DACA: We The People need to understand that Withholding Mercy is not necessarily Immoral.

Harambe wrote:

Rojo,

Well reasoned, I agree with most of it. Let trump build some kind of 'wall' to make his supporters happy.

However, citizenship by birthright is long tenant of the American Way. We are one of the few countries in the world that offers it. It is a central idea of the American Dream, come immigrate, work hard, so that your children may be afforded the wonders of America.

A compromise would be that children born to only illegal immigrants are not given birthright citizenship. Those with legal non-citizen status are fine.

I'm not in favor of removing the 'citizenship by birthright' clause, but you also have to consider that it is far easier to travel to America now (from almost anywhere in the world) than it was when the 14th Amendment was written 150 years ago. If a 9 month pregnant woman is on vacation in America, and she gives birth and leaves a week later, should that child really be a citizen? They have no intention of immigrating, working hard, and being afforded the wonders of America.

I'm not trying to blow this out of proportion but it's at least worth considering.

Excellent point #elasticclause

DiscoGary wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

In short the government is the cause of the problem, therefore the companies that bought the government should not be held accountable.

Which is the way it will always be.

That's exactly right. Government corruption is the fault of those in government, not those who purchased the corruption on the open market. If the price of doing business is bribing government officials, then that is what companies will do and they should not be blamed for it.

It's our job as voters to put people in power who are not corrupt. That is not easy to do because the electoral process destroys honest people before they get elected.

We shouldn't be surprised when corporations (or anyone else) acts in their own self interest without regard to the interest of society at large, but surely they should be held accountable. Blaming the puppets while ignoring the puppeteers isn't a solution.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It isn't, as I stated in the OP. It would be MERCIFUL to NOT repeal it.

Allowing illegal immigrants to live here unpunished makes our borders less secure, by definition. Securing those borders is a worthy goal, and those who wish to secure those borders should not be accused of "blindly following the law".

That is the point of my response to your post.

What has this person done wrong? What would you do if you were in his situation?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/06/i-am-a-dreamer-and-im-as-american-as-you-are-215580

What have all the white children done wrong to deserve being accused of White Privilege and having the guilt of every historical racial injustice heaped on their shoulders? In this country we punish kids all the time for the sins of their fathers ... and grandfathers ... and great-great-great-grandfathers. Let's not be hypocrites about this.

exthrower wrote:

Pointing It Out! wrote:

Nope. What you do best is whine, like all the little victims who look up to their hero Trump. And that is without ever having faced a single hardship in your life.

What you would do if you were in that person's situation is start to cry like a little girl.

The persons to blame are your parents.....The rule of law is more important to the US than the fate of a relative handful of lawbreakers...

Yup, you'd be crying like a little girl - curled up in a fetal position, crying for your mommy.

How many new-born infants do you know who "have the intention of immigrating, working hard, and being afforded the wonders of America?" Sounds like a bit much to ask of a new-born, no?

DiscoGary wrote:

What have all the white children done wrong to deserve being accused of White Privilege and having the guilt of every historical racial injustice heaped on their shoulders? In this country we punish kids all the time for the sins of their fathers ... and grandfathers ... and great-great-great-grandfathers. Let's not be hypocrites about this.

You don't know what white privilege is.

DiscoGary wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

What has this person done wrong? What would you do if you were in his situation?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/06/i-am-a-dreamer-and-im-as-american-as-you-are-215580

What have all the white children done wrong to deserve being accused of White Privilege and having the guilt of every historical racial injustice heaped on their shoulders? In this country we punish kids all the time for the sins of their fathers ... and grandfathers ... and great-great-great-grandfathers. Let's not be hypocrites about this.

I am white. The majority of my friends are white. The majority of my family is white. Astonishingly, I do not know a single person who has ever felt even a tinge of guilt about historical injustices.

But there you are, the epitome of a snowflake - spending your life whining, reveling in your "victimhood" and crying yourself to sleep every night. You honestly sound like the most pathetic person I have ever come across.

Congratulations!

Harambe wrote:

Rojo,

Well reasoned, I agree with most of it. Let trump build some kind of 'wall' to make his supporters happy.

However, citizenship by birthright is long tenant of the American Way. We are one of the few countries in the world that offers it. It is a central idea of the American Dream, come immigrate, work hard, so that your children may be afforded the wonders of America.

A compromise would be that children born to only illegal immigrants are not given birthright citizenship. Those with legal non-citizen status are fine.

What? YOu think Roman Abramovich's kid should be a citizen? I do not.

If you are here on a tourist visa, no go. I'd say only the children of citizens are citizens automatically at birth.

You can't have a welfare state and open borders. It just doesn't work.

Good try but we already did that under Reagan and it failed miserably. We got 1 but 2 never happened.

This is what we should do:

1) Build the wall. Shut down illegal immigration. Stop anchor baby status and chain migration. Stop importing people from terrorist countries. Stop teaching everyone in this country that white people are the cause of all racial problems.

Let that sit for 5 to 10 years to see if our Federal government will OBEY IT'S OWN DAMN LAWS! Meanwhile we let the illegals stay where they are as long as they obey the rest of our laws.

