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.
DACA Going Caca
There won’t be an immigration agreement. The President’s signature issue is going to be handled to his satisfaction or it will be vetoed.
The bipartisan bill in the Senate, which is mostly Democrat but with a few squish boys like Flake, makes minimal and irrelevant changes to chain migration and visas but grants amnesty to DACA folks. The bill states it will fund a wall over a decade which is, of course, a complete lie.
The President compromised already and greatly upset a big part of his immigration-hawk base. Sen. Grassley has a plan that the President will sign. Schumer has a plan the left’s psycho-base can live with, essentially making his bill something the president will never sign.
March 5 is the theoretical deadline although there are some rogue activist judges who feel otherwise, at least until the SCOTUS slaps them down based on that crazy non-malleable document all the old white men left us handcuffed with.
There will be no acceptable compromise I expect. Your guess?
I hope the dreamers are all deported, aggressively, if the dems fail to give the president his wall, NOW, and legitimate immigration reform, NOW. The future of the nation is at stake here and the president knows it. Giving in to democrat demands is suicide for Trump and our country. Time for hardball.
Published in General
I have no issues with dreamers becoming citizens. They can just wait in the %%#* line like everyone else. The naccissism that they should get preferential treatment over the tens of millions trying to come here Legally, is a perversion on so many counts. I thought Democrat cared about being fair. But no they only put up a middle finger up to all the poor hard working forgieners who are tring to due it the right way.
I say let’s play the victim card and use legal immigrants to due it. The Democrats will not know what hit them.
This is like the “Pluto isn’t a planet” argument. I don’t recognize someone else’s opinion that it’s not a planet. They don’t control me.
I won’t cede the left the power to make a “positive” descriptor for this category of unassociated people. “Dreamers” is just a disastrous term, and there’s no reason I am required to use it. I will use as derisive a term I can think of.
I believe that Trump had three demands to be satisfied for him to agree to Dreamers becoming citizens: (1) $25 billion in cash, not just an authorization, but cash, (2) revision of all chain migration in all cases, not just for Dreamers, and (3) the end of the diversity lottery.
Okay. I would agree to all 3, IF this also deals with a path to legal status (not citizenship) for the 10 million others.
However, to deal with just the Dreamers, my Counter-offer would be (1) authorization of $25 billion, but only appropriation of $5 billion, and (2) revision of chain migration relative to the Dreamers, and (3) end of the diversity lottery.
When we have a path to legal status (NOT Citizenship) for 80-90% of the 10 million, I would be willing to trade (1) the full $25 billion, (2) complete end to sponsorship of parents, and (3) end of diversity lottery.
It is time for Trump to come back with a Counter-counter-offer, and not slur his opponents.
Who says I need to be corrected?
Maybe some of my arguments make sense.
Hit me with your best arguments and let’s agree to see if we can come to common ground. (I really appreciate AZ Patriot for giving me the citation to US v. Arizona.)
She is a client, not an employee. Until her work permit runs out, she is legal.
She is a Dental Assistant, that nice lady who hands the Dentust tools and suctions saliva out of your mouth, and looks reassuringly at you when your dentist is filling a cavity. You would be proud of her, she has a job, is a good mother and stays out of trouble. Everything you would want in a child or neighbor.
Yes and no. She is a DACA kid, so she is legal for now. But after March 5, DACA kids run out of authorization.
While I believe that DACA is unconstitutional, I note that no one ever sued to stop DACA. They sued to stop DAPA, which was declared to be unconstitutional by a Federal District Court in TX, and which decision was affirmed by the 5th Circuit in a split decision. The US Supremes deadlocked at 4-4 after Scalia died.
DACA should be found to be unconstitutional, as an illegal usurpation by Obama. But DACA should be enacted as legislation.
I see a huge distinction between an adult who comes here illegally, and someone brought here when they are 3 years old.
I submit that discourse is better when you are polite and don’t call Pro-Choice people Baby Murders, and Pro-Life people Right Wing Fascists.
OMG it all makes sense! You are against immigration control. All this stuff about Trump the man is as secondary to you as it is for those of use who want controls .
You want amnesty!
