Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans Working Hard to Save Obama’s Legacy
Conservative lawmakers led by Thom Tillis are crafting a bill they call the conservative Dream Act that would provide a path to permanent residency to people brought here illegally as children, offering President Donald Trump an escape hatch on one of his most vexing immigration challenges
All the “Conservative Dream Act” does is codify DACA into law. How is this “conservative?”
And Republican Governor John Kasich… who did an end-run around his own state legislature to implement the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in Ohio… has teamed up with Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper to propose a plan for making Obamacare subsidies to insurance companies permanent.
The Trump Administration should commit to making cost sharing reduction (CSR) payments. … Also, Congress should put to rest any uncertainty about the future of CSR payments by explicitly appropriating federal funding for these payments at least through 2019. This guarantee would protect the assistance working Americans need to afford their insurance, give carriers the confidence they need to stay in the market, increase competition, and create more options for consumers. Because the cost of this initiative is already included in the budget baseline, the appropriation would not have budget consequences.
Congress should create a fund that states can use to create reinsurance programs or similar efforts that reduce premiums and limit losses for providing coverage. The House and Senate each recently proposed $15 billion annually for states to address coverage and access disruption in the marketplace with a goal of lowering premiums and saving money on premium subsidies.
So, with a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House… we get a proposal to pass Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and a proposal to lock Obamacare into place.
What’s the point?
Published in Politics
It’s a RINO stampede! Jeb!, McCain, Flake, Ryan–all desperate to keep these illegals here.
Out. Now. And as I’ve been pointing out on my “Wanna Bet?” Thread
their parents asumed the risk when they broke our laws to get here.
Let the whole fam-damily leave.
Don’t jack with Hypatia.
I don’t care about the sob stories. Every time we try and show compassion, we get stabbed in the back. No more.
Enforcement first. Verify the enforcement. Then we can be nice.
@garyrobbins – The current GOP Congress has all of the reliability of a recovering alcoholic at an open bar, or Bill Clinton in the Playboy Mansion. People do not trust them, because they have been burned over and over. This is a guaranteed loser with the people that elected the current majority.
No need for mass deportations – just enforce e-verify and let things fall where they will. If there are no jobs for illegals, they will leave.
That is being nice…. to Americans.
I quite agree. If only Congress was not totally corrupt but rather willing to take on the nuanced provisions you suggest.
(1). I don’t mean to be flippant, but I don’t care what anyone else thinks. I care about what I know is true.
(2). “We’ll get killed if we don’t address this”
oh. And if we do address this we’ll be loved??? They’ll continue to hate us regardless of what we do. So do what you know is right. Enforce the law. Deport those here illegally. Period. Take care of American Dreamers.
Funny how Republicans will always get “killed” unless they acquiesce to Democrats.
No, because the negative externalities of giving the Democrats almost a million new voters in strategic states are more important than any economic benefit accrued……especially when many of those ‘educated’ people were really just indoctrinated into Anti-Americanism Studies instead of an economically useful degree.
I don’t know how accurate the polling is, but this could be why they’ve changed their minds:
The only thing keeping us from single payer and totally open borders is control of all 3 branches.
Do we refrain from imprisoning and/or fining American citizens who don’t pay their taxes on the grounds that it might very well deprive their children of the attention and resources they need to realize their dreams? Do American dreams count, or are only the children of illegals granted the moniker of “Dreamer” who must remain unscathed and untouched by the consequences of family malfeasance? Of course we aren’t North Korea, and to suggest some parity between the logical consequences of illegal behavior and a regime that systematically murders its own citizens is a gross misrepresentation that belittles the very real hell unfolding daily on the Korean continent.
Because conservatives are not writing this legislation, so they won’t be involved with the negotiation.
The donors and the Democrats are writing this legislation. They’ve only sprung into action because there is an actual deadline which will terminate the program, so the program’s proponents must do something.
When your interests are involved, such as your sky-high health insurance premiums or your sky-high college tuition payments to progressive seminaries (colleges), the GOP leadership could not care less.
Clear?
Ironically, under Tom Cotton’s RAISE Act, many Dreamers would be prime candidates for admission. They are young, have a high school education, and speak English. In tha Anglo-American system of law, children are not punished for their parent’s transgressions.
Obama was wrong to issue his DACA Executive Order. It should be withdrawn, albeit it an effective date in the future so that Congress can enact a narrow legislative Dream Act which Rubio was working on before Obama poisoned the well with his executive order.
