There Is No Such Thing as a 'Deserving DREAMer'

[Kathianne]

First-- They were not sins! They were crimes! --illegal entry!

Now you libs after doing everything possible to allow those crimes to not only go unpunished but to continue bust your sorry asses trying to see that these offspring (Dreamers)(automatic replacements ) get to enjoy the fruits of that criminality!

And do that to get their damn votes!!!!

Sell this nation down the river -all to gain and maintain you damn corrupt power..

You ffing dems are the damn scourge on this nation, and have became so since the 1960's-- getting worse every decade.

You damn right, I have nothing but -- contempt -- and its called righteous contempt--
no different than that which I hold for child molesters,rapists, drug dealers, murderers, arsonists, etc....(as all are criminal acts)

There is a place for righteous contempt -- it is called -- Honor... Decency, Moral values.....

Something that you and your liberal ilk --have no damn clue about..

By this insane concept of DACA - Then one can reasonable say , if Madoff had simply transferred his stolen billions to his kids--they'd get to keep those ill-gotten gains-- same as you think the dreamers should get rewarded!
ALL SUDDENLY MADE LEGAL--BY THE STROKE OF A DEM/LIB/SOCIALIST MISGUIDED PEN!

While our children and grandchildren suffer from the negatives of this invasive scourge--you and your ffing ilk--work to keep in going and reward its offspring --to tend to and reward your damn current and future dem voting herd..

Now you try to point out and prove that there are errors in truth and logical reasoning in my post.. I dare you...--Tyr

Not defending Pete in any way, much less how he posts.

My question to you though, what if it's Trump and a 'bi-partisan effort' to codify DACA, likely even more liberally about who qualifies?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not defending Pete in any way, much less how he posts.

My question to you though, what if it's Trump and a 'bi-partisan effort' to codify DACA, likely even more liberally about who qualifies?

Then I will soundly and vehemently criticize Trump..--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Then I will soundly and vehemently criticize Trump..--Tyr

That appears to be what is happening. Now if his "base' actually holds him accountable, rather than calling others cucks or librals or whatever, maybe it might get through. Maybe not.

[jimnyc]

Not all folks are running around out there looking to get rid of teenagers, although I think any criminals should go. It's more about the law IMO, and following the COTUS. 800k, minus criminals, isn't the worst thing in the world. There are a LOT more illegals in front of them, career illegals and criminals. It's laughable to think Trump got us where we're at, or that he did anything unconstitutional. This is all - 100% on congress. SHOULD Trump be able to hit this solo? Should he be able to work alone and ensure all illegals here from DACA get deported? No, that's not his job. He sent the job right where it needs to go.

If what they choose is similar or more liberal, then that's thanks to the democrats and the crappy republicans in congress. If it's stronger than currently, then thanks goes to the republicans in congress and any dems that went along with following our laws on immigration.

If Trump should make an executive order that folks don't like - do we blame congress or the Dems for that?

[Kathianne]

Not all folks are running around out there looking to get rid of teenagers, although I think any criminals should go. It's more about the law IMO, and following the COTUS. 800k, minus criminals, isn't the worst thing in the world. There are a LOT more illegals in front of them, career illegals and criminals. It's laughable to think Trump got us where we're at, or that he did anything unconstitutional. This is all - 100% on congress. SHOULD Trump be able to hit this solo? Should he be able to work alone and ensure all illegals here from DACA get deported? No, that's not his job. He sent the job right where it needs to go.

If what they choose is similar or more liberal, then that's thanks to the democrats and the crappy republicans in congress. If it's stronger than currently, then thanks goes to the republicans in congress and any dems that went along with following our laws on immigration.

If Trump should make an executive order that folks don't like - do we blame congress or the Dems for that?

I'm criticizing what I don't like, just as I've given him credit where due. Never said that I was totally against the idea of DACA, rather DACA wasn't run the way it was claimed to be when established-as unconstitutional as it was. For the past 8 months, it continued in the very same fashion. Now they are looking at codifying it by law, while loosening the restrictions that were supposed to be there to begin with. Yeah.

Something you may or may not find of interest: https://www.axios.com/why-trump-hope...483311761.html

[jimnyc]

I'm criticizing what I don't like, just as I've given him credit where due. Never said that I was totally against the idea of DACA, rather DACA wasn't run the way it was claimed to be when established-as unconstitutional as it was. For the past 8 months, it continued in the very same fashion. Now they are looking at codifying it by law, while loosening the restrictions that were supposed to be there to begin with. Yeah.

Something you may or may not find of interest: https://www.axios.com/why-trump-hope...483311761.html

I laid blame to the way Obama handled things via his orders and bypassing congress, however lame his reasoning. It was claimed to be temporary, but it appears it wasn't. I lay blame towards him for his overreach.

Trump did the right thing and took away the overreach and put it back where it belongs with congress. What they come up with and who votes for what is up to them. Trump may not do a lot right, but he was spot on here, and he shouldn't be blamed if a republican lead congress doesn't come up with a plan that they can live with.

My personal stance I laid out many times here. I'm more concerned with the huge numbers coming in over the years, the amount that turned into criminals, folks that took advantage of all America offered - even though they were here illegally & coming up with a solution for going forward. I think the harsher end of illegal immigration is being tended to, and I think it's been better than I could have thought up until now. A wall of course would be nice. Stopping with freebies, sanctuary cities and coddling them would also be nice! I think that's begun as well.

DACA placed back in congress is done. I hope they do something that protects us more in the future than I am with the current talked of 800k in here, minus any criminals. With the republicans in control, I would like to see them come up with something harsher for the future, as in END the program, and maybe work with those already here. All starts with any plan they come up with, and who supports it or not. I hope we won't have nightmares over an Obamacare repeal/replace though.

[Kathianne]

I laid blame to the way Obama handled things via his orders and bypassing congress, however lame his reasoning. It was claimed to be temporary, but it appears it wasn't. I lay blame towards him for his overreach.

Trump did the right thing and took away the overreach and put it back where it belongs with congress. What they come up with and who votes for what is up to them. Trump may not do a lot right, but he was spot on here, and he shouldn't be blamed if a republican lead congress doesn't come up with a plan that they can live with.

My personal stance I laid out many times here. I'm more concerned with the huge numbers coming in over the years, the amount that turned into criminals, folks that took advantage of all America offered - even though they were here illegally & coming up with a solution for going forward. I think the harsher end of illegal immigration is being tended to, and I think it's been better than I could have thought up until now. A wall of course would be nice. Stopping with freebies, sanctuary cities and coddling them would also be nice! I think that's begun as well.

DACA placed back in congress is done. I hope they do something that protects us more in the future than I am with the current talked of 800k in here, minus any criminals. With the republicans in control, I would like to see them come up with something harsher for the future, as in END the program, and maybe work with those already here. All starts with any plan they come up with, and who supports it or not. I hope we won't have nightmares over an Obamacare repeal/replace though.

One has to wonder, if all the time the plan was what you say, he didn't act until several state attorney generals were taking the order to court. Last possible day.

Immediately undermined his own attorney general's declaration that DACA was unconstitutional, when he twitted that if legislation not done, he'd 'revisit.'

Then there's the whole GOP drain the swamp, (shhh about Lerner, Lynch being let off the hook. Double shush on Hillary), meanwhile he's ever so thrilled with the press he's getting for giving into what Chuck and Nancy wanted, especially the 'revisit' tweet Nancy asked for and he delivered so graciously.

Now I can see Chuck and Nancy and even Dick going along to get what they want. I'm not so sure though about their base, not at all. Folks here think it's only some 'liberal' conservatives that dislike Trump, but we ain't got nothing on the Democrat base.

[Kathianne]

From a fairly pro-Trump op ed:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...form=hootsuite

Byron York: Crime and immigration: What's in the Dream Act

by Byron York | Sep 7, 2017, 10:15 PM

Commentary on the DACA controversy frequently notes that the nation's nearly 700,000 so-called Dreamers are a law-abiding group. But a new bill to give DACA recipients full legal status, sponsored by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake and Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer, would allow newly legalized Dreamers to have many run-ins with the law -- arrests, charges, convictions -- and still receive benefits. Schumer, the Democratic leader, is demanding quick passage.


Former President Barack Obama's original 2012 executive action creating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals stipulated that to be eligible, recipients must have "not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offense, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety." When Obama announced the criteria for renewing DACA status in 2014, the standard was "have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety."


The Obama administration defined a "significant misdemeanor" as a crime with a maximum sentence of one year, or, regardless of length of sentence, "an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence."


With the Dream Act of 2017, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer have adopted much of the existing Obama-era criteria about crime, but in a way that would allow Department of Homeland Security officials to be more generous with newly legalized DACA recipients.


The Dream Act would exclude anyone who has been convicted of "any offense under federal or state law, other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status, that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year; or three or more offenses under federal or state law, other than state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses and imprisoned for an aggregate of 90 days or more."


The phrase "other than a state offense for which an essential element is the alien's immigration status" could excuse a lot of criminal activity. "It would grant status to illegal aliens who have been convicted of felony ID fraud or other crimes that could be considered to be related to their immigration status," noted Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration. "You could say human smuggling, document fraud, benefits fraud, false claims to citizenship, illegal voting, and many other felonies have an essential element that involves immigration status."


In addition, Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer throw in the phrase "for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the three offenses" when referring to misdemeanor convictions. Many crimes involve multiple charges. The Dream Act of 2017 would require a young Dreamer to have committed offenses on not one, not two, but three separate occasions, and been convicted of all before he or she is ineligible for legalization.


And maybe not even then, because Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer would also allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any denial of legalization for those crimes, or for more serious crimes, "for humanitarian purposes or family unity or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest." In other words, Department of Homeland Security can legalize whomever it chooses.


"These standards are significantly more lenient than other legal immigration categories," noted Vaughan. "Green card and temporary visa categories have stricter requirements for good moral character and criminal behavior."


The Dream Act of 2017 differs in other ways from DACA. For example, Obama's order applied to people who were under the age of 16 when they came to the United States. In the Dream Act, the age is 18. Obama required recipients to have been living continuously in the United States for at least five years. In the Dream Act, it's four years. Obama required that a recipient "be present in the United States on the date of this memorandum," that is, on June 15, 2012, when DACA was announced. The Dream Act has no similar requirement.


Graham, Flake, Durbin, and Schumer introduced the Dream Act of 2017 back on July 20, before the current DACA controversy. Since then some other senators have signed on as co-sponsors: Republicans Cory Gardner and Lisa Murkowski and Democrats Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Michael Bennet.


"We're ready to pass it," Schumer said Wednesday, calling on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan to bring the bill up for a vote in Senate and House.


"I am confident that, if put on the floor, it will garner overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle," Schumer continued. "But let us say this…if a clean Dream Act does not come to the floor in in September, we're prepared to attach it to other items this fall until it passes."

[Abbey Marie]

Because in society, minors get treated differently. They aren't held responsible for their parent's sins.

Unless they are aborted, of course.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unless they are aborted, of course.

Touché..
WAITING TO SEE PETEY'S REPLY TO THAT DEADLY THRUST...... --TYR