Does Trump and the GOP really think deporting the dreamers will play well for them long term???

originally posted by: carewemust
Chuck Schumer said this morning that he's willing to derail the entire legislative agenda to get the DACA immigrants made legal permanently.

thehill.com...

The man has no ideas, and is willing to hurt every citizen in America over his fixations. Another "gift" for Republicans.

p.s. As dysfunctional as Republicans are this year, his strategy might work.

I'm sure voters will appreciate that come 2018.......

a reply to: pavil

CNN will blast 24/7 how it's Trump's fault.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I am a great believer in the rule-of-law.

This action, on the part of President Trump, is hurtful to THOUSANDS of Americans both the Dreamers and their families.

Needlessly hurtful. Nothing will be achieved by this. Nothing except mindless pandering to his "base."

Those of you who support this should be aware that you're not only losing something fundamental to what it means to be an American ... you're losing your humanity.

In the end, that will cause pain to many of us ... but it will destroy you.

No you aren't. If you were you would respect the Constitution. It was a massive power over reach by Obama to circumvent immigration laws.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I am a great believer in the rule-of-law.

Do we have immigration laws? Are you a believer in them being followed?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: windword
If your an illegal than how the hell are you innocent . Name me one good things that illegals do for our country

Right, it's basic. We are all born into sin. Nobody is innocent. But, blaming those that did not commit a crime is, well, folly.

Which is why blaming Trump is foolish. The blame lies on the parents.

Oh my god, really? Do you think you're clever with that circular logic?

We're focused on Trump because Trump is singling out these 800,000, otherwise law abiding innocents, and holding them hostage to promote his agenda.

a reply to: windword

? What's his "agenda" exactly ?

a reply to: xuenchen


Hint: It involves a wall.

a reply to: windword

The DACA is singling them out, which was an EO from the former president, wasn't it? IT was, in all effect, counter to the existing immigraiton laws. So, removing a piece of presidential (for lack of an accurate word "legislation") and attempting to restore the actual rule of law, is somehow wrong?

I cannot understand this logic, and I have TRIED for 3 days now to understand. Here is a timeline of events as I understand them to date:

1. We have immigration laws that were passed legally by our congress (which is what they are responsible for doing)

2. We have a president that writes an Executive Order (which is not a law) presently known as DACA, that is intended to temporarily block enforcement of the existing legal immigration laws passed by congress

3. That "temporary deferment" of this Executive Order eventually encompasses 800,000 people

4. Congress spends 5 years not passing any form of immigration reform to allow this temporary EO to be easily removed to assist these 800,000 people

5. A new president is elected, and inherits the responsibility of these 800,000 people covered by the EO from the previous administration that is deferring the implementation of the existing immigration laws

6. A group of state Attorneys General collectively begin a legal suit against the government for this DACA EO to let a court decide if it can be struck down as unconstitutional (since the Executive branch is prohibited form creating law). A previous EO known as DAPA was struck down for this same reason, which set a legal precedent to be used in the case against DACA. If the DACA is found unconstitutional, it would be struck down immediately, leaving these 800,000 people immediately "out in the cold" with nothing protecting them at all.

7. The new president decides to phase out the DACA EO over a 6 month period with the intent to allow congress to do the job they were elected to do an draft immigration reform law to address the needs of these 800,000 DACA people. A 6 month period to allow a time for DACA folks to prepare in the event it is fully rescinded (unlike #6).

8. People go ballistic over the 6 month phased out removal of the DACA EO that would likely be struck down by the courts with no warning at all.

This is somehow a bad thing?????

Again, I guess I do not have the wiring in my brain to understand how phasing this out over 6 months is worse than risking it being struck down immediately in court. Since inception, this EO effectively overruled the exiting immigration laws passed by congress. An EO written by a single man, and not via our legal constitutional process, is somehow not the worst thing to some. This is the act of a dictator or king. And we have taken steps to prevent a single man making law in this country, have we not? What happened to being upset at the bypassing of due process here? Of bypassing the United Stated Constitution and the separation of powers that the government of the people is based upon.

BRAIN CRAMP!!!!!

