Fr Graham Addresses DACA

[xeus]

http://www.xavierhoops.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2194&stc=1
Discuss.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Good for him.

[GoMuskies]

Seems pretty non-controversial.

[Lamont Sanford]

I'm sure that GladdenGuy has issue with it. Likely resulting in a reflection session at Danas.

[Caf]

DJT's respect and honor for the constitution and originalist operation of our government is such a breath of fresh air.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

DJT's respect and honor for the constitution and originalist operation of our government is such a breath of fresh air.

Joking? Trump's respect and honor lie with himself, his wallet, and his businesses probably in that exact order.

[Caf]

Joking? Trump's respect and honor lie with himself, his wallet, and his businesses probably in that exact order.

But he ended DACA because it was done thru exec order, and not congress. That's why he did it, cause he loves and respects the constitution. just like me.

[kmcrawfo]

I certainly may be misunderstanding this, but it seems from my reading that President Trump is slowly phasing out this program that President Obama put in place through executive action. Congress never passed any laws stating this program can/should exist. President Trump has urged congress to legally pass something similar to DACA which allows these children to stay, but has stated it is not the role of the president to setup this type of system through executive privilege. If Congress passes legislation legally implementing a program like DACA, the president will sign it into law thus protecting it from a future president doing the same things he (Trump) just did.

The pressure at this point, in my estimate, should be on congress to actually pass and do something at this point in order to fix this. If people want these DREAMers to stay, then they should be yelling at their congressmen to step up and pass the appropriate legislation to allow this to happen.

This seems like a perfect bi-partisan issues for both parties to tackle and work together on quickly without a bunch of BS pork attached.

[94GRAD]

I certainly may be misunderstanding this, but it seems from my reading that President Trump is slowly phasing out this program that President Obama put in place through executive action. Congress never passed any laws stating this program can/should exist. President Trump has urged congress to legally pass something similar to DACA which allows these children to stay, but has stated it is not the role of the president to setup this type of system through executive privilege. If Congress passes legislation legally implementing a program like DACA, the president will sign it into law thus protecting it from a future president doing the same things he (Trump) just did.

The pressure at this point, in my estimate, should be on congress to actually pass and do something at this point in order to fix this. If people want these DREAMers to stay, then they should be yelling at their congressmen to step up and pass the appropriate legislation to allow this to happen.

This seems like a perfect bi-partisan issues for both parties to tackle and work together on quickly without a bunch of BS pork attached.

Talk about being a dreamer! :medicated::medicated::medicated:

[Caf]

I certainly may be misunderstanding this, but it seems from my reading that President Trump is slowly phasing out this program that President Obama put in place through executive action. Congress never passed any laws stating this program can/should exist. President Trump has urged congress to legally pass something similar to DACA which allows these children to stay, but has stated it is not the role of the president to setup this type of system through executive privilege. If Congress passes legislation legally implementing a program like DACA, the president will sign it into law thus protecting it from a future president doing the same things he (Trump) just did.

The pressure at this point, in my estimate, should be on congress to actually pass and do something at this point in order to fix this. If people want these DREAMers to stay, then they should be yelling at their congressmen to step up and pass the appropriate legislation to allow this to happen.

This seems like a perfect bi-partisan issues for both parties to tackle and work together on quickly without a bunch of BS pork attached.

Yah he gets it. it's about the constitution which I love. I bet he likes it too.

if we want to help ppl we need to do it thru congress, or not at all. theres no other way. And don't you libs tell me about DJT's exec orders, those r different.

[GoMuskies]

Yah he gets it. it's about the constitution which I love. I bet he likes it too.

if we want to help ppl we need to do it thru congress, or not at all. theres no other way. And don't you libs tell me about DJT's exec orders, those r different.

Fuck checks and balances. Those are so '80s.

[Caf]

Fuck checks and balances. Those are so '80s.

libs think checks and balance ended in 1780s lol

[ArizonaXUGrad]

libs think checks and balance ended in 1780s lol

You all really have no idea what Obama did there. Congress love talking about it but they don't like doing anything about it. Obama goes in and shoves the DACA down their throats and does it in a manner he knows won't last and even says it won't last and is temporary. Now that the populace sees what the DACA did the cat is out of the bag. Congress can no longer do nothing and merely talk, it will make them look bad (which it has). They now must act or face voter backlash from inaction, a lot like healthcare. Obama had six years of obstructionist Congress and did a great job of keeping things from getting buried in bureaucratic BS.

