Header Image (book)


Monday, September 4, 2017

The Art of the DACA


President Trump has been teetering for months on the brink of a decision on what to do with President Obama's illegal and unconstitutional DACA, which has millions of illegal immigrants in limbo. Reports say he has pulled the trigger, deciding to end the program, but giving Congress six months to come up with meaningful legislation.

Paul Ryan is concerned, after all his years of go along to get along while Emperor Obama was issuing imperial dicta:
"President (Barack) Obama does not have the authority to do what he did ... we've made that very clear," Ryan said in the radio interview. "Having said all of that, there are people who are in limbo. These are kids who know no other country, who were brought here by their parents and don't know another home. And so I really do believe there that there needs to be a legislative solution."
Hold Them Hostage -- No Immigration Reform, No DACA Reform

President Trump claims to be the greatest deal-maker in the history of humankind, so he should hold those DACA people hostage and threaten to deport them all if congress does not do the following:

* Revamp immigration law to stop chain migration (there is legistation pending that proposes this)

* Implement a nation-wide, nobody-exempt worker verification system similar to verification for gun purchases. We have the technology, we can do it, and we can catch social security number fraudsters and identity thieves while we're at it.

* Same identity verification system for all forms of public assistance. With no way to work and no way to get public assistance, it becomes much less attractive to pay a human trafficker to get you here illegally.

* Impose a five year moratorium on immigration

* Build the damned wall!

The last two are bargaining chips, giving the other side some wins by forcing the President to cede some ground: A wall in some places, other places natural barriers, technology, etc. And instead of a total moratorium, slashing immigration by 50%.

Immigration Reform's Last Stand

President Trump should demand congress do its job and include his demands in the legislation, or he will not sign it. The future of the millions of DACA people (most of them are now adults) is in the hands of congress. Do the wrong thing, Mitch and Paul, and you condemn them. Do the right thing, and you are heroes.

President Trump holds the high cards--he can veto the legislation, and he controls the Justice Department.  President Trump has the Dems over a barrel, and that is a rare position for a Republican. The GOP needs to take full advantage of it.

Democrats and some Republicans want to legalize the DACA people? Full, comprehensive and legally-enforceable immigration reform is the price.

Related: DACA immigrants terrified as President Trump decides their fate


  1. From this source:

    ...Try to wrap your head around this. A Democratic President signs a 2012 Executive Order that is so egregious a US District Judge finds it unconstitutional, all the while Republicans condemn it. Fast forward to 2017: A Republican President, in keeping with his campaign promise, wants to revoke said Executive Order, and Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi stand together in opposition?...

    That's where we are, all right.


    DACA is not merely a matter of "the law." It is a matter of Constitutional boundaries.

    If the POTUS can "legislate" immigration (BHO's end run around Congress), the the POTUS can "legislate" any matter.

    Furthermore, any executive order is easily undone by the next POTUS.

    If Americans in any given voting district want DACA to stand, they should inundate their elected public servants with requests to do so.

    In my view, President Trump should let DACA expire. It is up to our Congress to change immigration law. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

    [The Congress shall have Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

    It is great foolishness for us to think that the Dreamers will not, one day, also demand a path to citizenship.

    1. ...They already have one, AoW.

      "...those granted advance parole can then ask to adjust their status and gain legal residence — and eventually citizenship — as long as they have a qualifying relationship.


      The Supreme Court stated that for relationships between individuals, a close familial relationship is required. The Department of State adopted the following criteria for meeting the definition of a “close familial relationship”:

       Parent (including in-law and step)
       Spouse or fiancée
       Child and adult son or daughter (including son- or daughter-in-law and step)
       Sibling (including whole, half, and step)

      Thereafter on July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to disturb an order of the District Court of Hawaii extending the definition to grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.

      My cousin’s an American citizen. Make me one, too!

    2. It is a matter of constitutional boundaries.

      We used to have a Constitution that protected us from an authoritarian (tyrannical) government. Congressmen (and presidents) have so disregarded this Constitution for so long, it is as if we never had one. Now, American voters, geniuses that they are, keep electing the same kinds of people to high office and then wonder why our country sucks so bad.

  2. Trump's opening bid - Deport all children of illegal aliens. I like it! They've even got a list now, thanks to Obama! :)

  3. At Reuters this morning, we read this:

    Immigrant 'Dreamers' - and their bosses - wait anxiously for Trump decision.

