegal immigrants, probably through Mexico.
2. McCain's Health
3. Menendez gets convicted and thrown out of Senate.
4. Polling shows any type of amnesty is electoral death.
5. Rallys for Dreamers overplay their hand with Lots of Mexican Flags.
Anyway we were talking about consent. The Left takes consent VERY seriously, you see, so I'm surprised that some folks on the Left seem to be arguing that it's somehow wrong for our nation, with policy set by Trump, to rescind consent. The Left respects that consent can be rescinded...right?
I think that's called the informal fallacy of equivocation.
Because you agree consent it's okay to rescind consent in this context, you therefore must agree that it's just as okay to rescind consent in a completely different context. I think treating them the same simply because you use the same words (even though they are different) is equivocation.
Somebody else may know or remember better.
Maybe this has been noted before, but I'm not about to first read through 230+ comments first (expecting that most of it is a lot of BS back and forth) --
The acronym DACA stands for what? "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals"
"Deferred" means that at some point the action will be taken, that the suspension is not open-ended or permanent, only delayed.
The deal I hope happens:
I would add: address the domestic and foreign interests that defend and progress immigration reform, refugee crises, Obama's trail of tears, and, of course, Planned Parenthood. The conflicts of interests among "reformed", "progressive", and globalist groups could not be more stark.
"5. Rallys for Dreamers overplay their hand with Lots of Mexican Flags."
This was always an idiotic tactic.
It comes of the usual parochialism of leftist politics, where leaders get ahead by out-extreming each other and not considering what
Trumps election has changed a few of these things.
Fewer Mexican flags anymore.
La Raza isn't called that now, at least not in public. It is UnidosUS.
But it may take some time for the local groups to adjust.
There are a huge lot of places, groups, and events Socal called "La Raza".
The two worst things about the left are, they exude such contempt for their neighbors and they want Mexican citizens to live in a craphole like Mexico by making one here.
Myself, I believe that any immigration law should include a reciprocity provision, such that aliens from a given country are treated the same way that migrants to that country are treated. The problem is -- and this shoots down any claim of injustice on the part of the U.S. -- many of those countries of origin have harsher immigration laws than the U.S. does.
""Deferred" means that at some point the action will be taken, that the suspension is not open-ended or permanent, only delayed."
Contestant: "I'll take "Lies" for a hundred, Alex."
Alex Trebec: "The Answer is "The Affordable Care Act".
Contestant: "What do Democrats call doubling the cost of healthcare."
As someone who is buried to his neck in illegals here in SoCal, I am applauding this decision. I heard a "dreamer" being interviewed this morning on a hip-hop station (I was moving my daughter's car for the street sweepers) and she was lamenting that ending DACA would mean she would lose her job and would have to start paying for her schooling.
My U.S. citizen daughters have to pay for their schooling, and they don't even get the free or reduced in-state rates that some illegals do!
Nobody but his most ardent fans are going to believe his bullshit when he tries to place the blame on Congress.
Most of Trump’s “fans” already know all about the eGOP-controlled Congress and its continual opposition to Trump. And some of us have read the Constitution and know that Congress and Congress alone has the job of passing legislation. I also think some voters other than “ardent fans” are aware that the present Congress couldn’t find their asses with a map and compass.
Ryan and McConnell have wasted a lot of time and energy trying to foil Trump instead of leading their caucuses to do what they were elected to do and THAT particular mistake may cost them dearly come the 2018 mid-terms. Now they are under a deadline on several legislative fronts such that even a capable Congress would find difficult to meet.
Notice, readers, that even the quoted comment tacitly assumes that the Congress will fail. That assumption seems also to be held by that prominent NeverTrumper, Jonah Goldberg, on today’s Special Report. Goldberg is very angry that Trump has placed his heroes in Congress in jeopardy by Trump insisting that Congress do its legislative duty. Or fail, as the case may be. Goldberg first praises Trump but finishes by trying to blame Trump for Congress’s inevitable failure. View it here at around 2 minutes in. It’s a textbook example of a pundit speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
The discussion seems to boil down to cruelty. language, friends, jobs. The president of Mexico says he'd love to see them return to be the valuable addition to his country that they claim to be to the U.S. and since English is the world's language, used in the school's the language deficit some claim is laughable. and arguably runs in the other direction. Nothing like necessity to drive adaptation. And they must speak some language during their frequent trips home. Then we get to the hard questions. Who are you to deny U.S. dreamers their dreams because that's what will happen when there are fewer jobs and less money for their social safety net. Ok you're broke anyway just borrow some more money from China so she can continue to tell us what to do which will make us all poorer if not cost us our own freedom of action, and ownership of those things that create all of our wealth.
