Federal Judge Rules DACA “Illegally Implemented Program”, Blocks New Applications,

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his food writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

72 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    To the extent that DACA is enforcement, it strikes me as being covered by what the executive is supposed to do.

    To the extent that DACA ignores the law, it strikes me as being a correct ruling.

    Either the Supremes need to establish a Unitary Executive or Congress needs to get off its butt.

    Or, assuming that the law as it exists is more or less what The People want, the status quo needs to be established as proper.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

      Heh, Yes. That’s what the Supreme Court’s gonna say. Or, Roberts will say that the executive isn’t so much legislating as uncovering the penumbra of legislative wishes. So it’s a law when it needs to be a law or a Regulation when it needs to be a regulation. Like a Mandate when a Tax would kill the Legislation and a Tax when a Mandate would kill the Legislation.

      It’s not clear to me whether historians will see Roberts as the Best Chief Justice EVER or the Worst… either way he’s navigating more than judgerating.Report

      • The real problem is that Congress has ceased to be a legislative body, so things like DACA, instead of being laws, are EOs modified by court rulings. Blame the turtle, not the Chief.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          The real problem is that Congress has ceased to be a legislative body

          74% of the nation favors legal status for dreamers. 54% of Republicans. 91% of Democrats.

          The people who are opposed seem more willing to vote on this than the people in favor.

          Team Red is thus opposed.

          Team Blue is, in theory, supportive. In practice they might want to keep the issue alive as a difference between them and Team Red. Worse, although 91% of Team Blue supports the idea of this, whatever implementation they come up with might not pass. People support a lot of things in theory that they oppose in practice.

          Worse, even for Team Blue this isn’t a priority. The rarest resource on the planet is the attention of senior management, they have other things to worry about.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

            So you have identified now the REAL problem, which is that America is not functioning as a representative democracy.

            A supermajority of America wants this, and 54% of Republicans wants this.
            Yet 0% of the Republican legislators will vote for it and in a deadlocked Senate, this dooms it.

            This is the consequence of a political party ceasing to operate as a political party, and operating as an insurgency.Report

            • Damon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              and 54% of Republicans wants this.
              Yet 0% of the Republican legislators will vote for it and in a deadlocked Senate, this dooms it.

              But for republicans, it’s not a deal breaker if it doesn’t pass. Voters aren’t going to vote out repubs that don’t support his…they don’t care enough to do that…so the support is “soft”.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Damon says:

                “Moats” is a major player in the GOP. The rest of the coalition is “Money”, “Guns”, and “God”.

                The Legislators have to balance all of these. In general each gets their own sphere of influence on what they care about and holds their nose where they don’t care.

                Money+Guns+God thinking that Moats is wrong isn’t enough for them to kick Moats out of the club. The reality is they don’t care.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I think it’s a bit beyond that. I don’t believe red aligned business interests want this problem fixed and indeed are happy to have illegal labor and downward wage pressure. I also think it’s questionable whether GOP leadership wants to solve it because if they did it would cease to be an animating issue for their voting base. It’s telling that all Trump did was executive action, no new legislation even 2016-2018 where it may have been possible.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                Without doing research,

                imho “Red aligned business” maps well to “big business”.

                imho “Big business” would be thrilled with immigration reform because it would increase their labor pool. “Big business” can’t interact with illegal labor because it’s illegal and ergo too risky. So make illegal labor legal and you’re only hurting small business.

                imho The bulk of the problem comes from the base, who really care about this.

                As for Trump, he was a hard core “moats” guy and ran on being a hard core “moats” guy.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Depends on what the reform is. If it’s anything resembling what ‘moats’ wants I don’t think big business would like it at all.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                You see how business is responding to the smallest of upward pressures on wages due to a lack of applicants already.

                I’m expecting to see a *HUGE* push for more immigration and painting those opposed as being evil.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’ve (only half jokingly) said before that the greatest trick neo-liberalism ever pulled was making support for illegal labor a core tenet of anti-racism. And I’m relatively pro-immigtation, I just think it should be merit based, not whoever can cross the rio grand or overstay a visa based. But God forbid American business be forced to operate within the bounds of the law.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                What did your ancestors do to “merit” citizenship?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                What other policies from the 1800’s do you think we should still embrace, Chip?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                The Homestead Act.
                We should confiscate those millions of acres of empty unused land across the West, and give them away to immigrants.

