Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Ethics

President Trump, we are told, is considering or has decided to end President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, reportedly with a six month delay to give Congress a chance to  pass a law addressing the issue. The Obama-era program, instituted by executive order,  grants two-year renewable work permits to those brought into the country illegally as children.

There are legitimate arguments for and against this policy. Even saying this is blasphemy for its supporters, whose brains, reasoning and sense of national interest have been completely swallowed by Ethics Alarms Rationalizations #55, “We’re Better Than This!” and #56, “Think of the Children!”

Jenifer Rubin, the conservative Washington Post blogger who has been driven both leftward and also near madness by her hatred for Donald Trump, authored a post titled “Ending DACA would be Trump’s most evil act.” Evil! Naturally, she attributes the decision to racism. On Facebook, the progressive echo chamber where most of my friends dwell doesn’t even require an explanation  of why eliminating DACA is proof of a malign soul. “Trump will end DACA Tuesday!” a distinguished Trump-hater writes, as if it were self-explanatory, like “Trump will broil and eat Nancy Pelosi with a nice Chianti.”

I guess I’m evil too. To begin with, Obama violated the Constitution with his unilateral edict that should have been a bill, passed the old-fashioned way, with it being voted on by Congress and signed into law, or not, by the President. The President should end every single one of Obama’s over-reaching, unconstitutional end-arounds of Due Process that exceeded his office’s powers, whether Trump agrees with them or not. The integrity of our system is the most important thing of all, and he is sworn to protect it.

That is the procedural and precedentiary justification to end DACA. There are ethical and legal reasons too. Never mind, apparently. What matters in this issue are feelings. The argument is so marinated in sentiment and emotional blackmail—if you don’t love “the dreamers,” then you are a monster—that a coherent and responsible debate is literally impossible. All of the emotion-based arguments employed to argue that the illegal immigrant children who piled up at the border during the Obama administration should be allowed to cross the border, or that the U.S. should accept, barely vetted, refugees from nations packed with terrorist activity because their children weren’t terrorists have been repurposed in this debate, plus others. I am especially unmoved by the Hurricane Harvey line of argument: because some “dreamers” have done yeoman rescue work  in the wake of the flooding, the fact that they are in the country illegally should be forgiven, and not only that, take that fact as validation of the desirability of ALL “dreamers.”

Do we take that approach with other lawbreakers? They break the law, but can retroactively undo their crimes by subsequent beneficent acts? No, we don’t treat lawbreakers that way, because it would embody the ridiculous Ruddigore Fallacy:

The Ruddigore Fallacy: Also known as “moral licensing,” the Ruddigore Fallacy is the belief that unethical conduct can be erased with sufficient good conduct by the same person or organization, and that, sufficient good conduct entitles a group or individual to engage in unethical conduct with less criticism and negative consequences than a less accomplished individual or group should receive for the same misconduct.

In the excellent Gilbert and Sullivan operetta Ruddigore, W.S. Gilbert lampooned this concept.  A family curse compels a baronet to commit a crime a day. In the operetta’s first act, the current victim of the curse, Despard Murgatroyd, explains his scheme to foil the curse:

“I get my crime over the first thing in the morning, and then, ha! ha! for the rest of the day I do good! I do good! I do good! Two days since, I stole a child… built an orphan asylum.  Yesterday I robbed a bank…and endowed a bishopric.  To-day I carry off Rose Maybud and atone with a cathedral!”

Satirist Gilbert assumed that intelligent Victorians would instantly understand what’s wrong with this logic, and would regard the number of elected officials and pundits endorsing the fallacy now as proof of devolution. A corollary of “Bias Makes You Stupid” is “Children make you stupid.”

Legal philosophy’s explanation for  ending DACA  is that providing incentives to break laws is self-defeating and undermines the rule of law. This is an ethical reason too: those who make and enforce laws have a duty to be competent, and it is incompetent to simultaneously have laws that say, “Don’t come to our country without going through the official immigration procedures” and other laws that say, “But, if you manage to sneak your kids through along with you, we’ll be lenient toward them and provide them with benefits and privileges.” This provides an incentive for foreign citizens to break our laws for the benefit of their kids, a benefit that the United States endorses.

We often hear arguments that it is cruel to punish criminal parents with long sentences because the innocent children suffer. Imagine a law that dealt with that problem by guaranteeing a percentage of whatever a parent stole would be legally awarded to his or her children. Compassionate! Kind! Also, transforming  robbery into a sacrificial act to benefit one’s children. This is not far off from what DCAC does: an illegal immigrant parent steals some of the benefits of legal American citizenship, and the U.S. allows that parent’s children to keep some of what was stolen.

The facile argument we hear is that “it’s the right thing to do” and that the U.S. has some kind of an ethical obligation to these illegal residents who have been living here for many years in full understanding of their illicit status.  Balderdash.The United States has duties to its own citizens and to enforce its laws. The plight of the DACA beneficiaries is neither the U.S.’s problem, fault or responsibility.  It is their parents’ fault, 100%. It is their own responsibility. If any nation has a responsibility to assist them, it is their country of origin, where they are citizens.

The polling support and  media advocacy for Obama’s illegal edict, and Republican protests against its elimination are all based on lazy reasoning, sentimentalism, ignorance or cowardice, all resting on a rotten foundation built by the indefensible pro-illegal immigration stance of the Democratic party. It is the epitome of an issue that has been so dishonestly and cynically framed that responsible policy decision-making is impossible.

Most nauseating of all, if the DACA goes down, the pundits and anti-Trump forces have already made it clear that they will call the decision racist and motivated by white supremacy. A policy that is based on sound law enforcement principles and the correct alignment of national priorities is racist.

I don’t see how a nation can govern itself when it allows issues to be warped like this.

161 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Childhood and children, Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Family, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, U.S. Society

161 responses to “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Ethics

  1. RomanBW

    Jack, we are blessed being on the other side of DCAC; not so for the “dreamers”.
    Your logical, legalistic, heartless arguments do not move me.
    RomanBW

    • Thus proving my point. Governance is not about “heart,” and caring is not the only ethical consideration. The United states is not a charity. If you can’t mount a legitimate, sound, governance and law enforcement argument, you lose.

    • The dreamers are no more entitled to be in this country than Elliot Rodger was entitled to have his penis inside a woman’s vagina.

    • RomanBW wrote, “Jack… Your logical, legalistic, heartless arguments do not move me.”

      It’s heartless to enforce laws; just gotta love this kind of emotional crap!

      RomanBW,
      Please read my comment below; I’d be real interested to feedback from a person that actually thinks enforcing our immigration laws is heartless.

  2. Chris

    DACA is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/04/the-case-for-daca/?utm_term=.f0847b5ee180

    But I like this idea that has emerged in the past year that presidents can legally and constitutionally ban whatever class of immigrants they want, but cannot allow whatever class of immigrants they want. Funny how that novel view of federal power works out for conservatives.

    • Isaac

      They can do either. What they can’t do is ban a class of immigrants by law and then refuse to acknowledge those laws when they come in anyway. Not sure why that’s confusing.

    • They can do either within the already established framework of immigration laws. Just as any President uses his executive authority to enforce all the laws of the Republic insofar as any particular law gives him that leeway to make those kinds of decisions.

      Hope that clears up your confusion over checks and balances and separation of power…

      • Chris

        I’ve shown here before that Trump’s travel ban violates established immigration law, specifically the portion of the INA prohibiting discrimination in the issuance of a visa based on national origin.

        In response, Glenn provided this argument from Andrew McCarthy:

        In the international arena, then, if there is arguable conflict between a presidential policy and a congressional statute, the president’s policy will take precedence in the absence of some clear constitutional commitment of the subject matter to legislative resolution. And quite apart from the president’s presumptive supremacy in foreign affairs, we must also adhere to a settled doctrine of constitutional law: Where it is possible, congressional statutes should be construed in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts.

        If this is true, then DACA was not illegal even if it ran afoul of congress-backed immigration law. If it isn’t true, I still think prosecutorial discretion makes DACA legal.

    • I try to commit at least 3 transgressive thoughtcrimes before my second cup of coffee. This should cover it!

      Comments on the Washington Post Article:

      1) “Subjecting DACA recipients to deportation would inflict great harm for no good reason.”

