Dreamers

[Little-Acorn]

What if we allow these 800,000 (approx.) dreamers stay in the US and follow a path to citizenship (they would not be permitted to be citizens right away) but in exchange for this magnanimous gesture, they would have to sign a binding and legal document that forbids them from ever sponsoring any of their family into the country after they achieved their citizenship.

Having achieved this much concession from the Republicans, as soon as it was signed into law the Democrats would begin working on this one, too.

They would start calling the Republicans "heartless" and "racist" and the usual collection of names, smears and insults, and keep at it until the Republicans caved on that one too and granted the Dreamers full citizenship with no restrictions.

Never make a compromise or concession with Democrats. EVER.

It won't last - they'll make sure of that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

they should be given priority to become a legal citizen.

And the way they should become a legal citizen is:

1.) Go back to their country of legal citizenship;
2.) Apply to the U.S. government for visa, as law-abiding foreigners have to do;
3.) Wait a long time, as law-abiding foreigners have to do;
4.) Receive their visa, as law-abiding foreigners eventually do;
5.) Come here;
6.) Go through the same process of becoming a naturalized citizen that law-abiding foreign nationals do.

No one has yet explained to me why people who came here illegally (including ones who were brought here by their parents when they were 1 or 2 years old) should be given a higher priority then foreigners who have obeyed all our laws, filled out all our usual forms, and have waited patiently for years to get a genuine U.S. visa and get in.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Yep,

Give them amnesty....We're more big enough to hold a few million people that already have lived their entire lives here.

Dreamers don't deserve a free pass.

Rewarding those that break the law is not only wrong, but also unfair, costly, and won't work.

 

[usmbguest5318]

a wall wouldn't ever be needed if employers would stop hiring them....if there was no work here to be had for illegals, then illegals would not cross the border.... and without harsh penalties against employers then there will always be illegals coming here or over staying visas for work and a better life.

^This^

 

[Gracie]

 

[Flash]

No one votes anymore?

The American people certainly elected a President that ran on a platform to stop illegal immigration.

The stupid filthy ass "Dreamer" program was an illegal attempt by that asshole Obama to legitimize a million frigging illegals in the anticipation they would be future Democrat voters and that is despicable.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What I know is this:

• 
  
  
  
• Since DACA was implemented (see also: DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow - Center for American Progress)

• Average hourly wages rose 69% for Dreamers (meaning more tax revenue for cities, states, and the US)
• 16% of DACA recipients bought homes and 5% started businesses
• 69% moved to a better job with better pay.
• 90% received a driver’s license or state ID for the first time
• 65% bought their first car
• At least 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ DACA beneficiaries

DACA folks didn't come here of their own volition, but here they have been and here they have lived all their lives. They are for all intents and purposes Americans. It's not as thought they can be anything else, regardless of what their formal citizenship status is, because they don't know any other place. Thus, at this point, the U.S. has invested whatever it spent inculcating, acculturating, educating, etc. DACA people, people who have zero material connection to and founding in whatever nation from which their parents came. As I see it:

• If we send them packing, those expenditures become money that, in essence, we discard.
• If we send them packing, the future revenue streams they would produce are also forsaken.
• If we convert them to citizens, we continue to reap the benefits of the investment this country has made in them.

If DACA people had been wilful adults who snuck into the country, rather than children who merely did what kids do -- follow their parents -- it'd be different. If, as a segment of society, DACA people weren't productive, it'd be different. If we hadn't already invested in these people, it'd be different. But we have made the investment and by and large they are indeed productive and worthwhile contributors to the U.S. economy; thus it's a question of whether we're going to try to maximize our return on that investment or are we not. Insofar as we are always looking to grow GDP not shrink it, I don't see any reason for sending DACA people packing. Give them citizenship and move on to issues that actually matter. In the U.S., a nation of 320M people, all this hoopla about some 800K DACA people, 0.25% of population, just isn't worth it, especially given that such a small segment of the population are projected to produce at least some $430B+ contribution to GDP over the next decade (~$55K/per DACA person per year -- clearly the projection is conservative).

As for that question about DACA people bringing or not bringing their family members to the U.S.....What absurd foolishness. No, they shouldn't agree not to sponsor their family members to come to the U.S. If they have family members who can come here and be productive, we should not welcome or permit the family members to come to the U.S. because they happen to be related to a person who gained citizenship via a DACA path?

