Sessions rescinds DACA

[NikLR 13,227]

Children should not have to pay for their parents bad choices, which is why I've always supported DACA, just not the fact it was pushed to the front of the line. 

 

Canada still requires you to have a visa or other means of immigration to live there.  It's not like it's an open revolving door. 

[Boiler 45,385]

Canada - We are talking about those fleeing Trump.

[Mrs. Wild 87]

I've always wondered why people are SO bothered by DACA because they're "skipping the line", but no one bats an eye at visa overstays who adjust their status 🤔... 

[Jacque67 7,328]

12 minutes ago, Mrs. Wild said:

I've always wondered why people are SO bothered by DACA because they're "skipping the line", but no one bats an eye at visa overstays who adjust their status 🤔... 

🤔😎

[narakthisud 174]

18 minutes ago, Mrs. Wild said:

I've always wondered why people are SO bothered by DACA because they're "skipping the line", but no one bats an eye at visa overstays who adjust their status 🤔... 

• DACA was put in place by an executive order that is constitutionally dubious at best.
• Forgiveness for visa overstays upon AOS is provided for in legislation (INA) and USCIS policy.

Very big difference between the two. Also, DACA provides no way to "skip" anything; an EAD/AP combo card provides no legal status and no path to a green card.

[Mrs. Wild 87]

Just now, narakthisud said:

• DACA was put in place by an executive order that is constitutionally dubious at best.
• Forgiveness for visa overstays upon AOS is provided for in legislation (INA) and USCIS policy.

Very big difference between the two. Also, DACA provides no way to "skip" anything; an EAD/AP combo card provides no legal status and no path to a green card.

I'm aware DACA provided nothing other than slight peace of mind with an expiration date. This statement about DACA "skipping the line" is constantly used. 

 

A visa overstay is only forgiven when a qualified relative or employer petitions for the immigrant in question. Up until that point... they're just as "ilegally" here as the DACA recipients. The only difference being, one immigrant went through customs... The other had no say in the matter.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

1 hour ago, NikLR said:

Children should not have to pay for their parents bad choices, which is why I've always supported DACA, just not the fact it was pushed to the front of the line. 

When the parents or other family members are sneaking across the border or overstaying they believe they are making a good choice. Who got to decide that the parents made a bad choice? If their children end up with permanent legal status then they ultimately made a good choice. 

 

Those who has been proactive and registered for DACA should be permitted to stay with certain restrictions. No citizenship and no sponsoring of family members to immigrate. A line should be drawn now and any future families that illegally enter should be turned around and sent back or is the plan now to always allow the children to stay?

 

[narakthisud 174]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Wild said:

This statement about DACA "skipping the line" is constantly used. 

 

That's a real shame and it reveals how little people know about DACA.

[Mrs. Wild 87]

Agreed

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Not much changed when 3 million illegals were granted amnesty in 1986.  Had we moved forward from then and kept things moving with a stricter enforcement of already-in-place immigration laws, we wouldn't be where we are today.  But because we still do not prosecute employers that employ illegals under the table, and because we do not (or cannot) enforce the laws at our own borders, there is more incentive for illegals to continue to come here than the other way around.

 

All DACA did was kick the can down the road, and solved nothing.  Those involved were given a brief period where they thought they could breathe easier, but even as it was known then, that period is now coming to a close, and we are no closer to a solution.

 

It seems we either open our borders to anyone, or enforce the laws that are currently in place.  There is no in between that bodes well for anyone that I can see.  I guess if there was an easy solution to the problem, it would have been solved in the previous 30 years.

[jayjayj 571]

4 hours ago, narakthisud said:

4 hours ago, Mrs. Wild said:

This statement about DACA "skipping the line" is constantly used. 

 

That's a real shame and it reveals how little people know about DACA.

I guess I can't wrap my simple conservative mind around this, but can you explain to me what line they stood in to enter this country? 

[NikLR 13,227]

7 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

When the parents or other family members are sneaking across the border or overstaying they believe they are making a good choice. Who got to decide that the parents made a bad choice? If their children end up with permanent legal status then they ultimately made a good choice. 

 

Those who has been proactive and registered for DACA should be permitted to stay with certain restrictions. No citizenship and no sponsoring of family members to immigrate. A line should be drawn now and any future families that illegally enter should be turned around and sent back or is the plan now to always allow the children to stay?

 

I was answering someone specifically who said it was a bad choice.  Of course the parents believe they're making a good choice and providing a better life for their children.  Obviously they believed the choice to be illegal and live in fear of deportation was outweighed by the positives.  But you can't change the fact these parents made their children illegal immigrants. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by NikLR

[Dashinka 24,428]

5 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Not much changed when 3 million illegals were granted amnesty in 1986.  Had we moved forward from then and kept things moving with a stricter enforcement of already-in-place immigration laws, we wouldn't be where we are today.  But because we still do not prosecute employers that employ illegals under the table, and because we do not (or cannot) enforce the laws at our own borders, there is more incentive for illegals to continue to come here than the other way around.

 

All DACA did was kick the can down the road, and solved nothing.  Those involved were given a brief period where they thought they could breathe easier, but even as it was known then, that period is now coming to a close, and we are no closer to a solution.

 

It seems we either open our borders to anyone, or enforce the laws that are currently in place.  There is no in between that bodes well for anyone that I can see.  I guess if there was an easy solution to the problem, it would have been solved in the previous 30 years.

That's really the issue isn't it, the revolving door of immigration band aides.  I am not totally versed on DACA, but doesn't it only apply to those that have been living in the country since 2007 and were younger than 16 when they were brought here?  What happens to the same type of children that have been brought here illegally since 2007?  Will there need to be a DACA II at some point?  I do wish the politicians that want it would just come out and say they are for open boarders.  I heard an interview with a Dem lawmaker that kept saying he wanted to enforce the immigration laws, but kept going back to the fact that we needed to allow exceptions.  Which is it?  I know DACA was touted very nicely by labeling all those impacted by it as "Dreamers" which automatically labels anyone that criticizes the program as mean and nasty anti-immigration racists, but I would hesitate to find anyone on a site like this that is anti-immigration.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Hmm. From the guy who still holds sway over Donnie...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-bannon-on-trump-daca-decision-60-minutes/

 

catholic popes are are opposed to what's happening with DACA as they need more illegal aliens to fill the churches.

 

keep on stirring, Steve!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

You nailed it, Bill.  3 million got amnesty in 1986.  What did that do for us today?  Gave us 13 million illegals.  Do we grant them amnesty?  Where do we draw the line?  Say the heck with immigration laws, and let anyone who wants to land on our soil the right to do so, like it was a couple hundred years ago?  What would become of this country in 20 years if we just opened our borders to everyone?

 

There is one solution to the current DACA problem, and it's legal.  Every person who feels strongly that those currently enrolled in DACA deserve to stay let themselves be heard and sponsor just one of those kids.  

 

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That's really the issue isn't it, the revolving door of immigration band aides.  I am not totally versed on DACA, but doesn't it only apply to those that have been living in the country since 2007 and were younger than 16 when they were brought here?  What happens to the same type of children that have been brought here illegally since 2007?  Will there need to be a DACA II at some point?  I do wish the politicians that want it would just come out and say they are for open boarders.  I heard an interview with a Dem lawmaker that kept saying he wanted to enforce the immigration laws, but kept going back to the fact that we needed to allow exceptions.  Which is it?  I know DACA was touted very nicely by labeling all those impacted by it as "Dreamers" which automatically labels anyone that criticizes the program as mean and nasty anti-immigration racists, but I would hesitate to find anyone on a site like this that is anti-immigration.