Then if the Feds and illegals both behave:

2) We enact amnesty for the illegals still here.

That's what should happen, but it won't because our government cares more about the citizens of other countries than it does about it's own citizens.

DiscoGary wrote:

Good try but we already did that under Reagan and it failed miserably. We got 1 but 2 never happened.

Correct. We tried it 30 years ago and it didn't work. So I should have written it in reverse order. You start with #2 and then #1.

I turned on CNN today to look for Hurricane coverage as a buddy owns a house down there. They had some Senator from Maine on there (independent) he said Trump might be uniquely qualified to get immigration reform done.

Because for both sides the others key things are non-starters. Conservatives won't consider any amnesty and libs won't consider any border enforcement.

Trump can shake that up. His DACA repeal is like The Art of The Deal. DUring the campaign, I never believed he'd throw out the illegals here. It's what his supporters wanted to hear but also the threat of that is the only thing that will get the border enforced.

The problem is without the 14th ammendment anchor baby repeal we are going ot have the same damn problem in 10 years. When I was a kid in Texas, I remember instinctively talking to someone about illegal aliens receiving free school. My mom said, "You can't punish the kids." I thought to myself at like age 12, "Well then we are going to have a huge problem in like 20 years as you are rewarding illegal behavior."

I imagine we still won't have a real border and we'll have this very same problem in 20 years.

DG, that is 100% the correct answer to this issue. That's the best way we can get ahold of our massive illegal immigration problem while at the same time find a way to not punish those who only really know America as their home. Win-win for America and those that currently reside here all at the same time.

If the wall is only going to be symbolic I'll build it. One brick high with 3 foot gaps between the bricks.

It will still cost 500 billion though.

Disco,

I agree with a lot of your points (except for liking the BeeGees, but I digress).

BUT:

Are you actually in favor of building The Wall? Can you rationalize that for me? To me, it seems like a huge waste of time, money, and resources, and will do nearly nothing to stop the problem (don't most of our illegals come in via boat?)

Wouldn't a vastly superior (and far less expensive) option be to simply take away the incentives for people to come here illegally, such as requiring proof of citizenship to hold a job, apply for benefits, etc?

I am a law and order liberal. I am usually of the mind that if we have laws people need to follow them and police need to enforce them. (There are exceptions for example when laws are clearly wrong)

I think we have to honor our commitment to those who legally applied for the DACA program. They gave the government much identifiable information (names, addresses, employment info) including that they were brought over as children and were not currently legal US citizens.

To do this, they trusted our government. They were told if they did this they would be protected under DACA. We can't change the rules now and screw them. This would be wrong.

Also there is much misinformation about who DACA covers. To be eligible, applicants had to have arrived in the US before age 16 and have lived there since June 15, 2007. They could not have been older than 30 when the Department of Homeland Security enacted the policy in 2012. It doesn't cover kids who have been here for under 10 years.

Mercy is a very interesting concept to me. Its almost implied that anyway who is treated with mercy doesn't deserve it. If they deserved positive treatment, you would say they should be treated fairly, you wouldn't use the word mercy.

Somehow mercy suggests by some implied rules, and negative consequence should be given out but due to "mercy" isn't. But what if the rule is unfair, is it still mercy not to give the consequence.

In the case of DACA, as explained in the previous post, a government commitment was made to these individuals and it would be unfair to change the rules at the point.

Mercy is not involved.

thejeff wrote:

Disco,

I agree with a lot of your points (except for liking the BeeGees, but I digress).

BUT:

Are you actually in favor of building The Wall? Can you rationalize that for me? To me, it seems like a huge waste of time, money, and resources, and will do nearly nothing to stop the problem (don't most of our illegals come in via boat?)

Wouldn't a vastly superior (and far less expensive) option be to simply take away the incentives for people to come here illegally, such as requiring proof of citizenship to hold a job, apply for benefits, etc?

The wall should be built because the American people voted to build the wall. Also, it will take less than 2 days of the annual Federal budget to build it, so all the concerns about wasted money should be aimed elsewhere. Take all the money we put into Global Warming research and put it toward building the wall and the country will be far better off.

Note that illegal "presence" in the country is not necessarily a "crime", so we should be careful using expressions like "withholding punishments of criminals". I think most everyone is in favor of punishing criminals with jail time, or deportation or both.

Note also that many "illegal immigrants" actually entered the country legally, but overstayed their visas, by not leaving, only then becoming illegal. Building a wall will not keep out illegal immigrants out. Not to mention a wall between Mexico and the US does not protect the coast or the Canadian border.

For me, it's not a question of morality or mercy, but a question of priorities, and efficient use of scarce resources. Building a wall is expensive. Deporting 11 million people is expensive. Can a country with a nearly $20 trillion debt (over 100% GDP) afford it? What are we trying to achieve by deporting illegals, and will ending DACA and deporting DACA recipients effectively help us achieve that goal?

Surely a country run by a savvy businessman like Mr. Trump will think of it in terms of ROI.

So what you're saying is that the last presidential election was simply a referendum on a pointless wall?