      The core issue has to be identified. That issue is that there are far too many Mexican immigrants entering the country. To be truthful is to see the *real issue* and to avoid the hypocrisy of lying in conformity to politically correct dictates. Simply put, it was long ago understood by responsible government officials that Meso-American migration was undesirable. Those arguments were put forth in the 50s and for various reasons they were ignored. Because the problem as ignored it has ‘mushroomed’ into an extraordinary problem that is very difficult to solve without Draconian measures of one degree or another.

      But since it is a demographic-democratic issue — the fact of an increasing voter base that will do what it must do to secure its survival and continuance — the issue becomes ‘meta-political’ to any of the legal questions. You are morally wrong to desire less Latinos in the US. You are morally wrong to see and understand that this is operating, and will operate in the future, not only against *you* (as a white person for example) but against the structure of the institutions of your country. Again, the issue is meta-political and the most important question is the one that no one can openly talk about without being called a ‘Nazi’. And it very clearly resolves to what is termed ‘name-calling’ but which has a far greater significance since it hinges into judgments of ‘good and evil’.

      You are evil when you want something contrary to what they insist is a moral good. They base their assertion of ‘goodness’ not in sound idea but in emotional appeals. The emotional appeal, in an emotionalized culture, has tremendous power.

      2) “Many have never really known life in their country of origin. As House Speaker Paul D. Ryan puts it, “these are kids who know no other country, who were brought here by their parents and don’t know another home.”

      The problem, obviously, extends out of a lack of will at other times. In my study of Mexican migration to the US the first thing one notices is that everyone is complicit in it. It is the fault of the US government and and the policy-influencers not to have insisted, long ago, on a sane plan. The whole purpose of allowing Mexicans into the country was to make use of their labor. Entire pueblos in certain regions of Mexico have been constructed on the wealth earned by men who leave their pueblo seasonally to work in the US. The level of complicity in allowing this to occur in an uncontrolled manner is not the responsibility of anyone except the government of the US.

      Remember that the issue is not *really* a legal one. It is a demographic one. See Coulter and many others on this issue. Because it is not *really* a legal issue (though it really should be and should always have been) it will not be decided rationally. It will be fought at a below-the-board level. It will very likely be won by the colonizing demographic in concert with the Democratic Party ideologues. The more people that will vote Democrat are necessary in order to further the array of policies they pursue.

      There is not enough political will to see and understand this for what it is — a demographic issue and problem — and I assume that no one on this blog would be able to come out and ‘state the truth’. I tend to see this as hypocrisy of the first order.

      Still: they should all be sent back to Mexico (I realize that a small number come from other Central American countries). The policy must be (must become) one that centers exclusively on American welfare. But even this is not getting to the meta-political point. Since 1965 a deliberate liberalization of the immigration quotas was undertaken. Now, the increasing ‘demographic of color’ is gaining ground against the ‘original demographic’. This was a chosen route. It was enacted consciously by ‘elites’ who determined the best interests of the US. These people, culturally and morally confused, are not only among us they are us. The emotional ideas have infected us and we are well under their sway. To turn against them is so hard, so agonizing at a personal and interior level, that it is easier to ‘go with the flow of the present’.

      It does not really matter what ‘hardship’ these people will undergo. Their own government, of course, will likely do next to nothing for them and certainly ‘their own people’ will do nothing. Yet if they are so very valuable here it stands to reason that, over time, they will make themselves valuable there.

      I suggest that the clarifying facts of the meta-political issue here, when really internalized and carefully thought-through, will lead to a correct inner stance in regard to the issue. But of course I am deliberately speaking directly to and of course from the necessary position of the white demographic. I suppose that Blacks could come up with their own demographic-preservation argument (and Blacks and Latinos do not generally get along and the race-tensions between them is often more acrimonious than people know), but it also has to be said, though it is not really said openly, that there is a meta-political animus that does indeed stand behind Trump. It is the idea, perhaps subconscious? that to make America great again will involve a recovery of White definition and self-empowerment. But how could anyone even think those thoughts except privately?

      It is better in the sense of far less demanding, intellectually and emotionally, not to think those thoughts and let the engineering present (the present that is being engineered) simply go forward.

  3. Chris

    The Ruddigore Fallacy does not apply here because the DACA participants did not commit any unethical activity in the first place. According to the Volokh Conspiracy link above, the aaverage age a DACA participant was at the time they arrived in the US was 7. A 7-year old is obviously not ethically culpable for following their parents to a new country, and they are not ethically obligated to return once they reach adulthood.

    • Good point. Furthermore, I don’t know why other people are bringing up the rescue work done by the “dreamers,” but it seems relevant to note that if they had been deported before now, they wouldn’t have been here to help in Houston. More generally, most “dreamers” contribute productively to our society, and we lose all that by deporting them. This is a cost that should not be ignored.

      • Isaac

        …and presumably none of them would be here to require being rescued in Houston either. And housed and fed, etc by FEMA. The entire Hurricane Harvey topic is irrelevant any which way.

      • Sure it should be ignored, just like the fact that convicted criminals could pay taxes and benefit society more out of prison than in it, (so let’s not punish felonies.) I keep reading the “those dreamers will be responsible for 4 gazillion dollars in productivity” claims. 100% irrelevant even if true (it is a classic bogus stat), and merely an extension of “we should open the borders to all,” a literally insane concept.

        “And if Joan Collins isn’t hit by the truck, Hitler wins WWII, Bones!”

        • So when setting policy, we should ignore the consequences of our policy choices? And base our policies on what, then? Intuition? Religious revelation? Ick factor? Our feelings?

          • Chris

            The problem with your questions, Windy, is that no one here is talking about setting policy when it comes to immigration law–nor will they.

            Jack says:

            I keep reading the “those dreamers will be responsible for 4 gazillion dollars in productivity” claims. 100% irrelevant even if true (it is a classic bogus stat), and merely an extension of “we should open the borders to all,” a literally insane concept.

            One of the most common arguments against allowing further immigration is that immigrants depress our economy. If the opposite is true, then we need to allow more immigrants in (and no, that does not mean “we should open the borders to all,” which is a strawman).

            I would find discussing how to modify our immigration restrictions to prevent otherwise good people from feeling the need to sneak over here in the first place a more productive discussion than what’s going on here, which is so cartoonishly simple as to be caveman-like: “You break law. You go home now.” That isn’t ethics. That’s nothing. It leads nowhere. It proposes no actual solutions to the underlying problem. It is literally just an expression of moral superiority.

          • That’s a strange argument. Protecting property rights isn’t a “consequence,” it’s a fundamental duty of the government. Some might say, the only real duty.

      • That is just moral luck.

        If any of the rescue work in Houston had been done by military deserters, does this mean that desertion should be decriminalized?

        • Probably not, but it’s poor reasoning to just dismiss the harm offhand. You have to overcome it. I think you can reasonably say that the benefits of deterring desertion far outweigh the benefits of having deserters available to do other useful work. I just don’t see that in the immigration debate.

          • joed68

            I can see lots of benefits to disincentivising illegal immigration that would likely outweigh any productivity considerations.

    • If an individual is inadvertently a participant in or a party to unethical conduct, then as soon as that individual has the power to do so, it is their duty to get out of participation in that conduct.

      • So if you were in their position, you would do that? If someone proved to you right now that you were brought here illegally as a child, you would abandon your family, career, and friends and get on the next plane back to the country where you were born? Really?

        • Pre-ad hominem attack.

          Whether or not I chose to engage in unethical conduct doesn’t change the status of that conduct being unethical.

          I don’t think anyone has said that many of those brought over as children aren’t facing a heavy amount of incentives to continue in violation of the law.

          • So, they were innocent when they were brought here, they have a lot of incentives to stay, and we benefit in ways from having them here, But you still think whose of us who want to change the law to make it legal for them to stay are unethical, because they are breaking the law that we’re talking about changing? That doesn’t seem at all circular to you?

        • Inappropriate use of the Golden Rule, WP. If you were any lawbreaker, would you want to avoid the consequences?

          • Chris

            How we would expect a reasonable person to act in a given situation can give us a lot of useful information–that’s why there we even have “reasonable person” standards in law.

            A reasonable person would not be expected to turn themselves in if they found out they were brought here illegally as a child, and I don’t believe there is any ethical imperative for them to do so.

            • A reasonable person seeks to be lawful wherever he or she is at the earliest possible time. Hence the “dreamers” do not qualify. That something involves unpleasantness or inconvenience does not mean that ducking such a responsibility is reasonable.

              • Chris

                A reasonable person seeks to be lawful wherever he or she is at the earliest possible time. Hence the “dreamers” do not qualify.

