As long as proper procedures are followed, any executive can overturn an executive act, at will. The judge’s reasoning was that ending the program was “capricious and arbitrary”, which is a novel argument which will never stand up. Since this is only an injunction, the standards are a little lower. Much as prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a head of lettuce, a judge can issue an injunction with flimsy reasoning, but it only works for a short time.
If it’s legal to create an executive program, it is legal to end an executive program. This would be like telling Congress that they can pass laws, but can’t repeal laws.
And you do that through E-verify and workplace raids. Democrats oppose E-verify and workplace raids.
Your first argument is somewhat valid, although due to the size and diversity of the country I could argue that forcing a kid who grew up in Kentucky to move to Los Angeles because that’s where relatives can house his family after their eviction is pretty comparable. Being raised in America but with Mexican family and being forced to move to Mexico is not nearly as much of a culture shock as being raised with a Kentucky family and having to move to LA.
As for the foster care system, a deported kid who has his family is in MUCH better shape than a kid in our foster system.
Does the legal concept of Adverse Possession (when squatters move into a vacant property without permission and live there openly and continuously) ever apply?
In IL, for example, if you live on a property for at least 20 years, taking care of the property as if it were your own, and pay property taxes for at least 7 of those years; your are entitled to make a legal claim to the deed.
I don’t see why this shouldn’t apply to someone who moved here “illegally.” If a person resides in this country (or any country with the concept of squatter’s rights) for a significant period of time, treating that residency as if it were legitimate (ie: participating in the community - going to school, working, not being a criminal), and paying all the appropriate taxes, why shouldn’t they be afforded the opportunity to make a claim of legitimate residency.
I personally think 20 years is a bit long. . .if you can be declared dead after 7 years of “inactivity” as yourself, then that seems like an appropriate amount of time for the reverse; to establish yourself as a legitimate resident.
That’s my point. There is a crime in illegally inhabiting a house without the owner’s permission; it’s trespassing. It doesn’t matter how you entered the house; you’re committing an ongoing crime just by being there.
There is no equivalent law about living in America. You can break a law by the way you enter the country but you’re not breaking any law by being in the country.
The people who use the term have an agenda. This is the point I’ve been arguing. If you call a person an illegal, it reduces their status to just a crime they committed. There’s no similar term for people that committed other crimes. Nobody calls you an illegal because you robbed a bank or sold drugs or drove over the speeding limit. Yes, you’re a person who committed a crime but you’re still seen as a person. But somehow people who committed the crime of entering the country illegally are reduced to being the ongoing embodiment of that crime. You’re not simply a person who committed a crime; you are the crime.
I love how the only context in which you can infer that a country is a really shitty place is when you’re threatening to send people back to it.
Anyway, the reality is that Mexico is a middle income country with low unemployment. It is not a hellhole, although as with our own country there are certainly places you wouldn’t want to live within Mexico.
Well, regardless of their legal status what they own is what they own. We don’t confiscate all their assets for being here illegally. And I still reject the idea that deportation is even a punishment provided it’s not a wartorn or failed state, or an oppressive state. It’s merely a correction of a civil violation. You’re here, you’re not supposed to be here, go back home.
Obviously for kids born here it’s a different situation, they are citizens. And they can choose to stay with other relatives or go to their parent’s country and come back at will when they are adults. This is not life destroying stuff and in fact every article I’ve read about people who have been deported, they are quite happy now.
Even back then, I didn’t think it was a particularly important point.
The “dehumanization” of calling them illegals was a bullshit argument IMHO. It was an attempt to get people to remember they were people first and illegal aliens second.
I can empathize with DACA but frankly the world is full of deserving people who are suffering who would have a much better life here in America. We can’t take in a billion people and right now we are taking in people who are breaking the law. Unless Latin America applies become an American state or territory, I don’t see why they get a break over people from China and India except for the fact that it is easier for them to sneak into the country. Once again I think DACA is different but only if they really could not readily adapt to life in their country of origin. I would judge this on a case by case basis.
Illegals is short for illegal alien. I didn’t think anyone needed that explained to them.
The term has been around longer than the objection to the term. The people who object to the term also have an agenda.
People call rapists rapist, murderers are called murderers, muggers are called muggers, Drug dealers are called dealers, and illegal aliens are called illegals. I suppose we could call them illegal aliens but then we are still reducing them to their crime.
So you want to expand a property right concept to the residency rights but you also think that expansion would be too harsh and you want to limit the adverse possession period to 7 years instead of 20?
Adverse possession requires open notorious possession. You can’t live on a property in secrecy and then claim adverse possession. Illegals are staying here in secret. And once the owners take action to dispossess you, your adverse possession period lapses. If they were open about it, the government would take action that would lapse the period.
Prescription is another concept that is sorta like adverse possession but for easements and might be a better analogy. But once again, you need to be open. You can’t use someone else’s back yard to get to the beach while only when no one is watching. You have to do it even if they are having a barbecue as if you owned the right to do so.
Define “workplace raids” . Seriously. Because if you are talking about rounding up illegal immigrants at their workplaces, that’s not making those who provide the jobs responsible. They will just hire a new bunch and consider any fines the cost of doing business. This Michigan dairy farmer gets prison time for hiring undocumented immigrants - mlive.com is making those who provide the jobs responsible. But it rarely happens, certainly not often enough to serve as a deterrent.
How are they living in secret? They’re not in caves communicating by code. . .
I personally know may who are living just as open as you are; they have valid driver’s licenses, their children attend public schools, they work jobs that pay by check and withhold taxes, they own homes or rent apts that they keep up, they frequent local businesses. Some of them even crossed the border “legally,” they just never applied for resident alien status, or did and continued to stay after the visa expired.
However you came to be somewhere, if you’ve been there long enough and have functioned as a resident, then you are a resident.
My problem with debates like this is that there are just too many aspects to the discussion to have it neatly encapsulated in an opinion.
Does a nation have a legitimate interest in regulating immigration and enforcing immigration laws? Without question, and I agree that it’s not inherently racist to advocate for secure borders.
But the history of immigration in the U.S. makes it clear that immigration has not been colorblind, so a person can be forgiven for suspecting racism when someone has an unhealthy obsession over immigration or ‘illegals’. Illegal immigrants weren’t responsible for our country’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq; in fact, some of them have actually fought in the War on Terror. Illegal immigrants weren’t responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. There are valid concerns over illegal immigration, but a lot of this is just scapegoating.
So when the voters decide to strip Jews of their citizenship and expel them from the country, that’s fine with you because the voters decided?
In America we have a long list of things the voters and their elected representatives aren’t allowed to do, you might have learned about this in school.
Hint: a deportation is not a criminal prosecution. There may be standards of evidence used, there may be a judge involved, there may be legal challenges to the deportation.
That doesn’t mean the deportee is being charged with a crime.