30 million illegal Mexicans in the U.S. is 30 million potentially productive citizens that Mexico does not have. Why does no one address the issue from this perspective? America is, however unintentionally, robbing Mexico of a huge portion of her citizenry and in doing so killing her future as well. To lose so many people of the sort that have the will and determination to better themselves and risk all by leaving their homeland for an uncertain future in a foreign land will no doubt prove ruinous to Mexico. These are the sort of people no country can afford to lose, and certainly not in such huge numbers. I submit that it is immoral of the United States to facilitate, deliberately or no, the flight of so Mexicans from Mexico because of the ruinous effects this will have and has had on that wretched country.
An inconvenient truth:
According to the National Association of Home Builders, more than 56% of America’s developers are reporting labor shortages, which is forcing them to increases wages and improve working conditions to attract new talent.
In fact, according to Ted Wilson of Residential Strategies Inc. construction costs have risen by 30% this year—the majority of which is due to higher wages and increased overtime pay. That is, companies are being forced to hire American workers, and pay wages at fair market value.
Why?
Because President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is preventing them from hiring illegal aliens, who undercut the labor market, shortchanging American workers. The impact of this (while often ignored) is significant.
According to Stan Market, CEO of Texas’ Marek, “half of the workers in construction in Texas are undocumented.”
Why do the Democrats hate American workers so much? Because they want a new electorate where they can go as left as they like and still win.
It is so good to be DREAMER! MY grandmama, she is in Tijuana, and she work oh-so hard for so very liddle...
She get up in the morning, go to work, and she suck the donkey cock, because it is Tijuana and the fat gringoes like to watch the women suck the donkey cock...
She suck the donkey cock in the morning, she suck the donkey cock in the afternoon. Donkey, he gets tired, so they bring in new donkey and she suck the new donkey cock at night...
My mother wanted a better life: she knew as a child that she no wanted to suck the donkey cock. Then she turned sixteen and we needed the money, so she began to suck the donkey cock and it make her so sad...
Now I am in America, and there is no donkey cock sucking for me! I even learn how to say it in English: I NO SUCK THE DONKEY COCK...!
Thank you, America!
I am Laslo.
Laslo, it almost brings tears to my eyes--such a heartwarming story. Makes me think of dreamers in a whole new light.
What about a horse cock? More American, don't you think?
https://www.fantasticoh.com/beep?id=7f4ca788802047de
You people joke, but I once had a grounds person (who had a company w/ more than a dozen folks) who said that in his tiny town in Mexico nobody would have a female donkey because if you did, the men of the town would go to your pasture and rape your donkey.
Apparently you wrap their back legs w/ a belt, and then go to town.
There was some other animal (maybe a pony), that was said to have had very warm internals so that it was dangerous to F it. Only losers would do that.
Anywho, I asked why the men drew the line at normal rape re gal donkeys v sodomizing the dude asses, the Mexican born (but legal now) dude said that that would be gross.
BTW,
Speaking of Tijuana and "Thank you, America!"
Anyone else here had the US gov fly you to San Diego and try to recruit you so hard that they took you to tons of fancy restaurants in SD, and a strip club in Tijuana.
All paid for by Uncle Sam. [Technically, I did cover the hand job.]
Anywho, I've paid it all back a million times over. So I don't feel bad about raising the hopes of a military recruiter w/ eyes on the prize, I'm assuming that most of his interactions re who's playin' whom go the other way.
Normal people are funny.
Who saw Ken Cuccinelli on tv tonight? He was excellent. I saw him live on Fox, then looking for video online, I saw that he had been on CNN where, naturally, a panel and a host and probably several producers tried to work him over.
Cucinelli's basic thesis is that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction of DAPA (another one of Obama's immigration orders), and that appellate decision was left standing by a 4-4 Supreme Court (lacking Scalia). And so a DACA ruling is very likely to be the same, coming out of the same Circuit.
Cuccinelli rightly observes that if you are a DAPA-loving liberal, you ought to appreciate Trump's six-month pause to allow Congress to fix immigration. Because without Trump's intervention, the Republican AG's of several states were going to run the same lawsuit on DACA that they did on DAPA, and within just a few months, they would surely have successfully enjoined DACA.