                An 18-year old turning oneself into the government for crimes committed by one’s parents in exchange for amnesty isn’t “seeking to be lawful at the earliest possible time?”

                • Chris wrote, “An 18-year old turning oneself into the government for crimes committed by one’s parents in exchange for amnesty isn’t “seeking to be lawful at the earliest possible time?” “

                  Chris you’re full of it today. They didn’t get “amnesty”, they got a deferred action. Look up that word defer, it doesn’t mean or imply amnesty in any way!

                  • While you may be correct that Chris misused a word, you completely neglected to rebut his point. If that was your intention, please correct the phrasing of his argument in your head and try again.

                    This is known as the “iron man” or “steel man” arguing technique, where you argue against the strongest version of a person’s point. It’s the opposite of a “straw man”. It’s a very important practice for constructive discussions.

                    • I should clarify that I don’t mean that you shouldn’t correct someone if their background information is mistaken. By all means point out when people misuse terms or state incorrect facts. However, if the mistakes don’t detract from their point, it’s bad practice to behave as though they do.

                    • EC,
                      Chris pull this nonsense all the time; he changes the discussion by plugging in something like “amnesty” into a discussion where amnesty has got nothing to do with the conversation. He ignores over and over again that these dreamers are still illegal immigrants, he doesn’t want to talk about their illegal status and the fact that they haven’t done anything to change it. See above where he talked about DACA as a step towards legal status, it’s nothing of the sort.

                    • I failed to realize that the terms and definitions that you brought up were material to the topic at hand, since they determine whether or not a person is actually in the process of becoming lawful, which is what Chris and Jack were arguing about. Sorry about that.

                    • Chris

                      Help me out then, Zoltar. What do you call it when someone realizes that as a child, they have been breaking the law–through no fault of their own–and then, when they reach adulthood, goes to the authorities to let them know, because the authorities have said that people who come forward will not be punished? If “amnesty” is the wrong word, what’s the right one? And how does that change the ethical nature of such a person’s actions?

                    • Chris wrote “What do you call it when someone realizes that as a child, they have been breaking the law–through no fault of their own…”

                      I call that enlightenment. That grown child now knows that their parents have been breaking the law for a very long time and they put you in a very bad situation because you two are an illegal immigrant.

                      Chris wrote “…then, when they reach adulthood, goes to the authorities to let them know, because the authorities have said that people who come forward will not be punished?”

                      They did not say these illegal immigrants would never be punished; Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a non-permanent program deferring the legal action of being deported put in place by a agenda driven activist President that intentionally sidestepped Congress and bastardized an existing law. These people have had plenty of time and plenty of warnings to begin the process of becoming legal immigrants, excuses will get hem nowhere.

                      Chris wrote, “If “amnesty” is the wrong word, what’s the right one?”

                      How obtuse can you get Chris? How many time does this have to be drilled into you brain? It’s deferred action Chris, deferred action; seriously dude, what don’t you understand? Again the word to use is deferred, deferred, deferred, deferred,…

                      The people are still illegal immigrants, until that earned “title” is legally changed by the illegal immigrant going through the legal process of becoming a legal immigrant or until the immigration laws are changed by Congress, those people are illegal immigrants, they are breaking the law. It’s that simple and you refuse to absorb it into your stubborn grey matter.

                      Chris wrote, “If “amnesty” is the wrong word, what’s the right one? And how does that change the ethical nature of such a person’s actions?”

                      That’s a ridiculous question related to the sentence prior to it; the word used doesn’t change the ethical nature of the actions. It is unethical for an illegal immigrant to remain in the United States illegally (no matter how they arrived here) and not seek to become a legal immigrant using the legal process that is already in place.

                    • It’s not even really punishment, unless you consider Mexico to be a prison. In terms of legal penalties, it’d be the equivalent of a parent forging a driver’s license for their kid, and the police saying, “Sorry, you don’t get to use that anymore”, but not imposing a fine or jail time. The personal impact is larger than that, but it’s the same basic principle.

                      Chris, I think what Zoltar Speaks! is trying to say is that there was never any agreement that people registering themselves under DACA wouldn’t be deported in the future. Registration doesn’t make them lawful. Nobody’s saying that registering isn’t the right thing to do; it is the honest, right thing to do. It’s just that honesty about one’s illicit status doesn’t imply that the status should be allowed to continue. Does that address your questions?

                    • Extradimensional Cephalopod wrote, “I think what Zoltar Speaks! is trying to say is that there was never any agreement that people registering themselves under DACA wouldn’t be deported in the future. Registration doesn’t make them lawful. Nobody’s saying that registering isn’t the right thing to do; it is the honest, right thing to do. It’s just that honesty about one’s illicit status doesn’t imply that the status should be allowed to continue.”

                      That’s a reasonable nutshell version.

                  • On reflection, I may have misunderstood your point. Were you saying that although “dreamers” were seeking to be lawful at the earliest possible time, they were never promised that they could stay, and that therefore they shouldn’t expect to? If so, I apologize. I got confused because I associated your response with Jack’s earlier point that Chris was arguing against.

    • Chris wrote, “they are not ethically obligated to return once they reach adulthood”

      That’s a complete fallacy! This where you people completely fail.

      The person is still here illegally regardless of how or when they arrived here illegally; therefore, the person is both ethically and legally obligated to correct this when they reach adulthood. No excuses!

      • And if we make it legal for them to stay, then they won’t be here illegally any more. So you’re arguing that we shouldn’t make it legal for them to be here because it isn’t currently legal for them to be here. That’s kind of circular.

        • Since you are being so obviously obtuse; I’ll repeating myself…

          “If these people want to be in the United States legally then they need to take the appropriate steps to become legal immigrants, anything short of that is just bull shit whining!

          It’s not the responsibility of the United States and its citizens to change, or ignore, our immigration laws so that those that are breaking those immigration laws can stay in OUR country legally, it is the responsibility of those that are breaking those immigration laws to take the steps to become legal immigrants.

          No Windy, I will not agree to bastardizing our immigration laws to fit the wants of those that are abusing those laws.”

          Any questions now Windy or did that wind also blow over your head?

  4. The “dreamers” are here for historical reasons beyond their control. They personally did nothing wrong by coming here. (I suppose you could argue that they should have bought a ticket back home on their 18th birthday…but that seems like an awful lot to ask of someone.) Your argument is that we need to harm them now by deporting them in order to avoid providing an incentive for the parent of future “dreamers” to bring them here. You want to harm the innocent to discourage other people from behaving unethically. That doesn’t sound very ethical to me.

    As for “an illegal immigrant parent steals some of the benefits of legal American citizenship, and the U.S. allows that parent’s children to keep some of what was stolen.” What was stolen? From whom was it stolen? And when you deport the “dreamers,” what is returned to the rightful owner, whoever that is?

    • Isaac

      If stealing is defined as taking something that is not rightfully yours, then I don’t see how you can disagree with the world “stolen” applying in this context. If you are still having trouble with it, imagine being stranded in Japan by a tsunami during a connecting flight, and instead of making any plans to get home you just decide that Japan owes you citizenship because hey, it’s not YOUR fault you got stuck there. Also, you will be demanding a variety of expensive services from the Japanese government to make your new life in Japan secure. And you’d appreciate it if they didn’t pressure you to learn Japanese, thank you very much. And also, if they try to deport you…they’re racist.

    • Windypundit wrote, “I suppose you could argue that they should have bought a ticket back home on their 18th birthday…but that seems like an awful lot to ask of someone.”

      It’s so inconvenient to ask people to do things that are their responsibility and they should have already done…

      If these people want to be in the United States legally then they need to take the appropriate steps to become legal immigrants, anything short of that is just bull shit whining!

      It’s not the responsibility of the United States and its citizens to change, or ignore, our immigration laws so that those that are breaking those immigration laws can stay in OUR country legally, it is the responsibility of those that are breaking those immigration laws to take the steps to become legal immigrants.

      No Windy, I will not agree to bastardizing our immigration laws to fit the wants of those that are abusing those laws.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Is that the new seal of the Democratic Party?

      • Chris

        Zoltar:

        If these people want to be in the United States legally then they need to take the appropriate steps to become legal immigrants, anything short of that is just bull shit whining!

        Filing for DACA was taking an appropriate step to become a legal immigrant.

