News & Current Events
alex_vaughn — 2017-09-06T15:22:05-04:00 — #1
Christianity Today released an article stating that Pres. Trump is ending DACA not withstanding pleas from evangelical advisers.
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC) president released the following statement.
For far too long in this country, Hispanic young people have been the political bargaining chips of our powerful politicians. This is an affront to the sanctity of life, it is inhumane, and the Hispanic community will stand for it no longer. Our elected members of Congress have time and again professed concern for the Hispanic community, and yet have chosen to do nothing. We will not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats but between those who stand for righteousness and justice and those who do not.
According to the Christianity Today article many other evangelical Christian organizations also pleaded for Pres. Trump to not rescind the DACA program.
bill_coley — 2017-09-06T16:21:17-04:00 — #2
The president's lack of core convictions was in clear relief in his DACA action.
In the morning he had his attorney general announce the way in which he intended to express what he called his "great love" for the dreamers, which of course was to rescind the DACA program.
But in the evening, having taken heat from all sides of the issue, the president issued a tweet in which he promised to "revisit the issue" if Congress didn't "legalize" DACA... the program which his attorney general earlier in the day described as responsible for the loss of the jobs of "hundreds of thousands" of Americans, and a "surge of minors at the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences."
So the other day the president rescinded a program he believes stole jobs and created humanitarian consequences...but he thinks it should be legalized, and if Congress doesn't do it, he might step in and basically reinstate it.
Well done, Mr. President.
gao_lu — 2017-09-06T19:42:45-04:00 — #3
Even Dianne Feinstein agrees that DACA probably wasn't legal. We need to fix this.
alex_vaughn — 2017-09-06T22:04:15-04:00 — #4
Actually your article states that she signed onto a legal brief stating that it is legal. I interpret her saying that DACA is on legal ground to mean that a future President can revoke the executive order creating the DACA program.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-07T09:53:42-04:00 — #5
The Supreme Court ruled "the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case." As much as I agree that setting policy is the proper role of the Legislative Branch, delaying prosecution of people in a certain class under special circumstances is not a bad thing. It is the same principle of discretion that keeps you from getting a speeding ticket on your way to the hospital, or that is waiving fees for late vehicle registrations here.
DACA was a poor way to do a good thing that should have been passed through Congress, but I don't see how it was illegal.
gao_lu — 2017-09-07T09:55:53-04:00 — #6
That light helps me see it more clearly. Thanks.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-07T15:10:28-04:00 — #7
It was illegal because it took it further than just not prosecuting, it gave them a pathway to legal status. Obama himself even said he didn't have the legal authority to do it.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-07T15:11:48-04:00 — #8
DACA should be taken away. If Congress wants to pass a law then let them do it, but we should not just let people, even if they are children, continue to break the law or benefit from laws being broken.
Example: A parent of a 13 year old robs a bank and gives the kids the money but then is sent to prison. Should the kids keep the money? Absolutely not. Same principle applies here.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-07T15:31:46-04:00 — #9
That is actually incorrect, despite being widely claimed. DACA did not allow a path to citizenship. That is a different loophole, and confounds the issue. Here is the entire text of the DACA memo.
It is true that the President flip flopped on it, but my point is that prosecutorial discretion (whether or not wise) is not unconstitutional.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-07T15:37:45-04:00 — #10
I didn't say pathway to citizenship, I said legal status. Read the actual remarks from Obama. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration It says work authorizations.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-07T16:10:30-04:00 — #11
I apologize, I misread your post. But here is the official memo that actually creates the policy:
"This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.
Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for
the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the
framework of the existing law. I have done so here. "
You are not returning money stolen from a bank, you are punishing people for something that happened before they started kindergarten by taking them from the only home they have ever known. There is no restitution to make, because the relevant people have not harmed anyone.
80% of Dreamers came under the age of 10 (average 6 years old) and their average age is 25. They have either a GED or a high school diploma (or they were honorably discharged from the armed forces) and no criminal history (they are allowed only a single minor misdemeanor). They are paying taxes, because their work status is documented (although it is formally only a verification that they meet the requirements for prosecutorial discretion).
