My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise

[Cowcatcher]

Your exactly right. Slaves n Native Americans n such. We are in this century now and we've got an illegal immigration problem. What kinda 17 paragraphs you got to post next? As per tangible assets...... instead of takin the money from the other kids, in this case you boot the illegal immigrant from the USA. It's that simple. You really complicate the hell outta things Dave

 

[dennishoddy]

Well, since the illegal immigrants in this discussion were--by definition--children when they came here, they're probably not coming to a country with all the family, etc. they've known, but rather coming with all the family they've known in any significant, meaningful way, and the relationships are the ones they develop over the years. Or did you fail to consider that fact?

Not all Children. Well, by definition legally yes. Under the age of 18 if I remember right.
Some are in their 30's now and lived in their home countries for up to 18 years before coming here with their parents. Some much younger.

 

[Cowcatcher]

Well Dave, you did say you think they should be held accountable but then you went on for 137 lines describing how hard it would be on the ILLEGAL immigrant to return to their home country. Don't let your feelings get in this crap. They are here illegally and the law has no heart.

 

[D. Hargrove]

They are here illegally and the law has no heart.

While I am a pretty much black and white guy, the folks that enforce these laws and issue rulings in courts, unfortunately/fortunately at times do have a heart. Look at the 9th District Court...BIG hearts.

 

[Dave70968]

Well Dave, you did say you think they should be held accountable but then you went on for 137 lines describing how hard it would be on the ILLEGAL immigrant to return to their home country. Don't let your feelings get in this crap. They are here illegally and the law has no heart.

Actually, you're mistaken on that point. Without going too much into the history of law and equity (formerly tried in separate courts, now--in US practice, anyway--generally merged into a single court), there is a significant amount of "heart" in the law. In this general situation, "laches" would be a big argument in favor of letting them stay. Laches is the idea that the aggrieved party (the United States, in this instance) has "slept on its rights" in allowing the offending behavior to stand, and that enforcing it now, at this late date, would unfairly prejudice the accused. It's related to the statute of limitations, but where the SoL is strictly time-based, laches considers other factors. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) ) has a pretty good summary. There are other equitable defenses that might apply as well; the previous administration's promises might give rise to a claim for estoppel (Wikipedia again). "Heart" is pretty much the basis of equity, and equity is still available in modern courts. We dress it up in fancy terms and citations to previous cases (precedents), but at the end of the day, it's basically "in light of the whole situation, it's the right thing to do."

(Anybody who's interested in the history of law vs. equity is welcome to ask, but I think it'd be getting too far astray of the topic for this thread. It's really quite fascinating, even playing a role in the American Revolution.)

 

[Cowcatcher]

Well looky there, the law is so dang complicated it's got a heart hidden in it. Lol. It'd sure better if it didn't. If it was just cut and dry "law" we wouldn't be worried with all this precedent crap.

 

[dennishoddy]

Well looky there, the law is so dang complicated it's got a heart hidden in it. Lol. It'd sure better if it didn't. If it was just cut and dry "law" we wouldn't be worried with all this precedent crap.

The law as written on some stone tablets is no longer applicable in today's society.

 

[Dave70968]

That heart beats so strongly that sometimes we actually codify it right into the text. Most people know the term "squatter's rights," some might even know it's legal (as in, recognized by the courts) form, "adverse possession." Specific requirements vary by state, but in Oklahoma, if I squat on your land continuously for fifteen years without your permission, treat it like I own it (keep you from using it), my possession is "open and notorious," and a couple of other requirements, I can get the courts to give me title. If we didn't have a process for such a thing, well...lots of land would still be properly be owned by the Indians. Should we start forcibly divesting people who've owned their homes for ten, twenty, thirty years because two hundred years ago, somebody forcibly took the land (cue Hedley Lamarr, "land snatching; see snatching, land")?

The simple fact is that sometimes, it would be unjust to make the world conform to a strict reading of the law. I'm not saying that applies in context of the thread as started, but there's not a thing wrong with recognizing that strict would cause some significant hardships for people who really didn't have a choice in the matter. Absent a time machine, there's just no way around that (and with a time machine, the paradoxes would be even worse!).

Sometimes, we don't get to choose the "best" answer, just look for the "least bad" one.

 

[dennishoddy]

That heart beats so strongly that sometimes we actually codify it right into the text. Most people know the term "squatter's rights," some might even know it's legal (as in, recognized by the courts) form, "adverse possession." Specific requirements vary by state, but in Oklahoma, if I squat on your land continuously for fifteen years without your permission, treat it like I own it (keep you from using it), my possession is "open and notorious," and a couple of other requirements, I can get the courts to give me title. If we didn't have a process for such a thing, well...lots of land would still be properly be owned by the Indians. Should we start forcibly divesting people who've owned their homes for ten, twenty, thirty years because two hundred years ago, somebody forcibly took the land (cue Hedley Lamarr, "land snatching; see snatching, land")?

The simple fact is that sometimes, it would be unjust to make the world conform to a strict reading of the law. I'm not saying that applies in context of the thread as started, but there's not a thing wrong with recognizing that strict would cause some significant hardships for people who really didn't have a choice in the matter. Absent a time machine, there's just no way around that (and with a time machine, the paradoxes would be even worse!).

Sometimes, we don't get to choose the "best" answer, just look for the "least bad" one.

In the case of tribes, it was all solved by treaty. I live on an indian reservation. They can't come and take my land.

 

[Dr. HK]

Let me ask, how many of you have seen first hand the legal immigration process to become a citizen? Not friends, not an acquaintance, but you or an immediate family member? I have. I have seen with my own eyes the abuses these illegal aliens cause.

Dave the tangible assets described using the analogy of the bank and children. It is the taxes and benefits sucked from the backs of natural born citizens, and their dreams.