-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fate Of Dreamers Rest With Congress
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
It's their Job to do so. Isn't it?
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
A very shameful decision that has no consideration or regards for the lives and well being of other human beings, let alone the values of welcoming in those tired, huddles masses yearning to breath free.
Congress should have taken up the whole "kit and caboodle" a long time ago. But the way Trump did it was, as usual, abominable putting uncounted innocents at risk with a short-fused bomb. Sadly there's a group who want to visit retribution for the parents action on the next generation and they'll make a resolution hard especially with the "we only want Republican votes" ding-dong as Senate Majority leader.
One further note that I just saw documented. The "Dream Act" was proposed by President Obama, passed the House when Democrats had the majority but was filibustered to death by Republican in the Senate. Because, of course, there was nothing more important than denying President Obama a win even if that caused uncounted suffering and turned into today's debacle. They believe in power uber alles.
First, it's deplorable that Trump wants to throw these children under the bus just to pander to his racist base.
Secondly, it was cowardly to make the threat, realize that most of the nation will abhor you for carrying it out, be unwilling to go ahead with your cruel plan for personal political reasons, be unwilling to reverse yourself for the same reason, and try to extricate yourself from the mess you've made by saying that you will go ahead with your plan, but not for six months in order to try to shift the political costs of protecting or rescinding DACA to Congress just so that you can say to your base that you gave them what they wanted when you didn't even do that.
Congress will likely punish Trump for this. Congressional Republicans will condone just about anything from him with their silence and inaction, but not when he turns on them. Trump berated Sessions, and they circled the wagons around Sessions. He has lashed out at Flake, McConnel, and Murkowski, and earned the rebuke of multiple congressional Republicans for it.
So, we can add foolish to the president's CV. Trump needs the support of these people not just to accomplish his legislative agenda, but also when Mueller releases his report on his investigations into Trump. Trump has already made it more difficult for any congressional Republican to be reelected as we saw in the GA-06 special election in which the winner of the November election won by a comfortable 21% before being tapped to join Trumps cabinet, whereas the Republican candidate who ran to fill the seat only won by 4% five months into the Trump presidency. How many of those up for reelection can sustain a 17% loss of votes and be reelected? Who knows if this second candidate would even be able to win today given Trump's ongoing loss of popularity. This move of shifting the political cost of a promise he made will add to that burden - perhaps costing every congressman who votes to save DACA a percentage point or two more.
Do you disagree?
Honest questions here.
How many people have you taken into your home?
How many do you think you could take in financially? This is a finite number of course because you do not have infinite resources.
What will you do when the number you take in starts to exceed the number you can afford?
Will you still continue to take them in even though now they will start to starve and fight for what little resources there is. Hence you are responsible for their current misery.
Or will you start to limit how many you take in? So that you can actually take care of the ones you currently have, like a responsible adult would do.
By limiting how many you take in do you really think that reflects what is in your heart? Or does it reflect the reality of how many you can actuallly support.
I would appreciate if you would answer these questions honeslty and sincerely.
Daca was unfair, charging people to work in america every 5 years with no other option. Eventually somebody was going to revoke it.
I would propose a pathway to citizenship which is what was originally proposed but denied by congress.
My proposal for citizenship
US High-school diploma or Ged and 5 years full time employment no criminal record
US High-school diploma or Ged and 4 years military service no criminal record.
10 years or more of Military service no criminal record.
Accredited College diploma and 5 years of full time employment no criminal record. This would include Foreign colleges as determined by a US government agency.
Are you suggesting that America cannot afford to keep these 800,000 young people and has to let them go for that reason? DACA isn't about taking any more in. It's about letting young people stay in the only country that they have ever called home, the country in which they were raised and socialized, in which they were educated, and in which they will soon be working, caring for their families, and making their communities better places if allowed to. And it's about keeping promises and human decency.
A better analogy would be if you had young people in your home that you have always managed to provide for, and who you had told that they would always have a home with you, but now decided to throw them on the street with nowhere to go when you didn't need to.
The whole country except Trump and his xenophobic, white supremacist base seems to be aghast at even the thought of this. Are you? It doesn't seem so.
Your profile says Christian. Shouldn't you be leading the charge to defend these children rather than trying to obscure the cruelty of such an act?
- “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. - Matthew 19:13-14
- “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." - Matthew 18:10
It is small part of the whole illegal immigration issue. I do not want to turn away anybody.
Matter of fact I just spoke to my friend who immigrated here to the U.S. recently. He had to go through terrible things to get here so he could claim asylum. Because the country where he grew up would kill him if they found out he was gay. So he had a choice to escape or be executed if his secret got revealed. So I am very thankful that we are a country that is able to help him avoid execution.