It is fair that all of the formal paperwork makes people nervous about whether or not POTUS is creating law, but that apparatus is really just the US trying to keep a record of who is legitimately too low of a priority to waste enforcement resources on. If the POTUS can choose not to deport these people (a commonsense policy), it is helpful if they pay taxes while they are here and have some paperwork to show they are not going to be deported they can present to an employer.
Should Congress have passed a law? Yes, that would have been ideal. But with their cowardice and partisan stupidity, President Obama made a reasonable choice in a bad situation.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-07T16:32:01-04:00 — #12
That's not true. If they have enjoyed any services at all, if they get a job, if they go to school, they are stealing from American citizens.
I don't see that as commonsense policy. They steal jobs and services from citizens. Not to mention it is a slap in the face to people who migrate to this country legally.
I don't think it was cawardice, they chose not to act. They chose not to give amnesty. They chose to keep it as it was. As, quite frankly, I think they should. These people broke the law and there are consequences for that.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-07T16:58:31-04:00 — #13
How does a 7 year old steal by going to school? At least where I live, schools are funded almost exclusively by property taxes, which are the same whether you are a citizen or not. They all paid sales tax, and these Dreamers are registered and paying income tax now. Their parents may have stolen something, but they have not.
To say they are stealing jobs reveals a basic misunderstanding about the economy. It is not a zero sum game. Me having a job does not keep you from having one, it stimulates the overall economy and creates more job. That is demonstrable fact.
If we were talking about their parents, maybe. But we are talking about 7 year olds.
Incorrect. It was filibustered, even though the votes were present to pass it. In fact, several senators indicated they would pass it if it came to the floor, but supported to filibuster for political reasons. That is cowardice.
"These people" were, by definition, children who were brought to this country before the age of majority and who have never been convicted of a felony, major misdemeanor or multiple minor misdemeanors. They should not be punished for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18).
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-07T17:08:51-04:00 — #14
They steal attention away from actual citizens. There are only so many teachers and classrooms all over are already overcrowded.
Simply not true. If the illegals did not have jobs Americans could. You have seen the unemployment numbers over the last 20 years haven't you?
Many of them were teenagers. If a teen who is an American citizen breaks the law with his parents does he get a pass? Goodness no. That's a ridiculous argument.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-07T18:40:02-04:00 — #15
Okay. If you think the education of citizens was negatively affected by the number of people in this program in a direct enough way to make the analogy of robbing a bank appropriate, we are at an impasse. Their deportation will cost $60 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years, plus the cost of deporting 800k people who have never been complicit in any crime.
That is not how jobs work. People being here and spending money creates more jobs. It is not a zero sum game. Someone winning economically does not make anyone else lose.
15 is the oldest age allowed in the program, so teenagers make up about 11% of the beneficiaries; does that count as "many"? In contrast, half came in at 6 or younger. 74% were 0-9 years old.
13 ........................................ 3.5%
14 ........................................ 4.1%
15 ........................................ 3.7%
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-07T18:51:31-04:00 — #16
5 year old Americans can be charged with a crime, why do these kids get special passes?
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-07T19:11:24-04:00 — #17
That is incorrect. Edit to provide a better link: https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages/Americas
The other link referenced the common law system protecting young kids in places where there is not an explicit statutory barrier. We also prosecute kids under 16 in a different, more lenient system than the adult justice system based on rehabilitation rather than punishment, which is probably the basis of limiting Dreamers to those 15 and under when they came to the US.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-09-08T07:49:46-04:00 — #18
Justin I don't know where you live, but in the Carolinas I have see this first hand.
alex_vaughn — 2017-09-08T14:41:32-04:00 — #19
DACA also covers those who were babies (even 1 day old), when their parents crossed the US border. Are we going to hold day old babies responsible for breaking the law? And, let us not forget the Golden Rule.
justin_gatlin — 2017-09-08T14:55:33-04:00 — #20
I live in South East Texas, just outside Houston. We have our fair share of immigrants, both legal and illegal, I assure you. But the point is not anecdotal, but macroeconomic.
next page →