Sessions rescinds DACA

[Dashinka 24,419]

11 hours ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 Fancy way to throw bait and then point a finger. As a neutral observer I see no TOS violation but a subtle yet provocative dance on the edge

on your part.

Back to topic.

1. DACA get GC, those who meet more rigorous criteria and serious vetting perhaps citizenship so we don't have a sub culture of non citizen.

2. More funds for and better border protection but heck, no wall.
3. Parents of DACA kids stay, renew an application with a penalty fee every 6 months to stay on case by case basis. Fee and criteria to be set.
4. Little post DACA kids stay and get GC after vetting and meeting criteria.
5. Commit a crime / felony and your butt is gone. Deported. One chance.

 

I am against open borders but for humanity, there is a middle way that is logical besides a black and white solution.
Sick and tired of 'I had to go through this and that and stand in line talk' who cares, cry me a river.
If anyone here could complain about how long we had to and are still standing in line, it would be me and I am not complaining.
Just because I have to stand in long lines doesn't mean anyone else should.
Neither should anyone get a total free ride and must be thoroughly vetted in matters of security and fraud, that's a no brainer.
 Laws must be followed but life and humanity and times are fluid and laws can be adjusted when a better way can be found, why is that so scary ?
Rigid adherence to certain outdated laws is not always going to be the right thing to do. That's when congress comes together and makes a better law.
So what's the problem with all the DACA whinery. It shouldn't drive anyone to drink and it really isn't that complicated.
Let's move on to decent health care in this country and tax reform and infrastructure and stop nit picking on the small stuff.
Geez Louise.

If done right it will not set an incentive for future repeats of parents bringing kids here because the increased and better border protection

will prevent that. Fine employers, enforce that law already in place. No jobs = less undocumented. What would draw them here if they can't
get hired to make a living. Fine the employers with more than a slap on the hand.
 

Where in DACA does it say the parents will be allowed to stay if deportation proceedings are initiated per your point 3?  Wasn't the DAPA extension halted by the courts?  I am also curious as to what constitutes out-dated laws?  

 

As as you suggested, open borders are not an answer, but when it comes to immigration our government always does it backwards.  We need to enforce the current laws first, take care of employers that provide the incentives for employment of illegals, and stop the flow, then we can deal with the illegal aliens that are here.  DACA applicants are always called children, but I thought one had to be at least 18 to apply and first be brought to the US and 16 years or younger by June 15, 2007 (might be hard to prove with no I94 or no birth certificate), be presently in the country and no older than 31 by June 15, 2012.  I go back to my original question in this thread, what do we do with those that have been brought in since 2007?  The only answer I ever got was that at some point there will need to be a DACA 2.0, which based on our ongoing immigration laws, or policies just gives an incentive for others to keep trying this route in the hope that they can avoid ICE until another government entity does something for humanitarian reasons.

[jayjayj 571]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Where in DACA does it say the parents will be allowed to stay if deportation proceedings are initiated per your point 3?  Wasn't the DAPA extension halted by the courts?  I am also curious as to what constitutes out-dated laws?  

 

As as you suggested, open borders are not an answer, but when it comes to immigration our government always does it backwards.  We need to enforce the current laws first, take care of employers that provide the incentives for employment of illegals, and stop the flow, then we can deal with the illegal aliens that are here.  DACA applicants are always called children, but I thought one had to be at least 18 to apply and first be brought to the US and 16 years or younger by June 15, 2007 (might be hard to prove with no I94 or no birth certificate), be presently in the country and no older than 31 by June 15, 2012.  I go back to my original question in this thread, what do we do with those that have been brought in since 2007?  The only answer I ever got was that at some point there will need to be a DACA 2.0, which based on our ongoing immigration laws, or policies just gives an incentive for others to keep trying this route in the hope that they can avoid ICE until another government entity does something for humanitarian reasons.

They should go back with their parents to their country of origin.  Then, they and their parents can apply to legally come here and actually stand in a real line like everyone else.

[Dashinka 24,419]

35 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

They should go back with their parents to their country of origin.  Then, they and their parents can apply to legally come here and actually stand in a real line like everyone else.

My thoughts as well as otherwise DACA is just as inhumane splitting up families.

[Boiler 45,362]

The focus of course needs to be on those carrying ot child smuggling, a very serious crime.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

The focus of course needs to be on those carrying ot child smuggling, a very serious crime.

Taking a child over the border to escape hunger and violence, though unlawful does not constitute child smuggling.
The purpose is not to enslave, forced labor or exploitation by the parents.
Child trafficking is another matter than DACA.

Trafficking of children is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for the purpose of slavery, forced labor and exploitation.^{[1]:Article 3 (c)}

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 hours ago, jayjayj said:

They should go back with their parents to their country of origin.  Then, they and their parents can apply to legally come here and actually stand in a real line like everyone else.

Again, to me personally it doesn't matter what line they stand in just because I stand in one. I understand that your opinion differs than mine.
On what basis can children legally apply to come here after leaving ....what line is that ?
Go home, apply to apply in line for what visa ? It seems it isagain all about a line when it is logical to process them from here.
 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Where in DACA does it say the parents will be allowed to stay if deportation proceedings are initiated per your point 3?  Wasn't the DAPA extension halted by the courts?  I am also curious as to what constitutes out-dated laws?  