[GoMuskies]

This Obama sounds dreamy.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

This Obama sounds dreamy.

The really sad part is that he was just a better politician. This is what McConnell is, he is just an obstructionist politician who became the opposite once the Cheeto was elected.

[bobbiemcgee]

Polls running 80-85% to keep DACA so we'll see what the dumbasses in DC come up with.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Polls running 80-85% to keep DACA so we'll see what the dumbasses in DC come up with.

I bet just like healthcare, nothing will come of this. They will just keep on talking.

[xudash]

TERM LIMITS.

That is all.

[Dblue]

TERM LIMITS.

That is all.

Yes please!

[Sonoran Desert Muskie]

As could be expected, DACA is a contentious issue out here in Arizona. These law-abiding kids deserve a pathway to legalization or citizenship, but Trumpster is correct that it must come from Congress not via executive order. That being said, I hope a Congress does not reward the parents of these kids who illegally brought them to the U.S. or kept them in the U.S. like Obama did with DAPA. The parents/wrongdoers should not benefit and should not be included in any new legislation.

[xu82]

term limits.

That is all.


amen!

[kyxu]

I certainly may be misunderstanding this, but it seems from my reading that President Trump is slowly phasing out this program that President Obama put in place through executive action. Congress never passed any laws stating this program can/should exist. President Trump has urged congress to legally pass something similar to DACA which allows these children to stay, but has stated it is not the role of the president to setup this type of system through executive privilege. If Congress passes legislation legally implementing a program like DACA, the president will sign it into law thus protecting it from a future president doing the same things he (Trump) just did.

The pressure at this point, in my estimate, should be on congress to actually pass and do something at this point in order to fix this. If people want these DREAMers to stay, then they should be yelling at their congressmen to step up and pass the appropriate legislation to allow this to happen.

This seems like a perfect bi-partisan issues for both parties to tackle and work together on quickly without a bunch of BS pork attached.


As could be expected, DACA is a contentious issue out here in Arizona. These law-abiding kids deserve a pathway to legalization or citizenship, but Trumpster is correct that it must come from Congress not via executive order. That being said, I hope a Congress does not reward the parents of these kids who illegally brought them to the U.S. or kept them in the U.S. like Obama did with DAPA. The parents/wrongdoers should not benefit and should not be included in any new legislation.

Obama did not usurp Congress with DACA; DACA was essentially Obama exercising his executive authority for immigration enforcement based on our limited government resources. This is really nothing new, and past presidents have exercised similar authority when it comes to deportation measures. DACA does not provide a "pathway to legalization", so it does not have the teeth of any Congressional measure. People who have DACA aren't even considered to be in a "legal status". The first two components of the DACA acronym ("deferred action") essentially mean the government has agreed to delay the deportation or other immigration action against an individual until further notice.

DACA was never meant to be permanent relief for these kids. Obama simply bought them some time until Congress passed something more substantial like a DREAM Act, or the next administration rescinded it. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend like Obama circumvented Congress to strong-arm some major immigration policy.

[waggy]

An executive order is basically saying, "I'm smarter than you-ooo".

[Sonoran Desert Muskie]

The United States Code clearly defines who is entitled to enter or remain in the country legally and who is entitled to become a naturalized citizen. DACA created a new classification of those authorized to be in the country in direct contravention of federal law. A president's duty is to enforce or execute the law, not create new laws via executive order. The United States is no better than a dictatorship if a president can unilaterally create new laws by executive order.

Again, dreamers ought to be given legal status, but that must be via Congressional legislation, not an executive order.

[kyxu]

The United States Code clearly defines who is entitled to enter or remain in the country legally and who is entitled to become a naturalized citizen. DACA created a new classification of those authorized to be in the country in direct contravention of federal law. A president's duty is to enforce or execute the law, not create new laws via executive order. The United States is no better than a dictatorship if a president can unilaterally create new laws by executive order.

Again, dreamers ought to be given legal status, but that must be via Congressional legislation, not an executive order.

That's the thing, DACA doesn't do any of what you say it does here. It doesn't "entitle" or "legalize" anything. It doesn't give legal status, merely defers deportation for certain individuals. Article II of the Constitution gives the President ultimate authority to carry out federal law, so it is within the President's authority to prioritize removal for certain categories of individuals out of the interests of national security or allocation of government resources.