    At the time that Obama used his pen and gave end-run legality, nobody -- including employers -- ever imagined that the next POTUS wouldn't be an open borders type (HRC and Jeb Bush, for example).

    Now our nation is faced with the ugly fact that, if DACA is halted, these employers will either lose their employees or be held legally accountable for hiring illegal aliens. Regarding those penalties, see "illegal aliens fines for hiring" (without quotation marks). As far as I know, these are still on the books:

    Employers Must

    Verify the identity and employment authorization of each person hired after Nov. 6, 1986. For employment in the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands (CNMI), this verification requirement applies to persons hired after Nov. 27, 2009.

    Complete and retain Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for each employee who is required to complete the form.


    Employers who violate the law may be subject to:

    Civil fines

    Criminal penalties (when there is a pattern or practice of violations)

    Debarment from government contracts

    Makes one wonder what one's responsibility is when hiring a maid service.

    1. If we want the above to change, that change should come from Congress.


      Full stop.

    2. No one really "verifies" the I-9 form data. The form only ensures that the undocumented workers obtain "reasonably good forgeries" of the documents they need. from Wiki:

      Form I-9 is used for verifying the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States. All U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. This includes citizens and noncitizens. Both employees and employers (or authorized representatives of the employer) must complete the form. On the form, an employee must attest to his or her employment authorization. The employee must also present his or her employer with acceptable documents evidencing identity and employment authorization. The employer must examine the employment eligibility and identity document(s) an employee presents to determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee and record the document information on the Form I-9. The list of acceptable documents can be found on the last page of the form. Employers must retain Form I-9 for a designated period and make it available for inspection by authorized government officers. NOTE: State agencies may use Form I-9. Also, some agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee may be required to use Form I-9.

    3. That I-9 he gave me "reasonably appears to be genuine to me," a disreputable and rather half-blind self-interested employer...

  4. I appreciate everythng SilverFiddle has said, and agree with most of it, but I'd like to offer my own –– admittedly simplistic –– (potential) solution to the knotty problem of Ending Illegal Imigration:


    I'm anti-PUNISHMENT and anti-unnecessary DISRUPTION, except for the perpetrators of violent crimes, and anti-social behavior
    . Human beings will ALWAYS take advantage of everything that gives them easy access to gaining greater profit, ease, comfort and pleasure. That's a GIVEN. So we must STOP TRYING to CHANGE HUMAN NATURE by legistaling against it. The process is an exercise in futility. THEREFORE:


    END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP by repealing the false, latter-day leftist "interpretation" of the Foureenth Amendment that allows any pregnant woman to produce an instant U.S. citizen simply by giving birth on OUR shores. It's worse tham ASININE. It's ramifications are downright EVIL, because they create a situation Ripe for Abuse.


    BUILD the WALL with all possible technological accoutrements needed to help create as IMPENETRABLE a BORDER as may be possible.


    Once the Wall is Built make it absolutely ILLEGAL for any MORE "Nomadic immigrants" to enter OUR country ever again. Any who could still manage to get through the NEW Barrier would be subject to IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION –– no "Investigations, no "Hearings," no "Trials," no "Delays," no "Clemency," no "Pardons," no NONSENSE, no KIDDING! –– Just O-U-T! People who violate OUR immigration Laws AFTER THE WALL IS BUILT should be granted NO RIGHTS whatsoever, although i would not want to see them tortred, maimed or killed, of course..


    I do believe in the age-old concept of SQUATTERS RGHTS. Therefore ,once an illegal alien has managed to establish himself here, remain gainfully employed, has committed no violent crimes, has not accepted Welfare or Food Stamps, and has in fact proved himself to be a useful contributor to OUR society on OUR terms, he should be permitted to REMAIN HERE with no PUNISHMENT whatsoever.


    The ONLY time a so-called "DREAMER" should EVER be subject to incarcertation and Deportation woud be if he commits a violent crime.


    We should aim to END VIOLENCE, DISRUPTION, DISORDER and UNKINDNESS. We should NOT aim to PUNISH anyone for mere "TECHNICAL infractions" of laws that we never encforced properly in the first place.


    WE must accept responsibility for this SHAMBLES that WE have made by OUR everlasting FAILURE to STOP PLAYING GAMES and deal EFFECTIVELY with the problem WE have CREATED through NEGLIGENCE, and chronic STUPIDITY.

