Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Both the rough gist of what it's meant to do, and how it got here. Was it merely an Obama EO? Was it strictly a law? Or was it a law with a nominal drop dead date that was extended indefinitely by an Obama EO?

I heard a clip earlier this week of Sessions claiming that DACA is an "overreach." How does he mean that? If it was strictly an EO, I could definitely see the overreach there. If it was a permanent law, then how can a Trump EO scuttle it? If it was a time-limited law extended by EO, then I could see a LITTLE bit of an overreach there, but not as much as the other. There was a PBS discussion (or maybe it was NPR; my Air1 station often bleeds over into NPR) earlier this week where one of the analysts stated that a "middle course" for Trump would be to place a drop-dead date on DACA, and thereby force the Congress to take action to make the program permanent. It seems like that's what Trump actually did. If that's the case, what's the prob on the left? If the Congress DOES pass that law, the implication is that Trump will actually sign it. Heck, there seems to be enough GOP backing for DACA now that Congress could conceivably even override a Trump veto, though it doesn't look as if he will do that. How is that a bad thing?

The left generally opposes border security AND they oppose kicking people out of the country who have entered illegally.

I like asking border doves if they think we should have borders at all.

Not an expert, but my understanding is President Obama initiated through executive order (or maybe just a policy change) when the "dreamer" act was consistently not passed by Congress. For me, the issue is a lot like the legal aspects of abortion( note I said legal). I generally support abortion( with a good deal of trepidation) but think Roe vs Wade has to rank as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. So here, I generally support the goals of DACA, but it never should have been done by presidential dictate (the respect for rule of law issues are a continually expanding issue in this country). I am hopeful this is one thing Trump gets right and ending DACA will force Congress to pass a fair law that accomplishes the same thing.

CID1990 wrote:The left generally opposes border security AND they oppose kicking people out of the country who have entered illegally.

I like asking border doves if they think we should have borders at all.

Sure we should have borders and of course we should make them jump through the requisite hoops.

But some of the nuances seem to be avoiding the right, like they always do.

From what I read these aren't people who came with the intention of entering illegally, they were carried here in diapers, grew up speaking English, and have kept their noses clean so there is the "sins of the father angle". More importantly, they contribute to Social Security while they're ineligible to draw from it so they're giving ol houndawg a helping hand unlike the scum in Congress who fap with vigor at the thought of stealing all that public money.

Let them stay but increase their SS contributions.

Trump actually did the people covered by DACA a favor. Obama, frustrated by Congressional inaction on the issue, which is the norm in today's world, made DACA by EO. Technically this wasn't very legal at all & Trump acted because 10 state Attorney General's were set to go to court to throw DACA out, which is exactly what would've happened if it went the legal route. There would've been no 6 month delay like now, so essentially Trump bought them time & put the onus back where it belongs - Congress.

All that being said, I have complete confidence that Congress will not pass new legislation & 6 months from now there will be chaos.....

CID1990 wrote:The left generally opposes border security AND they oppose kicking people out of the country who have entered illegally.

I like asking border doves if they think we should have borders at all.

As long as they aren't being deported while Congress comes to some sort of agreement, I don't think it's a big deal.

I don't see how that's supposed to happen in practice, though.

No chance in hell Congress does a thing about this in an election year, regardless of it affecting only 0.002% of the population.

Skjellyfetti wrote:As long as they aren't being deported while Congress comes to some sort of agreement, I don't think it's a big deal.

I don't see how that's supposed to happen in practice, though.

Both sides will make it a big deal - neither side has ever really been focused on doing anything other than scoring soundbites/Facebook memes/etc on the other side. Reasonable people should be able to come up with some compromise that protects people who are here and are responsible future-citizens while coming up with a system that deters people from coming here illegally (i.e. by setting up a clear path on how to immigrate here and to make that window large enough to let in a good amount of people). But we don't have reasonable people in D.C. and haven't had them for awhile.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The left generally opposes border security AND they oppose kicking people out of the country who have entered illegally.

I like asking border doves if they think we should have borders at all.

Sure we should have borders and of course we should make them jump through the requisite hoops.

But some of the nuances seem to be avoiding the right, like they always do.

From what I read these aren't people who came with the intention of entering illegally, they were carried here in diapers, grew up speaking English, and have kept their noses clean so there is the "sins of the father angle". More importantly, they contribute to Social Security while they're ineligible to draw from it so they're giving ol houndawg a helping hand unlike the scum in Congress who fap with vigor at the thought of stealing all that public money.

Let them stay but increase their SS contributions.

And in turn the left can't answer a couple simple questions. Such as, if people know that if they get here, keep their noses clean and contribute to Social Security they can stay forever, won't more people be encouraged to come or stay illegally? I saw a congressman from Texas asked this question five times and all he kept saying is it's wrong to throw out the people already here. He refused to address the future implications.

I heard one idea of grandfathering those here now but then stopping cold turkey on any new cases. To me that seems to be the only logical way to compromise on this issue. But of course in 10-20 years, we'll have the same debate and people will be asking for grandfathering again. So where does that get us?

And sending a kid who came here as an infant back to Honduras... even though he doesn't speak Spanish and has no connections and no life in Honduras gets us where?

A good example of being "pro life" until they're born



The debate isn't over amnesty for all illegals. It's over children brought over before the age of 16.

Skjellyfetti wrote:And sending a kid who came here as an infant back to Honduras... even though he doesn't speak Spanish and has no connections and no life in Honduras gets us where?

A good example of being "pro life" until they're born



The debate isn't over amnesty for all illegals. It's over children brought over before the age of 16.

Example A.

Well, you're throwing out a strawman about granting amnesty to illegals wholesale. And, then complaining when someone wants to stick to what DACA actually is about.

Ok.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Well, you're throwing out a strawman about granting amnesty to illegals wholesale. And, then complaining when someone wants to stick to what DACA actually is about.

Ok.

No, I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that if they could get their kids here and they keep their noses clean and contribute to Social Security they can stay forever. IOW, a clear path to circumvent the system and an incentive to do so. I'm multitasking today and was careless on the explanation. Mea culpa.

Bottom line: DACA means to bring every illegal and all their families in for amnesty, along with any they can find along the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The left generally opposes border security AND they oppose kicking people out of the country who have entered illegally.

I like asking border doves if they think we should have borders at all.

Sure we should have borders and of course we should make them jump through the requisite hoops.

But some of the nuances seem to be avoiding the right, like they always do.

From what I read these aren't people who came with the intention of entering illegally, they were carried here in diapers, grew up speaking English, and have kept their noses clean so there is the "sins of the father angle". More importantly, they contribute to Social Security while they're ineligible to draw from it so they're giving ol houndawg a helping hand unlike the scum in Congress who fap with vigor at the thought of stealing all that public money.

Let them stay but increase their SS contributions.

I'm actually in favor of an amnesty for them - because sending them back really isn't a humane option

But DACA is the living, breathing billboard for better border security - we have been to this rodeo before- except Congressional Democrats in the 80s reneged on a deal to enhance border controls in return for Reagan's amnesty >>>> that is a fact.

And so here we are again. And we'll be here again in another 20 years

So when I ask border doves that question, the answer is always a variation on the one you gave, but it is a meaningless diversion - because IN PRACTICE, Democrats are for open borders

Jjoey52 wrote:Bottom line: DACA means to bring every illegal and all their families in for amnesty, along with any they can find along the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Sure we should have borders and of course we should make them jump through the requisite hoops.

But some of the nuances seem to be avoiding the right, like they always do.

From what I read these aren't people who came with the intention of entering illegally, they were carried here in diapers, grew up speaking English, and have kept their noses clean so there is the "sins of the father angle". More importantly, they contribute to Social Security while they're ineligible to draw from it so they're giving ol houndawg a helping hand unlike the scum in Congress who fap with vigor at the thought of stealing all that public money.

Let them stay but increase their SS contributions.

I'm actually in favor of an amnesty for them - because sending them back really isn't a humane option

But DACA is the living, breathing billboard for better border security - we have been to this rodeo before- except Congressional Democrats in the 80s reneged on a deal to enhance border controls in return for Reagan's amnesty >>>> that is a fact.

And so here we are again. And we'll be here again in another 20 years

So when I ask border doves that question, the answer is always a variation on the one you gave, but it is a meaningless diversion - because IN PRACTICE, Democrats are for open borders

IN PRACTICE Republicans control all three branches of government and SCOTUS and about three quarters of State legislatures.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I'm actually in favor of an amnesty for them - because sending them back really isn't a humane option

But DACA is the living, breathing billboard for better border security - we have been to this rodeo before- except Congressional Democrats in the 80s reneged on a deal to enhance border controls in return for Reagan's amnesty >>>> that is a fact.

And so here we are again. And we'll be here again in another 20 years

So when I ask border doves that question, the answer is always a variation on the one you gave, but it is a meaningless diversion - because IN PRACTICE, Democrats are for open borders

IN PRACTICE Republicans control all three branches of government and SCOTUS and about three quarters of State legislatures.

Yes - and they'll cave on border security because Hitler

give me a break with that weak sauce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
IN PRACTICE Republicans control all three branches of government and SCOTUS and about three quarters of State legislatures.

Yes - and they'll cave on border security because Hitler

give me a break with that weak sauce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How can we tell when they cave? Will they do something different than they're doing now?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Yes - and they'll cave on border security because Hitler

give me a break with that weak sauce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How can we tell when they cave? Will they do something different than they're doing now?

They've been in continual cave mode since 2008 - after 9 years it just looks like biz as usual


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
How can we tell when they cave? Will they do something different than they're doing now?

They've been in continual cave mode since 2008 - after 9 years it just looks like biz as usual


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong they have been in cave mode since 1988.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe a dumb question, and not my first.

If my folks were illegals and I was brought here in diapers and only know the US as my home, do I get an SS number? I saw some NBC news segment with a dreamer kid in college talking about how he could be sent back to his parent's country. How do you get a driver's license, register in public schools, get into college, etc. without somehow being in the system?

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a dumb question, and not my first.

If my folks were illegals and I was brought here in diapers and only know the US as my home, do I get an SS number? I saw some NBC news segment with a dreamer kid in college talking about how he could be sent back to his parent's country. How do you get a driver's license, register in public schools, get into college, etc. without somehow being in the system?

A successful DACA applicant can receive a social security number.

ASUG8 wrote:Maybe a dumb question, and not my first.

If my folks were illegals and I was brought here in diapers and only know the US as my home, do I get an SS number? I saw some NBC news segment with a dreamer kid in college talking about how he could be sent back to his parent's country. How do you get a driver's license, register in public schools, get into college, etc. without somehow being in the system?

This is DACA.

Illegals who entered the country under the age of 16 can apply for status - giving them everything you listed. They can work, study (though, not eligible for federal financial aid), get driver's licenses, etc. They also pay income taxes in addition to SS taxes. They're not eligible for ACA subsidies, Medicaid, etc. They're also not subject to ACA mandate. The status is good for two years and they have to reapply each time to check criminal history, etc.