|
DesideriScuri -> RE: US scraps young undocumented immigrants scheme (9/9/2017 8:10:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
If it's not renewed, what happens?
As of June 2016, there had been 606,264 renewal cases, with 526,288 approved, 4,703 denied and 75,205 renewals pending.[24]
I would assume that if the 4,703 were not denied because they committed a crime they would become eligible for a low priority deportation.
If Congress doesn't act and the Administration ends renewals after 6 months, then what? They will no longer be here legally.
quote:
quote:
You are correct, illegal immigrants (regardless of age) don't impact legal immigration quotas. If you were stuck in red tape trying to gain legal immigrant status for you and your family, and it turns out you could have brought them in illegally, been here for years, and your kid could be getting legal status earlier than following the law, how would that make you feel?
You argued earlier that the law does not have feelings. Change your mind much?
Not at all. I didn't ask how the law felt. I asked you how you'd feel. You are a human being (I know, an assumption on my part [:D]) and not a law.
quote:
quote:
You are supporting the idea that breaking out immigration laws and getting here illegally is better than going through legal channels.
Only in your mind. In my mind I see a law that was written without anticipation of this particular category. Congress has had several bills before it to correct the problem, but they have fallen to filibuster in the Senate or to the Speaker of the House sitting on one. Playing politics with people’s lives.
WHAT?!?!? A politician playing politics?!?!? And, the "with people's lives" part is yet another attempt at emotional leverage. EVERY legislation passed by Congress impacts people's lives and livelihoods (is that the correct plural?). Every piece of legislation that one side or the other plays politics on, is playing politics with people's lives.
quote:
From Wiki the economic impact of deporting the dreamers:
According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that the U.S. economy is close to full employment. [9][61] The CATO Institute estimated that ending DACA would have an adverse fiscal impact by reduces tax revenue by nearly $280 billion over a decade,[62] and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade.[10] A study by the Center for American Progress estimated that that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years.[63]
You're assuming no one would take their places. If an employer needs to hire someone and can't find a qualified worker at the rate he's offering, he can either make a go of it with one less employee, or raise the rate offered until he gets the qualified candidate he's looking for.
August 2017 U3 rate: 4.5%
August 2017 U6 rate: 8.9%
Source
We are not at full employment.
quote:
quote:
Jeebus, you're dense on this, aren't you?!? Kids who were brought here illegally when their parents got here illegally are still here illegally, even if they're now adults. President Obama created a loophole in immigration law for some of the kids who were brought here illegally. President Trump is closing that loophole.
This is no loophole. It is simply the insertion of an unanticipated category in the law.
That would be inserting a loophole to get around the law.
quote:
quote:
Playing on emotions is the only argument you have, and it's damn weak considering laws are not supposed to be subjectively applied.
It is a heck of a lot stronger than your concern for the feelings of people who are applying for legal immigration inasmuch as these kids did not willfully break any laws.
You continue to maintain the delusion that the law can be applied objectively when in fact our court proceedings are adversarial. Juries are factfinders but they may find for my facts rather than your facts. I’m sure you have often heard the expression “the jury was swayed by the defense attorney’s argument.” You really should try to match your ideology to reality.
The law can, and should, be applied objectively. If they are here illegally (doesn't matter how or when they got here) and they are adults, they are breaking immigration law. It's really not that tough, Vincent.
quote:
quote:
You don't like how our system of laws is set up n the country.
We are a country of laws.
Ergo, you don't like our country.
Speaking out against an onerous law is the duty of citizenship and the exercise of patriotism. Denigrating the patriotism of free speech is a tool of tyranny. You are one step shy of walking in the footprints of the repugnant Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Shame on you.
How am I denigrating the patriotism of free speech?
quote:
All nations have laws. Nazi Germany had laws.[8|][:'(]
Are you saying we shouldn't have laws because Nazi Germany had laws? Jump the shark much, Vincent?
|
|
|
|
