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.

 

Vote for a Democrat, Deport a DACA

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   
We're well into the season where wild headlines are an expected attribute to any thread, so... my turn.

But that title is not just extremist... it is also fact. The subject of DACA has faded from the public eye for the last while, but it still exists. And everything I have been warning about is coming to pass. Follow me here:

DACA was an Executive Order signed by President Obama that gave exception to deportation to certain illegal immigrants based on the idea that they came here as children and thus did not have a say in their legal status and had little to no memory of living anywhere else. In essence, they are Americans, if by reality rather than legality. The law as passed by Congress, however, states that illegal immigrants must be deported if they do not qualify for a legal remedy such as asylum. While a President has Constitutional authority to issue Executive Orders to fulfill the laws passed, the President does not have Constitutional authority to issue an Executive Order that contradicts the law as passed by Congress.

DACA directly contradicts the law as passed by Congress.

After Trump was elected, he issued an Executive Order ending DACA, in response to a lawsuit that was, in my opinion ad the opinion of many legal scholars, poised to strike down DACA and force him to to deport the DACA recipients. As he did so, Trump also deferred the Executive Order for six months to give Congress some time to pass a legal exemption... in other words, to codify DACA. This meant Trump was still not required by law to deport DACA recipients for those six months. However, in typical fashion, Congress refused to codify DACA. As the deadline approached, a Federal judge struck down the Executive Order terminating DACA, leaving the whole mess in limbo. That injunction is working it's way through the court system. It cannot stand, because to allow it to stand would drastically shift Executive authority to the courts, substantially changing the very basis of the American system of governance.

We now have a Constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court, which means it is likely that, once they hear the case, they will strike down DACA as unconstitutional. If DACA is so declared, the Executive Branch will have no choice but to immediately deport all DACA residents that they can find. That's where the problem comes in. As a part of signing up for DACA in the first place, these poor souls voluntarily gave their addresses! There is no way they can hide now. Every DACA recipient is one court decision away from being deported from the life they are familiar with into a country they have never known. The only solution that will pass Constitutional muster is for Congress to codify DACA into law. That would establish DACA Constitutionally and a case could even be made that once that law was passed, it would be considered cruel and unusual to rescind it for present participants. In other words, it would be a guarantee to every DACA recipient that they could retain their protection from deportation no matter what happened politically.

So why hasn't Congress acted?

The soul of politics is compromise. Trump has expressed a wilingness to sign a DACA bill into law, on the condition that he gets the wall built and he gets concessions on two contentious immigration policies: the "immigration lottery" and "chain migration." Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed a willingness to codify DACA. The holdup has been that such a law would require a 60-vote majority to invoke cloture in the Senate, and the Democrats oppose any of Trump's compromises. So the Republicans have not been able to get a DACA bill passed by the Senate that Trump would sign into law. At the height of Republican control, only 8 Democrats were needed out of the 48... that's 1 in 6. Not even that 17% of Democrats were willing to give a little on immigration policy to protect the DACA recipients.

So here we are at the mid-terms, with present outlooks indicating a flip in the House to Democratic majority and a very slight pickup in the Senate for Republicans. So what does that do for DACA?

It means less Democrats are needed for cloture in the Senate, but it also means there is no chance in hell that a DACA bill that can become law will ever be passed by the House. Without House approval, DACA is dead. It will be two more years before voters have a chance to change the makeup of the House, and it is more than likely that DACA will reach the Supreme Court before that. As soon as DACA is struck down, the deportations must begin... and there is nothing Trump or the lower courts can do to stop it. Only Congress can make law.

So yeah, the title may be somewhat "muddy" (this is why it is in the Political Mud Pit forum), but it is accurate. While we may well see cheering among the far left when (and if) they take control of the House, including cheering from those under DACA protection, the sad truth is that they are cheering for the deportation of the only group of illegal immigrants who have a common sense claim to stay.

I don't want to see that happen. I support codifying DACA. I feel for these people caught in a legal loophole. Unfortunately, it seems I am somewhat alone.

TheRedneck




posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
A very real and disturbing outcome for sure. I am also equally sure that the Dems will twist the facts into the narrative that they need both the House and the Senate to stop the deportations. All under the guise of cracking eggs to make the omelette, only in this case the expense of current DACA for more political power and a misinformed latino vote for years to come.
edit on 19-10-2018 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You aren't alone.

Personally I am voting for anyone running against a lifer. Even people I kind of don't hate and the other guys is "worse".

The supreme court may not want to touch the case honestly. It's not their job to make Congress and the white house do their jobs and listen to their constituents. That includes trump. We can't keep thinking of binary solutions for non binary problems. Less than half the public votes so a quarter at best decides the federal executive power. This is why our forefathers did not design the presidency to do the heavy lifting on policy.

Congress is supposed to debate this based on the views of their constituents not their party.

We keep waiting for superman when it's a band of idiots that need to be voted out.

