The Trump Presidency

[Jaw]

Might've been ****ty and vote-pandering, but its legality hasn't been fully judged.

And I blame a purposefully intractable Republican Congress for the EO as much as the former President; it reeks of something most mainstream Republicans were fine implementing, but—due to pressure from more extreme elements of their constituency—didn't want to be seen officially voting "for" it. (The half-assed healthcare overhaul under Obama falls in this category, as well.)

This is pretty much my view on this mess, and I'm not only talking about DACA.
It's silly political games where each party tries to manipulate the system to a point where they can tell some voters "Look what we did for you!" while maintaining the possibility of reasonable denial. Then they stack the courts with people who will agree with them in the hopes the courts will do more than is politically reasonable, and they can say, "We didn't do it, it was the courts!"

The 2nd Amendment is a great example. I love my 2nd Amendment rights. I love that everyone here has 2nd Amendment rights. But it is beyond silly that we can have a debate about exactly what rights the 2nd Amendment guarantees.

Take the line, "shall not be infringed". I think we can all agree that we don't anyone running around with a bazooka in their trunk or a SAM launcher in their garage. So why can't we amend the amendment to say that explosive or rocket propelled ordinance is not allowed?

It's all because we usually elect politicians, and rarely elect public servants.
It sickens me.

[Julio3000]

I am, as a rule, against means-testing for social support (I don't care, or think it's worth any progressive's worry, if a few rich kids receive paid-for public university education, or one of every ten $500k+ earner opts for government healthcare). However, I don't think it's trivial to note that most six-year-olds brought to the US illegally likely arrived from a place of, and in a state of, much greater economic hardship than those arriving legally. That may not change your mind or heart on this matter, but it is a material and emotional difference in circumstance.

Yes, this is also part of the equation. Leaving aside for a second that it need not be a zero-sum game.

[Hawk]

As a basic adherent to the hackneyed but reasonable "work hard and play by the rules" formulation, I don't disagree with you. I also don't see how, for example, Sessions''s profoundly dishonest rationale for rescinding DACA has anything to do with what you're talking about. I get it, you're stating a personal opinion, but you're also, by extension, continuing to carry water for some policy decisions that are even worse than the ones that you're making good-faith objections to. If you really think this is a good first step to justice and fairness for all involved, I'm interested to hear how you come about that position.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Sessions and Trump telegraphed two different positions in their statements earlier today. Given that Sessions is AG, his comments aren't surprising or particularly galling. The law is the law.

But this is all political theater.

No, I don't think ripping away DACA is fair. Especially when these people have put their names and addresses into a database in good faith. At the same time, I do think tossing it back to Congress is ultimately better than allowing it to stand in isolation without appropriate oversight, funding, or accompanying legislative backbone. Or legality.

It's a crucial piece of the pie, but we're still cutting the turkey.

I can say all of this withstanding the accompanying reality that I don't have faith in Congress to do diddly-squat. Loose Lindsey says we're going to get it done by the end of the month.

[Jaw]

I am, as a rule, against means-testing for social support (I don't care, or think it's worth any progressive's worry, if a few rich kids receive paid-for public university education, or one of every ten $500k+ earner opts for government healthcare). However, I don't think it's trivial to note that most six-year-olds brought to the US illegally likely arrived from a place of, and in a state of, much greater economic hardship than those arriving legally. That may not change your mind or heart on this matter, but it is a material and emotional difference in circumstance.

Yep. I have no problem with punishing those who break the law. But these kids didn't have a choice. I didn't like the EO, I don't think a President should be allowed to grab that much power. But it's beyond ridiculous that this law has not been changed to have some mercy on these kids. Either party making it contingent on any other law or package of laws is unconscionable.

[Julio3000]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Sessions and Trump telegraphed two different positions in their statements earlier today. Given that Sessions is AG, his comments aren't surprising or particularly galling. The law is the law.

But this is all political theater.

No, I don't think ripping away DACA is fair. Especially when these people have put their names and addresses into a database in good faith. At the same time, I do think tossing it back to Congress is ultimately better than allowing it to stand in isolation without appropriate oversight, funding, or accompanying legislative backbone. Or legality.

It's a crucial piece of the pie, but we're still cutting the turkey.

I can say all of this withstanding the accompanying reality that I don't have faith in Congress to do diddly-squat. Loose Lindsey says we're going to get it done by the end of the month.

