DACA and Dreamers

[Jedidiah]

Actually, your view is extremely close to my own (which may cause you to reconsider it ). The one place where we part company to some degree is "have not assimilated." To me, this is a highly subjective measure. Does it mean they have to learn English? What if they live in a context where English is simply not commonly demanded? If it is not about language, then what does "made no efforts to assimilate" mean? By definition, Dreamers must be people who were less than 16 years old when they came to the U.S. and were less than 31 years old when the program started (2012). If a dreamer came over as a very young child, it is hard to imagine they would not know English by their twenties. However, it is possible that they live in a spanish community, go to a spanish school, and primarily speak spanish at home because that is what their parents speak. Their parents set the basis for their home, chose their school, and choose their community. So if they cannot speak English, does this mean they are to be deported? Are we not back to "not their choice?"

Have not assimilated means having a job, not having a police record, etc. Language would be a good indicator of trying to be "Americans" rather than "Mexicans in America."

ETA: The whole thing is pointless if the border is not closed. We will just go through the whole thing again in a few years.

[carpedm9587]

Have not assimilated means having a job, not having a police record, etc. Language would be a good indicator of trying to be "Americans" rather than "Mexicans in America."

ETA: The whole thing is pointless if the border is not closed. We will just go through the whole thing again in a few years.

I agree with job, record - I'm a little more iffy on language. I agree with the border observation, but have two caveats. A significant portion of undocumented immigrants is people who have overstayed perfectly legal visas. We need to devote funds to beefing up tracking of visas and visa holders. Second, "closing the border," IMO, is not achieved with a ridiculous wall. There are two reasons for this. Visit pretty much anyone on the border and they will tell you marvelous stories of the ingenious ways the existing wall is circumvented. More importantly, the wall is necessarily incomplete. Eminent Domain can be used to sieze property of U.S. citizens to build it, but it cannot be used on the sovereign land of the various tribes that pepper the border, spanning between Mexico and the U.S. There are many places I saw on the border where the wall just ends, in an open area, and the reason is that it has reached the edge of one of these sovereign areas. What is needed along the border is advanced detection technology and the staffing to respond. These are far more difficult to circumvent. Over time, as people realize that there is a 100% turn-around rate, the flow will reduce and the staff can be reduced accordingly. Eventually, I believe such an approach will be far less expensive, though it may cost more initially.

[Sparko]

So when a tax is imposed so that we can provide healthcare to the poor, you're telling me you have never said/thought of this as theft from the rich to give to the poor?

No. it is legal so it is not theft. But I think it is wrong and unjust when it goes overboard. I have no problem with government assistance for the needy. I think something like that is required. What I think is wrong is that there is a lot of fraud and waste in the programs. I used to live in Appalachia, a very poor part of the country, where coal mining is pretty much the only major employer and it has been mostly shut down. So while there is a lot of need for welfare and such there, I have also seen a lot of fraud with people getting benefits they don't need, or staying on welfare instead of looking for jobs.

[Sparko]

Why? That's one of the benefactors of eminent domain - builders convince local government that's in the best interest of the public to "repurpose" a building or property or whole swath of land, and they get to be the developer.

I didn't think of it that way. I was thinking that they would have land that the government might want to take away for their projects.

[carpedm9587]

No. it is legal so it is not theft. But I think it is wrong and unjust when it goes overboard. I have no problem with government assistance for the needy. I think something like that is required. What I think is wrong is that there is a lot of fraud and waste in the programs. I used to live in Appalachia, a very poor part of the country, where coal mining is pretty much the only major employer and it has been mostly shut down. So while there is a lot of need for welfare and such there, I have also seen a lot of fraud with people getting benefits they don't need, or staying on welfare instead of looking for jobs.

Then you are something of a rarity, Sparko. I may be guilty of assuming you hold the same view as many (most?) people on the right: that taxation of the wealthy to build support programs for the poor constitutes "theft." I agree with you that fraud and waste in these programs is appalling. I find it largely comes from two sources: inattention by the left when designing the various proposed programs, efforts of the right to "limit" the programs without considering the consequences of those limits. We see it over and over again in program after program.

