View Poll Results: Would you take a "fugitive" Dreamer into your home?
Yes 73 48.03%
No 79 51.97%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:59 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surreal View Post
If someone illegally entered your house and took up residence there, helping himself to your personal belongings without even asking, would you allow it?
In this analogy, is the person in question a 6-year-old who is putting back more than she is taking?
  #52  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:14 PM
Spice Weasel Spice Weasel is offline
Knocking it up a notch. BAM!
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,869
I voted yes. I used to be heavily involved with immigrant rights and spent a lot of time with the DREAMers. The story was usually something like this: kid lives in the U.S., excels in school, applies to college, only to discover - surprise! They aren't a U.S. citizen. Not only do they have no access to financial aid, they are at risk of being deported to a foreign country and never being with their friends or family again. Imagine having that life experience at 17 years old. Would you leave the country of your own volition? Abandon your life goals? Like hell you would.

I personally can't fathom that experience, but I view those kids as good people in a bad situation and would prefer they stick around. I have a comfortable life and I speak decent Spanish, so there's no good reason not to help. Since most DREAMers I know had to work their way through college, it would be helpful for them not to have to pay rent.
  #53  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:16 PM
Spice Weasel Spice Weasel is offline
Knocking it up a notch. BAM!
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,869
ETA: If ICE showed up, I wouldn't lie.
  #54  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:18 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank View Post
I also find the vast disparity between posted answers and poll numbers interesting.
IMHO the disparity between the poll numbers and the reality for the country is probably even greater. I would expect the actual number of people who would do this is less than 5%. Possibly less than 1%.

Probably mostly due to the people posting being unrepresentative. But I'll bet many of the people voting "yes" wouldn't actually do it if faced with a real situation. Talk is cheap. (In this case, it's a cheap way to express feelings of moral opposition to ending the DACA program.)
  #55  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:24 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
ETA: If ICE showed up, I wouldn't lie.
If ICE showed up I wouldn't tell them anything. I'd tell them to go away unless they had a warrant.
__________________
ed
  #56  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:31 PM
Spice Weasel Spice Weasel is offline
Knocking it up a notch. BAM!
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,869
I'd definitely do it if asked, and if I knew the person in question well enough to feel comfortable with them living in my home. But it's less about altruism and more about the fact that I had my entire world view shattered in a different way at the same age, I was also highly ambitious, essentially thrown to the wolves, and I got through it with the support of people willing to sacrifice a little to make my life a whole hell of a lot easier. It's not the same thing as what I went through, but it's close enough that I can't turn my back on DREAMers.

But sure, talk is cheap. It doesn't really matter because those kids are more often than not staying with their undocumented relatives. It's not currently all that difficult to avoid detection. This isn't WWII Germany.
  #57  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:31 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
IMHO the disparity between the poll numbers and the reality for the country is probably even greater. I would expect the actual number of people who would do this is less than 5%. Possibly less than 1%.

Probably mostly due to the people posting being unrepresentative. But I'll bet many of the people voting "yes" wouldn't actually do it if faced with a real situation. Talk is cheap. (In this case, it's a cheap way to express feelings of moral opposition to ending the DACA program.)
What a brilliant way to dismiss polls that don't go the way you want them to!
__________________
This signature is officially certified by the American Signature Society.
  #58  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:34 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,826
Your thinking that I have anything invested in the outcome of this poll is probably projection on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
I'd definitely do it if asked, and if I knew the person in question well enough to feel comfortable with them living in my home.
The second part is a huge qualifier.

