Featured Post

The Right of National Defense

Writing this post on Memorial Day, my thoughts, of course, turned to those who fought and died to preserve our country. My thoughts also tur...

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

DACA is a SCAM

The coverage of hurricane Harvey and its aftermath didn't last long, nor did the possibility of impending war with the NORKs.

The media is on a horse with which they feel more comfortable, one they figure Trump can't ride well. I refer, of course, to DACA  (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). That horse lets them ride to the barn full of racist pigs, white supremacist hawks, and nativist rattlesnakes--and, of course, of lachrymose brown babies waiting to be deported to certain, uh, certain . . . Mexicaness, I guess. It seems, per prog logic, that it's better for all those oppressed aliens to remain in our white-supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi country rather than have them go home to enjoy their own culture free of the oppressiveness of white appropriation and privilege . . .

Back in the long ago dark ages of 2012, I wrote about the Obama announcement that led to DACA (here and here). I noted,
It is another ill-thought-out patch on our already chaotic immigration laws, regulations, and policies, and does nothing in the long term to deal with the ostensible problem it seeks to solve, i.e., dealing with young illegal aliens. It throws under the bus legal aliens who have played by the rules, already hard-pressed American workers looking for scarce jobs, and ongoing efforts to develop a rational approach to immigration.

It is an electoral stunt that leaves many important questions unanswered and highlights the hypocrisy of this misadministration. To start, the details are hazy. How will Homeland decide whether an illegal meets the requirements? Presumably that involves the alien confessing to being illegal, and, in the process, likely ratting out his parents, and perhaps other relatives. What happens to illegal alien spouses of such aliens? Do they benefit from the new status as "quasi-legal?" For how long can a person remain as a "quasi-legal?" 
and,
There is so much wrong with what President Obama did last Friday unilaterally abrogating a portion of our immigration laws, and so little strong negative reaction.
That absurd speech of Obama's led to a memo from DHS that stated,
On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.
Well, it seems that the issues I raised so long ago have burst forward yet again. None of the questions got answered, and it became obvious that it was a stunt to get votes for 2012 and 2016. It had nothing to do with kids.

Also realize, contrary to MSM reporting, that DACA is NOT law, it's NOT even an Executive Order. Nope. It's, at best, an extra-legal temporary ("certain period of time") policy created by an Obama speech, and a subsequent memo from the-then DHS Secretary announcing that we would not enforce our immigration laws when it came to a certain class of illegal alien, i.e., "childhood arrivals." What we have, therefore, is a speech by an ex-President and a memo by a former cabinet member substituting for and defying the law of the land.

Also contrary to much press reporting and angst-ridden declarations coming from prog ponds around the nation, DACA does not "protect" children. As succinctly explained by FAIR, an good organization absurdly labelled a "hate group" by the increasingly deranged and corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center (my emphasis),
The Obama administration marketed DACA as a way to keep high school valedictorians, gifted students, and other high achieving young people in the United States. However, the demographic data on DACA applicants belies those claims. Most applicants were adults at the time they enrolled in the DACA program.

DACA accepts applications from qualifying illegal aliens who were 31 years old or younger on June 15, 2012. That means 36 year olds will be able to apply in 2017, provided they were 16 or under when they arrived in the United States. Clearly this was not a program aimed at protecting children from deportation
We see, thus, that for the denizens of the prog ponds a 36-year-old is a baby (readers, insert joke here). 

President Trump has played this well. I would have declared the whole DACA thing illegal, unconstitutional, and dropped it, but the President is more politically astute than I. He has given it six more months on paper, and challenged Congress to do something legal about it. Let us reflect on how clever this proves. Despite giving it six more months on paper, he has killed it. If you were an illegal "childhood arrival" would you go to renew your permit now and give ICE your current address and place of employment? I wouldn't, certainly not with Trump as President. He has put the burden on Congress, many of whose members face tight election battles next year. I want to see one of those Republican Congressmen in a tight battle who comes out for restoring DACA, and that on top of the Obamacare repeal disaster.

Well, I am looking at the TV right now, and one of the networks is running some tearful story about a handicapped "dreamer" now fearful of being deported, and no longer being able to access U.S. -taxpayer funded medical care. We're going to get a lot more of that stuff. 

Stay strong, Mr. President.   

35 comments:

  1. "Well, I am looking at the TV right now, and one of the networks is running some tearful story about a handicapped "dreamer" now fearful of being deported, and not being able to access to U.S. taxpayer funded medical care."
    A close first cousin to the "dead baby" meme you see when US troops are in action overseas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I wish I'd thought of that.

      Delete
    2. And nobody on the Left dares talk about the tens of millions of actual, American dead babies since the rotten Roe V. Wade decision.

      Delete
    3. It all started with Sally Struthers and the "Save the Children" campaign. That's were the left learned the power of virtue signaling, for "just a dollar a day".

      Delete
  2. And on TV I saw the kids riding the roof of the train from Mexico. Not exactly what DACA covers. We citizens can't believe anything the damn media shows or tells us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When your people flee your country in droves, sneaking across borders into your neighbors' lands, you have lost the mandate to govern your country.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or put it this way... about 10% of Mexico's citizens have violated our borders. If the US were to grab 10% of the lands of Mexico, I'm not sure the opposition would have a leg to stand on.

      Need some sort of catchy phrase similar to 'no taxation without representation'.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Catchier than their chant "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"
      They believe we already took their land

      Delete
    3. How about "We had a war. You lost. Deal with it."?

      Delete
  4. I think the worm has turned. No matter how hard the left screams about human rights enough American citizens have seen the fall out and they don't like it.
    We moved from the SW to the NE because we didn't have enough money to insulate ourselves from illegal aliens. We watched our schools, health care, parks and library crumble under a massive swarm of illegals. Both my children speak Spanish fluently because we are not dummies but, I do not wish to live in that environment.
    Under Obama a huge industry of "immigrant location" has emerged. The so called "charities" are seeding American communities with those that have no intention of assimilating and in fact drain public money at an alarming rate.
    This has to stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. babs

      You bring up really huge point - the charities. Many are affiliated with religions. They are doing the "resettling" and "placing." Who knows where? Where are all those unaccompanied children who appeared at the southern border? I have done lots of google searches - and there is no trace of them. What did the "charities" do with them? And who really runs those "charities?" Who are they accountable to? They are getting huge sums from government. What happens to that money? Who are those people? And why no media stories about them - not even conservative media.

      Delete
  5. Since Congress is once again punting on starting the wall', perhaps we can crowd-fund it? I'll pony up $100.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So your DACA-babies can be 36 years old. Well, over here we have problems with our alien "children" too. They are usually hazars from Afghanistan and even if anyone can see their beard bristles and muscles or pot-bellies they claim to be underage and they are of course "children" according to the MSM. We have read/seen tearful sob-stories galore. It gets really creepy when these young men are allowed to go to school with real children, boys and girls. These men are really "anchor-babies" ,just waiting for their entire clans to arrive and feed on the welfare trough. This is organized, an industry. However, many of them have now , after long and due process, been denied asylum ( many parts of Afghanistan are considered safe ) and are waiting for deportation . Right now absurd demonstrations are going on in Stockholm, Afghans disapprove of the deportations ( surprise ! ) and so they demonstrate. But they are illegals. Our confused and meek authorities wring their hands, how to avoid conflicts here ?! And among the Afghans are, also illegals, gangs of Moroccan young thieves running around, pick-pocketing, stealing. While Bulgarian/Romanian ragamuffins are sitting around, begging. I believe that even the leftist-liberals are coming to their senses, they cannot insulate themselves from the problems anymore. It happens on their door-steps. Like "Babs" writes above, I think the worm has turned, who can approve of this massive swarm of illegals ? And the lawlessness ? I am glad that Trump acts. Maybe, maybe our politicians can follow.
    Swedish lady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is always a distinct pleasure to read your very down-to-earth comments, Ms. Lady. The weather is cooling down nicely in Texas, and the flood waters are receding. As soon as that dove shows up with the olive twig in her mouth, y'all come and see us , now, ya hear?

      Keep in mind, the flooding is on the coast, while we in the Hill Country are high and dry. I even had to irrigate my tomatoes this week. I'll plant the fall potatoes next week, when the moon is right, and yes, we'll still need to water them, too. They'll be wonderful on the Christmas dinner table!

      Michael F Adams

      Delete
    2. And it is always a pleasure to read comments from a Texan gentleman like you, Michael F Adams. Texas is an almost mythological place to many Europeans. The wide, spectacular and grand landscape, the proud people, the Texan mindset. We imagine we "know" it from films, books. "No country for old men", "Paris, Texas", the John Wayne movies. Who would not be interested in such a place ? So I will visit and find out if the myths are true some day. I love the hats, I hope most men wear them.
      Swedish lady

      Delete
    3. The hats usually depend upon the region. Texas is big. I prefer Fedoras, as did my great grandfathers and many generations since then.