[Sparko]

Then you are something of a rarity, Sparko. I may be guilty of assuming you hold the same view as many (most?) people on the right: that taxation of the wealthy to build support programs for the poor constitutes "theft." I agree with you that fraud and waste in these programs is appalling. I find it largely comes from two sources: inattention by the left when designing the various proposed programs, efforts of the right to "limit" the programs without considering the consequences of those limits. We see it over and over again in program after program.

I believe that direct charity though entities like Church is much better than welfare for many things but there is a need for government assistance too, if done wisely and correctly. That is where I have the problem: Government inefficiency and user fraud. I have problems with charities that misuse funds too. There are many out there that only give a few cents on the dollar to those in need while pocketing the rest. Like the recent scandal with the Wounded Warriors Project. So no system is perfect.

PS - I keep telling you I am more "centrist" than far right on many things. :-)

[carpedm9587]

I believe that direct charity though entities like Church is much better than welfare for many things but there is a need for government assistance too, if done wisely and correctly. That is where I have the problem: Government inefficiency and user fraud. I have problems with charities that misuse funds too. There are many out there that only give a few cents on the dollar to those in need while pocketing the rest. Like the recent scandal with the Wounded Warriors Project. So no system is perfect.

In general, I think charity has a hierarchy: family first; friends/neighbors next; local community/churches/businesses/private organizations next; then local, state, and federal government (in that order). I believe the federal government should be the "court of last resorts," and it's role for such things should be primarily to give funding with direction to state and local governments (maybe even independent social organizations) to solve problems locally.

PS - I keep telling you I am more "centrist" than far right on many things. :-)

Yeah - you keep saying it - but then you fight with me like a righty...

[Cow Poke]

In general, I think charity has a hierarchy: family first; friends/neighbors next; local community/churches/businesses/private organizations next; then local, state, and federal government (in that order). I believe the federal government should be the "court of last resorts," and it's role for such things should be primarily to give funding with direction to state and local governments (maybe even independent social organizations) to solve problems locally.

And that makes sense, because the further away from a person that "help" is, the less 'perfect fit' that will be. By the time you get to the federal government, the "help" is so remote from that person that it costs more to reach them, it's way less likely to be a perfect fit, and.... I could go on. I'm thinking it would be best to do block grants from "higher up" to local communities, and let local communities solve their own problems as they see fit.

Yeah - you keep saying it - but then you fight with me like a righty...

You're not always 100% wrong 100% of the time.

[carpedm9587]

And that makes sense, because the further away from a person that "help" is, the less 'perfect fit' that will be. By the time you get to the federal government, the "help" is so remote from that person that it costs more to reach them, it's way less likely to be a perfect fit, and.... I could go on. I'm thinking it would be best to do block grants from "higher up" to local communities, and let local communities solve their own problems as they see fit.

Agreed

It's not only not a good fit, it's easier to defraud a remote entity that it is a local one.

You're not always 100% wrong 100% of the time.

How generous of you...

[Cow Poke]

Agreed

It's not only not a good fit, it's easier to defraud a remote entity that it is a local one.

And that's the key -- the closer the 'helper' is to the 'helpee' () the harder it is to con the system.

How generous of you...

OK, maybe 99 and 44 100ths percent.

[Bill the Cat]

THAT explains your vehemence...

Nope. THAT was the icing on the cake.

[carpedm9587]

And that's the key -- the closer the 'helper' is to the 'helpee' () the harder it is to con the system.

OK, maybe 99 and 44 100ths percent.

[carpedm9587]

Nope. THAT was the icing on the cake.

Well, as someone else noted, we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless they are in violation of a law beyond a misdemeanor, I see it as a gross injustice to deport these young people, and would like to see a rigorous, accessible, affordable, and time-bound path to citizenship created.

[Cow Poke]

Only in America are legal citizens labeled "racists" and "Nazis", but illegal aliens are called "Dreamers."

[carpedm9587]

Only in America are legal citizens labeled "racists" and "Nazis", but illegal aliens are called "Dreamers."

Umm.. we have legal citizens who are self-professed Neo-Nazis. Why would we not call them what they call themselves? As for dreamers, it's an apt title. They dream of being legal U.S. citizens and members of this country...and lack the means to make it happen. As for "racist," I think I'll let that one go...