Trump says DACA deal for young immigrants is off

[55Jay]

6 hours ago, meechai said:

555 Hear Ye Hear Ye

This is to notify anyone who disagrees

Your are wrong 555

And by extension, a xenophobe.  Racist.  Bigot.  Right wing extremist.  Etc, etc.....

[Jingthing]

Don't know about all that, but the minority of Americans that want to deport the DACA people are certainly mean spirited. 

[Credo]

Part of the rationale behind DACA is that we don't hold children responsible for crimes committed by the parents.   DACA is for persons who came as a minor child; they did not necessarily have a say in coming to the US and some were not even aware that they were here illegally.

 

If a parent gives alcohol to a child, it is the parent who is held responsible, not the child.   The same with drugs.

 

If a parent puts a child behind the wheel of a car and there is an accident, it is the parent who is responsible, not the child.

 

Recently, there was a case of parents who took their children into a store and had them shoplift.  Again, it was the parents who were held responsible, not the child.

 

The same legal situation is true with DACA.   

 

I am not in favor of illegal immigration.   I am in favor of compassion for young people who did not have a say or choice in arriving here.   There are plenty of people who came across the border, work illegally and have no firm roots here.  Target them.

[55Jay]

34 minutes ago, Credo said:

Part of the rationale behind DACA is that we don't hold children responsible for crimes committed by the parents.   DACA is for persons who came as a minor child; they did not necessarily have a say in coming to the US and some were not even aware that they were here illegally.

 

If a parent gives alcohol to a child, it is the parent who is held responsible, not the child.   The same with drugs.

 

If a parent puts a child behind the wheel of a car and there is an accident, it is the parent who is responsible, not the child.

 

Recently, there was a case of parents who took their children into a store and had them shoplift.  Again, it was the parents who were held responsible, not the child.

 

The same legal situation is true with DACA.   

 

I am not in favor of illegal immigration.   I am in favor of compassion for young people who did not have a say or choice in arriving here.   There are plenty of people who came across the border, work illegally and have no firm roots here.  Target them.

What becomes of the parents though?

[Credo]

2 hours ago, 55Jay said:

What becomes of the parents though?

The parents are not covered under DACA and I suspect many are illegal, some have been deported and some have likely become legal.   The parents who have become legal, however, cannot sponsor a child who is in the US.

 

The problem for those in the DACA program is, unlike their parents, many have virtually no ties to their country of origin.   They have been in the US for many years.    

 

 

[cat handler]

On 25/04/2018 at 10:39 PM, Srikcir said:

The caravans traveled legally to the US-Mexican border, at times escorted by the Mexican authorities to assure their safety and well being. The caravan participants then legally requested asylum at the US Border Stations where a review will be held to determine whether they may enter the US as legal immigrants, typically by an immigration judge.

Where do you see illegal immigrants in this process?

 

In the original post, perhaps you might like to read it. 

Secondly, since Mexico is a signatory to th UN Refugee Convention any refugee coming across the border into the US is doing so illegally as Article 31(1) of the Convention clearly states that a refugee must apply directly for refugee status at the first safe state they arrive in, that would be Mexico. The US doesn’t not have an immigration court in Mexico, so any refugees leaving Mexico, a safe state and signatory to the Convention of 1951 are in fact entering the US illegally.

Here is Article 31(1) for you: pay special attention to COMING DIRECTLY FROM

Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The contracting states shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article on, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence

[sukhumvitneon]

22 hours ago, PhonThong said:

Again, a person with no dog in the hunt. You are another getting your information from news organizations. 

 Have you attended townhall meetings with your, local senator or congressman? I am guessing not. Have you been to your local BBB meetings? I am guessing not. Have you been to Washington to attend hearings open to the business public on DACA? Again, I am guessing not. 

Never said, DACA order grants Dreamers citizenship? I said, they Support a pathway to citizenship. 

 

Right, DACA was implemented by Obama as a direct response to Congress failing to pass the DREAM Act (amnesty).  It was done in order to legalize illegal immigrants on the conjecture that Congress would eventually cave and give them amnesty.

