DACA

[Jon Estes]

Should the policy of DACA trump the LAW it conflicts with?

I think I understand the reason the policy was put in place (IMPO, mainly for political reasons - but nonetheless compassion is in it - I think)

On one side, if we say policy which conflicts with the law is fine to have, then the country could then be run by the Presidents pen. Depending on who is in the White House may determine who likes that sentence.

I'm of the stripe that says we either have a system to work within or we don't. I have never seen DACA as part of the judicial system.

Is it possible to deal with this in discussion judicially without the cry for compassion?

[Sandy]

How can you discuss anything involving people's lives and leave out a cry for compassion?

This is a situation which occurred for which the law couldn't account. DACA was a plan which took into consideration the needs of the people involved under the circumstances. You have a group of people who came here as children, grew up here, and who for all intents and purposes are Americans. Rigid application of the law to the situation doesn't result in the greater good. The purpose of the law, at least in our Democratic Republic, is to serve the needs of the people, at least, according to its foundational documents. DACA fixes a unique problem in a way that is consistent with the way our national values are defined. Neither dreamers nor their families can vote, so it is difficult to prove any kind of political motive associated with it.

[Dave Roberts]

As best I remember, there was a provision in George W. Bush's proposal to a Republican Congress for immigration reform to deal with those brought as children. A GOP majority could not agree on how to pass this. Our immigration system is a mess dating back to its last tweaks under Reagan. Nothing as complicated as this can run without major revisions. I wish I had more confidence in Congress now. The mess is the fault of Congress who have not been willing to tackle the mess they have made.

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

[Rvaughn]

I wrote a little bit about DACA today, and hope to write something more about immigration tomorrow (d.v.). I won't try to copy and paste it all here, so I hope you won't mind the link if you have any desire to read it: DACA, Trump, Obama, Congress and Children


I am in favor of something "DACA-like" for children brought here and now residents of the U.S. through no act on their on part. I am opposed to presidents making up laws when they can't get Congress to pass them (i.e., as in Obama creating DACA on his own in the first place). I hope that Trump's action yesterday will force the hand of Congress to do something.

[Haruo]

[Haruo]

[Rvaughn]

Not sure what is going on. Tried to fix it (above) and will try here:

Must be some kind of conspiracy, since this page clearly does exist!


[Edited: Fixed per Haruo's keen eye and instructions!]

[Haruo]

Came up that time. Maybe the / on the end of initial URL is what tripped it up, since there shouldn't be one of those after an extension like .html ...?

[Dave Roberts]

[Rvaughn]

[Rvaughn]

[JE Pettibone]

[Haruo]

[Jon Estes]

[Jon Estes]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

You have a law here that doesn't practically apply to anyone eligible for DACA. They are here, supposedly in violation of an immigration law, but their presence wasn't a choice they made, because they were children when they were brought here. The standard, conservative argument focuses on having this kind of law in place, and demanding strict adherence to it because it prevents people from "taking advantage of" the system, collecting welfare, being a burden on the tax system, or opening the doors to criminals to enter the US. But those who are eligible for DACA are, for the most part, gainfully employed, collectively as a group paid something like $6 billion in taxes, some serve in the military, and in order to qualify, you can't have either a criminal record or be on welfare. So that argument is moot.

Sure, some of those in DACA are no longer children. But if you've been here since you were a small child, and this is all you know, it doesn't really matter how old you are, you have become an American in every way except under what are some very pernicious, restrictive immigration laws that are not consistent with American values and principles. In a democratic republic, laws represent the will of the people, at least theoretically, and at some point, politicians become motivated to make changes if they sense that the expression of that will might affect them at the ballot box later on. This appears to be one of those issues on which the volume of popular support will lead to the desired change. No doubt that's why Trump didn't follow through on his campaign promise to eliminate DACA on his first day in the White House, but fobbed it off on Congress with a six month time window on it. In his case, his prejudice against the majority ethnic group involved is a factor. (And perhaps there are still some in Congress who have a good enough memory to note that 80% of the DACA group entered the US during the Bush administration, after tax cuts for the wealthy disabled the ability to adequately stop traffic over the border.)

This is a moral and ethical issue for which Evangelical Christians should be out in front using the heavy weight of Biblical principles and teaching on this issue to advocate for people who have a need and whom they should be supporting without reservation. Sadly, they are placing political loyalty over Biblical principle, while the Christians they love to badmouth as "liberals" are taking the lead and claiming the moral high ground on this issue.

[Jon Estes]

I am not sure if the Congress can move forward on something like this. The divide is so great that there is no more compromise to get something done that needs to be done. What we are left with is a law in place that we must follow. A system in place that isn't broken but the people in the system are (drain the swamp - not saying that in relation to Trump but my opinion).

400+ in Congress pass something they know the 100 senators won't buy. Gridlock will be the common theme. Oneman in an oval office (doesn't matter which side) will end up making decisions they want to make without concern for the hatred the other two branches have for each other. He has the executive pen -- they do not.

I remember when Obama care passed and the left stated clearly -- it's the law we have to follow. Those same people touting their self-perceived achievement need t sit down and remind themselves being here illegally is a crime - that is the law we have to follow. Picking and choosing which laws they want to follow has to stop. If you don't like it - work to change it. If it doesn't go your way - move on. A bunch of spoiled swamp creatures getting nothing done. A federal judge nominee is being grilled for being too Catholic. Idiocy abounds in DC and it's from those who have been and will be in DC more than 8 years.

[Rvaughn]

[Sandy]

You can't compare immigration law with the ACA. Enforcing immigration law requires having the means to enforce it. The resources do not exist to deport everyone in the US illegally, and the prison system could not accommodate that many people. Those in DACA for the most part no longer have citizenship in their country of origin, so where do you deport them?

All that "drain the swamp" rhetoric is crap. Trump may have an "unconventional" approach in many ways, though I just see that as corruption and incompetence, but if there was a swamp before he got there, it's deeper, muddier and gloomier now. On the other hand, I watched my congressman go from being a loudmouthed basher of the ACA for seven years to casting a vote against repealing it because of the sheer number of emails and texts he got, and because he was pretty well shaken by the size and demeanor of the crowds that showed up at his town hall meetings howling for him to leave it alone. So he did. Public reaction to rescinding DACA is much larger than that was. You're looking at polls showing between 75% and 80% of the electorate who want to keep it, and who think Congress should pass laws along the same lines. You can ask Joe Arpaio if that kind of activity translates into votes at the ballot box.

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

[Rvaughn]