My own estimate was based in part on the notion that this would be uncommon, and that in most cases it be someone you didn't know that well if at all.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 09-08-2017 at 12:35 PM.
  #59  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:21 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Piss-poor analogy, but what the hell: If I had previously promised to house and protect children, and the only home they knew was mine, then I would consider them part of my family.
When did We, the People, promise to house and protect children who came here illegally?
  #60  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:23 PM
Spice Weasel Spice Weasel is offline
Knocking it up a notch. BAM!
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
My own estimate was based in part on the notion that this would be uncommon, and that in most cases it be someone you didn't know that well if at all.
A stranger? I dunno. It's fair to say I'm more likely to do it for a stranger than the average person, but it would really depend on context. I did a lot of volunteer work, some professional work, and self-education in that arena, and the DREAMer kids I knew personally were squeaky clean Ivy League grads. Probably they all are not, but that's my own mental stereotype. The individuals at the forefront of this movement tend to be America's best and brightest, kids who just want to go to school and succeed in life.

The person's willingness to contribute would be a significant factor. I'd expect them to be enrolled in school or chasing a career. (It might also be relevant that we'd like to foster teenagers someday. Both involve helping out a young person so they are more likely to succeed.) There's an element of personal fulfillment here that supports the notion that all altruism is fundamentally selfish.

And FWIW, I don't view it at all like an Anne Frank situation and I find that paradigm rather distasteful. But deportation for these kids is still a bad thing I would like to prevent.
  #61  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:27 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
When did We, the People, promise to house and protect children who came here illegally?
When did We, the People, decide to abandon our representative government and bring up every decision the government makes to a country-wide vote?
__________________
This signature is officially certified by the American Signature Society.
  #62  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:36 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
But deportation for these kids is still a bad thing I would like to prevent.
At the individual level it's certainly a bad thing. As a matter of policy it's more complex.
  #63  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:43 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
When did We, the People, decide to abandon our representative government and bring up every decision the government makes to a country-wide vote?
Except that DACA wasn't enacted by our representative government (Congress), it was done by one president.
  #64  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:49 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Except that DACA wasn't enacted by our representative government (Congress), it was done by one president.
So you are claiming:
1. The President of the United States is not part of our representative government, and thus,
2. All of her/his decisions should be put to a national vote?
__________________
This signature is officially certified by the American Signature Society.
  #65  
Old 09-08-2017, 04:22 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So you are claiming:
1. The President of the United States is not part of our representative government, and thus,
2. All of her/his decisions should be put to a national vote?
The President has enumerated powers. One of which is decidedly NOT "Congress won't do it, so I will do it myself."

Separation of Powers.

I wish they still taught Government/Civics in school.
  #66  
Old 09-08-2017, 04:40 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,690
In answer to the OP: I hate to say "it depends," but it depends. It depends on the person, it depends on other factors. I wouldn't accept every Dreamer, and I wouldn't turn away every Dreamer. Count that as a "yes" or a "no" however it is to be counted.
  #67  
Old 09-08-2017, 05:04 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 82,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
In this analogy, is the person in question a 6-year-old who is putting back more than she is taking?
There are 6-year-olds who are doing that? Maybe young adults who were once 6-year-olds living illegally in the US, but not kids who are currently 6.

But that brings up another point, just FYI for folks posting in this thread: DACA isn't about children, really. It's about folks (older teens and young adults) trying to get into college or work. You have to be 15 years old even to apply under DACA (or, you had to be when DACA was in force).

We're not really talking about young children here, but young adults up to about age 30 (when you look at all the qualifications you need to meet for DACA). That is not to say that young children are not deported, but if parents are here illegally with 6-year-olds, I don't personally think there is much of an issue that if the parents are deported, the kids should go with them. I think it becomes more problematic as the kids get older, and a major issue when we're talking about 16-year-olds or 25-year-olds who grew up here and are trying to finish their education and get jobs.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-08-2017 at 05:05 PM.
  #68  
Old 09-08-2017, 05:23 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,011
Thank you for clarifying that. I was just coming in here to do that, this isn't like taking in an infant or young children. I am good friends with a DREAMer who is 31 now and of course he could stay with me. One of the happiest text messages I've ever gotten in my life was when he finally got an Illinois state ID after the DACA executive order.
  #69  
Old 09-08-2017, 05:54 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
The President has enumerated powers. One of which is decidedly NOT "Congress won't do it, so I will do it myself."

