President* Donald Trump's administration will "wind down" a program protecting hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children, Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared Tuesday, calling the Obama administration's program "an unconstitutional exercise of authority."The question, now, is whether or not there are enough Republicans in Congress who are willing to try and save DACA. If there are, then Trump could claim that all he did was force Congress to do the right thing. Which would then put the Democrats in a bind and, in essence, force them to help the GOP save themselves from Trump.
But I think that's unlikely. There are enough batshit-crazy Republicans in the House to stop any attempt to do that, so long as Ryan follows the Child-Molester's Rule. Today may turn out to presage the biggest shift in political bases since LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.
I'll bet that, right now, the GOP party officials whose job it is to forecast future trends are shitting bricks.
Meanwhile, Spicy's hitting the Grifter Circuit.
And all those kids never became citizens, even though many were able to.....(not all are old enough, but many could have, they simply chose not to) They did have 5 years to make the attempt and all....
ReplyDeleteBut yes, this move does give the already DNC owned Latinos back to the DNC.
Which shows they are racist, putting skin and race over citizenship.
Man, B, you can come up with some whoppers.
ReplyDeleteVoting based on the interest of your perceived group is racist?
Nice to know, for you've just implied that the typical white Trump voter is racist.
It does seem like Drumpf uck is a Manchurian... for the dems.
ReplyDeleteLet me see your green card, boy.
$400 billion plus in economic growth flushed if Congress doesn't act...yep, Donnie is certainly trying to help America.
ReplyDelete@B. A simple Google search, instead of a flippant gut reaction, found this:
ReplyDelete"Federal immigration and naturalization law contains a categorical bar that prevents, in most circumstances, a person from applying for permanent residency or citizenship if their most recent entry to the United States was “uninspected”: that is, other than at a port of entry where they were inspected by a border control officer."
So, it does not appear to be a matter of deferred choice to become a citizen.
I believe DACA removed that bar. Or at least the version of the legislation I saw had that provision.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone tried to become a citizen, however? Few illegals latinos do.
(I know many others immigrants who are able to become citizens despite having entered illegally or, as you put it "uninspected". At least 3 Indonesians have overcome that issue with a bit of attorney help, that I know personally. And one Irish lady as well. SO how come the DACA kinds couldn't?
I still ask, why isn't it racist to put skin color and race over citizenship?
Oh, and a Link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/03/citizenship-dreamers-warned-happen-say-immigration-hawks/
Here are some numbers for you.
(notice in the above link: "Under advanced parole, illegal aliens protected by DACA were allowed to leave the U.S. and return, transforming their once illegal status into a now formally legal immigrant status."
ReplyDeleteYet only 2800 have applied for citizenship.
1) Only about 45,000 have even applied for Advanced Parole. The number approved is not specified. So 6.1% for the maximum possible eligible have applied after less than a year of it being possible...pretty good results.
ReplyDelete2) There are a number of countries where applying for U.S. citizenship IMMEDIATLY revokes their citizenship. Hell of a gamble, seems legal status is a better choice until things clear up.
3) Starting with Bushie 2, fees for application for citizenship have increased greatly. Some people just don't make enough.
"Some people don't make enough"
ReplyDeleteOr care enough. Or simply thought they could get away with not.I would have thought that nearly 100% would have, since they claim they want to be here as citizens and all, and not just sponge off the taxpayer....
Some of the ones interviewed today (purported to be affected, I dunno for sure) could barely, if at all, speak english. Odd that, having been raised here and all.
I'd really like to find a way for them to somehow become citizens Best and brightest and all that, they'd make a fine addition to this country if they cared to....If they would. If they could be accommodated without it becoming yet another amnesty.
Of course, to make that happen, we'd have to shore up our border and make it harder (if not impossible) to walk on in....but can't have a fence/wall...can we?
B., why don't you place your prejudices somewhere else? If a person is consigned to poorly performing schools with parents who can't speak English because they're too busy working to earn enough to live and feed their family, it's their fault?
ReplyDeleteLet's see, who did the last amnesty, oh, St. Ronnie, that's who.
"breitbart"
ReplyDeleteHa, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Same league as fox, drudge, world nut daily, infowars, blaze.
Explains a lot.
(L)Rod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
CP: thanks for the suggestion. I will leave if our hostess wishes, She gets a say, not you. I will gladly respect HER wishes.
ReplyDeleteLet me be clear: Everyone who follows the House Rules, especially Rule 2, is welcome to comment.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to clarify:
ReplyDeleteI welcome B's comments, but dislike his occasional ventures into prejudice. My suggestion was simply to take those particular items elsewhere.
Comrade, I am well aware of and full supportive and appreciative of your stance. My apologies if you took that comment as an intended afront to those policies.
It is apparent that a high percentage of Americans of African descent voted for Obama because of his racial heritage, and HRC explicitly called on women to vote for her because sh was female. Racism and sexism is wrong, even when it works in one's favor.
ReplyDeleteRacism is called out too often, though. One can be opposed to illegal immigration without being prejudiced or a racist (or Nazi, neo- or otherwise).
And both parties are fine with the status quo. Democrats want the votes, Republican leaders want the less expensive labor for their donors.
"... and not just sponge off the taxpayer...."
ReplyDeleteOver here in reality, the 800,000+ DACA recipients ponied up $400,000,000 to the treasury for the privilege of participating in the program, have, at their 91% employment rate, paid billions of dollars in taxes, some of which are FICA taxes which they have no reasonable expectation of ever collecting on the social insurance they pay for, and according to every credible study produced, boost our economy, not drain it.
Never mind that we, as an economy, really need immigrants right now because our workforce isn't replacing itself fast enough to sustain the levels of growth that the financial services sector demands we have for "stability" and these kids are exactly the sort of immigrants we would want: financially stable, passed a background check, paid $500 as a gesture of seriousness, and other hoops every last one of them successfully jumped through to gain DACA status.
I've lived in Oakland for 33 years, and known and worked with a lot of undocumented folks, and in almost every case, they were being screwed by their employer because they were undocumented. These employers take the risk of being caught, although in my 32 years in the workforce, I never saw a single employer get in any trouble over it, and every one of them that hired these guys made out like bandits by not paying their end of the employment taxes and FICA they are required by law to pay for anyone working under a W-4.
Out of all of the undocumented guys I've worked with, only one of them wasn't worth a damn, and he was about sixteen and had gang and daddy issues. I can't say anything like that about the regular native-born citizens like me that I've hired and worked with.
So Schneiderman and 15 other AG's are suing over the cancellation of DACA, and modeling their lawsuit on the ones that stopped the Muslim ban. He said it isn't partisan, but instead simply trying to get the administration to comply with the law that states public policy can't willfully disadvantage particular groups, as this one obviously does, and says that like with the Muslim ban, Fergus history of bragging about it will provide a lot of evidence of his prejudice.
-Doug in Oakland
Public policy can't willfully disadvantage particular groups, okay, but DACA is/ was a willful advantage to a particular group. Reversing an executive order shouldn't be something anyone can sue over.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that, then I suggest you lobby your legislators to change the law to reflect your preference, but as the law is currently written, you can indeed sue if you have standing.
ReplyDelete-Doug in Oakland