# Supreme Court Rules on Daca



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It can not be shut down


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm in agreement, now there needs to be a path to citizenship. No more limbo it has gone on for way to many years. IMO


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> I'm in agreement, now there needs to be a path to citizenship. No more limbo it has gone on for way to many years. IMO


DACA is little more than a bargaining chip to strengthen immigration and border enforcement.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> DACA is little more than a bargaining chip to strengthen immigration and border enforcement.


Yeah it is, but the limbo for these young people is ridiculous. Many of them have grown up here, gone to college and started their own families. It was a very poorly thought out plan simply to make it more palatable to bring these kids here.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> Yeah it is, but the limbo for these young people is ridiculous. Many of them have grown up here, gone to college and started their own families. It was a very poorly thought out plan simply to make it more palatable to bring these kids here.


A deal needs to be struck.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

DACA recipients from my understanding can't apply for citizenship. Without some kind of reform ending DACA could get them deported.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

It can be shut down. The courts only ruled that the way it was shut down was wrong.

“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may," the Chief Justice wrote. "The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It can not be shut down


That's not actually what they said.
But you know that.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

painterswife said:


> It can not be shut down


It most certainly can be, and should be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It can not be shut down


“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” the chief justice wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” the chief justice wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”


Does that mean it will be shut down? I realize you didn't indicate it was, I'm just curious.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There was a reason they did not follow the proper procedure in the first place. That reason has not changed. I don't expect them to try again soon.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> There was a reason they did not follow the proper procedure in the first place.


What is the "proper procedure" for rescinding an illegal EO?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

The program was and is illegal and illegitimate , it should be shut down and all those protected by it deported immediately. No person should benefit from the illegal actions of themselves or their parent/guardian. No person having entered into or living in the USA illegally should be given priority for citizenship over people that have done the right thing and entered the USA through legal and proper means.Beyond that, I believe that all immigration into the USA should be on a basis of merit and only merit.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I don't care how they got here,
They stay out of trouble, get advanced education, contribute to society I don't have any issue at all with it.

I also don't have an issue with taking career criminals citizenship away...
If you don't contribute to THIS society, then give them a chance to experience some other societies...
Not a popular idea, but would solve a lot of issues.

3rd felony, not the 'Habitual Offender' rule, give them a plane ticket to a destination that will take them and be on their way.


----------



## snowlady (Aug 1, 2011)

So if the deal with DACA was, they had to register to be part of it, the feds know who they are and where they are. Give those that registered a fast track to citizenship. If they refuse citizenship, their stay is over. If they didn’t register, they are not only illegal immigrants but twice illegal and out they go.


----------



## RobertDane (Feb 14, 2020)

painterswife said:


> It can not be shut down


Most excellent..bravo!...


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Ridiculous ruling is about the nicest thing I can come up with.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

snowlady said:


> So if the deal with DACA was, they had to register to be part of it, the feds know who they are and where they are. Give those that registered a fast track to citizenship. If they refuse citizenship, their stay is over. If they didn’t register, they are not only illegal immigrants but twice illegal and out they go.


I agree with you, but the problem with the current DACA program is there is no pathway to citizenship. Many are veterans or current military, all are either in school or working, and have no criminal background. If one felony or 3 misdemeanors and they're out of the program. 

There absolutely has to be a pathway to citizenship for those on the DACA program.


----------



## TroyT (Jun 24, 2008)

IMO: What needs to happen is put and end to birthright citizenship. At least one parent should be a US citizen for any offspring to be citizens.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with you, but the problem with the current DACA program is there is no pathway to citizenship. Many are veterans or current military, all are either in school or working, and have no criminal background. If one felony or 3 misdemeanors and they're out of the program.
> 
> There absolutely has to be a pathway to citizenship for those on the DACA program.


In the case of those who served there is a path.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> In the case of those who served there is a path.


I couldn't find a specific pathway, do you have a link? I prefer to be correct and am interested in the information.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I can recall a program called MAVNI that would allow undocumented aliens to enter the military but they needed to have certain skills to qualify. Language skills Arabic, Chinese and some other middle eastern languages and/or medical but there were a limited number of slots. The program was also open to DACA.

My memory may be faulty and things could have changed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with you, but *the problem* with the current DACA program is there is no pathway to citizenship.