Separation of Powers.

I wish they still taught Government/Civics in school.
The president is an executive and has the power to act as needed in the running of the government. The legislature can do something about that if they don't like. Nowhere does the Constitution say the legislature should pretend to oppose executive orders which they intend to enact into law eventually anyway after they finally fumble the political football.
__________________
ed
  #70  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:16 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The president is an executive and has the power to act as needed in the running of the government.
No. The executive is charged with, you know, faithfully executing the law. Not making it up with his pen and his phone.
  #71  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:23 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No. The executive is charged with, you know, faithfully executing the law. Not making it up with his pen and his phone.
Luckily, we have courts to deal with such disagreements. That internet person named D'Anconia says the President can't do something isn't exactly binding. If the courts have not determined that DACA was illegal, then DACA has not been determined to be illegal.
  #72  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:00 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Luckily, we have courts to deal with such disagreements. That internet person named D'Anconia says the President can't do something isn't exactly binding. If the courts have not determined that DACA was illegal, then DACA has not been determined to be illegal.
Its predecessor, DAPA, was enjoined from being enacted, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Can you explain how DACA is any different?
  #73  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:05 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Its predecessor, DAPA, was enjoined from being enacted, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Can you explain how DACA is any different?
DACA has not been enjoined from being enacted.

That's how it works. Your opinion might be that it violates the Constitution. But who cares about the opinion of random internet dude? If the courts haven't said it's illegal, then it's not illegal. Maybe they will in the future, or maybe they won't. Right now, it's factually false to say that it's illegal. That's something that can only be determined by our judicial system.
  #74  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:29 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
DACA has not been enjoined from being enacted.

That's how it works. Your opinion might be that it violates the Constitution. But who cares about the opinion of random internet dude? If the courts haven't said it's illegal, then it's not illegal. Maybe they will in the future, or maybe they won't. Right now, it's factually false to say that it's illegal. That's something that can only be determined by our judicial system.
First of all, President Obama himself said it was illegal (but he did it anyway).

The courts ruled against DAPA, how is DACA any different?

Won't someone think of the children? Is that your argument?
  #75  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:32 PM
ExTank ExTank is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Creve Coeur, MO
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I also find it strange that most of those that voted "NO" refused to identify themselves by posting their reasons.
Edited to add: I voted "YES" because because such a major betrayal by the government should be fought.

It is not a "betrayal;" there was never a specifically formulated policy. Years (decades!) of government neglect allowed tens of millions if illegal immigrants into our country; by geographic proximity, the vast bulk of them are of Hispanic origin, giving opponents of a more rational border/immigration policy handy fodder for cries of "racism!"

Then one president came along and said, essentially, "Fine! If Congress won't address the issue, then I will!" :whips out pen, signs Executive Order: "There! Issue dealt with!" Good for Barry O. No, seriously, I mean it: good on him for at least addressing the issue.

IMO, if the Legislative Branch abdicates its responsibility on an issue, it really ought not to bitch too loudly when the Executive Branch "steps up." All the bitchin' and moanin' now is from Congressional a-holes (sadly, most of whom I identify with to some extent politically; but the times, they are a-changin') who would not deal with the situation then, wanting to address it now that it's not going their way.

Should DACA be repealed/amended? I think not. Show me petition against repealing DACA, and I'll sign it. Put it to a vote, I'll vote against repealing DACA.

But if DACA is repealed, I will not break the law of the land on "conscience;" after all, there are more than this issue that people hold near/dear to their heart(s); and if we all just up and decide to pick-and-choose what we're going to do, what laws we're going to follow (and which we are not) like a Legislative Buffet, we aren't a country anymore.