But
As much as I would love to have everyone here that wanted to be here. There is only a finite amount of people we can afford to help. Even if every citizen gave every penny of money we earned. We can still only help a finite amount of people. At a certain point we have to be pragmatic. Maybe we can afford to keep the dreamers. But then thats 800,000 less other immigrants who we wont be able to afford. You cannot squeeze blood from a stone.
I believe we are at the tipping point of not being able to continue to take as many people. I am not saying we should stop completely, neither is Trump, but it is time to slow the flow down. It gives current immigrants time to assimilate, so that they can become tax payers, which in turn means more money so that we can afford to help more immigrants and so on.
Romanticism is a great thing (the huddled masses bit). But at a certain point we have to take our heads out of the clouds and be more pragmatic if we want to continue helping people.
esmith
Veteran Member
The President doesn't write laws the Congress does. All the President can do is sign or veto a proposed law; however a veto does not necessarily mean the proposed law will not become law.
What is the problem with telling Congress to get off their asses and get immigration reform going.
Question does not DACA change immigration laws? If so, is it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was tied on the issue 4-4.
Read the following also
Texas leads 10 states in urging Trump to end Obama-era immigration program
“If, by September 5, 2017, the Executive Branch agrees to rescind the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum and not to renew or issue any new DACA or Expanded DACA permits in the future, then the plaintiffs that successfully challenged DAPA and Expanded DACA will voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit currently pending in the Southern District of Texas,” they write. “Otherwise, the complaint in that case will be amended to challenge both the DACA program and the remaining Expanded DACA permits."
If DACA is not rescinded then the argument will go back to the Supreme Court and a tie vote is not possible. Would you not prefer that Congress to reform immigration laws and have it done once and for all. Of course nothing says the law will not be challenged by one side or the other on the new laws. But is will then go to the SCOTUS for a final ruling.
What is the problem with telling Congress to get off their asses and get immigration reform going.
Question does not DACA change immigration laws? If so, is it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was tied on the issue 4-4.
Read the following also
Texas leads 10 states in urging Trump to end Obama-era immigration program
“If, by September 5, 2017, the Executive Branch agrees to rescind the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum and not to renew or issue any new DACA or Expanded DACA permits in the future, then the plaintiffs that successfully challenged DAPA and Expanded DACA will voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit currently pending in the Southern District of Texas,” they write. “Otherwise, the complaint in that case will be amended to challenge both the DACA program and the remaining Expanded DACA permits."
If DACA is not rescinded then the argument will go back to the Supreme Court and a tie vote is not possible. Would you not prefer that Congress to reform immigration laws and have it done once and for all. Of course nothing says the law will not be challenged by one side or the other on the new laws. But is will then go to the SCOTUS for a final ruling.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Doesn't the Bible say something about "The sons shall not be punished for the sins of the fathers" - shouldn't all Christians deplore this law?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That in no way is an accurate comparison. The state is not a home or a business, and should not be approached as such. For me to personally take people into my home, it depends on many factors. It does as well when a government takes in immigrants, but a state willing to take in immigrants willing to work has a net benefit for the state and its citizens. It's why so many countries favor those coming in who wish to study in their universities and who are looking for professional/skilled work.
And, in addition to that, Dreamers are already here, and have mostly if not entirely only known America as their home. They should not be punished and have their lives disrupted over things their parents did.
Please stop bringing religion into the debate about politics. Seperation of church and state and all.....
Strawman alert! Please respond to all of the questions on my post. Don't cherry pick one and then try to build a strawman from it.
P.S. I am not picking on you for refusing to accept immigrants into your personel home. If you would have read the whole post you would know that. We must strive to be intellectually honest if we wish to debate.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Aren't churches abusing their tax-exempt status talking politics from the pulpit? The only people bringing religion into the mix are the people who want to legislate religious law. Completely unconstitutional.
I would agree that there may be limitations as to how many people this country can actually take in and support, but at least in this case, these are people who are already here and have been here for years. They want to stay and work in America, so it's not a question of "supporting" them, since most of them will be more than capable of earning their own keep.
Perhaps the larger question has to do with what America wants to do about immigration in general, as well as what to do about the illegal border crossings and this "wall" that Trump wants to build. We also have to consider what kind of relationship we want with our neighbor to the south.
I think Congress and multiple presidents have tended to avoid the issue of any true immigration reform, since so many depend on the status quo as it currently stands. Many have even argued that our economy has grown to depend upon undocumented immigrants, which is quite telling, just by itself.
As a result, neither side really wants to make them all legal, since then they would be entitled to the same rights as American workers (which would mean lower profits for business), nor do they want to deport them, since that would also be bad for business. I'd give Obama some credit for wanting to push harder at going after the employers of undocumented workers, but clearly, there is an ongoing problem which hasn't really been dealt with in earnest.
Eventually, America will have to reach some sort of consensus on this issue, one way or another. I think public opinion is rather mixed about the whole issue - and it does seem to strike a raw chord with many.