|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 6, 2017 15:26:18 GMT -5
20-somethings as kids, or at least not full-fledged adults: I live among 'em. Yes.
Law stuff: The relevant term is probably "prosecutorial discretion." There's an analogous kind of discetion excercized at the police level--for example, when a traffic cop decides to give a warning rather than a ticket, or (as happened to me twice recently with burned-out lights) to not ticket but to make a note of the stop.
As far as I can tell, prosecutorial and police discretion operate at the discretion of the relevant authorities. Individual decisions or whole policies are driven by anything from matters of resource allocation to political or ethical stances. Or pragmatic assessments, as when city governments refuse to make their police departments arms of la migra, lest undocumented immigrants fear calling the cops when they need them.
There is a non-trival body of opinion (yeah, opinion) that does not see any practical, economic, or security advantage to shutting down DACA. That leaves politics, and from what I see of polls and the statements coming from a wide spectrum of politically-interested individuals and groups, the segment being addressed by the administration (and particularly those who would be cheering the language and reasoning of Sessions' statement) is the Trump base--and not the loveliest segment of that segment, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 6, 2017 15:26:31 GMT -5
Hey Bruce, tell what illegal aliens have done to you personally to wrong you or your family. Made me feel stupid for obeying the laws of the land. Not being a Democrat, I thought I was supposed to obey the laws, jump through the federally mandated hoops and accept it willingly. They didn't and they get rewarded. I had to work for a living. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 6, 2017 15:27:58 GMT -5
20-somethings as kids, or at least not full-fledged adults: I live among 'em. Yes. Law stuff: The relevant term is probably "prosecutorial discretion." There's an analogous kind of discetion excercized at the police level--for example, when a traffic cop decides to give a warning rather than a ticket, or (as happened to me twice recently with burned-out lights) to not ticket but to make a note of the stop. As far as I can tell, prosecutorial and police discretion operate at the discretion of the relevant authorities. Individual decisions or whole policies are driven by anything from matters of resource allocation to political or ethical stances. Or pragmatic assessments, as when city governments refuse to make their police departments arms of la migra, lest undocumented immigrants fear calling the cops when they need them. There is a non-trival body of opinion (yeah, opinion) that does not see any practical, economic, or security advantage to shutting down DACA. That leaves politics, and from what I see of polls and the statements coming from a wide spectrum of politically-interested individuals and groups, the segment being addressed by the administration (and particularly those who would be cheering the language and reasoning of Sessions' statement) is the Trump base--and not the loveliest segment of that segment, either. In other words, you want it your way. Try Burger King. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Sept 6, 2017 15:38:37 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, let's see: Executive orders are issued by United States Presidents and directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).
Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 6, 2017 16:08:45 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, let's see: Executive orders are issued by United States Presidents and directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders have the full force of law, based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes. Given who's currently President, I had hoped that our love affair with extra-Constitutional executive powers might have waned a bit. You really want to give Trump that much power? The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind fine. Much of Obama's over-reach has already been shot down. The rest of DACA will also be shot down, if given a chance. In any case, the discussion that the nation needs now is "What sort of immigration laws do we want?" Trump has actually done us a favor: He has manufactured a "crisis" and is forcing Congress to deal with this. We'll see how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 6, 2017 16:38:35 GMT -5
...and 20 somethings are kids? They were kids when they were brought here. That's the point of the whole issue. But then you know that. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 6, 2017 16:45:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure that Trump, despite the brags about deal-making, has the strategic imagination or patience to have devised an immigration crisis all on his own. Or to recognize the possibilities* that such a handing-off to Congress represents. Steven Miller, maybe. Sessions, possibly--Jeff certainly knows how that machinery works, which is more than his boss seems to understand.
* For example, to tie DACA-enabling legislation to, say, funding for the famous wall that the Mexicans have declined to pay for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 16:48:26 GMT -5
...and 20 somethings are kids? They were kids when they were brought here. That's the point of the whole issue. But then you know that. IOW, not exactly babes in arms and big enough to return. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't but some of the talk we're hearing would have you believe they are all defenseless children who don't speak a word of the language where they would return ... which didn't stop their parents from coming or bringing them. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 6, 2017 17:03:26 GMT -5
And some talk you hear would have you believe that they're useless, untrustworthy, welfare-soaking, job-stealing (despite how this contradicts the previous claim) furriners. They're as American as my wife in all but legal status. And not by their doing. Any assertion that it's not a punishment to be sent from the place you grew up (and where you have made your life) to one that at best you might have visited at Christmas shows a lack of imagination. DACA Demographics: The rule set is moderately complicated, but here's one summary: To qualify for DACA, applicants must have been under 31 years of age when the policy went into effect in 2012, must have lived in the United States continuously since June 15, 2007, and must have come to the country before turning 16.
A 2013 Brookings Institution study of initial DACA applicants found that some two-thirds had come to the U.S. at the age of 10 or younger and 36 percent were under 6.
More than three-quarters were 23 years old or younger when applying to the program and more than one-third were still under 18, according to the 2013 Brookings study.
How they participate in the US economy
A study by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, found that a larger share of the DACA-eligible U.S. population was employed and participating in the labor force than the general population -- 83 percent versus 79 percent.
The study, which looks at data from 2014, also found that 24 percent of DACA-eligible workers were also attending college, a slightly larger share than the 20 percent of the general population in the same age group both studying and working.
Close to one-third of DACA-eligible residents was enrolled in college or had completed some college, compared to 37 percent for the general population, the study found. abcnews.go.com/Politics/800000-undocumented-immigrants-protected-daca/story?id=49623897 |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2017 18:06:01 GMT -5
...and 20 somethings are kids? They were kids when they were brought here. That's the point of the whole issue. But then you know that. No, it's not. The story is that kids might get deported NOW. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2017 18:23:42 GMT -5
Hey Bruce, tell what illegal aliens have done to you personally to wrong you or your family. Made me feel stupid for obeying the laws of the land. Not being a Democrat, I thought I was supposed to obey the laws, jump through the federally mandated hoops and accept it willingly. They didn't and they get rewarded. I had to work for a living. heh. Additionally, if you had used the term "illegal aliens" you would have been treated to a link from rightwingwatch.org telling you that "they" don't like that term.  |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2017 18:25:43 GMT -5
And some talk you hear would have you believe that they're useless, untrustworthy, welfare-soaking, job-stealing (despite how this contradicts the previous claim) furriners. Not me. I even know how to pronounce and spell "foreigner". Never liked the band, though. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2017 18:27:24 GMT -5
Close to one-third of DACA-eligible residents was enrolled in college or had completed some college, compared to 37 percent for the general population, the study found. Some even getting scholarships to Harvard.(as if this red herring has anything to do with immigration law.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 18:35:43 GMT -5
Close to one-third of DACA-eligible residents was enrolled in college or had completed some college, compared to 37 percent for the general population, the study found. Some even getting scholarships to Harvard.(as if this red herring has anything to do with immigration law.) With countless numbers of them dreaming about joining the USMC. www.steynonline.com/8090/dreams-delusions-and-duplicity |
|
|
|
Post by Dan McLaughlin on Sept 6, 2017 18:48:23 GMT -5
Every one of us are descendants of "illegal aliens" unless any of us have native American blood, although they came from Asia.
Why do we want to keep people out/kick them out because they are "from away" as they say Down East.
I guess I just am a Pollyanna and don't get the veracity of the cast-them-out folks. Sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 18:57:07 GMT -5
Every one of us are descendants of "illegal aliens" unless any of us have native American blood, although they came from Asia. Why do we want to keep people out/kick them out because they are "from away" as they say Down East. I guess I just am a Pollyanna and don't get the veracity of the cast-them-out folks. Sorry. Well, start small. Do you believe countries should have borders, at all? How much right does a country have to determine who enters and lives there? Look at your initial premise. Wouldn't these various peoples, indigenous or not, have done well to protect their borders from our ancestors if they could? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan McLaughlin on Sept 6, 2017 19:51:35 GMT -5
I apologize for getting involved in this thread. I will stick to "Have good ones."
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 6, 2017 20:58:10 GMT -5
I apologize for getting involved in this thread. I will stick to "Have good ones." Do as you wish. But there's no need to apologize. |
|
|
|
Butting In
Sept 6, 2017 21:02:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 6, 2017 21:02:50 GMT -5
I apologize for getting involved in this thread. I will stick to "Have good ones." Do as you wish. But there's no need to apologize. On the other hand, YOU, sir have some explaining to do. |
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Sept 6, 2017 21:29:56 GMT -5
What are YOU looking at?!
|
|
