In Regards To DACA, what Should Be The Priority?

[jc456]

Priority is first kick this little Pendejo out.

ungrateful illegals. I tell you. since this ungrateful schmuck doesn't like the hospitality, then it must be time to go home.

 

[BluesLegend]

And all of a sudden there are 11,000,000 now? This is heading towards amnesty. Right out the gate every republican said as much when they said "we have to do something about their families ". Watch, amnesty is coming.

then there ought to be sponsors for them and they lose their jobs and the sponsors cover their costs until they file for citizenship and are granted it.

That's a pretty good idea. Maybe make it so an employer can sponcer to ?

I'd rather see the employers pay that ten thousand dollar fine for hiring illegals in the first place.

That's a good idea to, but it should go right on down to the avrage joe who hires a $75.00 vatos to mow his lawn.

My son works eighty hours a week to support his family and he hires a company to mow his lawn because he doesn't have time. If the average joe can't afford to have an American mow his lawn then he better buy himself a mower and do it himself/herself.

I pay a landscaping company to mow my property, their entire crew including the owner are white American males. A tree care company I have hired a couple times to remove trees and grind stumps, also an all white American crew. And I live in sanctuary city central overrun with illegals and filthy disgusting liberals.

 

[jc456]

then there ought to be sponsors for them and they lose their jobs and the sponsors cover their costs until they file for citizenship and are granted it.

That's a pretty good idea. Maybe make it so an employer can sponcer to ?

I'd rather see the employers pay that ten thousand dollar fine for hiring illegals in the first place.

That's a good idea to, but it should go right on down to the avrage joe who hires a $75.00 vatos to mow his lawn.

My son works eighty hours a week to support his family and he hires a company to mow his lawn because he doesn't have time. If the average joe can't afford to have an American mow his lawn then he better buy himself a mower and do it himself/herself.

I pay a landscaping company to mow my property, their entire crew including the owner are white American males. A tree care company I have hired a couple times to remove trees and grind stumps, also an all white American crew. And I live in sanctuary city central overrun with illegals and filthy disgusting liberals.

I hire all american based landscapers and lawn services as well.

 

[hunarcy]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

 

[jc456]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

nope they are illegal aliens and the law says they must be deported. nothing about immigration at all. you just show me that language. LOL. why do you like them so much btw? are you one?

 

[hunarcy]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

nope they are illegal aliens and the law says they must be deported. nothing about immigration at all. you just show me that language. LOL. why do you like them so much btw? are you one?

You substitute your opinion in place of definitions? You're not having an impressive day.

 

[RodISHI]

then there ought to be sponsors for them and they lose their jobs and the sponsors cover their costs until they file for citizenship and are granted it.

That's a pretty good idea. Maybe make it so an employer can sponcer to ?

I'd rather see the employers pay that ten thousand dollar fine for hiring illegals in the first place.

That's a good idea to, but it should go right on down to the avrage joe who hires a $75.00 vatos to mow his lawn.

My son works eighty hours a week to support his family and he hires a company to mow his lawn because he doesn't have time. If the average joe can't afford to have an American mow his lawn then he better buy himself a mower and do it himself/herself.

I pay a landscaping company to mow my property, their entire crew including the owner are white American males. A tree care company I have hired a couple times to remove trees and grind stumps, also an all white American crew. And I live in sanctuary city central overrun with illegals and filthy disgusting liberals.

We are in the midwest Rod asked a bridge foreman a few years back if he needed an operator (heavy equipment). The guy said no I get Mexicans real cheap and cannot afford American workers now (almost all bridges are getting federal funds or they don't generally redo them). As a former contractor I know I can't compete with companies who hire illegals and I simply couldn't ask someone to work for less than I would if I needed to apply for that same job. We have to get some integrity back into the whole system and there is no reason for putting it off any longer. When we traveled in the winter for several years we considered different areas in southern states but again they were hiring illegals and couldn't or wouldn't pay a decent wage.

 

[BluesLegend]

That's a pretty good idea. Maybe make it so an employer can sponcer to ?

I'd rather see the employers pay that ten thousand dollar fine for hiring illegals in the first place.

That's a good idea to, but it should go right on down to the avrage joe who hires a $75.00 vatos to mow his lawn.

