It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A 6 Month timeframe is pretty Generous

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck




In my experience, a 3 year old is usually accompanied by a parent. See where I'm going here?


Nope.

This isn't about the parents. They have their own liability. It's about the 3 year old who came here in 1995, and is now 22. Who didn't find out that they were illegal until they tried to apply to college, or get a job.




posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


2. A Republican gets in and the traps gets sprung.

Democrats always play their little games with social issues.


Did you just equate Republicans with Charlie Brown?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck




Priorities - It's a priority


Why is it a priority to deport people who have committed no crime?



Feasibility - It's very feasible. Ask Trump


No, it's not feasible to arrest 800,000 non-criminals undocumented young people, or 5 million undocumented immigrants. But, it is feasible to deport undocumented immigrants that have been found guilty of committing crimes.



Social consequences - Only for the "victims".


It will erode law enforcement's relationships and ability to work effectively with communities, for one.



They have committed a crime by knowingly residing in a country illegally. They're not ignorant of the crime.

Sure it's feasible. History will tell you that. It's not like we're rounding people up and putting them in gas chambers! We're sending them back home to a country that WILL accept them back, give them money, food, shelter and school. How is that a problem to send people back to a country they belong in?

I don't agree with your social consequences. That's what got us here in the first place.

Little Timmy is lame.. we should give him a trophy.

Why is it ok when you allow people in the millions into a country to compete for jobs, welfare and everything else the citizens CANT HAVE as easy when little otu obamalu is in Africa in the middle of a desert with no food, swollen belly and probably not going to live for more than a few years... that guy doesn't get to come to a land of "plenty"? Why aren't you crying for him? He's going to die young!

Tough luck pals... LEO's have guns for a reason. Start riots.. get arrested and prosecuted. When the smoke clears, we'll be back to normal and everything will go back to the way it was and we can fix our own issues without worrying about who's getting free rides on the taxes I SPEND every damned day for someone else to reap the rewards by being here illegally.

It's no different than someone coming into my home and eating my food and sleeping in my bed without my permission but can do it anyways because some ignorant fool said he could, because my neighbor said it was alright.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck


Do you think a 3 year old can be guilty of breaking immigration laws? A 9 year old?



Yes. Send um back with the Parents problem solved. Its not the States responsibility to take care of a Child who is not a Citizen.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck




They have committed a crime by knowingly residing in a country illegally.


No. They didn't commit a crime, which would be illegal entry, not illegally existing.



Sure it's feasible.


No, it isn't.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck




In my experience, a 3 year old is usually accompanied by a parent. See where I'm going here?


Nope.

This isn't about the parents. They have their own liability. It's about the 3 year old who came here in 1995, and is now 22. Who didn't find out that they were illegal until they tried to apply to college, or get a job.



I fail to see how it's my or my tax dollars problem. I doubt seriously that "they didn't know". One day mom says.. Surprise! You're not legal! Yay!

Sorry... No free pass because you didn't know.

Oh damn officer... I forgot my DL at home. Can't I get a free pass? Hell no! Ignorance doesn't give you a free pass!

Again... Not my problem. It's Mexico's problem.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
It's no different than someone coming into my home and eating my food and sleeping in my bed without my permission but can do it anyways because some ignorant fool said he could, because my neighbor said it was alright.


Well you've got over 300 million roommates and a great any of them don't think the same.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck


I don't agree with your social consequences. That's what got us here in the first place. Little Timmy is lame.. we should give him a trophy.


That's only a portion of what's wrong with today's world. People aren't allowed to lose, that would be ludicrous and most inhumane. The word consequence doesn't exist anymore.
edit on 5-9-2017 by PeterSellers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck




They have committed a crime by knowingly residing in a country illegally.


No. They didn't commit a crime, which would be illegal entry, not illegally existing.



Sure it's feasible.


No, it isn't.


DACA is protecting illegal entry lol.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Hey CheezeWiz... the Republicans were in charge of Congress during 'Obama's reign' and, as you pointed out, The President isn't King. So eat your own words.


