President Trump Ends DACA (6 Month Delay)

[EC]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301

President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president's core campaign promises.

Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.

Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.

Just the latest in the long line of things people from his own party warned him against doing, but he does anyway.

 

[Sawsbuck]

Trump is a psychotic lunatic

 

[Somewhere_]

Politically, this might actually help Trump because he is following up on his promises and he is forcing Republicans running for reelection to either support him or not. Those who do not wont be voted for by Trump's base. Ending DACA helps remove anti-Trump Republicans in office.

As for my own opinion, I would not like to see DACA removed. Both CNN and Fox cited a study saying that all of the vacant immigrants' jobs will cost the economy a lot of money (in the billions). DACA is supporting productive people, which I have no issue with.

While I wish DACA would remain, at the very least, I would hope Trump permits people currently enrolled in DACA to stay and just stop extending the program to new immigrants. Its at least a compromise that wont hurt a ton of people and the economy.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Politically, this might actually help Trump because he is following up on his promises and he is forcing Republicans running for reelection to either support him or not. Those who do not wont be voted for by Trump's base. Ending DACA helps remove anti-Trump Republicans in office.

I don't think so, his current plan of a six month warning before removing it is drawing condemnation from hardline republicans who want it gone instantly as well as from democrats who say the whole thing is inhumane anyway.

This isn't really following his promises as much as it's coming back to things he off hand said he'd do now that his support is way down and he's being hit from all angles by harmful information and scandals, mostly of his own creation because he's an idiot

As for my own opinion, I would not like to see DACA removed. Both CNN and Fox cited a study saying that all of the vacant immigrants' jobs will cost the economy a lot of money (in the billions). DACA is supporting productive people, which I have no issue with.

While I wish DACA would remain, at the very least, I would hope Trump permits people currently enrolled in DACA to stay and just stop extending the program to new immigrants. Its at least a compromise that wont hurt a ton of people and the economy.

Bolded for emphasis, I feel like people wanting this "compromise" kind of fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the dreamers program and exactly why it'd be a hit to the economy if all those people were removed. Keeping the current pool and not letting anyone else into the program just puts the jobs of people who would otherwise qualify into jeopardy, rather than preventing them from getting new jobs or whatever

It still hurts a ton of people because that's a ton of people now locked out of an avenue they'd otherwise be able to use, and it's a hit to the economy because now these people have uncertain futures so their jobs are uncertain too.

I think we can kind of be honest and say that most opposition to this program is kind of just racism and xenophobia wrapped up in a nice bow with a wink and a nudge, genuinely it's what a lot of related rhetoric is just symptomatic of

 

[Somewhere_]

Bolded for emphasis, I feel like people wanting this "compromise" kind of fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the dreamers program and exactly why it'd be a hit to the economy if all those people were removed. Keeping the current pool and not letting anyone else into the program just puts the jobs of people who would otherwise qualify into jeopardy, rather than preventing them from getting new jobs or whatever

Perhaps I was a bit too optimistic about compromising; however, a compromise is still preferable to the alternative of kicking 800,000 people out of the country.

It still hurts a ton of people because that's a ton of people now locked out of an avenue they'd otherwise be able to use, and it's a hit to the economy because now these people have uncertain futures so their jobs are uncertain too.

No doubt it would still hurt people in the sense that they will lack opportunities. It just wouldnt hurt as many. That is what a compromise comprises of: you give up some and the other side gives up some.

I think we can kind of be honest and say that most opposition to this program is kind of just racism and xenophobia wrapped up in a nice bow with a wink and a nudge, genuinely it's what a lot of related rhetoric is just symptomatic of

I disagree:
1) There is a strong constitutional argument against DACA.
2) Blue collar wages are expected to increase a lot, especially in construction (30%). Thats great for construction workers. They may not be racist, but would want to reap the benefits of higher wages. Of course, this helps them and hurts everyone else (immigrants dont have jobs, and overall real wages would decrease for the rest of America). Unfortunately people are self-interested. But being self-interested is not inherently racist or xenophobic. Do most racists, if not all, support Trump? Yes. Do all racists probably support ending DACA? Yes. But that does not mean every person that supports ending DACA is racist? No.

Personally, I'm pro-DACA. Im not saying its justified to be anti-DACA. Im just saying that its irrational to conclude everyone that supports DACA is racist. You are committing the same mistake Hillary made during the election: calling people on the opposite side of the political spectrum racists is counterproductive. It makes the non-racist Republicans or right-leaning centrists much more likely to oppose you.

 

[Nah]

1) There is a strong constitutional argument against DACA.

Just for discussion, what exactly is this constitutional argument against DACA?

 

[Somewhere_]

Just for discussion, what exactly is this constitutional argument against DACA?

Basically, one of the purposes of the executive branch is to enforce the law. This is why bureaucracy exists: the various bureaucracies carry out these laws. For example, if Congress passes a law taxing 1% of all producers' profit if they release a certain amount of CO2 into the air (and the president signs it into law), then it is the EPA's job to ensure that corporations follow this law through inspections, reports, and if necessary, prosecution.

Undocumented immigrants are by definition illegal. They are not allowed into the US, just as hard drugs are illegal and not allowed in the US. The argument is that because DACA is essentially a program that the Obama put in place that does not enforce removing illegal immigrants, then DACA is unconstitutional because the executive branch is not fulfilling its obligations in accordance with the constitution (which states that it is the executive branch's job to enforce the law). Thats not the whole argument, but thats the basic idea.

Now, there are a few potential holes in this argument:

1) its expensive to remove all illegal immigrants and its very difficult to keep more from coming in, and because there are limited resources and the executive branch has to enforce other laws, then DACA is the solution to the lack of funds. In my opinion, this argument is kinda weak because the US government has been running a deficit for years and has no plans on stopping and because (and this is harder to prove) a "great big wall" would be theoretically cheaper because less money in social programs would be used on illegal immigrants.

Please dont misconstrue my words here. Im pro-DACA, but that doesnt mean I recognize that some points that would support my position are weaker than others.

2) crap i actually legit forgot my point here. its been a long day at school and preparing for a hurricane... give me a break lol. The point was definitely stronger than the first one. I just chose to go weaker point and work up to stronger points for flow.

yea i feel stupid right now. hopefully this entire post made sense xD

 

[wakachamo]

Undocumented immigrants are by definition illegal. They are not allowed into the US, just as hard drugs are illegal and not allowed in the US.

First of all, the word 'immigration' does not ever appear in the Constitution.

Second of all, did you seriously just compare human beings to hard drugs?

Third of all, the entire notion of calling someone "illegal" is precisely what is at the core of this entire argument. What you're doing above is conflating immigration law with criminal law and therefore giving it a severity that somehow the Constitution should be concerning itself with.

You have to seriously spin a lot of bullcrap to even believe that the Constitution would in any way support the removal of child immigrants.

If we're going to draw conclusions from thin air, then your claim that DACA does not enforce the removal of undocumented immigrants would also be incorrect given that the entire premise of DACA is in its name, and deals with deferral of action rather than complete oblivion.

Using sweeping statements like "unconstitutional" or the notion of everyone under DACA being unabashedly criminally illegal is not something that should be brought to the table when these problems have shades of grey. Especially in a system where those under DACA came to the US with very little memory of any other country and are therefore extremely likely to attribute it as their only home, despite the fact that they are forced to pay Social Security yet reap no benefits from it, are forced to not only report their status but also renew it every year by paying the government, live in constant limbo due to a decision that was not under their control. There is no legitimate value in blindly doing away with a program like this unless your goals are to simply highlight how much of a disgusting human being you are.

I'd also love to see your source for that claim that blue collar wages would rise 30% given that it's very unlikely that 800,000 people in a country of 320+ million would provide such a massive impact on the economy.

 

[Ninjorf]

They should all be required to apply for citizenship. Any fee for the process should be waived. The process should come along with deferment of exportation for the duration of time required to become full citizens.

 

[DeusPro]

First of all, the word 'immigration' does not ever appear in the Constitution.

Ok, lemme clear something up. In no way does the Constitution consist of all the laws of the United States. The Constitution is only the most important and well known documents pertaining to US law. In this case, even though it might not be in the Constitution, it sure as hell is against the law, and by nature, illegal. The term of something being a "constitutional argument" is a bit hard to define, but given the laws given, there is a legal and an illegal way to make it in. Its just that the terms are muddled and hard to define what is "Constitutional" and what is not, as new laws are passed all of the time, and none of them are part of the Constitution. Rather, I would say that in a legal sense there is an argument, which makes full sense given the laws in place. Now, if the laws want to be changed that's a different thing, but given that many of these people are working with what they've got, there is definitely a rational point to be made.
Now.

Second of all, did you seriously just compare human beings to hard drugs?

I suppose Sheep was talking in a purely legal sense. I personally think that's majorly misconstruing what Sheep was trying to provide, which is a peephole to the other side.

First of all, the word 'immigration' does not ever appear in the Constitution.

Second of all, did you seriously just compare human beings to hard drugs?

Third of all, the entire notion of calling someone "illegal" is precisely what is at the core of this entire argument. What you're doing above is conflating immigration law with criminal law and therefore giving it a severity that somehow the Constitution should be concerning itself with.

Here's some proof, lol. Here! It's debated largely, but there is some semblance of proof to go off of that the point Sheep presented was true.

This is all I'll post for now because I'm getting into a busy part of the day, but just like Sheep, I'm only presenting the other side. It's not respectful to underestimate and paint the other side as "x, y, or z types of people" unless they've proven themselves to be through their words. Don't misconstrue my words. Hopefully this thing made some sort of sense.. thanks!

 

[an illegible mess.]

in my opinion, this isn't a matter of what's constitutional. these are human beings we're talking about, and not just anyone, it's affecting children. i'm sorry, but i think supporters of this are being cruel. you're allowing these children to be forcibly removed from their homes without their consent and placing them back in a country that might not be safe for them. their parents brought them there for a reason. immigrants don't drop their children off at the border for shits and giggles, or to steal jobs from the unsuspecting white man; they're doing it because they think it's what's best and safest for their child. i know daca is a lot more complicated than that, but what trump is doing is just inhumane. i'm worried for these families that will be affected and i hope they stay safe.

 

[DeusPro]

in my opinion, this isn't a matter of what's constitutional. these are human beings we're talking about, and not just anyone, it's affecting children. i'm sorry, but i think supporters of this are being cruel. you're allowing these children to be forcibly removed from their homes without their consent and placing them back in a country that might not be safe for them. their parents brought them there for a reason. immigrants don't drop their children off at the border for shits and giggles, or to steal jobs from the unsuspecting white man; they're doing it because they think it's what's best and safest for their child. i know daca is a lot more complicated than that, but what trump is doing is just inhumane. i'm worried for these families that will be affected and i hope they stay safe.

Very true, and that's why I'm supportive of a plan to (at the very least) keep all of those currently enrolled in DACA in the US, and give them a path to citizenship.

 

[Somewhere_]

First of all, the word 'immigration' does not ever appear in the Constitution.

irrelevant. the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate trade and borders. that includes immigration.

Second of all, did you seriously just compare human beings to hard drugs?

yes i did. In a legal sense, not in a literal one. Im not being callous here.

Third of all, the entire notion of calling someone "illegal" is precisely what is at the core of this entire argument. What you're doing above is conflating immigration law with criminal law and therefore giving it a severity that somehow the Constitution should be concerning itself with.

no. its illegal for them to be in the US. That is why they are called illegal immigrants. the word "illegal" does not mean I'm conflating it with criminal law. It is illegal to jay walk across the street. I am not a criminal to jay walk.

You have to seriously spin a lot of bullcrap to even believe that the Constitution would in any way support the removal of child immigrants.

provide evidence for your statement. saying "you have to seriously spin a lot of bullcrap" is not a valid argument.

If we're going to draw conclusions from thin air, then your claim that DACA does not enforce the removal of undocumented immigrants would also be incorrect given that the entire premise of DACA is in its name, and deals with deferral of action rather than complete oblivion.

Thats right. Its deferring the problem by not enforcing the law. What I said was not incorrect.

Using sweeping statements like "unconstitutional" or the notion of everyone under DACA being unabashedly criminally illegal is not something that should be brought to the table when these problems have shades of grey. Especially in a system where those under DACA came to the US with very little memory of any other country and are therefore extremely likely to attribute it as their only home, despite the fact that they are forced to pay Social Security yet reap no benefits from it, are forced to not only report their status but also renew it every year by paying the government, live in constant limbo due to a decision that was not under their control. There is no legitimate value in blindly doing away with a program like this unless your goals are to simply highlight how much of a disgusting human being you are.

The US is a country that follows rule of law. We cant make exceptions to rule of law, otherwise we make other excuses to not follow the rule of law. We have a constitution for a reason and its important to follow it and illegal not to. By living and entering this country, we and the government have an obligation to follow it. Its unfortunate that following the constitution isnt always practical, but this is what amendments are for. Sure, its hard to pass an amendment, but thats doesnt mean we throw the constitution out the window when its convenient.

I'd also love to see your source for that claim that blue collar wages would rise 30% given that it's very unlikely that 800,000 people in a country of 320+ million would provide such a massive impact on the economy.

Its within one industry and not all 320+ million people have blue collar jobs, and even then, not all of those jobs are within construction within states with high populations of undocumented immigrants.

Its accepted by most economists that supply and demand are laws, and immigrants and wages are no exception to this rule.

Here are some articles i read on this topic:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/29/news/economy/daca-job-losses-study/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/...t-labor-feel-effects-immigrant-crackdown.html

I said 30% rise in wages, but that was actually costs due to wage increases. So my bad.

Sorry if i sound irritated and short in this post. its been a really long day preparing for Irma and I've had to deal with my dad all day.

 

[Esper]

Everyone who is already living in the US should be given the opportunity to become a legal citizen, with priority and/or lower threshold given to DACA individuals over those who came as adults. It's just the humane thing to do. If you've lived the majority of your life in a country and consider it your home you should be able to become a legal citizen without penalty.

Also, in my state anyway, they estimate that our economy would suffer if DACA individuals were to be kept from working/living in the state. We have about 1/4 of all people in DACA here. AFAIK there is a shortage of construction workers and other low-wage jobs like in agriculture. We will need a lot of people in construction especially after Harvey and Irma. We shouldn't be arguing about which group of low-skilled worker deserves the measly paycheck and focus on the rich who are making us fight one another for it under this terrible system.

 

[Leafsfan]

Here's my view. If you are an illegal immigrant, you should be deported. That being said, with DACA, we are talking about children who did not of to the United States by choice. For them, they should all have an equal opportunity to, in some way, become full US citizens. They have grown up in the US and more likely than not have nowhere to go if they are sent back to their home country.

If though, hypothetically, the people formerly protected by DACA decided against obtaining US citizenship when it was made available for them to get, I think then that they should be deported. If they go through the proper channels and become a full-fledged US citizen, I think they should be treated the same as any other full US citizen.

edit: Kudos to the post above mine, I failed to see that it touched on many of the points I made