Personally I think Trump made the correct decision in this case for the following reasons:
Now let's hope Congress finds a way to give these young adults a path to citizenship. And this entices the DEMs to cough up some money for the border wall / security. Thoughts?
MP DACA
Hill: Trump Says Nothing to Worry About
- Congress needs to be forced to deal with this.
- The DACA status was not a good long term solution.
MP DACA
Hill: Trump Says Nothing to Worry About
14 comments:
What is Donald Trump's position on this other than he felt Obama's actions weren't appropriate?
He seems conflicted as is often the case.
CNBC Trump Wants
HP Dream Act
"He seems ignorant as is often the case."
FIFY
Moose
It seems pretty smart to me...
He wants funding for a wall / security...
The DEMs and many Americans want the Dreamers to have a path to citizenship...
He now has everyone's attention and they have a sense of urgency.
Hopefully all the parties can come together and make magic happen.
Yes, there's nothing "smarter" than using the lives of 800,000 as political pawns.
It seems to me that Obama started the use of them as pawns. It seems he wanted to put them in a near purgatory status in hopes that some miracle would happen.
"It seems to me that Obama started the use of them as pawns. It seems he wanted to put them in a near purgatory status in hopes that some miracle would happen."
He asked Congress to act to protect these people. They didn't. He did. It's as simple as that.
Moose
President Obama used his discretion as the leader of the executive branch to prioritize how resources were used. He wisely determined that those that fit the DACA criteria, which are:
* Came to the United States before their 16th birthday
* Have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007
* Under age 31 on June 15, 2012 (i.e., born on June 16, 1981 or after)
* Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
* Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012
* Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school
* Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
should not be subject to deportation. The program isn't a path to citizenship -- just allows a work permit. The 800,000 or so who came forward did so in good faith and because they want to be a part of this country. This is their home. As a group, they have a higher percentage of college graduates than the population as a whole -- and per the program's criteria, have not committed crimes.
(Shall we also discuss the fact that all of Donald Trump's actions on immigration so far have been achieved via executive order? Why hasn't he put his Muslim ban though Congress?)
Really... You are going with. "prioritize how resources were used."
Here are 2 opposing views for consideration.
The Week Obama's Original Sin
TP Not Unconstitutional
"Really... You are going with. "prioritize how resources were used.""
Yep. As your TP link points out, since Congress hasn't allocated the money to remove all illegal immigrants, the executive branch has to prioritize. Do you disagree?
I guess I see prioritizing as what all the Presidents before Obama did.
Obama tried to give illegal residents a somewhat legal status without the approval of Congress. Which is likely a big no no.
The ability to give people "deferred action" status (originally called "non-priority") has formally existed in statute since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. John Lennon, for instance, was given this status during the Ford Administration when he overstayed his visa (despite his marijuana conviction). President Reagan and President George W. Bush applied deferred action to over 1.5 million illegal immigrants who were "missed" by the 1986 immigration reforms (or "amnesty", as some call it) -- that's a lot more folks than are covered by DACA. IOKIYAR?
More Food for Thought
"Comparison with later deferred action by Obama[edit]
The Family Fairness program has been compared with executive actions by President Barack Obama, specifically Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (abbreviated DAPA, announced November 20, 2014). The Obama administration, as well as some groups supportive of Obama's deferred action have argued in favor of the similarities, in order to make the case that Obama's deferred action has precedent.[19][8][10][11] FactCheck, describing the argument, said: "We can’t speak to whether these actions by previous presidents provide legal precedence for Obama’s actions."[14]
On the other hand, Josh Blackman has argued that the Reagan/Bush Family Fairness program differed from Obama's actions in a critical way: the Family Fairness program only provided a "bridge" for people who could eventually qualify for legal status based on already-existing or in-process legislation, whereas Obama's deferred action provided protections for people who did not have any path to legal status with existing legislation."
Post a Comment