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

OK. You make a fair point.

But if you are focused on punishment and following the law, why aren't we cracking down very hard on the businesses that hire all the illegals in the first place? Why is the demonizing rhetoric mostly aimed at the mostly poor immigrants and not at the places/people that hire them?

They migrate here because they know they can get jobs. Would they come if they knew for sure no one would hire them?

This is all just a bunch of hot air being spewed and nothing is really going to change anyway. Too much of certain sectors of our economy actually depend on illegal immigrants (like the big agribusinesses). We are not really going to do anything substantial that could hit any of these businesses in their wallets.

So it's all just rhetoric.

Most americans will go to hell. Jesus said you should give your all for the poor. He also said the rich basically cant go to heaven

Firstly, thank you for arguing properly and using some intelligence.

Why is any immigration illegal?

Any child should have the opportunity to a good chance in life and where they are born is not controlled by them.

So from a moral perspective your actions should define what situation you are in rather than your circumstances. This includes the parents who were born in war-torn/poor countries and may not have had an opportunity to leave.

Additionally, America's foreign policy increases immigration.

Finally, America loses $400 billion pounds and workers with no criminal records, regardless of legality issues, removing these people is racism.

seattle dude wrote:

OK. You make a fair point.

But if you are focused on punishment and following the law, why aren't we cracking down very hard on the businesses that hire all the illegals in the first place? Why is the demonizing rhetoric mostly aimed at the mostly poor immigrants and not at the places/people that hire them?

They migrate here because they know they can get jobs. Would they come if they knew for sure no one would hire them?

This is all just a bunch of hot air being spewed and nothing is really going to change anyway. Too much of certain sectors of our economy actually depend on illegal immigrants (like the big agribusinesses). We are not really going to do anything substantial that could hit any of these businesses in their wallets.

So it's all just rhetoric.

Agree 100% on punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Agree on second point, too. We don't need a wall; we need to take away the incentives to come.

lol, Agree on 3rd point, too. Congress will make it a law (or at least grant amnesty to existing illegals).

Crap, say something jerkish so we can get in a fight.

While I generally agree that deporting DACA enrollees is not inherently immoral, I think it's worth considering that significant public resources have already been invested in many of the enrollees. If we were talking about deporting someone < 1 year after arriving, I could understand it, but if you want to deport someone who has been in America for at least 10 years (since 2007, as per DACA requirements) you are giving away a potentially useful asset. How much money went into the K-12 (and perhaps college) education that was given to DACA enrollees? Instead of sending them away, why not continue to reap the benefits of their productivity?

I understand that this argument doesn't hold up when you expand the scope, but I think it's better to focus on stopping new illegal immigration rather than trying to correct something from decades ago.

Journey to Elite wrote:

Firstly, thank you for arguing properly and using some intelligence.

Why is any immigration illegal?

Any child should have the opportunity to a good chance in life and where they are born is not controlled by them.

So from a moral perspective your actions should define what situation you are in rather than your circumstances. This includes the parents who were born in war-torn/poor countries and may not have had an opportunity to leave.

Additionally, America's foreign policy increases immigration.

Finally, America loses $400 billion pounds and workers with no criminal records, regardless of legality issues, removing these people is racism.

You were fine up until the last statement. If it was racism, entire races would be targeted.

Why is any immigration illegal? Fair question, but not rhetorical. There has to be, on some level, an attempt to secure the values of a nation. Rome fell, in large part, because it ceased to be Roman. Therefore, I agree that we should open paths of citizenship to those who are willing to assimilate to our culture, however that culture should be defined. FWIW, that idea applies to war-torn countries, the projects, and the 'burbs alike.

Deport these people, not innocent children:

This argument is completely invalid. It assumes that laws are just and executing them is always the correct action.

Obviously, this is hilarious wrong. Many conservatives on here would agree that we are burdened by far too many laws that control what we can and cannot do. Clearly some of these laws are unjust and do not carry moral authority.

It is immoral to punish law-breakers if the law itself is unjust.

Blind devotion to the law is an immoral way to live.

Breaking a law is only immoral if the law itself is just.

We can debate on the justice of illegal immigration, but this argument fails because it assumes the law has moral authority. It doesn't, it never will, and it was never designed to.

thejeff wrote:

...

Agree 100% on punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

....

I don't agree with that at all. We shouldn't be making it the job of companies to enforce immigration policy. The Feds should have a database of citizens, and if someone is not in that database, then companies should be allowed to hire them with the understanding that the illegal may be deported at any time.

Also, keep in mind that the Feds are the cause of this problem, not companies. The Feds have allowed illegal immigration for political reasons, including corrupt campaign donations from companies and race hustling, and they can not be entrusted to enforce the laws fairly. The Feds would allow companies who donate to the right people to go unpunished, while beating the crap out of companies who refuse to pay protection money.