                We could popularize the idea with a tv show: Pequeña Casa En La PraderaReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Unused”

                Anyway, would that land also be available to citizens or just to immigrants only?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Oh everyone of course.
                But as with agricultural jobs, lets face it, Americans just aren’t cut out for the rigors of frontier living.

                You realizing I’m only halfway tongue in cheek trolling here, right?

                The census tells us that large parts of the West are more sparsely populated now than in 1900, and that a large scale response to those dwindling small towns could actually be some sort of massive Kelo-style land redistribution.

                Or maybe just take those vast tracts of land and give them to the Native American tribes as autonomous self-governing territories.

                What’s fueling this is my desire to get us to really grapple with how radical and disruptive American history was.
                That the 19th century was a time of vast social upheaval and radical land transfers.

                The Homestead Act and the massive waves of immigration provoked violent backlash about who was legitimately an American and who wasn’t, whose land could safely be stolen and whose rights were protected and whose weren’t.

                We don’t think of it that way because we only read the history written by the ones whose land and rights were protected.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                You mentioned the other day that you were doing construction work and turning a building into low-income housing.

                Are you adjacent to hiring for laborers for that job you mentioned?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                You mean my mom, grandma and great grandmother? Quite a bit actually.

                But anyway you act like this has some moral weight, as though policies that made sense in the context the past necessarily do today.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                In the past, just making it to our shore was enough of a filter that it meant something. Transportation costs have gone down enough that it doesn’t now.

                It’s sort of like having a High School degree was serious virtue signalling back in the day, and that changed to college degree, and even that is less of a signal today.

                Now to be clear, imho the US is by far the best country in the world for assimilating immigration and we should do a LOT more of it. Most of the problems with illegal immigration can be solved by making it legal.

                I’d staple a Green Card to every American College Diploma. I’d encourage brain drain. I’d make the dreamers legal. I’d make their parents legal.

                I’d have a large guest worker program to prevent this from happening in the future.

                The only real problem low end immigrants bring (other than being illegal) is on the min wage and I don’t care about that.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Sure, I get it, you don’t care about people on the low end of the economic ladder and/or the economic losers of a policy of mass, low skill illegal labor. That’s your prerogative. Thing is though that those peoples’ vote is just as good as yours. Fail to account for it at your peril. Hell I feel like we literally just did fail to account for it at our peril and our ongoing failure to do so is feeding the the crisis of democracy all over the west.

                And again, I’ll be right there with you brain draining the planet. But that’s not what this is.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                you don’t care about people on the low end of the economic ladder and/or the economic losers of a policy of mass, low skill illegal labor.

                There is a difference between “min wage” and “low end of the economic ladder”. Each of my daughters has taken min-wage joke jobs. Those are starter jobs. Even being an intern is a vast step up.

                Thing is though that those peoples’ vote is just as good as yours.

                Anti-immigration is fueled by xenophobia, not economics. The economics is easy, high-end immigrants create more jobs than they take and low-end immigrants take jobs Americans don’t want.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I agree on high end immigrants, bring them on.

                The low end immigrant thing is just BS. Yea, Americans expect more than people coming from highly dysfunctional, impoverished countries. Who would have thought? Just put an AEI or Heritage Foundation stamp on it and call it counter-intuitive wonky genius.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                One way to reduce immigration is to raise the minimum wage for immigrant-heavy jobs like agriculture and meatpacking to something like $25 or $30 per hour, or whatever it would take to draw low income Americans to the jobs, thereby displacing the immigrants.

                The obvious objection to this is to point out the economic impact of such a radical idea.

                But of course this is exactly what would happen if we truly did “secure the border”; Without immigrants, the entire economy will seize up unless the wages are raised to astronomic levels.