703

a reply to: Krakatoa

The people whining about DACA, whine about everything president Trump says.

a reply to: Krakatoa


If you think that DACA was illegal, why do you suppose the courts will strike down Dreamer's deportation? DACA is policy, not legislation, that is legal because it offers no path to legal status nor citizenship.

The Justice department dispenses (blind) Justice. The President has the authority to dispense mercy.

Both Presidents Reagan and GW Bush used their executive authority to dispense mercy for undocumented immigrants.

a reply to: windword

Because (if you read my post fully) the DAPA was struck down when challenged. SO, that is a precedent for the DACA policy to be challenged. And even former president Obama's own attorney gave the opinion it was not constitutional and would likely be struck down if challenged in court. Which, BTW, is happening right now.

That is why.

a reply to: Krakatoa


DAPA was struck down because it provided legal status to undocumented individuals. DACA doesn't. It offered temporary work and education permits.

a reply to: windword

Then why do you think that former president Obama's own attorney publicly stated he thought it was unconstitutional and likely to be struck down if challenged. That lawyer is a lot more knowledgeable in those legal aspect than I am, especially if he was working for a former president.

However, you think it would not be?

With all due respect, and at the risk of sounding snarky, what are your legal qualifications to make such a distinction? Personally, I defer to exert opinions in areas I am not familiar with when having a discussion. But, for all I know, you are a constitutional lawyer and do have that knowledge.

a reply to: Krakatoa

It's not enough for people, like president Trump and Jeff Sessions, to just declare something unconstitutional. Like Trump understands the Constitution! That needs to be decided by the Supreme Courts. Otherwise it's just talk and lawyers arguing for a paycheck. At least President Obama was a Constitutional lawyer.

DACA is not unconstitutional

DACA Is and Will Always Be Constitutional

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Krakatoa

It's not enough for people, like president Trump and Jeff Sessions, to just declare something unconstitutional. Like Trump understands the Constitution! That needs to be decided by the Supreme Courts. Otherwise it's just talk and lawyers arguing for a paycheck. At least President Obama was a Constitutional lawyer.

DACA is not unconstitutional

DACA Is and Will Always Be Constitutional

And I would agree that are not constitutional lawyers (AFAIK). But there are a group of state attorneys general that are, and they have a suit pending right now for that very reason. So, again I ask you.......

How is phasing this out over 6 months (with the ability for people whose permits expire in May 2018 to renew now for another 2 years, that's 3 years protection in total) is worse than risking it being struck down immediately in court and losing ALL protection, immediately?

We are talking about gambling with 800,000 peoples lives.

Think of the children will you?

a reply to: windword

I beg to differ. An EO that circumvents federal law is unconstitutional. An EO is not supposed to oppose federal law.

originally posted by: tulermank
a reply to: windword

I beg to differ. An EO that circumvents federal law is unconstitutional. An EO is not supposed to oppose federal law.

That is why President Obama's attorney said in interviews that if the DACA executive order was ever challenged in court it would be overturned.

I wonder why it was never challenged in court? Every time president Trump put forth a new executive order relating to immigration, it gets smacked down by a federal court within a few days.

a reply to: carewemust

SCOTUS when it had 8 justices was 4 to 4. Now SCOTUS has 9 justices, it would overturn DACA.

a reply to: Krakatoa


I've said it before, a few times in these DACA threads; In my opinion, President Trump should pardon all the DACA "parolees" that have done everything required of them and are in good standing, of any criminal charges of illegal entry, so that they can establish legal residency.

As it is right now, they are not able to do so, because they still are burdened with criminal status. If they can't establish legal residency they can't get a Green Card. If they can't get a Green Card, they don't have a path to citizenship.

Congress can't pardon the Dreamers. And, I don't see any major flaws in our immigration laws, that need a major overhaul. But, from time to time, Presidents do mercifully pardon large groups of people, who have been victimized by blind justice.

Abraham Lincoln pardoned all confederate soldiers from treason. Carter pardoned draft dodgers. Reagan and GW Bush used their executive powers to pardon swaths of undocumented immigrants. Trump should pardon the "Dreamers", and be done with it.

a reply to: windword

Illegal immigration is a state crime in every state. Trump cannot pardon state crimes.