Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The president doesn't have to deport them first. They can leave at any time through voluntary departure. The issue would be the time of accrued illegal presence and any possible ban from re-entry from 3 years to life, for which they could apply for a waiver through the US Embassy in their country.DACA doesn't allow them to begin any process, they can not adjust their status from EWI unless they leave the country and apply from outside the US or Congress passes an amnesty bill and the President signs it.They were not able to begin that process until Obama's DACA order.How many of the dreamers have started the process to become a legal American? If they haven't could you explain why us Americans should give them a free pass?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The President has to deport them first. Obama used his discretion not to deport them just as Trump is doing. That is constitutional as decided by the Supreme Court.
No, it's not.This is their own countryThese kids are free to return to their own countries, we are not holding them responsible for their parents crimes.
Their parents should have thought of that before stepping foot upon US soil without our express prior consent....and deporting them holds them responsible for their parents decision to bring them here.
So what you're saying is that if my father robs the bank of millions I get to keep it?Your Father had a DUI, so we are prohibiting you from getting a drivers license. Your Mother wrote a bad check, and because of that you will not be allowed to have a checking account.
These statements if they were ever made, would be roundly denounced by pretty much everyone. The idea of children being punished for the crimes of their parents would be the exact opposite of what this nation supposedly stands for. Yet, a minority believe this is wholly appropriate in the case of the so called "dreamers". Children punished for a crime committed by their parents.
Your father robbed a bank, so you are on probation for all intents and purposes. We know you come from criminal stock. You must check in with the police regularly, and if you ever miss an appointment, off to jail you go.
I said above that a minority believe in deporting the DACA "dreamers". That is absolutely true. Now, supporters will argue that this is why people voted for Trump. Well, there were a lot of reasons to vote for Trump. Myself, I wanted to see some changes to NAFTA, or perhaps even withdrawal from the trade deal. I certainly did not want the TPP to become a treaty we were stuck with. Deporting the dreamers wasn't one of the reasons I voted for him. Yet, somehow the opponents of Trump, and the most vocal supporters all agree one one thing. You have to support everything if you support one thing. Which is asinine to say the very least.
Your Grandfather refused to go to Vietnam, so we are declaring you a deserter and sending you to prison.
Now, I'll admit that Obama's action concerning the "Dreamers" was not exactly right. I'll admit that the law says one thing. But if any of you have read my posts before, I love to quote among others Saint Augustine who taught us that an unjust law, is no law. The letter of the law is never a substitute to the moral right or wrong. Doing the wrong thing, because the law says so, is the worst of reasons. You are still doing the wrong thing, and you can never be a "good guy" if you do the wrong thing.
Morality is what is developed by what we are taught. The lessons from parents, schools, and Religion that teach us the idea of right and wrong. Absolute blind adhearance to the letter of the law even when the law is wrong is just as wrong. The law is on the books is no excuse, and even less reason.
Among the other things I've posted many times before is a belief that through compromise, we can accomplish some good things. We used to do this all the time. It is how the nation operated for more than two hundred years. No one would be happy with the compromise, but they would eventually agree to it. The my way or the highway mentality was left to movies, bad parents, and potentates. There was no room for them in real life. The Rolling Stones sang a song about it, you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.
Deporting the Dreamers might make you feel better, but is it the right thing? I would argue no. It is punishing the children for a crime committed by the parents. That I would always argue against. As for the parents, and what punishment is appropriate, we can always talk about that. We can reach some sort of agreement.
But those of you who support Trump should realize that the wind is blowing against you on this issue. The smart thing is to go with it, and find something else to get in return for the compromise. Screaming it's my way or the highway is going to get you nothing but defeated in the next elections. I don't think I would like that, because the Democratic Party has embraced the crazy in their effort to be seen opposing Trump, and that is just slightly dumber than the my way or the highway nonsense.
Willingness to compromise does not make you a fucking traitor. It doesn't make someone unamerican. It makes them a realist. Politics is the art of the possible. You might have heard that, or not.
Oh, and those of you who hate Trump and think all evil in the world is contained in the Republicans. Get over yourselves already. Figure out what you stand for, and standing against Trump is not standing for anything.
Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.At age 18 many "kids" are kicked out and left to their own devices. The states receiving homes kick them out at 18, adoption agencies do the same. These DACA recipients are in their 20's and 30's now, adults that can adapt to their surroundings, either here if congress passes an amnesty bill and the president signs it, or in their country of birth of which they are citizens of.If a man robs a bank and buys a house with the proceeds, and then the government kicks the thief's kids out of the house so the state can seize it to recoup the stolen money, how is that not right?Your Father had a DUI, so we are prohibiting you from getting a drivers license. Your Mother wrote a bad check, and because of that you will not be allowed to have a checking account.
