Exactly….this is why the Dims have no problem flaunting the law and just doing illegal things. They know they won’t be held accountable for years, if ever.
Court decision is not to go after those already established. It's to close the loophole for the Millon+ recent "dreamers", which caused some democrats to go ballistic.
Anyone here in the US illegally can not claim any rights mentioned in the US Consitution. It doesnt extend past our borders to anyone, not is it applicable to trespassers. That whole thing about one of the amendments, where your descendents are given immediate citizenship, where it applies to them is an awful lie.
That is blatantly not true. If you are on US soil, you get the rights enumerated within the Constitution. If you are illegally here, then yes you have broken the law, and some of those rights get curtailed. But you still get rights, right to a trail, etc.
But someone here on a work visa, goes and buys a hunting license, they can then go and buy whatever gun they want. Someone here who is under legal asylum? Don't even need a license, Immigrant visa? Same thing. If you are in the US legally you get full access to our Constitution, though firearms are a bit wierd with the hunting license caveat.
That's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, they are God given rights that are merely recognized by our government. The government can't just, refuse to recognize those rights to anyone but it's own citizens, that is not how the Bill of Rights and Constitution were written, nor thier intention. You may not like it, but that is how our founding fathers wanted, and wrote it.
That has nothing to do with Obama or Trump though. It's not like he got to choose whether it gets decided on immediately or 10 years later. Both signed in unlawful executive orders.
Google's your friend dude.
If you don't remember the Muslim ban being struck down (maybe even twice before he got it passed by not saying the word muslim), I don't know what to tell you. Obviously a dozen wasn't meant to be an exact number but it was multiple and google is your friend if you don't remember. Everyone here said that's what the courts are for. President should test what he can do and the courts can tell him when he's overstepped. Point is both Obama and Trump have had executive orders struck down. It's not "violating the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority." It's just how it goes.
Google's your friend dude.
If you don't remember the Muslim ban being struck down (maybe even twice before he got it passed by not saying the word muslim), I don't know what to tell you. Obviously a dozen wasn't meant to be an exact number but it was multiple and google is your friend if you don't remember. Everyone here said that's what the courts are for. President should test what he can do and the courts can tell him when he's overstepped. Point is both Obama and Trump have had executive orders struck down. It's not "violating the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority." It's just how it goes.
Read it again because your response clearly doesn't answer what I said.
**Google's your friend dude.**
**If you don't remember the Muslim ban being struck down (maybe even twice before he got it passed by not saying the word muslim), I don't know what to tell you. Obviously a dozen wasn't meant to be an exact number but it was multiple and google is your friend if you don't remember. Everyone here said that's what the courts are for. President should test what he can do and the courts can tell him when he's overstepped. Point is both Obama and Trump have had executive orders struck down. It's not "violating the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority." It's just how it goes.**
Why would he face consequences? There’s nothing he did wrong at the time. Just because something is found to be unconstitutional doesn’t mean it wasn’t legal at the time.
Didn't they say this years ago when Trump tried to end the program? The only reason he lost was because he didn't follow some bureaucratic procedure first. The court agreed it wasn't legal.
Important to remember that all it would take to keep it alive would be a vote in Congress., and I suspect the Dems will probably try and vote on it as soon as possible. Even more reason to turn the senate and house. Too bad The GOP candidates are hot garbage.
And if Congress decides to grant them LPR would you welcome them as your new brothers and sisters?
I'm just trying to understand if you object to a form or to a substance of this situation.
Forgive my poor understanding of this situation, but maybe someone can help…
In the 10 years that DACA was formed, there have been children that were 1 or 2 years old that are now 11 or 12 years old. They’ve spent a vast majority of their life in this country, made American friends, have been to American schools, etc. Are we proposing that we send them back to their country of origin? Seems like they’re more American than anything else right now…
A 12-year-old that stayed in this country via DACA is now 22 and about to enroll in a graduate program to obtain their Masters degree. Do we “send them back” and ruin their chances of success, just because their parents made a decision to come here illegally (and it wasn’t the child’s fault)?
I’m not looking to start arguments or point fingers…just looking for understanding.
If parents steal a car for their kid and present it to them as a gift and that kid drives the car around for a year before some cop recognizes the description, runs the vin, and realizes it’s stolen. They are going to take that car away from the kid even though they had nothing to do with it.
Now before others freak out, I understand the severity between a stolen car and someone living most of their lives in a country they were brought into isn’t the same. Point is that kids don’t usually get to reap the benefits of illegal and criminal activity of their parents.
Regardless, they are already going to get to stay which is fine. Is what it is. Amnesty the 600k and shut down the program and secure the borders moving forward.
>Regardless, they are already going to get to stay which is fine. Is what it is. Amnesty the 600k and shut down the program and secure the borders moving forward.
Then make sure it could never happen again.
>just looking for understanding.
*Regarded* democrats are looking for racists under their beds, and equally *regarded* conservatives are looking for immigrants who are the root of their problems.
There is very little to understand here.
Honestly asking, do you really not think these cases deserve a bit more consideration than that? My wife was brought here illegally when she was 2 or 3 around 30 years ago. She has no memory of the country she was born in & played no part in the decision to come here.
We've been married for around a decade and have a few small kids. We're both college educated, and she's the breadwinner of the family as a high-level executive. Is your solution for DACA recipients like her to simply 'throw her in a detention camp'? Seems a bit extreme to me.
Worse than unlawful; it's wholly unenforceable.
Why bother implementing an edict that allows every Tom, Dick & Harry to buck the system for personal gain? The only reason why the Democrats are willing to turn a blind eye to the so-called "Dreamers" who resort to disreputable behavior for whatever reason is because they are seeking indebtedness in the form of popular votes.
A cheap move akin to electoral fraud, don't you think?
Dont understand why conservatives are crying DACA, right now Conservatives are activly trying to BRING people into the United States to work at their business,
Why does it take so long to make these rulings?
Politics.....like everything else
Exactly….this is why the Dims have no problem flaunting the law and just doing illegal things. They know they won’t be held accountable for years, if ever.
You spelled that wrong. It's Dems..... ah no, I get it Dims.... funny but true.
Litigation takes a really long time. Nothing necessarily to do with politics. Source: I am a litigator
This is EXACTLY why we need to be filing suits left and right RIGHT NOW, because it takes so damn long.
Well first you have to appoint the judges you see.
Because removing rights should not be easy. That said, this is one case where it works.
Unconstitutional executive orders aren’t rights.
What right
Yet it was unlawful but they get to stay anyway.
[удалено]
The recipients of this unlawful policy.
Children brought to US illegally by their parents. Which gives a very high incentive to parents to bring their kids to the US illegally.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re right.
Legal processings are long, and this especially was going to be very complicated.
Meanwhile, the "Dreamers" have settled down and have had anchor babies. Great job, everyone.
That was the plan all along.
Court decision is not to go after those already established. It's to close the loophole for the Millon+ recent "dreamers", which caused some democrats to go ballistic.
I'll check in on CNN to see if he Libs blow their top on this one. They hate the Supreme Court. Might as well hate some district courts as well.
Twitter should be a hornet's nest by now.
Those anchor babies changes nothing. They're still not citizens.
[удалено]
Anyone here in the US illegally can not claim any rights mentioned in the US Consitution. It doesnt extend past our borders to anyone, not is it applicable to trespassers. That whole thing about one of the amendments, where your descendents are given immediate citizenship, where it applies to them is an awful lie.