    1. FT,
      I mostly agree. But not with regard to squatters rights.

      Sovereign national borders, such as what all modern First World nations have (with the possible exception of the United States) allow for squatters rights but only for citizens.

      an illegal alien has managed to establish himself here, remain gainfully employed, has committed no violent crimes, has not accepted Welfare or Food Stamps, and has in fact proved himself to be a useful contributor to OUR society on OUR terms, he should be permitted to REMAIN HERE with no PUNISHMENT whatsoever.

      Actually, most HAVE received public assistance -- via the public schools systems, which ALSO have expensive-to-the-taxpayers ESOL classes WITH COUNSELORS to the point that average native born Americans get squeezed out of having an opportunity to learn.

      This happened to my "nephew" Daniel, whose middle school and high school education was well below mediocre. He remedied that problem by enlisting in the USMC and served 10 long months in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

      Then Daniel came home -- mostly whole, thank God! -- and enrolled in remedial classes to get his life on track. He's miles behind in age, of course.

    2. Let's sort out these Dreamers. The least infraction -- including a speeding ticket -- and out he should go. He can take back to wherever his American-acquired skills and benefit his homeland.

    3. I most heartily disagree with the utter IMPRACTICABILITY and sheer MERCILESSNESS of your postion.

      Every one of us needs to go thfrough the mental exefrcise of putting ourselves in the place of a person who effectively has known no other country, has lived here 70-95% of his life, has been educated here, has developed friendships here, has in many instances even served in OUR armed forces sometimes with HONOR and DISTINCTION, has held a job, married an AMERICAN girl, STARTED A FAMILY OF his own, bought property, etc etc, etc.

      The idea of forcibly deporting such a person is MONSTROUSLY INHUMANE and frankly think it is downright STUPID.

      As I said in my initial post: ONLY a so-called "Dreamer" who has committed MURDER, RAPE, ROBBERY, ARSON, VANDALISM, KIDNAPING or is involved with GANG VIOLENCE, DRUG DEALING, and HUMAN TRAFFICKING should be subject to Summary Deporation.

    4. Also, I think you have seriously misunderstood my reference to "Squatters Rights"at least in this context. The impetus behind that has always been rooted in Moral, Ethical and Spiritual considerations, –– not some cold-hearted LEGALSTIC use of Authority to push people around at will.

    5. FT,
      We will have to agree to disagree. Each of us is entrenched.

    6. FT,
      You said not some cold-hearted LEGALSTIC use of Authority to push people around at will.

      And I say, "Not some BLEEDING HEART use of Authority to push CITIZENS around at will."

      You know, the same sympathetic arguments used to promote the Reagan Amnesty are being rehashed this time around.

      It is wearisome for ever more of rinse and repeat.

    7. If you don't deport them, FT, then you must agree that the most "humane" way to treat dreamers is to make them homo sacer.

  5. Food for thought:

    What were the terms of the Reagan Amnesty? Wasn't that supposed to be the amnesty that ended all amnesties?

    1. You know as well as I that the DEMOCRATS refused to implement the Second Part of the Reagan Amnesty Program, which was ro SEAL OFF FURTHER ILLEGAL ACCESS to the USA once and for all.

    2. Exactly. Lax enforcement leads to further lax enforcement and recurrence of the original problem being "legislatively normalized". Government simply doesn't do its' job, and then we all pay the price.

      I don't want the Government to be the "good guys" who forgive everything. I want them to be the mean punishing pricks that the American people aren't.

      And so THAT is why the dreamers have got to go. Our Government isn't serious. And if it isn't serious, it can't protect us or "deal" with serious issues like North Korean nukes of Syrian wars and refugees.

    3. The Democrats already have laws in certain states (ie California) that prevent E-Verify from being used. There is no chance in hell that they'll start enforcing E-Verify now.

    4. FJ,
      Our Government isn't serious.

      That's a major part of two of the serious problems facing us right now!

    5. FT,
      Of course I know that answer to my question about amnesty.

      And it will be the same this time around -- unless WE THE PEOPLE somehow force that lack of enforcement (the wall) not to be the case again.

    6. FJ,
      The Democrats already have laws in certain states (ie California) that prevent E-Verify from being used.

      In violation of federal law?

