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

[jayjayj 571]

9 hours ago, Tahoma said:

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!

 

It was definitely hilarious to see the faces of the Democrats sitting on either side of Trump when the press came into the room.  They had no idea it was going to happen.  

[jayjayj 571]

10 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.

 

This is exactly why the Dems want a "clean" bill and is exactly why GEOTUS Trump isn't going to give it to them.  The Dems are constantly moving the goalposts on the immigration issue.

 

Three year renewable visas with no path to citizenship is what DACA recipients are eventually going to get.  If Dems really care about the DACA folks, they should be content with that compromise, as it gives them legal status.  Otherwise, the legality of DACA will be going to the Supreme Court and it will certainly be ended - completely and abruptly.  The Dems should also expect to compromise on the issue themselves - wall, end of chain migration, end of diversity lottery system, strict enforcement of immigration laws.

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

2 hours ago, jayjayj said:

 

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.

 

 

If the courts are saying he handled it improperly. Why didn't the opponents of the executive action challenge its legality(and win) before Trump took office. 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

12 hours ago, Tahoma said:

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!

Yeah..I don't think he's very good at negotiating ,and he likes to dance when the cameras are on him. 

[jayjayj 571]

15 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

If the courts are saying he handled it improperly. Why didn't the opponents of the executive action challenge its legality(and win) before Trump took office. 

 

They lacked standing.

 

One can't argue that an administration can use prosecutorial discretion and make policy via Executive Order, then turn around and say the next administration can't do the same or reverse it.  What comes around goes around.  Elections have consequences.    

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

5 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

They lacked standing.

 

One can't argue that an administration can use prosecutorial discretion and make policy via Executive Order, then turn around and say the next administration can't do the same or reverse it.  What comes around goes around.  Elections have consequences.    

Thank you for your insight.. 

[jayjayj 571]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Yeah..I don't think he's very good at negotiating ,and he likes to dance when the cameras are on him. 

 

Why do you think he isn't good at negotiating?  I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, so I would like to hear your reasoning.    

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

4 hours ago, jayjayj said:

 

Why do you think he isn't good at negotiating?  I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, so I would like to hear your reasoning.    

- not consistient and relies heavily on half truths

-Trump's ghost writer for "the art of negotiation" thinks Trump is bad at negotiating 

- long history of strong arming people who have less resources. 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

- not consistient and relies heavily on half truths

-Trump's ghost writer for "the art of negotiation" thinks Trump is bad at negotiating 

- long history of strong arming people who have less resources. 

 

 

which isn't negotiating at all, it's bullying.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

which isn't negotiating at all, it's bullying.

He's tried it a few times.. and it's exactly what's he doing with DACA if Congress passes a clean bill and trump fails to sign. 

[jayjayj 571]

14 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

He's tried it a few times.. and it's exactly what's he doing with DACA if Congress passes a clean bill and trump fails to sign. 

 

I doubt we will see a clean bill.  Dems wants a clean bill, because they don't want to have to give anything up to get what they want.  That won't be the case with DACA.  They are going to have to give up wall funding, elimination of the visa lottery system, elimination of chain migration, full implementation of e-Verify, and additional border security funding.  None of those commonsense measures to secure our country's borders should be showstoppers for the Dems, if they truly care about DACA recipients they'll drop the nonsense insistence for a clean bill and start negotiating.        

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

46 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

I doubt we will see a clean bill.  Dems wants a clean bill, because they don't want to have to give anything up to get what they want.  That won't be the case with DACA.  They are going to have to give up wall funding, elimination of the visa lottery system, elimination of chain migration, full implementation of e-Verify, and additional border security funding.  None of those commonsense measures to secure our country's borders should be showstoppers for the Dems, if they truly care about DACA recipients they'll drop the nonsense insistence for a clean bill and start negotiating.        

https://www.axios.com/poll-86-of-americans-1515703003-5292c3d8-74c5-4aba-8927-54a65a96dd7b.html

Not with a (give or take )86% approval rating. 

 

I would support a "smart wall" on the bill. 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[jayjayj 571]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

https://www.axios.com/poll-86-of-americans-1515703003-5292c3d8-74c5-4aba-8927-54a65a96dd7b.html

Not with a (give or take )86% approval rating. 

 

I would support a "smart wall" on the bill. 

 

 

That is a large percent of people supporting it, but it surely wouldn't be the first time our government did something different from what a majority of our citizens want.  However, it doesn't tell us if those people expect a "clean DACA bill" or if they would expect negotiations about what else should be included in the bill.  I support legalizing DACA recipients, but I expect Republicans to use their position of power to force those other concessions into the process - otherwise, what is the point of having a majority in government.  

 

In the same poll, conducted by the Washington Post, 79% of respondents want a mandatory electronic employment verification system (e-Verify) to also be put in place.  This would ensure that only legally present individuals could work in the United States and would go a long way toward curbing illegal immigration.  Along those same lines, it looks like some members of Congress want change illegal entry from a civil violation to a criminal violation, by making it a misdemeanor.  

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

49 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

That is a large percent of people supporting it, but it surely wouldn't be the first time our government did something different from what a majority of our citizens want.  However, it doesn't tell us if those people expect a "clean DACA bill" or if they would expect negotiations about what else should be included in the bill.  I support legalizing DACA recipients, but I expect Republicans to use their position of power to force those other concessions into the process - otherwise, what is the point of having a majority in government.  

 

In the same poll, conducted by the Washington Post, 79% of respondents want a mandatory electronic employment verification system (e-Verify) to also be put in place.  This would ensure that only legally present individuals could work in the United States and would go a long way toward curbing illegal immigration.  Along those same lines, it looks like some members of Congress want change illegal entry from a civil violation to a criminal violation, by making it a misdemeanor.  

 

 

Fair enough.  

I have no problem with an e-verification system to be added to the bill and also have no problem with making illegal entry a misdemeanor. 

 

But it would be preferable to handle the DACA and comprehensive immagration seperately. Using these kids as political fodder should be beneath us as a country/community. 

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, Keith & Arileidi said:

Fair enough.  

I have no problem with an e-verification system to be added to the bill and also have no problem with making illegal entry a misdemeanor. 

 

But it would be preferable to handle the DACA and comprehensive immagration seperately. Using these kids as political fodder should be beneath us as a country/community. 

 

Comprehensive immigration reform has to include DACA by definition, otherwise it isn't comprehensive reform of our immigration system.  I see no reason to seperate them from the larger conversation, when they are a critical and controversial part of it.  We have several months before any of them would be even moderately affected by a bill not being passed, so let's use that time to negotiate something that fixes the overall problem.  Everyone here knows our immigration system is badly broken.  Like I said, Democrats want to separate DACA from the overall negotiations, because Democrats don't want to be forced to concede on any of the other reforms - they don't want any of them implemented.  That is clearly evident, as they've been flamboyantly outspoken about their opposition to additional reforms.  That opposition increases the need for DACA to be included in the overall reform, for those people who actually want overall immigration reform to happen.  We all know that overall immigration reform will stall out if DACA is addressed and resolved first.

 

Every political negotiation has winners and losers.  I think we can agree that DACA recipients will end up being winners, once this process is complete.  I don't know what more they could ask for at this point.  I assume they have much better lives now then they would have if they had stayed in their country of origin.  The fact that their status is being used to negotiate broader immigration reform doesn't negatively impact them and doesn't make them political fodder - labeling them as political fodder would suggest they lost something during the process or are worse off at the end.