DACA and Dreamers

[Charles]

You need better news outlets then.

Breitbart: "Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) emphatically rejected the White House’s proposed terms for a deal to legalize the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which leaked to the media ahead of schedule Thursday."

Have you got anything else than Breitbart?

[carpedm9587]

You need better news outlets then.

Breitbart: "Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) emphatically rejected the White House’s proposed terms for a deal to legalize the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which leaked to the media ahead of schedule Thursday."

Thanks - the quotes from Durbin's press release helped me locate articles from reputable news outlets about the issue. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42825431)

Apparently, however, Brietbart does NOT like this plan from Trump. They're reports are highly critical of him. While I support the DACA issue, I do not support the waste of billions of dollars on a wall that is essentually useless (if you've ever been along the border, you'd know why). Trump (like most politicans) is continually more interested in optics than functionality. The money would be better spent on modern border control/detection technology. I also do not endorse shutting down the visa lottery or slashing legal immigration and asylum numbers as drastically as they are being slashed. I have concerns about the overall effect on the economy, as well as our overall position in the world as a leader on human rights. I also do not endorse deportation that breaks up families unless there is a crime involved.

[Mountain Man]

... reputable news outlets ... (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42825431)

OK, that's just blatant trolling right there.

[Sparko]

Have you got anything else than Breitbart?

I think you should change your user name to "Peanut Gallery"

[Teallaura]

Fair enough. But under federal law, this is a misdemeanor. And there is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. A child brought to the U.S. at 2 or 3 years old is not commiting a crime. They then live many years and go to school, become part of the community, and the U.S. becomes the only home they have ever really known. Suddenly, they turn 18 and they "commit a crime" by doing the same thing they did the day before: going to school, going to work, breathing. From their perspective, the only way to avoid "committing a crime" is to abandon their country and go to what is, for them, a foreign land. If you have children, imagine one of them being told, at 18, that they have to move to Mexico, Spain, Argentina, Tanzania, or South Africa.



I am an advocate for fixing our immigration laws using a "stick in the sand" approach. This was attempted in the 1980s, and never followed through on, perpetuating (and magnifying) the problem. I have no problem with a stronger immigration stance and a crack down on illegal immigration. I have a big problem with placing ALL of the blame for the current volume of undocumented immigrants on the backs of the immigrants. They are partially responsible: they chose to come here. We are partially responsible: our immigration control processes and consequences have been a sieve. I think we should:

1) Put a stick in the sand and immediately deport anyone illegally entering or staying in the country from this day forward, regardless of circumstances. That requires us to have adequate infrastructure to track, adequate border controls (and not some stupid wall), and adequate ICE/legal resources.
2) Deport anyone who has a criminal conviction more than a misdeneanor (i.e., traffic violations, smoking pot, etc.), with reasonable judicial oversight to deal with special cases.
3) Provide a comprehensive path to citizenship (community service, education, etc.) that is affordale for people currently here, with a timeline for completing it.
4) Maintain our existing screening process for new immigrants (which have been "extreme vetting" long before Trump took office)
5) Clearly define different immigrant classifications (merit, lottery, asylum, permanent/temporary, etc.)
6) Maintain immigration percentage targets that are country/need based. Those used by Australia and Canada have proven effective, but it's not clear to me if they are the right targets here.

Agreed. Might nitpick particulars but I have no issue with the principles.

[carpedm9587]

OK, that's just blatant trolling right there.

Um... no. It may seem so to you because of your affinity for Breitbart. I put Brietbart in the same basket I put Mother Jones, Jezebel, and The Blaze (or Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.). I might as well get my news from the Daily Show or late night television. All of these outlets are so badly politically skewed, that politics takes priority over reporting the news. So I don't use them. Or, if I do find a news story from one of them, I use the base information to go looking for two or more reputable media outlets and look for commonality between them to try to sus out the slant. So if I read something in CNN, I go looking for the same story in Fox News and the WSJ. That provides me with a less bubbled and more balanced view.

[Mountain Man]

Um... no. It may seem so to you because of your affinity for Breitbart. I put Brietbart in the same basket I put Mother Jones, Jezebel, and The Blaze (or Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.). I might as well get my news from the Daily Show or late night television. All of these outlets are so badly politically skewed, that politics takes priority over reporting the news. So I don't use them. Or, if I do find a news story from one of them, I use the base information to go looking for two or more reputable media outlets and look for commonality between them to try to sus out the slant. So if I read something in CNN, I go looking for the same story in Fox News and the WSJ. That provides me with a less bubbled and more balanced view.

The irony, of course, is that your "reputable news outlet" simply confirmed what Breitbart said: that the Democrats flatly rejected Trump's deal and walked away empty-handed with no leverage going forward.

Even funnier is that you think the BBC is an unbiased source of news.

[carpedm9587]

The irony, of course, is that your "reputable news outlet" simply confirmed what Breitbart said: that the Democrats flatly rejected Trump's deal and walked away empty-handed with no leverage going forward.

Even funnier is that you think the BBC is an unbiased source of news.

The other cites confirmed the press release, and then added surrounding information Brietbart did not. Actually, this Brietbart article was relatively tame, politically.

