Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump to Dems: You Want 800k DACA Dreamers to Stay? Then Fund The Wall

Trump to Dems: You Want 800k DACA Dreamers to Stay? Then Fund The Wall

And drop chain migration while you’re at it.

The Democrats hope to push through legislation to protect those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but President Donald Trump made it known today that will not happen unless there is funding for a wall and changes to our immigration system.

From The Washington Post:

Democrats, whiplashed for months by the president’s changing stances on DACA, reacted to the new positions by looking forward to next week’s negotiations with Republican congressional leaders and the White House.

“We’re not going to negotiate through the press and look forward to a serious negotiation at Wednesday’s meeting when we come back,” said Drew Hammill, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s press secretary.

Congress faces another financial situation next month in order to keep the government funded and running. The Democrats have demanded a protection for those in DACA, known as Dreamers, in any funding bill.

In September, Trump came to an agreement with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to amp up border security, but did not provide funding for a wall. It didn’t last long, though, since the White House wanted more in exchange for Dreamer protection.

Trump kicked DACA to Congress where the legislation should happen instead of a memo, which is how this program came to be during President Barack Obama’s administration. From The Washington Examiner:

Since then, Republicans and Democrats have been working to find some sort of legislative “fix” that would prevent all of the immigrants from being deported, but they left town earlier this month without including a DACA deal in a short-term government funding measure. Trump and Republicans have insisted on funding for a wall, but that has been a nonstarter with Democrats.

On December 12, Trump lashed out against the chain migration and visa lottery in our immigration system after a man set off a pipe bomb in the New York City subway. From The Washington Times:

“The first attacker came through the visa lottery and the second through chain migration. We’re going to end both of them,” the president said. “Congress must get involved immediately, and they are involved immediately. We’re going to end them fast.”

The 27-year-old suspect in Monday’s attack had been living in New York for about seven years and came to the U.S. from Bangladesh.

Akayed Ullah reportedly told police he was inspired by the Islamic State terror group.

The Department of Homeland Security said Mr. Ullah was admitted to the U.S. in 2011 on a family immigrant visa, benefitting from so-called “chain migration” that allows immigrants to bring multiple family members to the U.S.

Last week, Professor Jacobson ran a reader poll and asked what you guys think the DACA deal will look like. By two votes, you guys think that the deal will only be temporary legal status.

Leslie noted on December 10 that the border wall prototype testing has begun in the San Diego area. These tests “include how easily someone can go over, under, or through the walls.”

Here are a few of the lovely responses to Trump’s tweets:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Trump kicked DACA to Congress where the legislation should happen instead of a memo, which is how this program came to be during President Barack Obama’s administration.”

No. There’s no need for “new” law OR a “memo”.

The existing laws cover the issue very nicely.

All Donald Duck has to do is enforce the law.

But “there will be amnesty”.

And, according to T-rump’s administration, there will be citizenship.

You can find the testimony before Congress.

    YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    So you can’t produce your lying claim about me. That’s not strange because I did a search of my previous comments along with ‘troll’ and found nothing.

    As for your ‘support’ – I have no memory of you ever supporting me. Even if you did, I shouldn’t lose your alleged ‘support’ if the comment is worthy. I don’t want it based on your ‘badge’ as a contrarian.

    I was amused when someone(s) started claiming I was you under a different screen name. I do have respect for you; although you can be pigheaded as you are with this claim that I admitted to trolling – not that I haven’t been tempted by some of the inane comments that sometimes show up here. But I figure they are just a deranged version of a Greek Chorus.

      Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | December 29, 2017 at 4:17 pm

      I never lie. Your butt-hurt is really sad. You won’t find yourself saying overtly you are a troll. I never suggested that. What you did say was that you were definitively trolling in a moment of pique and candor.

      I have supported contrarians here, including you. But not when you are an admitted troll.

        YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2017 at 10:27 pm

        So I had a moment of pique and candor – according to you. I can’t say that it wouldn’t be a justified reaction to the acolytes of our troll-in-chief. But that is not what you implied in your comment and that makes you a liar.

