Would the Dems have given in for a permanent solution for DACA

[ttwtt78640]

The cutoff was children here in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

That was the initial definition of a "dreamer". Later versions of DACA 'deals' expand that residency time period considerably. That initial (Obama DACA) applied only to those who would now be between 12 and 37 years of age. It was never fully explained how a 6 to 17 year old could manage to support themselves if their illegal immigrant parent/guardian is not also allowed to stay (DAPA?). Of course, it was also hard to explain why two foreign national children both brought into the US at age 3 but one day apart (6/15/2007 vs. 6/16/2007) were going to be treated completely differently under Obama's DACA.

 

[independentusa]

I doubt it. They've placed themselves in a box. They cannot make a deal. Doesn't matter what Trump is willing to give them.



The GOP would have been justified ending the deal simply for the fact that Obama didn't even take their opinions into consideration when he made it. In any case, it was Trump who ended the Iran deal.



I don't think he did. I think he made that deal to get them on record opposing his deal. It helps his justification when he finally declares a national emergency.

I think that you have things backward, Trump is the one in the box of his own making. No wall, no deal. And with a majority of Americans unwilling to spend 5.7 billion now and over 25 billion eventually on a wall that will do nothing to stop any of the problems on our border, why should the Dems give him the wall? And why did the GOP and Trump build the wall when they had the power? Maybe because they knew the country did not want a wall. Now they are using it as an excuse to gin up their base.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't know, and luckily, I don't have to come up with one. I'm not a lawmaker. That's up to them.

I thought the DACA minors were already here, and they stopped coming here about 10 years or so ago? I didn't know we had a new group of people who were defined by DACA. Maybe I missed all that news.

I am asking a very simple question. Why are two foreign national minors both having arrived in the US at age 3 but one day apart (6/15/2007 vs. 6/16/2007) gong to be treated completely differently? One, arriving a single day sooner than the other, is a "dreamer" (under the Obama definition) while the other is an illegal immigrant subject to deportation.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thanks for crapping the thread.
What is it with TDS and lack of emotional control that they just have to pop off on every subject whether they have something to add or not. Some people never get out of middle school.

A humorous (and fitting) analogy isn’t popping off. Stop being so sensitive.

 

[independentusa]

That was the initial definition of a "dreamer". Later versions of DACA 'deals' expand that residency time period considerably. That initial (Obama DACA) applied only to those who would now be between 12 and 37 years of age. It was never fully explained how a 6 to 17 year old could manage to support themselves if their illegal immigrant parent/guardian is not also allowed to stay (DAPA?). Of course, it was also hard to explain why two foreign national children both brought into the US at age 3 but one day apart (6/15/2007 vs. 6/16/2007) were going to be treated completely differently under Obama's DACA.

There always has to be a line drawn somewhere do you not think. Where would you draw the line in this case? I suspect the Obama administration asked themselves how they could save the most DACA people and still draw some support from the GOP and not turn off the public to the idea. For a majority of Americans, they want a solution to this problem that allows dreamers to stay in this country and eventually become citizens. The lates poll I could find says that 87% want them to stay.

 

[tres borrachos]

I am asking a very simple question. Why are two foreign national minors both having arrived in the US at age 3 but one day apart (6/15/2007 vs. 6/16/2007) gong to be treated completely differently? One, arriving a single day sooner than the other, is a "dreamer" (under the Obama definition) while the other is an illegal immigrant subject to deportation.

In order to be part of DACA, one would have to be here prior to 2007. That is a finite number of people already here, and your question about future DACA immigrants is irrelevant, unless you can show me that the definition of DACA has changed. Last I checked that 2007 date was still in place.

He can deal with those people in a permanent solution. Please, again, stop trying to engage me in what ifs or things that don't have anything to do with my posts.

 

[Lutherf]

Yeah air traffic controllers...who needs them ?

If you mean "who needs them to be federal employees" then I agree with you.

 

[independentusa]

A humorous (and fitting) analogy isn’t popping off. Stop being so sensitive.

I have found out that some people on this message board have no sense of humor, so just do not try.

 

[Mach]

He offered Pelosi everything she wanted except a permanent resolution to DACA and TPS. He did offer a 3 year extension during which time a permanent solution could be found. Furthermore, he dropped the demand for limiting sponsored visas and his demand for eliminating the visa lottery. It was a LOT if give on his part.

Nonsense.
Trump was fine with no wall.
Republican House was fine with no wall.
Republican Senate was fine with no wall.

Ann Coulter scared him into wanting it, and Mitch supported POTUS and hid from view.

Trump wants $5B wall and owns the shutdown .
Democrats want government open and negotiations on walls to occur outside of getting government back running.

Trump gave Pelosi nothing she wanted.
Pelosi gave Trump everything the Republican Senate gave Trump....including no wall.

 

[Lutherf]

Do you actually think that the GOP, Coulter, Fox News and Limbaugh would ever agree to a permanent deal on DACA. They are the power behind the power as we have seen. And he makes a deal, but will he and the GOP stick to it or start cutting things out of the deal once they get to legislation. The problem with always telling lies is then no one believes in what you say. So all of you trumpsters that have given him cover for his lies may actually be partly responsible for the Dems not agreeing to any deal until the government is back open.

You mean a deal like establishing a path to citizenship for individuals currently under the program and then getting rid of the program as a whole because the solution would mean it doesn't need to exist any more? Yeah, I think most Conservatives would agree with that provided there was a guarantee that we'd never need such a program again.

 

[independentusa]

If you mean "who needs them to be federal employees" then I agree with you.

As we have found with health care, increased privatization in some areas often leads to much higher costs and greater problems or both. Privatizing traffic controllers would not only lead to much higher costs, but could lead to companies holding our whole air travel system up to ransom. Not a good idea in my opinion.

 

[washunut]

Trump said that he was willing to keep from deporting DACA's for three years to get his wall built. That is the real deal between him and the Dems. I wonder if the Dems would have agreed if he made that permanent instead of just three years? I mean that the GOP ended the Iran deal because it was for "only" ten years. Did Trump actually think that the deal for three years on DACA would bring the dems to the table?

Really don't see an off ramp for either side. My prediction is that whichever side "loses" and allows the government to open and get nearly a million Federal workers to get paid will see a positive response in 2020.

 

[independentusa]

You mean a deal like establishing a path to citizenship for individuals currently under the program and then getting rid of the program as a whole because the solution would mean it doesn't need to exist any more? Yeah, I think most Conservatives would agree with that provided there was a guarantee that we'd never need such a program again.

I say, neither party should ever use a government shutdown for political gain again. Just like what you are asking about DACA, both of us know to never say never.

 

[independentusa]

Really don't see an off ramp for either side. My prediction is that whichever side "loses" and allows the government to open and get nearly a million Federal workers to get paid will see a positive response in 2020.

That is why I think that if he was smart McConnell should pass the bill from the House and let Trump take the heat. I think Trump might be forced to either sign or let it lay on his desk and get passed. McConnell who is low in the polls in Kentucky might come out the hero.

 

[notquiteright]

If you mean "who needs them to be federal employees" then I agree with you.

Reagan Republicans felt the Air Traffic Controllers needed to be federal employees back in the day... they went on strike for better pay and conditions, Reagan used a 1955 law to fire the ATCs who didn't go back to work. GOVERNMENT Unions are forbidden to strike.... eace

 

[ttwtt78640]

There always has to be a line drawn somewhere do you not think. Where would you draw the line in this case? I suspect the Obama administration asked themselves how they could save the most DACA people and still draw some support from the GOP and not turn off the public to the idea. For a majority of Americans, they want a solution to this problem that allows dreamers to stay in this country and eventually become citizens. The lates poll I could find says that 87% want them to stay.

The problem is that the definition of them will always be changing "out of compassion". Why not "draw the line" at none of them or all of them instead of some allegedly fixed (but incrementally expanding?) subset of them? Of course, it makes little sense to say that a 6 to 17 year old "dreamer" can stay but their illegal immigrant parent or guardian must be deported so DAPA gets added "out of compassion" and soon we are back to yet another endless round of amnesty for those (millions?) who "slipped trough the cracks".

 

[Lutherf]

As we have found with health care, increased privatization in some areas often leads to much higher costs and greater problems or both. Privatizing traffic controllers would not only lead to much higher costs, but could lead to companies holding our whole air travel system up to ransom. Not a good idea in my opinion.

I never cease to be amazed at the "logic" of nationalized services. You complain that privatized service such as air traffic control could bring the air travel industry to its knees yet ignore that one of the main reasons for wanting to end the government shutdown is that failing to do so could bring the air travel industry to its knees. I mean, how can you not see the logical disconnect in that?

The airline industry, which has a MASSIVE interest in staying operational, can handle airport security and air traffic control. They may need to meet federal guidelines and that really better fits the Constitutional model of the federal government than the current system does. It also allows the industry to pull from other labor pools when they need to. If air traffic controllers from California, for example, decided to strike the airports could hire new controllers from Oregon or Washington.

 

[washunut]

That is why I think that if he was smart McConnell should pass the bill from the House and let Trump take the heat. I think Trump might be forced to either sign or let it lay on his desk and get passed. McConnell who is low in the polls in Kentucky might come out the hero.

As I said either side which "gives in" wins! I am still predicting Trump will not win the Republican primary in 2020.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trump said that he was willing to keep from deporting DACA's for three years to get his wall built. That is the real deal between him and the Dems. I wonder if the Dems would have agreed if he made that permanent instead of just three years?