[sukhumvitneon]

14 hours ago, Credo said:

Part of the rationale behind DACA is that we don't hold children responsible for crimes committed by the parents.   DACA is for persons who came as a minor child; they did not necessarily have a say in coming to the US and some were not even aware that they were here illegally.

 

If a parent gives alcohol to a child, it is the parent who is held responsible, not the child.   The same with drugs.

 

If a parent puts a child behind the wheel of a car and there is an accident, it is the parent who is responsible, not the child.

 

Recently, there was a case of parents who took their children into a store and had them shoplift.  Again, it was the parents who were held responsible, not the child.

 

The same legal situation is true with DACA.   

 

I am not in favor of illegal immigration.   I am in favor of compassion for young people who did not have a say or choice in arriving here.   There are plenty of people who came across the border, work illegally and have no firm roots here.  Target them.

If you're in favor or amnesty than you're in favor of illegal immigration.  The US has done multiple amnesties over the years on the notion "this is the last one" and yet it keeps happening and the illegals keep pouring in because they know they can eventually guilt Congress into granting yet another one.  When you reward this behavior, you get more of it.  These kids have no one but their parents to blame if they get deported, not the US government or ICE.  They are taking jobs and college spaces away from US students who were born and raised in the country or who immigrated lawfully.

[55Jay]

9 hours ago, Credo said:

The parents are not covered under DACA and I suspect many are illegal, some have been deported and some have likely become legal.   The parents who have become legal, however, cannot sponsor a child who is in the US.

 

The problem for those in the DACA program is, unlike their parents, many have virtually no ties to their country of origin.   They have been in the US for many years.   

I think the right/Republican resistance recognizes the progressive nature of the Lib/Dem strategy to reach a milestone, one inch at a time if need be.

 

President Obama rightly knew another big stand-alone amnesty wasn't doable, so he lowered his sights a bit and did DACA, which I had no problem with because it "saved the children".  Even the 31 year old ones.  LOL.   The next predictable step would have been to save the parents, so out comes the "don't tear families apart" chant again. 

 

Same strategy with gun control. 

 

Personally, I didn't object to the idea of another amnesty/reset,  but only if it was the final act in a sensible immigration reform. 

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, cat handler said:

 

In the original post, perhaps you might like to read it. 

Secondly, since Mexico is a signatory to th UN Refugee Convention any refugee coming across the border into the US is doing so illegally as Article 31(1) of the Convention clearly states that a refugee must apply directly for refugee status at the first safe state they arrive in, that would be Mexico. The US doesn’t not have an immigration court in Mexico, so any refugees leaving Mexico, a safe state and signatory to the Convention of 1951 are in fact entering the US illegally.

Here is Article 31(1) for you: pay special attention to COMING DIRECTLY FROM

Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The contracting states shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article on, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence

Here is the fuller story:

Mexico has extended refugee status to some caravan people. Mexico has also granted some caravans passage through Mexico with the US border as their destination. It is Mexico's sovereign right to grant permission for caravans to travel to places where they can seek asylum.

https://www.voanews.com/a/mexico-government-to-grant-migrants-refugee-status/4329992.html

 

 

[cat handler]

40 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Here is the fuller story:

Mexico has extended refugee status to some caravan people. Mexico has also granted some caravans passage through Mexico with the US border as their destination. It is Mexico's sovereign right to grant permission for caravans to travel to places where they can seek asylum.

https://www.voanews.com/a/mexico-government-to-grant-migrants-refugee-status/4329992.html

 

 

 

And it’s the United States sovereign right to refuse refugees that are safe in Mexico, a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention, from crossing into their territory as they are no longer refugees in search of a safe state, that has been provide as you say, by Mexico.

Secondly no it is not Mexico’s sovereign right to transport these people to another border, according to the UN Convention on Refugees which they have signed they have to provide them with a safe place to live, not facilitate illegal immigration options.

Trump should close all the borders with Mexico, stop all foreign aid until Mexico fulfills its obligations under the UN Convention.

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by cat handler

[55Jay]

Mexico's Interior Minister in VOA article.

Quote

"Of course we will act, let me be clear, in strict compliance with our migration laws, without accepting pressure from any country or anyone," he said.

Absolutely spot on.  That's the right position for any country, including the US. 