That's not a "problem".
There's no "right" to US citizenship if people haven't followed the rules.
And don't bother with the "it's not their fault" drivel.



Irish Pixie said:


> There absolutely has to be a pathway to citizenship for those on the DACA program.


No, there really doesn't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Daca participants are following the rules. They did not bring themselves to this country so they did nothing wrong in that regard.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

TroyT said:


> IMO: What needs to happen is put and *end to birthright citizenship.* At least one parent should be a US citizen for any offspring to be citizens.


I agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Daca participants are following the rules. They did not bring themselves to this country so *they did nothing wrong* in that regard.


That doesn't matter.
There should be no reward for illegal actions, even if it was their parent's.
The flow needs to be cut off at the source.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TroyT said:


> IMO: What needs to happen is put and end to birthright citizenship. At least one parent should be a US citizen for any offspring to be citizens.


This has nothing to do with DACA, but I'm am curious. You want to abolish the 14th Amendment? "Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Are you saying you support “birth tourism”?
Quite a booming business for Russian and Chinese women.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You want to abolish the 14th Amendment?


Why do you so often pretend you don't understand what people say?
There's nothing at all unclear about the post:



TroyT said:


> IMO: What needs to happen is put and end to birthright citizenship. At least one parent should be a US citizen for any offspring to be citizens.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Daca participants are following the rules. They did not bring themselves to this country so they did nothing wrong in that regard.


They need to have this discussion with their family.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with you, but the problem with the current DACA program is there is no pathway to citizenship. Many are veterans or current military, all are either in school or working, and have no criminal background. If one felony or 3 misdemeanors and they're out of the program.
> 
> There absolutely has to be a pathway to citizenship for those on the DACA program.


It’s not a problem that DACA provides not pathway to citizenship. No reason for it to. 

I agree that honorable discharged veteran should have a pathway and I think they do. If not they should. They have earned it. Being brought here as a child earns nothing. 

They should have NO access to government programs provided to legal citizens here. The DACA people have been given a good deal with education at no cost and life in a country that apparently they prefer.


----------



## snowlady (Aug 1, 2011)

I understand that the current DACA program doesn’t provide for citizenship. The government should be able to make that pathway a reality quickly. I know, I know, red tape....but it really doesn’t have to be like that. I have a big problem sending them “ back” because there is no “back” to send them to. They have never lived anywhere else. If they decline citizenship along with those benefits and responsibilities citizenship calls for, that’s another story. They would have no reason to decline as they have never known any other place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

snowlady said:


> They would have no reason to decline as they have never known any other place.


They could stay as "legal residents" as long as they behave.

They don't need to be made "citizens".
That would be incentive for more people to come in illegally.


----------



## TroyT (Jun 24, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> This has nothing to do with DACA, but I'm am curious. You want to abolish the 14th Amendment? "Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


No just tweak it a bit. How about _"All persons born having at least one parent being a citizen of the United States or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."_


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

no really said:


> Yeah it is, but the limbo for these young people is ridiculous. Many of them have grown up here, gone to college and started their own families. It was a very poorly thought out plan simply to make it more palatable to bring these kids here.


I’m against DACA, but not because I don’t think it’s anything other than fair to give the people who are subject to it a path to citizenship- for all the reasons you stated.

I’m against DACA because, given the current legislative landscape, it is just another way to weaken US sovereignty. It’s yet one more death-by-a-thousand-cuts way to weaken our immigration controls.

If an indelible, legislative version of DACA were to be negotiated against secured borders, and an end to birthright-citizenship, I’d not only support it, but would also support the the path to citizenship being a fast and easy one- as in “_You’ve lived your whole life here by no wrong of your own? Here, fill out this form. Your cards will arrive in the mail in 4-6 weeks. Welcome home._”


ETA:


painterswife said:


> It can not be shut down


And, no. Nothing that happened this week determined that it “can not be shut down”, but you know that. You just couldn’t help but to post a political topic where it doesn’t belong. You have to get your digs in.

You’re transparent, if nothing else.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TroyT said:


> No just tweak it a bit. How about _"All persons born having at least one parent being a citizen of the United States or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."_


Thank you for the rational response. It's appreciated.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

The DACA crowd have the ability to become citizens through a variety of legal means. Just no guaranties. Seems they want to be assured a no worry solution for their illegal actions or those of their parents.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for the *rational* response. It's appreciated.


He repeated what he said the first time. 
Silly word games imply all other responses are "irrational"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Silly word games imply all other responses are "irrational"


Huh.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not a "problem".
> There's no "right" to US citizenship if people haven't followed the rules.
> And don't bother with the "it's not their fault" drivel.
> 
> No, there really doesn't.





Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't matter.
> There should be no reward for illegal actions, *even if it was their parent's.*
> The flow needs to be cut off at the source.


Seems that somebody disagreed with you... long, long before you were born and long, long before DACA was ever a thing. Thanks anyway, but I believe I'll stick with _the_ real authority on this one.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the *father*, neither shall the *father* bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:20


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not a "problem".
> There's no "right" to US citizenship if people haven't followed the rules.
> And don't bother with the "it's not their fault" drivel.
> 
> ...





painterswife said:


> Daca participants are following the rules. They did not bring themselves to this country so they did nothing wrong in that regard.





Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't matter.
> There should be no reward for illegal actions, even if it was their parent's.
> The flow needs to be cut off at the source.





Irish Pixie said:


> This has nothing to do with DACA, but I'm am curious. You want to abolish the 14th Amendment? "Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."




The other quote which requires a different amendment to change birthright citizenship and might work for cases going forward, but Irish Pixie is correct about applying the 14th to DACA cases where children were brought here illegally not of their own accord. Even though the international slave trade was abolished in 1808, it continued nevertheless making thousands of black slaves born in this country although brought here illegally or their parents, in the exact same position as DACA children today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> Even though the international slave trade was abolished in 1808, it continued nevertheless making *thousands of black slaves born in this country* although brought here illegally or their parents, in the exact same position as DACA children today.


Make *them* citizens retroactively and posthumously then.

They have nothing to do with this context though.

There's no sense in rewarding illegal acts.



unohu said:


> Irish Pixie is correct about applying the 14th to DACA cases where children were brought here illegally not of their own accord.


Where does the amendment mention "brought here illegally not of their own accord" as an exception to following current laws?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> Seems that *somebody* disagreed with you..





homesteadforty said:


> The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the *father*, neither shall the *father* bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. *Ezekiel 18:20*


That's all meaningless to me.
We aren't discussing the fate of their immortal souls.
I'm simply saying they have no "right" to US citizenship if they haven't followed all the rules.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's all meaningless to me.
> We aren't discussing the fate of their immortal souls.


I'm sorry.

One of the main allegorical points of Ezekiel is that men shouldn't be punished for punishments sake. In other words don't punish someone just because it's possible, but rather punish only when it's necessary.



> I'm simply saying they have no "right" to US citizenship if they haven't followed all the rules.


You are of course correct that they have no "right" to citizenship but, is denying their citizenship under the applicable circumstances the right thing to do... just because that's what the current rules say? Would not a more just person adjust the rule to do what is right as opposed to cling to the rule... just for the sake of clinging to it?

I'm not sure that citizenship should be the remedy... maybe a permanent legal resident status would be more appropriate?... with a long term path to citizenship? (go to back of line, no serious violent convictions, no habitual arrests of any kind, honorable military/first responder service a plus, etc.)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> You are of course correct that they have no "right" to citizenship but, is denying their citizenship under the applicable circumstances the right thing to do... just because that's what the current rules say?


Yes, it is.
They shouldn't expect to be treated differently when it come to gaining citizenship.
It only encourages others to break the law and enter illegally.



homesteadforty said:


> I'm not sure that citizenship should be the remedy... maybe a permanent legal resident status would be more appropriate?... with a long term path to citizenship?


There's no need to ever make them citizens.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

homesteadforty said:


> I'm sorry.
> 
> One of the main allegorical points of Ezekiel is that men shouldn't be punished for punishments sake. In other words don't punish someone just because it's possible, but rather punish only when it's necessary.
> 
> ...


If the wrongs are overlooked as they have been, then the problem continues and grows worse as more people enter and ignore the rules. Sure not fair to those that followed the rules. What is right to do is enforce the laws that others have followed.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Make *them* citizens retroactively and posthumously then.
> 
> They have nothing to do with this context though.
> 
> ...


Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

It was discussed at length in the _Wong _case that later affirmed that legal distinction.
Everyone in the 1860's knew what was meant and how all these non-citizens came to be here. The bloodiest war in American history had just ended, to decide what was right or wrong, legal or illegal. No one needed a detailed explanation then, and shouldn't need one today.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> Here.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause


That has nothing to do with *illegal* immigrants becoming citizens.
I don't know why you think repeating it will change anything.



> "All persons *born or naturalized* in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing to do with *illegal* immigrants becoming citizens.
> I don't know why you think repeating it will change anything.


Because it has to do with children I referred to in post 42, those that are *born* here, as you so correctly quoted that part of the 14th amendment. It helps to keep up with past comments to see the relevancy. The other reason is because of the *age* of the children that were born elsewhere and brought here by their parents when they were young. It's not the same age in every state but they all have an age that children become accountable for their actions and below that they aren't.
The phrase "under the jurisdiction" in the 14th is what makes that relevant, because what those children did was NOT illegal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> Because it has to do with children I referred to in post 42, those that are *born* here, as you so correctly quoted that part of the 14th amendment.


We're not talking about anyone born here, but that law should also be changed.
We are one of the few countries that still does that.



unohu said:


> The other reason is because of the *age* of the children that were born elsewhere and *brought here* by their parents when they were young.


You just keep repeating what has already been stated.
They don't deserve any special treatment.



unohu said:


> It's *not the same age in every state* but they all have an age that children become accountable for their actions and below that they aren't.


Again irrelevant when discussing *Federal* laws about *citizenship*.

There are no exceptions to the rules written in the laws.
Obama created this mess with an illegal EO.



unohu said:


> The phrase "under the jurisdiction" in the 14th is what makes that relevant, because what those children did was *NOT illegal*.


Neither is it "legal".

"Under the jurisdiction" is *one* requirement. The others are "born here" or "naturalized".
They can remain "under the jurisdiction" but they can't magically become the others when they haven't followed the rules. 



> 14th Amendment Section 1. All persons *born or naturalized* in the United States, *and* subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


They have no right to citizenship.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We're not talking about anyone born here, but that law should also be changed.
> We are one of the few countries that still does that.


Actually several of us were, including you.



TroyT said:


> IMO: What needs to happen is put and end to birthright citizenship. At least one parent should be a US citizen for any offspring to be citizens.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I agree.





Irish Pixie said:


> This has nothing to do with DACA, but I'm am curious. You want to abolish the 14th Amendment? "Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."





Bearfootfarm said:


> Why do you so often pretend you don't understand what people say?
> There's nothing at all unclear about the post:



There are several different circumstances involving illegal aliens and their children, but those that are born here were obviously discussed when the 14th amendment was mentioned. And it's more than a law. Changing an amendment is more difficult as it should be. It's important to know how future events will be affected by it before it's passed or altered. Otherwise someone might get confused or surprised by the outcome, which is now apparent.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You just keep repeating what has already been stated.
> They don't deserve any special treatment.
> 
> 
> ...



Most of the above is incorrect, except for the sentences about deserving special treatment and Obama's EO.
Since it is already established and clearly written it isn't "magic" that makes those born here citizens or absolves them from a crime if they were too young when their parents brought them here. It's the LAW that does that. It was the same thing that made millions of people citizens overnight in the 1860's and it's still in effect today for those that meet the criteria.

Now, when you buy this forum, you can determine what is relevant. Until then you can grin and *Bear* it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> Actually several of us were, including you.


Yes, more than one of us said it should be abolished, which is separate from "a path to citizenship" for "dreamers" or any others here illegally. You keep trying to tie them together.



unohu said:


> absolves them from a crime *if they were too young* when their parents brought them here.


And again, the 14th Amendment doesn't mention that at all.



unohu said:


> Now, when you buy this forum, you can determine what is relevant.


That goes both ways you know.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, more than one of us said it should be abolished, which is separate from "a path to citizenship" for "dreamers" or any others here illegally. You keep trying to tie them together.
> 
> 
> And again, the 14th Amendment doesn't mention that at all.
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_United_States
In the link above is also the _U.S. vs. Wong _ decision which until it is overturned, is the legal standard for applying the 14th amendment to those born here, no matter the legal status of their parents. I didn't tie them together, the Supreme Court did over 100 years ago.


> Earlier on, U.S. citizenship was not given to people of Indian or East Asian descent. A. K. Mozumdar was the first person born in the Indian sub-continent to attain U.S. citizenship. A few years earlier, as a result of the 1898 United States v.Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, ethnic Chinese born in the United States became citizens. During World War II, due to Japan's heavy involvement as an aggressor, it was decided to restrict many Japanese citizens from applying for U.S. citizenship, while Chinese citizens encountered no trouble, because of China's alliance with the United States.
> 
> The Equal Nationality Act of 1934 was an American law which allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alienfathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.[38] It also made the naturalization process quicker for American women's alien husbands.[38] This law equalized expatriation, immigration, naturalization, and repatriation between women and men.[38][39] However, it was not applied retroactively, and was modified by later laws, such as the Nationality Act of 1940.[38][40]
> 
> ...


I never said the 14th amendment mentioned whether children were liable for criminal acts such as illegal border crossings. I said "the law" did, meaning state and federal laws, to which you replied.


> Again irrelevant when discussing *Federal* laws about *citizenship*.
> 
> There are no exceptions to the rules written in the laws.


Various things affect the naturalization process, mainly crimes committed by the applicant. So yes, whether one is guilty or innocent of those crimes *in the eyes of the law* has a direct bearing on the outcome.
There's no problem determining the relevancy of facts when there it's backed up with evidence, not just one person's opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> There's no problem determining the relevancy of facts when there it's backed up with *evidence*


The "evidence" shows you're still talking about different subjects as if they are the same, and citing laws that have no relevance to both.



unohu said:


> _U.S. vs. Wong..._ the legal standard for applying the 14th amendment to those born here


DACA has nothing to do with anyone born here.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with DACA.

I've seen your routine plenty of times before.
I'll skip the rest of the act.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

If your not born in the USA or become a naturalized citizen or have some form of “green card , work visa, or other official government program paper work” then your likely here illegally. Does not matter if your parents brought you here in diapers. It’s to bad that we have problems like this, but its due to various government agencies and “concerned” people deciding they know better than the law. Sad to see the results this has caused for the kids.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "evidence" shows you're still talking about different subjects as if they are the same, and citing laws that have no relevance to both.
> 
> 
> DACA has nothing to do with anyone born here.
> ...



I'll post the links confirming the facts, but they are only relevant if they are read. The laws are cited within, I'm not posting statutes numbers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/...nd-the-weaponized-phrase-chain-migration.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-trump.html
The third relevant law is Human Trafficking which Trump re-certified. That one clearly states that minors in particular will not be treated as illegal immigrants but as victims with their status protected should they choose to become naturalized American citizens. It isn't just about drug smuggling and prostitution but covers all types of employment offers under questionable circumstances.
https://www.justice.gov/humantrafficking/key-legislation
So there it is.
One could become naturalized legally even if they were brought here illegally.
They could also be related to another relative born here who does have automatic birthright citizenship who then SPONSORS that non citizen relative.
And these laws apply to all continents like Asia, Africa and Europe not just those to our south.
To think that among those millions of cases not one person has any legal relevance to the laws cited above isn't realistic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> So there it is.


More long winded rambling about things that have nothing to do with my comments.

I've seen all your games before.
I'm not playing them this time.

Don't waste your energy being a rebel without a cause.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

unohu said:


> I'll post the links confirming the facts, but they are only relevant if they are read. The laws are cited within, I'm not posting statutes numbers.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/...nd-the-weaponized-phrase-chain-migration.html
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-trump.html
> The third relevant law is Human Trafficking which Trump re-certified. That one clearly states that minors in particular will not be treated as illegal immigrants but as victims with their status protected should they choose to become naturalized American citizens. It isn't just about drug smuggling and prostitution but covers all types of employment offers under questionable circumstances.
> ...


Well then I am guessing from the links and comments above that there is not many good reasons for DACA to be a issue. The kids and relatives should already have this handled and taken care of generally speaking. It’s been YEARS for most. Seems some lack motivation or concern to do so. Illegal alien relatives included. For those that have not, off you go.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

This certainly should have been handled long ago, not only by the immigrants but more so by the people receiving government salaries to do the job. To blame a child being brought here instead of ALL the adults involved in them getting here and responsible for them afterwards is the kind of thought process I'll never understand and hopefully never tolerate. I also hope those people who think that don't have children and never plan to either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> *To blame a child* being brought here instead of ALL the adults involved in them getting here and responsible for them afterwards is the kind of thought process *I'll never understand and hopefully never tolerate*.