No, she wouldn’t have accepted an offer of permanent legal resident status or a pathway to citizenship at this point.

He offered Pelosi everything she wanted except a permanent resolution to DACA and TPS. He did offer a 3 year extension during which time a permanent solution could be found. Furthermore, he dropped the demand for limiting sponsored visas and his demand for eliminating the visa lottery. It was a LOT if give on his part.

His offer is essentially nothing. DACA (already have a 2 extension in place) and TPS are currently on court ordered holds, meaning Trump can’t do s**t right now even if he wanted to. As for “chain migration” (Trump’s in-laws are examples) and visa lottery, again Trump doesn’t control.

 

[Lutherf]

Reagan Republicans felt the Air Traffic Controllers needed to be federal employees back in the day... they went on strike for better pay and conditions, Reagan used a 1955 law to fire the ATCs who didn't go back to work. GOVERNMENT Unions are forbidden to strike.... eace

PATCO was treated as if it were a government organization. Their labor agreement prohibited striking but they struck anyway. That's why they got fired.

 

[notquiteright]

You mean a deal like establishing a path to citizenship for individuals currently under the program and then getting rid of the program as a whole because the solution would mean it doesn't need to exist any more? Yeah, I think most Conservatives would agree with that provided there was a guarantee that we'd never need such a program again.

Ummm no.....

Most 'conservatives' see a true path to citizenship as amnesty. I don't see them giving up that position. If we created a pathway for immigrants to become citizens that isn't the complex BS we have now I'd agree.

But I truly believe some 'wall' across our southern border is wasteful. The vast majority of drugs come in through the regulated checkpoints. The vast majority of criminals come through the regulated checkpoints.

A wall in the empty desert doesn't address the two biggest issues- professional criminals and drugs... eace

 

[tres borrachos]

If you mean "who needs them to be federal employees" then I agree with you.

Are you going to pay for air traffic controllers?

 

[JasperL]

That was the initial definition of a "dreamer". Later versions of DACA 'deals' expand that residency time period considerably. That initial (Obama DACA) applied only to those who would now be between 12 and 37 years of age. It was never fully explained how a 6 to 17 year old could manage to support themselves if their illegal immigrant parent/guardian is not also allowed to stay (DAPA?). Of course, it was also hard to explain why two foreign national children both brought into the US at age 3 but one day apart (6/15/2007 vs. 6/16/2007) were going to be treated completely differently under Obama's DACA.

I'm not sure what deals you're talking about. Obama tried to expand the pool and the courts shot that down. Then Trump was elected, so there was no expansion after that.

But the broader point is there is a definitive cutoff for DACA eligibility, we know those affected, and the number won't grow unless it's by people already eligible but who haven't applied yet. Giving them a permanent solution simply does not require amnesty for all past, current and future children - that's never been the case, and it's not now.

If you believe otherwise, you're free to cite the law/provision and why you believe it's open ended forever.

The rest are complaints about DACA itself.... It is what it is at this point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In order to be part of DACA, one would have to be here prior to 2007. That is a finite number of people already here, and your question about future DACA immigrants is irrelevant, unless you can show me that the definition of DACA has changed. Last I checked that 2007 date was still in place.

He can deal with those people in a permanent solution. Please, again, stop trying to engage me in what ifs or things that don't have anything to do with my posts.

The DACA, Conditional Permanenet Residence or "dreamer" specifics are constantly changing.

What Does the Dream Act do?

The Senate version of the Dream Act, introduced in July 2017, allows current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a three-step pathway to U.S. citizenship through college, work, or the armed services.

STEP 1: CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

An individual is eligible to obtain conditional permanent resident (CPR) status for up to eight years, which includes work authorization, if the person:

entered the United States under the age of 18;

entered four years prior to enactment and has since been continuously present;

has not been convicted of a crime where the term of imprisonment was more than a year, or convicted of three or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence was 90 days or more (with an exception for offenses which are essential to a person’s immigration status); and

has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has graduated high school or obtained a GED, or is currently enrolled in secondary school or a program assisting students to obtain a diploma or GED.

https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...-and-other-policies-designed-protect-dreamers

 

[Mycroft]

Democrats have repeatedly agreed to funding for the wall and DACA, in 2013 (the GOP House said FU) with the Gang of Eight and in 2018 (Trump said FU). Then they won the House, and Trump wants them to accept a far worse deal on DACA and give him his wall funding. So they've proved willing to compromise, but they're sure as hell not going to do it under WORSE conditions than when they were in the minority in the House, and not with government held hostage.

I don't recall the details in 2013. I could look it up, but why bother. I do recall the details last year. DACA and wall funding weren't the only issues. I would guess it was the same in 2013.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what happens now. The Dems won't make a deal...any deal.

Don't cry about it...them's just the facts.