Case in point DACA where these people didn't chose to sidestep all the legal process but where underage when their parents did. Hence this whole debate, is it so hard to get it through your head ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Says 250 Apple Employees Are 'Dreamers' as Donald Trump's Decision on DACA Nears
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Case in point DACA where these people didn't chose to sidestep all the legal process but where underage when their parents did. Hence this whole debate, is it so hard to get it through your head ?
Correct. Though I imagine any state or district with a sizeable Hispanic population will vote out anyone in congress who goes against DACA. Which is rather amusing when it comes to cognress. They must appeal to hard core right-wingers to maintain their seat, but if they serve a Hispanic heavy populace, they're also screwed. They're essentially a hog roast.
I read an interesting post yesterday in a DACA thread on here or ycombinator that outlined the possibility of the economy going on a downturn provided there are enough DACA engineers. Since there's no statistics, it's really a matter of guessing.
Illegal immigrants working the fields pretty much keep the food prices artificially low.
RE: Tim Cook
I understand why some of our members are upset that Tim is making his rounds in the political world. It is bizarre to me, too. Usually a company makes such statements, not the CEO. However, Apple is making money hand over fist and shares have climbed, as well as sales and passed expectations. I doubt majority shareholders give a rat's ass as long as Apple is churning more profit every year.
Realistically, are Apple consumers who don't like Tim's opinion going to go with Windows? Are people willing to leave the Apple environment because of the CEO's political commentary? I sincerely doubt it.
I read an interesting post yesterday in a DACA thread on here or ycombinator that outlined the possibility of the economy going on a downturn provided there are enough DACA engineers. Since there's no statistics, it's really a matter of guessing.
Illegal immigrants working the fields pretty much keep the food prices artificially low.
RE: Tim Cook
I understand why some of our members are upset that Tim is making his rounds in the political world. It is bizarre to me, too. Usually a company makes such statements, not the CEO. However, Apple is making money hand over fist and shares have climbed, as well as sales and passed expectations. I doubt majority shareholders give a rat's ass as long as Apple is churning more profit every year.
Realistically, are Apple consumers who don't like Tim's opinion going to go with Windows? Are people willing to leave the Apple environment because of the CEO's political commentary? I sincerely doubt it.
Last edited:
Not sure why you're responding to me in this tone - I was making an observation on immigration in general and not anything DACA-specific. I can well see that for a legal immigrant, tolerating and implicitly encouraging illegal immigration could be very annoying.
My heart goes out to anybody on DACA. I know the uncertainty and frustration must be huge. Just be reassured that many Americans support you, including many members of Congress. Trump is not a king - Congress makes the laws.
As for those of you ho think ending DACA is a good thing, you are aiming your disappointment and anger in the system at the people who have the least power to influence it. Try focusing on the top 1% instead. They're the ones controlling your fate, not immigrants.
As for those of you ho think ending DACA is a good thing, you are aiming your disappointment and anger in the system at the people who have the least power to influence it. Try focusing on the top 1% instead. They're the ones controlling your fate, not immigrants.
Really? Do you think native Americans share the same view? It may have been 'unsettled and ungoverned' in the minds of some, to others it was already their land. #Ironic
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Please note that this will affect not only immigrants on DACA, but American citizens who are their friends and family. As a US citizen I know from personal experience what it can be like when your partner must leave the US due to immigration reasons. This is why I now live in Scotland, as well as my US-born first child, who had to leave the US at the age of 2 months so that we could keep the family together. The collateral damage to US citizens caused by ending DACA is going to be huge.
No wrong factually incorrect. Europeans were the last of the large migrations to North America that did start with the indigenous who were originally from the Eurasian Steppes.
However, there was no country or legal entity with borders. Success waves of indigenous came after others - they fought and had wars, competed over land but in the end were migratory tribes -- with exceptions in the east coast side of the US. All the boundaries of all nations were defined by conflict.
To make your claim is to say the US is not a nation with defined borders and sovereign rights. Your claim implies that if someone can make it across the border they have a legal and moral claim to stay here and obtain rights as citizens. Again factually incorrect. The heirarchy of rights and privileges in any nation is as follows:
Citizens > legal residents > visitors with visas > illegal aliens.
DACA was an extra-legal creation by Obama. There is no classification of "dreamers" in the US Code. Second -- his approach was a bastardization of prosecutorial discretion as it applied to a whole class of offender when this is specifically used on a case by case basis.
All DACA did was create the illegitimate notion that an illegal immigrant has claim to rights within the US as a citizen or legal resident.
Again legally false.
[doublepost=1504525954][/doublepost]
Well the collateral damage was caused by the people who knowingly came into the country illegally with full knowledge of the potential consequences.
[doublepost=1504526116][/doublepost]
Sigh where do you all get your facts?????
There was not one monolithic groups of "indians". They were several different groups that came in successive waves over time. They also battled each other had wars and took land from each other. They weren't innocent and pure.