        Remember that to do so, immigrants had to admit to being brought into the country illegally as children, putting themselves and their family at risk of deportation. They also turned in tons of personal information to the federal government on the promise that they would be safe. For that, the federal government will now deport them. That is the unethical conduct we should be discussing.

        • Chris wrote, “Filing for DACA was taking an appropriate step to become a legal immigrant.”

          Filing for DACA is not a step to become a legal immigrant. Where the heck are you getting your understanding from?

          Chris wrote, “For that, the federal government will now deport them.”

          Stop spinning Chris; people around this website are not that damned stupid.

          They would be deported for being illegal immigrants not because they registered for DACA.

          DACA is not a law and it does not change their illegal status, it “defers action” to deport them based on their illegal status. Do you not understand what the word defer means?

          These people need to take the steps required to become legal immigrants.

          • Chris

            Filing for DACA may not lead directly to a path to citizenship, but it is certainly better than nothing. These people turned themselves in to the federal government on the promise that they would be able to stay in the country. If someone is willing to do that, they’re probably also willing to file papers to become a citizen.

            • Therein lies the question: children of foreign parents who did NOT break our laws have nothing, other than going through the same process as every other foreign national. Why is that fair or rational?

      • It may not be our responsibility to change the law, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good law, and that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it a better law. You just go around and around with “we shouldn’t change the law because they are breaking the law” as if that were not a circular argument. This sort of unreasoning argument is why some people suspect the anti-immigrant crowd is driven by bigotry.

        • I’ll have a more detailed discussion later, but on this topic, quit the sophistry. It’s no more a “circular” argument than this characterization of what you want to do:

          “You want to change the law so they aren’t breaking the law.”

          See, your opponents can reduce this to a pithy comment that sounds circular also.

          Please stop, it makes your opponents less likely to care what you have to say.

        • Windypundit wrote, “It may not be our responsibility to change the law, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good law, and that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it a better law.”

          If you want the immigration laws changed it must go through Congress. Good luck with that.

          Windypundit wrote, “You just go around and around with “we shouldn’t change the law because they are breaking the law” as if that were not a circular argument.”

          I’m not the one going round and round with spin. The fact is that we have a law and the law is being broken and yes Windy “we shouldn’t change the law because they are breaking the law”, anyone that thinks we should is stupid!

          Windypundit wrote, “This sort of unreasoning argument is why some people suspect the anti-immigrant crowd is driven by bigotry.”

          No Windy that’s the bull shit emotional spin put on it by ignorant political hacks like yourself.

          My argument is NOT unreasoning, it’s NOT anti-immigration, it’s NOT bigotry, it’s anti illegal immigration; you hack!

          • I’m not saying we should make it legal because they’re breaking the law. I’m saying we should make it legal for them to come here because it would make their lives better without harming anyone else. That’s why I want to make it legal for them to be here. Also because freedom is good, and there’s no good reason to prevent Americans from hiring, selling to, or being friends with whoever they want. And I’m saying the only reason I keep hearing for not making it legal is because it’s illegal, which is a very bad reason for harming people, including your fellow Americans.

            • Windypundit wrote, “And I’m saying the only reason I keep hearing for not making it legal is because it’s illegal…”

              Balderdash. I haven’t heard or read anyone stating such nonsense; prove your claim.

              • Windy,
                Let’s keep it really simple; since you said that “the only reason I keep hearing for not making it legal is because it’s illegal”, that must mean that I Zoltar Speaks have only used that reason in my arguments. I’m only one person contained in that blanket “only reason” statement; I challenge you to find one statement in any of my arguments in this thread that states or implies that we should not make it legal is because it’s illegal.

                I’m passing the baton to you, now run with it.

            • Windypundit wrote, “I’m saying we should make it legal for them to come here because it would make their lives better without harming anyone else.”

              It is already legal for them to come here through legal means, it’s the illegal means of sneaking into the United States that we’re talking about – illegal immigration.

              Windypundit wrote, “That’s why I want to make it legal for them to be here.”

              Are you ignoring that allowing children of illegal immigrants who are also illegal immigrants to legally stay in the United States by ignoring our current immigration laws will encourage more illegal immigration? Is that really something we want to promote?

              Windypundit wrote, “Also because freedom is good, and there’s no good reason to prevent Americans from hiring… whoever they want.”

              Even that is no reason to ignore immigration laws. Not having legal status to be in the United States and not having legal eligibility to work in the United States because one is an illegal immigrant IS a good reason to prevent Americans from hiring illegal immigrants!

              Windypundit wrote, “Also because freedom is good, and… there’s no good reason to prevent Americans from… selling to, or being friends with whoever they want.”

              No one gives a shit about who people sell their products to or who [people choose for their friends; this part of your argument is BS.

              Windypundit wrote, “…which is a very bad reason for harming people…”

              Seriously Windy, who is being “harmed”; illegal immigrants are the ones breaking the law!

              Windypundit wrote, “…including your fellow Americans.”

              Tear jerking nonsense.

              • And we’re still just going around in circles. I don’t think this is going anywhere.

                • Windypundit wrote, “And we’re still just going around in circles. I don’t think this is going anywhere.”

                  Stop offering nonsensical arguments that are so danged easy to refute then maybe we could get somewhere.

                  Also; how about replying to my request to prove your claim; you made the claim, it’s up to you to prove it.

                  • Chris

                    It is already legal for them to come here through legal means, it’s the illegal means of sneaking into the United States that we’re talking about – illegal immigration.

                    What are the “legal means” that immigrants can come here through, and why do so many immigrants choose not to avail themselves to those means? Describe them to me.

                    • Chris wrote, “What are the “legal means” that immigrants can come here through, and why do so many immigrants choose not to avail themselves to those means? Describe them to me.”

                      I’m guessing there is internet access south of the border and elsewhere in the world…

                      https://www.dhs.gov/how-do-i/move-united-states

                      …that was really way too hard.

                    • Chris wrote, “…why do so many immigrants choose not to avail themselves to those means?”

                      Life is all about choices; they are making a choice.

                    • Chris

                      If we as a society refuse to consider why so many break our immigration laws then we will never solve the root problems.

                    • Because the rewards outweigh the costs.

                      That was easy.

                    • Chris wrote, “If we as a society refuse to consider why so many break our immigration laws then we will never solve the root problems.”

                      That is not an argument, it’s an excuse!

                      They are in a foreign country when they make this choice to illegally cross our borders and become an illegal immigrant, it’s not our responsibility Chris to solve their problem in their native country so they won’t come here illegally, it’s their responsibility to not come here illegally and use the legal system that is already in place.

                    • In response to Chris regarding root problems: That’s why I like Other Bill’s plan about annexing third-world countries. It does get at the root problems and it is very generous and compassionate. I don’t imagine most people would go for that plan, because it is difficult and complex, but for me that’s what makes it fun. I think humans are too complacent as a society.

                    • Chris

                      tex:

                      Because the rewards outweigh the costs.

                      That was easy.

                      Well, the rewards outweigh the costs for legal immigrants too–that’s why they come here legally.

                      So we have two options: we can either make the costs extremely heavy, or we can open up the rewards to a broader category of people. I think the former will be much more expensive to the latter, in addition to harming a lot more people.

                      Zoltar:

                      That is not an argument, it’s an excuse!

                      They are in a foreign country when they make this choice to illegally cross our borders and become an illegal immigrant, it’s not our responsibility Chris to solve their problem in their native country so they won’t come here illegally, it’s their responsibility to not come here illegally and use the legal system that is already in place.

                      Society of course has a responsibility to make rational, fair laws that reduce negative effects while optimizing positive effects.

                      People made choices to make moonshine in the days of prohibition. “It’s their choice, not our responsibility!” wasn’t a good argument against lifting prohibition laws then, and it isn’t a good argument against reducing immigration restrictions now.

                    • Chris wrote, “Society of course has a responsibility to make rational, fair laws that reduce negative effects while optimizing positive effects.”

                      So if I’m understanding your point of view correctly, you’re essentially saying that the United States saying something like “here is our border; we have predetermined immigration laws and a process of legal immigration; those that cross the border illegally will be deported” is somehow not rational, somehow not fair, and somehow it has negative effect and it does not optimize positive effects? I just don’t see where you’re coming from Chris; it looks like you’re making up things on the fly again.

                      Chris wrote, “People made choices to make moonshine in the days of prohibition. “It’s their choice, not our responsibility!” wasn’t a good argument against lifting prohibition laws then, and it isn’t a good argument against reducing immigration restrictions now.”