2009-2010 had a couple of "Democrat wide-open window" opportunities.

This whole DACA / DAPA thing was a pre-arranged trap set by Obama.

It had two "plans":

1. Hillary gets in and the whole thing goes further without any "laws" passed.

2. A Republican gets in and the traps gets sprung.

Democrats always play their little games with social issues.







Times are rough for the Democratic Party. They have nothing to offer their voter base, so they subvert laws to recruit illegals that will vote for them. When is the last time the Dems offered up any type of legislation that would help the average American?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
This is a campaign promise fulfilled.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck




I fail to see how it's my or my tax dollars problem.


So do I, unless you're talking about the tax dollars it would take to deport 800,000 non-criminal undocumented immigrants. These young people have jobs and are in college, or in the military.



Sorry... No free pass because you didn't know.


DACA gives no one a free pass. DACA doesn't even give individuals legal status, it just temporarily protects registered immigrants from deportation, through a parole program, as long as they follow the rules and don't commit a crime.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xianb

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck




They have committed a crime by knowingly residing in a country illegally.


No. They didn't commit a crime, which would be illegal entry, not illegally existing.



Sure it's feasible.


No, it isn't.


DACA is protecting illegal entry lol.


No it isn't. DACA protects the minor children whose parents illegally entered with them in tow. They were too young to be charged with or guilty of a crime at the time of entry.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Xianb

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck




They have committed a crime by knowingly residing in a country illegally.


No. They didn't commit a crime, which would be illegal entry, not illegally existing.



Sure it's feasible.


No, it isn't.


DACA is protecting illegal entry lol.


No it isn't. DACA protects the minor children whose parents illegally entered with them in tow. They were too young to be charged with or guilty of a crime at the time of entry.



Ya thats called Illegal Entry. Why is that so hard to understand?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

Obama says something bad about Trump, because Trump has to fix Obama's mistake. Surprise.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xianb

Hasn't the majority of the GOP been against the dreamers the whole time?!?!

They definitely were against it under obama...

So what's the problem???

Besides more than 4 republicans will vote against it. So there is almost no chance of anything passing.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xianb

Hasn't the majority of the GOP been against the dreamers the whole time?!?!

They definitely were against it under obama...

So what's the problem???

Besides more than 4 republicans will vote against it. So there is almost no chance of anything passing.



They've also been against Obama Care the whole time and yet failed to get rid of it so we will have to see if they follow through.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xianb




Sorry... No free pass because you didn't know.


What's so hard for you to understand about children not having a choice nor the intent to cross the border illegally, or even be aware that it happened.

Children are not responsible for their parents' crimes, and cannot be held accountable for their parents' crimes.


edit on 5-9-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

This has absolutely nothing to do with righting a Presidential overreach and everything to do with the throwing red meat to the base.

The non-expanded DACA, in effect now, is policy, not law. The Executive has the power to set policy in order to prioritize enforcement and allocate resources — prosecutorial discretion. Furthermore, in support of this position, I would note that under current DACA guidelines, immigration officials have discretion as to whether or not applicants will be denied, even when the applicant meets the eligibility requirements.

The irony here is that Trump is having his cake and eating it too. He has exactly the same authority to phase out DACA as Obama had to implement it. In fact, the grace period itself is prosecutorial discretion. So the argument is what then? That because the Trump administration is promising to eventually undo DACA, it's less overreach by virtue of having a fuzzy end date that could just as easily be extended?

While I'm not dismissing legitimate concern over extra-Constitutional actions by presidents, President Trump has demonstrated very little actual concern for abstaining from overreach.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StallionDuck




Why not do it all at once?


Priorities, feasibility and social consequences.



Do I have to be an immigrant to not follow the laws?


What law was not followed by these individuals?




If my parents sneak me in to Disneyland I don't get stay. I think it's dumb to kick people out who are trying to better themselves, so hopefully Congress actually accomplished something... But Obama doesn't get to rewrite immigration policy on his own. Sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join