Eh, well, I think your assessment of the legislative side is right on. I'd pick a bone about Sessions, though. Since it hasn't been adjudicated, it's hard to play a "the law is the law" card. Also, DACA has ****-all to do with MS-13 and unaccompanied minors. So I'm content to stick with "profoundly dishonest."

Tangentially, the administration that just pardoned Joe Arpaio hardly seem like the folks to become the standard-bearers for the rule of law.

[Hawk]

Eh, well, I think your assessment of the legislative side is right on. I'd pick a bone about Sessions, though. Since it hasn't been adjudicated, it's hard to play a "the law is the law" card. Also, DACA has ****-all to do with MS-13 and unaccompanied minors. So I'm content to stick with "profoundly dishonest."

Tangentially, the administration that just pardoned Joe Arpaio hardly seem like the folks to become the standard-bearers for the rule of law.

As a point of clarification, I meant that he's reading the law as it is written in (potential) absence of DACA.

Besides, and this is being heavily skirted, do you believe that DACA would have withstood judicial review? I've not seen supportive case law.

[Hawk]

I am, as a rule, against means-testing for social support (I don't care, or think it's worth any progressive's worry, if a few rich kids receive paid-for public university education, or one of every ten $500k+ earner opts for government healthcare). However, I don't think it's trivial to note that most six-year-olds brought to the US illegally likely arrived from a place of, and in a state of, much greater economic hardship than those arriving legally. That may not change your mind or heart on this matter, but it is a material and emotional difference in circumstance.

I take your point, although I believe that it inadvertently denigrates - or, at least, miscategorizes - the economic hardships legal aliens and their families almost universally face.

But hella slippery slope.

[Julio3000]

As a point of clarification, I meant that he's reading the law as it is written in (potential) absence of DACA.

Besides, and this is being heavily skirted, do you believe that DACA would have withstood judicial review? I've not seen supportive case law.

I'd start by citing the Trump administration's own arguments for the latitude of the executive over immigration policy.

Courts have held that, in the absence of providing funding for removing all illegal aliens from the US, that the executive branch has been delegated the authority to prioritize said removal, and, explicitly, to defer action upon its discretion. It's hardly as clear-cut as you suggest.

[57Brave]

gold posted this earlier
once more wouldn't hurt

[jpx7]

I take your point, although I believe that it inadvertently denigrates - or, at least, miscategorizes - the economic hardships legal aliens and their families almost universally face.

But hella slippery slope.

Hence my disdain for means-testing social welfare programs.

[Hawk]

I'd start by citing the Trump administration's own arguments for the latitude of the executive over immigration policy.

Courts have held that, in the absence of providing funding for removing all illegal aliens from the US, that the executive branch has been delegated the authority to prioritize said removal, and, explicitly, to defer action upon its discretion. It's hardly as clear-cut as you suggest.

On the basis of an imminent danger to national security, as I understand it. It's possible the law might allow for some interpolation there as far as DACA is concerned. Seems tenuous though.

[57Brave]

Brookings‏Verified account @BrookingsInst

Today, half of Americans under 18 are racial minorities and a quarter are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants http://brook.gs/2keshRB

[57Brave]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...of_people.html

[goldfly]

[goldfly]

I am, as a rule, against means-testing for social support (I don't care, or think it's worth any progressive's worry, if a few rich kids receive paid-for public university education, or one of every ten $500k+ earner opts for government healthcare). However, I don't think it's trivial to note that most six-year-olds brought to the US illegally likely arrived from a place of, and in a state of, much greater economic hardship than those arriving legally. That may not change your mind or heart on this matter, but it is a material and emotional difference in circumstance.

[The Chosen One]

Oh for **** sake.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7931481.html

Donald Trump 'wasn't aware what scrapping DACA would mean' before deciding fate of 800,000 people
Officials expressed the concern as late as an hour before the policy was announced

[Tapate50]

[57Brave]

Can someone tell me why/how using the DACA data base to round up dreamers is not in violation of 5th Amendment ?

[cajunrevenge]

Because laws don't apply to the government. Who is going to stop them? Other government employees?

[cajunrevenge]

If DACA is so popular why can't it pass Congress? If it's because Congress does what they want regardless of popular opinion of the people they are supposed to represent then isn't it time to revolt like our founding fathers?