My son works eighty hours a week to support his family and he hires a company to mow his lawn because he doesn't have time. If the average joe can't afford to have an American mow his lawn then he better buy himself a mower and do it himself/herself.

I pay a landscaping company to mow my property, their entire crew including the owner are white American males. A tree care company I have hired a couple times to remove trees and grind stumps, also an all white American crew. And I live in sanctuary city central overrun with illegals and filthy disgusting liberals.

We are in the midwest Rod asked a bridge foreman a few years back if he needed an operator (heavy equipment). The guy said no I get Mexicans real cheap and cannot afford American workers now (almost all bridges are getting federal funds or they don't generally redo them). As a former contractor I know I can't compete with companies who hire illegals and I simply couldn't ask someone to work for less than I would if I needed to apply for that same job. We have to get some integrity back into the whole system and there is no reason for putting it off any longer. When we traveled in the winter for several years we considered different areas in southern states but again they were hiring illegals and couldn't or wouldn't pay a decent wage.

Deport them the hell out of our country and problem solved.

 

[RodISHI]

I'd rather see the employers pay that ten thousand dollar fine for hiring illegals in the first place.

That's a good idea to, but it should go right on down to the avrage joe who hires a $75.00 vatos to mow his lawn.

My son works eighty hours a week to support his family and he hires a company to mow his lawn because he doesn't have time. If the average joe can't afford to have an American mow his lawn then he better buy himself a mower and do it himself/herself.

I pay a landscaping company to mow my property, their entire crew including the owner are white American males. A tree care company I have hired a couple times to remove trees and grind stumps, also an all white American crew. And I live in sanctuary city central overrun with illegals and filthy disgusting liberals.

We are in the midwest Rod asked a bridge foreman a few years back if he needed an operator (heavy equipment). The guy said no I get Mexicans real cheap and cannot afford American workers now (almost all bridges are getting federal funds or they don't generally redo them). As a former contractor I know I can't compete with companies who hire illegals and I simply couldn't ask someone to work for less than I would if I needed to apply for that same job. We have to get some integrity back into the whole system and there is no reason for putting it off any longer. When we traveled in the winter for several years we considered different areas in southern states but again they were hiring illegals and couldn't or wouldn't pay a decent wage.

Deport them the hell out of our country and problem solved.

Agreed. It is not that Americans won't do the work. The whole time I ran my firm I hired two people with green cards and the only reason for that was one I could not find anyone else in a remote location for that position and the other was because a friend asked if I would give some work to someone he knew who needed work. Even then it was only temporary and the second one was for work around the house just to get this woman and her kids enough money for working that she could get back to where she came from.

 

[jc456]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

nope they are illegal aliens and the law says they must be deported. nothing about immigration at all. you just show me that language. LOL. why do you like them so much btw? are you one?

You substitute your opinion in place of definitions? You're not having an impressive day.

 

[jc456]

With all of the different aspects regarding DACA and the fate of the dreamers, what should the priority be:

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

nope they are illegal aliens and the law says they must be deported. nothing about immigration at all. you just show me that language. LOL. why do you like them so much btw? are you one?

You substitute your opinion in place of definitions? You're not having an impressive day.

exactly what is an opinion in my post? quote it.

 

[hunarcy]

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

nope they are illegal aliens and the law says they must be deported. nothing about immigration at all. you just show me that language. LOL. why do you like them so much btw? are you one?

You substitute your opinion in place of definitions? You're not having an impressive day.

exactly what is an opinion in my post? quote it.

Go away, troll

 

[Slyhunter]

Americans first.
The needs of the Working Americans should supersede the needs of the immigrant illegal or legal.

just so you straighten yourself out an illegal alien is not an immigrant. they are two different things. so please stop using illegal in that context.

Actually, as an immigrant is a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country., illegal aliens who come here to live are illegal immigrants.

nope they are illegal aliens and the law says they must be deported. nothing about immigration at all. you just show me that language. LOL. why do you like them so much btw? are you one?

You substitute your opinion in place of definitions? You're not having an impressive day.

exactly what is an opinion in my post? quote it.

Your definition of an Immigrant legal or illegal, is incorrect. www.dictionary.com

 

[Slade3200]

When did I propose that we govern the country by the dictates of our "feelings"?