[Juice]

That's the thing, DACA doesn't do any of what you say it does here. It doesn't "entitle" or "legalize" anything. It doesn't give legal status, merely defers deportation for certain individuals. Article II of the Constitution gives the President ultimate authority to carry out federal law, so it is within the President's authority to prioritize removal for certain categories of individuals out of the interests of national security or allocation of government resources.

That's a stretch.

That's some commerce clause level stretching there.

[Caf]

An executive order is basically saying, "I'm smarter than you-ooo".

Yah and I'm smart too, so maybe the President isnt smarter

[kyxu]

That's a stretch.

That's some commerce clause level stretching there.

I mean, I guess. The president is the head of the executive branch, which carries out and executes federal law. From an immigration standpoint, the president has often exercised the authority to prioritize immigration enforcement. That's essentially what DACA is.

[Caf]

I mean, I guess. The president is the head of the executive branch, which carries out and executes federal law. From an immigration standpoint, the president has often exercised the authority to prioritize immigration enforcement. That's essentially what DACA is.

so muslim ban is cool?

[kyxu]

so muslim ban is cool?

Well, the difference with the travel ban was that it was found to target a specific religion, which is unconstitutional.

[Juice]

Well, the difference with the travel ban was that it was found to target a specific religion, which is unconstitutional.

It sure didn't. Read the executive order. The countries specified were those from an executive order by Obama. So Obama "targeted" a specific religion.

[kyxu]

It sure didn't. Read the executive order. The countries specified were those from an executive order by Obama. So Obama "targeted" a specific religion.

Except a federal court didn't look at the language of the executive order exclusively. They looked in part at the administration's statements referring to it as a "Muslim ban".

[Lamont Sanford]

It sure didn't. Read the executive order. The countries specified were those from an executive order by Obama. So Obama "targeted" a specific religion.

Something a lot of you whiny liberal leftists forget/refuse to accept.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Something a lot of you whiny liberal leftists forget/refuse to accept.

So it's comments like this that absolutely infuriate me, and yes my comment is meant to great offense if you take it that way which you should.

Only absolute morons fully back 100% of their preferred candidate, if that is you I am sorry but you are a fool to the Nth degree. I liked Obama, he did some great things, some good things, and for sure did some crappy things. That ban was a crappy thing, I don't care which President signed it.

You name call so will I, it's the POT racist right that can't seem to understand they don't have to fully back their horse when he does or says something incredibly stupid and wrong. It's alright to criticize and find fault in the guy you backed.

[Smails]

So it's comments like this that absolutely infuriate me, and yes my comment is meant to great offense if you take it that way which you should.

Only absolute morons fully back 100% of their preferred candidate

Do the same rules apply when discussing black support for BHO and his candidacy/ presidency?

[Caf]

Do the same rules apply when discussing black support for BHO and his candidacy/ presidency?

appreciate you for including the H. People forget ;)

[ArizonaXUGrad]

appreciate you for including the H. People forget ;)

First blind support of any candidate is idiotic, second who cares about what the man's name is. After all, "What's in a name".

[Smails]

appreciate you for including the H. People forget ;)

Thank you for your appreciation! I would say BO, but that's short for body odor. I just figured that BHO had a better ring to it, you know, like JFK, FDR, LBJ. Strange the way people include the middle initial like that...no?

[Lamont Sanford]

So it's comments like this that absolutely infuriate me, and yes my comment is meant to great offense if you take it that way which you should.



Which part infuriated you most? "Whiny"? "Liberal"? Or "leftist"? (Just curious for future reference.)

Have a day.

[muskienick]

Whichever side of the freaking political fence you may stand, there's no reason to throw verbal stones across the barbed wire. There's nothing wrong with 'Liberal,' 'Conservative,' 'Left Wing,' or 'Right Wing.' But to use terms like 'Whiny' or 'Libtard' or 'Nazi' (as it relates to a Republican) or the like is not a bit constructive.

Look, I know that nothing anybody says on this board is going to effect any change in the political minds of other readers. But if you are here because you're a Xavier fan, it's obvious that you have higher than average intelligence. That even extends to MOR who likely is checking his outdoor thermometer at this minute to see if the reading can help him convince others on this board that climate change (in the form of Global Warming) is "fake news." Nobody in my memory of reading this or any earlier version of a Muskie BB chat board has experienced an "Epiphany" that caused her or him to do an about-face on any matter of faith or science or politics.