Like we argued earlier in the year I told you the deficit would be nearly a trillion even in a best case scenario. Why?

Congress is broken. Until people realize they have been lied to by their representatives for years and not expect any different none of the immigration, trade, healthcare etc has any chance at all of being a long term sustainable solution.

I beg everyone vote against all incombants. Even those you agree with and send a clear message enough is enough.

The presidency is not a dictatorship and can't be used by the parties to mask over the real problem any longer.
edit on 19-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I don't see how the Supreme Court cannot touch the case. It is a question of who has the authority, the Executive Branch to issue Executive Orders, or the Judicial Branch to effectively codify Executive Orders. That is exactly what the Supreme Court is designated to address.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

I'm sure both parties will use this to make political hay... but the people deported will still be deported. It won't fix anything; all it will do is stir the pot of angry political rhetoric further.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You have never seen the supreme court kick cases back down to lower courts, or decide to refrain from intervening in policy?

You could be right because on the surface you are correct.

The supreme court however, is not as partisan as people assume, particularly when dealing with policy that is supposed to be deliberated in Congress.
edit on 19-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes, they can kick cases back down to lower courts, but that is typically done where the cases are not as integral to Constitutional authority. And the fact that the Supreme Court is not partisan is why the case will likely result in striking down DACA. The facts are pretty cut and dried; no court has the authority to declare an Executive Order that invalidates an Executive Order invalid; no President has the authority to issue an Executive Order to invalidate law. To do so is literally an usurpation of the sole responsibility of Congress to make law. It doesn't get more unconstitutional than that.

Congress' sole authority to make law is literally the very first line in the Constitution after the Preamble.

TheRedneck

edit on 10/19/2018 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

But that's not what the SCOTUS would be ruling on. The question going before them is the federal judge's authority to block an executive order that rescinds a previous executive order.

It's a very simple decision for the Supreme Court. The judge's ruling will be discarded.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Bait and switch by the people they were supposed to vote for once they became citizens.

I don't like DACA, but I dont like democrats thinking they can use poor immigrants up and chuck 'em overboard as soon as they are no longer politically convenient.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I said you could be right. However I personally believe based on my 30 years of paying attention to this stuff, which means nothing really, that they will decide to not put it on the schedule this session.

In any case my remarks are the same. Republicans and Democrats that are incombants have failed. Not a single one should be left. The good 5 or six are just casualties of the purge.

President trump should not even be dealing with immigration policy. If Congress is telling him something he should listen. The presidency is not an authoritarian power. Having rejected DACA on his own agenda is questionable as it is. I understand his bully negotiation method, but these aren't condos. They are people.

You could say obama shouldn't have acted either. This is the constitutional truth. However, it requires interpretation..we will see.

I think you could be correct if the ruling is made as you describe.

Anyhow. Vot them out is my motto. All of them. Especially if they say but the other side......

After a draft a baseball player can't say he throws to fast...if you can't figure out how to navigate let someone else try.

Any party.
edit on 19-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't like the fact that DACA is needed.... but that is a moot point at this juncture.

Whenever I come across a dispute, I always try to put myself in the place of those I disagree with. I this case, I can imagine being drug across the border as a child, living my entire life in the US, and then being told I was going to be sent back to a place I had never known because of something my parents did when I was young. I cannot abide doing another person that way... it's wrong, and more wrong than them coming to America. The parents made the decision; the children didn't.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


President trump should not even be dealing with immigration policy.

Trump has to deal with immigration policy. He is in charge of enforcing immigration laws. That's part of what a President does.


If Congress is telling him something he should listen.

Agreed! Congress makes the laws... that's my whole point. He is listening to the Congress when he enforces immigration laws.


Having rejected DACA on his own agenda is questionable as it is.

Had he not issued that Executive Order, DACA would likely be a thing of the past. There was a lawsuit moving toward the Supreme Court challenging it, and that would not have been dropped had Trump not acted. He did not try to get the DACA recipients deported; he prevented them from being deported by Supreme Court decision for six months, hoping Congress would act. Trump bought them time; Congress let them and him down.


You could say obama shouldn't have acted either. This is the constitutional truth. However, it requires interpretation..we will see.

I do, and I agree... this all started over Obama's unconstitutional overreach. Good idea, but poor implementation, just as Obama should have convinced Congress to legalize marijuana instead of relying on policy to do what needed codification.

There is a legal way and an illegal way to do anything.

We will indeed see... and when we do, it will be too late to do anything about it. If we want to protect the DACA recipients, it must be done now... later will be too late.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

President trump in no way can solve the immagration policy problem. That isn't his job and playing word salad doesn't change that. The more he does on his own the worse off it will be.

It's an insane problem that comes from Congress.

I have no idea how Republicans or Democrats can continue to support incombant candidates other than raw tribalism.

They already failed over and over. Expecting a different result is a sign of PTSD.