                Which just gets us back to the point that like with homelessness, quite a lot of people really like the status quo, or at least, prefer it to any other alternative.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                One way to reduce immigration is to raise the minimum wage for immigrant-heavy jobs like agriculture and meatpacking to something like $25 or $30 per hour, or whatever it would take to draw low income Americans to the jobs, thereby displacing the immigrants.

                Chip, the tightening of the border has resulted in what Fox News calls a “labor shortage”. One of the pressure release valves some of the employers out there have found is “raising wages”.

                An increase in the labor supply would reduce the need for this labor supply (especially if the increase was unskilled labor and especially for work done at the minimum wage level).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Do you see any difference between importing labor, versus offshoring and importing the goods made with cheap foreign labor?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yes?

                If the point is “well, they both have significant downsides for people who aren’t me but I benefit from both”, I agree with that too, of course.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                There are a dozen different ways that the government can use its power to force wages higher.

                Restricting import of goods, restricting import of labor, imposing wage controls by fiat, making it easier to unionize, replacing employer health care with government health care…the list is very long.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yes, that’s true.

                But that doesn’t take away from my point that employers want cheaper labor and it is to their benefit to argue that access to cheaper labor is a moral issue.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yes, of course all moral issues are intertwined with self interest.

                Yet we somehow manage to understand that ending Communism in Cuba is indeed a moral issue, while conferring tremendous benefits to global corporations.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yes, of course all moral issues are intertwined with self interest.

                Um.

                No. Not all moral issues are intertwined with self-interest.

                Yet we somehow manage to understand that ending Communism in Cuba is indeed a moral issue, while conferring tremendous benefits to global corporations.

                While it’s certainly true that corporations will benefit from freeing the Cuban people, we are not freeing the Cuban people so that corporations will benefit.

                It’s strange to see corporations singing the benefits of helping people desperate enough to work that they’re willing to cross a picket line to do it. (“They’re just doing jobs that Union Workers are refusing to do!”)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Its practically a staple of Philosophy 101 classes, the question “Does True Altruism Exist?”

                Young students’ minds are often blown when it is pointed out to them that even the most selfless acts can be framed in terms of self interest.

                Later, they learn how it is possible to parse out the two and make reasoned judgements.

                Even here, with Cuba, is is obviously false that “we” would be freeing Cuba for any reason, simply because its difficult to pin down who “we” might be.

                Like wise, its patently false that “we” allowing immigration for this reason or that.

                Whenever an action occurs, like a revolution or simple legislation, it is the result of many different actors with many different intentions, which happen to be aligned in the same direction for a moment.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Young students’ minds are often blown when it is pointed out to them that even the most selfless acts can be framed in terms of self interest.

                You should see what happens when these students mature.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It wouldn’t be raising the minimum wage it would be enforcing the law.

                And I’m totally fine with raising the minimum wage (or increasing the EITC or something similar so we don’t have to). I’m fully open to rethinking how we look at wage and benefits, and not because of illegal aliens, because our system writ large is getting more outdated by the day and puts too much precarity on the wrong people.Report

              • One way to reduce immigration is to raise the minimum wage for immigrant-heavy jobs like agriculture and meatpacking to something like $25 or $30 per hour, or whatever it would take to draw low income Americans to the jobs, thereby displacing the immigrants.

                It’s a bigger problem than just the pay rate. There’s also that many of those jobs are unsafe and physically miserable to perform. Also, given that unemployment rates in agricultural parts of America are relatively low, we’re looking at relocation expenses. Probably speaking too broadly, but the immigrants also put up with housing and quality-of-life conditions that Americans probably wouldn’t tolerate. Many of the jobs are seasonal. Some of them are migratory.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I’d staple a Green Card to every American College Diploma.

                And grant citizenship along with every honorable discharge.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                And grant citizenship along with every honorable discharge.

                Green Cards trivially become citizenship, but sure. Hand them out to those who served, or translated, or whatever.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                So you would have no problem with some government bureaucrat examining your family’s history to determine whether or not you are deserving of American-ness and subject to deportation back to your motherland if you ae found to be insufficiently merited?

                See, this is why even people who are ostensibly liberal tend to fall into a high-toned Blood and Soil way of thinking.

                We’ve seen right here on this blog where Jews and Asians talk about how they are alternately white or nonwhite, American or Foreign, depending on the context and situation.

                The thinking behind “merit” is that it positions American-ness to be conditional, a reward we give and withhold upon the whim and discretion of the dominant culture.

                So the immigrant, the Jew, the Asian is always a conditional American, existing in a separate class and held to a different standard of conduct.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I don’t follow. A citizen is a citizen IMO. I support jus soli and am firmly against jus sanguinis or anything like it. Merit just means we decide who to allow in based on education, skill, and economic impact.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                What logic supports citizenship based on merit?

                Why is a native born person a full citizen regardless of their merit?

                You can be ignorant, illiterate, criminal, and yet still be a full citizen, yet someone who is honest and literate but unskilled is somehow inferior and unworthy of citizenship.

                If the logic is utilitarian, then it is falsified by the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story we love to tell about America.
                My ancestors, and most Americans ancestors, would be unacceptable yet obviously most Americans are educated, skilled and have a positive economic impact and we love to talk about how wonderful it is that all these huddled masses were allowed to gain citizenship.

                Even on its own terms, the merit argument falls apart.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                What logic supports citizenship based on merit?

                A collectivist one rather than an individualist one.

                Why is a native born person a full citizen regardless of their merit?

                There are countries where your citizenship is predicated on your parents rather than whether your mom had one foot in the US when she gave birth to you.

                Explaining why would probably involve a discussion of world history, though. Like, going back to Egypt. Probably further.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The logic that says we need to prioritize the best and the brightest to continue competing in a global economy. We have plenty of people to do ranch work, chicken farming, landscaping, and kitchen work.

                A native born person is a citizen because the constitution says so. My opinion is that question was settled in 1865 and I see no reason to be in a rush to relitigate it.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                Every bit of empirical evidence we have demonstrates that “prioritizing the best and brightest” would have excluded our best and brightest.

                That is, there is no way to determine in advance which immigrant families will produce a Charles Manson or a Steve Jobs.

                Again, what you’re advocating here is premised in a rejection of the entire American experiment, although couched in very high minded terms.

                The whole premise of Enlightenment liberalism is that we have no way of predicting future human outcomes.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Seems to me like we have plenty of evidence of how high skilled immigration plays out in the modern economy i.e. awesome for America. I’m not worried about what the American experiment was in the 19th century or turn of the 20th. Hell many of our greatest social advances happened in the early to mid 20th century when we essentially took a break from large scale immigration (not that I’m advocating for that).

                And look if I’m so wrong why are advocates of open borders so unwilling to be proven right? If the US government actually re-asserting control was the economic catastrophe people say it would be then it would become self-evident quickly and we would establish a guest worker/path to citizenship program. Except this time it would be under control and have democratic legitimacy. All this other stuff is just rationalization of the status quo.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                Under your proposal, its entirely probable that Steve Jobs would have been born in Syria.

                But at this point I’m more interested in this unexamined rejection of the American notion of the self-made person, that a person’s lineage and pedigree is predictive of their future outcome.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I never said lineage. I don’t care where they come from. I care what skills they come with. Skills aren’t given (of course some are more gifted than others), they’re developed.

                And no rejection of agency on my end. Just an acceptance of how the world has changed.Report

              • KenB in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, I’m curious — what would your border & immigration policy be?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to KenB says:

                My ideal would be some combination of a lottery, with vastly expanded quotas that reflect the actual demand for migration, as well as seasonal guest worker programs.

                But really, a sea change in how we citizens view immigrants from one of suspicion and fear to one of welcome and respect.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                reflect the actual demand for migration

                If you swap out “demand for migration” with “demand for cheap labor”, the sentence remains just as accurate while also illuminating that motivation behind the demand.

                But really, a sea change in how we citizens view immigrants from one of suspicion and fear to one of welcome and respect.

                People in the picket line need to welcome and respect the people who want to cross it.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                Last I checked, we have 1 million unfilled programming jobs. Before the virus we had full employment.

                At the other end of the scale, we have a lot of seasonal picker and other jobs Americans aren’t interested in taking.

                The issue is less a “picket line” and more “no warm bodies”.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Again, what you’re advocating here is premised in a rejection of the entire American experiment…

                That, but also worse than that. IMHO the bulk of immigrants, even low level ones, are a net gain for the economy.

                To the degree that’s wrong and there are corner cases, we should address them separately. Restrict immigrants abusing government hand outs and we’re done. I expect we already do that.

                Most people (including and especially immigrants) try to climb the economic ladder, and they especially try to make sure their children do.

                All this cultural anxiety is a waste of time since our culture has a long history of both flexibility eating other cultures alive.

                The US has the most aggressively assimilistic culture on the planet. We’re already multi-cultural and multi-racial, we already have rules to deal with these interactions. Birth citizenship and separation of church and state do a lot of heavy lifting here. New cultures mean new foods, not replacing the legal system with religious edicts.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                When it comes to “merit based”, I always find Canada’s immigration prereqs illuminating.

                Could you become a Canadian? Find out!

                This attitude that people should just be able to become a citizen of anyplace they want is an interesting one, I suppose.

                It reminds me of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Someone runs behind it, comes up with a rule, then runs back out and starts yelling that we need to apply this rule that they came up with behind the veil.

                As a former libertarian, I sympathize with that, I guess.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                Heh funny how all these other countries we’re otherwise supposed to be emulating get it so, so wrong on immigration.

                Didn’t you write an essay on your trips to Qatar or the UAE? I actually think if we follow this to its natural conclusion our society could end up resembling those places in more than just the usual ways everyone knows we don’t want.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                Yeah, the whole “We need to be more Scandinavian!” discourse is always irritating.

                “You mean language laws?”
                “WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU ALWAYS BRING UP LANGUAGE LAWS?!?”

                Yeah, Qatar was eye-opening. Give everybody a check for a million bucks and the first thing everybody does is quits their job and then the second thing is that they start importing slaves.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                Could you become a Canadian? Find out!

                Looks like “no”… but that’s because for all the talk of “merit”, they want you to have a job in Canada (or relatives in Canada) before you go.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Or be young enough that you’ll put more into the coffers than you’ll likely take out.

                Free Health Care ain’t free!Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird says:

                There are a few ways that people look at immigration. One is that it an evil thing that shouldn’t happen because it destroys the character of a nation. These are the xenophobes or moaters. Another was is that immigration is good or at least inevitable but it should be done in a way that benefits the nation the immigrants are going to. The third way is an individual rights issue. People have freedom of movement and governments shouldn’t tell people where they live. The fourth way is similar but treats it as a human rights issue. We must take in immigrants because we must help the wretched of the earth.

                Many people in the third and fourth schools believe that at best countries should be a form of subdivision and we should go for a truly global society. They think that this stuff about national character is racist at best, although they might have some exceptions for counties they care about, and needs to be tossed aside.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq says:

                Well put. I’ll add different countries can reasonably think different things.

                If your country is a mono-culture ethno-state which struggles to assimilate(*), then immigration from some parts of the world is going to be a bigger problem than from places that match your culture.

                (*) (Expecting immigrants to give up their religion, share your cultural values, and live with not being citizens are all problems.)Report

              • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq says:

                They think that this stuff about national character is racist at best, although they might have some exceptions for counties they care about, and needs to be tossed aside.

                Golly. “The countries that I don’t care about need to be global, the ones I do care about need to keep their character” seems to be an attitude that does not see globalism as a benefit.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                The big mistake ‘moats’ keeps making is thinking that it’s possible to secure the boarder without a large guest worker program.

                That’s the compromise right there.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Maybe so. Or maybe that’s the compromise industries that rely on illegal labor put out there in the hopes they’ll never have to make it.

                But look, I’m with you that the conversation has left the realm of reason. We should be balancing the needs of a 21st century, global, post industrial economy with the legitimate interests the citizenry has in keeping a high standard of living and in its own sovereignty. Instead we’re having a conversation about morality and litmus tests destined to go nowhere but crisis.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              America is not functioning as a representative democracy.

              It is much easier to stop things than it is to change things, that’s a feature, not a bug. Normally this results in good things, or at least a lack of bad things.

              The 26% is adamantly opposed and organized. That means 74% support is not enough unless they’re equally in favor (and it seems they’re not).

              We probably will need to get some support (or at least lack of opposition) from that 26% if we’re going to reform immigration.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Well, so all this means is that the quoted figure of 54% of Republicans in support isn’t telling us the whole story, which is that for whatever reason, effectively 0% of Republicans really want legislative action on the Dreamers.

                My point here is to falsify any barstool punditry that gives Democrats advice on how to pass Dreamer legislation, or any immigration reform.
                They can’t, not with 100% opposition from Republicans.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                When Team Blue controlled all three seats, there was crickets chipping on this issue.

                Not only is that 54% really soft but Team Blue’s 91% is also really soft. Within living memory they were the party of xenophobia. It’s real easy to picture them trying to convince moats to switch teams.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                When was it possible to override a Republican filibuster to reform immigration?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Start of Obama’s term.

                In theory, if the politics of this were easy and Blue as united as it’s claimed, they pass a one page law saying the Dreamers(*) are legal.

                In reality the politics, even internal to Blue, are NOT easy and there’s no way they’d want to stop with the Dreamers because that would make full reform a lot harder.

                (*) Yes, I’m ignoring that they would have had a different name back then.Report

            • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Immigration is one of those are where a passionate animated minority can win over the majority. A supermajority of America might want the Dreamers legalized but a lot of this is a nice moral sentiment way rather than a die on the hill way. The Moat faction as Dark Matter calls them not only doesn’t want them legalized but is willing to die on the hill.Report

    • Ty in reply to Jaybird says:

      This would be easier to stomach if we had:
      •. secured our borders first
      • stopped the chain migration loop hole in the DACA
      • allowed for a real census on how many illegal immigrants are truly in this country

      As an American Citizen, America comes first, if the DACA individuals want America to accept you, you must first:

      • Obey all our laws and not just the ones that serves your means to an end
      • Stop the entitlement protests, because this is not your country, Mexico is your Mother
      • Show the American people as a group that you will and can follow our laws by returning home and then reapplying for a pathway to American Citizenship.

      As it is now as a group, you have no legal standing, the Clean Hand Doctrine of our laws is very clear about this along with over 30 immigration laws as well.

      Finally, by doing it as a group you should ask, not demand and I repeat ask this great government to lend a hand in helping you do this.

      This is your blue print:

      1) Establish a sister city with Silicone Valley safety across the Border(Cartel Free) (Tech it out)
      2)All registered DACA and their illegal parents leave to return to that City
      3) Build the City as a bridge for legal immigration back into the United States… Dreamers own the city.
      4) Along the way to greatness don’t put you destiny in the hands of political hacks or make Deals with cartel leaders, go drug and alcohol free…
      5) Your greatest advantage is that you all know how America works internally..
      6) Keep it legal no under the table bribery … create an transparent point system that allows for both rich and poor the same opportunity to return legally to the United States.

      99% of all Americans would support you following our laws ( being honest) and you taking your destiny in your own hand.

      Finally, the truth of the matter is that your parents did it illegally and what did it get them and then what did it get you… illegal status as well…

      The clock is ticking people, elect your own leaders, no political self serving hacks, this is about your lives and your future…

      Or you can continue down the road as illegal immigrants blaming American Laws for your present situation and American people for the poor choices of that have been thus far.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Ty says:

        ” this is not your country, Mexico is your Mother”

        This is really all you needed to say. We understand the point.Report

  2. Brandon Berg says:

    Democrats are considering whether to use a budget reconciliation measure to take that action

    I have no objections to this policy in principle, but…huh? This just isn’t one of the things you can use reconciliation for.Report

  3. DensityDuck says:

    that username is not clever enough, you should have gone with “Kay K. Keison”Report