So, if we have to use words to describe "the other guys," please use ones that are not insulting or otherwise nasty in any way.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Which part infuriated you most? "Whiny"? "Liberal"? Or "leftist"? (Just curious for future reference.)

Have a day.

No uncertain terms, you are a moron and a fool for backing your guy 100% of the time. Guess what, nobody is perfect and certainly least of all the current POTUS.

It's also a moronic statement to say, well your guy wanted to do something wrong so when my guy did the same thing wrong that makes it alright. This is logic a 10 year might use after getting busted for something.

[ron meXico]

No uncertain terms, you are a moron and a fool for backing your guy 100% of the time. Guess what, nobody is perfect and certainly least of all the current POTUS.

It's also a moronic statement to say, well your guy wanted to do something wrong so when my guy did the same thing wrong that makes it alright. This is logic a 10 year might use after getting busted for something.

What is it with you and the name calling? You called someone a bigot a while back and now you call this guy a moron.
Shame - Shame - Shame

[Sonoran Desert Muskie]

That's the thing, DACA doesn't do any of what you say it does here. It doesn't "entitle" or "legalize" anything. It doesn't give legal status, merely defers deportation for certain individuals. Article II of the Constitution gives the President ultimate authority to carry out federal law, so it is within the President's authority to prioritize removal for certain categories of individuals out of the interests of national security or allocation of government resources.

There's a big difference between a president informing CBP and ICE that due to budgetary and staffing issues Dreamers should not be detained or deported and the president not only suspending deportations but also requiring ICE to accept applications from Dreamers and issue them work permits that allow them to remain the country and work here. The former is a valid exercise of the presidential executive authority. The latter legalizes Dreamers (albeit temporarily) and not only contravenes federal law it requires federal employees to violate it.

By your interpretation of executive authority, the president can do whatever the hell he feels is necessary to carry out his agenda.

[kyxu]

There's a big difference between a president informing CBP and ICE that due to budgetary and staffing issues Dreamers should not be detained or deported and the president not only suspending deportations but also requiring ICE to accept applications from Dreamers and issue them work permits that allow them to remain the country and work here. The former is a valid exercise of the presidential executive authority. The latter legalizes Dreamers (albeit temporarily) and not only contravenes federal law it requires federal employees to violate it.

By your interpretation of executive authority, the president can do whatever the hell he feels is necessary to carry out his agenda.

For the 1000th time, DACA provides no legal status. In fact, at any time, DHS has the authority to issue a notice to appear to a DACA recipient, placing the individual in deportation proceedings.

[bobbiemcgee]

For the 1000th time, DACA provides no legal status. In fact, at any time, DHS has the authority to issue a notice to appear to a DACA recipient, placing the individual in deportation proceedings.

Anytime?


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about - No action!
7:42 AM - Sep 7, 2017

[kyxu]

Anytime?


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about - No action!
7:42 AM - Sep 7, 2017

I'm interested to hear what you think this means.

[bobbiemcgee]

Well, it sounds likes those covered by DACA cannot be deported during the next 6 months and have protection from the POTUS, but then the guy is a chronic and habitual liar, so you might be right.

[kyxu]

Well, it sounds likes those covered by DACA cannot be deported during the next 6 months and have protection from the POTUS, but then the guy is a chronic and habitual liar, so you might be right.

Right. First, he can't protect them from deportation, just as Obama could not without change in the law. Second, he said initially that he wouldn't touch DACA, and he's since rescinded it. I think we all know Trump's tweets aren't worth the buffalo shit on a nickel.

[Sonoran Desert Muskie]

For the 1000th time, DACA provides no legal status. In fact, at any time, DHS has the authority to issue a notice to appear to a DACA recipient, placing the individual in deportation proceedings.

For the 10,000th time, DACA gave Dreamers legal status. Once Dreamers applied for and were approved, they could legally reside in the U.S. (hence, legal status) for 2 years, they received federal work permits, etc. It's no different than visa holders who have legal status for a set duration. Visa holders can be deported if they, for example, commit a crime while in U.S. Same with Dreamers. The fact that Dreamers could be deported during the 2 years doesn't mean they lack legal status. DACA was not a path to citizenship, but it is a temporary legal status.

Title 8 defines those people who are entitled to enter or remain in the country and those who may become naturalized. Dreamers are not included and they are only legally permitted to remain in the country because of DACA. Obama for all practical purposes amended Title 8 via a presidential order. Title 8 should be amended to include Dreamers, but that must be done by Congress, not presidential order.

[kyxu]

For the 10,000th time, DACA gave Dreamers legal status. Once Dreamers applied for and were approved, they could legally reside in the U.S. (hence, legal status) for 2 years, they received federal work permits, etc. It's no different than visa holders who have legal status for a set duration. Visa holders can be deported if they, for example, commit a crime while in U.S. Same with Dreamers. The fact that Dreamers could be deported during the 2 years doesn't mean they lack legal status. DACA was not a path to citizenship, but it is a temporary legal status.


https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

From USCIS web site: Deferred action does not provide lawful status.

DACA is VERY different from holding a visa status. Visa holders cannot be deported at any time. There must be an otherwise lawful reason for their removal. DACA recipients can be removed at any time because they are already unlawfully present in the United States, subject to deportation.

[BandAid]

Fuck it. Build a wall.

I'm drunk. I love you guys.

[Sonoran Desert Muskie]

False. Granted, no one in the country legally can be deported for no reason, but a visa holder, green card holder, etc. can be deported if they, for example, commit an aggravated felony. 8 USC 1227.

The only reason DHS said DACA did not confer legal status is because of the presidential order and to make it appear to be a constitutional. DHS had to take that position once Obama entered the presidential order. If not, they would be blatantly violating federal law when they granted the Dreamers applications and gave them work permits. Just because DHS at one time said it did not provide legal status does not make it so. As the 5th Circuit held, DACA was unconstitutional and it violated Title 8 because Obama unilaterally created a new class of undocumented immigrants who could not be deported. Don't take my word for it or DHS's opinion. Just read the federal appellate court decision.

[LA Muskie]

The executive branch has broad authority to determine what crimes to enforce. It also has broad authority over national security issues. And the 5th Circuit decision did not enjoin DACA expansion on constitutional grounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bjf123]

The executive branch has broad authority to determine what crimes to enforce. It also has broad authority over national security issues. And the 5th Circuit decision did not enjoin DACA expansion on constitutional grounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently, Obama thought that authority applied to anything he wanted. If I remember correctly, when the employer mandate part of Obamacare was to go into effect, per the law passed by Congress, he unilaterally deferred enforcement from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015, which conveniently delayed this burden on small businesses and their employees to after the mid term elections. That deferral should have been passed by Congress, not executive fiat.

Using this logic, couldn't President Trump decide that if he can't get the tax reform he'd like, he can simply tell the IRS not to enforce the top tax rate and let people calculate their tax liability using the other rates?

Yes, I understand this is a bit of hyperbole, but the point is valid. Our government, regardless of who's in charge, is seriously fucked up.

[BandAid]

Fuck it. Build a wall.

I'm drunk. I love you guys.

Being drunk is not the time to apply large policy decisions, but at least I wasn't as long-winded as Snipe!

[Snipe]

I think Republicans should put their own Dream Act together. It should include funding for the border wall and immigration enforcement.

Also, if the kids shouldn't be liable for the crime of their parents, that doesn't excuse the crime of their parents.

Father Graham spoke of some Xavier students and their ability to improve their lives and strengthen our society. I agree with that, especially strengthening our society. I would look at Dreamers on a case by case basis, and see if they are strengthening our society. Are Dreamers that are adults paying taxes? Are they receiving government benefits? Have they spent some time in jail? It should be relatively easy to get a lot of hard data.

I would also be interested in the opportunity cost of having dreamers attend Xavier. Are they on scholarship? Are they paying their own way? It seems to me that it is doubtful they are all paying their own way. Xavier is a private university, and they can do as they please. But every scholarship extended is one that can't go to a poor African American family. If I were to choose, I would be on the side of Americans, especially African Americans. I feel society has more debt to families of former slaves than someone who just arrived illegally. It is a problem that needs to be sorted out quickly, with the looming death of Affirmative Action. When 85% of immigrants qualify for special treatment we are harming a system that was designed to help Blacks and American Indians. It is sad to see it going away for people that don't have the same standing.

Many of these "Dreamer" people are in their 30s. We should be able to get a pretty good picture of their contributions to our society. I think we can all agree that successful people that are paying taxes should be allowed to stay. You don't want to take away productive people who are strengthening our society by working and contributing more in taxes than they take from the public trough.

Likewise, if immigrants are here to access welfare benefits, we need to show them the door. Obama allowed dreamers to get EIC credits, and file retroactively. Some of those families got checks in excess of $15,000 from the American taxpayer. Our immigration system was never intended to take in people who are public charges. They strain the social safety nets of working class Americans, especially working class Black Americans. For a nation that is 20 trillion in debt, the last thing we need is to be letting in third world immigrants to access our welfare system. That isn't coming for the American dream, unless they view the American dream as being on Welfare.

Likewise, we can check the criminal backgrounds and voting records of all of these people before we let them in. Obviously they shouldn't have a voting record, and that would be a bad strike.

Just granting amnesty to a whole class of people is a bad idea. I think the deserving cases should be able to be heard, and I am compassionate for them. I would like to keep the productive cream of the crop and give them the American dream. We are under no obligation to let people stay who have already become public charges.

I think this is a reasonable accommodation, and it is time to come together and get this done in a sensible way.

[Snipe]

As could be expected, DACA is a contentious issue out here in Arizona. These law-abiding kids deserve a pathway to legalization or citizenship, but Trumpster is correct that it must come from Congress not via executive order. That being said, I hope a Congress does not reward the parents of these kids who illegally brought them to the U.S. or kept them in the U.S. like Obama did with DAPA. The parents/wrongdoers should not benefit and should not be included in any new legislation.

That is a sensible request. Those parents put us in a difficult situation, and unlike the children, they knew full well what they were doing. They shouldn't be rewarded.

Now I would still be inclined to make some exceptions to the rule. Say the guy owns a business and employs 10 people, pays taxes and has no criminal history. If he is a tax payer instead of a tax taker, and he has created all those jobs, well I say money talks and bullshit walks, Welcome to America!

Take the cream and send the rest back to there home countries. They aren't our problem. Taking them in will only cut and dilute resources from our poor Black communities, among others. I would rather have those resources dedicated to African Americans. It seems most White people seem to choose Hispanics over Blacks, and I don't get that.

[Snipe]

We also need for Trump to put in an Executive Order against Birthright Citizenship. What a scam that is. The birth tourism industry openly advertises. Make an Executive order against it and make that order retroactive. The rest of the world doesn't do it, and we shouldn't either. End it don't mend it!

[paulxu]

You could always go the Kushner route.
Give his company $500k and get a green card.

[Snipe]

Picking a date looks to be a problem too.

The Dream Act was never passed, picking the date may have been a big part of that. It was first proposed in 2001, and it protected people that have been here before 1996. I don't think we will be staying at 1996.

Obama did DACA in June of 2012. He went back 5 years to 2007. If you came in 2008 you were not eligible. But if you came here with your 16 year old child the day after Obama did DACA in 2012 you would now be passed the five years and your 21 year old adult child would be eligible. He would be a "Dreamer", and you "can't make his dreams illegal".

Even if they were caught for being illegal and skipped the court date, that adult child would be an eligible "Dreamer". Even if they were ordered to be deported in a court of law, as long as you skipped out and stayed in the US, the 21 year old "Dreamer" would now be eligible.

So even if we catch you, you can get court dates and blow them off, and after awhile you can say "Hey, I have been here five years!" Obviously some people are reasonably skeptical of the whole process, and how it incentivizes people to break the law.

Some of these people invariably live in public housing, like Obama's "Aunti Zeituni". Untold thousands of illegal immigrants live in public housing. She went to court and was ordered to leave. Six years later they found her in public housing. Somewhere there is one or more American families that didn't get housing because of her. I think that Americans waiting on the lists for public housing are getting the shaft, and many of them are African Americans.

What originally was a date of 1996 is going to be when? What date do you draw the line at? What if we caught them and ordered them all deported already but they ignored the law? Will people that came after Obama's 2007 be allowed to stay? Will people that came even after Obama made the policy in 2012 be allowed to stay? Will people that come tomorrow be allowed to stay? And will our new "compromise" encourage more people to arrive the next day?

Pick a date! Somebody will hate you and call you a racist for doing it.

[Caf]

I think Republicans should put their own Dream Act together. It should include funding for the border wall and immigration enforcement.

Also, if the kids shouldn't be liable for the crime of their parents, that doesn't excuse the crime of their parents.

Father Graham spoke of some Xavier students and their ability to improve their lives and strengthen our society. I agree with that, especially strengthening our society. I would look at Dreamers on a case by case basis, and see if they are strengthening our society. Are Dreamers that are adults paying taxes? Are they receiving government benefits? Have they spent some time in jail? It should be relatively easy to get a lot of hard data.

I would also be interested in the opportunity cost of having dreamers attend Xavier. Are they on scholarship? Are they paying their own way? It seems to me that it is doubtful they are all paying their own way. Xavier is a private university, and they can do as they please. But every scholarship extended is one that can't go to a poor African American family. If I were to choose, I would be on the side of Americans, especially African Americans. I feel society has more debt to families of former slaves than someone who just arrived illegally. It is a problem that needs to be sorted out quickly, with the looming death of Affirmative Action. When 85% of immigrants qualify for special treatment we are harming a system that was designed to help Blacks and American Indians. It is sad to see it going away for people that don't have the same standing.

Many of these "Dreamer" people are in their 30s. We should be able to get a pretty good picture of their contributions to our society. I think we can all agree that successful people that are paying taxes should be allowed to stay. You don't want to take away productive people who are strengthening our society by working and contributing more in taxes than they take from the public trough.

Likewise, if immigrants are here to access welfare benefits, we need to show them the door. Obama allowed dreamers to get EIC credits, and file retroactively. Some of those families got checks in excess of $15,000 from the American taxpayer. Our immigration system was never intended to take in people who are public charges. They strain the social safety nets of working class Americans, especially working class Black Americans. For a nation that is 20 trillion in debt, the last thing we need is to be letting in third world immigrants to access our welfare system. That isn't coming for the American dream, unless they view the American dream as being on Welfare.

Likewise, we can check the criminal backgrounds and voting records of all of these people before we let them in. Obviously they shouldn't have a voting record, and that would be a bad strike.

Just granting amnesty to a whole class of people is a bad idea. I think the deserving cases should be able to be heard, and I am compassionate for them. I would like to keep the productive cream of the crop and give them the American dream. We are under no obligation to let people stay who have already become public charges.

I think this is a reasonable accommodation, and it is time to come together and get this done in a sensible way.

That is a sensible request. Those parents put us in a difficult situation, and unlike the children, they knew full well what they were doing. They shouldn't be rewarded.

Now I would still be inclined to make some exceptions to the rule. Say the guy owns a business and employs 10 people, pays taxes and has no criminal history. If he is a tax payer instead of a tax taker, and he has created all those jobs, well I say money talks and bullshit walks, Welcome to America!

Take the cream and send the rest back to there home countries. They aren't our problem. Taking them in will only cut and dilute resources from our poor Black communities, among others. I would rather have those resources dedicated to African Americans. It seems most White people seem to choose Hispanics over Blacks, and I don't get that.

We also need for Trump to put in an Executive Order against Birthright Citizenship. What a scam that is. The birth tourism industry openly advertises. Make an Executive order against it and make that order retroactive. The rest of the world doesn't do it, and we shouldn't either. End it don't mend it!


Picking a date looks to be a problem too.

The Dream Act was never passed, picking the date may have been a big part of that. It was first proposed in 2001, and it protected people that have been here before 1996. I don't think we will be staying at 1996.

Obama did DACA in June of 2012. He went back 5 years to 2007. If you came in 2008 you were not eligible. But if you came here with your 16 year old child the day after Obama did DACA in 2012 you would now be passed the five years and your 21 year old adult child would be eligible. He would be a "Dreamer", and you "can't make his dreams illegal".

Even if they were caught for being illegal and skipped the court date, that adult child would be an eligible "Dreamer". Even if they were ordered to be deported in a court of law, as long as you skipped out and stayed in the US, the 21 year old "Dreamer" would now be eligible.

So even if we catch you, you can get court dates and blow them off, and after awhile you can say "Hey, I have been here five years!" Obviously some people are reasonably skeptical of the whole process, and how it incentivizes people to break the law.

Some of these people invariably live in public housing, like Obama's "Aunti Zeituni". Untold thousands of illegal immigrants live in public housing. She went to court and was ordered to leave. Six years later they found her in public housing. Somewhere there is one or more American families that didn't get housing because of her. I think that Americans waiting on the lists for public housing are getting the shaft, and many of them are African Americans.

What originally was a date of 1996 is going to be when? What date do you draw the line at? What if we caught them and ordered them all deported already but they ignored the law? Will people that came after Obama's 2007 be allowed to stay? Will people that came even after Obama made the policy in 2012 be allowed to stay? Will people that come tomorrow be allowed to stay? And will our new "compromise" encourage more people to arrive the next day?

Pick a date! Somebody will hate you and call you a racist for doing it.

Didn't read lol