totally. nobody ever gets to hear the left's side of an issue. Its not like people aren't bombarded with it in the movies and shows they watch as well as in public schools. A total bubble.....
Well when u choose to enforce certain laws and ignore others.........Trump has a history of ignoring the law when it benefits him.
LOL, okay, so make a post about how you want other laws enforced rather than one about how you want laws to be not enforced.
I want the enforcement of the 4th amendment which Trump hindered when he pardoned Joe even before his sentencing. I think that violation sets a far more dangerous precedent than making an executive order out of an empathetic understanding of a situation.
Because usually pardons happen AFTER 1. the individual admits guilt 2. the individual served some form of time and the president believes he's served enough for his crime. What Trump did was pretty much state that our law enforcement can get away with violating the 4th amendment with impunity especially when Joe sends a letter expressing how this is a political witch hunt and does the farthest thing from admitting guilt. They are proud that they got a way with violating a core principle of our bill of rights.
I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but pardons can and have happened before charges are even brought against people, so sentencing has nothing at all to do with a pardon.
If they got here at 16 and is now 31 y/o wouldn't that give them plenty of time to become a legal citizen?
The US needs to lead the world by example; by enforcing its laws with the same commitment that it extends protection to allies like Japan and South Korea. You want the law enforced as it is written, equally, and fairly? Then here is a chance for that to happen. No more Chamberlaining.
No one outside this country will notice if the US enforces it's immigration laws. Other countries however will notice if we deport kids who've only know this country as home.
Exactly. Tossing out those 800,000 young people who personally had nothing to do with being in the United States would be a BIG story overseas. I know some Dreamers. That they face more trump madness so the man-child can crow to his "base" is outrageous.
There is no deporting kids.... DACA applies to adults who came here as kids. You have to be 15 to apply for DACA. People keep spouting this lie.
To request Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, you must meet the following DACA requirements: You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; You entered the United States prior to your 16th birthday; Where does it say you have to been older than 16? You have to have entered the country before the age of 16. Hence, there is a large chunk of DACA CHILDREN that are CHILDREN who only know this country as home. Evidence that you live in a news bubble. Did Hannity tell you this.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca Anyone requesting DACA must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. You must also be at least 15 years or older to request DACA, unless you are currently in removal proceedings or have a final removal or voluntary departure order, as summarized in the table below We don't grant work permits to kids...... ICE has a long standing rule of not deporting kids or atleast very few.
" Situation: I am in removal proceedings, have a final removal order, or have a voluntary departure order, and I am not in immigration detention. Under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, but you may be younger than 15 years old at the time you submit your request." Again we are dealing with children, teenagers and young adults who've spent the majority of their lives calling this place home and do not have criminal records and are at least perusing some type of trade or education. Pragmaticly, it pushes these kids harder because they are on thinner ice than a normal kid because them ****ing up has much more severe consequences than your average kid or young adult messing up. There is a reason why most Republicans argue against DACA on the merit of the 'executive overreach' rather than the merit of the actual program.