    ConradCA in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    If we get a legal wall to keep illegals from becomming part of our society then let’s legalize the DACA criminals.

    1) Being an illegal alien is a felony punished by 3 years in prison for first conviction, 9 years on second and 27 on third. If illegals plead guilty on their first offence their punishment will be suspended and they will be deported.

    2) Helping illegals is a felony punished by 3 years for each instance with sentences to be servec consecutively. This includes providing employment, sanctuary, and government assistance.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    For down-thumbers here, I broke my statement down in nice, carefully limited sentences.

    Take your time and state which one or ones with which you disagree.

    All Trump would have to do is make smart arguments that undercut Dem leaders *to their base*. He could make amnesty politically toxic, but he can’t figure out he could do that and his base isn’t pushing him to do it.

    Instead, they want to trade amnesty for a Wall and other changes. What would happen in this case is exactly what happened in Reagan’s case: we’d get all of the amnesty and little of the enforcement. When Trump’s out of office, it’ll be incredibly easy for Dem leaders and many GOP leaders to roll back their promises. If the next president is a Dem, it’s easy to see her going to the border and making a big show of starting to “tear down this wall!” What little of Trump Wall is ever built doesn’t even have to be torn down: Congress could just barely fund its upkeep.

    Because they refuse to accept reality, MAGA is in effect helping Pelosi and Schumer get one of the things they most want.

    There has to be a change in the law if anyone wants the DACA registrants to remain in this country, legally, past the expiration date of their individual hold periods. Otherwise, they WILL be deported.

    Now, DJT Is following the law. He has rescinded the DACA program and no new registrants will be accepted and no hold periods will be extended. He has promised that deportations will start shortly after the first hold expires in March of 2018.

    Also, as the chief executive officer of the United states, Trump has the power to prioritize the the use of his law enforcement assets. In that regard, he is free to give DACA registrants a lower priority for deportation.

    Finally, Trump’s decision to defer deportation action until the existing deportation hold periods expire is both good sense and good politics. The DACA registrants identified themselves in a good faith response to Obama;s DACA program. That Obama had no Constitutional authority to set up and operate such a program is irrelevant. If Trump went out and started to round up all the DACA applicants and deport them, that action would come to a screaming halt as soon as an attorney could get to a federal judge. And, it would languish for months if not years. Trump’s current actions force the DACA recipients to argue that the program was legal. And, that they can not do. So, it will be difficult for any judge to stop deportations of DACA registrants when their individual holding periods expire.

    Whether Trump wants the DACA registrants to be granted amnesty and be allowed to remain in this country legally, is moot. The power to do that rests with the Congress, not the President. If the Congress, as the representatives of the people, decides to legalize the status of the DACA registrants, that is within their power to do. And Trump will honor that decision, IF the border wall is funded AND chain immigration is eliminated. Now this is pretty cagey. It forces the Democrats to do two things that they really do not want to do. And, either may be a deal breaker for them. Even if the Republicans are the only ones who vote to legalize the DACA registrants, they have to eliminate chain migration and find a way to fund the border wall or he could, and likely would, veto the bill. And, the Republicans do not have enough votes to overturn the veto on their own and, even if they did, it is unlikely that they would chance the backlash, from their constituents, that such an action would produce.

    No matter what happens, Trump comes out smelling like a rose.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 6:23 pm

      Another of your steaming, gassy piles of bullshit.

      Substitute “Obama” for “T-rump” and see how it sells.

      Conservatives in Congress should block T-rump’s amnesty, and put it right back in his tiny lil’ hands to deal with as the law demands.

        Watching you attempt to perform is really tragic. it is like watching a train wreck and knowing that there is nothing you can do to stop it.

        Rags, my man, the Congress can simply do what it has done for the last two decades, nothing. Then, it will not be accused of granting amnesty to DACA registrants. And, as we know, Trump can not grant the DACA registrants continuing legal status.

        Now, what Trump has done is put pressure on both the Republicans and the Democrats to fund the wall. If it does not get funded, it will be the fault of Congress, not trump. Sop, trump throws out a deal. He’ll sign DACA registrant legalization [aka amnesty] IF the Congress funds the wall and ends the current chain immigration provisions of the law. Except for you, which do you think the rest of the populous would be in favor of, deporting DACA registrants or building the wall and ending chain immigration?

        This is all about politics, Rags. It is messy and dirty and, just like making sausages, no one really wants to have to watch it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 8:36 pm

          “Except for you, which do you think the rest of the populous would be in favor of, deporting DACA registrants or building the wall and ending chain immigration?”

          Well, the polling says that “the rest of the population” wants DREAMERS to stay, doesn’t give a good shit about “the wall”, and don’t know what chain immigration is. So, I kinda doubt you speak for them.

          Now, me, I’d like a good, sensible barrier on our southern border (have for a decade or two), would like the illegals of all kinds deported (no special treatment), the legal immigration process de-kludged, and an end to chain immigration, anchor babies, and the lottery.

          That is, however a distinct minority position, even in the White House. IF you’re being honest.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 9:18 pm

          Soooo, it sounds as though you are in agreement with the Preident’s agenda in this area 100%. He wants a wall, you want a wall. He wants uniform enforcement of immigration laws and you want uniform enforcement laws. He wants to end chain migration and so do you. He has expressed a desire to eliminate anchor baby exceptions for immigrants and so do you. He wants to end the lottery and so do you.

          Now, I’m really confused here. Exactly what are you complaining about again?

          dunce1239 in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2017 at 3:41 pm

          Trump saved over $200 million by cutting funding to the UN and another plus $200 million on Pakistan military aid. If he can shift those funds to the wall along with other cuts we will have a wall and some ingrates rethinking their behaviors.

    If there were testimony, you’d produce it.

    Occam’s Razor: you’re lying again.

      Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | December 29, 2017 at 7:47 pm

      I said you can find it.

      Did you try? I mean before being a punk-assed bitch here?

        If you really want to prove your point about a topic, it is on you to provide the links to primary documentation.

        Otherwise, it is just a snipe hunt.

          Ragspierre in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 8:23 pm

          I like to have people do their own intellectual, and show their own honesty in so doing.

          But here, for you… http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/10/03/dhs-official-donald-trump-wants-daca-illegals-get-amnesty-become-citizens/

          Now, with a little work you’ll find the video of the Senate testimony.

          Of course, Donald Ducks was tripping over himself to counter that outbreak of candor.

          He lies, you know…

          Barry in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 8:30 pm

          Snip:

          “Under what conditions does the president believe they should be allowed to stay?” Kennedy asked.

          “I don’t have those details for you, sir,” replied Dougherty.

          Ragspierre in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 8:40 pm

          “Under a rational bill, these [DACA] individuals would be able to become lawful permanent residents with a pathway to citizenship,” Michael Dougherty, the assistant secretary for border, immigration and trade policy, told GOP Sen. John Kennedy during a Tuesday hearing of the Senate judiciary committee.

          The statement reflected Trump’s turnabout since his election campaign when he promised to send all illegals homewards, including the 800,000 younger illegals who got work permits via former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty.

          However, Dougherty declined to provide Kennedy with any guidance about what security measures, border-wall improvements or immigration reforms must be packaged to create a “rational” amnesty for the younger illegals, whose numbers include roughly 3.3 million of the approximately 12 million illegals residing in the United States.

          “So the president believes they should be allowed to stay,” Kennedy asked Dougherty, 92 minutes into the hearing.

          “The president, yes, would like to work with Congress to get a solution,” Dougherty answered the Lousiana Senator.

          “Under what conditions does the president believe they should be allowed to stay?” Kennedy asked.

          “I don’t have those details for you, sir,” replied Dougherty.

          Lying sacks of shit will lie. Shittily.