Right here...

threaten 750,000 people with deportation to motivate congress

"threaten"; we should feel sorry for them and chuck the rule of law out the fucking window because the rule of law is mean.

Looks like an appeal to emotion, quacks like an appeal to emotion, we have to at least consider the possibility that it's an appeal to emotion.

Perhaps your failure to recognize it as such stems from the fact that you can't recognize the difference between acting based on emotion and proper Constitutional order.

If President Nimrod had "motivated" Congress to act over the last 5 years and exercise its Constitutionally vested legislative authority and the relevant Article I Section 8 enumerated power it enjoys it wouldn't have come to this, so perhaps your anger would be more appropriately directed at him instead of the current moron in the Oval Office who is actually doing something right for a change.

President Nimrod, as you call him, tried many times to get a stagnant congress to act. They failed to do anything with immigration reform for the better part of two decades.

In other words President Nimrod, the guy that was supposed to be the leader failed to persuade Congress and it's constituents that it was the right thing to do, yet instead of him following proper constitutional order and rescinding his executive order for prosecutorial discretion in the deportation of "the dreamers" since he lacked the Constitutional Authority to in effect unilaterally alter federal legislation, he behaved as a small child would and stubbornly ignored the representatives of the majority will of the people, because as usual with the Nimrod his opinion was the only one that counted (a trait shared by many would be autocrats).

Thus we are here, where President Twitter has to clean up a mess made by President Nimrod, because President Nimrod lacked both effective leadership skills and humility.

DACA was an overreach but it was what he did to provide temporary relief to a group of nearly 1 million children and teenagers who were living in the shadows. Sure you can blame it on "feelings". How many laws that involve human rights were motivated by feelings? All of them? The emancipation proclamation to free slaves, the EO's to desegregate schools and the military etc. Of course feelings are involved...

Apparently you don't understand the difference between acting based on emotion and acting based on generally accepted morality.

Maybe these examples will help:
The Nuremberg Laws = enacted due to a purely emotional response (fear & anger mostly)
Amendment XIII to the U.S. Constitution = enacted due to the generally accepted belief that slavery was immoral (props to President Lincoln and all the abolitionist cohorts that PERSUADED the majority will of the people that this was true).

See the difference?

and we have a process to repeal laws or EO's that we feel are unconstitutional which is what happened with DACA and DAPA. Obama's goal was to provide some temporary relief and opportunity until the congress pulled their heads out of their asses and figured out how to legislate. I'd say he was pretty successful in accomplishing his goal.

LOL, what a laudable goal... let "the dreamers" stay for a few years, give 'em hope and then have that hope smashed on the rocks when someone finally got around to mounting a legal challenge to his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority. Like I said before, those taking up the cause of "the dreamers" should be angry with President Nimrod for not following through using proper Constitutional order, he had more than enough time to do so.

The dream act was tried through congress many times. Our useless congress kept loading it up with other immigration agenda items and it never passed.

Uh-huh because the President never made a convincing reason & evidence based case that it was the right thing to do from a social, economic and security standpoint, it's the President's job to do this and failing that the appropriate thing to do would have been to rescind his EO, however President Nimrod choose to leave it intact, which leads one to believe that his intention was to create a wedge issue to serve as a thorn in the side of his political opponents, which is what he's managed to accomplish.

Don't forget the Nimrod had control of both Houses of Congress for 2 years after his election and if this had REALLY been an issue that needed resolving he had both the time and opportunity to accomplish it via normal order, this only became an issue he "cared about" AFTER the Republicans took control of the House and thus it gave him the opportunity to make it a political one.

Nothing was being done so Obama took action and successfully gave these kids opportunity to work and seek an education. It appears now that Trump is going to lead an effort to solidify a law to protect them. I don't like the chaotic way it's being done by Trump but if it gets the right results Through his leadership then I will give him credit. Like it or not what Obama did was effective.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between acting based on emotion and acting based on reason, the legislative process that we have as messy and inefficient as it may be is the only way to achieve a triumph of reason over emotion, since debate and deliberation (i.e. weighing immediate and opportunity costs as well as social impact prior to making any decisions) is required to accomplish that objective. "Giving these kids the opportunity to work and seek an education" is not a justification for the Executive to usurp legislative authority, it's an appeal to sympathy by a would be autocrat, the case must be made based on economic and social criteria that both justifies the costs and mitigates any potential negative societal effects and then Constitutional order must be observed else the rule of law is undermined.

