Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What will 2018 DACA deal look like? (Reader Poll)

What will 2018 DACA deal look like? (Reader Poll)

Assume there will be a Deal: Temporary legal status? Permanent legal status? Pathway to citizenship?

When Donald Trump announced a phased-out end to Obama’s illegal DACA program, which made an executive branch end round around the Constitution and Congress, Trump made clear he wanted Congress to pass legislation dealing with the problem.

The problem is an unknown number, frequently put at 800,000 or so, of persons who were brought to the country illegally by their parents as children. Many of those children are no longer children and are in college or beyond. If DACA runs out in March, on its current schedule, they will be subject to deportation.

DACA is a big deal to the Democrat base, particularly on campuses, which wants Democrat Senators to refuse a budget arrangement unless it includes a DACA fix. That fight has been kicked off until next year, but with the current continuing resolution running out January 19, the fight is almost upon us.

Politico reports that Republican and Democrat Senators have met at the White House to try to work out a deal. The Daily Caller reports that the progressive activists “raged” at Democrat Senators over the delay.

Trump wants a DACA deal, the question is what he will require in return. Passing the Tax Reform bill gives Trump a win that will make it more difficult for Democrats to shut down the government over DACA, so Trump can afford to play tough. Wall funding? Did you way Wall funding?

Remember, the Gang of 8 Senators are all still in the Senate, so there is a majority of Senators (all Democrats plus a handful of Republicans) who would love to include a full amnesty (legalization plus pathway to citizenship). Trump doesn’t need all Republicans to pass a DACA amnesty.

Assuming there is a DACA Deal struck in January or early next year, what do you think it will look like? Temporary legal status? Permanent legal status? Pathway to citizenship?

The poll does not ask if you WANT a DACA deal or what you WANT it to look like. It only asks what you think it will look like assuming there is a deal. (Get it? This isn’t a poll of what you want to happen, it’s a poll of what you think will happen.)

The poll will be open until noon (Pacific Time) on Tuesday, December 26.

[Poll will not load if you do not have javascript enabled]


DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It doesn’t matter what the deal is if no one enforces it.

    AmandaFitz in reply to labrat. | December 23, 2017 at 7:23 am

    I suggest EVERY REPUBLICAN read Daniel Hannan’s book, “Inventing Freedom,” BEFORE constructing a DACA deal, and listen to Rush Limbaugh’s answer to a caller yesterday, towards the end of his show, about how illegal immigration and chain migration has damaged the values and traditions of this country.

It would be interesting to trade DACA for voter ID and a wall.
Plus welfare ID and such. In other words, remove all incentives for illegals.

    rdmdawg in reply to Petrushka. | December 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Yeah, would be nice. Remember though that these deals can change swiftly.

    During the debate over Simpson-Mazzoli, it was agreed that amnesty recipients would not be allowed to vote, but few months later, some federal judge came along and decided that all the amnesty recipients are eligible to vote.

    MattMusson in reply to Petrushka. | December 23, 2017 at 8:36 am

    It is important to remember than any deal can be changed after all those people are made legal. The Dems can promise everything you ask for – no chain migration, no voting rights, no welfare. But, next year a Democrat Judge can say all those things must be added. Then, Congress can stand around doing nothing, but off the hook.

    alaskabob in reply to Petrushka. | December 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    Nothing Congress can do can be undone… as with amnesty ’86.

I am not totally opposed to a DACA deal as long as

1. It applies only to those DACA recipients who have already applied for and been granted a waiver or were too young to do so but present in the US on the day the deal is passed.

2. No amnesty of any kind issues to the parents of DACA recipients

3. No chain migration is allowed to relatives of DACA recipients. EVER.

    94Corvette in reply to Granny. | December 22, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    And for consideration of amnesty, any DACA applicant MUST have applied during the initial period and have paid the annual fee, no waivers. If they didn’t pay the fee, sorry Charlie, you didn’t keep your part of the deal and out you go.

    sidwhite in reply to Granny. | December 22, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    no citizenship under this program non reportable status only. Acceptance of this is prohibition of future citizenship. NO one covered who entered after Obama’s first DACA EO.

    All taxed some % regardless of tax table minimum earnings.

    katiejane in reply to Granny. | December 22, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    I could begrudgingly accept your position but I am too cynical to believe it will ever be that way.

    Even if it started out that way the SJWs will cry about how unfair it is to make these “innocent children” second class citizens. Then we will see constant drumbeat of how the GOP hates brown people and our wimps in Congress will fold and within a few years we will be looking at full fledged amnesty with the grown-up DACA members and their extended families on our welfare rolls and on the fast track to citizenship. As for any payment of fines/taxes who actually thinks most of the illegal immigrants are going to be in any financial position to pay that>

    ConradCA in reply to Granny. | December 22, 2017 at 11:55 pm

    I could support it also as long as it included comprehensive immigration reform. This means being an illegal alien is felony, helping illegal aliens avoid deportation is a felony and providing government aid to illegals is a felony.

    Edward in reply to Granny. | December 26, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    The problem with your trying to be “reasonable” is there will be any number of Black Robed Masters (AKA Federal Judges) who will take it as a personal point of pride to over-rule every one of the limitations you would place on any deal. The only thing they can’t declare “unconstitutional” is a lack of anything changing their status from Illegal Alien to any sort of permanent residency – and some on the Left coast might try.

Listen up people.

Granny knows best.

This group deserves some of our sympathies but some of their recent actions suggest that they are already hardcore leftists. The signs that they hold at every press bash they attend are very demanding and hateful towards Americans. There is a lot of entitlement in their attitude and words with no room for negotiations. It is basically “Our way or no way”. Only a very small portion of them speak English and an even smaller portion have graduated college. That means that most will be wards of the government, taxpayers, for the rest of their lives. I think some form of green card with no amnesty route would be fine but I also think that some form of welfare dependency should be precluded to prevent them from living off of the state forever. Learn English, get educated and get a job. Those should be the requirements for them to stay.

    “Learn English, get educated and get a job.”

    And compete with Americans already here for jobs? I just see no benefit to us for granting amnesty to any of these people.

    Other than that, I agree entirely with your post. How did we become obligated to these illegal aliens?

    herm2416 in reply to inspectorudy. | December 23, 2017 at 9:32 am

    No, no sympathy. Because, at what point is the line drawn between sympathy, no sympathy? It would be subjective, to say the least. Why is one person deserving, the other not? A broken law is a broken law, regardless of how one arrived here. Many of these DACA recipients are adults. They could have applied for citizenship, and wilfully chose not to do so.

Any deal should contain the following provision: there will be NO pathway to citizenship if it can be shown that you ever voted illegally. Immigrants who accept whatever deal would agree that future illegal voting or committing any felony that would prevent you from owning a gun would be cause for immediate deportation.

As a “white Hispanic,” legal immigrant and a U.S. citizen, my position is”: If you came here, or were brought here, outside the bounds of the law, you get to go home.

Yes, it is tragic that you must be repatriated to the country you love more than the United Sates of America, but the rule of law TRUMPS your demand to remain in a country you claim to hate. Your disdain for our culture, your racism toward “gringos” and your arrogant refusal to assimilate should be your heartfelt motivations for returning to your homeland. Please feel free to fix your own third-world Country’s problems. Don’t think for a minute that we need to have you import them to our shores.

    Paul in reply to bear. | December 23, 2017 at 9:52 am

    You assume all of these people hate the USA, but I think it’s a very small minority of them that do. I know a guy that’s a ‘dreamer’ and he loves America and is scared to death of being sent back to Mexico, a country he left at the age of eight. He works, pays taxes, has learned to speak English and moved his family specifically to ensure his kids were immersed in a fully English speaking school. This is a hard topic for me because at a macro level I believe in the rule of law and that illegal immigration is a net negative for our society, but on a personal level I’m rooting for this guy to get to stay here. He’d be happy just to be able to stay and work and raise his kids.

      tom_swift in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2017 at 10:15 am

      Sure. And I know at least one Muslim immigrant who isn’t a homicidal maniac, and a beloved country veterinarian and fine American who immigrated after wasting his formative years in the Hitler Youth.

      None of which has all that much to do with national policy. It can’t; any policy shaped by individual exceptions wouldn’t be a national policy at all.

      rabidfox in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2017 at 4:16 pm

      Has he applied for citizenship?

I’m none too sure any “deal” at all is on the way.

The Dems are uninterested in anything which isn’t full voting citizenship. Their idea of compromise is how much chain immigration would be allowed, but since they have no intention of enforcing any immigration laws once—in some dismal future—they regain control, the details aren’t too important.

Since to anyone else, including the wretched Republicans, this Dem position is an extreme one, no “compromise” is very attractive. So I think the Dems have to hold out, and in the end will get nothing. And Congress will end up doing what it does best—make lots of noise but actually do nothing substantive. And that puts President Trump in the clear; when he’s accused of a draconian Obamaesque power-grab, he can truthfully point out that he tossed the whole problem to Congress, where it belongs.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to tom_swift. | December 23, 2017 at 4:09 am

    The Republican version of compromise will be abject surrender to the most extreme position. And it will mean the end of the Republican wing of the UniParty.

Paul In Sweden | December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm

There was a release of federal crime statistics yesterday that Tucker & Gorka touched on yesterday. I think the case for DACA once the crime statistics are disseminated will be greatly diminished.

The DACA illegals are far from the educated, employed and law abiding group the Obama administration and the leftists have been falsely claiming. The case for non-DACA illegals is even worse.

Always distinguish between immigrants and illegal immigrants and DACA illegals are still illegal immigrants.

I still remember my arguments just prior to RR’s amnesty so until I see the immigration law and border enforcement from that do not even talk to me about DACA and poor illegals and you can’t ship them all back home. I have heard this all before a long time ago. Tell it to the #GruberStupid

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | December 23, 2017 at 11:57 am

    Alien Incarceration Report Fiscal Year 2017, Quarter 4
    Summary of Findings

    A total of 58,766 known or suspected aliens were in in DOJ custody at the end of FY 2017, including 39,455 persons in BOP custody and 19,311 in USMS custody.

    Of this total, 37,557 people had been confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be aliens (i.e., non-citizens and non-nationals), while 21,209 foreign-born people were still under investigation by ICE to determine alienage.

    Among the 37,557 confirmed aliens, 35,334 people (94 percent) were unlawfully present. These numbers include a 92 percent unlawful rate among 24,476 confirmed aliens in BOP custody and a 97 percent unlawful rate among 13,081 confirmed aliens in USMS custody.

    https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | December 23, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    S. 1615 Dream Act of 2017

    December 15, 2017

    CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting S. 1615 would increase direct spending by $26.8 billion over the 2018-2027 period. Over that same period, CBO and JCT estimate that the bill would increase revenues, on net, by $0.9 billion—a decline in on-budget revenues of $4.3 billion and an increase in off-budget revenues of $5.3 billion.

    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/s1615.pdf

    Do the associated costs by any legislation relating to Amnesty require more than a simple majority vote? If so that will be a really hard sell. We can only imagine all the pork and lipstick on that bill to get it through congress but the voters are going to be watching and they are going to freak.

    Trump needs to stick to The Wall, e-verify, enforcement, elimination of chain migration, anchor babies & sanctuary cities as a minimum prior to considering anything or else VETO.

The problem is in second and third-world nations. The solution is not immigration reform, but rather emigration reform. Also, less social justice (e.g. elective wars) that open abortion fields, celebrates [class] diversity (e.g. racism), and practice redistributive people.

Pretty simple for President Trump’s negotiating stance

1. They would have been deportable before Obama’s illegally assuming legislative powers.

2. They are deportable today.

3. Recognize that they were brought here by their parents and had no opportunity to object if under 18.

4. Grant them legal status, not citizenship as long as they don’t commit one felony; graduate (or have graduated from High School – or joined the American Military); don’t rely on American welfare programs including SNAP and food stamps; if they miss any of these objectives, out they go;

5. Give them a path to citizenship if they meet all of the above minimal requirements;

6. Fund and support the Border Wall and pass legislation that Mexico pay for it;

7. Pass legislation that ends chain migration and substitutes migration based on merit that enhances American civilization and the American economy.

8 (Optional) Send Jorge Ramos back to Mexico and Linda Sarsour to Palestine forever.

    I do approve of #8…

    tom_swift in reply to Vladtheimp. | December 22, 2017 at 11:52 pm

    You left out …

    9. Watch Lucy jerk the football out from in front of Charlie Brown again.

    rdmdawg in reply to Vladtheimp. | December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am

    “3 Recognize that they were brought here by their parents and had no opportunity to object if under 18.”

    Very well. What about once they’ve matured into an adult. They can no longer use the excuse of simply doing what their parents told them to do.

    Citizens of the US are expected to be mature and responsible and follow all of our laws. I submit that once these people reach 18, and fail to take steps to become legal (return to whatever country they came from or begin formal admission procedures in a legal fashion), they have already disqualified themselves to be granted citizenship in the US. Merely by the fact that they came here as minors does *not* incur any obligation upon us to grant them citizenship.

    In fact, they have already massively benefited from our generosity by virtue of being raised and educated in a stable democracy and advanced culture, with all of their basic needs taken care of, if not by the state then their own parents, mostly at our expense.

    Upon reaching the age of maturity, perhaps even a token effort, to demonstrate their fitness for citizenship, to get themselves legal would go a long way to softening our attitudes about these DACA people. But, unfortunately, we don’t see any of this. In fact, none of these people are expressing any gratitude whatsoever. They all just seem to be demanding and agitating for more and more from us. Amnesty-worthy? Doubtful.

    snopercod in reply to Vladtheimp. | December 23, 2017 at 9:23 am

    Clarify the 14th Amendment so that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.

T-rump has always been for amnesty. He’s told everyone for years if you listened. His administration members have testified before Congress that they just can’t imagine DREAMERS without eventual citizenship. ‘Cause that would just be wrong.

T-rump will get a DREAMER amnesty unless the conservatives block any bill, and stick it right back on him.

The existing law needs to be enforced, or T-rump needs to eat the consequences.

    This is not up to Trump. This up to the Congress. And, do not think for a single second that Ted Cruz would refuse to sign a DACA amnesty bill if he were President.

    So, what you have to ask yourself is do you think that the Republicans will pass a bill which will grant any kind of legal status to the Dreamers in 2018? We’ll just have to wait and see.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 22, 2017 at 11:10 pm

      “This is not up to Trump. This up to the Congress.”

      Nope. Donald Ducks is the head of the executive, and the one with responsibility to ENFORCE the existing laws.

      Congress has no duty to make new laws here. You’re just wrong.

      Again.

        Two days before the anniversary of the birth of the baby Jesus and I have to educate you on how the United States government works? OK, I can be didactic.

        President Trump IS enforcing existing laws. What he is doing is prioritizing what enforcement actions take precedence. In this case, he has decided that the Dreamers are not as significant threat to the US. We know who they are and, to a large extent, know WHERE they are. They can be picked up and deported at leisure. Because of this, the President has assigned a low priority for actively rounding up these people and deporting them. This is well within his authority as the head of the Executive branch. His criteria for deportation of DACA registrants is that they will be deported when their DACA period runs out, or if they commit a crime or otherwise come to the attention of federal immigration officers.

        Now, as our immigration laws are made by Congress, they can be repealed or modified by Congress. So, at this point, one of two things can happen. either the Congress can take the action that they have under the Constitution and address the DACA problem legislatively or not. In either case, President Trump will enforce the law. See, in President Obama’s case, he vastly overstepped his Constitutional bounds by actually creating a program, DACA, which was in contravention to existing law without authorization from Congress.

        So, it is you whose premise is incorrect, not mine.

        Merry Christmas.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 23, 2017 at 10:02 pm

          Nope. Donald Ducks is the head of the executive, and the one with responsibility to ENFORCE the existing laws.

          Congress has no duty to make new laws here. You’re just wrong.

          Again.

          And all that gassy bilge didn’t even make a point.

          The existing law is adequate to the task. Demanding NEW law is just shanking the issue. Donald Ducks should have done as he promised.

          He STILL has not.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Mac45. | December 23, 2017 at 2:18 pm

      Boot ’em all the hell out. No, it’s not their fault they were brought here, but it’s not mine either. Their beef is with their parents and the crappy, loser governments of their native countries.

      I’m tired of hearing about how great they are, how they deserve so smuch and we should give it to them (and their 8th degree relatives), and how they serve in the military – it’s less than .05% of them, and how productive and peaceful they are blah blah blah. They’re mostly parasites just by virtue of their presence, commit a huge portion of the crime, and suck up low-paying jobs while low and unskilled Americans are forced onto welfare and all manner of petty fraud.

      As to what will happen, I don’t know. It all depends on how stalwart Trump really is.

    “He’s told everyone for years if you listened…”

    You should cite to such quotes.

    herm2416 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 23, 2017 at 9:39 am

    I’d like to see links to your assertions, Rages. Surely, there must be a few out there.

      Ragspierre in reply to herm2416. | December 23, 2017 at 9:57 pm

      There are. Many. If you’d like to see them…and you certainly SHOULD if you have any intellectual integrity…you can find them.

No deal for amnesty and don’t mince words anything but deportation is amnesty. No compromise will be enforced. If they get it, it will just like Reagan’s amnesty.

