Posted on Jan 10, 2018
Memo On Dreamers | Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals | Republican Party (United States)
11.1K
16
22
1
1
0
“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”
There you go democrat constituents. Your party leaders are USING people with promises of citizenship and more for a vote, period. This is your party leaders' talking points memo. I look forward to hearing the same message on all of the liberal MSM outlets while they attempt to savage trump with lies and innuendo, i.e., "virtue signalling."
How does that make one feel about the leaders of the D party and their praetorian guard media.
There you go democrat constituents. Your party leaders are USING people with promises of citizenship and more for a vote, period. This is your party leaders' talking points memo. I look forward to hearing the same message on all of the liberal MSM outlets while they attempt to savage trump with lies and innuendo, i.e., "virtue signalling."
How does that make one feel about the leaders of the D party and their praetorian guard media.
Memo On Dreamers | Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals | Republican Party (United States)
Posted from scribd.com
Democrats
Republicans
Immigration
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Let's start out with using plain language instead of Orwellian double speak. A dreamer is either a person who is asleep and in the process of having a dream; or a person who is a person who is unpractical or idealistic.
The group of people of whom we speak are either "unlawful residents" or they are here as a result of illegal entry. Since many of them were minors and compelled by their parents to cross the border illegally I will not go so far as to call them criminals, although some were undoubtedly old enough and mentally capable of understanding that they were participating in an illegal activity. None-the-less, since when should children benefit from the illegal actions of their parents. Any form of clemency only entices similar illegal actions by similar foreign adults with children.
In general, I believe that any adult who willfully becomes an unlawful resident or engages in illegal entry should be deported, and denied any possibility of legal entry to the US. In the case of minors who came across the border compelled to do so by their parents, I would make an exemption for this class. If they SELF deport, and apply for legal entry, I would favor expedited consideration of their applications for legal re-entry.
The group of people of whom we speak are either "unlawful residents" or they are here as a result of illegal entry. Since many of them were minors and compelled by their parents to cross the border illegally I will not go so far as to call them criminals, although some were undoubtedly old enough and mentally capable of understanding that they were participating in an illegal activity. None-the-less, since when should children benefit from the illegal actions of their parents. Any form of clemency only entices similar illegal actions by similar foreign adults with children.
In general, I believe that any adult who willfully becomes an unlawful resident or engages in illegal entry should be deported, and denied any possibility of legal entry to the US. In the case of minors who came across the border compelled to do so by their parents, I would make an exemption for this class. If they SELF deport, and apply for legal entry, I would favor expedited consideration of their applications for legal re-entry.
(4)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
Susan Foster - Not equally at fault. Democrats are overwhelmingly committed to legalizing as many illegals as they can, doing so at the expense of people who are already citizens. A much smaller percentage of Republicans have those skewed priorities.
(0)
(0)
Susan Foster
SSgt Christopher Brose - I totally agree on immigration in general. My comment was about DACA in particular. I hold them equally at fault in that. Both sides have been in majority in different places in Congress since this started and they could have long ago made a path for legal status. This all did not have to happen.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Susan Foster - I don't intend to be "snarky" but I do not know how to make the point without being "snarky." Neither the legislative branch Democrats, nor the legislative branch Republicans are at fault. They did not cross the border illegally with children in tow. The executive branch is another story. Neither side has had the intestinal fortitude to enforce the law and deport these people.
(2)
(0)
Susan Foster
Maj John Bell - I don't think you are being snarky. I see the legislative branch at fault because only they can fix it, and they haven't. You are also right about the Executive Branch--every one of them since it began. The immigrants who came with their parents can't fix it, their parents (who were the real lawbreakers) can't fix it--they aren't even here anymore. Every Congress since then has ignored it, because these kids grew up, for the most part got educated or got productive jobs, they weren't costing the taxpayer, so they just ignored it and pushed it out further. All they have to do is make them a legal path to citizenship, legal residency, or the option of leaving. Heck, I could draft it up in one day. This is not just my bleeding heart. The Cato Institute (libertarian) estimates that repeal of DACA would cost the federal government $60 billion in lost revenue, and the impact on economy would total $215 billion in lost GDP over a 10 year period. For simple legislation.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Susan Foster
We are talking children who were brought here. In most cases their families are no longer here. I do not agree it's this black and white. Is it too much to ask Congress to have addressed it once and for all in 17 years?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
One of the common rejoinders of the left is "family unification" or "family reunification." It's utter bullcrap. As someone else noted, if you commit a crime and are sent to prison, you by your actions have split up your family. The state didn't do that. The state had no interest in splitting up your family. Likewise with immigration. Supporters of chain migration try to make an emotional argument, saying things like "Don't you like spending time with your family? Why should immigrants not be able to spend time with their families?" as if the American government is the one splitting up their families in the first place.
If immigrants make the decision to come here, that's their choice. There's nothing obligating them to stay here if they miss their families, they can go back to where they came from to be with them. Or they can choose to immigrate on their own, say goodbye to their families and create a new life in a new land like so many people have historically done. And if someone is deported, that by itself is not splitting up any families, because there's nothing stopping family members from accompanying the deportee back to his/her homeland. The American government has no interest in splitting up their families, and it's never going to put illegal immigrants in the position of one person having to leave while the other person has to stay. Staying is a choice.
If immigrants make the decision to come here, that's their choice. There's nothing obligating them to stay here if they miss their families, they can go back to where they came from to be with them. Or they can choose to immigrate on their own, say goodbye to their families and create a new life in a new land like so many people have historically done. And if someone is deported, that by itself is not splitting up any families, because there's nothing stopping family members from accompanying the deportee back to his/her homeland. The American government has no interest in splitting up their families, and it's never going to put illegal immigrants in the position of one person having to leave while the other person has to stay. Staying is a choice.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google