    7. E-Verify is only mandated for use with federal contractors. No one else HAS to use it.

      Wiki:As of 8 September 2009, employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause are required to use E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of 1) Employees performing direct, substantial work under those federal contracts and 2) New hires organization-wide, regardless of whether they are working on a federal contract. A federal contractor or subcontractor who has a contract with the FAR E-Verify clause also has the option to verify the company's entire workforce.

      more from Wiki: All employers, by law, must complete Form I-9. E-Verify is closely linked to Form I-9, but participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most employers. After an employee is hired to work for pay, the employee and employer complete Form I-9. After an employee begins work for pay, the employer enters the information from Form I-9 into E-Verify. E-Verify then compares that information against millions of government records and returns a result.

      and still More from Wiki: In 2011, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rejected that Arizona's law, as a state law, was pre-empted by federal law, effectively verifying that states may constitutionally mandate the use of E-Verify.[18] There are several state laws regarding the requirement or prohibition of E-Verify for employers. According to a 2012 survey by the Center for Immigration Studies, 16 states require use of E-Verify in some form. The survey found that six states have laws requiring all or nearly all businesses to use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility: Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. Five states require use of E-Verify by public employers and all or most public contractors: Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Missouri. Three states require only public contractors to use E-Verify: Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Idaho only requires public employers to use E-Verify, while Florida only requires it for agencies under direction of the governor. Tennessee, Colorado, and Utah encourage use of E-Verify, but allow for alternative means of employment verification. An E-Verify-only mandate in Utah is contingent on the state's effort to create a state-level guestworker program. The survey also found that some states have moved in the opposite direction, limiting or discouraging use of E-Verify: California, Rhode Island, and Illinois.

    8. More from Wiki on California's anti-E-Verify law: In 2011, California passed an act to prohibit municipalities from mandating use of E-Verify.[28] At least 20 municipalities had required use of E-Verify,[29] for all businesses and/or companies doing business with the local government, including Mission Viejo[30] (2007), Temecula[31][32] (ordinance 5.06.030) (2010), Murrieta[33][34][35] (ordinance Chapter 5.04) (2010), Riverside,[36] Santa Maria[37][38] (only for city employees), Lake Elsinore[39] (Ordinance No. 1279)[40] (2010), Wildomar[41] (only for contractors) (2010), Lancaster[42] (Ordinance No. 934), Palmdale, San Clemente, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, San Bernardino County, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Simi Valley.[29]

      Cities considering E-Verify ordinances for businesses for 2011 are Costa Mesa,[43] San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria[44] (for all businesses) Santa Barbara, and San Jose. However, Costa Mesa[45][46][47] is the only city that has adapted the same state law as Arizona's SB-1070, allowing the City to arrest those without proper identification of resident status under suspicion of being unlawfully present in the United States.

    9. __________________ WARNING: __________________

      You are begging for the establushment of a class Police State on bended knee, Beanie.

      Are you SURE that's what you really want?

      Please don't forget that Draconian Power applied to further YOUR favored goals could just as easily be applied to DESTROY you.

      "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big eonugh to take away everything you have."

    10. BAF,
      E-Verify is only mandated for use with federal contractors. No one else HAS to use it.

      That, then, is in keeping with the principles of federalism.

      I do wonder, though, what happens with federal-tax and Medicare-FICA withholding from paychecks.

    11. Federal tax would likely be zero (ten exemptions). Medicare-FICA are the only taxes illegals pay.

  6. More food for thought:

    What about all those who are patiently awaiting legal entry into the United States?

    Should such legal immigrants not be allowed to move to the head of the line?

    1. There IS no LINE! The concept is ILLUSORY.

      We have to learn to deal humanely with, REALITY, and stop the nonsensical presumption that we are "a natiin of laws," when in FACT we have been a nation with a "FREE-FOR ALL" policy when it comes to immigration for many decades.

      As I keep saying, it is OUR fault for allowing this "crisis"to develop in the first place. It has cme as the result of DECADES UPON DECADES of NEGLIGENCE.

    2. FT,
      There IS no LINE! The concept is ILLUSORY.

      You keep saying that! And I again ask, "Do we not see film footage of newly naturalized citizens?"

      People must indeed be in line.

    3. FT,
      it is OUR fault

      To a point. But we elect politicians on the basis of their promises. Those promises evaporate once the newly elected take office. Rinse and repeat.

    4. The work of INS is FARCICAL, AOW. I have a cousin who just retired from an executive position there md he has said for years that he was ashamed to take his salary, because the agency, –– a maelstrom of confusion, inefficiency, blithering idiocy, and institutionalized injustice –– was such an incredible mess.