No one is "blaming" them.
I'll never understand people who can't be honest.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

unohu said:


> This certainly should have been handled long ago, not only by the immigrants but more so by the people receiving government salaries to do the job. To blame a child being brought here instead of ALL the adults involved in them getting here and responsible for them afterwards is the kind of thought process I'll never understand and hopefully never tolerate. I also hope those people who think that don't have children and never plan to either.


I agree about the people receiving government salaries to do the job. They allowed the problems to stay all these years. 

Keep in mind many are no longer children and seem to not made the effort to handle the problem for themselves. With the red tape involved and questionable success rate its somewhat understandable. But the problem will eventually have to be dealt with.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> I agree about the people receiving government salaries to do the job. They allowed the problems to stay all these years.
> 
> Keep in mind many are no longer children and seem to not made the effort to handle the problem for themselves. With the red tape involved and questionable success rate its somewhat understandable. But the problem will eventually have to be dealt with.


Those children who have grown up here have handled it. There registered under the DACA rules.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Those children who have grown up here have handled it. There *registered* under the DACA rules.


Some of them are. Some are not.

That doesn't mean they should be granted *citizenship*.

They should be happy they are allowed to stay.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some of them are. Some are not.
> 
> That doesn't mean they should be granted *citizenship*.
> 
> They should be happy they are allowed to stay.


So should all non citizens.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is "blaming" them.
> I'll never understand people who can't be honest.


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv



Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not a "problem".
> There's no "right" to US citizenship if people haven't followed the rules.
> And don't bother with the "it's not their fault" drivel.
> 
> ...





painterswife said:


> Daca participants are following the rules. They did not bring themselves to this country so they did nothing wrong in that regard.





Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't matter.
> There should be no reward for illegal actions, even if it was their parent's.
> The flow needs to be cut off at the source.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Those children who have grown up here have handled it. There registered under the DACA rules.


Not all are registered under DACA it seems. The seeming majority that has registered have done so because ? I assume it is because it allows them a work around for being here illegally and not having become citizens. DACA gives them supposedly temporary avoidance of deportation and a work permit. This allows them to access drivers license and other paper work. Also the ability to access education programs. Why have the majority not just taken care to get their citizenship and be done with the problem. 

Seems to me they want a guaranteed citizenship and no consequences for those around them that created the problem. It’s sad that the process to prevent this problem has been ignored and actively blocked for years. Now we have this “innocent child” issue to deal with.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Not all are registered under DACA it seems. The seeming majority that has registered have done so because ? I assume it is because it allows them a work around for being here illegally and not having become citizens. DACA gives them supposedly temporary avoidance of deportation and a work permit. This allows them to access drivers license and other paper work. Also the ability to access education programs. Why have the majority not just taken care to get their citizenship and be done with the problem.
> 
> Seems to me they want a guaranteed citizenship and no consequences for those around them that created the problem. It’s sad that the process to prevent this problem has been ignored and actively blocked for years. Now we have this “innocent child” issue to deal with.


Those in the Daca program have registered and are the only ones we are discussing. They can't get citizenship, so they cant just do it as you say.

That is the point. They are in limbo.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Ok I will bite. Why can they NOT get citizenship ? Which I personally think they should not be able to. 

Why can they not get one of the variety of visa’s or participate in some other program to be able to legally stay in the country?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Those in the Daca program have registered and are the only ones we are discussing. *They can't get citizenship*, so they cant just do it as you say.
> 
> That is the point. They are in limbo.


What's the problem?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> Why would you bear a troll on this forum?


None of those things you quoted is "blaming" them for anything.
It's just a fact they entered illegally.

They shouldn't be allowed to become US citizens.
Make them citizens of the parent's native countries.


----------



## unohu (Mar 10, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of those things you quoted is "blaming" them for anything.
> It's just a fact they entered illegally.
> 
> They shouldn't be allowed to become US citizens.
> Make them citizens of the parent's native countries.


Is that how the 14th amendment handled it?
Others can decide for themselves whether those quotes showed blame.


> And don't bother with the "it's not their fault" drivel.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

unohu said:


> Is that how the 14th amendment handled it?


You keep repeating yourself, thinking the end result will be different *this* time.


----------