These statements if they were ever made, would be roundly denounced by pretty much everyone. The idea of children being punished for the crimes of their parents would be the exact opposite of what this nation supposedly stands for. Yet, a minority believe this is wholly appropriate in the case of the so called "dreamers". Children punished for a crime committed by their parents.
Your father robbed a bank, so you are on probation for all intents and purposes. We know you come from criminal stock. You must check in with the police regularly, and if you ever miss an appointment, off to jail you go.
I said above that a minority believe in deporting the DACA "dreamers". That is absolutely true. Now, supporters will argue that this is why people voted for Trump. Well, there were a lot of reasons to vote for Trump. Myself, I wanted to see some changes to NAFTA, or perhaps even withdrawal from the trade deal. I certainly did not want the TPP to become a treaty we were stuck with. Deporting the dreamers wasn't one of the reasons I voted for him. Yet, somehow the opponents of Trump, and the most vocal supporters all agree one one thing. You have to support everything if you support one thing. Which is asinine to say the very least.
Your Grandfather refused to go to Vietnam, so we are declaring you a deserter and sending you to prison.
Now, I'll admit that Obama's action concerning the "Dreamers" was not exactly right. I'll admit that the law says one thing. But if any of you have read my posts before, I love to quote among others Saint Augustine who taught us that an unjust law, is no law. The letter of the law is never a substitute to the moral right or wrong. Doing the wrong thing, because the law says so, is the worst of reasons. You are still doing the wrong thing, and you can never be a "good guy" if you do the wrong thing.
Morality is what is developed by what we are taught. The lessons from parents, schools, and Religion that teach us the idea of right and wrong. Absolute blind adhearance to the letter of the law even when the law is wrong is just as wrong. The law is on the books is no excuse, and even less reason.
Among the other things I've posted many times before is a belief that through compromise, we can accomplish some good things. We used to do this all the time. It is how the nation operated for more than two hundred years. No one would be happy with the compromise, but they would eventually agree to it. The my way or the highway mentality was left to movies, bad parents, and potentates. There was no room for them in real life. The Rolling Stones sang a song about it, you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.
Deporting the Dreamers might make you feel better, but is it the right thing? I would argue no. It is punishing the children for a crime committed by the parents. That I would always argue against. As for the parents, and what punishment is appropriate, we can always talk about that. We can reach some sort of agreement.
But those of you who support Trump should realize that the wind is blowing against you on this issue. The smart thing is to go with it, and find something else to get in return for the compromise. Screaming it's my way or the highway is going to get you nothing but defeated in the next elections. I don't think I would like that, because the Democratic Party has embraced the crazy in their effort to be seen opposing Trump, and that is just slightly dumber than the my way or the highway nonsense.
Willingness to compromise does not make you a fucking traitor. It doesn't make someone unamerican. It makes them a realist. Politics is the art of the possible. You might have heard that, or not.
Oh, and those of you who hate Trump and think all evil in the world is contained in the Republicans. Get over yourselves already. Figure out what you stand for, and standing against Trump is not standing for anything.
DACA kids are receiving a benefit from the crime their parents committed they would otherwise not have enjoyed.
That analogy is ridiculous. No violence was used in the committing of a crime and society was not injured. We would not kick the kids on the street and leave them to their own devices.
Were they 18 when they came into this country? I would disagree that they can adapt easily. Again a President has discretion in who to deport.
Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.At age 18 many "kids" are kicked out and left to their own devices. The states receiving homes kick them out at 18, adoption agencies do the same. These DACA recipients are in their 20's and 30's now, adults that can adapt to their surroundings, either here if congress passes an amnesty bill and the president signs it, or in their country of birth of which they are citizens of.If a man robs a bank and buys a house with the proceeds, and then the government kicks the thief's kids out of the house so the state can seize it to recoup the stolen money, how is that not right?Your Father had a DUI, so we are prohibiting you from getting a drivers license. Your Mother wrote a bad check, and because of that you will not be allowed to have a checking account.
These statements if they were ever made, would be roundly denounced by pretty much everyone. The idea of children being punished for the crimes of their parents would be the exact opposite of what this nation supposedly stands for. Yet, a minority believe this is wholly appropriate in the case of the so called "dreamers". Children punished for a crime committed by their parents.