      INS today has become virtually Kafka-esque.

      "Bureaucracy is the Enemy of Democracy"

    5. FT,
      Then your cousin should have walked away -- ON THE BASIS OF MORAL PRINCIPLES.

      As for INS being virtually Kafka-esque, law enforcement is often that way. Reality. But without law enforcement, we'd not have personal safety.

      I repeat (more or less): CONGRESS NEEDS TO DEVISE A COHERENT IMMIGRATION POLICY. BUT, FIRST, CONGRESS NEEDS TO FUND THE WALL -- and before sorting out those who are here illegally.

      Right now, Trump has an excellent bargaining chip with DACA: continue it for 6 months for those already here so that Congress can devise a coherent immigration policy. Without such a hideous bargaining chip, those weasels in Congress will never get off their asses and fulfill that for which they nave been elected.

      BTW, DACA does not apply to many illegal immigrants. Only those age 35 and younger can avail themselves of DACA. For those over the age of 35, Congress also needs to act. Otherwise, the laws for deportation are still on the books and will likely be enforced by INS/ICE. Like all government employees, they will act to protect their jobs, which support their families. INS/ICE officers also have families to support.


    6. (continuation)

      Right now, America has this one viable chance to straighten out the immigration-policy mess!

    7. FT,
      I urge you to read every comment and link I have posted in this thread. We are posting over each other at times.

      Comments are going into moderation now. My first day of 2017-2018 classes today!

  7. FT stated:
    There IS no LINE [for legal immigration]! The concept is ILLUSORY.

    No line? People aren't applying via legal avenues?

    I see some of the ceremonies for legal immigrants being sworn in as naturalized citizens. Not all of them are from countries far across the seas.

    1. Please see my statement just above.

      The INS process has became almost entire CAPRICIOUS

      Besides, don't you think –– as I do –– that it's long past time to put a STOP to ALL further immigration?

      We can't govern 300-odd million as it is. Adding more only adds to the problem.

  8. Why do politicians do love amnesty for illegal aliens?

    I think that it has something to do with voting blocs.

    Both Parties are guilty!

  9. Silverfiddle,
    If Paul Ryan really believes that there needs to be a legislative solution, what plan has he put on the table? Does he have a bill to replace DACA, or does he want to kick the can down the road some more?





    In all these frenzied comments, something that SF stated at the conclusion of the blog post appears to have been lost:

    Democrats and some Republicans want to legalize the DACA people? Full, comprehensive and legally-enforceable immigration reform is the price.

    And fund the wall first!

    1. I actually DID say that in my first post.

      There should never have been any declaration of "amnesty" at all UNTIL we had effectively SEALED the BORDER once and for all thirty years ago.

      And I will maintain to my dying day, that the MAJORITY of these people came here to WORK and work HARD –– and very WILLINGLY. It was the Democrats who have LURED the UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS here by dangling the promise of FREEBIESin their poor faces.

      President Reagan's Big Mistake was in TRUSTING CONGRESS to FOLLOW THROUGH.

      I think it moral wring to UNSH decent, hardwrokung people who are leading cnsgructive, basically blameless lives, because of a legal technicality.

      It is CONGRESS who should be subjected to SEVERE, UNYIELDING PUNISHMENT –– not these poor Vi tims of Circumstances that OUR negligence and incredible stupidity CREATED.

      REAGAN had the right idea. It was CONGRESS's faiure to FOLLOW THROUGH that has led to the current crisis.

      I refuse to credit the illegal immigrants with any eleborate, crafty, cynical SCHEMES to defraud and take advantage of our nation.

      In many ways the flood tide of illegal immigration could well be compared to the flow of ELECTRICITY –– it always takes the path of LEAST RESISTANCE.

      The samne thing happens with water toom if course. If we don't keep our dams and dykes in good repair, flood waters WILL break through any SEAK POINT and the entire barrier will give way.

      We can't blame WATER and ELECTRICITY for doing what they do naturally when uimpeded. We can only blame OURSEVES for not havung building that G-D WALL decades ago

    2. Please. No one's ever going to build a wall or start enforcing immigration controls. It's all a scam to keep people voting for corporate establishment shills. The government simply "normalizes" all it's ineffective policies. It's a bad joke. ALL these DACA kids and illegals are going to get citizenship. The federal government is on the global capitalist side, not the American people's side. They are in the "keeping wages low" business so that they can trade their products tariff-free globally.

