Tim Cook Says 250 Apple Employees Are 'Dreamers' as Donald Trump's Decision on DACA Nears

[deeddawg]

Which you claim without evidence. They came in undocumented. But, as children, they did nothing illegal.

Children can do illegal things, though often the legal system takes into account their ability to understand what they were doing or whether they had control. You don't typically see a three year old prosecuted for stealing a candy bar. Still doesn't make it legal.

All of which is moot though.

Unlawful presence is illegal, although it has civil penalties (deportation and possibly time-barring) rather than criminal penalties. It seems self-evident that those who've applied for DACA are aware that their presence is unlawful.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/florida-conference-catholic-bishops/being-united-states-unlawfully-crime/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/11-182/opinion3.html

[doublepost=1504635788][/doublepost]

Because there is no current path to naturalization for these children. Congress won't address a simple, common-sense situation because they are afraid that someone might take advantage of it.

Correct.

It is the job of Congress to address the matter.

 

[blacktape242]

And what is that? How come all 3 people I’ve asked haven’t explained what they think one is. I think that’s interesting in itself.

its a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism,civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics. The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.

 

[BaldiMac]

Children can commit crimes, though often the legal system takes into account their ability to understand what they were doing or whether they had control.

I am not a fan of hiding behind generalities. Again, in the case of children being taken across the border illegally, the children did not do anything wrong.

It is the job of Congress to address the matter.

Absolutely. At least everyone agrees on that. Except Congress, of course.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Because there is no current path to naturalization for these children. Congress won't address a simple, common-sense situation because they are afraid that someone might take advantage of it.

so then they are illegal immigrants. Ok at least you recognize that much.

So the question is - do we really need to get them a path to naturalization? So we reward citizenship like it has no meaning. I might -might -- be open to giving them work visas - not so sure I am ready to toss citizenship their way. That will incentivize more parents to send unaccompanied children to the border.

 

[lowendlinux]

so then they are illegal immigrants. Ok at least you recognize that much.

So the question is - do we really need to get them a path to naturalization? So we reward citizenship like it has no meaning. I might -might -- be open to giving them work visas - not so sure I am ready to toss citizenship their way. That will incentivize more parents to send unaccompanied children to the border.

This is the problem we have, we all jumped behind our cover and yelled at each other vs. try to solve the problem. I don't mind it some much here as it's fun to throw crap at the other side but we vote this way too.

I'm on the "left" and I don't think they need to grant them citizenship either, just give them a green card, and TIN and tie it all to being gainfully employed and out of trouble. Get in trouble or lose employment it's time to go it's clear allows people to have a back up plans, doesn't forfeit our investment, and doesn't ship kids to places they've never really been.

 

[deeddawg]

So the question is - do we really need to get them a path to naturalization? So we reward citizenship like it has no meaning. I might -might -- be open to giving them work visas - not so sure I am ready to toss citizenship their way. That will incentivize more parents to send unaccompanied children to the border.

Indeed, not to be ugly about it but if you start feeding stray cats off your back porch let's take a guess as to whether you will begin to see more or fewer stray cats.

Congress needs to clean up immigration laws. Particularly the birthright-citizenship bit. It had its place once, but we're beyond that now and it's merely creating a substantial incentive for illegal immigration -- pop out an anchor baby and deportation becomes much less likely. That doesn't mean a child born here to non-citizens shouldn't have a reasonable path to citizenship upon reaching majority.

 

[cgsnipinva]

This is the problem we have, we all jumped behind our cover and yelled at each other vs. try to solve the problem. I don't mind it some much here as it's fun to throw crap at the other side but we vote this way too.

I'm on the "left" and I don't think they need to grant them citizenship either, just give them a green card, and TIN and tie it all to being gainfully employed and out of trouble. Get in trouble or lose employment it's time to go it's clear allows people to have a back up plans and doesn't forfeit our investment and doesn't ship kids to places they've never really been.

I can be down with that

 

[BaldiMac]

so then they are illegal immigrants. Ok at least you recognize that much.

Way to put words in my mouth. They are undocumented. As children, they've done nothing illegal.

So the question is - do we really need to get them a path to naturalization? So we reward citizenship like it has no meaning. I might -might -- be open to giving them work visas - not so sure I am ready to toss citizenship their way.

Hah. A slippery slope argument if there ever was one. Not "no meaning". A simple meaning. Offering someone who has done nothing wrong a path to citizenship is hardly a step toward chaos.

That will incentivize more parents to send unaccompanied children to the border.

How? We aren't talking about unaccompanied children left at the border.

It might be an incentive for some families to cross the border in hopes of citizenship for their children, but is that really going to be huge issue? Crossing the border and living in the US for years without documentation isn't exactly trivial. Especially when the "reward" might be separation from your children.

 

[dk001]

That's certainly an argument that doesn't account for the reality that they are children whom no court would hold responsible for these actions.


Which you claim without evidence. They came in undocumented. But, as children, they did nothing illegal.


I like how you added "incoming" without any reason or basis. And then posted a quote that supports my argument.

Sad part is you try to argue instead of debate. Read the quote I added. I wonder if your view has paradigmed your interpretation? Immigration is the Presidents. If Congress passes laws regulating the naturalization then Congress owns it. Anything not covered by these laws is the Presidents. The President's EO on vetting is owned by the President; no current laws. Illegal aliens and status are owned by the Congress. A President's EO can enhance execution of a law, not supplant it.
As for the "children", they are here illegally. You say otherwise then prove it. Saying ""No No No" accomplishes nothing. By signing up for DACA they admitted they are illegal. What more do you want?

 

[jerwin]

ICE prefers to treat its cases as torts, rather than as crimes, as it means they don't have to work as hard in order to secure their policy objectives. Similarly, the recipients of DACA would be easier to deport than people who'd " like to avoid any Imperial entanglements".

Thus, US citizens have languished in ICE prisons for years. Since they are assumed not to have any legal right to reside in the US, they can't challenge ICE's assumption, and stay in jail.

 

[deeddawg]

Again, in the case of children being taken across the border illegally, the children did not do anything wrong.

As children, they've done nothing illegal.

You keep mentioning this aspect, but it's really a moot thing.

Unlawful presence is illegal, although it has civil penalties (deportation and possibly time-barring) rather than criminal penalties.

Those who've applied for DACA are clearly aware that their presence is unlawful. Otherwise they wouldn't have applied for DACA.

 

[BaldiMac]

Congress needs to clean up immigration laws. Particularly the birthright-citizenship bit.

That's not an immigration law. That's in the constitution.

 

[cgsnipinva]

How? We aren't talking about unaccompanied children left at the border.

It might be an incentive for some families to cross the border in hopes of citizenship for their children, but is that really going to be huge issue? Crossing the border and living in the US for years without documentation isn't exactly trivial. Especially when the "reward" might be separation from your children.

I guess you don't recall recent history -- after Obama signed his illegitimate EO -- there was a surge of children (unaccompanied) left at the border. These children were sent by their parents with human smugglers to take advantage of reduced enforcement. There was a huge discussion in the media about how Obama was incentivizing risky behavior that endangered children.

 

[MrX8503]

DACA is not law. EOs are not law. You are conflating terms. EOs are only administrative directives for executing laws. Obama got cute and tried to create law through and EO. Hence the 26 states suing him and the federal court pause.

Its not law --- the people covered under DACA are still illegal immigrants who have had the execution of the law delayed. Hence the name of the EO -- DEFERRED ACTION for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA did not make these people legal -- it simply deferred legal action on them because -- well they are illegal immigrants.

Yes they are still illegals and DACA offers them protection. Give them a path to citizenship rather than deportation.

Honestly, illegals has been blown way out of proportion. There's no evidence that illegals adversely affected crime or the economy in a significant way.

Indeed, not to be ugly about it but if you start feeding stray cats off your back porch let's take a guess as to whether you will begin to see more or fewer stray cats.

If illegal immigrants are stray cats, I'm not sure why this is so controversial. Just treat them like animals.

 

[dk001]

Because there is no current path to naturalization for these children. Congress won't address a simple, common-sense situation because they are afraid that someone might take advantage of it.

There is a convoluted naturalization path but it can take time.

• Advance Parole
• Green Card
• Marriage
• Asylum
• etc...

 

[cgsnipinva]

That's not an immigration law. That's in the constitution.

Nope again. There is nothing in the Constitution that states there is birthright citizenship. One federal judge referenced the amendment to the Constitution added specifically for freed slaves after the civil war. It was meant for children born to slaves. Not immigrants. Much less illegals.

It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous.

Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

 

[dk001]

Yes they are still illegals and DACA offers them protection. Give them a path to citizenship rather than deportation.

Honestly, illegals has been blown way out of proportion. There's no evidence that illegals adversely affected crime or the economy in a significant way.



If illegal immigrants are stray cats, I'm not sure why this is so controversial. Just treat them like animals.

Tell that to Texas (crime) or California (cost). Those are two I am familiar with.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Yes they are still illegals and DACA offers them protection. Give them a path to citizenship rather than deportation.

Honestly, illegals has been blown way out of proportion. There's no evidence that illegals adversely affected crime or the economy in a significant way.



If illegal immigrants are stray cats, I'm not sure why this is so controversial. Just treat them like animals.

DACA does not give them a pathway to citizenship. It gives them temporary reprieve from deportation under the law. But they are not becoming citizens under DACA.

One third of the violent criminals in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. It seems to me they are a bit overrepresented given their number in the population.

 

[pdqgp]

no 3 Law should be changed, born children in USA should not get American nationality, on the other hand this means more money for the state.

Agree 200%. Just because someone is born here shouldn't mean they are automatically a citizen. That's stupid.

 

[samcraig]

Do you think Native Americans are laughing at the citizens of this country when it comes to immigration issues?

 

[BaldiMac]

You keep mentioning this aspect, but it's really a moot thing.

Unlawful presence is illegal, although it has civil penalties (deportation and possibly time-barring) rather than criminal penalties.

It really doesn't help to repeat the same thing if you are not going to address the point I made. Again, do you really believe that they should be punished for something that they did not do?

Those who've applied for DACA are clearly aware that their presence is unlawful. Otherwise they wouldn't have applied for DACA.

Yep. Once they are adults, they can take responsibility for their actions as adults. The question is whether we feel the need to kick them out of the only home that they have known because of circumstances outside of their control. I see room for empathy by Congress there.
[doublepost=1504639163][/doublepost]

Nope again. There is nothing in the Constitution that states there is birthright citizenship.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The fact that you choose to interpret it differently doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Two tests. 1) Are they born in the U.S.? 2) Are they subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

 

[cgsnipinva]

It really doesn't help to repeat the same thing if you are not going to address the point I made. Again, do you really believe that they should be punished for something that they did not do?


Yep. Once they are adults, they can take responsibility for their actions as adults. The question is whether we feel the need to kick them out of the only home that they have known because of circumstances outside of their control. I see room for empathy by Congress there.
[doublepost=1504639163][/doublepost]


Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Reread what i posted the part of this clause you miss is this -- "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US" - The Senator that drafted this clause meant for parents who had no foreign allegiances and weren't citizens of other countries. Re-read what i posted -- the idea that this would mean children of immigrants is a relatively new concept that has not been put before the SC.

We would be the only country in the world that would this. Again as with most of your posts - lack of facts and objective reasoning is hampering you here.

Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation.

 

[BaldiMac]

I guess you don't recall recent history -- after Obama signed his illegitimate EO -- there was a surge of children (unaccompanied) left at the border. These children were sent by their parents with human smugglers to take advantage of reduced enforcement. There was a huge discussion in the media about how Obama was incentivizing risky behavior that endangered children.

What does a surge in children who would not be covered by DACA have to do with what we were discussing?
[doublepost=1504640074][/doublepost]

Reread what i posted the part of this clause you miss is this -- "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US" - The Senator that drafted this clause meant for parents who had no foreign allegiances and weren't citizens of other countries. Re-read what i posted -- the idea that this would mean children of immigrants is a relatively new concept that has not been put before the SC.

Again, your chosen interpretation of the clause does not change the fact that it exists. As I said, children born in the U.S. meet both requirements for citizenship described in the 14th amendment.

 

[MrX8503]

DACA does not give them a pathway to citizenship. It gives them temporary reprieve from deportation under the law. But they are not becoming citizens under DACA.

One third of the violent criminals in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. It seems to me they are a bit overrepresented given their number in the population.

I didn't say DACA offers a path to citizenship.

Show me some crime numbers. What about violent crime of those under DACA?

 

[cgsnipinva]

What does a surge in children who would not be covered by DACA have to do with what we were discussing?

Because that surge was prompted by DACA since people in Central America and elsewhere saw an opportunity to backdoor into the US. The President of El Salvador complained about the unintended consequences of Obama's DACA.

That same dynamic is relevant to this discussion.