I assume you realize that they are not all 3 year olds brought here unknowingly. Those are the poster children of the poster children. Under DACA, 17 year olds (are 18 year olds too? I forget) who came on their own are eligible assuming they can pass the other conditions (the minimal of which are easy and/or easily faked). I don’t like having this huge swath of people boiled down to the most sympathetic few in order to guilt trip me into supporting things I oppose.
If anyone has a statistical breakdown on the age of entry for DACA people, I’d like to see it. As it is I suspect we are talking about a large number of unaccompanied 15+ year olds (functionally an adult in most of the world) being smuggled in under cover of “they were blameless children!”
Of the ‘unaccompanied minors’ of the last few years, a disproportionate number have been males over 15. Some are almost certainly well over 18. There have been reports of new high school students with gray hair.
No, no, no. No right to citizenship for the 10 million unless they leave and get into line. Instead a probationary legal status for the 10 million where they would not have a right to welfare, or social security or Medicare. You write up the terms of probation. Yes, you. You want English speaking? I’m okay with that. You want the posting of a bond? Okay, how much? You want annual check-ins? I think so.
You write the terms. Let’s hear them. They have got to be tough enough to avoid 30 million people in thirty years. Please put pen to paper and write. But some 80-90% of the 10 million get to stay with some type of probationary status that NEVER can become citizenship.
The average age is 6 or 7. A third were 0-3.
I am off 300 miles to see my Mom. Ever since losing my father two years ago, I try to see her on three day weekends.
Besides those very good points you have made, Hypatia, there is also this: so many people who are “demanding’ that “justice” prevail and that the Dreamers get to stay here really want it to happen on the public’s dime.
I live in an area of Calif that is rather unaffected by immigration. My lady friends want the DACA situation resolved for the children of those who came here. They’ re into the “white guilt” sort of thing. All of them own houses. All of them are old enough that they don’t need to fear that next month or year they will be re-entering the job field and competing against a gazillion people who are willing to work for $ 6 an hour or less. (Not hard to work for 6 bucks if you also get AFDC, food stamps and housing vouchers as immigrants do.) They also all own their own homes, so if Lake County sees its population either doubled through immigration or through white flight, their homes will go up-up-UP in value.
Those folks supporting DACA – if their pensions went down by 15% every time X numbers of hundreds of thousands of people either remain in Calif or continue to come, they would lose their DACA enthusiasm ASAP.
Judge Mental (View Comment):
Judge Mental (View Comment):
The question of continuing illegal presence was also one of the reasons that Obama could not simply pardon every illegal alien in the country.
SNIP
Agreed. But what I am talking about is the employed high school graduate who is a Dreamer and was brought her when she was 3 years old.
Trump has a plan to help her. The Democrats rejected it.
The man you hate has a proposal to help her.
One of the essential terms I would like to see is this one: every family that stays, every person that stays needs to absolutely have the legally binding sponsorship of an American citizen who has been such for at least 15 years. Let someone who is a tax payer pay for the person who has 3 kids while getting AFDC and working. (Calif laws on welfare are very liberal – as long as you apply for bennies before you get the job.) Also so many immigrants use one set of ID to get bennies & a different set under which they work. This has to end. Require all hospitals and nursing homes to fingerprint and verify ID on site.
@judgemental
You talk about Obama not bothering to offer up pardons for illegal immigrants. Are you not aware that under Obama, some 250,000 to 750,000 people were deported just here in California? But the liberal media never mentioned this. Just as the media never bothered circa 2009 to paint Obama as being BAD BAD BAD for increasing the defense portion of the US budget by around 169 millions of dollars – around the same amount of money that Trump allowed to have happen. But under Trump, every liberal I know has screamed about the exorbitant increases in defense spending, while under Pres O, they never even realized that it happened.
Does nother matter the terms, in five years the Dems will run on giving them citizenship anyway. No law passed now can mean *never*.
Also, all caps is shouting and aghast the rules.
For every virtue signaling story like Gary’s there one like mine.
Friend of mine’s cousin-in-law is a Dreamer. Got busted for shoplifting. Ice gave him a pass so he could stay in the country. Well guess what, gets caught for drunk driving, and NOW he’s being deported. Do you think his Mom blames him? No, it’s this country. I’m not sure what sort of country Gary wants to live in, but I personally don’t want to live in Latin America.
You might. You might think high crime, murder, and rape rates are great. Maybe even awesome. So long as you can hold the moral high ground.