Your father robbed a bank, so you are on probation for all intents and purposes. We know you come from criminal stock. You must check in with the police regularly, and if you ever miss an appointment, off to jail you go.
I said above that a minority believe in deporting the DACA "dreamers". That is absolutely true. Now, supporters will argue that this is why people voted for Trump. Well, there were a lot of reasons to vote for Trump. Myself, I wanted to see some changes to NAFTA, or perhaps even withdrawal from the trade deal. I certainly did not want the TPP to become a treaty we were stuck with. Deporting the dreamers wasn't one of the reasons I voted for him. Yet, somehow the opponents of Trump, and the most vocal supporters all agree one one thing. You have to support everything if you support one thing. Which is asinine to say the very least.
Your Grandfather refused to go to Vietnam, so we are declaring you a deserter and sending you to prison.
Now, I'll admit that Obama's action concerning the "Dreamers" was not exactly right. I'll admit that the law says one thing. But if any of you have read my posts before, I love to quote among others Saint Augustine who taught us that an unjust law, is no law. The letter of the law is never a substitute to the moral right or wrong. Doing the wrong thing, because the law says so, is the worst of reasons. You are still doing the wrong thing, and you can never be a "good guy" if you do the wrong thing.
Morality is what is developed by what we are taught. The lessons from parents, schools, and Religion that teach us the idea of right and wrong. Absolute blind adhearance to the letter of the law even when the law is wrong is just as wrong. The law is on the books is no excuse, and even less reason.
Among the other things I've posted many times before is a belief that through compromise, we can accomplish some good things. We used to do this all the time. It is how the nation operated for more than two hundred years. No one would be happy with the compromise, but they would eventually agree to it. The my way or the highway mentality was left to movies, bad parents, and potentates. There was no room for them in real life. The Rolling Stones sang a song about it, you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.
Deporting the Dreamers might make you feel better, but is it the right thing? I would argue no. It is punishing the children for a crime committed by the parents. That I would always argue against. As for the parents, and what punishment is appropriate, we can always talk about that. We can reach some sort of agreement.
But those of you who support Trump should realize that the wind is blowing against you on this issue. The smart thing is to go with it, and find something else to get in return for the compromise. Screaming it's my way or the highway is going to get you nothing but defeated in the next elections. I don't think I would like that, because the Democratic Party has embraced the crazy in their effort to be seen opposing Trump, and that is just slightly dumber than the my way or the highway nonsense.
Willingness to compromise does not make you a fucking traitor. It doesn't make someone unamerican. It makes them a realist. Politics is the art of the possible. You might have heard that, or not.
Oh, and those of you who hate Trump and think all evil in the world is contained in the Republicans. Get over yourselves already. Figure out what you stand for, and standing against Trump is not standing for anything.
DACA kids are receiving a benefit from the crime their parents committed they would otherwise not have enjoyed.
That analogy is ridiculous. No violence was used in the committing of a crime and society was not injured. We would not kick the kids on the street and leave them to their own devices.
Were they 18 when they came into this country? I would disagree that they can adapt easily. Again a President has discretion in who to deport.
Yes a president can have some say in the priority of removals and deportees, yet the laws state that an illegal shall be removed, not that they may or may not be.
The only country they have ever known is not a rationale for the fact that this is NOT their country.This is the only country they have ever known. Also, dreamers can't have any arrests or convictions so painting them as criminals is deeply inaccurate and you are solely trying to further your false narrative.The thousands of American citizens killed, raped, assaulted, robbed by illegals? Cry me a river that illegals will be inconvenienced by deportation back to their own damn country.
Let's use facts please
That's not what that case says at all.Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.At age 18 many "kids" are kicked out and left to their own devices. The states receiving homes kick them out at 18, adoption agencies do the same. These DACA recipients are in their 20's and 30's now, adults that can adapt to their surroundings, either here if congress passes an amnesty bill and the president signs it, or in their country of birth of which they are citizens of.If a man robs a bank and buys a house with the proceeds, and then the government kicks the thief's kids out of the house so the state can seize it to recoup the stolen money, how is that not right?
DACA kids are receiving a benefit from the crime their parents committed they would otherwise not have enjoyed.
That analogy is ridiculous. No violence was used in the committing of a crime and society was not injured. We would not kick the kids on the street and leave them to their own devices.
Were they 18 when they came into this country? I would disagree that they can adapt easily. Again a President has discretion in who to deport.