[cat handler]

16 hours ago, Credo said:

Part of the rationale behind DACA is that we don't hold children responsible for crimes committed by the parents.   DACA is for persons who came as a minor child; they did not necessarily have a say in coming to the US and some were not even aware that they were here illegally.

 

If a parent gives alcohol to a child, it is the parent who is held responsible, not the child.   The same with drugs.

 

If a parent puts a child behind the wheel of a car and there is an accident, it is the parent who is responsible, not the child.

 

Recently, there was a case of parents who took their children into a store and had them shoplift.  Again, it was the parents who were held responsible, not the child.

 

If the parents stole a car and gave it to their children should that child be allowed to keep that car, after all according to you it wasn’t their fault the car was stolen. Bottom line is the whole lot of them are illegal immigrants, the children can be deported with their family, keep them together of course, why would you want to remove their parents and deport just the parents, that is cruel. The illegals in the US pay no tax, under cut wages for US citizens, have no access to social security so are committing crimes to fund their life there. We all know what Fidel did, empty his jails or rapists, murderers, drug dealers and thieves and sent them to the U.S, how many of these types of people are flooding the borders now.

 

[sukhumvitneon]

1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

 

Personally, I didn't object to the idea of another amnesty/reset,  but only if it was the final act in a sensible immigration reform. 

Famous last words.  There's always another dressed up amnesty "immigration reform" or more "sensible gun laws" legislation waiting in the wings.  You need to draw the line somewhere.

[55Jay]

Just now, cat handler said:

 

If the parents stole a car and gave it to their children should that child be allowed to keep that car, after all according to you it wasn’t their fault the car was stolen. Bottom line is the whole lot of them are illegal immigrants, the children can be deported with their family, keep them together of course, why would you want to remove their parents and deport just the parents, that is cruel. The illegals in the US pay no tax, under cut wages for US citizens, have no access to social security so are committing crimes to fund their life there. We all know what Fidel did, empty his jails or rapists, murderers, drug dealers and thieves and sent them to the U.S, how many of these types of people are flooding the borders now.

 

It's only natural that the next initiative would be a program to provide amnesty to the parent. Not doing so makes you, at a minimum, a mean spirited person.

 

I could stomach another amnesty but like I said earlier, there has to be a sensible system to move into.  Not amnesty now and figure out the rest later, but never do. 

 

Dems/Libs will go along with small victories along the way.  Politically, they are playing the long game as those availing Amnesty or Amnesty-lite programs will always view the D party as most beneficial for them. 

 

[55Jay]

5 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Famous last words.  There's always another dressed up amnesty "immigration reform" or more "sensible gun laws" legislation waiting in the wings.  You need to draw the line somewhere.

Cynical.  But correct. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by 55Jay

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, cat handler said:

 

And it’s the United States sovereign right to refuse refugees that are safe in Mexico, a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention, from crossing into their territory as they are no longer refugees in search of a safe state, that has been provide as you say, by Mexico.

Secondly no it is not Mexico’s sovereign right to transport these people to another border, according to the UN Convention on Refugees which they have signed they have to provide them with a safe place to live, not facilitate illegal immigration options.

Trump should close all the borders with Mexico, stop all foreign aid until Mexico fulfills its obligations under the UN Convention.

 

1. If the inspections officer allows an immigrant holding a US Visa (ie., tourist) into the U.S., then an application for asylum can be made by mailing in an application, with supporting documentation.

2. An immigrant who has a tourist visa for the US can apply for asylum on arrival, by telling the inspections officer that they fear returning to their country and wish to apply for asylum.

3. There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if an immigrant does not have the proper documents or have made a misrepresentation, he could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that the reason is to apply for asylum and it's made one can show that one would be likely to win asylum. 

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/can-you-request-asylum-border.html

 

 

[cat handler]

5 hours ago, 55Jay said:

It's only natural that the next initiative would be a program to provide amnesty to the parent. Not doing so makes you, at a minimum, a mean spirited person.

 

I could stomach another amnesty but like I said earlier, there has to be a sensible system to move into.  Not amnesty now and figure out the rest later, but never do. 