And they will encourage more illegals to stay rather than self deport and others to come knowing we’ll eventually allow another amnesty.

That’s why this poll is a farce. No option for US standing strong for our laws and borders? Or a Daca deal that bones America with amnesty and broken promises? Amnesty is nothing but amnesty and more illegals. Chain migrations and all billion or so people who were, ‘born American’ in another country. They just haven’t gone through the formality of actually becoming citizens. Illegals, that’s what a, ‘deal’ means.

This nation is in a crisis: it’s flooded with Schumer-bombers having entered the country through schumer’s visa lottery.

We don’t want to become the wreck that is Sweden, Germany, etc.

    The original visa lottery was a bi-partisan law.

    When it came up for review, the GOP gave it new life.

    Do your research.

      rdmdawg in reply to Ragspierre. | December 23, 2017 at 12:16 am

      Yes, I don’t see the issue here. Rags is spot on with this one, and I’ve been concerned for a long time regarding president Trump, who believe it or not, is ‘soft’ on immigration in my opinion.

      However, given that he has been signalling this softness for a long time, I’m not seeing why you don’t grant him that he is consistent, that he didn’t lie to anyone to get elected.

      Sure, he isn’t what I wanted regarding immigration. But here is the thing, he was better than any other candidate on the issue, even better than Ted Cruz, who I actually supported in the primary. Ted never even brought up immigration policy until he was forced to by virtue of Trump making it a campaign issue.

      So, Rags, are you upset that Trump did exactly what he said he would, that he didn’t fool anyone during the campaign or flop on the issue? idgi

        Ragspierre in reply to rdmdawg. | December 23, 2017 at 1:16 am

        Yeah, no.

        You’re typically full of shit.

        One of the many, MANY things I’ve been saying for about two years now is that T-rump has more choices on his menu than a Chinese restaurant. He has multiple declarations on just about anything you can name, including immigration policy. Many of his supporters just pick the one they like, ignoring all the others.

        He lies constantly, and reflexively. Read his inauguration speech on immigration. “Immediately”…??? A flat-footed lie.

        Trying to make Congress the arbiter of law enforcement by insisting on NEW law? Typical Donald Ducks behavior. He talks big, and then shanks the ball to someone else. He’ll then slime them on Twatter. “Congress inaction. VERY BAD.”

        T-rump co-opted the whole immigration issue from conservatives who had been on it for years or decades. He’s great at campaign conversions. Ask his donation benefactors in the Deemocrat Party.

      Anything the corrupt, cowed rinos of the GOPe voted for is not in spirit ‘bi-partisan,’ though it is literally.

      Now that these GOPe rats are on the run, it’s a different story:

      Trump calls for end to diversity visa program:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/01/extreme-right-gins-up-a-culprit-for-n-y-terror-attack-chuck-schumer/?utm_term=.b6afabde793f

No chain migration. No voting rights. No one who was not enrolled in a school from second grade.

When Donald Trump announced a phased-out end to Obama’s illegal DACA program, which made an executive branch end round around the Constitution and Congress, Trump made clear he wanted Congress to pass legislation dealing with the problem.

DACA is not being phased-out. DACA is over as per EO in Sept 2017. The deportations begin in March.

Trump put the hot potato into the hands of congress, possibly knowing that congress does not seem to be able to put legislation together and that anyone in congress that votes for AMNESTY will have to do so at the peril of the voters. Maybe Trump thinks congress can put something together maybe he doesn’t, either way, rule of law has been restored and the mess Obama created with DACA-AMNESTY is on congress and not Trump. Let us see who wants to be tarred with the AMNESTY brush this mid-term.

Right now I am counting on congress being incompetent.

    In Congress, incompetence is a tactic.

    And I expect that both parties will use it.

      herm2416 in reply to tom_swift. | December 23, 2017 at 9:42 am

      …and blame the other party for it failing. They won’t vote this in, they would all be voted out. Self-preservation is the name of their game.

    Congress is ‘incompetent’ just as a hack union employee is ‘incompetent’ when they go on a work slow-down.

    Congress is corrupt. Completely. A handful of patriots among hundreds of sell-outs, in business for themselves, not their country.

    Incombument = inscumbent.

    Congress, by and large, wants the immigration status quo that existed in the Obama, Bush, Clinton years to continue. But, as their constituents are heavily opposed to any changes in the immigration laws, including any type of amnesty for violators, the Congress was perfectly happy to let past Presidents either ignore enforcement of the laws or even to set up unconstitutional programs to legitimize illegal immigrants. The Republicans are unlikely to do anything to change existing immigration laws prior to the 2018 midterms.