Yes a president can have some say in the priority of removals and deportees, yet the laws state that an illegal shall be removed, not that they may or may not be.
The President has complete discretion. Bush's head of the INS confirmed this in 2000, and in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court said that the President has absolute discretion in deciding to enforce a law or civil action.
The only country they have ever known is not a rationale for the fact that this is NOT their country.This is the only country they have ever known. Also, dreamers can't have any arrests or convictions so painting them as criminals is deeply inaccurate and you are solely trying to further your false narrative.The thousands of American citizens killed, raped, assaulted, robbed by illegals? Cry me a river that illegals will be inconvenienced by deportation back to their own damn country.
Let's use facts please
You, and the left, simply cannot unpaint that truth.
That's not what that case says at all.Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.At age 18 many "kids" are kicked out and left to their own devices. The states receiving homes kick them out at 18, adoption agencies do the same. These DACA recipients are in their 20's and 30's now, adults that can adapt to their surroundings, either here if congress passes an amnesty bill and the president signs it, or in their country of birth of which they are citizens of.That analogy is ridiculous. No violence was used in the committing of a crime and society was not injured. We would not kick the kids on the street and leave them to their own devices.
Were they 18 when they came into this country? I would disagree that they can adapt easily. Again a President has discretion in who to deport.
Yes a president can have some say in the priority of removals and deportees, yet the laws state that an illegal shall be removed, not that they may or may not be.
The President has complete discretion. Bush's head of the INS confirmed this in 2000, and in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court said that the President has absolute discretion in deciding to enforce a law or civil action.
The president has no discretion, it is the discretion of the US AG on a one on one basis as per the law, and It's the discretion of the ICE agent to pursue removal or not on a one on one basis. The agency (DHS) can allow low priority illegals to report for their hearing with a date and be allowed to go roam some more, or they can arrest them and place them into removal proceedings right then. If their hearing is more than 1 year out then DHS can grant or deny work authorization based on their own discretion.
The President doesn't have any discretion (his only jurisdiction in immigration law is refugees) nor does he have anything to do with law, the exception being signing a bill passed by congress making the bill law. Apparently you don't know how the system works. watafuknmoronThat's not what that case says at all.Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.At age 18 many "kids" are kicked out and left to their own devices. The states receiving homes kick them out at 18, adoption agencies do the same. These DACA recipients are in their 20's and 30's now, adults that can adapt to their surroundings, either here if congress passes an amnesty bill and the president signs it, or in their country of birth of which they are citizens of.
Were they 18 when they came into this country? I would disagree that they can adapt easily. Again a President has discretion in who to deport.
Yes a president can have some say in the priority of removals and deportees, yet the laws state that an illegal shall be removed, not that they may or may not be.
The President has complete discretion. Bush's head of the INS confirmed this in 2000, and in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court said that the President has absolute discretion in deciding to enforce a law or civil action.
The president has no discretion, it is the discretion of the US AG on a one on one basis as per the law, and It's the discretion of the ICE agent to pursue removal or not on a one on one basis. The agency (DHS) can allow low priority illegals to report for their hearing with a date and be allowed to go roam some more, or they can arrest them and place them into removal proceedings right then. If their hearing is more than 1 year out then DHS can grant or deny work authorization based on their own discretion.
The President has complete discretion in who to deport. Apparently you can't even understand the law. I also assume you have heard that no DACA recipients will be deported from Trump himself.
The President doesn't have any discretion (his only jurisdiction in immigration law is refugees) nor does he have anything to do with law, the exception being signing a bill passed by congress making the bill law. Apparently you don't know how the system works. watafuknmoronThat's not what that case says at all.Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.Were they 18 when they came into this country? I would disagree that they can adapt easily. Again a President has discretion in who to deport.
Yes a president can have some say in the priority of removals and deportees, yet the laws state that an illegal shall be removed, not that they may or may not be.
The President has complete discretion. Bush's head of the INS confirmed this in 2000, and in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court said that the President has absolute discretion in deciding to enforce a law or civil action.
The president has no discretion, it is the discretion of the US AG on a one on one basis as per the law, and It's the discretion of the ICE agent to pursue removal or not on a one on one basis. The agency (DHS) can allow low priority illegals to report for their hearing with a date and be allowed to go roam some more, or they can arrest them and place them into removal proceedings right then. If their hearing is more than 1 year out then DHS can grant or deny work authorization based on their own discretion.
The President has complete discretion in who to deport. Apparently you can't even understand the law. I also assume you have heard that no DACA recipients will be deported from Trump himself.