What if he hit a kid or a car of kids. Those dead bodies would be on your head. I want them all out.
So what about the person who grew up in the same village as that three year old. They did not get a free education and opportunities and lets say they were sexually abused. However they have overcome adversity and now have a college degree. Why should the Dreamer be able push everyone else out of the way in get in front of the line over this person?
I don’t understand the argument I did not choose to come therefore I have more rights than everyone else. You due realize you are making a Marxist argument right? You are claiming Dreamers are victims being taken here against their will, therefore their right supersedes everyone elses. All you are is making the argument that there is no point in following the law. Those that break the law are treated better and given more rights than those who follow the law.
Why? I try to think of different scenarios; I was born in 1958 and my dad was not doing well in Detroit, so he bugs out back to Canada in 1961.
I’m three, he takes me, obvi. Is there not paperwork to be done? My dad was not educated, but I think he would have figured it out.
And he wouldn’t have been foolish enough to claim I was a Canadian in any stretch of the imagination, even though I was “three” when he brought me there.
Good Lord. We’re a first world country. Let’s start acting like one.
Trump doesn’t need to come back with a counter offer. He has stated the minimum he will accept, and is willing to stand his ground. As for slurring opponents, how about if the Dems stop first?
Please stop calling them “dreamers”. They’re illegal aliens.
How would that work exactly? Are you going to prevent them from attending schools funded by the government?
Wait – employed? Even though in this country illegally and therefore ineligible to work?
Golly, I guess you haven’t been paying attention, but about everyone here. But I broke my own rule not to engage with you. You are one of the TDS sufferers who can’t be reasoned with. In this case Skyler came up with a really good analogy and you tried to twist it because it was really inconvenient. At least three people corrected you and pointed out the example was on the money. Unless I’ve missed it, you’ve never responded or acknowledged the validity of the argument. On immigration, you and I probably aren’t that far apart, but you see everything through the prism of your TDS and that drives me nuts.
By the way, counselor, you should be more than a little embarrassed that you were asserting a point of law without doing your homework first.
Ciao.
And in my 20 years of doing home health aide work – there was never a need for the nursing agencies to make sure that an immigrant’s papers were really theirs. All vetting of the identity papers was done off site. The ID’s were known to be forged, bought and/or stolen. And then what does that mean about the certification process? So is that nursing assistant at the local hospital in Calif really a nursing assistant? Or does that required NA certificate belong to her aunt or cousin?
All I knew was to do my job and keep quiet. Once when a co worker was looking through my purse and lifting a 20 dollar bill, while I was just in the next room, when I reported it to the nursing agency, I was called a racist for my trouble. Meanwhile a friendship I had with an African American NA meant the nursing agency hammered away at me: “Doesn’t she mistreat the client? Be sure & tell us if you suspect anything. ” “Doesn’t she steal things?”
I am rather well convinced that the hospitals and nursing agencies want lighter colored wage slaves, at cheaper prices – and immigrants who won’t complain as they are not here legally when they are gypped on overtime pay.
I’ve always wondered with the “40 year old doctor discovers he’s not a citizen” stories — how can you function at a high level in society without a valid social security number?
That is better than expected. Is it an estimate or actual numbers on those who signed up? And I do wonder about the differences between the 700-800k, the 1.8mil, and 3mil groups.
What I have heard is that the original number of DACA that reflects those who were quite young when they came with their parents, that tally is around 800,000.
And an additional 800K to one million came by themselves when older.
And those who support endless immigration are in the same crowd as some very questionable people. When I lived in Marin, CA there were great accolades made to one lady, whose surname was Lum. She owned several very successful restaurants. She ended up being made “Woman of the Year” and “Humanitarian of the Year” several years in a row. Always these announcements were made with a great deal of fanfare and photos of Lum dropping off turkeys at local; missions at the holidays.
Then it came out that she had an established arrangement with the mules who bring in Chinese people illegally. Those newly arrived immigrants got to work in her restaurant until the mules and Mrs Lum were all paid off. The diminished paychecks they received always reflected those agreements. In some cases, it would have taken 30 to 45 years for the immigrants to pay her off. So, so much for her humanitarianism.
Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.
That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.
Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.
So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?
Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.
If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.
VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.
If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.
How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?