    3. I'm sorry. My typing abilities have deteriorated so badly in the past year I can't really type at all anymore. Arthritis, Tendinitis, and seriously Impaired Vision have all taken their toll –– along with the fatigue that comes with advancing age.

    4. The Laws are a bad joke. Our government is a bad joke. And Trump doesn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of ever changing that.

    5. You are right, of course Beanie, but it is NOT necessaty to ACCEPT a rotten status quo. True Progres –– and there HAS been some over the long haul we must admit –– has been brought about by those few brave, highly-intellgent, genuinely creative souls who have NOT been willing to BUCK the system –– often at great personal cost to themselves.

      After all, look what The Mob did to JESUS!

    6. Trump could end DACA tomorrow. He isn't, because he wants the corrupt politicians to come clean and expose their true policies. Gloabaization. But hey, I already KNOW their corrupt policies. So end DACA NOW!



    2. BUILD the WALL

    3. EXCLUDE any MORE "Nomadic immigrants" and subject those who still manage to get through the NEW Barrier to IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION

    4.Those who have already establshed themselves here should NOT be disturbed, penalized or deported, UNLESS they are violent criminals.

    5. Our primary am should be to END VIOLENCE, DISRUPTION, DISORDER and UNKINDNESS. We should NOT aim to PUNISH anyone for mere "TECHNICAL infractions" of laws that we never encforced properly in the first place.

    6. WE must accept responsibility for this SHAMBLES that WE have made by OUR everlasting FAILURE to deal EFFECTIVELY with the problem WE have CREATED through NEGLIGENCE, and chronic STUPIDITY.

    If we did all that, the problem would end very quickly.

    1. Please, no one tracks visa visitors to the US. Hundreds of thousands fly over the wall, land at a US airport, and then over-stay their visas. No one from ICE ever follows up.

    2. If you had understood the impications of my admittedly amateruish artempt to synthesize a possible solution, Beanie, ypu would have understood that I meant to do whatever mjght be necessary to eliminate granting VISAS to ANYONE from "questionable areas," and BARRING ENTRY to OUR country even for so-called "visitors" of "qiestionable background from "questionable" lands.

      You're RIGHT I am asking to insitutite a policy of MILITANT, UNYIELDING D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N against the most likely suspects –– and JAIL TIME for those who oppose the policy.

    3. Canadians are the worst offenders on visa overstays. I doubt you'd have discriminated against ANY of them. I say TRACK them with implants and chop off the arms of any visa holder who disables or removes an implant.

  12. Calling those who scoff against our laws "Dreamers" is offensive to me as both a citizen and an individual who has traveled to ten different nations/territories with proper documentation secured and in hand. (And also lived in semi-permanent status in one nation for many years.)

    Because some genius has labeled these individuals "Dreamers" as opposed to "Lawbreakers" we find it palatable. I don't care if some of them were "kids" when they came here. When my kids were young and did wrong, they did not get a free skate and were not called "Dreamers". Mama made sure that they understood breaking the law under the home roof, or the law on the street, had consequences.

    It is unfair to require of those who have been lawful throughout their lives to bend their own convictions to facilitate lawbreakers.

    * Beat me up, one and all. I believe our laws should be enforced.

    1. I agree, tlep. Either enforce the law, or get rid of ICE. It's either a waste of money, or it isn't.

    2. TLEP,
      Today, I read the lead article in the WaPo: about a "Dreamer" who turns out to be a member of MS-13. Or so it seems at this point, anyway.

    3. And so according to your way of thinking all the DECENT "Dreamers" must be serverely punished by BRUTAL EXPULSION from the lives they've made for themselves, because ONE of their number turned out to be ROTTEN?

      I ask you, please, to THINK about the dire implications of such an attitude?

    4. FT,
      Good grief! I didn't say any such thing!

      But what I wish to point out: not all the "Dreamers" are dreamers after all. They have to be vetted -- and we can do so via their having registered for DACA.

      Note: the young man I mentioned took up residence in an area heavily infested with MS-13. Bodies are turning up all over Northern Virginia. Victims of MS-13.

      Not all these "Dreamers" are DECENT "Dreamers".

    5. So, FT, I ask YOU not to evaluation all "Dreamers" according to the good and decent Dreamers.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. They could ALL be decent. I'd still expel them ALL. If not, why PRETEND that there are borders and things like citizenship?


