Dreamers

[zinfamous]

Thats a good point. Especially when Trump has offered to do it the right way, through congress, and it would have protected more than the current act.

Anyway. Will be interesting.

That's a lie. Dems and Repubs brought two bills before Trump, giving him exactly what he asked for (including money for his bullshit fence), and he rejected both of them.

He never had an argument or any intent to make a deal. This goes to the "capricious" reasoning that K1052 mentioned above. As it stands, the administration never made a justification for its decision process.

I agree with the concern for overriding executive power in a case like this, but this also assumes that the executive is an honest broker, and not simply a mendacious goatfucker. I don't think anyone in this country wants to set precedent for these type of executive decisions, made by such petty men.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Obama didn't abdicate his authority. He asserted it with an executive order. And forget those emotional arguments based on stuff like common fucking decency. There's no place for any of that in Trumpworld.

Kicking a can down the road is a poor use of executive orders. This is the result. The policy was deferment. Not amnesty. Not citizenship. Deferment is an abdication. It was a poor policy decision.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Kicking a can down the road is a poor use of executive orders. This is the result. The policy was deferment. Not amnesty. Not citizenship. Deferment is an abdication. It was a poor policy decision.

Essentially the only thing Obama did was selectively choose to not enforce laws for certain demographics... which as the head of the executive branch he is free to do. I find it to be no different than the federal government choosing to not enforce federal marijuana laws even when states are "legalizing" them. They are still illegal from a federal perspective, it just isn't being enforced.

Likewise, I see no qualms with Trump declaring that the rule of law will once again be enforced. It's downright silly to argue otherwise.

Undoubtedly I think we need to have some compromise and pass some kind of actual solution - but arguing that Trump can't do this is fucking roll on the floor laugh worthy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thats a good point. Especially when Trump has offered to do it the right way, through congress, and it would have protected more than the current act.

Anyway. Will be interesting.

So he just took the Dreamers hostage & will be fucking them to get whatever else he wants. I mean, it's all perfectly legal & that's what really matters. Morality has nothing to do with it. Neither does any sense of national honor, either.

Maybe Trump & the GOP will tell us about Values. You know, as if they ever had any.

 

[Jhhnn]

Kicking a can down the road is a poor use of executive orders. This is the result. The policy was deferment. Not amnesty. Not citizenship. Deferment is an abdication. It was a poor policy decision.

Please. It was just the best Obama could do under the circumstances. He saw it as a moral imperative & a bridge to final resolution. Trump burns the bridge. And, uhh, moral imperative? From Trump? Surely you jest.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So he just took the Dreamers hostage & will be fucking them to get whatever else he wants. I mean, it's all perfectly legal & that's what really matters. Morality has nothing to do with it. Neither does any sense of national honor, either.

Maybe Trump & the GOP will tell us about Values. You know, as if they ever had any.

Using terms such as "taking them hostage" is just an emotional ploy to bring salty tears to people's eyes instead of facts.

It doesn't change the fact that laws were broken and that the president can choose to enforce the law if he sees fit... Just like the previous administration chose to not enforce it as they saw fit.

 

[Meghan54]

Using terms such as "taking them hostage" is just an emotional ploy to bring salty tears to people's eyes instead of facts.

It doesn't change the fact that laws were broken and that the president can choose to enforce the law if he sees fit... Just like the previous administration chose to not enforce it as they saw fit.

Which laws were broken and by whom?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Please. It was just the best Obama could do under the circumstances. He saw it as a moral imperative & a bridge to final resolution. Trump burns the bridge. And, uhh, moral imperative? From Trump? Surely you jest.

If it was such a moral imperative, why did he not seek a legislative solution when he had the votes and momentum to do so?

 

[Jhhnn]

Using terms such as "taking them hostage" is just an emotional ploy to bring salty tears to people's eyes instead of facts.

It doesn't change the fact that laws were broken and that the president can choose to enforce the law if he sees fit... Just like the previous administration chose to not enforce it as they saw fit.

Yeh, sure- just depersonalize the Dreamers. Make it into an abstraction. Justify the inhumanity of it with the law. Pretend Trump didn't put a White Supremacist in charge of immigration policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

If it was such a moral imperative, why did he not seek a legislative solution when he had the votes and momentum to do so?

