Sessions rescinds DACA

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Or that he actually believes in the Constitution?  I know, a novel idea in Washington.

no way, the arpaio nonsense proves trump doesn't believe in the constitution. or common decency for that matter.  

[Dashinka 24,800]

Just now, smilesammich said:

no way, the arpaio nonsense proves trump doesn't believe in the constitution. or common decency for that matter.  

So the Arpaio pardon was unconstitutional?  Yes, only the MDL has compassion.

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 Yes, only the MDL has compassion.

 

 

if you say so. i won't argue.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

21 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Not sure whom you mean by "their", Ebunowula, but one site does not a current story make.  I was referring to the loss in tax revenue that is being claimed as a loss to the US. 

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/05/news/economy/daca-us-economy/index.html

 

And I'd also like to ask... who is getting deported, exactly?

 

 

Did you even read the Cato Institute methodology? It is one study, but it is currently the only study out there, as far as I can tell. I don't always (or even often) like what the Cato Institute says, but they're a serious organization that should be taken, well, seriously. Now, if we had Brannon on the stand for cross-examination as an expert, sure, you could go into the robustness of the model chosen and its applicability to DACA given that it uses H1-B data. You could say, Mr Brannon, this is based on a model, right? And we can't see the future, right? In fact, no one can predict the future, so you could be wrong about the loss of tax revenue, yes? Not just wrong by a million dollars, but wrong by $10 billion? $20 billion? $60 billion?

 

But Brannon's not on the stand, so we can undermine his study by pointing to studies and other evidence that contradict or undermine the study. In the absence of other reliable data on this topic, I'm going with Brannon for the time being. If he is proven to be inaccurate, I will adjust accordingly.

21 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So you are buying into the concept that 800,000 DACA waivered people will put $60 billion into the US tax system over 10 years?  That's $6 billion (projected tax dollars) per year.  Do you really believe that?  Or is it just emotion-tweaking drama words?

As I said above, in the absence of reliable data to the contrary, yes I do.

[Dashinka 24,800]

10 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Did you even read the Cato Institute methodology? It is one study, but it is currently the only study out there, as far as I can tell. I don't always (or even often) like what the Cato Institute says, but they're a serious organization that should be taken, well, seriously. Now, if we had Brannon on the stand for cross-examination as an expert, sure, you could go into the robustness of the model chosen and its applicability to DACA given that it uses H1-B data. You could say, Mr Brannon, this is based on a model, right? And we can't see the future, right? In fact, no one can predict the future, so you could be wrong about the loss of tax revenue, yes? Not just wrong by a million dollars, but wrong by $10 billion? $20 billion? $60 billion?

 

But Brannon's not on the stand, so we can undermine his study by pointing to studies and other evidence that contradict or undermine the study. In the absence of other reliable data on this topic, I'm going with Brannon for the time being. If he is proven to be inaccurate, I will adjust accordingly.

As I said above, in the absence of reliable data to the contrary, yes I do.

I read the Cato report and they even admitted that the comparison they made to the H1B category is a stretch.  In the first place, all H1Bs are here for a known job and in many cases a fairly well paying job, but there is no way we can say that every DACA applicant will end up in the same position professionally.  Will there be some economic impact with the end of DACA, probably, but reading these guesses is much like reading the prediction that the Pittsburg Steelers will win 10.1 games this season.  The other stretch assumption they make is that all ~800k DACA applicants will be immediately rounded up and deported in one fell swoop.  Has anyone in the current administration suggested that?  Heck, Trump is already waffling saying he will re-visit the decision if Congress doesn't act.  With that statement, the states currently suing as to the Constitutionality of the DACA program to begin with should probably continue to proceed with their action rather than to wait for six months, have Congress do nothing, and have Trump re-instate it only to start their suits all over again.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I read the Cato report and they even admitted that the comparison they made to the H1B category is a stretch.  In the first place, all H1Bs are here for a known job and in many cases a fairly well paying job, but there is no way we can say that every DACA applicant will end up in the same position professionally.  Will there be some economic impact with the end of DACA, probably, but reading these guesses is much like reading the prediction that the Pittsburg Steelers will win 10.1 games this season.  The other stretch assumption they make is that all ~800k DACA applicants will be immediately rounded up and deported in one fell swoop.  Has anyone in the current administration suggested that?  Heck, Trump is already waffling saying he will re-visit the decision if Congress doesn't act.  With that statement, the states currently suing as to the Constitutionality of the DACA program to begin with should probably continue to proceed with their action rather than to wait for six months, have Congress do nothing, and have Trump re-instate it only to start their suits all over again.

