When I said break the law - the law I was talk about a child breaking was coming into this country. Not slashing tires.
Threatening to DACA is the kind of tactic Trump must use to bring the children in the Senate to the table to sign CR’s so that the government can stay open. Sigh.
Yeah, it does. If a parent brings in a 6-month-old baby, it does matter when talking about that 6-month-old baby breaking the law.
Republicans ended DACA intentionally because they thought they could use it as a bargaining chip to get concessions from weak Democrats who would cave. Dems aren't caving, and nor should they. This isn't about DACA. This is about not being bullied and in the end it's good for our country if one party can't bend the other over every single time.
Yes, I said this, and it is true. Coming here wasn't their fault, choosing to remain here illegally is.
The whole DACA thing was a way for Republicans to use as leverage to get something they wanted. It backfired.
Which is fine, and it'll also be fine if DACA expires and they are no longer allowed to be here. The 6 years they were allowed to be here doesn't change the fact that they are not citizens and that they lived most of their life being here illegally. When you have no right to be somewhere, your ability to be there can be taken away at any time.....and that's how it should be. If my parents snuck into your house when I was a child and started living in the attic and you didn't notice for 10 or 20 years, it wouldn't mean that I had the right to continue living there after you found out....even if it wasn't my fault that I was brought there as a child.
Rewriting chain migration and quota guidelines shouldn’t even be this controversial. Amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship should be this contentious of an issue.
They weren't illegal though...that's what DACA did, make it legal. And it's not really that simple (and I'm NOT one of those on the left on immigration). If your parents brought you into a country when you were a baby, you lived there your whole life..it really is your home at that point. Where or what would you be 'returning' to? The problem is that's not what the law now says, and that they were allowed in that way in the first place. This is SUCH a simple thing to fix. Just write DACA into law. Which is where it should have been to begin with. The President isn't supposed to make laws, he's supposed to enforce them, that's what the executive branch does.
DACA first existed in 2012, so every day they were in the country before that was illegal. DACA granted them some kind of status which is just fine (other than the way it happened, executive order is not the way to do such things) just as it's fine when that expires and they go back to being illegal. What they would be "returning to" would be their country of birth, the only country they have a right to live in. Anywhere else would just be a privilege that can be taken away at any moment. My point here is that it's fine if the US wants to grant those people the privilege of staying here and it's just as fine if they decide they need to go back to the country of their birth and either do things the right way or not at all.....but none of that has anything to do with government funding and the Democrats should not have decided to shut down the government over an immigration policy dispute. All they are doing is ensuring that the government will be shut down by the minority party more and more often over disputes that have nothing to do with government funding and that's not a good thing. It wasn't a good thing when the Republicans did it over a government funding issue, it's even worse now that the Democrats are doing it over an unrelated issue.
Simple in execution. Complicated in ramifications. And where Congress is concerned NOTHING is simple.
If you want them to return to the country of their birth, a lot of them would be returned to the USA.
Literally zero DACA people were born in the US, if they were, they'd be citizens and have a permanent legal status.....so educate yourself and try again.
While that may be true, there are a number of illegals prior to DACA that birthed children in the USA.
Sure, and their children are citizens. There was a hotel in California that was busted fairly recently that was advertising in Mexico and South America that if you paid them something like 30K they would help pregnant women hide their pregnancy in order to get travel visas in order to get into the country and then stay at their hotel until they were ready to give birth. They even told them what hospital to go to so that they could give birth at a discount due to being illegals. They advertised that they could then use their US citizen baby to get citizenship for themselves and the rest of their family. It's a very well known strategy and it's why they need to put an end to chain migration and anchor babies. IMO when someone has an anchor baby, they should still be deported with their US citizen child and the child should be allowed to return once they are an adult. I think that would adequately fix that problem without having to tear families apart. That said, we're getting off track here. DACA specifically deals with illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. They were given some form of "don't deport me" status in 2012 and will potentially lose that without further legislation extending their privilege to stay in this country as a non-citizen.
