Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship

Discussion in 'United States' started by PrincipleInvestment, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. MAGA

    MAGA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The difference is that America would be controlling the costs instead of illegal aliens controlling the cost.
     
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    7,846
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is it not currently budgeted into the education policy of each state government?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 2:12 AM
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    7,846
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I love how you used my amended acronym "DACCA!" Although perhaps you didn't intend to! Anyway, how it is "intelligently targeted" to include people who who arrived in 2007 when they were 15, and were 20 when DACCA was introduced in 2012, but REJECT people who arrived before 1981 as babies and were 31 or older when DACCA was introduced in 2012? Does this make any sense at all? These pre-1981 arrivals are now 37 or older! Many will be married with kids, with a house in the burbs and a dog! Should they be subject to deportation while people who have still lived the majority of their lives (15 years) outside of the US are protected from deportation? I am stunned that I haven't read ANYTHING in the media about this. I had to come up with this analysis myself. You never thought about it before? Shouldn't it be the more years spent in the US as a child the MORE protection you get?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 3:09 AM
  4. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    22,333
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes of course but that has nothing to do with DACA. Personally I think anyone who has been here for an extended pariod of time, contributed to society and has broken no significant laws should be allowed to stay provided they are willing to follow a path to citizenship. And if you haven't read anything about yhis in the media you should change your media sources.

    To many on this forum mix up people who are already here with those who will attempt to gain illegal entry in the future.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 10:34 AM
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    7,846
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, how does DACA's nonsensical eligibility criteria have nothing to do with DACA?

    Well if you believe this, why are you okay with the nonsensical DACA eligibility criteria, which EXCLUDES people who have been there "for an extended period of time, contributed to society and has broken no significant laws?" Also, why would they NOT want to follow a path to citizenship?
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018 at 3:47 AM
  6. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    22,333
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stop being silly. DACA is just one of many issues around legal and illegal immigrants.
     
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    7,846
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what is your point?
     
  8. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    22,333
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My pointnis your faulting DACA legislation because it doesn't deal with all illegal immigrants is disingenuous.
     
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    7,846
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, because it doesn't deal with the more SIGNIFICANT illegal immigrants! There are people who arrived in 2007 when they were 15, and were 20 when DACCA was introduced in 2012, and they are eligible for DACCA, and there are people who arrived before 1981 as babies and were 31 or older when DACCA was introduced in 2012. Now who is more important to protect from deportation?
    These pre-1981 arrivals are now 37 or older! Many will be married with kids, with a house in the burbs and a dog! Should they be subject to deportation while people who have still lived the majority of their lives (15 years) outside of the US are protected from deportation?

    What about someone who arrived as a 12 year old in 2012 and is now 18? Do they fit your above criteria? (assuming that they have never broken any laws.)
     
  10. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    22,333
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes they would. But that doesn't invalide DACA. Just means more needs to be done. You seem to be govuse on discrediting DACA because it doesn't deal with all illegal immigrants. That is fine as your opinion. We just don't agree.

    The entire issue of current illegals in the US needs to be delt with but apparently it won't be. And I doubt that even if the Dems would fund the total wall the rest of the issues would be solved. Illegals have become a Republican rallying cry and they seem to be in no hurry to eliminate that way of motivating their most xenophobic supporters.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018 at 9:07 AM
  11. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    7,846
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How exactly has an 18 year old "contributed to society?" And is 6 years an "extended period of time" in your mind?

    It certainly invalidates it as a policy that MAKES SENSE! You have failed to answer my question. Between the 15 year old arrival in 2007 and the baby arrival pre-1981, who is more important to protect from deportation? What should the higher priority be?

    Did you completely ignore what I said in the first line of my last reply? I'm faulting DACA legislation because it doesn't deal with the more SIGNIFICANT illegal immigrants! NOT "ALL" illegal immigrants as you are suggesting that I "seem" to have a problem with. And what is "govuse?"
     

Share This Page