I don't want to give the Feds any more control over companies. That's the wrong way to go.

DiscoGary wrote:

Also, keep in mind that the Feds are the cause of this problem, not companies. The Feds have allowed illegal immigration for political reasons, including corrupt campaign donations from companies and race hustling, and they can not be entrusted to enforce the laws fairly. The Feds would allow companies who donate to the right people to go unpunished, while beating the crap out of companies who refuse to pay protection money.

I don't want to give the Feds any more control over companies. That's the wrong way to go.

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.

Harambe wrote:

This argument is completely invalid. It assumes that laws are just and executing them is always the correct action.

Obviously, this is hilarious wrong. Many conservatives on here would agree that we are burdened by far too many laws that control what we can and cannot do. Clearly some of these laws are unjust and do not carry moral authority.

It is immoral to punish law-breakers if the law itself is unjust.

Blind devotion to the law is an immoral way to live.

Breaking a law is only immoral if the law itself is just.

We can debate on the justice of illegal immigration, but this argument fails because it assumes the law has moral authority. It doesn't, it never will, and it was never designed to.

That's a wonderful sentiment but completely impractical. Who decides which laws are moral? Muslims have a VERY different moral code than other cultures. Should we allow them to disobey all the laws that conflict with their Sharia Law? What about Nazis? Should they be able to decide which laws to follow based on their moral code?

You are describing anarchy and chaos. This is the kind of thinking that leads to groups of liberals beating up innocent people at Trump rallies. One thing has become clear, liberals can NOT be trusted to use their moral compass to help them decide which laws to obey.

Monkeys typing wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Also, keep in mind that the Feds are the cause of this problem, not companies. The Feds have allowed illegal immigration for political reasons, including corrupt campaign donations from companies and race hustling, and they can not be entrusted to enforce the laws fairly. The Feds would allow companies who donate to the right people to go unpunished, while beating the crap out of companies who refuse to pay protection money.

I don't want to give the Feds any more control over companies. That's the wrong way to go.

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.

seattle dude wrote:

OK. You make a fair point.

But if you are focused on punishment and following the law, why aren't we cracking down very hard on the businesses that hire all the illegals in the first place? Why is the demonizing rhetoric mostly aimed at the mostly poor immigrants and not at the places/people that hire them?

They migrate here because they know they can get jobs. Would they come if they knew for sure no one would hire them?

This is all just a bunch of hot air being spewed and nothing is really going to change anyway. Too much of certain sectors of our economy actually depend on illegal immigrants (like the big agribusinesses). We are not really going to do anything substantial that could hit any of these businesses in their wallets.

So it's all just rhetoric.

The answer is because you look after and forgive your own family MORE than someone else's family. Our family are fellow Americans, not other countries (not at the same level at least).

But I agree, it is all BS. They should all be deported and all businesses who hire illegals should be fined etc.

Harambe wrote:

This argument is completely invalid. It assumes that laws are just and executing them is always the correct action.

Obviously, this is hilarious wrong. Many conservatives on here would agree that we are burdened by far too many laws that control what we can and cannot do. Clearly some of these laws are unjust and do not carry moral authority.

It is immoral to punish law-breakers if the law itself is unjust.

Blind devotion to the law is an immoral way to live.

Breaking a law is only immoral if the law itself is just.

We can debate on the justice of illegal immigration, but this argument fails because it assumes the law has moral authority. It doesn't, it never will, and it was never designed to.

I agree with everything you said here except for the premise: securing a country's borders and values is a worthy, moral goal.

DiscoGary wrote:

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.

The hilarity of a Trump supporter saying something like this.

I agree with this statement, but not the spirit of your post. Companies are being asked to enforce immigration law, but they SHOULD take reasonable measures to ensure that their employees are US citizens (not to mention "of legal age", "not wanted felons", and other basic qualifications for gainful employment).

I never said people were allowed to act however they pleased.

It is always a grey area. This is why we have a justice system, so misguided laws can be reviews and overturned.

I would contend that deporting law-abiding, tax-paying, productive citizens who never intended to be illegal immigrants is immoral. They are not criminals except by the letter of the law.

My point was that appeals to legal authority are some of the weakest you can make to justify your argument. The law does not have and grander ideals behind it, so do not construe it as such.

DACA was supposed to be temporary.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/flashback-obama-calls-daca-temporary-video/

gahuga wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

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.

The hilarity of a Trump supporter saying something like this.

Nothing wrong with that statement. All of the honest people were destroyed before the election (and probably before the primaries, lol). Noted and accounted for.