I think those are very good criticisms of the report, and I agree with you.  I think the danger is that if it is completely discounted (and I am not saying that you are), one cannot assume that the loss of tax income will be negligible, even if it is not as high as $60 billion. Even if it is half of that amount, it would be a large loss in revenue. One of the things DACA recipients have going for them is their relative youth (they're certainly all younger than I am, by a good decade or more even at their oldest). If they are employed as Americans and PRs are employed, they will tend to increase their earning potential as time goes by, thereby increasing tax revenues. 

 

I'm taking an advanced trial advocacy course at the moment, and we're covering effective use of experts at the moment. (Hence my diversion into cross-examination.) One of the interesting things I've learned is that it's fairly easy to undermine the credibility of economists in front of a jury if you play up how much of economic projection is guesswork. Educated guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless. It's unfortunate there is no real analogue here that would increase the potential accuracy of the forecast.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

No, Maven, I didn't get a chance to read it.  Posted my response quickly as I was heading off to my flight.  I will, though.

 

My issue with the numbers is that in order for them to be even close to true, one would have to assume that every single person of the 800,000 is currently employed, and makes a minimum of $48,000 a year.  These numbers are why I am doubting the economic impact that was predicted.  

 

There is no doubt that losing several hundred thousand tax payers would indeed affect our economy.  But surely you can see it's not linear.... don't you think that the jobs would be filled with currently unemployed USC?  (At least I would hope that is the way it went down).  There are over 1 million new LPRs each year (2015 data).  In 3 years, I suspect the loss of even 600,000 DACA folks would corrected by the taxes paid by those LPRs who get jobs.  So overall, I doubt any of us would be able to tell a difference in our economy.  It's not like the budget was improved since Obama took the liberty of initiating DACA.

 

Or... maybe they wouldn't. It's not like we don't have enough work-eligible folks in the US.  Just a large number who don't want to work.  But while I am no economics expert,  it is logical to assume that a portion of the jobs currently held by DACA folks would indeed be filled by USC folks who want to work. 

 

And even if Congress fails, and DACA goes away as it should, and even if the people who were given an additional 5 years to become legal end up being deported (I seriously doubt that would happen)... it won't happen right away, nor all at once.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

So you are buying into the concept that 800,000 DACA waivered people will put $60 billion into the US tax system over 10 years?  That's $6 billion (projected tax dollars) per year.  Do you really believe that?  Or is it just emotion-tweaking drama words?

 

 

 

I'm not. The American economy is. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

18 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

I'm not. The American economy is. 

No.  The American economy doesn't buy into it.  Either you believe the hype posted as is, or you question the figures as I do.  Having had the time to read the study, it makes the numbers posted even harder to believe.  I was arguing it wasn't possible with 100% of DACA young adults working.  The CATO study points to more like 59% of just over 741k people, or approximately 437k people, nearly half of what I was basing my discussion on.  Which makes the claims even more inflated.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

But more importantly.... did the nearly 750k DACA waivees do anything since signing up for the deferral to become LPRs?  If not, why not?

 

Or is there even an option for them to do so?  What recourse is available to take them from DACA to LPR?

 

And if there is nothing,  then why was DACA even put into place?  Was it intended to be a lifetime waiver, completely circumventing the immigration process?  Or was it a stop gap measure put into place without much thought given to the end result?

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

But more importantly.... did the nearly 750k DACA waivees do anything since signing up for the deferral to become LPRs?  If not, why not?

 

Or is there even an option for them to do so?  What recourse is available to take them from DACA to LPR?

 

And if there is nothing,  then why was DACA even put into place?  Was it intended to be a lifetime waiver, completely circumventing the immigration process?  Or was it a stop gap measure put into place without much thought given to the end result?

There are people still to this day eligible for DACA and have not signed up for it at all which boggles my mind, all the while claiming it is a financial burden for them to file. But yet when they are caught out of status and subject to deportation, all of sudden they can come up with money to file for it and want the time to file for DACA. 

 

Sorry if your dumb enough to be out of status and not sign up for a program that your eligible for to be here legally then I have no sympathy for you AT ALL.

Edited September 6, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[Umka36 781]

4 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

There are people still to this day eligible for DACA and have not signed up for it at all which boggles my mind, all the while claiming it is a financial burden for them to file. But yet when they are caught out of status and subject to deportation, all of sudden they can come up with money to file for it and want the time to file for DACA. 

 

Sorry if your dumb enough to be out of status and not sign up for a program that your eligible for to be here legally then I have no sympathy for you AT ALL.

Another reason is probably the fear of being registered and that information being used against them for future roundups.  