    What Trump has done is state clearly that he has no authority to summarily refuse to enforce immigration laws. But, as the government of the United States of America entered into a contract with the DACA registrants to defer deportation for 2 years, in exchange for registering with the government, he is going to honor that agreement, even though it was technically unconstitutional, to the extent that these registrants will be deported upon the expiration of the existnig individual deferment period. This means that, without Congressional intervention, DACA deportations will begin in March, 2018.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 24, 2017 at 8:31 am

      What an AMAZING crock of steaming bullshit…!!!

      A “contract” with DREAMERS…???

      Not only is a law that violates the Constitution void, but a “contract” which stems from a violation of the Constitution is a nullity.

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY can “contract” to do something illegal.

      What a moron…!!!

Personally, I like the idea of granting them a 3 year visa and no charges. In that 3 years they can work towards a more permanent status or at the end of 3 years be subject to deportation.

To make this work you need to change illegal immigration from a civil to a criminal offense and with harsh penalties and implement voter and welfare ID.

Yeah it sounds reasonable I guess I could compromise… Oh wait. I already did that. Three fucking times. amnesty now in exchange for a wall to be built at some point in the future. And 3 fucking time’s the crowd pushing for compromise didn’t hold up their end.

Build the damn wall.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | December 23, 2017 at 1:23 am

    The “damn wall” has crap-all to do with this, just like SwineReport’s invocation of the lottery visa program.

    I get your frustration with being betrayed though.

Any deal at all sends the signal that our laws will be enforced only when it is politically convenient to do so.

To me there is one thing that is very important. We do not grant amnesty to self important dreamers.

Dreamers who served in the military. I can live with that.
Dreamers who study engineering. I can live with that. We need a few more engineers.
Dreamers who study law. No. There is a big glut of lawyers. Worse when they can’t get jobs they’ll start groups pushing for all kinds of immigration reform.
Dreamers who study political science, xxx studies, art — hell no.

    Mac45 in reply to RodFC. | December 23, 2017 at 11:55 am

    I’m sorry, but I have a HHUUUGGGEE problem with people, who are currently violating US law, from serving in the military which protects the people that I care about. An undocumented aliens should never have been allowed to serve, in the first place. So, I see no reason to give someone a pass for doing something that our government should not have allowed him to do in the first place.

My actual bet is temporary status with a special process to citizenship. Conditional on funding the wall.

I hope the admin kills the anchor baby / keep families together policies before the negotiations.

The question is what do we do with the millions of others.

i hope whatever DACA deal the bastards on Capitol Hill come up, the final result is a veto by GEDJT.

round them all up, throw them all out, and build the wall to keep them out. mandate that employers validate I-9 documents, instead of forbidding it, and prosecute private parties that hire illegals*& pay under the table w/o withholding income taxes or paying SDI & SSA taxes.

Emigration, not immigration, reform.

Less refugee crises. If you want social justice, then commit the troops to secure the peace.

Also, less Planned Parenthood, including selective-child and recycled-child.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to redc1c4. | December 23, 2017 at 4:56 pm

    Keep in mind that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is on retainer to every enemy of the United States, foreign or domestic.

    rdmdawg in reply to redc1c4. | December 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    Funny thing about this, if there were some definitive way you could keep amnesty recipients from ever being allowed to vote, you would see the most amazing 180 degree turn by Dems and the media against amnesty and even immigration.

      Edward in reply to rdmdawg. | December 26, 2017 at 5:50 pm

      @rdmdawg – but you know that Judges will give them citizenship and the vote just as fast as they possibly can, probably give them “credit” towards residency requirement for citizenship for time already here as Illegal Aliens.

If you are NOT an American citizen, it is time for you to return home to YOUR country.

We can’t deal with any more people.

GO HOME.

No deal, no how, no time. We owe DACA people nothing. They’re ungrateful wavers of foreign flags even as they spit on the Americans who’ve provided a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, medicine in their veins, food in their mouths, jobs that Americans can do, and education that the majority of them disdain.

I won’t play that imagine there is a deal game. I want no deal for DACA. I want them, their parents, and assorted relatives deported.

How about this deal?
A. End birthright citizenship.
B. Deport all illegals.
C. Build the Wall.

This is what the deal should look like. This should have been one of the options.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend