• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Do We Get Rid of DACA?

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
26,115
Reaction score
4,363
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Given Trumps offer to not try to rescind DACA for three years if the Dems agree to border control funding, it leads me to an interesting question about the status of DACA. How do we get rid of such that the court wont object?

Lets assume DHS actually did have the authority to defer deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegals (via DHS memo, not Executive Order). And that DHS recision 5 years later was arbitrary and thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as the court claimed.

Ok, so the court wont let it die, and the SC wont hear the appeal. The congress wont pass any laws legalizing the "Dreamers". How do we then get rid of the policy such that it is not done in an arbitrary way? Propose to rescind it on valid grounds, have hearings for 6 months, and then do it? Would the 9th circus allow that? What if we just stop taking new applicants and allow the existing to continue staying here? Would the courts allow no new deferments?
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
51,711
Reaction score
13,517
Given Trumps offer to not try to rescind DACA for three years if the Dems agree to border control funding, it leads me to an interesting question about the status of DACA. How do we get rid of such that the court wont object?

Lets assume DHS actually did have the authority to defer deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegals (via DHS memo, not Executive Order). And that DHS recision 5 years later was arbitrary and thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as the court claimed.

Ok, so the court wont let it die, and the SC wont hear the appeal. The congress wont pass any laws legalizing the "Dreamers". How do we then get rid of the policy such that it is not done in an arbitrary way? Propose to rescind it on valid grounds, have hearings for 6 months, and then do it? Would the 9th circus allow that? What if we just stop taking new applicants and allow the existing to continue staying here? Would the courts allow no new deferments?
Replace Ginsburg and Breyer with conservative justices

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
26,115
Reaction score
4,363
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just get rid of it. It's unconstitutional, anyway.
 

Myview

Active member
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
439
Reaction score
145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
DACA will be in force until Democrats are firmly in control of all levers of government. Republicans will never do anything but kick the can down the road. If the Republicans wanted to do anything about immigration they would have done it when they had control of all the levers. It doesn't serve Republican interests to do any thing about immigration other than hinder all forms of it.
 

JayJay

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
74
Location
State of Independence
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I can agree with the dubious way in which it came about, but my question would be why we want to get rid of it?

Many of the Dreamers have pretty much spent their entire lives here...this is essentially the only country they’ve ever known.

Why would you want to send them back to a country they don’t know and have never really experienced?

(I know that doesn’t fit all the Dreamers...they can talked about in a future discussion).
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump should ignore the courts. They have no jurisdiction to rule on the matter. Maybe SCOTUS, but I would question their authority to compel the executive to continue a previous executive ‘policy’.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can agree with the dubious way in which it came about, but my question would be why we want to get rid of it?

Many of the Dreamers have pretty much spent their entire lives here...this is essentially the only country they’ve ever known.

Why would you want to send them back to a country they don’t know and have never really experienced?

(I know that doesn’t fit all the Dreamers...they can talked about in a future discussion).

If I found out someone was living in my house rent free for decades, I’d still kick them out. It has nothing to do with them, or what they know, or what’s comfortable for them. Screw them. It’s about the people they are and have been victimizing. Just because some might be OK with being victimized doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be OK with it.
 

NebraskaFtball

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
343
Reaction score
261
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can agree with the dubious way in which it came about, but my question would be why we want to get rid of it?

Many of the Dreamers have pretty much spent their entire lives here...this is essentially the only country they’ve ever known.

Why would you want to send them back to a country they don’t know and have never really experienced?

(I know that doesn’t fit all the Dreamers...they can talked about in a future discussion).

It fits the lion’s share of them though. The average age of DACA recipients as of last year that were in the program was 1st grade age upon being brought here.
 

NebraskaFtball

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
343
Reaction score
261
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If I found out someone was living in my house rent free for decades, I’d still kick them out. It has nothing to do with them, or what they know, or what’s comfortable for them. Screw them. It’s about the people they are and have been victimizing. Just because some might be OK with being victimized doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be OK with it.

Who have DACA recipients been victimizing?
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
60,997
Reaction score
53,966
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Replace Ginsburg and Breyer with conservative justices

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Thank you for helping demonstrate the obvious already known-fact that any conservative braying about "originalist" vs. "activist" judges is lying out both corners of his ass and in fact really just wants justices who work the political results his ideology demands.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
87,390
Reaction score
73,932
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump should ignore the courts. They have no jurisdiction to rule on the matter. Maybe SCOTUS, but I would question their authority to compel the executive to continue a previous executive ‘policy’.

What you just posted is that...

One politician should ignore the law and courts.

Would you say the same thing about Hillary? Or a criminal?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
18,507
Reaction score
12,519
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If I found out someone was living in my house rent free for decades, I’d still kick them out. It has nothing to do with them, or what they know, or what’s comfortable for them. Screw them. It’s about the people they are and have been victimizing. Just because some might be OK with being victimized doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be OK with it.

