DACA and Pres. Trump

[Prodromos]

The federal government crafts the immigration laws. The question is, though: are states and businesses the federal government's personal army? Should states and businesses help enforce laws they don't directly have any power over? I can understand things like handing over illegal immigrant criminals to the federal authorities, but expecting states and businesses to dedicate their resources to locating, detaining or discouraging "noncriminal" illegal immigration is a bit much, especially since illegals are often popular in certain local communities, for ideological, tribal or economic reasons.

[Aanker]

This is you not even knowing how the hell that crap works. Cities and States are establishing policies that local law enforcement are getting tired of dealing with consequences in their local law enforcement work of helping ICE and telling them to do their own damn work themselves. ICE is still going in and doing their work. Certain states don't give a damn and still help. Certain states even pass laws saying all cities WILL help ICE(see Texas).

There have been a few notable and highly publicised incidents (possibly for political purposes) but everyone here should understand that there is no link between 'consequences' (i.e. crime) and sanctuary city status, see this review on the topic:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...12547/abstract

This isn't a secret, in fact some of the sanctuary cities are also the wealthiest and most economically important cities in America.

So sanctuary cities pay no significant price for their current policies. If you're going for the tax expenditure part of my post, that's a real world bonus on top of the moral revenue that is usually cited as the reason for not complying with federal enforcement. Just as with pot, local resources otherwise spent on immigration enforcement/beaurocracy can be put to more worthwhile use.

But your reference to the actual god damn border earlier is pretty full of .

If you're still talking about individual states having their own border management: if that was the meaning of what I wrote, it was wrong. I am however for a much more liberal federal immigration policy.

@Derpy Hooves: your loss. You're effectively subsidising an increasingly irrelevant special interest sector of the US economy. Sure, they'll keep their jobs for another decade before automatisation, maybe. But if you've been born in a country, have received support for your growth and schooling, you have no right to demand that the government protect your grownup from competition.

[NorseThing]

Only professions where wages are currently artificially high, and where low-skilled immigrants could compete, would see their wages decline. This would of course be to the benefit of the country as a whole, as it means cheaper products for everyone else and a reversal of the trend where companies move abroad for greener pastures. Tax revenue and competence stay in the country. That money and know-how can then be invested smartly in education etc.

And I realise that not all immigration policy can be delegated locally. That would not be realistic either economically or practically. Forgive my generalisation, it is for the sake of the argument. I would like to see a liberal federal immigration framework before a distributed local one, but if the first is not possible morals should compel us to act locally in the interest of justice or the local economy, the opinion of the federal government be damned. If that means a patchwork of legislation from state to state (such as is the case with environmental and drug policy), so be it. Someone must lead the way.

The low skilled immigrant is a false argument. There are many immigrants with valued skills -- even with an illegal status. If any skill is lacking, it may be English. Even there, it does not take long to get up to speed for what may be needed. But why make this false argument? It is still wrong in every nation on the planet to sneak over the border and expect to take up residence and a job just by simply being there. Would you make your argument for people doing this in England or France? If not, then why in the USA?

[NorseThing]

The federal government crafts the immigration laws. The question is, though: are states and businesses the federal government's personal army? Should states and businesses help enforce laws they don't directly have any power over? I can understand things like handing over illegal immigrant criminals to the federal authorities, but expecting states and businesses to dedicate their resources to locating, detaining or discouraging "noncriminal" illegal immigration is a bit much, especially since illegals are often popular in certain local communities, for ideological, tribal or economic reasons.

The issue with the Sanctuary Cities are that they know and choose to devote resources to not reporting. The cities are not being asked any more than my local county asks of the next county regarding "locating, detaining or discouraging noncriminals". The Sanctuary Cities are making a political act designed to disrupt and negate policies with which they disagree. That is not how governments at differing levels with differing responsibilities should ever behave. Local government do not have the right to pick and choose which laws of other jurisdictions to cooperate with.

[Basil II the B.S]

edit: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...40616568393728
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra says "we will prosecute" employers who help federal immigration authorities as they seek to enforce immigration laws.

Imagine having to share your country with people that prosecute someone trying to cooperate with law enforcement.
This is the ing insanity that liberals are up to on immigration.

Prosecuting people for cooperating with law enforcement. It's bizarro world. Crime is rewarded, justice obstructed. This is plain mental illness.
It's also a reason why Trump shouldn't waste time on DACA or any compromise on immigration whatsoever. These people are mentally ill extremists that actively prevent law enforcement. There's no debate with them. Just ignore them, build the wall, deport anyone illegal, cut all the funding to sanctuary cities. If they try secession, give them the carpet bombing they deserve.


Interesting article.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html

[Elfdude]

Meh. There's an economic cost to republicans pushing on DACA and much to be gained by not doing so. The only people Republicans are hurting is every American who has to deal with the fallout of their decision (every American). I mean, they did the same thing with taxes so it.

[tgoodenow]

Democrats are making a big mistake if they force a government shutdown over DACA; especially after the house has passed a temporary spending bill with bipartisan support.

[conon394]

bipartisan support.

Six D votes is hardly bi-partisan. And the Dems are right this is a farce, the government needs a real budget and fundamentally the Republicans won't negotiate they want large military spending increases(*), with no domestic ones (science, infrastructure, education, student debt etc), Ever expanding boarder security costs w/o any comprises on DACA, holding CHIP hostage when it practically payes for itself over ten years (re CBO). Given the Dems control no branch of the government I fail to see how they should worry.

[Basil II the B.S]

Nah. Democrats approach is equivalent to abolishing borders, thus the country. At this point, if the country is to fall apart, then it's much better via government shut down.

[conon394]

Nah. Democrats approach is equivalent to abolishing borders, thus the country. At this point, if the country is to fall apart, then it's much better via government shut down.

Hyperbole much? Anyway its how my Great Grandparents got in - they just got off a boat. Uneducated, poor Polish Catholics nobody really liked them, day labors and criminals to the last of them. So sorry I really don't fear immigration aside w/o it there would be no USA anyway.

[Basil II the B.S]

Not an argument in favour of illegal immigration nor the abolition of borders.

There's a fair difference between regulated and controlled immigration and the no borders approach of Democrats.

[conon394]

Not an argument in favour of illegal immigration nor the abolition of borders.

Not an argument the Dems are making only one FOX and friends like to toss about.

There's a fair difference between regulated and controlled immigration and the no borders approach of Democrats.

Then you missed by point. For much of US history there has been no regulated and controlled immigration.

[Basil II the B.S]

Not an argument the Dems are making only one FOX and friends like to toss about.

How exactly DACA and sanctuary cities are not in favour of illegal immigration? Both protect illegal immigrants.

Then you missed by point. For much of US history there has been no regulated and controlled immigration.

Puah.

Let me borrow from sumskilz.

Regardless of how one relates historical US immigration policy to the present political situation, I’d say the facts have often been misrepresented, usually by omission. Through the first three quarters of the Nineteenth Century, it was easier to come to the US and have your labor exploited, but non-citizens could be expelled for any reason, and only white people were eligible for citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted eligibility to "free white persons" of "good moral character". The euphemistically named Alien Friends Act of 1798 made it easier to expel or imprison individuals from "hostile nations", including Europeans. The Fourteenth Amendment meant that from 1868, non-whites who were born in the US were eligible for citizenship, with the exception of tribally affiliated Native Americans. But the response to the first significant wave of non-European immigrants was the passing of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Immigration Acts of 1882 and 1891 established a head tax on immigrants and banned entry of criminals, "lunatics", "idiots", polygamists, people with infectious diseases, and people unable to care for themselves, which at border officials’ discretion included the disabled, single or pregnant women, and the poor. Those considered criminal included anyone who had ever been arrested or convicted of a "misdemeanor of moral turpitude". Ship owners would be required to return all such "undesirables" at their own expense, which meant that ship owners were seriously discouraged from selling passage to anyone who might be deemed undesirable by any of these criteria. The Alien Contract Labor Law prohibited US citizens or companies from importing laborers other than those deemed to be skilled experts in new industries. The Naturalization Act of 1906 made prior basic knowledge of spoken English a requirement. The Expatriation Act of 1907 stripped citizenship of any American woman who married a foreign national. The Immigration Act of 1917 banned immigration from almost all of Asia and made literacy a requirement. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration from any given country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the US in 1910. In 1923, the Supreme Court ruled that South Asians are ineligible for American citizenship (United States v. Bhaghat Singh Thind). The Immigration Act of 1924 limited annual European immigration to 2% of the number of people from each country living in the United States in 1890. The 1924 Oriental Exclusion Act prohibited immigration of foreign-born wives and children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry. The 1929 National Origins Formula capped total annual immigration at 150,000. It wasn't until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments that admission requirements were relaxed.

[Elfdude]

How exactly DACA and sanctuary cities are not in favour of illegal immigration? Both protect illegal immigrants.

This either/or fallacy is silly. You can value the people who currently live and contribute to your economy without wanting to abolish the border of your country. Go figure.

[fkizz]

Likely DACA will pass.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-citizenship/


https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...the-fourteenth



http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/


https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...iction-thereof



Children of illegal aliens born here are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by any stretch of the imagination.


Trump could constitutionally deport all illegal aliens, the American born children of illegal aliens, and the American born children of all non-citizens [i.e. tourists, student visa holders, etc.] and this would be perfectly in line with 120+ years of 14th Amd jurisprudence and the historical understanding of the 14th Amd.

[Elfdude]

This isn't about American born citizens which ANYONE born on US soil is. It's about children who are undocumented who come w/ their parents when they're young grow up in the US as Americans in the fullest sense of the word. DACA allowed these people to stay after some rather horrendous things happened to these people who were deported to countries they've never known from the only home they can remember.

It also required them to undergo the process to become citizens.

Your weird side-arguments are both wrong and weirdly backwards.

[Basil II the B.S]

This either/or fallacy is silly. You can value the people who currently live and contribute to your economy without wanting to abolish the border of your country. Go figure.

And none of that changes that they are illegals and refusing to enforce border law is equivalent to abolishing the border.

Strawman.

[Gaidin]

The issue with the Sanctuary Cities are that they know and choose to devote resources to not reporting. The cities are not being asked any more than my local county asks of the next county regarding "locating, detaining or discouraging noncriminals". The Sanctuary Cities are making a political act designed to disrupt and negate policies with which they disagree. That is not how governments at differing levels with differing responsibilities should ever behave. Local government do not have the right to pick and choose which laws of other jurisdictions to cooperate with.

There's a federal agency for a reason. Aiding the federal agency, often publicly so, was costing these cities. Some don't care, they aid the federal agency anyway, in fact passing an ordinance or policy saying so. Some just shrugging and continuing on in aiding ICE without passing a policy one way or the other. Others don't like the cost and say they will no longer aid in the investigations. They did however aid in raids resulting from investigations ICE did on their own regarding an illegal immigrant violent offender. When ICE didn't press charges for months and one person died in custody, the city passed an ordinance saying they wouldn't even aid in that. They could bring enough of their own people out to do their raid, secure the scene, direct traffic, all of it. Everything that they usually had the aid of local law enforcement for as well.

What's DHS going to do? Arrest the Mayor of Oakland? Please. Make a martyr out of her. Politicians live to get arrested for a cause. That's about the last thing either ICE or DHS needs or wants when about all the ordinance says is "do your own damn job yourself".

The Federal agency could enforce federal law. Simple as that. Because ICE literally acting like Trump's brownshirts gets god damned old.

[conon394]

And none of that changes that they are illegals and refusing to enforce border law is equivalent to abolishing the border.

We do enforce boarder law, but there is a cost benefit question as to if we need to prioritize vast spending on it (and whether that will be effective given the incentive to try). One could argue a well working guest worker program that was well funded would deal with much of the problem, and frankly even a dollar spent today on increased funding for boarder security is waste compared to other needs I find more pressing - Infrastructure, the cost of education, the availability of quality/affordable day care (and more paternal leave which would relives some of the strain), or money spent on the various US government basic research entities NIH, ARS, Energy, NASA, EPA, NSF, etc.