Apple Voices Support for Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Decision to End DACA

[PhoenixDown]

I think there needs to be a lot done in terms of immigration reform. It should not take the years, decades even, in court to resolve immigration issues. It should be a quick yes or no decision to avoid the impact to potential families.

Is it fair to send someone who grew up here, who only knows American culture, to a country they may never have visited where they possibly have no family and no friends? No, of course it isn't fair. At that same time its not unreasonable for those in such a situation to work on attaining citizenship.

 

[Mtmspa]

Timmy should learn the facts on DACA and Russia instead of just regurgitating the Liberal left fake news. Hey Tim, your hardware and software sucks. Maybe you should focus on that.

 

[Carnegie]

Yeah... It's a big "if." I have no idea how the process works. I would think someone who's been living here since childhood, working, and not committing crimes should have an easy way in. Judging by everything else gov't-related, probably half the effort is just figuring out what the laws are and getting through tons of BS. I hope this can change because I'd rather we not have immigration laws that our government actively ignores.

You might think that would be the case, but it isn't. If someone is here unlawfully - e.g., because they were brought here unlawfully as a young child and have remained ever since - it is nearly impossible for them to get a change in status such that they would be lawfully present.

For one thing, if you are present in the U.S. you have to have a lawful entry in order to be eligible for a change in status. That's not the only requirement, but it presents a major roadblock for people who are already here unlawfully.

DACA opened a narrow path by which some might be able to get a change in status. But even that path wouldn't be available to most DACA-eligible aliens.

 

[jcmeyer5]

Again, that's not correct.
Moreover, what put the Dreamers in this position was the repeated, nearly decade-long failure for Congress to enact a reasonable Dream Act, despite wide-spread support on both sides of aisle. Strident anti-immigration forces have been successful in scaring Congress into refusing to act, allowing the situation to get worse. Obama's DACA order was a band-aid, but Congress had every opportunity to suture this wound.

No, what put these illegal aliens in this position was... wait for it... being here illegally. They are free to leave and extricate themselves from this "position" of violating US laws. I feel for them, and hope the Congress can make some remedy that wont result in the flood of new illegals I fear is coming, but at the end of the day, its bad circumstance, but not something that US citizens are responsible for creating or, frankly, fixing.

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

Congress won't act because it is getting harder and harder to have a honest conversation about immigration when one side is standing there waiting to call you a bigot, racist, anti-immigrant, xenophobe if they don't get 100% of what they want as it pertains to ILLEGAL immigrants. The other side is cashing their checks so there's that. Hard to imagine why we can't get anything done.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Guess the average age of apple product ownership is getting older judging by these comments

It was only an executive order because the congress at the time couldn’t get over their own asses to pass anything.

Kinda like the current Congress AND administration. At least Obama's exec orders were actually you know, popular...

Respectfully (and I do mean that), whether or not it was popular, it was illegal. A country that is ruled by popularity of decrees is a dictatorship. Heck, most strong men issue decrees that are popular by the people, or else the next strong man will take them out. It’s only after they build up a loyal following that the less popular decisions come in, like taking kids when they are infants, and having the State indoctrinate them.

A nation of laws are the most productive, as the citizenry have the security of knowing that all people must obey them, whether they are the President (or his or her wife or husband), or a line cook at a restaurant (I was one at one time). As we see, the greatest thing that those that want to take down someone is accuse them of breaking a law, or a pseudo-law, like “collusion”. *Interesting how that one is turning out...)

Whether or not Congress gets its act together is immaterial. If Congress and the President do not act, there is no law. (That was a period at the end of that sentence). Like, for example, if there is no funding for insurance companies for an act so popular, the Party of the President lost over 1,000 elected seats since it’s passage, the President cannot simply act on a whim and sign a writ of law, and use inaction of another branch of government as an excuse. It is, as the kids say, “unconstitutional.”

 

[Admiral]

Yeah, you’re right. Clinton didn’t bother campaigning in battleground states because she “had it in the bag.” What an idiot!

Part of Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy in the general election was necessarily driven by the unfortunate-for-her fact that the more people not already committed to vote Democrat — no matter which Democrat — know about Hillary Clinton, the lower their predisposition to vote for Hillary Clinton.

That's why it was also necessary for Hillary Clinton to rig the Democratic Party nomination process, so that her utter lack of appeal would not be an obstacle.