You should look up "Adverse Possession." There is a reason why for centuries courts have sided with squatters in long term situations. You may think you are entitled to do as you please to anyone who happens to step foot on your legal property, but the reality is that their human rights far outweigh your property rights. And that's how it should be.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
60,997
Reaction score
53,966
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Lets assume DHS actually did have the authority to defer deportation

Assume?

Anyone who doesn't know about the constant use of prosecutorial and executive discretion in this country by state and federal officials alike has nothing to say on this subject.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
60,997
Reaction score
53,966
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You should look up "Adverse Possession." There is a reason why for centuries courts have sided with squatters in long term situations. You may think you are entitled to do as you please to anyone who happens to step foot on your legal property, but the reality is that their human rights far outweigh your property rights. And that's how it should be.

Adverse possession is about knowing abandonment of property rights by the owner, not a placement of "human rights" above property rights.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
18,507
Reaction score
12,519
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Adverse possession is about knowing abandonment of property rights by the owner, not a placement of "human rights" above property rights.

Not necessarily. A property need not have been knowingly abandoned. All that's required is that the squatter have lived there uninterrupted without permission for the minimum statutory time. And the reason why that law exists is because it is assumed in those cases that the squatter has through constant care made the property more of a home to herself than the legal owner has to himself.

I'm not suggesting the law applies to Dreamer cases, but the reason for it does.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,882
Reaction score
52,566
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Given Trumps offer to not try to rescind DACA for three years if the Dems agree to border control funding, it leads me to an interesting question about the status of DACA. How do we get rid of such that the court wont object?

Lets assume DHS actually did have the authority to defer deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegals (via DHS memo, not Executive Order). And that DHS recision 5 years later was arbitrary and thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as the court claimed.

Ok, so the court wont let it die, and the SC wont hear the appeal. The congress wont pass any laws legalizing the "Dreamers". How do we then get rid of the policy such that it is not done in an arbitrary way? Propose to rescind it on valid grounds, have hearings for 6 months, and then do it? Would the 9th circus allow that? What if we just stop taking new applicants and allow the existing to continue staying here? Would the courts allow no new deferments?

In theory, since it was implemented via executive order, not legislation, it could also be repealed via executive order. However, we have certain activists in the judiciary who are twisting the laws to give their benefactors on the left a reason to keep inviting them to cocktail parties
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
60,997
Reaction score
53,966
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not necessarily. A property need not have been knowingly abandoned. All that's required is that the squatter have lived there uninterrupted without permission for the minimum statutory time. And the reason why that law exists is because it is assumed in those cases that the squatter has through constant care made the property more of a home to herself than the legal owner has to himself.

I'm not suggesting the law applies to Dreamer cases, but the reason for it does.

Yeah I just love being told I'm wrong when I know for a fact I'm right. Love it. Fine, I'll dig out my old property law textbook: Here's part of the opening explanatory paragraph (I'm not going through the whole 50 pages of caselaw snippets):

"An unprivileged entry on property possessed by another is a trespass. When, however, one possesses another's property in a manner that is exclusive, visible ("open and notorious"), continuous, and without the owner's permission ("adverse or hostile") for a period defined by state statute, the rules in force transfer title from the title holder (the "true" or "record" owner) to the adverse possessor. If possession lasts for more than the period defined by the relevant statute of limitations, the owner is barred from bringing an action in ejectment against the possessor."





So, yes, it is about knowing abandonment of property rights, and no, it has nothing to do with "human rights".

I'm not paging through the next 50 pages of caselaw snippets because I now I am 100% correct. The only variations you'll find are in quirks about specific state laws. But yes, KNOWING. Or if you like "visible ("open and notorious")"
 

JayJay

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
74
Location
State of Independence
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
If I found out someone was living in my house rent free for decades, I’d still kick them out. It has nothing to do with them, or what they know, or what’s comfortable for them. Screw them. It’s about the people they are and have been victimizing. Just because some might be OK with being victimized doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be OK with it.

They were brought here, by and large, as small kids, by their parents.

They have been hard-working and are not “victimizing” anyone.

Ridiculous to say they’re “not American” when America is all they’ve known.

If you were born in New York City, but only lived there a day and then spent the rest of your life in Idaho, would you really say you were a New Yorker?
 

NebraskaFtball

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
343
Reaction score
261
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Every American Citizen and legal resident.

In what regard? Can you expound on this? The DACA recipients that are currently serving in the Military, for example. Let's start there. How are these young men and women serving in uniform victimizing every American and legal resident?
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
26,115
Reaction score
4,363
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I can agree with the dubious way in which it came about, but my question would be why we want to get rid of it?

Many of the Dreamers have pretty much spent their entire lives here...this is essentially the only country they’ve ever known.

Why would you want to send them back to a country they don’t know and have never really experienced?

(I know that doesn’t fit all the Dreamers...they can talked about in a future discussion).

Because its against the law. It says that anyone who is brought here as a child and manages to escape notice for long enough can apply for deportation deferment. Is that really a policy we need or want to have on the books forever? No one is saying send them back. Theyre saying make their status permanent through congressional law making.
 
Top Bottom