Kiwirob wrote:

WingsFan wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Yes and your point is? If they aren't legally entitled to be here then they leave. It happens in countries all over the world, including Norway, the difference is Norway is pretty quick at processing perminant residency and the US apparently isn't.

If you don't see anything wrong in a legal immigrant kid aging out due to a flawed system and having to leave the only country they every lived in LEGALLY, I doubt any amount of logic will prove to you that system needs to change. For legals first then for illegals.

It shouldn't be the only country they have lived in legally, DACA stands for deferred action for childhood arrivals, not children born here.

What I see wrong is that the parents of these children didn't apply for permanent residency on there behalf, which they are entitled to do, the process appear to be quite clear https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-gre ... -residents

If the parents make a fundamental mistake and not apply it's not the govts fault.

Again, you fail to comprehend the process. Parents can apply all they want but most kids turn 21 before the process completes for their parents and so they have to leave.

In my mind, its wrong to decline privileges to people who are painfully following the law while offering same privileges to people who can here illegally.

tommy1808 wrote:

Since a law is only valid if it is a) able to achieve its intended goal and b) proportionate in its interference with peoples lives relative to the value of that goal, at least around here, i really fail to see a problem.
Deciding that there is no public interest in deporting law abiding children of illegal immigrants would, at least here, be well within the authority of the executive branch.Parliament has the ability to stop them, if they don´t it is usually taken as consent.

Your definition of a "valid law" is erroneous. A law is "valid" when passed until it is determined, legally, to be otherwise. A court of law is most often the method to invalidate a law or a new law may be passed superseding it.

Consent is a whole can of worms of an argument. If I hit you but you do not report it, do nothing beyond complain a bit (maybe discuss it with people around you), essentially just take it, does that mean that I have consent from you to hit you? That I had consent to hit you?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Your definition of a "valid law" is erroneous. A law is "valid" when passed until it is determined, legally, to be otherwise. A court of law is most often the method to invalidate a law or a new law may be passed superseding it.

Nope. If courts are the only places to define what a law means and how it is to be used, laws would only be valid after a myriad of court cases. Laws are valid the way they are applied the moment they get implemented, not just after courts decided "yes, this law is in fact valid". The only entity that can decide how a law is implemented is the executive. IF anyone disagrees with their interpretation of that law, then the courts come in.
This may be a crucial difference between common law and Code Napoléon based legal systems, but that is the way it is handled here. But my gut feeling says that is exactly the same in the US, or was Title IX handled the exact same way by every administration since it was introduced in 1972?
Laws need to be comprehensible, therefor they can´t be arbitrarily detailed and will always have plenty of room for interpretation. Since citizens have the right of laws to be applied consistently anywhere in the country, the executive must set guidelines. Or the countries seezes to exist as one legal space.

If we have had that DACA vs. legal immigrant Children situation here, the responsible secretary would have just handed down a guideline stating that the immigration laws regarding legal immigrant kids shall be used in a way that does not disadvantage legal immigrant kids compared to those of illegal immigrants. If our Cancelor doesn´t like it, she could order the secretary to change it or fire him, if you don´t like it and are outside of government, you can sue.

During the muslin ban discussions the forum republicans where very adamant that the US President has every single right in the world to decide who is getting into the USA and who isn´t. That is a pretty useless right if he doesn´t get to decide who stays as well. It would appear that these decisions are well within the authority of a US President, unless it is unconstitutional.

And i ask again: do you honestly believe every single entity with legal standing to bring a lawsuit against DACA chose not to do it, after being told by their legal council that they would win? Isn´t it much more likely they told them "well... yeah.. we can do it, but we are likely to lose"?

Consent is a whole can of worms of an argument. If I hit you but you do not report it, do nothing beyond complain a bit (maybe discuss it with people around you), essentially just take it, does that mean that I have consent from you to hit you? That I had consent to hit you?

Apples and Oranges. DACA is ongoing, so this is equivalent to me letting you hit me all the freaking time, without doing anything about it. And that would be consent. An opposition party and anybody else isn´t subject to Stockholm Syndrom and all those other reasons a battering victim may not go to the cops.

best regards
Thomas

WingsFan wrote:

Again, you fail to comprehend the process. Parents can apply all they want but most kids turn 21 before the process completes for their parents and so they have to leave.

In my mind, its wrong to decline privileges to people who are painfully following the law while offering same privileges to people who can here illegally.

So they have to leave, they are citizens of another country, the home country of there parents, they will most likely speak the language of that country and still have family in that country. The law is the law, I can't understand how people don't get that.

Since you righties believe the United States is a Christian nation and want to base laws on the Bible (specifically one verse in Leviticus) why not look up Leviticus 19:33-34, since you all have your Bibles open to that book, anyway?