Pretty sure I already stated that DACA recipients won't be deported, yet they are illegals that if they come into the clutches of law enforcement, they can be. gofigure. SMFH
The President has no control over who gets deported or not, DHS does, and it is DHS discretion as your prior case link stated the agency has the discretion. The President can create a memorandum for the agency to place priorities, but he can not say simply, don't deport these people; he doesn't have the authority. A President has no discretion what so ever in regards to illegals and who is deported. The courts call you an idiot, your prior link made you look ignorant. You don't seem to grasp the basic English comprehension needed to have a basic understanding of this topic.The President doesn't have any discretion (his only jurisdiction in immigration law is refugees) nor does he have anything to do with law, the exception being signing a bill passed by congress making the bill law. Apparently you don't know how the system works. watafuknmoronThat's not what that case says at all.Some DACA recipients were as old as 16 when they arrived here, some with their parents/family members, some without.
Yes a president can have some say in the priority of removals and deportees, yet the laws state that an illegal shall be removed, not that they may or may not be.
The President has complete discretion. Bush's head of the INS confirmed this in 2000, and in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court said that the President has absolute discretion in deciding to enforce a law or civil action.
The president has no discretion, it is the discretion of the US AG on a one on one basis as per the law, and It's the discretion of the ICE agent to pursue removal or not on a one on one basis. The agency (DHS) can allow low priority illegals to report for their hearing with a date and be allowed to go roam some more, or they can arrest them and place them into removal proceedings right then. If their hearing is more than 1 year out then DHS can grant or deny work authorization based on their own discretion.
The President has complete discretion in who to deport. Apparently you can't even understand the law. I also assume you have heard that no DACA recipients will be deported from Trump himself.
Pretty sure I already stated that DACA recipients won't be deported, yet they are illegals that if they come into the clutches of law enforcement, they can be. gofigure. SMFH
You are a moron. Trump is using that discretion as he has said that no DREAMers will be deported. A President has complete discretion in deciding who to deport. The courts have agreed on that and fools like you are the only ones who do not get it. You go figure.
DACA hasn't been extended, USCIS no longer accepts new applications, the few who have applications that are soon to expire may or may not get extended. In 6 months if he tries to do something like what Obama did via EA or EO, there will be calls about unconstitutionality.Why aren't pseudocons demanding Trump be impeached?
When Obama ordered DACA, the pseudocons lost their shit and said Obama should be impeached.
But now Trump is extending DACA to beyond a full year since his inauguration. Where is his constitutional authority? Why aren't the pseudocons screaming for his impeachment?
The stench of hypocrisy is ripe around here.
It's Okay When Trump Does It!™
Trump has a list of all DACA applicants. Their names, locations. He isn't deporting them.DACA hasn't been extended, USCIS no longer accepts new applications, the few who have applications that are soon to expire may or may not get extended. In 6 months if he tries to do something like what Obama did via EA or EO, there will be calls about unconstitutionality.Why aren't pseudocons demanding Trump be impeached?
When Obama ordered DACA, the pseudocons lost their shit and said Obama should be impeached.
But now Trump is extending DACA to beyond a full year since his inauguration. Where is his constitutional authority? Why aren't the pseudocons screaming for his impeachment?
The stench of hypocrisy is ripe around here.
It's Okay When Trump Does It!™
He can't legally use the information to go after those recipients.Trump has a list of all DACA applicants. Their names, locations. He isn't deporting them.DACA hasn't been extended, USCIS no longer accepts new applications, the few who have applications that are soon to expire may or may not get extended. In 6 months if he tries to do something like what Obama did via EA or EO, there will be calls about unconstitutionality.Why aren't pseudocons demanding Trump be impeached?
When Obama ordered DACA, the pseudocons lost their shit and said Obama should be impeached.
But now Trump is extending DACA to beyond a full year since his inauguration. Where is his constitutional authority? Why aren't the pseudocons screaming for his impeachment?
The stench of hypocrisy is ripe around here.
It's Okay When Trump Does It!™
He has allowed DACA to continue for over a year into his term.
IMPEACH!
Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)DACA Has Changed!
- We are no longer accepting initial requests for DACA, but we will adjudicate initial requests for DACA accepted by Sept. 5, 2017.
- We will no longer approve advance parole requests associated with DACA.
- We are only adjudicating DACA renewal requests received by Oct. 5, 2017, from current beneficiaries whose benefits will expire between Sept. 5, 2017 and March 5, 2018.
- Read the 2017 DACA announcement