 

Dems/Libs will go along with small victories along the way.  Politically, they are playing the long game as those availing Amnesty or Amnesty-lite programs will always view the D party as most beneficial for them. 

 

 

Why an amnesty, why reward people who did the wrong thing? No amnesty, round them up and ship them back home and give them a pack detailing the correct way to apply for immigration to the US. Send a message, that message should be if you sneak across the border in the middle of the night you won’t get to remain.

[cat handler]

On 26/04/2018 at 9:20 AM, bristolboy said:

I guess it's time for a repeat performance. Here is a a Fox News poll. Are you claiming ing that Fox News lied?

Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Today, overwhelming majorities favor granting work permits (86 percent favor vs. 12 percent oppose) and U.S. citizenship (79-19 percent) to illegal immigrants under the age of 30 brought here as children, provided they pass a background check.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28/fox-news-poll-83-percent-support-pathway-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants.html

Where was that Poll held? I’m sure I can go somewhere and conduct a Poll showing 96% want them kicked out. 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, cat handler said:

Where was that Poll held? I’m sure I can go somewhere and conduct a Poll showing 96% want them kicked out. 

Polling was done in a far off land called the USA. Clearly that's unknown territory to you. As for you conducting a poll with the results you want, I'm sure you could. But who would believe it? And you really think that Fox News is going to fake a poll that shows Trump to be massively at odds with the American public? I don't know what you base your objection on, but it certainly isn't common sense.

Edited April 27, 2018 by bristolboy

[55Jay]

5 minutes ago, cat handler said:

 

Why an amnesty, why reward people who did the wrong thing? No amnesty, round them up and ship them back home and give them a pack detailing the correct way to apply for immigration to the US. Send a message, that message should be if you sneak across the border in the middle of the night you won’t get to remain.

Couldn't agree more from a strictly ideological POV. At the moment though, it's this:

 

I don't like being held hostage to smug liberals spouting economic end times any more any anyone else does, but there has to be a policy for ^this^ reality to move into.  Rounding everyone up and shipping them out is a great sound byte, but not realistic with the current system.

[Credo]

9 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

If you're in favor or amnesty than you're in favor of illegal immigration.  The US has done multiple amnesties over the years on the notion "this is the last one" and yet it keeps happening and the illegals keep pouring in because they know they can eventually guilt Congress into granting yet another one.  When you reward this behavior, you get more of it.  These kids have no one but their parents to blame if they get deported, not the US government or ICE.  They are taking jobs and college spaces away from US students who were born and raised in the country or who immigrated lawfully.

Please don't put words in my mouth.   I did not say I am in favor of amnesty.   I simply pointed out that we do not punish children for crimes committed by the parents.   

 

The DACA program has clear guidelines of who is eligible and the proposals provide a path to citizenship.   That is a little different than an amnesty.

 

If you are going to start punishing children then perhaps every child who was given alcohol by a parent should be put in jail when they turn 21.   The US doesn't do that.   It shouldn't start with children who were brought to the us illegally.   

[cat handler]

On 27/04/2018 at 9:31 PM, bristolboy said:

Polling was done in a far off land called the USA. Clearly that's unknown territory to you. As for you conducting a poll with the results you want, I'm sure you could. But who would believe it? And you really think that Fox News is going to fake a poll that shows Trump to be massively at odds with the American public? I don't know what you base your objection on, but it certainly isn't common sense.

 

I believe Polls, hell the Polls had Hilary winning the election in a land slide, if the Poll was conducted in Washington or New York it would have a different result than if conducted in say Texas or Nth Carolina. No need to fake a Poll, just conduct it in a state where Hillary got most the votes.

lets face it, Trump is the best President in living memory, imagine if Hilary had won, old Bill could have had free reign to shove cigars up more White House interns.

i notice they added onto the question “if they pass a background check”, how do you check the background of Carlos Gonzales who has no papers and claims he’s from Bumfuckolez, El Salvador and when he may be Jesus Tequila the rapist murderer.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by cat handler

[cat handler]

On 27/04/2018 at 9:41 PM, 55Jay said:

Couldn't agree more from a strictly ideological POV. At the moment though, it's this:

 

I don't like being held hostage to smug liberals spouting economic end times any more any anyone else does, but there has to be a policy for ^this^ reality to move into.  Rounding everyone up and shipping them out is a great sound byte, but not realistic with the current system.

