He had control of government for 2 yrs but opted for tax cuts instead. Now that the people are represented, they've spoken.
I think sending ALL of these kids back is big mistake. We educated them and now we are going to send them packing? Why don't we look at them as an asset? The vast majority are good kids and will make good citizens, like all the other immigrants to this country.
Depends on how the issue gets framed. There is a large consensus for accommodating the daca kids because they are already here, no fault of their own, etc. etc. But the dems end out framing it as "we need to take care of the ones here and, oh by the way, anyone else who wants to come is welcome too and it would be draconian to move them out as well and we want continuing chain migration prioritization for their relatives." Then that "large consensus" ain't so large and we are talking about a whole nuther type of deal. We have had amnesty before, eh., under Reagan. It was a basic deal with amnesty for the ones here with increased border and immigration control to keep the problem from re-occurring so that we dont have another million every year that also need a deal. How did that go? Oh, that's right. The amnesty part got taken care of. The other part was a joke before the ink even dried on the deal.
Why is the DACA such a bothersome thing to many people. This is taking a large group of people who have been here for years and contributing to society (not counting those convicted of serious crimes while here) and giving them a status so they can stop lying/hiding. So many stories of DACAs graduating high school and going on to 4 year universities or working with communities. This is not about future illegal immigrants, this is trying to deal with children that were brought here so many years ago and grew up in the U.S. If they are a aprt of society give them a status so they no longer hide and contribute. To me it is not part of the Wall debate because it is grandfathering a status not providing a window for future people to take advantage of. If Trump was true to his word and only wanted to target criminals (people who committed crimes while here) then why go after DACAs.
What about the ones that came after 2012? That was 6-7 years ago and hundreds of thousands have come. Yet to be DACA eligible you needed to physically be present in the country in 2012. I am not looking for an answer. I am just saying- as I said in more detail in the post above- that people present a simple daca scenario and ask why that is so difficult. Yet when it comes to agreement time they are actually talking more than DACA. It would in fact to be much more simple to put an agreement together around kids (most are parents by now and have created millions more "citizens".) then the demands explode. Coverage for non-daca, chain migration for their aunt in guatamala, coverage for honduran hurricane survivors, etc. such that we have a "daca" every other year to cover all the ones who were not covered by the original "daca." That's a vastly different proposal for a one-time amnesty for a select group who were here before 2012. It's up to Congress anyway. The president has no authority to amend an immigration law on the books that was lawfully enacted by Congress.
Pelosi: "dead on arrival". As very well should be. Let's see if they can modify this into something passable
So the harpy Pelosi rejects it immediately. No surprise there. She has no interest in solving the problems, only pushing a political narrative which she believes to be advantageous. At this point Trump should quit playing nice. Declare a national emergency, martial law if necessary, begin arresting the lawless governors and state AG's, start mass deportations, whatever it takes. Fuck em