Do you think it's possible SCOTUS just doesn't put it on the docket this session or like it appears you are saying it's a done deal?

If you don't know then I am not sure what your argument is against what I said.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Deport politicians.

Both California, and Texas have been making the headlines with registering foreign nationals to vote for the upcoming midterms.


edit on 19-10-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


President trump in no way can solve the immagration policy problem. That isn't his job and playing word salad doesn't change that. The more he does on his own the worse off it will be.

Agreed. But Trump does have to sign into effect any solution form Congress (a veto overriding supermajority notwithstanding). That's really all the power he has.


I am not sure what your argument is against what I said.

???

I wasn't aware we were arguing. It sounds to me like we are in agreement on all but the minutia details.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree In principle.

The mechanics is the issue.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

No, you're not alone.

Those DACA signees did so in good faith. But if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster (the DACA EO), then there is no choice in the matter unless the House passes the bill.

They don't, they stand revealed as what many of us know they are...political opportunists, who care nothing for those who supported them.

But, it'll be twisted and turned to mean everything but that, as most of us know. Leaving those folks, through no fault of their own, twisting in the wind.

But, hey, the Dems will have control of the House.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The fact that Democrats where on willing to act on DACA when this issue came up last year and instead exiled all the dreamers to limbo is one of the biggest reasons I can't support them. They had (and still do have) a golden opportunity to make a real difference/change in the lives of one of their core constituents ... instead they'd rather play resistance fighter with Trump.

.... kinda how they totally ruined the meto movement recently.

I dislike both parties for unemotional reasons; but its stuff like this that get me angry with the Democrats.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

All I am saying is I won't be surprised if it's not on this session docket. Either way I wouldn't be surprised.


Things are not so sterile that every issue is taken at face value from literal statute. People argue cities can't ban guns because of a statute in the constitution which says you can't.

If this were the case we should simply make a supreme court algorithm and press a button let it decide based on the words on the page and vote when to alter it.

I think the liberal judges ruling was pretty far out there and at face value should be swiftly terminated. However courts have interpreters who are judges. They also are very smart and understand the weight and gravity of decisions, which is why sometimes they take so long to come to a verdict and wait to formally bring forward the case. That doesn't mean memos aren't being sent about what they feel before hand.

It's very frustrating for the 42 percent of independents to watch the minority of party worshipers argue and f this up while people have lives ruined or exploitation is rampant.

Imo many of the honest working illegals are the victims here of greedy people who allowed and promoted illegal immigration. Two red and two blue states on the boarder. The two big ones red and blue on the ends have millions of illegals. Hell they built Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin etc...saved the state and employers billions of not trillions in the last three decades. Disgusting exploitation.

When judges look at this. They look through the eyes of Thomas Jefferson, of Adam's, John Locke, Roseau etc...they literally come to judgements based on the understanding of the social contract/constitution.

I don't know what you call a desperate farmer getting recruited by Tyson Foods and smuggled across the boarder, but I call it a victim of circumstance. The children brought to formula one races as rich peoples sex slaves (literally FBI always at events) what are they? This isn't a thing to play politics over

All new people should be stopped. No question.. The sorting of people with homes, business etc is another issue. Getting criminals and gangs out another. That is what independants want to hear about. None of it works without the other.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Things are not so sterile that every issue is taken at face value from literal statute. People argue cities can't ban guns because of a statute in the constitution which says you can't.

If this were the case we should simply make a supreme court algorithm and press a button let it decide based on the words on the page and vote when to alter it.

I will argue with you there. The US Constitution is a contract giving sovereign power to the US in exchange for protections against usurping the natural rights of the citizenry. One cannot simply change a contract at a whim; if that were so, what is the need for a written contract in the first place?

No, the Constitution MUST be taken exactly as written, without regard to political whims and partisan agendas. That's the only way the government can work. If it needs to be changed, so be it. There's a process for that (two, actually). Anything less is chaos and the literal dissolution of the Union.

Humans are needed to consider cases where the Constitution is either unclear or contradictory, which are rare. Instead of being used for this purpose, however, the courts have recently been used to try and change the meaning of the Constitution, as in the judge granting an injunction of the DACA rescission. All that does is slow the government down and bog down the Supreme Court listening to cases which should never have gotten that far.


Imo many of the honest working illegals are the victims here of greedy people who allowed and promoted illegal immigration. Two red and two blue states on the boarder. The two big ones red and blue on the ends have millions of illegals. Hell they built Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin etc...saved the state and employers billions of not trillions in the last three decades. Disgusting exploitation.

I agree. In many ways, the coyotes and human smugglers are little different from the slave traders of old, exploiting the helpless for their own ends. There is nothing inherently inferior about the Mexican people... as you say, they are some of the hardest working peoples I know of. One big change I would like to see to the immigration laws is a much more relaxed but tightly monitored program to allow easier access for migrant workers when Americans can't be found to fill jobs.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join