As for the BBC, no news outlet is "unbiased." It's more a matter of degree. BBC and CNN lean left. Fox News and WSJ lean right. Reading between them and looking for the common points helps me filter out the bias to some degree. The other outlets I listed are so far to the left and right, I find them largely useless. I have to spend too much time filtering out their extreme political slant. Using more centrist outlets, even if they lean left or right a bit, makes the task easier.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, this Brietbart article was relatively tame, politically.

It's known as reporting the facts, something Breitbart does with regularity.

[carpedm9587]

It's known as reporting the facts, something Breitbart does with regularity.

In your opinion, MM. Most of the rest of us see Brietbart for what it is: an extreme right media outlet.

[JimL]

Jim just stop, no one is being held hostage. They are here illegally, it is only by our good grace that they get to stay. Obama never had the right to do DACA, even he said he didn't. That is the job of the congress, by law. And Trump is extending it to 1.8 million instead of the original 800,000. There is zero reason not to compromise. Everybody gets something they want - a win, win... Why can't you take yes for an answer?

Of course they are being used as hostages seer. They came out of the shadows because they were promised by the government that if they did so they would be safe. You may not agree, you may argue it was illegal, but that was the deal offered to them by the government, whether you agree with it or not. Trump renegged on that deal so that now the government, knowing who and where they are, they can be rounded up and deported starting in march unless a new DACA bill is passed. So, since both parties now say that these people deserve to stay, then all Congress has to do is pass a clean DACA bill, but instead Republicans are going to use them as leverage in the negotiations. I'm sure you have no problem with that, but don't pretend for a minute that they're not being used as hostages.

[Teallaura]

Of course they are being used as hostages seer. They came out of the shadows because they were promised by the government that if they did so they would be safe. You may not agree, you may argue it was illegal, but that was the deal offered to them by the government, whether you agree with it or not. Trump renegged on that deal so that now the government, knowing who and where they are, they can be rounded up and deported starting in march unless a new DACA bill is passed. So, since both parties now say that these people deserve to stay, then all Congress has to do is pass a clean DACA bill, but instead Republicans are going to use them as leverage in the negotiations. I'm sure you have no problem with that, but don't pretend for a minute that they're not being used as hostages.

Jim, executive orders aren't binding on subsequent executives - something Obama knew full well. That's why it should have been done legislatively - laws are binding on subsequent administrations unless overturned legislatively or judicially. Trump didn't make the promise and has no obligation at all to maintain it - the other reason using exec orders to set what should be legislative policy is a really bad idea.

Trump didn't reneg - he never made the promise and exec orders AREN'T binding on the next president. they can be left in place or removed at the sitting president's discretion.

The person to blame is Obama for leaving it up to the opposing party to maintain a policy they don't agree with. It was guaranteed to fail with a subsequent administration and Obama knew it.

[Mountain Man]

In your opinion, MM. Most of the rest of us see Brietbart for what it is: an extreme right media outlet.

So you say, but not a one of you has ever shown a Breitbart story to actually be wrong, and when you go digging for another source, like you did here, predictably, it inevitably proves that Breitbart was in fact correct despite your misgivings.

[JimL]

Jim, executive orders aren't binding on subsequent executives - something Obama knew full well. That's why it should have been done legislatively - laws are binding on subsequent administrations unless overturned legislatively or judicially. Trump didn't make the promise and has no obligation at all to maintain it - the other reason using exec orders to set what should be legislative policy is a really bad idea.

Trump didn't reneg - he never made the promise and exec orders AREN'T binding on the next president. they can be left in place or removed at the sitting president's discretion.

The person to blame is Obama for leaving it up to the opposing party to maintain a policy they don't agree with. It was guaranteed to fail with a subsequent administration and Obama knew it.

I realize all that Tea, but the point is that both parties do agree with DACA, Trump nixed it for the sole purpose of using these people as leverage to get his $25 billion dollars for a wall that he had promised the American people that Mexico would pay for. So Trump, and the republican party, are using these DACA kids in order to blackmail the American people into paying for his lies. Why do republicans constantly fall for this kind of bait and switch without a backlash?

[carpedm9587]

So you say, but not a one of you has ever shown a Breitbart story to actually be wrong, and when you go digging for another source, like you did here, predictably, it inevitably proves that Breitbart was in fact correct despite your misgivings.

MM, I don't believe I've said they are "wrong." Brietbart is very good at selectively printing facts to skew a story to their perspective. They are good at reporting speculations, inuendo, and leaving the careless reader with the impression they want them to have. That doesn't make most of what they publish "wrong." It makes it slanted. They are skilled at combining facts in such a way as to tell the story to push a political agenda. Some examples include:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-rape-culture/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...in-the-closet/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...onesia-hawaii/

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/1...ive-and-crazy/

Some of their stories ARE later shown to be wrong (e.g., the association of Muslim immigration with violence inthe first article), but I have yet to see Brietbart offer a retraction for any of their stories, or fire someone for failing to properly vet a story and getting it wrong. Mainstream media outlets do that frequently, when they make an error in a story. It's called journalistic integrity. Now perhaps you view such stories as those above as "Class A Reporting." I think I'm safe noting that most of the rest of us find such reporting to be roughly at par with the National Enquirer. That you think so highly of them, MM, says a great deal about you and your approach to information.