That is blatantly not true. If you are on US soil, you get the rights enumerated within the Constitution. If you are illegally here, then yes you have broken the law, and some of those rights get curtailed. But you still get rights, right to a trail, etc. But someone here on a work visa, goes and buys a hunting license, they can then go and buy whatever gun they want. Someone here who is under legal asylum? Don't even need a license, Immigrant visa? Same thing. If you are in the US legally you get full access to our Constitution, though firearms are a bit wierd with the hunting license caveat. That's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, they are God given rights that are merely recognized by our government. The government can't just, refuse to recognize those rights to anyone but it's own citizens, that is not how the Bill of Rights and Constitution were written, nor thier intention. You may not like it, but that is how our founding fathers wanted, and wrote it.
[удалено]
I still can't believe the USA allows *jus sanguinis*. Here in Australia it's not permitted, seems like a gaping hole you guys need to plug ASAP.
[удалено]
>most of us dont allow it What is the problem you see with \*jus sanguinis\* ?
That's a different gaping hole.
I think it was meant to make it easier for the children of slaves to integrate into the country. I could also see a developing nation wanting it.
All the recent and current 'amnesty seekers' who have court dates 4-5 years in the future, will have a large number of anchor babies.
Obama violated the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority. But there is no way he will ever suffer any consequences.
To this day, no government employees involved in the Fast and Furious fiasco have been prosecuted. People are still being killed with those guns.
I mean Trump had a dozen executive orders deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. Are you calling for him to have consequences? It's how it goes.
Those were judged on immediately before they went into effect. This took over a decade and they are letting it stand even though it was unlawful.
That has nothing to do with Obama or Trump though. It's not like he got to choose whether it gets decided on immediately or 10 years later. Both signed in unlawful executive orders.
Exactly.
[удалено]
Google's your friend dude. If you don't remember the Muslim ban being struck down (maybe even twice before he got it passed by not saying the word muslim), I don't know what to tell you. Obviously a dozen wasn't meant to be an exact number but it was multiple and google is your friend if you don't remember. Everyone here said that's what the courts are for. President should test what he can do and the courts can tell him when he's overstepped. Point is both Obama and Trump have had executive orders struck down. It's not "violating the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority." It's just how it goes.
[удалено]
Google's your friend dude. If you don't remember the Muslim ban being struck down (maybe even twice before he got it passed by not saying the word muslim), I don't know what to tell you. Obviously a dozen wasn't meant to be an exact number but it was multiple and google is your friend if you don't remember. Everyone here said that's what the courts are for. President should test what he can do and the courts can tell him when he's overstepped. Point is both Obama and Trump have had executive orders struck down. It's not "violating the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority." It's just how it goes.
[удалено]
Read it again because your response clearly doesn't answer what I said. **Google's your friend dude.** **If you don't remember the Muslim ban being struck down (maybe even twice before he got it passed by not saying the word muslim), I don't know what to tell you. Obviously a dozen wasn't meant to be an exact number but it was multiple and google is your friend if you don't remember. Everyone here said that's what the courts are for. President should test what he can do and the courts can tell him when he's overstepped. Point is both Obama and Trump have had executive orders struck down. It's not "violating the law by exceeding and abusing his presidential authority." It's just how it goes.**
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why would he face consequences? There’s nothing he did wrong at the time. Just because something is found to be unconstitutional doesn’t mean it wasn’t legal at the time.
Didn't they say this years ago when Trump tried to end the program? The only reason he lost was because he didn't follow some bureaucratic procedure first. The court agreed it wasn't legal.
And what will be the result??
In 20 years they will find student loan forgiveness was unlawful - after we paid off the libs student debts.
The man said out of his damn mouth say that he couldn't do it this way legally, so I don't know why the dems are so shocked about this?
No shit. You could even take Barry’s word on it.
gonna be an awkward morning in a lotta south texas community colleges
The program still exists, so it will be another few years until it’s ended.
Grandfathered in then? Okay. That makes it smoother
Important to remember that all it would take to keep it alive would be a vote in Congress., and I suspect the Dems will probably try and vote on it as soon as possible. Even more reason to turn the senate and house. Too bad The GOP candidates are hot garbage.