All that Obama accomplished was to turn "the dreamers" into political pawns while at the same time further dividing the citizenry and distracting the political machinery in Washington from FAR more urgent matters.

Your entire analysis is political spin. You think he turned them into pawns, that's not true, these kids were undocumented, living Off the grid in fear of deportation. He gave them an opportunity to join society, and pursue work and an education. He may have cross the line with his legal authority but he did what many feel was the right thing on a human level. Go ahead an attack "emotional" actions if it makes you feel tough and superior but what he did made a difference and it was better than the alternative of doing nothing.

 

[Slade3200]

I think if my children have to compete against other children that were brought here illegally a decade ago then they have to compete for the work. I don't think we need to cast them out of this country. Kind of a pussy move if you ask me.

no that isn't how it works. and it's a shame you care zip about american citizens. amazing. how do you live as an american with that bullshit in your head? I love my fellow americans. you = shit for brains.

I don't see the difference between two children that grew up here. A piece of paper is the only thing separating the two, other than that this country is home to both children. This isn't a huge number of people, why are you so scared of them? You can hate law breakers all you want but these kids didn't break laws, their parents did. So what does it come down to? Do you just not like Mexicans or Immigrants. Why are you so scared to compete against them?

I know you don't. so you have no idea what it is to be a patriot. none at all.sorry, but your hate of US citizens is now well noted.

I love Americans... I also love what foreigner bring to our country... People from every country have amazing things to offer. I don't respect people who commit crimes and believe that there should be consequences, but we aren't talking about those people in this case now are we.

You're cheap little anti-american rants aren't landing. Try a different angle, you are sounding desperate. Try honest debate for a change

you hate US citizens. and an illegal brings zip into this country other than hurt to others who are citizens. look anti america queenie, you can banter with me all day everyday, and it ain't gonna change that you hate the US and its citizens. so perhaps you should go live in mehico since you love them so much. But leave my country traitor.

I'm about done with you man, I've put up with a lot of your idiotic bullshit arguments. You are a shining example of hypocrisy as you criticize snowflakes but act more emotional than everybody else on this board. You diss the left for using the race card on the right yet you use the same over blown rhetoric because you are too stupid to win an argument based on facts and intellect. One more childish "umamerican" or "ANTIFA lover" insult and you're on ignore and I rid myself of one more low IQ shit talker

 

[Slade3200]

I already stated what I think he should have done. Proposed a clear immigration plan showing his support and intent to protect the "Dreamers" then challenge the Congress to legislate a bill. If he did that then he could go after the EO from a constitutionality standpoint or let the courts shut it down without all the confusion. The way he did it leaves 750,000 people fearing for their future. Its extremely careless and is only going to multiply the problems and feed division.

Any plan Trump might put forward (other than unconditional amnesty) would instantly be torn to pieces by the DemPress as inherently racist. What is so wrong with following the Constitutional provision that legislation originates in Congress?

You make assumptions, that means nothing and is no excuse to support inaction from Trump as far as providing a detailed plan... There is nothing wrong with using Congress to legislate, thats what should happen. DACA was never meant to be permanent law, it was a deferral to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation while congress figured out legislation.

he just gave american children their country back. you illegal lover.

Ouch, you really got me there. Good one.
Excuse me for caring about PEOPLE. Especially innocent people who are being outcasted for no fault of their own.

Not an excuse. The people who came illegally are not my problem. Neither are their kids. Speaking of which, anyone know the avrage age of a dreamer?

Yeah, they were 6 years old when they came here

 

[Slade3200]

It is possible to walk and chew gum... Trump could have proposed an immigration reform plan to protect the dreamers, which is the moral and right thing to do, while also rescinding the EO to make the constitutional point. Or he could have let the EO get shut down by the courts and set a precedent on its constitutionality. This move was super careless, sloppy and divisive.

Why is that the moral and right thing to do? They are here illegally. Let them go back to Mexico with their parents and then apply for a visa.

