Trump vs. Trump, again: Judge cites presidential tweets as he blocks DACA phaseout

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

nope. it was created for folks who were brought here as children and are hs graduates (minimum)/current students/military and with no criminal record. never made sense to me why anyone would be against it. there is no legal avenue for people who qualify under the dream act to become citizens or gain legal residence at all (even marrying a us citizen) they can only renew their daca status. and this judge today isn't touching the portion of trump's decision to stop allowing new applications. that remains in place. so we're talking about a very specific group of people, who have been keeping their end of the deal concerning the requirements of daca - which are pretty sound. 

Ok, I must have missed that part of DACA, where I though the parents were included with the children.

 

Like I said, the kids have nowhere besides the US to “go home to” to apply for LPR, but they should not be used as anchor babies, either. Create a law specific to their situation that is fair and amenable to all, and let’s get rid of the millions of people who actually broke the law to get here, like their parents.  (Like I said, slippery slopes)

 

This should be an interesting thing, if the pubs and dems step up to the plate Trump has offered them.  Staying tuned...

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Ok, I must have missed that part of DACA, where I though the parents were included with the children.

 

Like I said, the kids have nowhere besides the US to “go home to” to apply for LPR, but they should not be used as anchor babies, either. Create a law specific to their situation that is fair and amenable to all, and let’s get rid of the millions of people who actually broke the law to get here, like their parents.  (Like I said, slippery slopes)

 

This should be an interesting thing, if the pubs and dems step up to the plate Trump has offered them.  Staying tuned...

as far as i'm concerned spending billions of dollars on a wall should not be part of the the daca 'deal' so i'm hoping dems stand their ground. 

[Tahoma 2,292]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I don't think they have. You know something I don't? 

I know something you should know: you're the one questioning the constitutionality of Obama's executive order.

[Dashinka 24,364]

29 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

There is no issue and no its not tough its also not a slippery slope.
These are people lives, and not some sick partisan game to get a wall.

-Congress needs to pass a clean bill ( maybe with some fences and drones tact on).
- Trump needs sign the bill.

That was the plan when trump tried to repeal DACA.
Let congress do their job then let the president do his.
 

It is a slippery slope when you consider the future.  If we don’t secure the border first, then we will have to do the same thing again in 10-20 years.  I know politicians always love revisiting contentious subjects.

[Dashinka 24,364]

7 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Ok, I must have missed that part of DACA, where I though the parents were included with the children.

 

Like I said, the kids have nowhere besides the US to “go home to” to apply for LPR, but they should not be used as anchor babies, either. Create a law specific to their situation that is fair and amenable to all, and let’s get rid of the millions of people who actually broke the law to get here, like their parents.  (Like I said, slippery slopes)

 

This should be an interesting thing, if the pubs and dems step up to the plate Trump has offered them.  Staying tuned...

You are thinking of DAPA I believe.  That was stopped by a judge almost three years ago.

[Tahoma 2,292]

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Trump (and the Republicans)  won't sign a clean bill. 

 

Did you watch the meeting yesterday in the Cabinet Room?  It was hilarious.  Trump, the stable genius,  was agreeing with everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike.  When he agreed to sign a DACA Bill without getting anything in return, the Republicans became apoplectic.  But, we all know what a great negotiator Trump is!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Tahoma said:

I know something you should know: you're the one questioning the constitutionality of Obama's executive order.

He’s questioning it (as are many) because it was an end-run around the existing laws.  EXECUTIVE branch executes the laws, doesn’t make them up as time rolls on.  Obama handled it improperly, and now it’s up to Trump to make it right again.

[Tahoma 2,292]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

He’s questioning it (as are many) because it was an end-run around the existing laws.  EXECUTIVE branch executes the laws, doesn’t make them up as time rolls on.  Obama handled it improperly, and now it’s up to Trump to make it right again.

I see.  Obama handled it improperly because you say he handled it improperly, not because the arbiters of law, the courts, say he handled it improperly.  Got it!

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It is a slippery slope when you consider the future.  If we don’t secure the border first, then we will have to do the same thing again in 10-20 years.  I know politicians always love revisiting contentious subjects.

In 10-20 year Mexico will have a higher standard of living.
In fact, the trend shows a downward slope when it comes to immigrants crossing the border.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/02/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

The "Slippery slope" term only comes out when you dont have much of a logical reason to disagree with a piece of policy.
Especially when you are actually a supporter of its premise.

It didn't work with gay rights, its not going to work with DACA.
These types of situations that effect REAL peoples lives need to be taken on case by case basis.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

58 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

In 10-20 year Mexico will have a higher standard of living.
In fact, the trend shows a downward slope when it comes to immigrants crossing the border.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/02/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

The "Slippery slope" term only comes out when you dont have much of a logical reason to disagree with a piece of policy.
Especially when you are actually a supporter of its premise.

It didn't work with gay rights, its not going to work with DACA.
These types of situations that effect REAL peoples lives need to be taken on case by case basis.

Are you familiar with IRCA of ‘86, and how illegal immigration has diminished since then?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Tahoma said:

I see.  Obama handled it improperly because you say he handled it improperly, not because the arbiters of law, the courts, say he handled it improperly.  Got it!

It’s pretty simple to comprehend, actually.  And as you can see in this link, my name is not mentioned, so no, it’s not because I said so.  I only wish I had that sort of sway with the US government.

 

http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted

[TBoneTX 45,014]

Multiple TOS-violating posts, along with posts quoting or referring to them, have been removed.

Administrative action has been applied.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

6 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Are you familiar with IRCA of ‘86, and how illegal immigration has diminished since then?

It's over 30 years old, So it needs a fresh update. 

Like I said in a previous post, immagration is constantly evolving topic that needs to be dealt with case by case. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

It's over 30 years old, So it needs a fresh update. 

Like I said in a previous post, immagration is constantly evolving topic that needs to be dealt with case by case. 

So you do realize that the US granted a waiver to illegal immigrants in the country at that time, in the hopes that most of the 3.2 million illegals would assimilate and the problem would go away?  And here we are 30 years later, with more than 11 million illegals in our country.  Just granting a waiver does not the problem solve.

[jayjayj 571]

8 hours ago, Tahoma said:

I see.  Obama handled it improperly because you say he handled it improperly, not because the arbiters of law, the courts, say he handled it improperly.  Got it!

 

No, the courts have said Obama handled it improperly by ruling that DAPA was unconstitutional because Obama had violated the rule making requirements of the APA.  The Obama administration instituted DACA the exact same way as DAPA, via Executive Order, claiming prosecutorial discretion.