    Maybe I've been missing something here but where do the parents of these, so called, "DREAMERS", still residing here illegally, fit in especially if the DREAMERS are their dependents? I'm just asking.

    1. Jon,
      Good question!

      And, thus far on the one-eyed monster, I've heard no discussion thereof.

    2. I don't see anything that prevents bleeding heart leftists from leaving America with the deported children to take care of them.

  14. Something I haven't heard mentioned:

    7) Trump, or the courts, might put DACA to an end — but the details are still unclear

    If Trump doesn’t act to end DACA before September 5, a group of state attorneys general, led by Texas, are threatening to sue to do it for him. They want to ask a federal judge who already ruled one Obama-era deferred action program unconstitutional (the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, or DAPA, which was stopped before going into effect in 2015) to do the same for DACA.

    The lawsuit would probably result in DACA getting put on hold at some point — though it wouldn’t be at all clear when, or how.


    4) DREAMers aren’t all valedictorians — but they are integrated into the US

    One of the reasons that legalizing or protecting DREAMers has been politically popular — even when legalizing other unauthorized immigrants, including their parents, has not — is the stereotype of DREAMers as high school valedictorians and high-achieving college students. This stereotype has been pushed by politicians on both sides of the aisle since the early days of the DREAM Act, and it’s the angle that much of the media coverage took in calling attention to the problem throughout the 2000s.

    And Many of the Dreamers have children.

  15. From DACA is Socialism, Not Compassion:

    ...Once Central American families heard that America will give them a permiso if they can get across the border into the United States–which is paradise to them–they would do whatever is necessary to rob that bank. About 800,000 of them have successfully made it in and applied for DACA protections. We don’t have good numbers on how many tried and failed.


    ...Setting aside the fact that DACA is illegal, it should end because it’s socialist–putting the burden of ownership of the means of production, namely the labor force of millions of illegals–into the hands of the State, using government money. It’s not compassionate, because it creates an incentive for people to risk their lives to enter our country....

  16. And from I Support DACA in Principle, But President Trump Is Right to End It and closely echoes my own views on the topic:

    ...Regardless of my personal preferences, I think the constitution has to override everything else. And without constitutional authority, whether I like it or not, I cannot support it....

    Read it all at the above link.

    BTW, DACA is NOT a path to citizenship. Yet, many "Dreamers" have children born her on our soil. Young children!

  17. I prefer a Friedman solution. "You can't have open borders and a welfare state..." - so, get rid of the welfare state.

    1. I can hardly wait for the arrival of the 300 million Chinese immigrants, 500 million Indian immigrants, and 10 million jihadi's. :)

    2. You gonna loan them the money to get here?

    3. Seems to me that if they can build entire cities and not even occupy them or rent them out, they've got plenty of money to get here.

  18. The political machinations aren't surprising.

    President Happy Hands, knowing that the measure is generally supported, lies low and let's Beauregard announce the repeal and dump it in the Congress' lap.

    My prediction is that DACA will not ultimately be repealed.

    1. Maybe President Trump can follow in his predecessor's footsteps and promise them, "If you like your status, you can keep your status."

    2. Nostradumbass makes another prediction. LOL!

      Unfortunately, I couldn't get to my bookie in time.

      BTW, Nostradumbass, DACA wasn't a law it didn't have to be repealed, it was an Executive Order. All Trump had to do was resend it.

    3. Warren,
      DACA wasn't a law it didn't have to be repealed, it was an Executive Order.


      Terminology matters.

      I learned yesterday that a number of my acquaintances didn't know that DACA was only 5 years old. Hmmmm....

  19. Spotted on evening blog rounds:

    Take note...these are the RINO's supporting DACA:

    Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
    Paul Ryan (R-WI)
    Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
    Sens. Orin Hatch (R-UT)
    Thom Tillis (R-NC)
    Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
    Jeff Denham (R-CA),
    David Valadao (R-CA)
    Carlos Curbelo (R-FL),
    Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
    Daniel Donovan (R-NY)
    Don Bacon (R-NE)
    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
    Will Hurd (R-TX)
    Martha McSally (R-AZ)
    Scott Taylor (R-VA)
    Dave Reichert (R-WA)
    Dan Newhouse (R-WA)
    John Faso (R-NY)

    Exactly 19. Which along with the 48 democrats would give them 67.

