The Trump Administration Has Announced the End of DACA -- Unless Congress Can Act To Save It (recode.net) 817
The Trump administration said on Tuesday it plans to scrap a program that allows about 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children to stay and work in the country, shrugging off criticism from within the president's own party and prominent business figures. From a report: The Trump administration is essentially leaving Congress a six-month window of time to try to save it. The legal shield is known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and since its enactment in 2012, it has allowed roughly 800,000 undocumented young adults to live in the United States and obtain work authorizations every two years. [...] In practice, implementation is complicated. Those previously approved under DACA, with the permission to work in the United States, can continue to work without interruption until those approvals expire. And those who have already applied for protection or are seeking renewals will still have their applications considered by the U.S. government. For those whose permits are set to expire before March 5, 2018, though, the U.S. government will also allow them to renew their DACA status -- provided their applications are received before Oct. 5, 2017. Currently, there are about 201,000 young adults whose authorizations are set to expire this year, officials at the Department of Homeland Security explained Tuesday.
Tech giants like Apple, Facebook and Google are no doubt going to blast the Trump administration's decision: Last week, those executives joined more than 400 other business leaders in calling on the president to preserve DACA. Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change. Microsoft indicated that about 27 workers spanning fields like finance and sales would be hurt from Trump's move. Zuckerberg said, "This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it."
Tech giants like Apple, Facebook and Google are no doubt going to blast the Trump administration's decision: Last week, those executives joined more than 400 other business leaders in calling on the president to preserve DACA. Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change. Microsoft indicated that about 27 workers spanning fields like finance and sales would be hurt from Trump's move. Zuckerberg said, "This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it."
Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global problem (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of people for the work corporations require. What there is not is people that will work for the lower pay corporations desire.
Europe is being destroyed with the race to the bottom, much to the delight of the elite, wealthy, and virtual signalling celebrities in their 99.999% white communities of mansions.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think that nobody cares about clean water and food? The problem is a local problem, solved by removing the people involved in preventing these things (which are otherwise easy to provide) from happening.
If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items. That was the idea in Somalia, and it is the correct and probably only workable idea for accomplishing that. But some asshole on Slashdot would be on whining about "imperialism" or us trying to be the world's policemen, which would eventually stop it.
Most people I know *do* care, deeply, about these situations, but also know that the things required to resolve them - the real solution, not some idiot idealistic hippie crap about a world without hate - would just bring us a world of grief from the various "more sophisticated" people of the world, who would rather have candlelight vigils and benefit concerts to make themselves feel better, but accomplish nothing.
Re:Global problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, kill all the warlords, take away all the guns and provide all the necessary items.
Obligatory Monty Python [youtu.be] It actually illustrates the point pretty well -- the benefits are beside the point to many.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If we wanted, we could invade Africa, one country at a time, bankroll select warlords, flood the place with guns and provide all the necessary items to shatter the local economy. That was the idea in Somalia, and unsurprisingly it blew up in our faces.
What actually happens when the US imagines itself fixing things at gunpoint.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually the proper thing to do constitutionally.
Obama, from what I understand really overstepped his constitutional powers by enacting this in the first place.
I understand his heart was in the right place, but I believe this was an overreach of his powers and should be rescinded.
If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.
Which amendment ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:4, Informative)
Remember, the US constitution lists the limited, enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Govt.
The powers granted to the different branches comes from the constitution.
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Remember in the US government, laws come from congress ONLY. The president does not create laws, but is there to enforce the laws created by congress.
. With DACA, Obama was pretty much trying to create new law where none existed before.
I hope that helps.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Informative)
The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.
And remember, Obama was called the "Deporter In Chief" for how fervently he was deporting them... More than 2.5 million were removed. He was not soft on immigration.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.
Not quite. Yes, the Executive Branch is the enforcer and executor of the Laws passed by Congress. Guidance (e.g Executive Orders, Regulations, etc) are required to be within the written (Statutory) laws.
DACA was an Executive Order from Obama, however, it contradicts the written laws passed by Congress. DACA explicitly prevents portions of the government from doing their job according to the written law passed by Congress.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not "as they see fit"...it's "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Anyway, if DACA had only been "enforcement discretion" you'd have a point. The executive could choose to devote limited prosecutorial resources along lines that would leave undocumented kids alone.
But DACA did a lot more than that. It provided work authorizations, travel authorizations (allowing illegal aliens to reenter the country), and created a self-funded agency without Congressional authorization (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law").
It was shot through with Constitutional problems. That DACA for Parents order was enjoined for just those reasons and the various States threatening to go to court over DACA would have based their arguments on the same reasons and likely would prevail on the same grounds.
DACA as a program, had it been done as an act of Congress, would almost certainly be all the good things people want it to be. But as a whim of Obama's pen, it was always suspect and subject to being undone at the whim of some other President. Indeed, Obama is seeing all his legacy being unwound simply because he spent so much effort bypassing Congress that he built his house on sand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.
That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest you go off and read the US Code as it relates to Aliens.
8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S. Code 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens
None of those say anything about letting the Executive branch hammer out the details. The law provides specifics, when the executive are expected to implement faithfully.
Also consider that when Congress chooses to *not* do a thing, that's doing a thing. E.g., in 2007, when the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was discussed in the Senate, which would have given a path to eventual citizenship to a large majority of illegal entrants in the country, significantly increased legal immigration and increased enforcement. The bill failed to pass a cloture vote, essentially killing it. That's not ignoring the need to do something, that's actively not doing it. Congress spoke and the President doesn't get to just go off and make up his own laws.
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States as they were intended.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I think it is still the law of the land that if you are caught and found to be here illegally, then you are to be deported.
Pretty simple actually.
It's simple in a pithy statement on Slashdot. However actually implementing it is not.
Congress did not want to bother figuring out implementation details, so Congress did what they have done for more than 80 years. Pass a law giving an extremely vague goal, and authorize the Executive branch to figure out the details.
Re: (Score:3)
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Congress has the power to create laws, but the Executive branch has a a fair amount of latitude in deciding how to put them into effect and enforce them. If it were simply unconstitutional, someone who opposed it could have sued, and the courts would have decided that it was unconstitutional, and that would have been the end of it.
The reality is, it's a bit of a grey area. It probably would have survived in court, but it's probably better for Congress to make legally binding reforms.
But also, this isn't
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Seperation of powers (Score:2, Informative)
Congress creates laws, the President is supposed to enforce them. DACA was the president saying, basically, that certain laws regarding immigration are going to be ignored. The President doesn't get to pick and choose which laws get enforced.
Re: Seperation of powers (Score:3, Insightful)
The president is an executive, any executive has a right and responsibility to decide which enforcement should be prioritized and how to go about with that prioritization. There aren't enough resources to enforce every law, and so you need the executive (who is usually elected) to decide which ones should be prioritized. Otherwise you would have police chiefs that devote all the police to enforce speeding tickets while rape and murder go unsolved? Or do you put all your resources into solving murder cases w
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't enough resources to enforce every law
wouldnt this go to say that we have too many laws and some need to be struck down?
Re:Seperation of powers (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely!!
I"m guessing from your post, you're not a US citizen....but yes, the President is supposed to be a somewhat weak office within the triumvirate that is the US Federal government (executive, legislative, judicial).
The say he is the most powerful man in the word, in on respect, because his *is* commander in chief of all the US armed forces. This is to keep a civilian in charge of the military, and ensure that no one person keeps that power for too long.
But yes, when you wield what is pretty much the most powerful armed forces i the world, you are often thought of as the most powerful person in the world.
But in the US, the constitution was set up to ensure that ALL power was not in one place, to prevent a dictatorship, etc.
Those old guys in powered wigs in the 1700's actually were pretty bright, and its sad so many today in the youth seem to be set on breaking down the very things that mad the US a great nation to date.
As the saying goes..."Yeah, it sucks here, but it sucks a lot less than everywhere else in the world."
Re:Seperation of powers (Score:5, Informative)
The big hole is you are forgetting that Congress can pass a law granting the Executive branch power to do something.
To take this discussion away to a less hot-button-at-the-moment topic, the entire system for handling classified information, and most* of the punishments for breaking those rules, were created by the Executive branch. The Executive branch could do this because Congress looked at the issue in 1947, threw up their hands and said "Hey Executive branch! You do it".
*Espionage has an explicit law. The various forms of mishandling classified information do not explicitly have a law, since "mishandling" is defined by the Executive branch. An EO could say "you have to hold classified with a velvet glove on Tuesdays", and that could be the basis for mishandling. And the most common punishment is entirely meted out by the Executive branch - removal of your clearance, no trial required.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing really vague about that.
Re:Seperation of powers (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking primarily Mexico right now...
*facepalm*
No, no we're not. We're talking about Mexico, all of Central America, and much of South America. And also Canada, India, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, and lots and lots of other countries.
Again, pretending this issue fits on a bumper sticker is why we are in this mess and why Congress has spent decades abdicating its power to the Executive branch.
And when exactly did our treaties change with them on deporting back to them?
The treaties didn't. You being unaware of the relevant treaties did. And treaties are only one small aspect of the foreign relations involved in deporting people.
For example, we are not allowed to leave someone "stateless". If we want to deport someone to Honduras, and Honduras says "Nuh uh! Not ours!", we are not allowed to deport them thanks to a lengthy list of treaties and agreements. Instead, we are required to give this person something functionally equivalent to a green card.
As another example, we are not allowed to deport someone to a country where they will be shot by death squads. We have to treat them as refugees. We frequently ignore this because people pretend it's only about Mexico, resulting in us shipping people off to die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If their country sucks so badly....they should fix it there, rather than come here, get mad at our country's culture and protest, waving the flags of their country of origin at the damned rallies.
Its a tough world, but it really isn't our problem.
We have plenty of problems with our own true citizens we need to address and take care of first.
Re:Seperation of powers (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuck'em...its not our problem.
If their country sucks so badly....they should fix it there, rather than come here, get mad at our country's culture and protest, waving the flags of their country of origin at the damned rallies.
And now we're finally at the real motivation. Despite all the high minded rhetoric about separation of powers and executive overreach, here's the reason.
I eagerly await your demand that no Irish flags be flown on St. Patrick's day. Somehow, I don't think it will be coming.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck'em...its not our problem.
Actually it is our problem: We have obligations to our own deportation laws. We've signed treaties which add obligations. There are obligations under international law that have to be met.
As of 2016, there's a cost of ~$10,000 per person deported, which is another taxpayer obligation.
We don't get to walk away from any of those obligations. They are our problems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do people keep saying he is the most powerful man in the world then?
Because he controls the military and has broad authority do so without the consent of congress.
Some people like to conflate that broad authority to other legal or government matters which is very wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming consistency on the people arguing about this.
When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.
Now that the Trump administration does not want to continue DACA, they are arguing that they have absolutely no power over immigration.
That 180 degree flip-flop makes the issue pretty easily confused
Re: (Score:3)
When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.
This is false. The law is already on the books, and has been for decades. 8 U.S. Code section 1182 (f). It reads:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:4, Informative)
You are looking at the Constitution backwards. It enumerates the limited powers of the Federal government. The question should be "What part of the Constitution gives the President power to change immigration laws?" If no part of the Constitution gives the President that power, then it is unconstitutional.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Informative)
However, if you think that DACA is unconstitutional then why wasn't it successfully challenged? By comparison, the AZ state law attempting to limit DACA got tossed.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Informative)
The similar legislation, DAPA, that applied to parents, was overtuned and the same legal arguments could overturn DACA if it were ever challenged. 10 state AGs threatened to do just that if the White House did not act on DACA before September 5th.
So it's not that it wasn't successfully challenged. It's that it was about to be and the precedents meant it didn't really stand a chance.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead of using 2 hours of time by 2 people to end action that is seen by most as unconstitutional, we let the courts go on a lengthy battle, that needs to get appealed to every level of the Judiciary, over months if not years ?
Inefficient. This way, Congress (the actual Legislative branch) gets to fix the laws as it should.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I believe there are at least 10 states that were about to bring suit on DACA, and I believe with the precedent set by throwing out DAPA(?), that DACA would have been tossed too.
This was the president expediting the inevitable and saving some legal time and $$$.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Article 1 section 1 was violated. Law must first be enacted by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the executive branch. Good job, you just failed middle school civics.
Re:Which amendment ? (Score:5, Insightful)
DACA wasn't law. It was "policy".
You know, the same way there is a law against speeding, and then a myriad of policy that goes into enforcing it. Where I live the law says speeding is exceeding the posted speed limit. In practice, the usual policy is not to stop anyone within 10km/h. And in practice the police only selectively enforce it -- high traffic areas, accident prone areas, some might point cynically at areas where the limit is set to low as 'revenue generating' areas. (I KNOW this is a real issue in some areas, im less convinced it is a significant motivation locally.) Meanwhile, in practice the police are mostly enforcing the cellphone ban, because that is what they have been directed to focus on that. So speed traps are rare right now, but cell phone traps are all over the place. They'll still bust you for speeding if you are obvious / dangerious / etc but that's not what they're looking for.
DACA was kind of the same thing... basically it was policy directing immigration to be lenient in specific cases (like not enofrcing a speedlimit if you are 1km/h over -- even though the law says that is illegal) and directing officers not to bother even looking for those cases, and to focus on something else instead.
THAT is well within the purview of the executive branch of government. Enforcment policy, and enforcement priorities is WELL within the purview of the government.
Did DACA overstep the bounds of policy into creating new law? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, given that it has survived plenty of constitutional challenges already... e..g http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/op... [uscourts.gov]
Personally, think DACA should be ended in favor of real legislation that does what DACA does. However that is not what the Trump administration is doing. They're just ending the policy because they want to, not because of any constitutionality. And that's fine, that's the new administrations prerogative; I don't agree with it... but the Trump administration has the same authority to set policy as Obama did.
Re: (Score:3)
“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've gotta have some partners to do it,” Obama said.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Even Obama said it was temporary. I think he knew then it was very weak legally.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope Trump gets rid of the Green Card Lottery. [wikipedia.org] I don't understand why we give away 50000 green cards every year to people who may only have a high school degree.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Informative)
I hope Trump gets rid of the Green Card Lottery. I don't understand why we give away 50000 green cards every year to people who may only have a high school degree.
We're not "giving away" green cards. Green cards are not free. The fees are higher than many can afford, and is a source of income. The bare minimum fees are:
- I-485 filing fee: $1,140
- Biometric services fee: $85
- Visum fee (to enter the US in the first place after "winning"): $160
In addition, there are external costs:
- Medical costs for filing a required I-693 form, in the $200-1,000 range depending on whether vaccinations are needed.
- 10+ approved photos.
- Costs of transportation to the US.
- Transportation and accommodation for INS interviews.
- Translation assistance or lawyers as needed.
- Means of living for the couple of years it takes to process the application.
So truly poor people can't afford to "win" a green card lottery.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The president has to power to enforce or not enforce a law. DACA could be considered an executive action to not enforce an immigration law.
Obama had a decent (not perfect) track record of not crossing the line of Constitutionally but he did have to walk it, because of a congress who would refuse to do anything.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually NO he does not have the choice on whether or not to enforce the law.
Remember the presidential oath?
To uphold the US Constitution.
And well, the constitution says the President will enforce the laws set forth by congress.
The executive order thing is a bit of a gray area, and recent presidents have really been pushing what can actually be done by presidential decree.
This is a big check on that overreach of power.
But no, the President does not have the power to pick and choose which laws he/she likes and will enforce technically. If the president could do that, it would unbalance the checks and balances our federal govt is set up to operate within.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's never as simple as you state. Resources are one limit on enforcing the law. Congress passes a law saying such and such but only funds such, the President has to decide which such to enforce, or in this case, decide which illegal immigrants to prioritize. Then there can be questions such as is it more important to put resources into catching murderers or people sitting in their basement smoking a joint. You even see similar when a cop has the discretion to give out a speeding ticket or a warning, prosecutors deciding which crimes to prosecute and so on.
One good example are the federal laws illegalizing pot, do you really want the President to vigorously prosecute such laws? Where I am, differently setup Federal system, pot is defacto legal due to the Provincial government (Constitutionally required to enforce laws) not enforcing the Federal (Constitutionally in charge of criminal law) laws. At that it has devolved to the municipalities to enforce the drug selling trade through business license costs and rules like "so far from a school". The cops also have stopped enforcing the laws against shooting up in public/private to a large degree in favour of saving lives. People are a lot more likely to phone 911 for an overdose when they aren't worried about being thrown in jail.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
One's "prosecutorial discretion" [americanim...ouncil.org] is another's "selective enforcement" [wikipedia.org]... Be careful, what you wish for (or defend).
In that case, there should be no problem whatsoever with Trump reversing the predecessor's executive action with one of his own — he is the President now with the same discretion.
Moreover, because Trump is reducing the divergence from the actual laws of the land, his action is an improvement. Right?
Re:Global problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
OT: History of law-making in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right. But it is even worse than that, actually. Because of vagueness of the Constitution, certain wide-ranging and life-altering laws have passed without proper consent of the governed.
And I'm not just talking about Obamacare... Things like military draft, "civil rights", drug prohibitions, "war on poverty", "assault weapons" ban should all have been done (or not done) as Constitutional Amendments — not mere federal laws.
Alcohol-prohibition may have been a bad idea, but we all decided to attempt it — and then reversed the decision. There is no reason, ban on marijuana and other drugs shouldn't have been implemented (or not) through the same mechanism.
The minute details of enforcement/implementation could've been left to Congress, but the general intent — like do we want mandatory conscription at all, or should we limit the breadth of the Second Amendment — should've been decided by the entire nation.
As things stand, Congress supplants the nation the same way President supplants Congress... The decision-making needs to be pushed back a notch.
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Global problem (Score:5, Informative)
The "give money to Iran" incident was actually Iran's money that we had put a freeze on. One of the terms of the Iran deal was that we'd release that money if they hit some metrics. They hit the metric so we released the money. This wasn't just giving Iran US taxpayer money (like some try to describe it). It was us following through on a deal. Whether you like the Iran deal or not, once the deal is made you either need to follow through on it or it's worthless. We were following through on it by releasing funds that belonged to Iran but that we had frozen/seized.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't even that. The "money we gave to Iran" was actually Iran's money that we had seized to get them to stop the
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Informative)
AC wrote:
His name was Barack Obama. Not Barry, you ass.
from the LA Times [latimes.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that it is impossible to enforce all of the laws all of the time. ICE can't possibly round up, process, and deport every illegal alien. If they do mass roundups/deportations without any checks, it's only a matter of time before they deport a legal immigrant or even a US citizen. (I wouldn't be surprised if this has already happened.) An ICE who is deporting US citizens as "collateral damage" because they are trying desperately to enforce the laws 100% isn't a good federal law enforcement agen
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump was really asking Congress to enact DACA, he would have written his order so that DACA would stop processing new applications in 6 months rather than stop processing new applications immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Global problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that the majority of folks in the US, nor the majority of Trump supporters have a problem with Latin or any other type of immigrants, as long as they are LEGAL immigrants.
Don't forget, the ones in question here are here ILLEGALLY, and by law of the land as it currently stands, are to be deported.
I agree that the immigration process needs to be updated and better regulated, and made to not be so $$$....however, that is no excuse not to enforce the currently laws.
If we don't like the laws on the books, then change them.
That is where the energy and push should go, not by defending people here illegally, who by definition have broken US immigrations laws and are in criminal violation.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm having trouble reading the sarcasm level of your post, but, if you are actually being serious about this....we in the US have a LOT of money problems.
We have a huge deficit, and our money, well....is OUR money (taxpayers) and it would be much better spent on our own citizenry first.
Once we get things back to correct levels and take care of our citizens, then...we can think ab
Re: (Score:2)
Once we get things back to correct levels and take care of our citizens, then
Which will be never, since "correct levels" is a nebulous and impossible to define term.
And tax money isn't an allowance to citizens. It builds things everyone uses and services everyone uses, so pretending that it puts some people in front of others is overly simplistic at best or disingenuous at worst.
Re: Global problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you actually saying, that US citizens, with their tax dollars, are somehow obligated to take care of people outside our country with foreign aid before we spend it on ourselves??
Seriously?
Wrong (stereo)typing (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because Trump is representative of the dying breed known as the 'Great White Male',
You seem to be confused. The real "great white male", the real dying breed is the typical imperialist liberal who wants government control over everything...
Trump represents the insurgence of the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of all races and backgrounds that are tired of inept government controlling everything, to ill ends for the people as the aristocrats on top get ever weather and more powerful.
It's ironic t
Re: Wrong (stereo)typing (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand the point of separate governments between the state and federal if you think the position is "federal == bad && state == good". Hint, power corrupts which causes tyranny. People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out. The federal government on the other hand, by it's nature represents a diverse set of ideas and politics and compromise is very hard. That means federal tyranny is harder to undo.
In addition, the role of the federal government should only deal with matters that deal with the states as a whole not the individual citizens. However, the state government will be closer to the citizens so should handle the more direct laws affecting the citizens.
Your straw-man is a tired and overused trope.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the theory. In reality, since the late 1800s it became easier for trusts, megacorps, and billionaires to buy overwhelming influence in state governments. So in the Progressive era, people started looking to the feds to protect them from that corruption.
But as the rich got richer, they just bought out the federal government too.
In a society suffering from an L curv [lcurve.org]
Re: Wrong (stereo)typing (Score:5, Informative)
OF COURSE IT IS OK!!
That's precisely how the US government was set up...that the majority of power was to reside within the States, with only a limited, fairly weak Federal Government.
TRUMP FTW! (Score:2, Insightful)
With all those pesky immigrant children out of the job pool I can finally become a farm-hand! MAGA!
Re: TRUMP FTW! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are basically no more 'skilled trade' jobs near the Mexican border. They aren't actually very skilled, but they work cheap. Which isn't to say the average American 'skilled tradesman' is particularly skilled.
Megra could fill their deportation pipelines easily by raiding construction sites. They don't, basically never, filing complaints is futile. Construction workers don't bother, for 20 years now.
In Europe (Germany to be specific) the fines for employing someone without work papers is five figures/illegal, first offence. Plus constant checks for subsequent years. That's what we need, the wall is unnecessary.
But Muh Amnesty (Score:2)
Trump "says" a lot of things (Score:2)
The Republicans own Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Republicans own Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more so: to save the ACA, Republicans can simply do nothing (and they are). To save DACA, they must by means of legislation affirmatively extend it or make it permanent. Not happening.
Re:The Republicans own Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Republicans own Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear ya...I had thought that the HPA or the Shush Act that would take suppressors off the NFA list and make them easier to attain (without long ATF paperwork and $200 tax stamp) and use by now.
But no...damned republicans can't seem to get shit done even with majority in both houses.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican party is happy to fail at pretty much everything on their platform so long as doing so is the best way to maintain power.
Which likely means they're getting SOMETHING out of it and most of us just aren't seeing it or understanding the significance of what we're seeing.
Even my most negative assessment of politicians in general doesn't have them seeking high office for the sake of it. They want something, it's just not necessarily what they say they want, what they promise to do, or what they a
Re: (Score:2)
A big problem there is the Republicans seem completely unwilling to engage in bipartisanship -- in fact, the threat of bipartisanship was used by Mitch McConnell to try to get Republicans to fall in line.
I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but it definitely seems the Republicans idea of bipartisanship is demanding Democratic capitulation, rather than any sort of compromise on their part.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the problem with Obamacare was too many Republicans worried that the will lose the next election because so many of their constituents will lose their healthcare or have costs rocket up.
Re:The Republicans own Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Even Paul Ryan has spoken out against this. He's not Jeff Sessions, but he's also not the poster-boy for human compassion and tolerance toward anyone and anything he disagrees with. Ryan speaks of human compassion, of understanding, of the circumstances of a teenager being brought with parents to this country and growing up as an American. These are weighty things we must consider.
These people are here, they're working in our economy, and ejecting them is disruptive and costly. They've been around lo
Blame it on "Owe"Bama (Score:3, Insightful)
Pesky pen and phone isn't exactly the same as actually passing a law, eh?
And we won't even talk about the blatant constitutional issues around a pResident implementing a policy that ignores established law.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Right here.
All Trump has done is obligate Congress to perform its duty; if the (R)s and whatever (D)s that care to join them wish to express their beltway "values" they can write a damn bill and pass it.
Re: (Score:3)
People don't like DACA? Fine. Rolling it back is easy enough. As you point out, it's not a law. But why not simply grandfather everyone in, in perpetuity, and simply stop allowing new applicants.
It's funny, how everyone who likes amnesty for illegals always say, "we'll do this last amnesty, and then we'll start enforcing the laws. Honest! Promise!"
If you want cruel, how about the guy who promised amnesty to all these people when he knew damn well that he didn't have the legal authority to do so and it stood a good chance of being overturned?
Is DACA a law or a regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want things with the force of law, well then, pass LAWS, right?
Don't like the law ? (Score:5, Informative)
Change the law.
Simple concept. Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.
The Executive Branch does not make laws. DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers, with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch. Ending it is the right choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecutorial decision is not unlimited, and DACA falls outside the limits of what is legally permissible.
And those elected officials have decided to exercise their prosecutorial decision differently now.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating discretionary powers and prosecutor's evaluation of indivual cases based on the strength of the evidence, with complete refusal to enforce laws as a matter of policy enforced from the top down.
Don't make this emotional and make false equivalencies. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced, subject to discretionary powers and the strength of evidence. If the Executive Branch wants to simply ignore a law completely, then they need to petition the Legislative to first change it.
T
Hands tied? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, even the people who drafted DACA [twitter.com] admit that Trump's in a bind here because the order is unconstitutional.
10 state sttorneys general gave Trump a September 5 deadline for ending DACA or they would sue to get it overturned. This same group had DAPA (the parental version) thrown out due to unconstitutionality and the argument against DACA is essentially identical. They would win in court, barring a reversal by the Supreme Court. The SC split 4-4 on DAPA, so the Appeals Court 2-1 against is the law of the land and no one expects that Gorsuch would find DACA constitutional.
Any dispassionate look at DACA sees that it's plainly unconstitutional. Unlike orders that deferred or gave a low priority to enforcement of immigration laws, DACA actually grants (temporary) legal status with no legal basis. Any attempt to find otherwise is really ends-oriented. Plenty of that sort of thing on both sides - but this would be really bad precedent.
The truly sad thing is that the "Dreamers" have supporters on both sides of the aisle - Republicans are pretty sympathetic to their plight as well. But, like anything, politics gets in the way - Democrats want a "clean" Dreamer bill while Republicans want something in return (either wall funding or mandatory e-Verify). Neither side is budging much at the moment (there are a few bipartisan bills out there, but each of the main conferences are waiting).
I don't tend to expect much from Trump (other than crazy uncle-style Tweeting at all hours) but even he seems to want to do something for the Dreamers. Hopefully, a deal can get done soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't tend to expect much from Trump (other than crazy uncle-style Tweeting at all hours) but even he seems to want to do something for the Dreamers. Hopefully, a deal can get done soon.
I don't know how you can seriously believe that. This is just red meat for his supporters, just like talk about The Wall is. One of the things about Trump is that he's actually pretty smart and I think everything he does is according to a plan, it's just not always a good plan and it doesn't always work. He knows full well that Congress will never, ever, pass a law on this for the reasons stated by others here - Republicans who do so will lose in the primaries and Democrats will have to give up something
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hands tied? (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither party wants to stop illegals.
Which is one of the things that got _Trump_ elected.
DACA isn't a law or even an executive order (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama simply said "We're not going to prosecute these people." That's a huge Constitutional overreach.
If Obama & the Democrats wanted to make this permanent, they would have made it a law. But Obama & Democrats didn't care enough to make it a law. Obama wanted the political win without having to expend political capital & the Democrats in Congress didn't want a public vote.
correct decision (Score:2)
Obama never had the authority to implement DACA in the first place. Whether you like DACA as a policy or not, DACA undermines the rule of law, and that has disastrous consequences in the long run.
Trump's decision is a reasonable compromise: he is giving Congress six months to do what it should have done in the first place, namely define, in law, immigration policy for childhood arrivals.
Congress has had five years ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumb move by Cook to admit it (Score:5, Insightful)
So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment [legalmatch.com].
The DACA wasn't a law. It was just the Obama administration saying they wouldn't prosecute for violations of the actual law which mandates fines for hiring non-citizens without Federal work permits. The law is still there, and Cook has now admitted in public that his company is knowingly in violation of it. If he'd kept his mouth shut and only expressed an opinion, he could've feigned ignorance and kept the affected workers in Apple's payroll. But because he tried to publicly use their plight as leverage, he's now put himself into a position where Apple has to fire them or face fines and imprisonment.
Congres: DO YOUR JOB! (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically everybody is getting upset with Doland Trump for ending DACA, but that's not what he's doing. He's saying, "Congress, DO YOUR JOB!" Obama's executive action was unconstitutional. 'Repealing" DACA is completely legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Threats are cheap, especially when you set a deadline months after the author of the situation has left the scene.
"factual" (Score:2, Insightful)
How funny you claim something is "factual" with no proof behind it - at this point people are pretty used to liberals simply lying about something that want to be true but is the opposite of what they say [northwestern.edu].
In the end, the lies you tell and believe yourself hurt you more than anyone else...
Re: "factual" (Score:5, Informative)
Uh those numbers have been flipped:
In 1992 the number of murders was 23,760.
In 2015 the number of murders was 15,696.
The amount reduced!!
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/... [disastercenter.com]
Post a valid link, and assume people won't check it??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
opportunity to replace these illegal aliens with legal