Truly, OP-er, do you not see the inanity and irrationality in that line of reasoning? It's the same non-sequitur rationale I might use in saying, "No, Peter, I won't hire your brother, no matter how qualified he is, because you work here."

 

[JoeB131]

What makes you think they lived their lives here? What proof do they have? THINK

You mean other than they speak perfect English and they have school records?

 

[JoeB131]

a wall wouldn't ever be needed if employers would stop hiring them....if there was no work here to be had for illegals, then illegals would not cross the border.... and without harsh penalties against employers then there will always be illegals coming here or over staying visas for work and a better life.

well said. the problem is these White Working Class Republicans never get that the One Percent isn't their friend.

 

[Crixus]

Okay, so I was surfing around and ran across a small segment of Tucker Carlson and he and this other person, I think it was a congressman from somewhere, were discussing the parameters of deporting or keeping the dreamers.

Of course, the congressman was all about having compassion for the plight they are in and how we needed to ensure that they were not abused by our system of government. I was surprised Carlson didn't say something about how our system of government is abusing American citizens with this nonsense, but that isn't what I wanted to cover. Carlson said something else that had the congressman dodging like he was in the world dodgeball championship game. It went something like this.

What if we allow these 800,000 (approx.) dreamers stay in the US and follow a path to citizenship (they would not be permitted to be citizens right away) but in exchange for this magnanimous gesture, they would have to sign a binding and legal document that forbids them from ever sponsoring any of their family into the country after they achieved their citizenship.

So, I'm curious. Does this sound reasonable? They get to stay, and we won't get burdened with the millions of extended family members these 800,000 will be bringing in.

What say you?

Watermelon wine. because it sounds interesting and I already know and have known all along Trump had amnesty on his mind all along as do the GOP.

 

[Norman]

Do I want more voters for the democrat plantation, the most irresponsible installment conceived by man? Do I want them to make decisions for me, when they can't even do it for themselves?

The answer is of course, no. Only those with skin in the game welcome.

 

[Care4all]

No one votes anymore?

The American people certainly elected a President that ran on a platform to stop illegal immigration.

The stupid filthy ass "Dreamer" program was an illegal attempt by that asshole Obama to legitimize a million frigging illegals in the anticipation they would be future Democrat voters and that is despicable.

They can't vote, dreamers have different driver's licences that prevent such.

 

[Care4all]

a wall wouldn't ever be needed if employers would stop hiring them....if there was no work here to be had for illegals, then illegals would not cross the border.... and without harsh penalties against employers then there will always be illegals coming here or over staying visas for work and a better life.

I'm all for locking up employers who hire illegals but the illegals will still stay because of all the freebies we give them. Trump needs to enforce the law and announce illegals will not be allowed in schools and will not get welfare. He can also stop them from getting free health care though that is trickier since laws conflict on that issue.

Honestly Shoot Speeders, there are no welfare benefits for illegals, none, not even Obamacare...they can go in to an emergency room or doctor office but would be billed in full themselves unless they had some free health care clinic or something near them...the only benefit that I can think of is their k-12 education where it is mandatory for all parents to enroll their children in school, no matter what nationality, citizenship or legal or illegal status....it is mandatory to enroll your children in schooling k-12.... but these illegals contribute towards schools thru paying rent, thru owning their own home/property taxes and through sales taxes....

Welfare benefits are only legal for any child of the illegals BORN in the USA, and it is a small benefit ONLY for the US Citizen child and not the children brought here from elsewhere, and not the parents.

Welfare benefits are not even given to the LEGAL immigrants who come here, unless they have lived and worked here for 5 years...

