Nice cafeteria. Be a shame of you can't use it. Remember DACA!

From the actions of United We Dream:

Yeah!! Those illegal immigrants have the RIGHT to favorable legislation, and don’t you forget it.

Or else.

Now, to me, this seems like a poor approach for the subject matter and the intended audience, since some of the intended audience might accidentally remember that the illegal immigrants actually don’t have the legal right to remain in the country, and thus any protest that sends a demanding message to the contrary is adopting a poor choice of tone.

But maybe that’s why I’m not a Democrat.

In MY Dreams, the Democrats orchestrate a government shutdown to hold out for DACA. I think that sends an excellent electoral message for 2018.

Yeah, how dare legislators push for things that the majority of the population in both parties support!

Shutting down the cafeteria would be an illegal action, as it should be IMO. I can’t support that.

But I’m not in favor of deporting the so-called Dreamers, and most Americans agree. And I’m not seeing that the article says the protestors think those kids (or former kids) have a right to stay in the US. In fact, we generally legislate in areas where no rights have been secured. If someone has the right to stay here, we wouldn’t need legislation to re-enforce that. They’re calling for legislation, which I agree with, even if I disagree with their tactics.

Yeah, no social change or legislation has ever been enacted because minorities interfered with the operation of a cafeteria/lunch counter. Nope, best to stay out of sight, out of mind and out of the way, amirite?

Your “Dreams” are not only morally reprehensible but are also fiscally ill-conceived and pragmatically senseless.

The individuals covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy are people who came into the United States either by illegal entry or ovdrstaying a visa before or on their 16th birthday; most were brought here as children and have grown up in American culture, and many are practically and culturally fluent only in English. To be covered they must be in school or have graduated high school, or enlisted in the military or honorably discharged, and not convicted of a felony, serious misdemeanor, or pose a known threat to national security. They are not ellagible for federal benefits or student aid, but may obtain a work permit and pay payroll taxes.

Despite the oft-reported claim that the order setting the policy by then-President Obama was an abuse of executive power, the discretionary enforcement of immigration law by executive decree is explicit under Article II of the constitution and has a precident going back to at least to Reagan and GHW Bush of selective enforcement and tacit permission in absence of rapid legislative action. Policy direction to executive departments and agencies is within the purview of the Oval Office provided those directives are consistent with the Constitution and prior case law, which DACA is and Trump’s “immigration [don’t call it a Muslim] ban” was not.

Deportation has a cost to the tune of an average of more than $10k per adult deportee (significantly more in the case of minors) while gainfully employed “Dreamers” are a net benefit to the economy. In fact, despite a tiny minority of offenders, immigration is a net economic benefit and provides a pool or workers willing to perform jobs that most natural born American citizens feel are beneath them or provide insufficient wages. There is no economic case for mass deportation, much less that of individuals the government has already spent money to educate and in the case of adults have already provided economic benefit. “Dreamers” who have committed serious crimes or are not gainfully employed can have their status removed and deported just as any other illegal imigrant.

Until the recent hate-filled campaign against people seeking to come to the United States to better their employment opportunities and lives and, when faced with the byzantine and obstructive immigration policy opted for the expedient route of illegal entry, it was widely recognized that immigration is a net positive for the economic health and growth of the nation as it has been since the nation was founded. And as Chronos observes, the DACA policy is supported by majorities on both sides of the aisle. Eliminating DACA is pandering to a minority of insecure people with misdirected anger and political interests seeking to control immigration to their own ends including protecting the influx of cheap foreign goods from competition within the United States. Disestablishing the policy and deporting previously protected individuals, many of whom have little in the ways of families or opportunities in the “home” countries many of them barely remember is not only cruel but also obtuse. It provides no benefit at a cost of tens of millions of dollars and occupying ICE efforts in doing something other than tracking and removing immigrants which might actual pose some significant harm.

In any case, the Democrats do not have enough political power in the legislature to effectively shutdown or significantly slow the political process, which your apparently favored conservative Republicans are doing nicely on their own through infighting and incompetence, and their President who undermines legislative efforts to suppoert his attempts to proclaim vast overarching executive orders which dwarf the decried presidential decrees from the previous administration in scope and presumed authority.

But yes, let us eject the people brought here by their parents as minor children, educated in American schools, who are gainfully employed or serving in the military, who pay taxes without receiving financial benefits accorded to citizens, at significant cost and resources which could be put to efforts more beneficial to the country, all to satisfy some principle about the right and wrong way to immigrate. Because that what this nation is about: officious bureaucracy and politics based upon a manufactured and manipulated cultural identity rather than pragmatic policy.

Stranger

Somebody’s full of holiday cheer! Or maybe in desperate need of some.

Great post, Stranger.

It seems like a lifetime ago that conservatives went gaga over GWB’s “compassionate conservatism.” Guess that is now taking a backseat to electoral gains to implement Trump’s agenda. The Republican Party sure has changed a lot in 17 years.

At a glance, this part appears wrong:

Dems can’t completely block everything, but outside of a limited, once-per-year reconciliation bill, they can filibuster every other piece of legislation.

I was never particularly “gaga” over it. It always struck me as basically Democrat-lite.

So, you agree that Democrats are more compassionate than Republicans? I wouldn’t have expected you to actually say that.

The poster may not see “being compassionate” as a positive or admirable trait. That, at least, would account for the readiness to attribute the trait to political opponents rather than allies.

“Compassionate conservatism” was a marketing slogan, not an actual political philosophy. Has anyone even heard the term used seriously by a politician of any consequence in the last decade?

Compassionate conservative - what is that? Is it like when a conservative standing in line at McDonald’s wants to get rid of some pennies and throws it into the little donation box?

Don’t ask me; I’m still counting points of light.

I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t try to put words in my mouth. I think a bunch of Democratic policies are deeply harmful to the people they purport to help. I have no doubt that most Democrats think they’re being very compassionate (and tell themselves, and others, they are much better than Rs) by doing so, but it’s not what I would call compassion.

As for “compassionate conservatism”, it always seemed to me to be a fairly blatant attempt to dole out big favors for particular interest groups from the public treasury in a ham-fisted attempt to win their votes, and in that way resembled typical Democrat politics, at least to me. YMMV.

That may or may not be so. But they’re not actively trying to hurt people like Republicans do.

The new slogan is: You’ve got to be cruel to be kind. But, in the right measure!

It’s a bad idea to get between lawmakers and a full stomach over immigration.

During a debate on a sanctuary city ban in the Texas legislature earlier this year, one representative went on a hunger strike in protest.

This prompted the bill’s sponsor, Charlie Geren to say: “I’m not doing that. I didn’t get to be a fat white boy by not eating.”

*the bill passed and was signed into law.

Most Republicans are doing what they believe is best for the citizens of this country too.