                      Now you’re saying that my argument boils down to “It’s their choice, not our responsibility!”, which is a complete bastardization of my argument and not even close to anything I’ve stated, and you had the choice to put it into quotes as if I actually stated it. I never made the argument, “It’s their choice, not our responsibility!”. You can’t possibly be an English teacher with comprehension skills that ridiculously poor. Plus your lack of effective comprehension has driven you to make a ridiculous comparison.

                      Moving on…

                      Be very specific Chris; exactly what immigration restrictions are you in favor of completely eliminating and why?

                    • “I never made the argument, “It’s their choice, not our responsibility!”.”

                      I’d actually go the other way with it, and say that “it’s their choice, not our responsibility” is an integral part of the underlying paradigm of all law enforcement and criminal justice. If you want to criticize it as an argument, Chris, you’re essentially attacking the enforcement of all laws, not just the ones you don’t like.

                  • No, you prove me wrong. Explain why DACA folks should not be allowed in the United States without referencing illegal immigration. If you cannot do so, then your failure to do so proves my claim.

                    • Windypundit wrote, “No, you prove me wrong.”

                      I didn’t make the FALSE claim. You made the claim, you back it up with facts.

                      Windypundit wrote, “Explain why DACA folks should not be allowed in the United States without referencing illegal immigration.”

                      What the hell are you talking about; they are already in the United States!

                      Windypundit wrote, “If you cannot do so, then your failure to do so proves my claim.”

                      That was an idiotic statement! Are you a paid political attack dog working for the Democratic National Committee or have you been hitting the firewater early?

                    • Damnit, enting tag > is missing!

                    • As I expected. No answer. I accept your surrender, and good day to you, sir.

                    • Windypundit wrote, “As I expected. No answer. I accept your surrender, and good day to you, sir.”

                      Written like a true blue ignorant political attack dog that can’t support the nonsense claims they’ve made and who’s run out of any serious arguments. Come back when you can prove your claim otherwise keep running for the hills with your tail between your legs; coward.

                    • Chris

                      Zoltar:

                      What the hell are you talking about; they are already in the United States!

                      It seemed pretty clear to me that when Windypundit wrote, Explain why DACA folks should not be allowed in the United States without referencing illegal immigration,” he meant “Explain why DACA folks should not be allowed to stay in the United States without referencing illegal immigration.”

                      I highly recommend EC’s “steelman” technique; we have a natural tendency to read our opponent’s words in the least charitable manner possible (God knows I’m guilty of this) and the steelman is a good way to curb this impulse.

                      I think Windy has a point; the argument is always “It’s illegal!” with no attention paid to whether it should be illegal. The latter is a far more interesting ethical question than the former.

                    • Chris wrote, “I think Windy has a point; the argument is always “It’s illegal!” with no attention paid to whether it should be illegal. The latter is a far more interesting ethical question than the former.”

                      Since you’re still being obtuse; the point is that it is illegal for them to be here now regardless of what you, Windy or I think of the current law. Changing the law is a completely different issue and there has been plenty attention paid to whether it should be illegal.

                      In case you have missed it; I’m personally opposed to changing the law. If they came here illegally, no matter who or when they were dragged across the border, it’s their individual responsibility to do what is required to become a legal immigrant.

                    • That’s not a reasonable request. That’s like telling a person to explain why stealing is illegal without referencing personal property.

                      The reasoning behind deporting DACA people is to remove the incentives for future illegal immigration. If it were guaranteed that there would be no illegal immigration in the future, the only reason to deport DACA people would be that because they were never U.S. citizens or legal residents, the U.S. has no legal obligation to let them stay. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be a compassionate (i.e. voluntarily good) thing to do, if we could be sure that it wouldn’t prompt more people to sneak into the U.S. in attempts to secure a more pleasant future for their children.

        • As an aside, I won a million dollar bet with myself that this post would flush you out. And you are a welcome visitor, as always,

    • Windypundit wrote, “You want to harm the innocent…”

      What part of they’re here illegally do you not understand.

      Stop your damn whining.

      • Chris

        Zoltar,

        Is it your position that a seven-year old child brought into this country by their parents illegally cannot be described as “innocent?” That seems to be the implication of your comment.

        • Chris wrote, “Is it your position that a seven-year old child brought into this country by their parents illegally cannot be described as “innocent?” That seems to be the implication of your comment.

          No Chris, that’s YOUR implication.

          You can call them innocent, a victim, an active participant, or any damn thing you want it makes no difference legally because they are STILL HERE ILLEGALLY!

          What part of that do you people not understand?

        • They are inadvertently participating in unethical conduct, as soon as they have the power to do so, they must break away from that unethical conduct.

          Breaking immigration law is unethical conduct.

          • Chris

            See, this is where we part ways. I don’t think someone who chooses to stay in the country they’ve been in since they were 7 is engaging in unethical conduct.

            • If I stole $1000 from my neighbor and gave it to my 4 year old child, and my child realizes they have $1000 in their bank by age 18, should my child give that money back, should my neighbor reasonably expect to get that money back once the situation was realized?

    • joed68

      “Your argument is that we need to harm them now by deporting them in order to avoid providing an incentive for the parent of future “dreamers” to bring them here. ”
      Now you’re getting it. These parents shouldn’t use their kids to emotionally manipulate people that are already among the most generous on the planet.

  5. Sue Dunim

    I disagree that it is either moral or ethical that those benefitting from DACA should be deported.

    But.. it’s the job of Congress, not the President, to deal with this. An EO night be excusable on a temporary basis while legislation is being thrashed out, but should have had a sunset clause.

    Because there was no sunset clause, some took actions relying on the government’s promise. If you believe that a 3 month old child is capable of Mens Rea when entering the country illegally, then these are criminals. Otherwise, they have acted in accordance with US law and practice, and on governmental advice.

    To deport them now would be the same as reneging on an agreement for immunity from prosecution after evidence has been given, ex post facto just because a new DA is in office.

    The same could be said for the presidentially desired purge of trans people from the military, after the government had told them it was ok to be open now.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      That’s the danger of abuse of the executive order power. The US government was set up with separation of powers and checks and balances specifically to prevent any one branch or any one individual from becoming too powerful. Congress isn’t obligated to pass the president’s agenda, and, in fact, he isn’t necessarily supposed to set the national agenda alone. If he and Congress are at loggerheads they are supposed to work things out. He is not supposed to be able to tell the Congress “do as I say, or I’ll just issue an order and make you irrelevant.” Hugo Chavez tried to pull that kind of crap, ruling by decree, and you can see where that put his country.

      Unfortunately, I think this discussion, like so many others has reached the pigeon chess stage. We can marshal all the arguments about separation of powers, checks and balances, enumerated powers, the limits of powers held by various offices, and what policy will or won’t work for this nation that we can find. Those opposed to the current president will not change their minds, nor will they hear us out.

    • Sue Dunim wrote, “To deport them now would be the same as reneging on an agreement for immunity from prosecution after evidence has been given, ex post facto just because a new DA is in office.”

      As Jack said above; Balderdash!

      Executive orders can come and go with the wind, if these dreamers thought that was a permanent “law” then they are truly ignorant; there is no agreement or law saying they can stay – period! They are still here illegally!

      These “dreamers” have known that they were here illegally for years; why haven’t they or their parents taken the steps to be here legally?

      Why should my country bastardize our own immigration laws to accommodate those that know they are in our country illegally? They are breaking the law and they know it and now they think they deserve special treatment because they have been breaking the law for a long time?

    • No law is immune from being changed or over-turned. If you are an illegal resident, it would behoove you to understand how your illicitly chosen government works.

      You are arguing that bad laws enacted illegally have to stand—what, forever? The DACA is not even one that would prompt especially damaging action in reliance.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        “No non-liberal law is immune from being changed or over-turned.” There, fixed it for you. All snark aside Jack, the sad fact is that the left heartily agrees that no law and nothing is immune from change…until it reaches the point where they want it to be. At that point they say stare decisis and the science is settled. So yes, the argument you will hear from the left is that their preferred laws have to stand forever. If they can’t win on a vote, they file a lawsuit. If they can’t win in court, they put it to a vote. If they can’t win either on a vote or in court, then it’s time to bring out the rent a mobs and the black masked paramilitaries.

      • Sue Dunim

        Bad laws enacted illegally…

        Perhaps you can explain the legal justification for the 6 month enforcement delay in the latest presidential diktat then?