I simply disagree, they grew up here and this is their home. They are hungry to work and contribute to our society like ALL of our ancestors were who first came here. They should be given the opportunity to do that without being displaced to a foreign land

 

[my2¢]

Immigration isn't addressed in the Constitution and so I guess it all depends if one believes whether the Constitution is a "living document"?

If it is I would select as my answer (A) the Constitution.
If it isn't I would say (C) none of the above, our immigration laws are un-constitutional and it is up to the states.

I'm leaning towards (A) and hope Congress acts to prevent Trump from having to pull an Obama.

 

[jc456]

no that isn't how it works. and it's a shame you care zip about american citizens. amazing. how do you live as an american with that bullshit in your head? I love my fellow americans. you = shit for brains.

I don't see the difference between two children that grew up here. A piece of paper is the only thing separating the two, other than that this country is home to both children. This isn't a huge number of people, why are you so scared of them? You can hate law breakers all you want but these kids didn't break laws, their parents did. So what does it come down to? Do you just not like Mexicans or Immigrants. Why are you so scared to compete against them?

I know you don't. so you have no idea what it is to be a patriot. none at all.sorry, but your hate of US citizens is now well noted.

I love Americans... I also love what foreigner bring to our country... People from every country have amazing things to offer. I don't respect people who commit crimes and believe that there should be consequences, but we aren't talking about those people in this case now are we.

You're cheap little anti-american rants aren't landing. Try a different angle, you are sounding desperate. Try honest debate for a change

you hate US citizens. and an illegal brings zip into this country other than hurt to others who are citizens. look anti america queenie, you can banter with me all day everyday, and it ain't gonna change that you hate the US and its citizens. so perhaps you should go live in mehico since you love them so much. But leave my country traitor.

I'm about done with you man, I've put up with a lot of your idiotic bullshit arguments. You are a shining example of hypocrisy as you criticize snowflakes but act more emotional than everybody else on this board. You diss the left for using the race card on the right yet you use the same over blown rhetoric because you are too stupid to win an argument based on facts and intellect. One more childish "umamerican" or "ANTIFA lover" insult and you're on ignore and I rid myself of one more low IQ shit talker

stop being anti amercian then. what is it you don't get? you should pull your head out of your ass and fight for the same thing our fore fathers fought for. and that ain't open borders. stop backing the illegals then. admit they know they are here illegally and they knowingly shit on the hand outs they got marching in the street and flipping off america. stop carrying the mexican flag. you said they think america is their home right? they know know other right? why the fk do I see mehico flags in my country's streets then? you're a loser, put me on ignore, you have no skill set to debate. you stand on your ideology when it is wrong.

 

[NightFox]

Right here...
"threaten"; we should feel sorry for them and chuck the rule of law out the fucking window because the rule of law is mean.

Looks like an appeal to emotion, quacks like an appeal to emotion, we have to at least consider the possibility that it's an appeal to emotion.

Perhaps your failure to recognize it as such stems from the fact that you can't recognize the difference between acting based on emotion and proper Constitutional order.

If President Nimrod had "motivated" Congress to act over the last 5 years and exercise its Constitutionally vested legislative authority and the relevant Article I Section 8 enumerated power it enjoys it wouldn't have come to this, so perhaps your anger would be more appropriately directed at him instead of the current moron in the Oval Office who is actually doing something right for a change.

President Nimrod, as you call him, tried many times to get a stagnant congress to act. They failed to do anything with immigration reform for the better part of two decades.

In other words President Nimrod, the guy that was supposed to be the leader failed to persuade Congress and it's constituents that it was the right thing to do, yet instead of him following proper constitutional order and rescinding his executive order for prosecutorial discretion in the deportation of "the dreamers" since he lacked the Constitutional Authority to in effect unilaterally alter federal legislation, he behaved as a small child would and stubbornly ignored the representatives of the majority will of the people, because as usual with the Nimrod his opinion was the only one that counted (a trait shared by many would be autocrats).

Thus we are here, where President Twitter has to clean up a mess made by President Nimrod, because President Nimrod lacked both effective leadership skills and humility.

DACA was an overreach but it was what he did to provide temporary relief to a group of nearly 1 million children and teenagers who were living in the shadows. Sure you can blame it on "feelings". How many laws that involve human rights were motivated by feelings? All of them? The emancipation proclamation to free slaves, the EO's to desegregate schools and the military etc. Of course feelings are involved...