And Civil War II will make the first look like a kindergarten picnic.
__________________
"Get crazy with the cheez whiz!"
  #76  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:34 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
First of all, President Obama himself said it was illegal (but he did it anyway).
I don't think that's what he said (not that it matters for this disagreement -- what matters is whether the courts have determined if it is illegal).

Quote:
The courts ruled against DAPA, how is DACA any different?
The courts haven't ruled against DACA. That's different. There are probably other differences that have lead to the courts not ruling against it, but that they haven't ruled against it is the only important distinction for this disagreement.

Quote:
Won't someone think of the children? Is that your argument?
No.

I find your argument by assertion that DACA is illegal because D'Anconia says it's illegal less than convincing.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-08-2017 at 08:36 PM.
  #77  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:54 PM
Rushgeekgirl Rushgeekgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Memphis
Posts: 5,807
I would and I will.
  #78  
Old 09-08-2017, 09:34 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank View Post
But if DACA is repealed, I will not break the law of the land on "conscience;"
But I don't have a "conscience".
__________________
This signature is officially certified by the American Signature Society.
  #79  
Old 09-08-2017, 10:41 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,615
No. I'm not in the position where I'm allowed to break the law for political reasons. But more practically I'm not bringing a stranger or even an acquaintance into my home with my children.
  #80  
Old 09-08-2017, 10:52 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

I find your argument by assertion that DACA is illegal because D'Anconia says it's illegal less than convincing.
It's not that I say it's illegal, the Constitution prevents any president from enacting laws on his own.
  #81  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:00 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It's not that I say it's illegal, the Constitution prevents any president from enacting laws on his own.
The courts have not determined that this is what took place. That D'Anconia says that this is what took place is not a convincing argument-by-assertion.
  #82  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:05 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The courts have not determined that this is what took place. That D'Anconia says that this is what took place is not a convincing argument-by-assertion.
What about DAPA?
__________________
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
  #83  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:08 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What about DAPA?
What about it? That the courts may have made a determination about DAPA doesn't mean they will make the same determination about DACA. They are two different things. That D'Anconia thinks they are similar or identical is not a convincing argument-by-assertion.
  #84  
Old 09-09-2017, 01:42 AM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,977
The fact that the courts haven't ruled in this particular case doesn't mean that what Obama did was legal. A lot of illegal or unauthorized actions never get judged or sanctioned. For example, all the the people currently here illegally and not removed. Courts acting or not acting don't change the status.

It's also a bit odd to compare enforcing borders with Nazi Germany. Why is it always the tactic to compare things one disagrees with politically to the Nazis?

Last edited by octopus; 09-09-2017 at 01:42 AM.
  #85  
Old 09-09-2017, 02:05 AM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,679
I like to think my answer would be "yes," although i would have to consider not just the possibility of criminal penalties, but my own status as an immigrant.

I've lived here for about a third of my life, and i hold a Permanent Resident Card, but i'm not yet a citizen. Green Cards are handled by the same general branch of the government that deals with other areas of immigration and citizenship, and can be relatively easily revoked. I'm sure that aiding illegal immigrants would be considered pretty good grounds for revocation, and i'm not sure i'm willing to risk my own deportation.
  #86  
Old 09-09-2017, 07:55 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The fact that the courts haven't ruled in this particular case doesn't mean that what Obama did was legal. A lot of illegal or unauthorized actions never get judged or sanctioned. For example, all the the people currently here illegally and not removed. Courts acting or not acting don't change the status.
I was responding to a poster who declared DACA illegal. I don't know if it's definitely legal, but until courts say it's illegal, I'm not going to just accept random internet person's word for it.

Quote:
It's also a bit odd to compare enforcing borders with Nazi Germany. Why is it always the tactic to compare things one disagrees with politically to the Nazis?
I was responding to someone who said they wouldn't host a Dreamer because they broke the law. Logically that would extend to a Jew in Nazi Germany -- Jews who didn't turn themselves in were breaking the law, and thus the same reasoning would apply, presumably.

Obviously my point is that sometimes the moral thing to do is to break the law, or cover for someone who is breaking the law. IMO, hosting a dreamer who is in danger of being deported to a dangerous country qualifies, even if the threat to them isn't as large as the threat to Jews in Germany.
  #87  
Old 09-09-2017, 01:36 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 82,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Because his justification was that they broke the law. If that's the only criteria, then obviously he wouldn't have helped Jews or slaves hide, since that similarly would have been assisting them in breaking the law.
The poster said that the Dreamer had broken "our" law, and it wasn't the only criteria. The poser also noted that the Dreamer could apply for return once he was back in his country of birth, which I made a point of emphasizing in my post. As a general rule, it's not a good idea to assume that a statement here "obviously" means the person would support Hitler in Nazi Germany.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-09-2017 at 01:37 PM.
  #88  
Old 09-09-2017, 01:43 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I was responding to a poster who declared DACA illegal. I don't know if it's definitely legal, but until courts say it's illegal, I'm not going to just accept random internet person's word for it.



I was responding to someone who said they wouldn't host a Dreamer because they broke the law. Logically that would extend to a Jew in Nazi Germany -- Jews who didn't turn themselves in were breaking the law, and thus the same reasoning would apply, presumably.

Obviously my point is that sometimes the moral thing to do is to break the law, or cover for someone who is breaking the law. IMO, hosting a dreamer who is in danger of being deported to a dangerous country qualifies, even if the threat to them isn't as large as the threat to Jews in Germany.
Thanks for the response.

It's a dilemma. The US can't nor should solve all the world's or even Mexico's problems. However, for these young people who had no choice and don't know another place, mass deportation seems unnecessarily harsh. The question is how to prevent this from consistently happening when the idea that the US has toothless laws spreads?

Not enforcing current and past law led to this nonsense.

Last edited by octopus; 09-09-2017 at 01:43 PM.
  #89  
Old 09-09-2017, 02:10 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
The poster said that the Dreamer had broken "our" law, and it wasn't the only criteria. The poser also noted that the Dreamer could apply for return once he was back in his country of birth, which I made a point of emphasizing in my post. As a general rule, it's not a good idea to assume that a statement here "obviously" means the person would support Hitler in Nazi Germany.
That's why I asked. I assume that breaking the law was not really the only criteria, thus I was trying to suss out what the real criteria was, by demonstrating what seemed to me to be an obvious and horrible logical extension.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-09-2017 at 02:14 PM.
  #90  
Old 09-09-2017, 02:12 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Thanks for the response.

It's a dilemma. The US can't nor should solve all the world's or even Mexico's problems. However, for these young people who had no choice and don't know another place, mass deportation seems unnecessarily harsh. The question is how to prevent this from consistently happening when the idea that the US has toothless laws spreads?

Not enforcing current and past law led to this nonsense.
That's a reasonable position, IMO, though it doesn't answer this thread's hypothetical -- if Trump/Sessions decided they were going to start rounding up Dreamers to ship them to countries they know nothing about (and ones that are often very dangerous), then would you consider harboring a terrified Dreamer if a close friend vouched that they would be good houseguests?
  #91  
Old 09-09-2017, 02:43 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdcastle View Post
Once they're back in they're home country if they want to follow the rules and apply for legal immigration status here I'd be all for that.
This right here is the point where I roll my eyes and stop reading what conservatives have to say.

For the majority of illegal immigrants there exists no reasonable path to legal immigration that can be achieved in a working lifetime, and for many of them, no path at all. Plus, President McFuckface is going after legal immigration unless you're white and speak English as a first language, too.

This "golly, they should just follow the rules and come here legally" is morally and intellectually bankrupt in a country where the rules are being continually revised by a racist government to make sure that that's not possible.
  #92  
Old 09-09-2017, 03:10 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,091
If I were a better person, definitely. As I don't know if I am that good a person, I don't know.

It does depend on what the punishment is. If it is minor, then sure, but as it gets higher up to the point of jail time, I would become less likely. Strangely though, once jail time is invoked, further punishment would actually make me more likely to defy the law, as at that point it become obvious that the govt making these laws is not interested in the smooth functioning of society, but instead upon the oppression of a demographic it has chosen to oppress.

To address a few points made by others:

This is not that different from shielding jews from nazi round-ups, as the germans were mostly unaware of the death camps, and were told that the jews were just being relocated out of the country. A dreamer sent back to their "home" country is not going to be in much better position than what your average german thought that a jew deported by the SS was going to be in.

But then, many would classify me as an open borders type of person.
  #93  
Old 01-23-2018, 09:12 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,781
The possibility raised by the hypothetical question in my OP seems far more likely these days. My answer is the same -- I think I'd try to do the right thing and host a Dreamer if they were in danger of being deported to a dangerous country that they knew nothing about, and the probability would go way up if I knew and trusted them, or if they were vouched for by someone I trusted. But I can't know for sure what I'd do until the possibility actually came up.
  #94  
Old 01-23-2018, 10:26 AM
B-Rad B-Rad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
I am older though, so the thought of going to prison doesn't frighten me much. I just don't think I could live with myself if I didn't try to do something.

It makes me very sad that this might really happen.
This. With all the extreme rhetoric flying around from both sides it's hard to say for sure if we are heading down a path similar to 1930s Germany, but on the off chance we are, I'd rather be lumped in with the group of people who harbored and suffered the consequences than the group that knew something shitty was going down and did nothing to help the persecuted.

And in my mind the only thing worse than refusing to harbor, is harboring and then caving and turning over the person you've taken in.
__________________
drp
  #95  
Old 01-23-2018, 10:49 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,234
No, I won't. I've got my reasons, all of them legitimate
  #96  
Old 01-23-2018, 11:00 AM
ISiddiqui ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
The courts ruled against DAPA, how is DACA any different?
The preliminary injunction related to DAPA ended in a 4-4 decisions of the SCOTUS, which set no precedent and due to that upheld the 5th Circuit's preliminary injunction. IIRC, the matter was still before the District Court on the merits when DAPA was rescinded by the Trump Administration. Therefore, it is fair to say that the matter hasn't been finally ruled upon and so the debate over the Constitutionality of DACA is different than what happened with DAPA.

Last edited by ISiddiqui; 01-23-2018 at 11:04 AM.
  #97  
Old 01-23-2018, 11:26 AM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 12,126
Seeing this pop up again made me look; I am surprised that we're close to a 50/50 split. It happens but most of the polls I see here tend to have one option of the other being a clear winner among us.
  #98  
Old 01-23-2018, 11:27 AM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,379
Again, those of you who are willing to take someone in and are patting yourselves on the back, please understand: mass deportation is not the threat. ICE in the streets is not the threat. The threat is people being unemployed or underemployed and unable to support themselves. DACA people won't need an attic--they will need a JOB, and if you can't give them a job, they will need money. Unless and until you are willing to provide that, don't console yourself that you'll be there when it gets to the "hunted down like dogs" phase.
  #99  
Old 01-23-2018, 11:34 AM
B-Rad B-Rad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
mass deportation is not the threat. ICE in the streets is not the threat.
Why do you believe this? Yes, housing the unemployable brings its own noteworthy challenges, but why do you believe forced unemployment is not a precursor to mass deportation?
__________________
drp
  #100  
Old 01-23-2018, 11:44 AM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,379
Because we aren't currently having mass deportations of the millions of undocumented immigrants who aren't DACA kids. There are deportations, yes, but most undocumented immigrants are still humming along, living quietly and staying under the radar. I think the anti-DACA force don't mind having a vast underclass of exploitable people--they just don't want them to think they deserve anything.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017