        As far as I can see, the only justification is simple decency (so I approve of it) but legally how does it differ from the black guy’s indefinite delay?

        • The question itself embodies the anti-Trump gotch mentality. Another post argued that it was unfair to end an illegal order that the”dreamers” had already relied on. Now the argument to eliminating it with a delay—to provide a chance for the Congress to pass a law the right way—is inconsistent. Obama left a lot of these around, illegal or irregularly passed laws that are hard to get rid of. Naturally, Trump get lamed for their consequences.

          If one think all that is wrong with DACA is the Constitutional problem, this is the best way to do it. I assume the nuances of perverse incentives are not on Trump’s radar.

          • Sue Dunim

            You didn’t give a legal justification, just a pragmatic one. Please give a legal one, as asked for.

            If you can’t, that’s fine, but please don’t claim that the black guy’s actions were illegal (as they were) and based on pragmatism, while the current incumbent’s are based on pragmatism but somehow different legally.

            Though there is one aspect where they may differ legally.

            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/the_u_s_government_betrayed_dreamers_and_transgender_troops.html

            As I wrote ” To deport them now would be the same as reneging on an agreement for immunity from prosecution after evidence has been given, ex post facto just because a new DA is in office.”

            That URL has links to law professors making exactly this argument. Whether the arguments are legally valid, I don’t know, but they are at least plausible enough to deserve examination and not off the cuff dismissal.

            • I’ve just explained this twice. Look it up. Trump was following a law, and within his powers. Obama was changing a law, which he cannot do.

              “The black guy” is a cheap shot, and I resent it. This has nothing to do with race or party. It has to do with my knowing how the law works and what the Constitution says, which I do, and you apparently don’t.

              Here, I’ll post this for THIRD TIME:

              An executive order cannot direct the government not to enforce a law. That’s like repealing a law. Obama also violated the Constitution by making unilateral changes in the ACA when various flaws emerged. The President controls policy that applies to the executive branch only. The EO announced that we would no longer enforce a law, duly passed, on specific citizens. He can’t do that. He can’t order the government not to prosecute abused spouses for murder, for example.In contrast regarding refugees and immigrants from terrorist nations was authorized under federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1182(f)) which gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” And he can do so “for such period as he shall deem necessary.”

              Trump was following a law, Obama was directing that a law not be enforced as written.

              And yes, it is unethical to make illegal executive orders counting on partisan and unethical judges to uphold them, as Obama did more than once.

  6. Jack wrote, “I don’t see how a nation can govern itself when it allows issues to be warped like this.”

    It’s becoming obvious that it can’t and I firmly believe that that’s the goal of the anti-Trump social justice warriors. “They” said that the United States was going to be in turmoil if Trump was elected, they were correct; however, what these anti-Trump social justice warriors didn’t tell the public was that they, the anti-Trump social justice warriors, were going to be the ones intentionally creating the turmoil by flushing their ethics, demonizing any thinking that opposes their world view, and ginning up daily faux outrage at absolutely everything!

    Social justice warriors are bring down the rule of law and the United States Constitution with the emotional reactionary destruction of one thing at a time; their methods are clear, make the public fear their wrath. The United States is already a bastardized shadow of what it once was, what we have now is a colluding media pushing the agenda of unintelligent, illogical, non critical thinking people. The end of the United States constitution and the rule of law is near if something isn’t done and done fast. These social justice warriors can’t get their way from the top down so they’re going to destroy everything by dumbing down the masses; yup, make everyone think only in emotional ways and make them stupid, that’s a sure way to bring about their democratic socialistic faux utopia bull shit.

    This is going to get much worse.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      If it was up to me I would put together a nationwide task force from a whole alphabet soup of agencies, including seconding people from the CIA, including infiltration specialists, spies, analysts, and a few teams of counterterror operators who can break in a door or hit a camp, kill or grab everyone there, and be GONE before the echo fades, leaving anyone else in the area none the wiser. Their role would be to eliminate antifa as an existential internal threat to our democracy, by any means necessary. Like the Texas Rangers, those they cannot indict or convict they may put down on their “star list,” (from “The Star Chamber”), and you know what follows.

      • Chris

        You’re right, secret police are good. We should have more unaccountable abuses of power. If there’s one thing we don’t have enough of in this country it’s dissidents being rounded up and killed for their speech.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          As opposed to being beaten by masked mobs or targeted for adverse consequences by a politicized enforcement apparatus.

          • Chris

            I mean…yes, an extralegal government secret police force that kills dissidents is worse than a small-yet-vocal-and-growing vigilante group that beats people up. Both are pretty terrible, but the former is worse. Obviously.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              Kindly explain the difference between using stealth and, if necessary, force, to stop a growing lawless group that is verging on becoming a paramilitary terror group like the IRA, and using every tool in the government’s arsenal to trip up, obstruct, silence and punish those who have committed no crime except to oppose the current regime?

              Frankly the latter is despicable and represents abuse of governmental power to keep one particular regime in power, free of those pesky folks who disagree. The former represents a legitimate use of governmental power to eliminate a potential lawless danger with the potential to do a lot of damage.

              Antifa isn’t quite on the level of the IRA yet – but the operative word is yet. I’m also not talking about the IRA of the Irish War of Independence, which was more a guerilla force battling an occupying army that the populace didn’t want there in the first place. I’m talking about the IRA of the Troubles, who were nothing more than gangsters with a cause that sounded good to some, and generally quite brutal about that cause. They didn’t just stop with targeting British soldiers and the RUC. They targeted ordinary folks who happened to believe in the United Kingdom or just happened to go to the wrong church, with bombings, shootings, kidnappings, deliberate provoking of riots that got out of hand so they could do their dirty work, and torture. If you just happened to see the wrong thing you might find yourself kneecapped with a power drill.

              I’m not willing to cut these thugs a break until they reach that level, and no one should be. If you are, you’re just a different breed of useful idiot.

              • Chris

                Kindly explain the difference between using stealth and, if necessary, force, to stop a growing lawless group that is verging on becoming a paramilitary terror group like the IRA, and using every tool in the government’s arsenal to trip up, obstruct, silence and punish those who have committed no crime except to oppose the current regime?

                I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or how it relates to your original statement. Perhaps if you were to retry typing this statement, this time making sure you included the word “murder,” which is noticeably absent despite that being key to your plan to eliminate Antifa (a group which has not yet murdered anyone)?

                • Steve-O-in-NJ

                  Then obviously your reading comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff. This post is 50% you sealioning. Shouldn’t you be working on your lesson plan on “How America Had It Coming” for Monday or something like that?

                  • SEALIONING :
                    Is a type of internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one’s opponent. The troll who uses this tactic also uses fake civility and feigns offense so as to discredit their target.

                    Sealioning is not possible without the “art” of being continuously obtuse.

                    OBTUSE :
                    1) Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
                    2) Difficult to understand, especially deliberately so.
                    3) Stupid or slow to understand.
                    4) Lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect.
                    5) Not quick or alert in perception.

                    From the mouths of history’s greatest “philosophers” to your ears…

                    “Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

                    “Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”

                    “Beware of internet trolls that are being continuously obtuse for their goal is not to obtain knowledge.”

                    “Always remember two things about stupid people; first, stupid people don’t know they’re stupid; and second, no matter how hard you try you can’t fix stupid.”

                    Never understate the power of stupidity; genius has limitations, stupidity does not. If we could fabricate small power generating windmills to harness what blows over the heads of stupid people, we could shut down every coal fired power plant on the planet. 🙂

                  • Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “Shouldn’t you be working on your lesson plan on “How America Had It Coming” for Monday or something like that?”

                    New book title reflecting the nation as we currently know it…

                    Trump: How America Had It Coming!

                    …followed by a book titled…

                    The Birth Of Irrational Anti’isms: The Death Of A Constitution!

                    • How about this book title…

                      Obama’s True Legacy: Emotion “Trumps” Critical Thinking

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Ahahaha, I was referencing Monday because it is 9/11 and libs like Chris have been strumming the chord that “America had it coming” for years, but these are a hoot, and sadly, close to the fact.

  7. You know what amazes me? I keep expecting someone to respond to pots like this with a substantive, ethical, non-emotional, logical rebuttal that I haven’t encountered before. Nobody does. It is all the same, “Think of the children”, “We’re better than this”, “How would you feel if you were in their shoes?”, “It isn’t their fault!” emotionalism.