I believe it would be immoral to punish the children by breaking up their family and tearing them apart from their lawbreaking illegal alien parents. Therefore either they leave this country and go back with their parents to the country of origin,. or they must have a legal citizen become their certified guardian with both legal and financial responsibility and wave goodbye to their former parents. What would also be absolutely immoral would be to reward the lawbreaking parents who are attempting to use their children as a shield to remain illegally in this country with the ability to go to the front of the line of people waiting legally to come to the USA. They came here by cheating our law. Who can know what else they have done?
This may be President Trump’s biggest test so far. Will he stand up for those who are his supporters no matter the gnashing and wailing and all the said stories found under every rock by the Republicans, Democrats, and Media? It feels like he is softening. This could be the beginning of the end for him. He has nothing personally to gain from allowing DACA to continue, as none of his detractors will give him an ounce of credit. He will be evil no matter what he does. This is a big deal.
Many of the Dreamers are now young adults so there is no need for them to leave the US once and if their parents are deported. And the legislative Dream Act would preclude them from sponsoring their parents. (There are 800,000 Dreamers; I’d really like hard statistics on their ages now, and their length of time in the US. If memory serves, a requirement of the DACA Executive Order was for dreamers to be employed, or in school, and not commit any crimes. Statistics on that would be really helpful so that we have fact-based arguments.)
There have been several deportations of people who illegally came here as adults but had been hard workers for 20+ years. The angry raised by that will be nothing like the absolute firestorm that occur when the first college student dreamer who has been here since age two and who does not know Spanish is deported.
We are likely to lose the House in 2018. One way to guarantee that will be to refuse to recognized that there is a huge difference between people who came here illegally as adults, and people who were brought here as children by their parents.
Finally some hard statistics from a reputable news source, Newsweek.com.
788,ooo people have signed up for DACA. To apply, they had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012, and must have come to the US before turning 16, and been here since June 15, 2007. 90% had jobs; 72% were pursuing a higher education. After getting DACA, over 80% got driver’s licenses, and about half became organ donors.
Another source said that the average person on DACA is 26 years old, and was brought here at age 6.
Does anyone dispute these statistics?
If not, I support a legislative DACA statute.
Heh.
I really don’t think you are as gullible as you are acting right now. These people came here in the shadows. They have been living under names and circumstances that we have no way to certify. We have no idea how old they are, how righteous or not they have been, who their parents really are. So you come here with statistics from Newsweek(?) and, based on these numbers (btw, where did they get them and who is that other source?) you are willing to open your home, feed and care, educate and medicate these individuals. Well I think you are a wonderful person. Go right ahead with your own home and finances and take care of whomever you like @garyrobbins. Here’s my problem. We have actual American citizens who are struggling and need our help. We have young Americans who cannot go to college. They aren’t any more worthy/no better human beings…I’ll grant that in a second. But they are Americans and with our finite resources they should be helped first.
I don’t think that 90% of American 26 year olds are employed, or that 72% are in college. That’s pretty impressive.
And I don’t think your numbers are demonstratively accurate. Newsweek cites that statistic as, “…a Center for American Progress survey of roughly 3,000 DACA recipients, [in which] nine-tenths of respondents said they had jobs.” If you’re familiar with the Center for American Progress, you’ll understand my skepticism. As for 72% being in college, Newsweeks attributes that to,…nothing, actually. It’s statement with no attribution or source. If you’re familiar with the mainstream media’s recent record of honest reporting, you’ll understand the skepticism of nearly everyone with a pulse. So no sir, it isn’t impressive in the least.
Meanwhile, Harvard Researcher Roberto Gonzales has conducted his own study, and found that:
Now, as Jessica Vaughn over at Center for Immigration Studies notes, “None of this is to suggest that these individuals should not be considered for an amnesty or legalization program, but to suggest that the arguments in favor of such a program are largely political rather than economic.”
So I ask again, should American kids be shielded from the adverse repercussions of their parents’ illegal activities? If Mom and Dad are hauled off to the hoosegow or fined by an aggressive IRS to the point of losing their home, doesn’t little Tommy suffer financially, emotionally, mentally, or even culturally? Isn’t he entitled to be a “Dreamer,” or do we only confer that moniker and its attendant benefits on non-citizens?
Ever wonder why the left, and various segments of the ostensible right, are much more lenient on lawbreakers than on the law-abiding citizens who are expected to pick up the tab?