You mean in the brief period of time before Ted Kennedy died while the economy teetered on the edge? They seemed to be pretty busy... not to mention that the population of undocumented immigrants was actually going down at the time.

The GOP wasn't buying into immigration reform before Trump and they sure as hell won't now, either, not w/o his OK. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

[K1052]

If it was such a moral imperative, why did he not seek a legislative solution when he had the votes and momentum to do so?

Why did not Obama solve all the accumulated problems of the republic during the several month period he had a Senate supermajority is truly the real question that hasn't been answered.

 

[Meghan54]

Why did not Obama solve all the accumulated problems of the republic during the several month period he had a Senate supermajority is truly the real question that hasn't been answered.

Well, and I understand your question is somewhat rhetorical, there was something of an almost depression he was dealing with and he only had his supermajority in the Senate for a grand total of 4 months. That's all.....4 months. That time period was from September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010. After Feb. 4, 2010, a Republican was sworn in to take over Ted Kennedy's seat, dropping the Dem/caucusing Independent count in the Senate to 59. But of course, you knew that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You mean in the brief period of time before Ted Kennedy died while the economy teetered on the edge? They seemed to be pretty busy... not to mention that the population of undocumented immigrants was actually going down at the time.

The GOP wasn't buying into immigration reform before Trump and they sure as hell won't now, either, not w/o his OK. Don't pretend otherwise.

So what you’re saying is that it wasn’t a moral imperative, more a matter of political convenience

 

[K1052]

So what you’re saying is that it wasn’t a moral imperative, more a matter of political convenience

This is "thanks Obama" in more words.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is "thanks Obama" in more words.

Obama was a good President who made a few short sighted mistakes. DACA is one of them. Just because the far right has taken criticism of Obama into the absurd doesn’t mean he is above criticism.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That would be an unfortunate SCOTUS ruling if so.

Sadly I agree

FTFY the only thing trump has put on the table is temporary extensions.

If course.....master deal maker makes deals that resemble something a spoiled 6 year old would craft.

 

[K1052]

Obama was a good President who made a few short sighted mistakes. DACA is one of them. Just because the far right has taken criticism of Obama into the absurd doesn’t mean he is above criticism.

Obama genuinely believed he could work out a compromise on immigration down the road which would holistically address the issue not just for dreamers, in fairness he came very close. Time and political capital are finite things so he fulfilled his primary campaign promise with his biggest shot.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what you’re saying is that it wasn’t a moral imperative, more a matter of political convenience

Not at all. When Obama figured out it was the best he could do, he did. He also backed a comprehensive bill in 2013 that was snuffed by the HOR.

None of it excuses a racist fuckover by Trump nor a SCOTUS willing to countenance the bad faith & cruelty.

 

[senseamp]

Trump is going to do for national GOP what Pete Wilson did for CA GOP.

 

[compuwiz1]

Some might argue that the SCOTUS is the last stop for enforcing our laws, and should follow the letter of the law, regarding immigration. DACA was not legal to begin with. That said, this whole debacle is shameful. How can people who came to this country illegally, through no fault of their own, as children, be held accountable for the actions of their parents or others? Its simply not their fault. Unfortunately, if the law is followed, they will be deported. I can't do it. I have no stomach for such cruel treatment. I have lots of mixed emotions on this.
The blame falls on our politicians for letting us get to where we are. We have a fucked up immigration system, where we recognize both legal and illegal immigration, then selectively enforce, or don't enforce our laws, when the laws are broken. The message this sends is clear as mud. The lines are so blurry on this that many folks don't know what is gonna happen next. Some people get deported, then in some states others get rewarded, get free healthcare, after school programs, sanctuary, etc.

I think the SCOTUS needs to give these people a reprieve on a one time basis. Give these people permanent resident status, then after an amount of time, provided they didn't commit any crimes, let them apply for citizenship. After that, what's it gonna be? We either have immigration laws, or we don't.

 

[Indus]

provided they didn't commit any crimes

One of the main obstacles that a foreign national applying for DACA may face is the criminal conviction bar. They will not be eligible for DACA if they have a felony conviction on their record, or if they have a significant misdemeanor conviction.