 

[Darkwind]

What I know is this:

• 
  
  
  
• Since DACA was implemented (see also: DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow - Center for American Progress)

• Average hourly wages rose 69% for Dreamers (meaning more tax revenue for cities, states, and the US)
• 16% of DACA recipients bought homes and 5% started businesses
• 69% moved to a better job with better pay.
• 90% received a driver’s license or state ID for the first time
• 65% bought their first car
• At least 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ DACA beneficiaries

DACA folks didn't come here of their own volition, but here they have been and here they have lived all their lives. They are for all intents and purposes Americans. It's not as thought they can be anything else, regardless of what their formal citizenship status is, because they don't know any other place. Thus, at this point, the U.S. has invested whatever it spent inculcating, acculturating, educating, etc. DACA people, people who have zero material connection to and founding in whatever nation from which their parents came. As I see it:

• If we send them packing, those expenditures become money that, in essence, we discard.
• If we send them packing, the future revenue streams they would produce are also forsaken.
• If we convert them to citizens, we continue to reap the benefits of the investment this country has made in them.

If DACA people had been wilful adults who snuck into the country, rather than children who merely did what kids do -- follow their parents -- it'd be different. If, as a segment of society, DACA people weren't productive, it'd be different. If we hadn't already invested in these people, it'd be different. But we have made the investment and by and large they are indeed productive and worthwhile contributors to the U.S. economy; thus it's a question of whether we're going to try to maximize our return on that investment or are we not. Insofar as we are always looking to grow GDP not shrink it, I don't see any reason for sending DACA people packing. Give them citizenship and move on to issues that actually matter. In the U.S., a nation of 320M people, all this hoopla about some 800K DACA people, 0.25% of population, just isn't worth it, especially given that such a small segment of the population are projected to produce at least some $430B+ contribution to GDP over the next decade (~$55K/per DACA person per year -- clearly the projection is conservative).

As for that question about DACA people bringing or not bringing their family members to the U.S.....What absurd foolishness. No, they shouldn't agree not to sponsor their family members to come to the U.S. If they have family members who can come here and be productive, we should not welcome or permit the family members to come to the U.S. because they happen to be related to a person who gained citizenship via a DACA path?

Truly, OP-er, do you not see the inanity and irrationality in that line of reasoning? It's the same non-sequitur rationale I might use in saying, "No, Peter, I won't hire your brother, no matter how qualified he is, because you work here."

Remember that discussion about truth being subjective?

From the website you acquired that graph from:

Our mission
The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country.

Our values
As progressives, we believe America should be a land of boundless opportunity, where people can climb the ladder of economic mobility. We believe we owe it to future generations to protect the planet and promote peace and shared global prosperity. And we believe an effective government can earn the trust of the American people, champion the common good over narrow self-interest, and harness the strength of our diversity.


As you can see, they have an agenda. That agenda will lead them to skew any information provided for the purpose of promoting and moving that agenda forward. Quite simply, their numbers cannot be trusted, nor can they be believed.

 

[Flash]

What I know is this:

• 
  
  
  
• Since DACA was implemented (see also: DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow - Center for American Progress)

• Average hourly wages rose 69% for Dreamers (meaning more tax revenue for cities, states, and the US)
• 16% of DACA recipients bought homes and 5% started businesses
• 69% moved to a better job with better pay.
• 90% received a driver’s license or state ID for the first time
• 65% bought their first car
• At least 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ DACA beneficiaries

DACA folks didn't come here of their own volition, but here they have been and here they have lived all their lives. They are for all intents and purposes Americans. It's not as thought they can be anything else, regardless of what their formal citizenship status is, because they don't know any other place. Thus, at this point, the U.S. has invested whatever it spent inculcating, acculturating, educating, etc. DACA people, people who have zero material connection to and founding in whatever nation from which their parents came. As I see it:

• If we send them packing, those expenditures become money that, in essence, we discard.
• If we send them packing, the future revenue streams they would produce are also forsaken.
• If we convert them to citizens, we continue to reap the benefits of the investment this country has made in them.

If DACA people had been wilful adults who snuck into the country, rather than children who merely did what kids do -- follow their parents -- it'd be different. If, as a segment of society, DACA people weren't productive, it'd be different. If we hadn't already invested in these people, it'd be different. But we have made the investment and by and large they are indeed productive and worthwhile contributors to the U.S. economy; thus it's a question of whether we're going to try to maximize our return on that investment or are we not. Insofar as we are always looking to grow GDP not shrink it, I don't see any reason for sending DACA people packing. Give them citizenship and move on to issues that actually matter. In the U.S., a nation of 320M people, all this hoopla about some 800K DACA people, 0.25% of population, just isn't worth it, especially given that such a small segment of the population are projected to produce at least some $430B+ contribution to GDP over the next decade (~$55K/per DACA person per year -- clearly the projection is conservative).