I too considered the statistics applauded even with no verifiability by Mr Robbins. However, I was actually willing to stipulate to those eyebrow raising stats for the very reason behind your last sentence. I’ve said it before on many occasions…my government knows every penny I own, where it is, and how I earned it. When I spend it, they know how much and where and what I buy. If I get a speeding ticket, I better pay or get it fixed by a lawyer because I don’t change my name and social security every month. There are tens of millions of people, many may be very solid folks, many are not, but they don’t live in the same country as me even though they occupy essentially the same land. They are shadows and there are no statistics that can be reliable because we do not know who they are. When they break the law, they just change their name. It has to stop. Some good people will get hurt in the transition from lawlessness to order. I don’t revel in their pain,
@davecarter There are 2 answers to your very fine reply:
1. But Racism!
2. The GOP needs more Hispanic voters and the way to get them is to accede to whatever Democrats want to do, even if – especially if – the “whatever” has failed to pass when Democrats were in charge.
(In addition, the “whatever” makes the GOP’s donors very happy.)
A quote from #52:
So I ask again, should American kids be shielded from the adverse repercussions of their parents’ illegal activities? If Mom and Dad are hauled off to the hoosegow or fined by an aggressive IRS to the point of losing their home, doesn’t little Tommy suffer financially, emotionally, mentally, or even culturally? Isn’t he entitled to be a “Dreamer,” or do we only confer that moniker and its attendant benefits on non-citizens?
Ever wonder why the left, and various segments of the ostensible right, are much more lenient on lawbreakers than on the law-abiding citizens who are expected to pick up the tab?
Answer:
Evidently, you have not read from too many criminal Pre-Sentence Reports that the Court reads before sentencing someone found guilty of a crime. I have. One of the main points is if the offender is the parent of a dependent child and/or fragile adult. North Korea has the Three Generations Rule: That a criminal’s children and grandchildren are incarcerated with them. India used to have a caste system. The South used to have the “one drop of blood” rule. The United States doesn’t have a Three Generations Rule or a caste system or a one drop of blood rule.
One statistic that I have not heard rebutted is that the average DACA Dreamer is 26 years old, and has been here for 20 years, since the age of six. Do you deny that? If a six year old commits a crime, even murder by intentionally shooting a gun, they are not prosecuted, as they are too young to have a Mens rea which is a legal phrase as to the mental state a person must have before they can be held accountable for a crime. A six year old is a legal innocent. Or are you suggesting that a child who is brought here at the age of six should have objected to their parents for breaking the law?
I live in Coconino County, which is 30% Native. Some of the most extreme Indian Rights advocates would like for all European-Americans to go back to Europe, regardless of how many generations have been here. My family has been here since the 1600’s and 1700. I am 65 years old. I don’t speak German. Should I be shipped back to Germany? (I can hear some people say that most people whose families have been here for 3-400 years should not be deported, but that Gary Robbins, guy, well, maybe we should make an exception for him.)
To answer your question, no, I haven’t been exposed to many Pre-Sentence Reports, it being my habit to avoid the inside of a courtroom as diligently as I would avoid Bubonic Plague. So if the courts have a habit of tossing out the jail sentences of American citizens or tax fines because they have dependent children, I’d be interested in learning about the phenomena.
And no one that I know of is suggesting the incarceration of children in response to a parent’s crime, and to suggest otherwise is a weak exercise in reductio ad absurdum. But just as the six year-old child of a burglar would not be entitled to reside in Gary Robbins’ home if his dad brought him along for the heist, we also suggest that those who were brought here illegally are not automatically entitled to reside here.
To be candid, I’m somewhat conflicted on the issue of those that have been here for decades, who have in fact kept their legal noses clean and contribute more than they extract from society. There may be a cause for discretion in some cases, but it is by no means an entitlement to be granted en masse and to suggest that those who differ are to be compared with the monsters who preside over North Korea, or an obsolete caste system from India, or a “one drop of blood” rule is disingenuous at best, and ugly bombast at worst.
Oh yes, you asked if I dispute that the average DACA recipient is 26 years old. The answer is that I neither endorse nor reject it. I don’t know,…you asserted it, not me. Given the veracity of the sources you cited earlier, I’d prefer to check that one out myself.
If you really want to follow that analogy, you have to let the 6 year old killer keep the gun and tell him to keep shooting.
So in your analogy, having to go back and live in their home countries is tantamount to being locked away in a North Korean prison? That’s a little much.
No, living in your home country, even if you aren’t familiar with it, isn’t a “punishment.” Sure it’s disruptive to your life, but it may actually build character and inspire you to apply for legal citizenship.
Presumably, their parents weren’t too familiar with the US when they broke the law and came here illegally. Were they “punishing” themselves when they came to a land they’d never been to before?
Can we at least agree to stop calling them “Dreamers”?
Of course not! Are you trying to disrupt an official Two Minutes Love?