DACA, the dreamers act

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/36...flood-victims/

Here is one of those hateful SOB'S dildo.

Ship em back!

DACA covers about 800,000 people. As a percentage of whatever measure you want to use, it consumes an insignificant fraction of resources. I guess it depends on how you define insignificant. According to the Center of Immigration Studies, the DREAM Act cost the United States about 6 billion a year and that was determined in 2010. It was considered a conservative estimate. So at least 60 billion dollars later Trump is willing to end the unconstutional act. To paraphrase Senator Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there. After a while we're talking about some real money. In fact, all the arguments I have seen indicate that their presence represents a net positive contribution to the economy.

Can somebody explain to me how ending DACA will improve veterans health care? Money, plain and simple. Instead of paying for illegal alien healthcare it can go to our men and women who wore the uniform of our country. How will ending DACA help 55 million young Americans who don't have a job? To make those 800,000 legal also has the additional consequence of giving their families a legal foothold. A footfold for jobs, benefits, social security, etc. How will it speed up the visa and green card application process? DACA has nothing to do with either green cards or visas. It takes people who don't have them and have no right to them and gives them legal protection.How many people under DACA have committed violent crimes? Hard to say since California does not record those numbers but as liberals used to say, if it only saves one life, it's worth it. How many are likely to?
Once again, some major states like Illinois, New York, and California do not provide those numbers.
It seems to me that all the people who are opposed to DACA are doing so on some kind of "principle of the thing." I say screw your principles. Show me how DACA hurts our society. It hurts society by turning our Constitution into a greeting card statement. It is the law of the land and should be regarded as such. Otherwise, where is the protection for free speech and assembly? Originally Posted by tandyscone

A person without principles is capable of anything.

http://michellemalkin.com/2017/09/06...rving-dreamer/

There is no such thing as a “deserving DREAMer”
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2017

Over and over again, from the mouths of politicians in both parties, identity politics purveyors and cheap labor lobbyists, we hear the same refrains about President Obama’s 800,000 amnestied illegal alien youths:
“They don’t deserve to be punished.”
“They deserve protection.”
“They deserve the American dream.”

Deserve, deserve, deserve.

Over and over again, in countless cookie-cutter op-ed pieces published over the past month, so-called DREAMers have vociferously lamented President Donald Trump’s push to eventually undo their unconstitutional five-year reprieves from deportation plus coveted work permits:

“DREAMers like me have flourished under DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Trump might take it all away.”

“If Trump ends DACA, DREAMers like me will return to a life of anxiety and doubt.”

“I feel exhausted, I feel frustrated, I feel angry, and in the worst moments, I feel helpless. I feel terrified that at any moment this program is going to be taken away and once again I won’t be able to work — how will I pay my bills? … What is going to happen to me if I get stopped on the street and I no longer have DACA? What’s going to happen to me if I get put into deportation proceedings and I don’t have thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to stay in this country?”

“I will lose my job, my ability to finish college, my driver’s license, and will be subject to deportation. I am not alone either. Almost one million young immigrants like myself will be affected in the same way and possibly even worse.”

I, I, I. Me, me, me. My bills. My ego. My education. My job. My anxiety.

Since when did DACA become the Depression and Anxiety Cure for Amnesty-seekers?

It’s this insatiable appetite for collective entitlement that demonstrates the perils of blanket amnesty. Give a privileged political class an inch and they’ll take, take, take until feckless public servants give away their country.

The proper response to illegal alien activists demanding that Washington act “NOW!” to preserve their comfort, allay their anxieties and extend their unconstitutional protections indefinitely is this:

Why?

Americans in uniform who’ve dedicated their lives to defending our nation are struggling to gain access to quality health care they’ve earned by action, not by accident or circumstance. Imagine their stress.

Five million American young people between 16-34 were unemployed last year and 50 million more are not even in the labor force. Imagine their anxiety.

Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people from around the world are waiting patiently for their backlogged visa and green card applications to be reviewed. Imagine their frustration.

Why don’t their dreams come first?

Nancy Pelosi called on House Republicans to help her “safeguard our young DREAMers from the senseless cruelty of deportation and shield families from separation and heartbreak.”

Never has this Bay Area elitist called on House Republicans to join her in shielding native-born and law-abiding immigrant families from the senseless and preventable violence committed by criminals in this country illegally who’ve caused immeasurable heartbreak for decades in her overrun California sanctuary.

Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose son was mercilessly shot to death by a sanctuary-protected gang member living in outlaw-coddling Los Angeles illegally, administered a bracing reality check:

“You want to talk about families being separated? Try spending your holidays talking to a grave!”

The left-wing DREAM racket is a self-perpetuating political marketing machine. Its primary contribution to American society? Lashing out at how cruel, racist, ignorant and ungrateful the rest of us are for not bowing down before the hallowed angel children of the Obama administration’s amnesty program. It’s no coincidence that the publicity-hungry leaders of the DREAMer movement are full-time fulminators in government-funded academia, community organizing outfits, immigration law foundations and the grievance-nursing media.

A deserving DREAMer would respect the sovereign right of an independent nation to determine who stays and who goes based on its national interest and constitutional obligations to put its citizenry first.

The deserving DREAMer, in other words, would admit he or she is owed nothing and deserves nothing.

There is no such thing as a “deserving DREAMer.” Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

DACA covers about 800,000 people. As a percentage of whatever measure you want to use, it consumes an insignificant fraction of resources. In fact, all the arguments I have seen indicate that their presence represents a net positive contribution to the economy.

Can somebody explain to me how ending DACA will improve veterans health care? How will ending DACA help 55 million young Americans who don't have a job? How will it speed up the visa and green card application process? How many people under DACA have committed violent crimes? How many are likely to?

It seems to me that all the people who are opposed to DACA are doing so on some kind of "principle of the thing." I say screw your principles. Show me how DACA hurts our society. Originally Posted by tandyscone

ending daca has nothing to do with what you wrote. it is a none issue. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Al of my questions were a direct response to Michelle Malkin's post, which you quoted. If they have nothing to do with DACA, why did you quote her?

ending daca has more to do with upholding the rule of law and not codifying the anchor baby system which is what DACA tries to do.

if daca is codified, other immigration laws come in to play, the daca kids parents would be able to come in legally.

so, instead of 800,000, you have 2.4 million former illegals becoming legal residents. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That's funny, I thought when Obama tried to implement giving parents legal status based on their children's status, he got shot down by the courts. Did I miss something?

You might want to review my immediately preceding post. It explains where my questions came from.

DACA covers about 800,000 people. As a percentage of whatever measure you want to use, it consumes an insignificant fraction of resources. I guess it depends on how you define insignificant. According to the Center of Immigration Studies, the DREAM Act cost the United States about 6 billion a year and that was determined in 2010. It was considered a conservative estimate. Now there's an interesting ambiguity. Do you mean the numbers were conservative, or the people coming up with the numbers were conservative? So at least 60 billion dollars later Trump is willing to end the unconstutional act. I don't understand your math. I thought the DREAM act never passed, so it didn't cost a penny. (If it had passed, we wouldn't be talking about DACA now.) Several states passed their own legislation patterned after the DREAM act, but those are not DACA. President Obama implemented DACA on June 15th, 2012, a little over 5 years ago. When I do the math, it comes out to a little over 30 billion dollars. To paraphrase Senator Dirksen, a billion here, a billion there. After a while we're talking about some real money. In 2015, the federal budget was 3.8 trillion dollars That means DACA costs less than 0.16% of the federal budget To put that into perspective, if you make $100,000 a year that would be under $160 dollars. So I guess you are saying that someone with 6 figure income finds $160 significant. In fact, all the arguments I have seen indicate that their presence represents a net positive contribution to the economy.

Can somebody explain to me how ending DACA will improve veterans health care? Money, plain and simple. Instead of paying for illegal alien healthcare it can go to our men and women who wore the uniform of our country. Illegal aliens, including those under DACA are ineligible for medicaid and food stamps, among other things, even though they pay taxes. How will ending DACA help 55 million young Americans who don't have a job? To make those 800,000 legal also has the additional consequence of giving their families a legal foothold. A footfold for jobs, benefits, social security, etc. The question refers to 55 million young Americans that don't have a job now. How would children of DACA participants impact that? As an aside not related to DACA, many illegal aliens pay into social security, but will never be able to collect on it. How will it speed up the visa and green card application process? DACA has nothing to do with either green cards or visas. It takes people who don't have them and have no right to them and gives them legal protection. Right, but Dilberts quote earlier complained about how many people are waiting for green cards and visas. How many people under DACA have committed violent crimes? Hard to say since California does not record those numbers but as liberals used to say, if it only saves one life, it's worth it. How many are likely to?
Once again, some major states like Illinois, New York, and California do not provide those numbers.What is your source for those statements? The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.52328730656e) Lists information about the requirements, as well as statistics about criminality. The relevant portion is

to participate in DACA, applicants must pass a background check. They have to live here without committing a serious offense. If they are arrested, DACA can be taken away even without a conviction.

Only 2,139 out of almost 800,000 DACA recipients have lost their permits because of criminal or public safety concerns — that’s just a quarter of 1 percent. Four times as many U.S.-born Americans are in prison. About 35 times as many Americans have ended up behind bars at some point before age 34.

I generally don't like to rely on a single source for any information, so if you have other relevant sources, I'd be glad to know of them.
It seems to me that all the people who are opposed to DACA are doing so on some kind of "principle of the thing." I say screw your principles. Show me how DACA hurts our society. It hurts society by turning our Constitution into a greeting card statement. It is the law of the land and should be regarded as such. Otherwise, where is the protection for free speech and assembly?


