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?"
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 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, a 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.We see, thus, that for the denizens of the prog ponds a 36-year-old is a baby (readers, insert joke here).
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