 

As as you suggested, open borders are not an answer, but when it comes to immigration our government always does it backwards.  We need to enforce the current laws first, take care of employers that provide the incentives for employment of illegals, and stop the flow, then we can deal with the illegal aliens that are here.  DACA applicants are always called children, but I thought one had to be at least 18 to apply and first be brought to the US and 16 years or younger by June 15, 2007 (might be hard to prove with no I94 or no birth certificate), be presently in the country and no older than 31 by June 15, 2012.  I go back to my original question in this thread, what do we do with those that have been brought in since 2007?  The only answer I ever got was that at some point there will need to be a DACA 2.0, which based on our ongoing immigration laws, or policies just gives an incentive for others to keep trying this route in the hope that they can avoid ICE until another government entity does something for humanitarian reasons.

It does not, nor did I say it does.
My suggestion was for congress to create a meaningful and fair way to case by case assessment with vetting and criteria.

The world changes constantly, outdated laws need updating. Adultery is a crime still on the books with jail time in some states though they are ignored
and laughed at.
Blacks not being allowed to drink from the same fountain as whites once was a stupid horrendous law.
The laws are only as good as the people who make them. They aren't the tablets of Moses.
Rigidity to certain laws only and disregard to those even you would think are silly are agenda picking when saying the law is the law.
Laws are made with room for improvement. Life is fluid. Stagnant and rigid insistence over decades is not logical to certain laws
where humanity is involved. That's what congress is for.
I already answered what should happen to after DACA children or if you will, young people.....tomato > tomatoe.
It does NOT give incentive as I said if there are no incentives from employers and borders are improved.
 

[jayjayj 571]

18 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Again, to me personally it doesn't matter what line they stand in just because I stand in one. I understand that your opinion differs than mine.
On what basis can children legally apply to come here after leaving ....what line is that ?
Go home, apply to apply in line for what visa ? It seems it isagain all about a line when it is logical to process them from here.
 

Their parents can apply and include them in the petition.  That is the process and that is the line.  I'll stop using the term "line" and just start saying "follow the law and submit a petition to enter legally into the U.S.", but they can't do that from within the U.S. because they entered illegally.  

[jayjayj 571]

25 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Taking a child over the border to escape hunger and violence, though unlawful does not constitute child smuggling.
The purpose is not to enslave, forced labor or exploitation by the parents.
Child trafficking is another matter than DACA.

Trafficking of children is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for the purpose of slavery, forced labor and exploitation.^{[1]:Article 3 (c)}

 

Have you read about the "pantie trees" all along the border?  It is alarming to say the least.  Do you know how many children have died or disappeared while attempting to enter the U.S. illegally?  I don't, but I bet the information is out there.  Human traffickers are "exploiting" both the parents and the children, this it is human trafficking by definition.

[jayjayj 571]

13 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

It does not, nor did I say it does.
My suggestion was for congress to create a meaningful and fair way to case by case assessment with vetting and criteria.

The world changes constantly, outdated laws need updating. Adultery is a crime still on the books with jail time in some states though they are ignored
and laughed at.
Blacks not being allowed to drink from the same fountain as whites once was a stupid horrendous law.
The laws are only as good as the people who make them. They aren't the tablets of Moses.
Rigidity to certain laws only and disregard to those even you would think are silly are agenda picking when saying the law is the law.
Laws are made with room for improvement. Life is fluid. Stagnant and rigid insistence over decades is not logical to certain laws
where humanity is involved. That's what congress is for.
I already answered what should happen to after DACA children or if you will, young people.....tomato > tomatoe.
It does NOT give incentive as I said if there are no incentives from employers and borders are improved.
 

Was there a surge of illegal immigrant children coming across the border after Obama announced DACA?  Yes, there was.  Many of them were sent alone with human traffickers.  DACA was an incentive, even though it was explained as not being one.  This would also be an incentive.

[Boiler 45,362]

31 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Taking a child over the border to escape hunger and violence, though unlawful does not constitute child smuggling.
The purpose is not to enslave, forced labor or exploitation by the parents.
Child trafficking is another matter than DACA.

Trafficking of children is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for the purpose of slavery, forced labor and exploitation.^{[1]:Article 3 (c)}

 

It is a serious enough issue for Obama, praise be upon him, to provide the victims with DACA, if it is no big deal why DACA?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

28 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Was there a surge of illegal immigrant children coming across the border after Obama announced DACA?  Yes, there was.  Many of them were sent alone with human traffickers.  DACA was an incentive, even though it was explained as not being one.  This would also be an incentive.

You left out part of my comment. Take incentives for jobs away and increase security at the border.

[jayjayj 571]

3 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

You left out part of my comment. Take incentives for jobs away and increase security at the border.

Build a high tech wall?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

28 minutes ago, Boiler said:

It is a serious enough issue for Obama, praise be upon him, to provide the victims with DACA, if it is no big deal why DACA?

Daca is not all about trafficking and I don't agree with the deflection. You paint DACA with a broad brush of child trafficking.
While I agree that there is that component it is not the main one as the law defines it.
It is mainly about parents coming here illegally and bringing their kids. They are still here, not being in slave camps but DACA kids/ young people
are being productive members of this society. Now what to do with integrated young people that is the question.

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Daca is not all about trafficking and I don't agree with the deflection. You paint DACA with a broad brush of child trafficking.
While I agree that there is that component it is not the main one as the law defines it.
It is mainly about parents coming here illegally and bringing their kids. They are still here, not being in slave camps but DACA kids/ young people
are being productive members of this society. Now what to do with integrated young people that is the question.

Can you imagine how invigorating it would be to the Mexican economy if 800,000 highly educated, entrepreneurial, and productive members of society repatriated to their country of birth?  It would be amazing!