      In "No Country for Old Men, a serial killer blasted door locks with liquid nitrogen until they explode. Texas law requires that any property available for the public to rent, whether apartment or motel room, must have a keyless lock, only accessible from the inside, so we see that plot device with some skepticism. My wife lived in Paris from age six weeks to six years, but it is a town in the Red River Valley, deep forests everywhere, lots of cotton in the fields, not the cowboy country you see in that movie. It's just so much more complex than movies can show. The pride in our country, the neighborly spirit, absolutely what you have heard, and even more. The last Governor who was even suspected of taking any sort of bribe was voted out of office in the 1930's. How could you bribe a Governor of Texas. He is, already, Governor of Texas. What could you possibly offer him? Could one bribe the King of Sweden? Of course not. So, y'all come and see us when you can! (Hey, you could make that into a song, err, someone already did.)

      Delete
    4. When I lived in Germany many years ago, I tried very hard to tell them the truth about Texas, but found they did not want to hear it.
      So I started telling the biggest lies I could think of and they not only loved them but believed them!
      One of my favorites was "armadillo herd stampedes" how many lives were lost and property loss could be massive. Fortunately I told them this only was problem during mating season when they congregated in huge herds (they were otherwise a solitary animal) that were very skittish. The slightest noise would set them off, truly terrible to behold and unstoppable, you just had to wait for them to wear themselves out and hope they didn't come your way!

      Delete
    5. Swedish Lady, James, Unknown:

      This conversation reminds me of one of my mother's story (Swedishlady: Min Mor, Gud hville henne, ver en Norske jente). Mother's mother's people were Norwegian immigrants out on the vast prairies; and once some relatives from Gamle Norge came to visit (back in the 1920's). They expressed fear, because they had learned from the movies that the USA was overrun by gangsters. My Mormor explained that "Oh, those movie people, they're not really people."

      James, your post makes it seems that "das Land der Dichter und Denker" and "the praeceptor of Europe" may not be as smart as the rest of us think!

      Delete
    6. Kepha, very true. We usually have many ideas, founded and unfounded, about other countries. As the US has a great film-industry, many get their ideas from them.
      And I guess some of you have ideas about Scandinavia. And Germany. Etc. And Kepha, trevligt att läsa att du har norskt påbrå.
      Swedish lady

      Delete
    7. Swedish Lady,
      You're right about the movies and how others view others.
      Kepha,
      I tell you this, I learned a great lesson on how people will only see what they want to see, even if they have an eye witness who can set them straight from first hand experience. No matter how outlandish the story I told it was believed. They actually believed we ate nothing that didn't come out of a can (this was before me).
      I did explain to them that the Indian menace had declined, but for security reasons indians were not allowed in town after sunset. There was always an oil rig handy to tie your horse to and saloon brawls only really happened on weekends.
      Now I do have a true story. I lived down in southwest Germany in the Rhineland, one of my friend's dad owned about 150 acres of land(a lot in Germany). He loved the show the "Lone Ranger". So he would dress up as the Lone Ranger (a friend of his would dress as Tonto)and they would ride the around on his property (on the appropriate horses) play acting. That is the truth. And they say we are nuts.

      Delete
    8. @James and Swedish Lady: Nice to make your aquaintance here.

      BTW, since you mention SW Germany, the Neckarthal and Schwarzwald were where my Dad's Jewish ancestors used to broker cattle with the peasants back before the late 19th century. But, do those Germans really think the Comanches are still raiding? You're not kidding us, are you?

      Delete
    9. BTW, for East Coast Americans, at least, we often tend to have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis Europe. Believe it or not.

      Delete
    10. Kepha,
      I am that nut who used to comment on a little blog you had. No, I'm not kidding. I used to tell the biggest lie I could think of just to see when they'd call BS on me, never ever happened. By the way I lived i8n a little town called Diemerstein in the Rhineland-Palatinate, right next to Frankenstein's castle.
      By the way about ten years or so I read an article in the NYT about the biggest American Indian reenactment in the world, it was in Germany, by Germans. Their craftsmanship on clothes, tepees, etc was so good, American Indians came over to study it, I kid you not.
      As far as jews go in my little town the older houses (such as the one I lived in) all had entrances blocked up and disguised, to caves under the hill they were next to. Herr Hess my landlord said that they were used by the Jews to hide in during the pogroms of the middle ages.

      Delete
    11. Oh Yeah Kepha,
      I almost forgot about this one. When I was there the #1 TV show was "Gunsmoke" dubbed in german, on ZDF I think. You haven't lived until you've seen Festus and Doc arguing with each other in German. It put me on the floor every time.