Here is the Fifth Circuit's opinion and order. It is a beauty, even quoting legal author Bryan Garner (co-author of a couple of the late Justice Scalia's books):
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C15/15-40238-CV0.pdf
From Politico: President Donald Trump’s harsh criticism of immigration programs and Congress’ refusal to lift a cap on work visas meant many seasonal businesses had to hire American this summer — and pay their workers more. That´s good news for Trump, for U.S. workers, and for supporters of Trump´s “American First” agenda, but business groups complain that increased spending on wages will ultimately cost jobs and sap company profits.
Come on people!! The CEO's daughter needs a poneee!
It's almost like Trump is accidentally addressing the issue of income inequality, even though he is a dedicated racist and white supremacist! He's like the Inspector Clouseau of Nazis!
30 million illegal Mexicans in the U.S. is 30 million potentially productive citizens that Mexico does not have. Why does no one address the issue from this perspective? America is, however unintentionally, robbing Mexico of a huge portion of her citizenry and in doing so killing her future as well.
There was a time that Mexico opposed illegal immigration to the U.S. for exactly this reason. In fact there were times that whole villages were empty of men and the older boys and there was no one to work the fields etc. Mexico used to ask the U.S. to round up Mexican illegals and ship them home. I believe Operation Wetback was such a program. Then Mexico realized that if they exported their poor to the U.S., and the illegals sent remittances back to Mexico, they came out way ahead..so you get what we have today....the Mexican government encouraging and helping illegals come to the U.S..
Most illegals send much of their paychecks back to Mexico. According to a CNN report from 2016, "Almost $25 billion flowed last year from the pockets of Mexicans living overseas, almost all of it from the U.S. That's even higher than what Mexico earns from its oil exports."
The first problem is the people who run Mexico are corrupt shitheads.
The second problem is the democrats want to turn the US into Mexico by importing a new electorate.
Going to be fun watching about 5 million people be removed from the voter roles in California.
The chances that the 'Dreamers' will be deported is roughly the same as the chances of a physical wall being built and Mexico paying for it.
@mockturtle, so how do we block -- no, make that how do we confiscate -- those remittances? Seems like the right way to get Mexico to change its mind about illegal immigration, yes?
The chances that the 'Dreamers' will be deported is roughly the same as the chances of a physical wall being built and Mexico paying for it.
You should try explaining that to Brookzene et al. Maybe it will help with their hysteria.
I'm not sure I'm really interested, but who's Roper?
That's not a surprise.
Thomas Moore, Jesus.
Sorry I missed out on this comment thread, which went from zero to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEE!!!!! in record time.
Interesting to note that, for some people, Obama's executive orders are carved in stone, while the Constitution is just some wrinkly old paper to wipe one's bottom upon.
Ohhh, my Grandmama! The owners of the Donkey Show keep giving her donkeys with bigger and bigger donkey cocks. Her jaw, it is so tired, and Grandmama can no longer close her mouth properly...
Can the American people not understand why I want to be here, in America? Why I would want to leave a country that leaves little for women to do except make enchiladas and suck donkey cocks...?
It is so good to be in a country where I do not need to suck donkey cocks just to survive. I am PROUD to work at Starbucks! America!
I am Laslo.
Rusty: Thomas Moore, Jesus.
PoP (Point of Pedantry), Thomas More.
Or maybe the modern spelling is Thomas MOAR.
There need to be emigration reform. An end to Obama's trail of tears from Tripoli to Kiev. And end to Obama's elective social justice adventures that are a first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform. An end to the neo-Democratic Socialist's color diversity schemes that deny individual dignity (e.g. racism). An end to the neo-Nazi's abortion and Planned Parenthood social industrial complex that denies millions of lives globally that have been deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable (e.g. clinical cannibalism, female taxable commodities, Democratic leverage). An end to redistributive change because the "Jews" have too much, including DACA that is a progressive exploitation of American taxpayers, replaces American workers and depresses wages, assures unaffordable and unavailable health care to millions of Americans who fall in the Obamacare gap, and increases classroom sizes to reduce the quality of education and other community services available to American children. The diverse causes of mass emigration from second and third-world nations need to be front and center in international and domestic venues. The rise of global left-wing anti-nativism is a clear and progressive threat to human and civil rights of unPlanned men, women, children, and babies everywhere.
""Almost $25 billion flowed last year from the pockets of Mexicans living overseas, almost all of it from the U.S. That's even higher than what Mexico earns from its oil exports.""