          Barry in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 8:54 pm

          Ragspee:
          “Of course, Donald Ducks was tripping over himself to counter that outbreak of candor. ”

          Actual Whitehouse Statement, just hours after:

          “Mr. Dougherty was not stating administration policy or the President’s views,” said Tyler Q. Houlton, the DHS deputy press secretary. “The White House will be issuing its priorities for immigration reform in the coming week.”

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-senate/trump-administration-backpedals-on-citizenship-for-dreamers-idUSKCN1C82DV

          You are however correct in your original assertion that it is reported a member from the administration said what you claimed. That is a brietbart quote, precise wording is not found in other places, but might be correct.

          It does not reflect anything else however as can be seen by the immediate WH response.

          Does Trump want a deal with DACA? Certainly. Just not the sell out you try to pretend it to be.

          Ragspierre in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm

          Let’s watch and see…

          Barry in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 9:34 pm

          “Now, with a little work you’ll find the video of the Senate testimony.”
          Yes, apparently you didn’t listen.

          Brietbart selectively edited Mr. Dougherty’s words, leaving out the first part of the sentence
          They would probably be permitted under a rational bill,…”

          https://www.c-span.org/video/?435059-1/trump-administration-officials-testify-decision-rescind-daca

          the exchange between Mr. Kennedy and Dougherty begins about 1:14:00

          It’s clear that Mr. Dougherty is not giving the Trump / administration position, very clear. As you will see in the aftermath of that sentence.

          Ragspierre in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 9:55 pm

          Some months ago, I watched the whole thing.

          Watch the part where he and Graham are going back and forth.

          What he thinks will happen is VERY clear.

          Barry in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 10:07 pm

          I’ll agree with Mac45’s 9:18, you’ll likely get precisely what you want.

          With the exception of ALL illegals being deported. Which you have said in the past you did not want, it was impossible, etc. You want them to self deport, remember?

          Why is it a problem?

          Ragspierre in reply to Liz. | December 30, 2017 at 8:19 am

          Deported is deported. Self-deportation is FAR the better method.

          Motivate them to leave, and they will.

          Barry in reply to Liz. | December 31, 2017 at 2:34 pm

          “Self-deportation is FAR the better method.”

          I have no argument with that. Expecting the R controlled congress to enact legislation such as E verify to facilitate the “self deportation” is a pipe dream I’m afraid.

        Find it? But you should be able to do that immediately since you made the statement.

        Just another Ragspee lie.

By all means lets play politics with those who are enculturated in our way of life, stayed out of trouble, educated themselves or joined the military. This from a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

    redc1c4 in reply to YellowSnake. | December 29, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    LOL… their first act on American soil was to break our laws.

    round them up and throw them out.

    deport ALL illegals now!

      Tom Servo in reply to redc1c4. | December 29, 2017 at 4:06 pm

      Leftists couldn’t care less about any of the actual people who would be subject to DACA; Leftists only want amnesty in the hope that all of these subjects would get instant citizenship and the vote, leading to more power for them. So it’s politics all the way round, but of course the Leftists preach like everything they want is some High Moral Imperative.

      YellowSnake in reply to redc1c4. | December 29, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      A 5 year old cannot form the intent to break our laws.

        Tom Servo in reply to YellowSnake. | December 29, 2017 at 4:18 pm

        Clearly you’re no attorney, since you do not understand that while mens rea is required for many crimes, especially any that would result in potential jail time, is it NOT required for any “strict liability” offenses, which includes most civil infractions.

        Being in this country illegally is a strict liability civil infraction, the consequence of which is deportation to the offenders country of citizenship.

        Speeding on a highway where you didn’t see the speed limit sign will still get you a ticket, even if you didn’t intend to violate any law.

        As every single day spent in the US, in violation of its laws, is another violation of the law, the defense that a person was only 5 YOA, when he entered the country, does not apply to all of the times that a 20-25-30-35 year old continued to violate the law by remaining in the US in violation of its laws. Sorry.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 6:34 pm

          …and every single day that T-rump fails in his duty to enforce and law and push for amnesty is a violation of his promise to act “immediately” in his inaugural speech, and his oath of office.