    I don’t think there ARE legitimate arguments in favor of the “dreamers.” If we have a responsibility to help them, why don’t we have the same moral responsibility—indeed a greater one— to help the young people whose parents did NOT break our laws and are now stuck in third world, corrupt and dangerous hell-holes like Mexico and Guatemala? Wouldn’t that make more sense?

    The first duty of our government is to its lawful citizens, not to illegal residents it feels sorry for. Congress, being full of cynical weenies lacking courage or integrity, will probably cave to the emotional blackmail, and thanks to ignorance fostered by te news media, most of the public will probably approve.

    • Jack Marshall wrote, “The first duty of our government is to its lawful citizens, not to illegal residents it feels sorry for.”

      I agree. We’re heartless extremists. 😉

      P.S. I don’t feel sorry for any of them; they’ve known that they were illegal immigrants for many, many years and they made the choice to do nothing about it. Their choice, their consequences.

    • It’s a classic honor versus compassion schism. Honor represents orderly good, enforcing consistency and stability so that society may benefit from people knowing where they stand. Compassion represents chaotic good, making exceptions and doing things that cannot be expected or required so that society can benefit from such kindness. Both are necessary, but they must be balanced against each other.

      Because your position is based on honor, and makes sense in that context, it’s impossible for people to rebut it in those terms. Instead, they assert that the harm allowed by not extending compassion outweighs the benefits provided by honor, or they reject the concept of honor entirely. They don’t really understand honor or the harm done by dismantling it. Maybe they never noticed the benefits of honor, and only saw its negative effects, or they were oppressed by an ill-conceived brand of honor.

      Whenever someone talks to such people about the importance of rule of law, it doesn’t really get through to them because their paradigm interprets it as “the importance of rule of social justice law”, and other laws can be disregarded. The name is a dead giveaway, really. Honor and compassion are also known as justice and mercy. “Social justice” is an oxymoron, because “social” things are inherently based on favor and choice, whereas justice is based on restrictions and requirements.

      It will take patient education to show people why honor is important, probably with some basic example scenarios. I think it would be immediately effective, though, if you were to speak their language by talking about helping out people who are actually living in the countries illegal immigrants are coming from, as you suggested. It’s an excellent point that they’d be likely to understand. Have you brought that up with any of them?

      As a side note, I was impressed that nobody tried to make DACA spell anything warm and fuzzy until you mentioned it was an executive order and not a law passed by Congress.

  8. Other Bill

    Would anyone who comments here take themselves and their kids to a foreign country without getting a visa or otherwise complying with all applicable laws of that country and expect that country to allow themselves, or their children, to be entitled to all the benefits that country affords its citizens? I think not.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      I think this bit of humor pitched at Obama says it all:

      MR. PRESIDENT, I’M MOVING TO MEXICO
      Dear President
      Im planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, the President of Mexico, that I’m on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
      1. Free medical care for my entire family.
      2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
      3. Please print all Mexican Government forms in English.
      4. I want my grand kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
      5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
      6. I want my grand kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
      7. Please plan to feed my grand kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
      8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
      9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
      10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
      11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my housetop, put U.S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
      12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
      13. Please have the President tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
      14. I want to receive free food stamps.
      15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.
      16. I’ll need income tax credits so that, although I don’t pay Mexican taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.
      17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Government pays $4,500.00 to help me buy a new car.
      18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement.
      I know this is an easy request, because you do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that the President of Mexico won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

      • Other Bill

        Perfect. Pretty funny, Steve. I guess “We’re better than that.” To which my rhetorical response is usually: “Why?”

  9. Other Bill

    ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: As Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld.

    There is no greater good for the overall health and well being of our republic than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured or societies that tend to flourish and succeed. Societies for the rule of law is subject to political whims and personal biases, tend to become society’s afflicted by corruption, poverty and human suffering.

    To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. It’s just that simple. That would be an open border’s policy and the American people have rightly rejected that. Therefore the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means all cannot be accepted. This does not mean there are bad people or that our nation disrespects or demeans them in any way, it means we are properly enforcing our laws as Congress has passed them.

  10. JP

    So when I read stories like this I think back to the birth of my second son who was born in China. Neither China or US recognizes dual citizenship. In fact, in China, you can not be a citizen unless one of your parents is a Chinese citizen (even then it is a difficult process). So, when our son was born, we did the only thing we were allowed to do. Got him his Chinese birth certificate, took him to the consulate, got him a certificate born abroad, swore he was our child, got him a passport. Then we inquired about the visa. We were told, incorrectly, he didn’t need a visa because he has a Chinese birth certificate (this would only apply if one of us was Chinese). This led to a rather month long frustrated that started with the first attempt to get on a plane to come back to the states.

    While we were in line to check in at the airport, they checked our visas and found that my son did not have one. We explained. We showed the birth certificate. We should the passport, the birth abroad.. but none were good enough. We called the consulate (no one answered) and finally got in line to talk to someone at the immigration office. They informed us we had to go back to the city of birth and file with the police department. We were fortunate they gave 60 days from birth to get the visa before slapping us with a major fine and possibly jail time for being in the country illegally. 15 days later we were finally able to leave the country with only about a $1000 loss (American Airlines deserves some props here for the understanding in the reimbursement of tickets).

    This situation was really frustrating which involved a lot of yelling, screaming, crying, general emotions that express anger. However, nowhere was any of this the fault of the Chinese nor the Chinese government. Two people are to blame, my wife and I for doing bad research and maybe the person at the consulate who gave us the wrong information.

    In a roundabout way, I can feel the frustration of the dreamers. It is not their fault they were here illegally. However, at no time did it occur to me as the parent of my child to just break the law and do what I want to do because my current situation left me feeling hopeless. That is not only selfish and self-serving, it is putting these children in the situation where they must pay for their parent’s shortcomings. It may not be their fault, but it is their responsibility to do the right thing because it will ultimately (and has) fall on them. I had 15 days to fix my problem. Most of them have had years. If you’re going to break the law, you have to be willing to live with the consequences.

    • Other Bill

      That’s comment of the day worthy, JP. Thanks.

      • Other Bill

        Even getting a visa to visit China is a minor ordeal. It takes time and money and planning. All of which seems to be simply a money making affair for the Chinese government.

        • JP

          Thanks, Other Bill. It does take a lot of effort and most of it seems to be “to make money.” Getting the Temporary visa has gotten even more complicated since we left. I feel for anyone who has to go through the process. You can argue it’s a bad process, but that doesn’t give anyone license to break the law.

  11. I’m not sure why this has raised such feelings. Even two years ago there was a broad agreement across both parties that our current immigration system is badly flawed. The Dreamers were granted a deferment to help them get their affairs in order and start naturalization, (Something their parents should have started, too.) Congress had had now many months and years to at least start fixing it after Mr. Obama set this policy? An executive order for mercy for non-culpible children is not a permanent solution, nor should it be treated as such. Most of the issues mentioned above are larger issues, much bigger than the Dreamers group. If the journey of a thousand miles (or a thousand dreams) begins with a single step, you MUST follow up with a second and a third and on until you reach that goal. Any significant goal includes hard work, sacrifice, and missteps where you have to revise and redo stuff you thought was settled.

    Fixing the Dreamers’ situation seems one of the more low-hanging fruit of the larger issue and a far better place to start than any silly wall. Their biggest sin is to have procrastinated in not seeking citizenship. When was the DACA ordered again? A vast majority would be wonderful citizens, but they need to put up. And Congress needs to put up too, and not rely on executive actions to replace or flog them into action. I’m not sure most of them understnad that their jobs are to pass laws. If the laws don’t work, undo them. I’m with Jack of late, I hate being forced to agree with Mr Trump.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      One word: politics. The Democrats don’t want the DREAMers to become citizens except on the left’s terms. If they can’t have them become a guaranteed voting bloc, they want them to become a political prop to tar the other side as uncaring with,

      • Other Bill

        Marie, I’m not sure there’s ever been a consensus on immigration in congress or anywhere else. I’m sure the Democrats and the left have a consensus but I suspect it’s a consensus along the lines of the one the Democrats got to pass Obamacare.

  12. Other Bill

    A modest proposal: If Mexico and Guatemala and Nicaragua and Honduras and Venezuela, et al. are hell holes (maybe they are, maybe they aren’t) and people want open borders so everyone can enjoy the benefits of living in the U.S., let’s just take over those countries and make them part of the U.S. We can clean up the hell holes and everyone can live in the U.S. that wants to without having to leave home. Brilliant. A truly workable open borders plan. And amnesty as well. Everybody gets preemptive amnesty in all of these entire former countries. Now they’re state or protectorates like Puerto Rico!

