Sessions rescinds DACA

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

You are right, DACA is not a legal avenue for legal immigration as written, but since it was applied based on a specific date, wouldn't it have to be continually updated to cover those that have been brought here since?

depends on if we ever get in actual meaningful immigration reform.

 

3 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Sorry I added on to what I wrote after I wrote that. So go back and reread that comment.

that explains a lot. good luck to your kids. and i'm not even being flippant when i say that.

[Dashinka 24,109]

1 minute ago, Teddy B said:

As I said earlier, I have no problem with holding the people (parents) responsible who actually broke the laws. If that does in fact at some time equate to deportation, then the families will have a very tough decision to make, but I am not going to hold under aged children responsible for the actions of their parents or other adults that brought them here.

But that still doesn't address the question of what do we do with those brought here since 2007 by their parents or another adult?  Do we just keep having whoever is the Presient sign an updated DACA for those families that came here with children in tow and were successful in evading USCIS for at least two years or more?

[Teddy B 17,251]

Just now, jayjayj said:

Will it be a tougher decision than the one they made when they came here illegally and most likely left behind quite a few immediate family members?  Those parents didn't care about it then, why would they now?

I believe that the majority of these people came here with their children to give them better lives as have millions before them. But I'm not a mind reader and don't profess to know what every one of these migrants were thinking at the time.

[Dashinka 24,109]

Just now, smilesammich said:

depends on if we ever get in actual meaningful immigration reform.

 

that explains a lot. good luck to your kids. and i'm not even being flippant when i say that.

Which requires Congress to act with a duly passed bill to send to the President, not a potentially unconstitutional EO from one person.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

But that still doesn't address the question of what do we do with those brought here since 2007 by their parents or another adult?  Do we just keep having whoever is the Presient sign an updated DACA for those families that came here with children in tow and were successful in evading USCIS for at least two years or more?

I am reading you I promise I am but I don't know honestly. 

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, Teddy B said:

I believe that the majority of these people came here with their children to give them better lives as have millions before them. But I'm not a mind reader and don't profess to know what every one of these migrants were thinking at the time.

But you agree they broke the law when they illegally crossed the border, right?

[Dashinka 24,109]

Just now, cyberfx1024 said:

I am reading you I promise I am but I don't know honestly. 

My point is that DACA is only a band aide for a very specific time period and doesn't cover those that have come since.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

depends on if we ever get in actual meaningful immigration reform.

As I stated previously on here and haven't gotten a meaningful response back. What kind of Immigration Reform are we talking about. I want some specific details you want to see happen.

Edited September 7, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[Teddy B 17,251]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

But that still doesn't address the question of what do we do with those brought here since 2007 by their parents or another adult?  Do we just keep having whoever is the Presient sign an updated DACA for those families that came here with children in tow and were successful in evading USCIS for at least two years or more?

I'm not sure what will be done for those people that don't fall under the DACA umbrella, that will need to be addressed at a later date. If history has taught us anything, they will more than likely be given a way to stay here.

[Dashinka 24,109]

Just now, Teddy B said:

I'm not sure what will be done for those people that don't fall under the DACA umbrella, that will need to be addressed at a later date. If history has taught us anything, they will more than likely be given a way to stay here.

Yes, the continuing immigration band aides.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Which requires Congress to act with a duly passed bill to send to the President, not a potentially unconstitutional EO from one person.

[Teddy B 17,251]

2 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

But you agree they broke the law when they illegally crossed the border, right?

By "they", if you mean the adults, yes they did break the law if they entered the US illegally.

[jayjayj 571]

3 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

As I stated previously on here and haven't gotten a meaningful response back. What kind of Immigration Reform are we talking about. I want some specific details you want to see happen.

I'm also interested to know what is meant when someone says "meaningful immigration reform".  It doesn't appear they want restrictive immigration reform, so it must lean toward open borders. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by jayjayj

[Mrs. Wild 87]

3 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So I am still waiting for this broad brush of new policies that went to enact into law. But instead you keep talking about "Restrictive Policies". So what kind of restrictive policies? You said your not in favor of open borders, and now your not in favor of bans from staying here Illegally. So that means you basically want Open Borders. 

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is the policy that gave us 3yr and 10yr bans. It also drastically changed the reasons anyone was targeted for deportation. Prior to this, we had less visa overstay immigrants bulking up the illegal presence population. 

 

The kind of restrictive policies that target people based on what they look like.  For example, the "show me your paper" policies that keep failing, the disaster that happens when we restrict Mexican laborers from coming here to work and then realize Americans don't want to pick fruit 12hrs a day in hot weather. 

 

I am not in favor of broad open borders allowing people to come in and out without being "properly vetted". That's dangerous for any country. I am in favor of making the vetting process more accessible to immigrants, to cut down on people circumventing the system to escape their conditions. The more we criminalize a thing, the more people will work hard to try to get around it--this is not to say they are criminals, they may simply be DESPERATE. And please don't kid yourself by believing you would do differently if there was no food or clean water in your country, or medicine, or your country is ravaged by war, etc etc etc.

 

We like to help cause problems worldwide, but then we also like to close our doors to those in need. It's NIMBYism on a national scale.

[Teddy B 17,251]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, the continuing immigration band aides.

Seems to be the pattern.