          No matter how much bullshit you slather over it.

          SDN in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 7:27 pm

          Rags can set all the unrealistic conditions he wants… those of us outside the asylum can prove that Trump has done what he promised.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 8:20 pm

          Yah? Go ahead. Prove that Der Donald IMMEDIATELY ended the Barracula affront to the Constitution.

          Because he hasn’t to this day. Occam’s razor says you’r a lying SOS.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 8:31 pm

          Rags, you really have to stop playing with the unicorn and come back to the real world.

          Trump has his own agenda and his own timeline. If you wanted to be President and do things YOUR way, you should have run for the office. So far, little or nothing, that Trump has done, seems to be upsetting most of his supporters. You are far more worried about what you are afraid he’ll do than what he has done. Why don’t we wait to see what happens before we start foaming at the mouth and screaming that the sky is falling. After all, the economy is better. My investments are up. The oppressive Obama years are being rolled back. I will actually get to keep more of my own money under the new tax plan. And, you are shining that 800,000 illegal aliens, who are known to the government, MIGHT be given legal status BY THE CONGRESS. If you really want the Congress to leave the status quo alone, I suggest that you contact your representative and Ted Cruz. It is now up to them to handle the quandary which the Obama administration created.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 8:43 pm

          In the world of reality, when people make a promise in something like an inaugural address which is very specific and emphatic, they’d better by gawd mean it.

          But you may like liars better than I do.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 9:21 pm

          Sorry, Rags, but in the REAL world NO ONE keeps all of their promises in the exact manner that they say that they will. And, especially not people in politics. You are being unrealistic. By the way, what is the unicorn’s name?

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 29, 2017 at 9:25 pm

          It’s a jack-ass. His name is Mac45.

          Typical of you not to know a unicorn from a jack-ass. Or your ass from a cypress stump.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2017 at 11:19 am

          OH, YEAH?

          LOL. I know, I know, its cruel. But I just culdn’t help myself.

          Happy New Year, y’all.

          Mac.

    ConradCA in reply to YellowSnake. | December 29, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Every second they live in the USA is a new crime. They are criminals who should be kicked out of the country.

    Jack Klompus in reply to YellowSnake. | December 29, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    You’re such a pathetic tool.

ah yes… “hot takes” from the room temp brigade.

what would LI be without them?

1. Set trap.

2. Bait with a nice succulent piece of cheese.

3. Wait. The vermin will be along shortly; they can’t help themselves.

Really, not difficult at all, once you witness it in action.

Democrats, whiplashed for months by the president’s changing stances on DACA

It certainly helps when your opponents are so very, very stupid. The President’s stance hasn’t changed at all. He doesn’t rush to correct anyone who thinks it has, though. The best traps are the ones you let your opponents construct around themselves.

I suspect that unimaginative people see the Presiden’t tweets—which is how he shows the cards he wants us to see—and fancy that they’ve seen all the cards he’s holding. Hahaha … In his previous incarnation as a casino magnate, I imagine Trump made gobs of money off people like that.

Trump came to an agreement with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer … Trump and Republicans have insisted on funding for a wall, but that has been a nonstarter with Democrats.

Pelosi’s brain is dissolving. Schumer isn’t entirely stupid, but his Totem Animal is the weasel. He’ll eventually go along with Trump, because he won’t be left any palatable alternative. But he’ll pretend to be happy with it; all he has to do is come up with a new name for it, so he can pretend that it’s something else. In other words, Standard Operating Procedure.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom_swift. | December 29, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    “In his previous incarnation as a casino magnate, I imagine Trump made gobs of money off people like that.”

    Obviously not. He made money by cheating his business associates, stiffing his creditors, and violating bankruptcy law. He went bust as a “casino magnate”. Several times.

      Which means he is well suited for politics.

      It is a game for him and he likes winning, like all of the scum politicians. If I likened this to a legal action against me, I want my lawyer to win. I could give two fucks about his ethics because at the end of the day the case may or may not be moral, and I have to live with it’s repercussions.

      More prog bullshit from Ragspee.

      Support your “violating bankruptcy law” claim.

      You won’t.

    If Trump’s a Super Secret Double Plus Genius Playing 12th Dimensional Chess, why can’t he figure out things he could say that’d undercut Pelosi etc to their base?

    For instance, Liz Warren is very pro-corporate on immigration. Her base thinks she’s anti-corporate. Trump could speak directly to her base and work to wise them up. Trump could point out her policies would help those she claims to oppose. He could disaffect enough of her base that she’d really feel it *and* it would send a message to others.

    What did Trump do instead?

      PersonFromPorlock in reply to 24AheadDotCom. | December 29, 2017 at 6:25 pm

      “…why can’t he figure out things he could say that’d undercut Pelosi etc to their base?why can’t he figure out things he could say that’d undercut Pelosi etc to their base?”

      Trump isn’t fighting the Democrats, he’s making them fight him.

        You or tom_swift didn’t answer my question. Instead of helping reduce the possibility of amnesty by using it against Liz Warren, what did Trump do instead?

        I’m interested in issues, not parties. I want someone who uses smart anti-amnesty arguments that aren’t just targeted to the Breitbart crowd (which doesn’t matter, since they already mostly oppose it). What’s needed is to make arguments that undercut Liz Warren etc to their base. So far, that’s completely off Trump’s radar.

          tom_swift in reply to 24AheadDotCom. | December 29, 2017 at 11:19 pm

          What did Trump do instead?

          So, you figure the President should waste his heavy firepower on a trivial target like Warren? That doesn’t strike me as terribly smart.

          The problem is a country with a huge batch of illegals. Criminals. Congress—consisting of both parties—is one of the tools needed to address this problem. Congress—and a voting majority—are Trump’s targets; the only target which can be useful. Warren by herself is just noise. And her “base” is only of importance on election day.

There is a difference between DACA and Dreamers. DACA refers to the Obama memo which had specific qualifications.

“You may request DACA if you:

Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.”
https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

Dreamers covers a larger group of people since there are no specific dates mentioned of arriving or being in the US.

“The Dream Act would allow these young people to earn lawful permanent residence and eventually American citizenship if they:

Are longtime residents who came to the U.S. as children;
Graduate from high school or obtain a GED;
Pursue higher education, work lawfully for at least three years, or serve in the military;
Pass security and law enforcement background checks and pay a reasonable application fee;
Demonstrate proficiency in the English language and a knowledge of United States history; and
Have not committed a felony or other serious crimes and do not pose a threat to our country.
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/7/graham-durbin-introduce-bipartisan-dream-act-to-give-immigrant-students-a-path-to-citizenship

    MarkS in reply to Liz. | December 29, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    Please knock off the “speak English” bullshit! Just who is gonna quiz these “dreamers” on their as yet unspecified level of proficiency in speaking and comprehending English? And how and who is going to determine who poses a threat to this country? I refer you to the FBI so called investigation of the Boston Marathon Bombers and the Orlando night club shooter, not to mention the wife of the San Bernardino shooter who was supposedly vetted by the best this country has.

      Liz in reply to MarkS. | December 29, 2017 at 7:46 pm

      I am not the author of those quotes. The DACA quote is from a government website defining who is in the DACA group – it is limited in number since there is an age and date criteria.

      The Dreamers quote is the language of Graham and Durbin, not mine. There is no definition of time in this summary, but one could assume that far more people would be eligible or at least claim to be eligible for this program.

      Please note that many people use the terms as if they mean the same thing. See the title of this post as an example. And it is important that people are aware of the difference as well as the number that is being discussed. Most stories list 800,000 as the DACA number, but the Dreamers number would be substantially larger and has not really been defined.

      You raise very good points about verification of eligibility.

      As a first generation Latvian-American, I regret that I do not know the languages that my mother knew (Latvian, Russian, German). She did know English when she met & married my father in Germany and eventually came to America. She did not teach her languages to her children since she was proud to become an American. At no point in time did her relatives expect to be accepted as American immigrants.