A person without principles is capable of anything. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Which brings me back to my first post in this thread. In that post I was polite and called it irony. I guess I'll be blunt. If you're on a hooker board, whose intent is to help people break the law, you're a hypocrite when you start talking about "rule of law" and "law of the land," If you think those are important, then quit engaging in prostitution.

Dipshits

You might want to review my immediately preceding post. It explains where my questions came from.


Which brings me back to my first post in this thread. In that post I was polite and called it irony. I guess I'll be blunt. If you're on a hooker board, whose intent is to help people break the law, you're a hypocrite when you start talking about "rule of law" and "law of the land," If you think those are important, then quit engaging in prostitution. Originally Posted by tandyscone

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits prostitution.

It seems to me that all the people who are opposed to DACA are doing so on some kind of "principle of the thing." I say screw your principles. Show me how DACA hurts our society. Originally Posted by tandyscone

Try telling those who've lost loved ones TO ILLEGAL aliens, or had their spouse/mother raped by a DACA savee, that 'its not hurting out society..

Try telling a kid going to school "Sorry you didn't get into college X, cause it had its quota filled cause of Daca students in those spots", that its not hurting society.

Try telling someone who owns a home, he has to pay 1k MORE on property taxes each year, to PAY FOR THE new schools needing to get built to 'educate' all those 'daca kids', that its not hurting society..

I know you right wing loons do not understand irony! Had there been people like her in the 1970's they would not have let her parents come over to this country. Which as it turns out ain't that bad an idea. She is worthless. A hate monger. . Originally Posted by WTF

So since she wants the rule of law followed, that makes her a hate monger??

AND her parents were HERE LEGALLY.. So why do you call what she is on about Irony??

That's funny, I thought when Obama tried to implement giving parents legal status based on their children's status, he got shot down by the courts. Did I miss something? Originally Posted by tandyscone

It was unconstitutional. Obama did not have the authority to do what he did with his executive orders. Courts ruled that only congress can do that.

Al of my questions were a direct response to Michelle Malkin's post, which you quoted. If they have nothing to do with DACA, why did you quote her? Originally Posted by tandyscone

I quoted her because as a daughter of 2 legal immigrants who came to this country legally, she is very much right about the DACA dreamers in her article.

the dreamers can dream on by getting in line in the country they came from.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits prostitution. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

So laws passed by the States are unimportant because none of them are in the constitution?

I quoted her because as a daughter of 2 legal immigrants who came to this country legally, she is very much right about the DACA dreamers in her article.

the dreamers can dream on by getting in line in the country they came from. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

So as long as her profile fits what you're looking for, it doesn't matter that her supporting arguments don't have anything to do with her main point?

So as long as her profile fits what you're looking for, it doesn't matter that her supporting arguments don't have anything to do with her main point? Originally Posted by tandyscone

You're a dissembling jackass. A large portion of the illegals in this country are Asian and of Filipino descent, but Malkin's parents entered this country in accordance with the laws. So, take your stupid-ass notion about "profile" and shove it up your stupid ass! There is a set course of laws for gaining entry into this country, and violating those rules is cause and justification to deport and exclude such individuals who choose to break those laws.

You're a dissembling jackass. A large portion of the illegals in this country are Asian and of Filipino descent, but Malkin's parents entered this country in accordance with the laws. So, take your stupid-ass notion about "profile" and shove it up your stupid ass! There is a set course of laws for gaining entry into this country, and violating those rules is cause and justification to deport and exclude such individuals who choose to break those laws.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And Trump wants to change the laws and allow the Dreamers to stay...will Michelle then write how productive these dreamers now are?

Like I said, had that bitch been writing back in the 70's, she'd be writing against her own parents being able to come here legally!



Trumpy Cat!
BANNED



Join Date: Sep 5, 2017
Location: The white house
Posts: 21

if daca is codified, other immigration laws come in to play, the daca kids parents would be able to come in legally.

That's funny, I thought when Obama tried to implement giving parents legal status based on their children's status, he got shot down by the courts. Did I miss something?

It was unconstitutional. Obama did not have the authority to do what he did with his executive orders. Courts ruled that only congress can do that. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Originally Posted by tandyscone

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

So what was your point in your original statement?

In retrospect, I may have been too brief just mentioning Obama's order. To be more detailed and broad, what do you mean "if daca is codified"? Every definition of codify I can find entails something becoming law, so if daca is codified, the conversation about the executive order, it's constitutionality, etc., becomes moot. Furthermore, it it is codified without changes, or if it is allowed to stand (which is what I took you to mean), then I know of no law that would allow their parents to come in legally. Laws do allow parents of legal residents to enter the country to visit their children, but daca does not make people legal residents.