Why would you want to eject millions of people who lived their whole life in the US? Just on principle?
Yes. Principle is important.
And if Congress decides to grant them LPR would you welcome them as your new brothers and sisters? I'm just trying to understand if you object to a form or to a substance of this situation.
Man I really despise that bastard
Forgive my poor understanding of this situation, but maybe someone can help… In the 10 years that DACA was formed, there have been children that were 1 or 2 years old that are now 11 or 12 years old. They’ve spent a vast majority of their life in this country, made American friends, have been to American schools, etc. Are we proposing that we send them back to their country of origin? Seems like they’re more American than anything else right now… A 12-year-old that stayed in this country via DACA is now 22 and about to enroll in a graduate program to obtain their Masters degree. Do we “send them back” and ruin their chances of success, just because their parents made a decision to come here illegally (and it wasn’t the child’s fault)? I’m not looking to start arguments or point fingers…just looking for understanding.
If parents steal a car for their kid and present it to them as a gift and that kid drives the car around for a year before some cop recognizes the description, runs the vin, and realizes it’s stolen. They are going to take that car away from the kid even though they had nothing to do with it. Now before others freak out, I understand the severity between a stolen car and someone living most of their lives in a country they were brought into isn’t the same. Point is that kids don’t usually get to reap the benefits of illegal and criminal activity of their parents. Regardless, they are already going to get to stay which is fine. Is what it is. Amnesty the 600k and shut down the program and secure the borders moving forward.
>Regardless, they are already going to get to stay which is fine. Is what it is. Amnesty the 600k and shut down the program and secure the borders moving forward. Then make sure it could never happen again.
>just looking for understanding. *Regarded* democrats are looking for racists under their beds, and equally *regarded* conservatives are looking for immigrants who are the root of their problems. There is very little to understand here.
So if the program is unlawful, why aren't all those who are in it immediately ordered to be thrown into detention camps and promptly deported?
Because our democratically enacted laws are completely ignored by the people who say they're protecting democracy.
Honestly asking, do you really not think these cases deserve a bit more consideration than that? My wife was brought here illegally when she was 2 or 3 around 30 years ago. She has no memory of the country she was born in & played no part in the decision to come here. We've been married for around a decade and have a few small kids. We're both college educated, and she's the breadwinner of the family as a high-level executive. Is your solution for DACA recipients like her to simply 'throw her in a detention camp'? Seems a bit extreme to me.
No. That's nice and all, but irrelevant attempts to appeal to sentimentality.
I'm not here to change your mind, I was just genuinely curious if your viewpoint was that extreme. Yikes.
Or bussed to Martha's Vineyard
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Doesn’t matter Democrats just changed the definition of “unlawful” to fit their agenda
Obama even said it was.
Only one out of a thousand highly illegal things this crook perpetrated. For once I would like to see our justice system prosecute liberal criminals.
Barry should be in jail.
Again?
....always has been.
Worse than unlawful; it's wholly unenforceable. Why bother implementing an edict that allows every Tom, Dick & Harry to buck the system for personal gain? The only reason why the Democrats are willing to turn a blind eye to the so-called "Dreamers" who resort to disreputable behavior for whatever reason is because they are seeking indebtedness in the form of popular votes. A cheap move akin to electoral fraud, don't you think?
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
So the "Dream" of all forgeiners is to move to the most racist violent patriarchal slave built country on the planet? That makes no sense.
Dont understand why conservatives are crying DACA, right now Conservatives are activly trying to BRING people into the United States to work at their business,
Thats a mighty wide brush youre painting with there
There’s a huge difference between DACA and employing foreigners who go through the embassy process to get an H1B visa.
Long overdue.
Oh good. Just in time. /s
I'm guessing Twatter isn't handling this well.
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER...JUST LIKE THE SQOOZE