      Delete
    12. OK, James. I get it. Not just Spaghetti Westerns from Italy, but, I suppose, Wurstbrotchen Westerns in Germany! Sehr Gut!

      Delete
  7. I believe there is no political will to deport non-criminal illegals, nor is it logistically feasible. Finding them, separating families, holding them, transporting them and then to where. Not feasible for tens of millions. Think of outcry over single boy, Elian Gonzales. Multiply by millions. My question: why does "amnesty" or "legalization" necessarily mean either benefits, and most important, path to citizenship? Everyone assumes path to citizenship. In debates, Rubio asked incredulously, "You mean no path to citizenship?" Well yes. That would seem to me rather obvious and certainly appropriate. Yet no one is raising this. "Legalization" always assumes path to citizenship.

    I would get wall, good border security, end anchor baby status, end family reunification, end right to benefits, and grant limited legalization with no right to citizenship and dependent on no criminal record and tax compliance. Of course foregoing joke as cities and states decide to not report crimes to ICE and grant benefits themselves. E.g., broke Calif grants full MediCal benefits to illegals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have thought about the legalization without citizenship thing a bit since the left would lose interest if these people could never be voters, but I don't think it would really be a good idea to have a country with 2 classes of residents. I figure illegals are already 10% of our population & if that number of non citizens continued to grow it would bring new problems.

      Delete
    2. BitterC

      Many green card holders live here permanently and never choose to become citizens. They are taxed but cannot vote. I think having non citizens is just fine.There must be some discouragement for sneaking through border security or over staying visa. Do other countries legalize their illegals? Leaving aside recent craziness of Merkel, no. And point is there should be border wall/security so their ranks do not continue to grow. And note that under present law the children born here of those already here are already automatically citizens. (I hope that changes for future illegals who manage to get through or over stay visas. That aspect of our law is just crazy - made sense when we wanted immigrants. Makes no sense now.)��

      Delete
    3. I'm with BittrC on this one. BTW, I'm old enough to know that there was a short time in the '80's when Democrats were into immigration reform. I think it had something to do with Asian immigrants, thinking that the GOP would be tougher on Communism, voting GOP once naturalized.

      Delete
  8. "None of the questions got answered"

    Governments never answer questions. Questions are always deferred to some later time. "I luv ya, tomorrow, you're (always) a day away".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dip, what do you think of Tom Cotton's proposals outlined in the RAISE act? I think it's a good start. If given the opportunity, here's what I would do regarding these illegals: 1) Subject all of them to in-person interviews, just as if they were regular visa-seeking applicants; 2) Serious screen for fraud; 3) Anyone allowed to stay in the US (i.e., permanently removed from fear of deportation unless/until they commit criminal acts that would render them subject to deportation if they were green card holders) would NOT have a path to citizenship. 4) Such successful applicants would not be able to confer future immigration status to any other illegal aliens. What they would be given is a green card that would allow them to live and work in the US but not to access welfare benefits. Or something along those lines.....my goals are to 1) ensure that only those who have met the requirements are granted legal status; 2) Eliminate the daisy chain of future immigration for members of their immediate and extended families. Let's say there are 800,000 "Dreamers" who are eligible -- well, it ends there. They don't get to help mom/dad, brothers/sisters and any kids they may have not already in the US become legal. Anyone here illegally has to qualify on their own - if they can. And not everyone will.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I also think it's time to end the conferring of automatic citizenship to anyone born on US soil. I'm tired of people coming here specifically to have anchor babies even if they do come legally. No more of that! The only way you get automatic citizenship at birth by virtue of being born on US soil is that your parent(s) are US citizens or legal permanent residents. Not non-immigrant visa holders or here illegally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 14th in itself was never meant to convey birthright citizenship. It excluded foreigners, diplomats, aliens and Native Americans at the outset. Congress lifted the exclusion for the latter group in 1924. Diplomat families don't get US citizenship for children born here.
      The 14th first became perverted after the Wong Kim Ark decision, and it's been downhill ever since. "And subject to the jurisdiction of" is supposed to refer to total jurisdiction, not temporary geographic jurisdiction just for being in the USA. Anchor babies and birth tourism are now a trillion dollar business.

      Delete
    2. Well said! I meant to come back and post something similar, but never did.

      You've expressed it much more succinctly than I probably would have, but I agree: the Wong Kim Ark decision allowed this perversion to occur. It took a while, but "give an inch and they'll take a mile."

      Delete
  11. We are the world; we are the children--

    As I recall, the average age at that concert was around 40.

    ReplyDelete