And cronies in the Mexican government skim that.
"[T]he Mexican government encouraging and helping illegals come to the U.S."
-- The worst part is, I don't think they care *who* suffers on the attempt to get people into the United States. Getting people out lowers the number of poor they have, and also potentially removes people who might become dissatisfied/desperate enough to join a cartel, gang or just general group of criminals.
If their paychecks go back to Mexico, how is it that they are such a boon to the economy? All it really does is force our low skill workers to compete with cheap imports where the cash goes overseas instead of back into the US economy same as small manufacturers of low tech items faced.
The worst part is, I don't think they care *who* suffers on the attempt to get people into the United States. Getting people out lowers the number of poor they have
They get less income inequality and we get more! It's win win. The main problem for the Democrats is that the US doesn't produce enough of the poverty for which they have the "cure," so they need to import it.
Sunsong, you daffy old bleeding heart, you had me at Peter Daou!
I care. You care. We all care.
The only way towards progress is becoming more morally pure and to use caring against evil.
If we can't kill fascism by beating it to death, then we must undermine the laws and build Rafts Of Caring out of oil platforms, football stadiums, government bureaus and universities.
I pledge to Care for The People oppressed by the old, rotten system, and to implement the knowledge that will bring Equality, Peace, and Tolerance to mankind.
YARRGHH!
Big Mike asks: @mockturtle, so how do we block -- no, make that how do we confiscate -- those remittances? Seems like the right way to get Mexico to change its mind about illegal immigration, yes?
I would advocate demanding one's immigration status when trying to remit funds to Mexico. No tarjeta verde? No remittance.
It was not so long ago that illegal immigrants were afraid of being discovered and deported. Now they live boldly and openly and, yes, even vote. Until voting registration requires proof of citizenship, this will continue to be the case.
Funny how little consideration the true "dreamers" get.."dreamers" all around the world without the advantage of being near a porous border, respecting their/our laws, waiting in legal processes of immigration.
I want the young nubile DREAMERs from Sweden.
I am Laslo.
Those who are here due to their parents breaking our laws are leveraging "privilege".
A Laslo managed Ellis Island would be very un PC.
"Give us your..."
Chris N @ 8:53
You'll notice that Brookzine isn't volunteering to sponsor any of these people her/him self. No. Their charity only goes so far. They would much rather have us the taxpayer bear the burden and then they can crow about how virtuous they are.
He/she is the worst kind of hypocrite.
Everyone on the Mayflower was an illegal alien.
Oh please..go on with that tired, failed analogy.
No they weren't.
Etienne, your ignorance is appalling. There was no Constitution at the time and no immigration laws.
Worked out great for the Indians.
There was no Constitution at the time and no immigration laws.
Do you have flag?
So how did ignoring the problem work out for the Indians, Etienne?
The reason we learn history is to avoid past mistakes.
Seems almost like Democrats want what happened to the Indians to happen to us.
Etienne said...
There was no Constitution at the time and no immigration laws.
Do you have flag?
Brush up on your history. The Indians the Pilgrims met were themselves strangers to the area. Driven there by more powerful tribes upstream. The land they generously gave to the Pilgrims wasn't theirs and was marginal for agriculture. Had the Pilgrims poised any real threat to the native status quo they could have easily been gotten rid of. It isn't really a good idea to get your knowledge of history from comedians.
Rusty, you quote above was mine, not Etienne's, in response to his assertion that the Mayflower pilgrims were illegal immigrants.
Homo Sapiens were illegal immigrants to Eurasia.
There seems to be an obvious deal to be made here: a permanent, legal DACA of some kind in exchange for fully authorizing and funding the "wall." Of course, there can be no permanent DACA until the wall is actually built, because the Dems will drop their end of the bargain as soon as they get what they want.
Look what happened to the Neanderthals.
Those "dreamers" who have waited for years on legally immigrating must really be historically naive suckers, Etienne.
They need to get with your "we're all illegals" theme and just coyote in or overstay a work VISA...if they can get one.
Just the American way, right?
(or at least drop an anchor baby)
Sorry Mock.
Etienne.
Is english your first language?
You don't seem to comprehend facts.
Let's try again.
Since in 16whatever there was no controlling legal authority in what was to become at a later date Mass. then it was impossible for either party to be "illegal".There was no "law" whatsoevr except those that the parties wished to impose on themselves. You should read something on the subject before passing judgement.
Post a Comment