As for that question about DACA people bringing or not bringing their family members to the U.S.....What absurd foolishness. No, they shouldn't agree not to sponsor their family members to come to the U.S. If they have family members who can come here and be productive, we should not welcome or permit the family members to come to the U.S. because they happen to be related to a person who gained citizenship via a DACA path?

Truly, OP-er, do you not see the inanity and irrationality in that line of reasoning? It's the same non-sequitur rationale I might use in saying, "No, Peter, I won't hire your brother, no matter how qualified he is, because you work here."

What that chart doesn't tell us is how much welfare the little shitheads cost us or the increased in crime or all the other economic factors.

What about the lost dreams of the real American children that have to pay for the little shitheads in taxation and debt?

This "Dreamer" bullshit was nothing more than a racist attempt by Obama to bring in a million frigging Mexicans or whatever in the hope that they and their families would vote Democrat in the future. Not only was it illegal but it was probably the most despicable thing that Obama did while President and the American people elected Trump to fix what Obama broke.

We don't need or want the little assholes here. They need to go back where they came from and start dreaming about what they need to do in their home country to change the government so that poverty doesn't have to be exported to the US.

We don't need any more taco shitheads here. We have enough already. More than enough. They already fucked up California and Obama's filthy plan was bring enough of them in to fuck up the whole country.

 

[PredFan]

They aren't "Dreamers" they are illegals.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What I know is this:

• 
  
  
  
• Since DACA was implemented (see also: DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow - Center for American Progress)

• Average hourly wages rose 69% for Dreamers (meaning more tax revenue for cities, states, and the US)
• 16% of DACA recipients bought homes and 5% started businesses
• 69% moved to a better job with better pay.
• 90% received a driver’s license or state ID for the first time
• 65% bought their first car
• At least 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ DACA beneficiaries

DACA folks didn't come here of their own volition, but here they have been and here they have lived all their lives. They are for all intents and purposes Americans. It's not as thought they can be anything else, regardless of what their formal citizenship status is, because they don't know any other place. Thus, at this point, the U.S. has invested whatever it spent inculcating, acculturating, educating, etc. DACA people, people who have zero material connection to and founding in whatever nation from which their parents came. As I see it:

• If we send them packing, those expenditures become money that, in essence, we discard.
• If we send them packing, the future revenue streams they would produce are also forsaken.
• If we convert them to citizens, we continue to reap the benefits of the investment this country has made in them.

If DACA people had been wilful adults who snuck into the country, rather than children who merely did what kids do -- follow their parents -- it'd be different. If, as a segment of society, DACA people weren't productive, it'd be different. If we hadn't already invested in these people, it'd be different. But we have made the investment and by and large they are indeed productive and worthwhile contributors to the U.S. economy; thus it's a question of whether we're going to try to maximize our return on that investment or are we not. Insofar as we are always looking to grow GDP not shrink it, I don't see any reason for sending DACA people packing. Give them citizenship and move on to issues that actually matter. In the U.S., a nation of 320M people, all this hoopla about some 800K DACA people, 0.25% of population, just isn't worth it, especially given that such a small segment of the population are projected to produce at least some $430B+ contribution to GDP over the next decade (~$55K/per DACA person per year -- clearly the projection is conservative).

As for that question about DACA people bringing or not bringing their family members to the U.S.....What absurd foolishness. No, they shouldn't agree not to sponsor their family members to come to the U.S. If they have family members who can come here and be productive, we should not welcome or permit the family members to come to the U.S. because they happen to be related to a person who gained citizenship via a DACA path?

Truly, OP-er, do you not see the inanity and irrationality in that line of reasoning? It's the same non-sequitur rationale I might use in saying, "No, Peter, I won't hire your brother, no matter how qualified he is, because you work here."

Remember that discussion about truth being subjective?

From the website you acquired that graph from:

Our mission
The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country.

Our values
As progressives, we believe America should be a land of boundless opportunity, where people can climb the ladder of economic mobility. We believe we owe it to future generations to protect the planet and promote peace and shared global prosperity. And we believe an effective government can earn the trust of the American people, champion the common good over narrow self-interest, and harness the strength of our diversity.