Fact is the Europeans came in as a successive wave of migrants and won that conflict. It took a long time -- but in the end they one.
There is not one country that exists today whose borders were not defined by conflict and war resulting in a winner and a loser. Winner got the land loser had to find someplace else.
Your argument is based on a false premise that tries to delegitimize the law under which we all live in the US.
The indigenous peoples of the new world had battles for territory too.
Again, this is a legal problem that's grown into a political problem. The Democrats would rather use illegals as a weapon against the Republicans because they make more hay with it that way.
The sad thing is that the Hispanic community isn't smart enough to realize that they've been jobbed.
The sad thing is that the Hispanic community isn't smart enough to realize that they've been jobbed.
I would disagree with that notion - one held by democrats and the reason they are losing elections. Not all hispanic people have the same opinion on this issue.
My wife is from Puerto Rico -- her sister and cousins live here in Virginia. Out neighbor is from Peru -- a nerdy naturalized citizen and the head of our HOA is from Argentina.
They all voted for Trump and all disagree with the DACA program Obama established. They left countries where the rule of law was trivialized resulting in arbitrary power that then resulted in individual rights being trampled. They saw the same pattern in Obama. Trump got 40% of the hispanic vote in the election where he was clear where he stood on immigration.
[doublepost=1504526682][/doublepost]
I think your statistics are overblown on opioid addiction. Second -- the fact is American politicians have an obligation to American citizens first regardless of your disdain for your own countrymen. Illegal Aliens fall at the bottom of the list. There is a moral imperative here. Maybe the reason you have the opioid epidemic and problems in the rust belt is because establishment politicians have cared more about foreign born than citizens. And then you wonder why you get a populist as President.
I wish Tim Cook cared about his American labor as much as he does 250 dreamers. Or at least get pivot tables into Numbers.
[doublepost=1504526822][/doublepost]
Ummmmm no. Again - facts are important here. DACA was an executive order made by Obama -- not law. And there was significant constitutional issues with the EO as it created a legal class of immigrants not currently found in US Law.
Executive Orders - by definition cannot change, modify, or create laws - they are there specifically to detail how to implement laws passed by Congress.
DACA has no legal bearing and that is why it can be eliminated so easily.
[doublepost=1504527054][/doublepost]
Like those travel bans.. Seems like you need a better system then perpetually replaced executive orders.
My God people --- no the travel ban is different. Greatly different. Under current law (US Code Title VII, 1893, 1932, and 1963)- not an EO - the President has plenary power to prevent individuals or identified groups of people from entering the country for any reasons. period. Multiple laws passed over several different years explicitly gives the President this power. It does not require and EO and it does not require Congress approval -- hence it is different than the DACA scenario.
If we are going to conflate issues --- we need to be bound by fact and not emotion. DACA is an EO issue ---- the travel ban is a legal right of the President to decide.
Separate issues -- separate powers.
[doublepost=1504527519][/doublepost]
You forget the Indians had the same ills as the "white man" -- the had wars, held slaves, and took land from other tribes. They weren't a self governed nirvanna. Most of the indians migrated from the Eurasian steppes -- so they had a little "white barbarian" in them too.
And you like to call the white man "barbarians". Yet it was the "barbarians" that had the wheel, the horse, steel, the written word, and gunpowder. Some of the advantages that helped decide who would win the conflict between the indigenous and the latest arrival of migrants to the North America.
Yes I will agree from the perspective of the indians - they didn't like the idea of European migration into North America and the fact they lost the competition for land and resources. So does every loser in a conflict or war. Guatemala lost the Yucatan Peninsula to the Mexicans. Germany lost Alsace and Lorraine to the French multiple times. Parts of Europe lost to the Ottomans, etc, etc, etc, D
oesn't change the concrete fact is the the US exists, is a recognized sovereign country and as a result gets to decide who enters the country. The US currently takes in more legal immigrants in both number and percentage of population than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. PERIOD. We don't have to also abide illegal immigrants who on one hand care nothing about our law and sovereignty while breaking into the country --- but then get religion and want all the benefits of citizenship ahead of the people waiting line following our law.
Sorry - you knew what you were doing when you snuck into the country - you cannot whine about the consequences of your legal actions.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Hundreds of thousands" is a far cry from the MILLIONS who are here and remain a net taxpayer LOSS. They don't have access to social security and some other things now, but if they remain stuff like that will be on the next list of "demands". They came to the land of the free[loading].
If they were a net gain, why isn't Mexico begging us to have so many of them returned?
So you concede they are being exploited for cheap labor, and spin it as a positive?
[doublepost=1504528319][/doublepost]
This is the progressive left, folks. Have a different opinion = worse than the KKK. Anyone who disagrees is "the enemy within".
threesixty360, you might be happier moving to Sweden or something. Tell me how their unfettered immigration policy is going. Let me know about that "cultural enrichment" thing socialist Europe has going on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait a minute. Where do you get your numbers.
DACA was issued almost five years ago (not quite five years ago). This was for CHILDREN under the age of 18. At most the oldest of these DACA recipients are 23 for the first ones admitted. The rest of this group should still be minors.
Yet denying them legal status (as is required under current law) would result in the deportation of hundreds of thousands of tax paying citizens?? How many 13, 15, 17, and 18 year olds are paying taxes?
Second -- NO ONE who received benefits under DACA -- are citizens. They were only given temporary legal status.
Please, please, please get your terms straight. And your "facts" as well.
nah.. most Americans, these days, simply popped into existence within the U.S. borders.. same with our parents.
I get what you're saying but somewhere along the lines, you're using the wrong words or blaming the wrong people because most Americans aren't immigrants.. much less illegal immigrants.
I can definitely understand these so-called dreamers' plight and the fact they had no or very little choice in being dragged to the U.S with their illegal immigrant parents, but I can also understand the rule of law argument against allowing them to stay.
Denying these people the right to stay in the country they grew up in is a pretty awful thing to do, but if you're going to allow certain groups of people exceptions from the law does go against the basic principles of the law. The law is supposed to be blind and treat everyone equally, so allowing certain people exemptions from the law goes against this and ends up questioning immigration law in general. If these people are exempt from the law, then why shouldn't all law abiding illegal immigrants be given leniency? If all law abiding illegal immigrants are given leniency then shouldn't immigrants with non-felony convictions also be given leniency? If non-felons are being given leniency, why shouldn't felons be given leniency as well?
This is one of those times when I just can't make up my mind on the subject. Neither side of the argument outweighs the other by enough for me to declare them a clearly better alternative.
Denying these people the right to stay in the country they grew up in is a pretty awful thing to do, but if you're going to allow certain groups of people exceptions from the law does go against the basic principles of the law. The law is supposed to be blind and treat everyone equally, so allowing certain people exemptions from the law goes against this and ends up questioning immigration law in general. If these people are exempt from the law, then why shouldn't all law abiding illegal immigrants be given leniency? If all law abiding illegal immigrants are given leniency then shouldn't immigrants with non-felony convictions also be given leniency? If non-felons are being given leniency, why shouldn't felons be given leniency as well?
This is one of those times when I just can't make up my mind on the subject. Neither side of the argument outweighs the other by enough for me to declare them a clearly better alternative.
Last edited:
So if we have people who came her illegally because of their parents and grew up to become hard-working Americans like any other why not just grant them citizenship? Why the temporary measure of DACA? The gray area manner with which our immigration laws are enforced really just makes everything confusing. Maybe that's the plan...
Oh well, I expect a whole lot of virtue signaling and hashtagging tomorrow. We survived 1776-2012 without DACA and despite the coming outrage I think we'll survive again without it.
Oh well, I expect a whole lot of virtue signaling and hashtagging tomorrow. We survived 1776-2012 without DACA and despite the coming outrage I think we'll survive again without it.
I would agree with your post. Very well thought out. However, if we make exception for the children of illegal immigrants - then future illegal immigrants will come with their kids and use that as leverage to avoid compliance with the law.
I think Congress should update the law that does the following things:
1.) Stop new DACA admissions
2.) Develop a new legal status (real not made up by EO) for those who have received DACA status that makes it clear - they can never become citizens and vote, they cannot sponsor any other immigrants, and they will be deported if convicted of a crime.
In that way you won't throw out the ones who are here with DACA but they won't be illegitimately given citizenship or any rights they don't deserve.
It's still a legal problem with a legal solution ready and waiting: mass exportation. Not just the "dreamers", but all 11 million illegals who remain.
Think bigger than Democrats vs Republicans. Look at what's happening in western Europe despite all the political parties there. The end game is about replacing the natives.
It's a problem in the non-Hispanic illegal community as well (non-Mexicans make up about half of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US). Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
I don't think any group cares. Having access to first-world country benefits and not having to pay is a life improvement they think they are owed because they crossed that magic border line. That's not how it works, though.
Because DACA has no basis in law it was an EO that stretched the legitimate bounds of an EO (EO cannot modify or create law). It was a delay of enforcement of current law and done through political calculus by Obama.
Current law has no provision for DACA. There is no gray area in the law - - only the lack of enforcement. Enforcement of existing law would have deported the "dreamers' and their parents when they were discovered years ago.
The laws are not broken - they are very very clear. The problem is politics prevented the enforcement of the laws. Democrats wanted to almost ethnically cleanse the US politically with a permanent underclass so they would get a large base of voters. Republicans wanted cheap labor for big business,
Both motivations hurt the interest of American citizens and both are immoral.
The emotion-driven left is already blowing up Twitter.
One of the best points I've seen.