I agree there’s no good reason not to let them stay, but something being a good idea does not mean it’s a right. and the idea seems less good the more belligerent they get about it. To be blunt, they don’t get a say. We, the voters, decide this. The voters seem to be very much on their side already, which makes these tactics particularly questionable. There is pretty much a zero chance that they gain support among voters with these tactics.
Actually, it’s Congress and The Howling Yam who get a say. The voters are being ignored.
Tell me, if you grew up in a country, spoke it’s language, understood and participate in it’s culture and you were going to be punished for what your parents did and facing being sent to, what is to you, a foreign country, wouldn’t you be a bit desperate?
Remember, they were vetted, kept their noses clean and registered with the government with the promise that if they kept to certain conditions, they would be allowed to stay.
Now, despite upholding their end of the bargain, the Party of Broken Contracts is looking to throw them out anyways. For absolutely no reason.
In defense of innocent kids no less! MAGA! MAGA! Abbie Hoffman and the alleged Savior are both rolling in their graves.
But they do have such rights. That’s the point. It is true that our legal system is set up to try and deprive them of these rights. But that is always true when you are protesting the laws. No right issue seems like a universal bright line except in hindsight.
These are people who have lived here all their lives. They did not willingly violate any laws. They have been contributing to society for as long as they’ve been able to work. And some people want to kick them out.
It is true some people want to hurt them because of the country where they were born. These same people forbid far worse things when people are kids, but they use special pleading to say that these people deserve punishment. Heck, it’s usually something the parents did, not the kids themselves!
It would be nice if merely asking for your rights to be recognized worked. But it has rarely done so. You admit they have no political power to vote. That’s even more reason to use other methods. If they had the right to vote, maybe they’d do that instead. You have to take power where you can.
Fighting for your rights inherently means inconveniencing people. If you don’t like being inconvenienced, then listen to them when they were being polite and show human compassion.
The United States of America is their home. It is where they became adults. There are people who want to take that home away from them. These people are not hurting anyone, but some people want to hurt them. For what happened to them as children.
Sorry, but this actually is as clear a moral issue as before. Many people didn’t think the Civil Rights movement was a clear issue, either, but we now know they were wrong.
And, in 50 years, there will be some other issue that we can’t even consider today. And they will use tactics that inconvenience others. And people will point to this era, while their opponents say it’s okay because the issue was a clear moral issue.
That is how the cycle works.
Promises like this should not be made via executive order. This is why.
Nonsense. This isn’t a collective, nor has it ever been one. Not even in your imagination.
Since it went so far as to have a registration system set up and utilized, it would seem to be far enough along as to not be dismantled on a whim when it affects innocent people.
Because everyone knows that in order to effect change, one must always remain polite.
I’m sure Martin Luther King said something like that.
To be clear, I think these protesters are making a major mistake, in that they are specifically targeting their likely allies in Congress, in addition to their opponents.
To the extent that protesters come to the Capitol and disrupt things in their name of their cause, well, I don’t particularly care. For many years the Code Pink protesters interrupted hearings in a nonsensical attempt to end the war in Iraq. My response? “Pfft, who cares!”
I’m not aware of them staging a sit-in in say, John Kerry’s office, but if they did, I’d have said that they have given up trying to convince anyone of being on their side, and really not care all that much beyond that.
I certainly wouldn’t be wringing my hands in mock concern for their odds for success with their tactics. And I truly wouldn’t care if they shut down the cafeteria for a while before being led out in handcuffs.
But let’s also get something straight: in the car of Dreamers, they HAVE been playing by the Marquis of Queensbury’s political rules for many months now; and the powers that be in DC have basically decided that they don’t have much interest in these people. What’s that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
It would seem not.
ETA: this is the nature of executive orders. They can be undone by the next guy, basically on a whim.
Which is a stupid way to run a country. How about careful and considered thought on what might be the effects of overturning a policy? And have a replacement policy ready to go rather than throwing a tantrum.
That’s exactly what people tried to tell Obama when he wanted to EO the DREAM Act into (temporary) existence. He didn’t listen, but he should have. Seeking a bipartisan resolution in Congress (oddly enough, it seems likely that that’s the route McConnell and the Rs are going to pursue now) makes for a much more enduring solution.
I’m going to sound like a total uninformed rube here but here goes: are they “our people” just because they’ve already been here for x number of years and do things many of us don’t want to do (but we rely upon them for for anyway) like pick lettuce heads? Honest question. I am trying to wrap my head around the difference, if any, of legal migrant workers (that also pick lettuce) versus illegal workers (that also pick lettuce). Is the “Dreamer” moniker meaningful in any way? I am serious, I do not know. Bricker states “Illegal is illegal” and…he’s not wrong. Or is he?
I also get the compassion angle…but is there a point where our compassion only goes so far? Or where we seriously can only let in so many migrant workers per year? I know I could have googled many of these things but I really enjoy hearing what the Dope has to say, especially on something as confusing as this.
I only see conservatives asking about what’s acceptable to do with ‘other people’s money’ when it’s being spent to help less fortunate people. Never hear them ask, “why are we spending other people’s money on this defense buildup? Wasn’t our military big enough already?” Must be some deep principle in this prioritization of things over people that escapes this bleeding-heart liberal.
Yeah, but our military buildup has been breathtaking, hasn’t it? It’s immense, it’s practically godlike, and we can (and will) unleash it upon the brown-skinned peoples of this world on a moment’s notice. I said just a moment, goddammit!
All of this. Well said. In particular these bits…
I am on their side and I support civil disobedience, in general and in this instance. But if they’re talking about persuading the people whose support they need… undecided legislators or voters… this particular action seems poorly calculated. “We’re people who do dramatic things!” is the message I read. When the counternarrative is “we need to get rid of illegals because they’re disruptive”, this looks poorly considered.
I’ll support them with my vote and however else I’m politically able, but I wish people wouldn’t turn out these pieces of performance art intended mainly for in-group consumption.
I’m guessing the Mister Rogers “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” was never intended for folks of this ilk.
What we’re talking about here is people who lived their entire lives in America, who speak only English, who woke up one morning as a 16-17 year old trying to apply for college, only for their parents to say “Sorry, you don’t have those documents. We forgot to tell you we’re all illegal immigrants.”
So basically you have teenagers who only speak English, who have no ties to Mexico (or other LA country), who think they’re American, who are now totally screwed for something their parents did.
DACA and DREAM are acronyms that have meaning; I trust you can take it from here.
Okay, so this is outside the realm of “anchor babies” then. Got it. I’m terribly underinformed about this issue. I’m guessing by your description that it’s also irrelevant whether either the parents or the “naturalized” should-be-American-at-this-point-teenager even had an inkling as to their heritage then, and even if they did, their kids, even though they may not have been born here, have been raised here as Americans, identify as such, speak English as a primary and have been going to American schools and therefore…are (or should be) Americans. Is that right?
Well, “should be” is a slippery term. But we have kids who didn’t break the law, raised as American, think they’re American, speak fluent unaccented English, don’t know anyone in Mexico. But they’re here illegally, and subject to deportation.
We have people who are happy to sit by and let this happen because Obama enacted it via executive order. In their eyes, this should be properly done via legislation. Since we all know the Republican-controlled Congress doesn’t give a damn, that means they’re happy to embrace the stupidity that an infant can be a lawbreaker, and people who lived most of their lives in America and don’t speak Spanish should “go back to Mexico”.