Apparently you don't understand the difference between acting based on emotion and acting based on generally accepted morality.

Maybe these examples will help:
The Nuremberg Laws = enacted due to a purely emotional response (fear & anger mostly)
Amendment XIII to the U.S. Constitution = enacted due to the generally accepted belief that slavery was immoral (props to President Lincoln and all the abolitionist cohorts that PERSUADED the majority will of the people that this was true).

See the difference?

and we have a process to repeal laws or EO's that we feel are unconstitutional which is what happened with DACA and DAPA. Obama's goal was to provide some temporary relief and opportunity until the congress pulled their heads out of their asses and figured out how to legislate. I'd say he was pretty successful in accomplishing his goal.

LOL, what a laudable goal... let "the dreamers" stay for a few years, give 'em hope and then have that hope smashed on the rocks when someone finally got around to mounting a legal challenge to his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority. Like I said before, those taking up the cause of "the dreamers" should be angry with President Nimrod for not following through using proper Constitutional order, he had more than enough time to do so.

The dream act was tried through congress many times. Our useless congress kept loading it up with other immigration agenda items and it never passed.

Uh-huh because the President never made a convincing reason & evidence based case that it was the right thing to do from a social, economic and security standpoint, it's the President's job to do this and failing that the appropriate thing to do would have been to rescind his EO, however President Nimrod choose to leave it intact, which leads one to believe that his intention was to create a wedge issue to serve as a thorn in the side of his political opponents, which is what he's managed to accomplish.

Don't forget the Nimrod had control of both Houses of Congress for 2 years after his election and if this had REALLY been an issue that needed resolving he had both the time and opportunity to accomplish it via normal order, this only became an issue he "cared about" AFTER the Republicans took control of the House and thus it gave him the opportunity to make it a political one.

Nothing was being done so Obama took action and successfully gave these kids opportunity to work and seek an education. It appears now that Trump is going to lead an effort to solidify a law to protect them. I don't like the chaotic way it's being done by Trump but if it gets the right results Through his leadership then I will give him credit. Like it or not what Obama did was effective.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between acting based on emotion and acting based on reason, the legislative process that we have as messy and inefficient as it may be is the only way to achieve a triumph of reason over emotion, since debate and deliberation (i.e. weighing immediate and opportunity costs as well as social impact prior to making any decisions) is required to accomplish that objective. "Giving these kids the opportunity to work and seek an education" is not a justification for the Executive to usurp legislative authority, it's an appeal to sympathy by a would be autocrat, the case must be made based on economic and social criteria that both justifies the costs and mitigates any potential negative societal effects and then Constitutional order must be observed else the rule of law is undermined.

All that Obama accomplished was to turn "the dreamers" into political pawns while at the same time further dividing the citizenry and distracting the political machinery in Washington from FAR more urgent matters.

Your entire analysis is political spin. You think he turned them into pawns, that's not true

Uh-huh, that's why we have mass protests and Congress Critters stepping all over each other to get spotlight on this "issue".

The "dreamers" are perfect political pawns because the masses of sheeple react exactly like you are, all emotion NO REASON.

, these kids were undocumented, living Off the grid in fear of deportation. He gave them an opportunity to join society, and pursue work and an education.

More appeals to EMOTION.... where's the reason and evidence based analysis? What are the economic impacts and opportunity costs of DACA? what are the negative societal consequences? what are the benefits? if the benefits outweigh the costs why not make a reason and evidence based case and follow proper Constitutional order?

He may have cross the line with his legal authority but he did what many feel was the right thing on a human level.

There is no *may* about it, he overstepped his authority and "the right thing on a human level" is nothing but a bunch of meaningless word salad, when it comes to National Public Policy the "right thing" can only be determined by reasoned analysis of costs and benefits not by sympathy and sobbing.

Go ahead an attack "emotional" actions if it makes you feel tough and superior but what he did made a difference and it was better than the alternative of doing nothing.

It isn't about "tough" it's about making decisions based on reason and evidence versus making decisions based on how you "feel" , the former most often leads to positive outcomes the latter to disasters.