    • Chris

      I’m not in favor of forcibly taking over a country that isn’t threatening us, but if Mexico wants to become part of the U.S., I’d be interested in hearing the arguments.

      • Other Bill

        It would solve a lot of problems but it wouldn’t go down well with Mexico’s corrupt ruling oligarchy, Chris. Carlos Slim probably wouldn’t be in favor of it. He wouldn’t be the only, protected, monopolistic cell phone provider in the entire country buy buying off a few rich families and he’d no longer be able to steal money from every person in Mexico so he could buy up the entire S&P with his stolen money.

  13. Jack- I don’t understand how it is unconstitutional (although I agree it is unwise).

    Can you provide a little more clarity on that point, if you have time?

    Thank you.

    • Other Bill

      Basic separation of powers. The executive (president) proposes legislation. Congress enacts legislation proposed by the executive or its members. The president can veto legislation if she thinks it is unwise. The Congress can then over-ride the president’s veto if they have enough votes. The Supreme Court and the lower courts interpret the laws. The executive enforces the laws congress enacts.

      Presidents don’t legislate all on their own. Nor do they pick and choose which laws they intend to ignore or enforce. These sorts of things violate the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution and are there for unconstitutional.

      • This means the Obama administration’s Dear Colleague lettee was unconstitutoonal, as was the transgender guidance.

      • Chris

        Can you explain how DACA is “legislation” but Trump’s travel ban is not?

        • Easy: the President has great leeway in setting restrictions on non-citizens entering the country. Only Congress can pass laws waiving or changing existing laws.

          The alleged hypocrisy claim actually boomerangs. Democrats argued that Trump over-reached when he unquestionably had the power, while defending Obama’s power that he did not have. Classic double standard.

          • Chris

            Easy: the President has great leeway in setting restrictions on non-citizens entering the country.

            And I gather he does not have similar leeway in eliminating such restrictions? Can you point to the part of the Constitution that says that?

            Only Congress can pass laws waiving or changing existing laws.

            Good thing DACA doesn’t waive or change any laws then.

            The alleged hypocrisy claim actually boomerangs. Democrats argued that Trump over-reached when he unquestionably had the power, while defending Obama’s power that he did not have. Classic double standard.

            Actually, I’ve pointed to the exact part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Trump’s travel ban violates. You have not pointed to any law that DACA violates. The double standard is yours.

            • See later comment in this thread. Oh, hell, I’ll copy it:

              An executive order cannot direct the government not to enforce a law. That’s like repealing a law. Obama also violated the Constitution by making unilateral changes in the ACA when various flaws emerged. The President controls policy that applies to the executive branch only. The EO announced that we would no longer enforce a law, duly passed, on specific citizens. He can’t do that. He can’t order the government not to prosecute abused spouses for murder, for example.In contrast regarding refugees and immigrants from terrorist nations was authorized under federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1182(f)) which gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” And he can do so “for such period as he shall deem necessary.”

              Trump was following a law, Obama was directing that a law not be enforced as written.

          • I’m just a tiny bit confused too, Jack.

            It can’t be as simple as the President didn’t go through Congress, as obviously there are some things the President must be able to do without Congress.

            Is this something where he acted in direct contravention of a Congressional Act? I forget the case, but there’s language in the law that says, President’s power peaks while acting with Congress, is at its weakest when working opposite Congress, and is right in the middle when acting neither with or contrary to Congress.

            So, DACA must act contrary to some provision of Congress? I think that’s what you’re saying. I know we have a long history of having good, would-be effective anti-illegal immigration laws that we simply don’t enforce (which has always baffled me). So, I suspect it is very likely that DACA was, in fact, contrary to one of those laws.

            Also, is the President’s leeway in restricting access an enumerated Constitutional Power, or does he have great leeway simply because he is not acting contrary to Congress?

            • I don’t know why you are confused. An executive order cannot direct the government not to enforce a law. That’s like repealing a law. Obama also violated the Constitution by making unilateral changes in the ACA when various flaws emerged. The President controls policy that applies to the executive branch only. The EO announced that we would no longer enforce a law, duly passed, on specific citizens. He can’t do that. He can’t order the government not to prosecute abused spouses for murder, for example.In contrast regarding refugees and immigrants from terrorist nations was authorized under federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1182(f)) which gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” And he can do so “for such period as he shall deem necessary.”

              Trump was following a law, Obama was directing that a law not be enforced as written.

          • Like their defense of the Dear Colleague Letter.

  14. I have a very direct question for everyone that’s been involved with this conversation…

    Exactly what do you want the United States government to do with illegal immigrants and their “Dreamer” children?

    Don’t deflect to smearing those that you disagree with, just tell us what you want the government to do.

    Begin…

    • I’ve been thinking a lot about this and here is what I want to happen.

      1. If you are an adult illegal immigrant, leave now and take all of your minor children with you or you will all be deported.

      2. If you were a minor child that was brought to the United States illegally and you are now an adult and wish to stay here, then prove your status and your intentions and start the process of getting a legal United States Visa right now, if your Visa is approved then get a green card, if you get a green card then apply for United States citizenship; if you can’t muster up enough personal responsibility to do the things that make you legal to be here then leave now, or be deported.

      3. Parents of adult “dreamer” illegal immigrants; shame on any adult that has put their child in this “dreamer” situation! You made a bad choice; you made your children illegal immigrants; your choice was NOT and honorable choice; your children are adults now; you get no special treatment, you can leave with the rest of the illegal immigrants or be deported. Also, if you choose to come back to the United States legally, don’t expect to ever be a voting citizen.

      3. To all those that wish to immigrate to the United States, follow our immigration laws or be deported, period!

      4. Repeal the anchor baby law, effective December 31, 2017.

    • Additionally, business and illegal immigrants…

      1. Starting December 31, 2017; any company that has illegal immigrants employees hired prior to December 31, 2017 will be accessed a fine not less than $10,000 for each illegal immigrant employee per month. Wavers will be issued for illegal immigrants that were hired before December 31, 2017 and who are actively in the process of becoming legal immigrants – proof of Visa application or green card application is required; all of these wavers will expire December 31, 2018.

      2. Any business that hires illegal immigrants after December 31, 2017 will be accessed $20,000 per illegal immigrant per month, even if that employee is only an employee for one day within that time period; no exceptions. Any business owner that has illegal immigrants employees after December 31, 2018 will be accessed $50,000 per illegal immigrant per month, even if the employee was only employed for one work day during that time period; no exceptions.

      3. Illegal immigrant business owners; you have until December 31, 2018 to either become a legal immigrant or sell your business and leave; after December 31, 2018 you will be deported; no exceptions.

    • Additionally…

      Federal assistance is for United States citizens and those that are here legally; no federal assistance will be awarded to illegal immigrants; none!

      No federal programs will benefit illegal immigrants; none! No federal grants to any organization will be passed on illegal immigrants.

      • I think I’ll try that last paragraph again…

        No federal programs will benefit illegal immigrants; none! No federal grants will be given to any organization that will passed on services or dollars to illegal immigrants. Exception: emergency medical services.

    • After the levels of rhetoric on both side of this issue in this particular thread, I thought there would be a few that would actually reply to my question “exactly what do you want the United States government to do with illegal immigrants and their “Dreamer” children?” Should I read into this?

    • No one else has an opinion as to what should be done with illegal immigrants and dreamers? This is interesting.

      In the best Emily Litella voice I can muster up…

      “Never Mind.”

      • I mean, my ultimate plan is to change the world so we don’t have this sort of problem because life is pleasant enough everywhere.

        In the meantime, I figure illegal immigrants should be deported as standard. If we really want to let more people immigrate, we should say so officially.

        However, I would be in favor of people who were brought over as children and who registered themselves being allowed to stay indefinitely, but I’m not going to say there’s an obligation to allow it. It might turn out that it creates a bad incentive. I’m not qualified to pronounce a judgment on that one way or the other.

  15. Regarding DACA; I’ve seen it reported that Trump said that “This is a gradual process, not a sudden phaseout. Permits will not begin to expire for another six months…”

    Is that six months accurate? What if someone’s DACA permit was set to expire tomorrow or a week from tomorrow, or next month, etc? Is their permit extended to the end of that six month period of time?

    After a conversation last night about this; inquiring minds want to know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s