Love graphs that have no references, it that one showing the size of the average Asian mans penis by year in centimetres?

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, cat handler said:

 

I believe Polls, hell the Polls had Hilary winning the election in a land slide, if the Poll was conducted in Washington or New York it would have a different result than if conducted in say Texas or Nth Carolina. No need to fake a Poll, just conduct it in a state where Hillary got most the votes.

lets face it, Trump is the best President in living memory, imagine if Hilary had won, old Bill could have had free reign to shove cigars up more White House interns.

i notice they added onto the question “if they pass a background check”, how do you check the background of Carlos Gonzales who has no papers and claims he’s from Bumfuckolez, El Salvador and when he may be Jesus Tequila the rapist murderer.

 

So why would fox news conduct a poll that contradict what it wants?

[Scott]

1 hour ago, cat handler said:

 

I believe Polls, hell the Polls had Hilary winning the election in a land slide, if the Poll was conducted in Washington or New York it would have a different result than if conducted in say Texas or Nth Carolina. No need to fake a Poll, just conduct it in a state where Hillary got most the votes.

lets face it, Trump is the best President in living memory, imagine if Hilary had won, old Bill could have had free reign to shove cigars up more White House interns.

i notice they added onto the question “if they pass a background check”, how do you check the background of Carlos Gonzales who has no papers and claims he’s from Bumfuckolez, El Salvador and when he may be Jesus Tequila the rapist murderer.

 

Continuing to troll will earn a suspension.  

 

The requirements for DACA are:

 

• Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
• Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
• Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

Being a serial rapist or murderer is probably unlikely for the very vast majority of the under 16 group.   If they were wanted for a crime, they would most likely be on a wanted list, such as interpol.  

 

Background checks are done with those signing up for DACA.   There are criminal background checks to make sure they have no serious criminal record in the US.

 

[Srikcir]

23 minutes ago, Scott said:

Being a serial rapist or murderer is probably unlikely for the very vast majority of the under 16 group.

"Young immigrants cannot qualify for DACA if they have committed crimes, so crime rates among DACA recipients are extremely low." http://www.laceyandlarkinfronterafund.org/misleading-study-links-dreamers-with-crimes-heres-the-truth/

 

[55Jay]

5 hours ago, cat handler said:

Love graphs that have no references, it that one showing the size of the average Asian mans penis by year in centimetres?

Fair point.  It's graph displaying approximate # of illegals in the US.  Seems to be consistent with all the chatter, but who knows.  Even if it's only somewhat accurate, the point was there's a shitload of them (apparently) and it got that way, again, over a long period of time encompassing both R and D administrations.   Solution is never going to be found in the extreme ends on either side of the knee jerking political divide.

 

A full on amnesty, all by itself, doesn't fix the underlying problems.  Rounding them all up, even if you could, doesn't address them either.   

[cat handler]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

 

 

Background checks are done with those signing up for DACA.   There are criminal background checks to make sure they have no serious criminal record in the US.

 

 

Oh, no criminal convictions WITHIN the US, that’s a relief, who cares if they were murderers or rapists in their originating country. Kick them all out, no questions asked, don’t set a precedent that says if you bring children you can come illegally and stay. Look at the debt in the US, having a bunch of illegal immigrants undercutting wages or people born their legally is lowering their standard of living, and let’s not forget that no tax is being paid by these freeloaders. 

 

using facts and logic earns a suspension, interesting.

Edited April 29, 2018 by cat handler

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, cat handler said:

 

Oh, no criminal convictions WITHIN the US, that’s a relief, who cares if they were murderers or rapists in their originating country. Kick them all out, no questions asked, don’t set a precedent that says if you bring children you can come illegally and stay. Look at the debt in the US, having a bunch of illegal immigrants undercutting wages or people born their legally is lowering their standard of living, and let’s not forget that no tax is being paid by these freeloaders. 

 

using facts and logic earns a suspension, interesting.

555555... that's a side-splitter.

 

I bet those children had rap sheets as long as a giraffe's neck when their parents brought them in.

 

55555... thanks dude, I needed a good laugh.