      If I remember correctly, my dad had to get permission from the Army to marry my mother. My uncle also married an European (Dutch) and my cousins do not know any of their mom’s languages. But, it was a different generation.

It would not surprise me if President Trump played Lucy to Congresses Charlie Brown and pulled the whole football away just when both sides (Congressional Left/Congressional Right) think they have a deal. All he has to do is let the order expire.

I could see Prezzy Trump step in and say “unacceptable to my base”, veto it and make the Congressional left and RINOs run on DREAMER amnesty in the fall after a 2nd year of the MAGA economy. Voters and their pocketbooks will choose the path of Trump.

    Since Trump has repeatedly hinted at legalizing large numbers of illegal aliens (his first plan was touchback: they go home and come right back), I don’t see that happening. But, let’s say that’s his plan. Why choose such a perilous, Rube Goldberg way to stop amnesty when he could stop it simply by making smart arguments?

    For instance, Trump could correctly point out MX needs the DREAMers more. He could point out that every good thing the Dems and MSM say about them reflects badly on the Dems and the MSM: they want to deprive Mexico of the people they praise. Those are simple things Trump could do just in one tweet. Why isn’t he doing that?

      tom_swift in reply to 24AheadDotCom. | December 29, 2017 at 8:39 pm

      Just at a wild guess … he’s not doing that because it’s irrelevant. DACA/Dreamers’ practical utility to Mexico—or anyplace else other than the US—isn’t on anyone’s radar. Not even Mexico’s.

      The Dems want the illegals here because of their cherished dream of someday using a little bit of legislative sleight-of-hand to magically transform them into legal voters. Reliably Democratic voters. That won’t work if they’re sent back to Mexico, or China, or Cambodia, or wherever.

      No logical—or, for that matter, illogical—argument about the virtues of life in Mexico have anything at all to do with the situation. Therefore they can have absolutely no effect on the political processes at work here.

Want DACA? Then:

1. No citizenship, ever, for DACA kiddies
2. Build that wall
3. End chain migration
4. End immigration lottery
5. End birthright citizenship
6. End sanctuary cities
7. Deport. Deport. Deport.

Well, I can dream.

    ConradCA in reply to MTED. | December 29, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    No welfare for non-citizens.
    Being an illegal or helpin them are federal felonies.

      Close The Fed in reply to ConradCA. | December 29, 2017 at 8:07 pm

      Re: ConradCA:

      The problem is all those illegal aliens have medicaid-paid-for anchor babies, who as “American citizens” qualify for all manner of welfare.

      Illegals get it one way or another.

Self deportation is pure fantasy. If i were in the country illegally, i would fight being returned to one of those Latin hell holes with all my might.

    Well, except that it’s documented as happening once Obama tanked the economy.

    “…i would fight being returned to one of those Latin hell holes with all my might.”

    Well, yeah, but then you’re not from one. Different story when your friends, family, loyalties are there and you cannot get a job here.

    They’ll go home when they become unwelcome here.

As undesirable as it may be, allowing the 880,000 DACA’s to remain in the US would be a Godsend IF it would end all chain migration! That one issue saddles the US taxpayer with lifelong debt to these uneducated, unskilled people who will be on the government dole for the rest of their lives. The DACA crowd is being portrayed as some homogenous body of very bright well spoken young people when nothing could be further from the truth. Just a little over 50% can even speak English and most did not graduate from high school. There are only 900 presently serving in the US military so their sense of patriotism isn’t very high. There is a considerable amount in prison and would probably be many more except for sanctuary cities.
As usual, the Dems are hyping their status to make anyone opposing the amnesty ploy as heartless. The “No wall-No DACA” meme looks a lot like Reagan’s deal with the devil in the ’80’s where he was promised border security for amnesty for the illegals that were here at the time. They got amnesty and he got the shaft! While one side will take many years of construction and funding to complete, the other is a stroke of a pen. Guess which one will be the winner?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend