My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise

[rawhide]

My initial reaction to the status of illegal immigrants has always been similar to some posted here. But, as Dave has pointed out, I think it's more complicated than "send them back" regardless of how they got here and I'm undecided what the best course going forward should be.

Some questions to add to the discussion:
What should happen to a "Dreamer" that came to this country as a minor at no choice of their own, is now an adult and has dependent children that are citizens by birth?
Or, is married to a citizen?
Gainfully employed and no criminal record?
Has a history as a minor and as an adult that they are a positive asset to their community?
I not ready to ignore their illegal status and grant them the ability to vote and serve on a jury. But, I'm also not ready to put them into the same boat and ship them out without regard for their actions as an adult.

 

[dennishoddy]

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.

I know you asked not an acquaintance, but our best friends have gone through this process. He a GI in Germany, her an legal immigrant.
She never pursued becoming a legal citizen until obama became president and she saw the America she dreamed of going down the **** hole.
During her test, she had to speak english and answer questions. There were some Mexicans that had interpreters. Yep the law allows that if the applicant has been in the country for so many years. Only from Mexico.......

 

[Dr. HK]

the Legal way of becoming a us citizen is very hard. I believe it to be hard because there are so many blatant abuses.

To any illegals with us citizen children, let the parents take the children back to the parents host country until they are 18 years of age. If not the kids can go into the foster system here. Upon 18 years of age they can petition to bring parents over legally and be wholly responsible for them financially.

Us born citizens that don’t pay child support have harsher sentences than illegals. Go figure

 

[Shadowrider]

For those saying "they should be in the process of becoming legal," how many know what that process is? Without marrying into legality, or certain criteria like asylum, how many people know that "becoming legal" means leaving? For anybody who's been here over a year, it means leaving for ten years.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law, but it's certainly not as easy as some seem to think; going "back" to a country that one has never known in his adult life, in which he may have minimal professional, familial, or social connections, is a helluva thing to do. Expats have a tough enough time as it is, and they generally have the benefit of some life experience and some resources; think of yourself at twenty-one, or twenty-five, moving to a foreign country that you've not seen since you were six. Now think of spending ten years there before you can even try to return to the place where you grew up.

It's easy to be glib when you don't understand what's actually involved. I can understand the sympathy for those who were brought here through no fault of their own, raised here, have only ever really understood "home" to be here.

Just something to ponder.

I'm actually OK with letting them stay. Under the conditions mentioned in the other thread. Being that the wall is built, no games, period. Trump could easily use DACA as a bludgeon to the dims. 1) When the wall is up, 2) the border patrol fully staffed, 3) chain migration ended, 4) legal immigration evaluated and adjusted EACH YEAR based on labor needs and 5) sanctuary cities ended for good. Then and only then the DACA "kids" can stay as long as they've not been in legal trouble. They can begin a long expensive process of immigration or stay on a visa, I don't care. But every single one of those conditions have to be met, authorized and funding appropriated first. If the dims don't want to play, they lose the tournament and the DACA "kids" go home.

 

[Glocktogo]

Are the "dreamers" citizens of the U.S. or Mexico?

It's really simple for me. So called "dreamers" should be allowed to stay, but debts are owed. First, their allies in Congress and the Senate need to pay for their right to stay with votes to secure the border and strengthen employment laws against hiring ineligible workers. Mexico needs to pay all costs associated with processing them for lawful permanent residency in the U.S. I don't care if it's with actual cash payment, tariffs on imports or simply an equivalent reduction in annual aid, they do need to pay for their citizens costs. Third, the "dreamers" need to permanently forfeit any and all rights to vote or serve on juries in exchange for cheating the system. They're taking up immigration slots lawful residents have to wait years for. Of they want full citizenship rights, then they need to move to the back of the line.

Nothing worth having in life is free and "dreamers" shouldn't be an exception .

 

[tRidiot]

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.

I do. It's a major PITA to get things done the "right" way. We did it the right way. No loopholes or any of that mess. We paid the fees, we filled out the forms, we filed the applications, we went to the appointments time and time and time again. It was horrible. But we did it.

There needs to be a better system, yes. But simply granting amnesty without any consequences or any process to millions of people is not the answer - not to those of us who toiled and struggled to do it right.

 

[Mos Eisley]

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.)

So Lady Justice isn't blind, she's peeking! What a cheater!

 

[Pokinfun]

we are a nation of laws .

 

[magna19]

 

[caojyn]

Well I tel my libs that want complete open boarders and their sob stories of oh they were kids no fault of their own. I say it’s simple . If two parents go and rob banks and come home and shower their kids with money that was stole from the bank. However on their last bank robbery they were caught so the FBI, police, etc went and looked at their house and found a stash of money. Should the kids be punished because the parents stole the money? Should t the kids be able to keep the money because it was their parents and no fault of their own. It’s the exact same argument. The kids benefited from America’s generosity and finally got caught. Kick them out. It’s the parents fault.

this hypothetical reminds me of that enron guy that committed suicide after being subpoenaed by congress. he was never officially charged so they let his family keep the money, or some such nonsense. I need to reread that book