As you can see, they have an agenda. That agenda will lead them to skew any information provided for the purpose of promoting and moving that agenda forward. Quite simply, their numbers cannot be trusted, nor can they be believed.

Remember that discussion about truth being subjective?

I recall quite well that you asserted that truth is subjective, and that to that assertion I did not express assent.

As you can see, they have an agenda. That agenda will lead them to skew any information provided for the purpose of promoting and moving that agenda forward. Quite simply, their numbers cannot be trusted, nor can they be believed.

The fact that they have an "agenda" has nothing to do with the methodology used to arrive at the information in their chart and figures. If you (or anyone) is going to assert their figures are invalid, the only way to do so credibly is to prove empirically that there are material flaws in their data gathering and analysis methodology.

At the bottom of the chart to which you've referred is the statement "Source: See methodology" and that methodology can be reviewed in summary by reading the content on the webpage where one finds the chart, and one the other webpages to which earlier issues of that chart were published.

So, by all means, refute the accuracy of the figures in the chart if one must, but at least exhibit the intellectual integrity of doing so on account of there being genuine and material mathematical, data collection, or analytical inference errors in the method by which the figures were obtained, not by taking the pathetic "cop-out" approach of saying "the presenter of the information has an agenda; therefore the information presented is invalid."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Retarded thread.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep,

Give them amnesty....We're more big enough to hold a few million people that already have lived their entire lives here.

What makes you think they lived their lives here? What proof do they have? THINK

THINK

You should try it.

What makes you think they lived their lives here? What proof do they have?

Hmm....what could that be? You should THINK about that.

 

[OKTexas]

What I know is this:

• 
  
  
  
• Since DACA was implemented (see also: DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow - Center for American Progress)

• Average hourly wages rose 69% for Dreamers (meaning more tax revenue for cities, states, and the US)
• 16% of DACA recipients bought homes and 5% started businesses
• 69% moved to a better job with better pay.
• 90% received a driver’s license or state ID for the first time
• 65% bought their first car
• At least 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ DACA beneficiaries

DACA folks didn't come here of their own volition, but here they have been and here they have lived all their lives. They are for all intents and purposes Americans. It's not as thought they can be anything else, regardless of what their formal citizenship status is, because they don't know any other place. Thus, at this point, the U.S. has invested whatever it spent inculcating, acculturating, educating, etc. DACA people, people who have zero material connection to and founding in whatever nation from which their parents came. As I see it:

• If we send them packing, those expenditures become money that, in essence, we discard.
• If we send them packing, the future revenue streams they would produce are also forsaken.
• If we convert them to citizens, we continue to reap the benefits of the investment this country has made in them.

If DACA people had been wilful adults who snuck into the country, rather than children who merely did what kids do -- follow their parents -- it'd be different. If, as a segment of society, DACA people weren't productive, it'd be different. If we hadn't already invested in these people, it'd be different. But we have made the investment and by and large they are indeed productive and worthwhile contributors to the U.S. economy; thus it's a question of whether we're going to try to maximize our return on that investment or are we not. Insofar as we are always looking to grow GDP not shrink it, I don't see any reason for sending DACA people packing. Give them citizenship and move on to issues that actually matter. In the U.S., a nation of 320M people, all this hoopla about some 800K DACA people, 0.25% of population, just isn't worth it, especially given that such a small segment of the population are projected to produce at least some $430B+ contribution to GDP over the next decade (~$55K/per DACA person per year -- clearly the projection is conservative).

As for that question about DACA people bringing or not bringing their family members to the U.S.....What absurd foolishness. No, they shouldn't agree not to sponsor their family members to come to the U.S. If they have family members who can come here and be productive, we should not welcome or permit the family members to come to the U.S. because they happen to be related to a person who gained citizenship via a DACA path?

Truly, OP-er, do you not see the inanity and irrationality in that line of reasoning? It's the same non-sequitur rationale I might use in saying, "No, Peter, I won't hire your brother, no matter how qualified he is, because you work here."

More regressive propaganda, if dreamers had lived here "all their lives", they'd be citizens wouldn't they? Many came here as teenagers, so cut the lies already.


.