 

I'm all for allowing law abiding illegal children to gain PR, since it was not their fault. But that should be it moving forward as it's getting crazy how many times we've implemented some type of amnesty and our government keep saying it's the last time and yet we are at this junction again.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

36 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

But more importantly.... did the nearly 750k DACA waivees do anything since signing up for the deferral to become LPRs?  If not, why not?

 

Or is there even an option for them to do so?  What recourse is available to take them from DACA to LPR?

 

And if there is nothing,  then why was DACA even put into place?  Was it intended to be a lifetime waiver, completely circumventing the immigration process?  Or was it a stop gap measure put into place without much thought given to the end result?

 

 

Those basic questions are really best answered when you do some research before forming an opinion. Questions many do not even attempt to explore, critiquing is much easier. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Those basic questions are really best answered when you do some research before forming an opinion. Questions many do not even attempt to explore, critiquing is much easier. 

The reason I posted was to initiate discussion among the immigration experts here.  To further education and understanding of problems we face today.  Surely you are down with that?

[narakthisud 174]

9 hours ago, NikLR said:

No.. children don't make a choice. That was the point of DACA. 

The children themselves may not have made the choice but their parents surely did. Irresponsible and perhaps also conniving at the same time to knowingly bring your children into a country with the intent to immigrate when you the parent knew you shouldn't.  

 

7 hours ago, jayjayj said:

All these people are using an immigration site intended to help people with legal immigration.  Does it really surprise you that people spending the time and money to do things the right way have a problem with people who are trying to skip the line?  I doubt many people on VJ support illegal immigration.

Not surprised at all. The process for my wife just to get her K1 visa was quite complex and took months. Now that we're in the AOS phase, it's real fun! With only a K1 visa and an EAD/AP card so far, we've spent  $1500 in USCIS fees so far, which does not include ancillary fees such as translation services, travel, embassy fees, postage, etc. Not to mention the amount of time my wife and I have spent assembling paperwork, running around to various government agencies here and in Thailand, and on the phone. 

 

Yeah, not a fan of those who skirt the law. At least DACA recipients went through a formal process with USCIS despite the questionable constitutionality of the underlying executive order.

 

7 hours ago, Boiler said:

Fortunately there is Canada.

 

6 hours ago, Boiler said:

Everybody is welcome in Canada.

 

(Nice sandwiches as well)

Oh, Canada! Yes, quite a lovely country. My wife and I have been there and we're planning another trip there in a few years. 

 

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Let's watch it with the bickering and needling, folks.  Plenty of objective stuff to discuss without becoming personal.

Couldn't agree more. Although it's easy to stray away from the facts when DACA is such an emotionally-charged topic.

 

6 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Not really I got into huge online brawl yesterday that did involve GIF's. First time I have had someone tell me that "I am racist for not liking anyone that is Brown and does not speak English". I had to inform this person that she was dumb as hell for that comment because my wife is a brown Filipina and my children get confused for being Mexican all the time, and my wife speaks more languages than just English. 

 

I think that was the maddest I have gotten from a comment online. 

A friend of mine enjoys talking about how "black and brown people" struggle to make it in this society of ours. My Thai wife is thankful to live in this country and is working hard to become a contributing member of society as a nurse but had difficulty with the nursing exam. She never once complained that the nursing exam is slanted against "black and brown" people. She just studied harder. I'm so proud of her because she never makes excuses or blames others for her shortcomings. She is tough and puts up with me - now that's a winning combination!

 

6 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I don't like them.... I LOVE THEM. Seriously my breakfast is bananas. 

Go. Bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S! (remembered that from high school.)

 

5 hours ago, CaliCat said:

So, as of Friday we had 4 dreamers interviewing for jobs at the place where I work. As of yesterday, we hired all four of them. Vive la resistance!

Good for your company. I hope your CEO decides to sponsor them for green cards once day so that they can have true LPR status and not some short-term stopgap measure which leaves them vulnerable to removal. 

 

4 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Awesome for them!  Did any of them complain about the cost of filing the I-821D (free) and the cost of the I-765 ($495)?  Or did they seem to think it was reasonable to pay such in order to stay here and work, legally?

 

I love how the media is trying to pluck on our heartstrings for these "kids"... all 800,000 of them.  Who are between the ages of 20 & 36 today.  Who have all had at least 5 years of DACA to achieve a legal immigration route.

 

Also funny (not really) was how the media is trying to tell us that the US will lose $6 BILLION annually for the next 10 years if these 800,000 waivered folks are not allowed to work.  I challenge anyone to do the math on THAT.

Yeah, I'm with you. The "kids" trope is getting old.