    Do they dare . . . The phase-out will be 6 months, putting the final time in April, just before the official start of campaign season. To legalize DACA will also aid with weeding out a bunch of these RINOS.

  20. As I typed in at Z's blog a few minutes ago...

    The very word "Dreamers" is starting to anger me. Is it a deliberate invoking of Dreams of My Father?

    Okay, maybe that's a reach.

    But this isn't:

    American citizens have dreams, too.

    These "Dreamers" are not the only ones with dreams.

    But, apparently, their dreams are more important than those of American citizens.

  21. Facts are uncomfortable things (with thanks to Z):

    1. Obama labeled DACA recipients as some of America’s “best and brightest young people” which is, at best, stretching the truth. A 2014 report from the Migration Policy Institute estimated that “fewer than one-in-ten of the 850,000 adult illegals then potentially eligible for DACA had two-year vocational college qualification or better.” Furthermore, only 1% had an advanced degree while 60% only achieved a high school-level “exit credential.”

    2. Obama stated “Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate,” which does not match the findings of a recent study conducted by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group — a pro-immigration/open borders lobbying group. According to the study, if DACA were repealed, it would potentially open up 700,000 jobs that could be filled by American citizens.

    3. Obama also stated that kicking out DACA recipients won’t “lighten anyone’s taxes,” yet another statement that does not match facts. A 2013 study by the Heritage Foundation found that amnesty for the roughly 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion dollars.

  22. The POTUS is trying to hold Congress accountable to do their job. Today a public relations spokeswoman from DHS reiterated, but in stronger manner, what The Honorable Jeff Sessions stated.

    She said, (several times):

    It is the job of congress to make laws and it is the job of the President to execute laws. If Congress is unwilling to do what they are paid to do they need to step aside and let someone else do the heavy lifting.

    This is about DACA, but more importantly, it is about bringing accountability to Congress to make laws that benefit the American people.

    Already, Senator Lindsey Graham was chirping that "Trump needs to do more." Nope. It is the job of Congress to promulgate law and overhaul immigration law.

    Sadly, The Gang of Three (Ryan, McConnell, and Graham) are more concerned about their campaign war chests which are nourished by special interest groups.

    Time for these men to be forcibly retired when their current term expires. It is time to force out political incumbency.

    1. TLEP,
      I loved hearing her say this several times:

      If Congress is unwilling to do what they are paid to do they need to step aside and let someone else do the heavy lifting.

      I try to ignore Graham's chirping.

  23. Yes, play hardball and demand the other changes to immigration law that will finally END the open door policy of Obama and others. But just Democrats HOWL when you try and do that? Trump will be demonized as a racist who doesn't like brown kids any more than he likes blacks and the GOP leadership will fold like a cheap suit leaving Trump out on a limb.

    I say go for it regardless of the political heat. If not now, when?

  24. Mike,
    You've pointed out the sorry truth:

    the GOP leadership will fold like a cheap suit leaving Trump out on a limb.

    I know that Reagan wasn't liked by many. But by many within his own political Party?

  25. Trump should let the courts strike DACA down and tell Congreas that if they want DACA back pass legislation for it.

    1. TC,
      No matter what happens from this time forward with DACA, the matter will, sooner or later, end up in the courts (including the SCOTUS). This DACA matter won't be finished and done for years.

  26. The chess game continues to maneuver the masses to non-thinking emotional steps in favor of our enemies end game.
    If all this side show has made most of our free thinkers pause and not reflect/be redirected from the (or one of the most important issues) Health Care REPEAL.
    The biggest plan to take over a Country is to take over the Health Care System. Hence the Illegal Immigration Plan.
    The United Nation's Resolution for Member States to turn over Resources in a crises.
    This Country's Health Care is not currently a resource of this Government-YET- it is still private not public. But a move to Single Payer Health Care will be the U.N.'s eureka moment. Hence the WORLD HEALTH CARE NGO-AND OPEN BORDERS come together.
    Then it is game on for the enemies of this Country to slide in to our Health Care System with the threat of a world wide epidemic/pandemic.
    Gun Rights and Free Speech (Hate Speech-etc..) and the right to Religious Free Exercise - will be abolished in one fell swoop.
    Focus Focus Focus!
    Why does Hate Speech, Religious Rights, and Gun Rights - one or the other or a combination always distract the issue of Health Care Repeal and Illegal Immigration Reform ?


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective