DACA amnesty to cost taxpayers $115 billion

[_subgenius]

You've simplified the CoR's paper requirements, but the reality is more complex.

1 or 2 of them might be "complex" in certain circumstances, but pretty sure enlisting in the military and the juvenile exception are pretty simple...jus sayin
But please, just focus on the examples that can be argued by the exception instead of the rule...because after all, we would not want to burden an illegal immigrant with the whole pesky become a citizen thingy. Let the legal immigrants wait in lines and fill out forms, these other illegals can just act ignorant and too busy to become citizens of a place where they "belong".

...needing to hire a lawyer. This isn't a very practical option for normal working folks, is it?

yes, normal folks are citizens and when they have legal issues they have a wide variety of lawyers to acquire....as mentioned before the list of pro bono lawyers that specialize in this very topic are widely available.

You seem to be supporting the idea that an illegal immigrant is justified in avoiding any citizenship process because it might be burdensome and thus they are entitled to wait until a better offer comes along that is more convenient and for-sure....correct?.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Can we do citizen swaps? I'd like to round up some of our turd monsters and parachute them into countries that are accepting immigrants. We'll keep these ones, and get rid of the ones who like to pass out in our parks and sidewalks. Seems like a pretty solid solution to me!

- Doc

Kathleen Madigan was thinking of you when she pitched a reality game show about illegal immigration.

Oh my god. When does she run for office? Octomom wouldn't even require a parachute.

- Doc

[_Brackite]

Walmart, Target join call for 'Dreamer' legislation

(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Target Corp and PepsiCo Inc on Wednesday joined an expanded group of nearly 800 companies calling in a letter for U.S. legislation to protect immigrants brought into the country illegally by their parents from deportation, according to organizer FWD.us.

The retailers and other companies asking Congress to pass a permanent replacement for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, reflect broadening pressure on political leaders to find a solution for the roughly 800,000 immigrants known as “Dreamers”.

A group of businesses less than half the size and weighted toward technology companies sent a similar letter in August, before President Donald Trump said he would end the program. The new letter reflects Trump’s decision and asks for a permanent solution to let DACA recipients remain in the United States.

[_canpakes]

You've simplified the CoR's paper requirements, but the reality is more complex.

1 or 2 of them might be "complex" in certain circumstances, but pretty sure enlisting in the military and the juvenile exception are pretty simple...jus sayin

Nope. In fact, the MAVNI program, under which DACA applicants could join if approved - and approval is on a case-by-case basis, and not guaranteed - is currently suspended.

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/bcm-1612-02.pdf

Current military members who were part of the DACA rolls may also see their status be rescinded:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- ... 72568.html

By the way, you forgot your sentence-ending period up there, again. ; )

But please, just focus on the examples that can be argued by the exception instead of the rule...because after all, we would not want to burden an illegal immigrant with the whole pesky become a citizen thingy. Let the legal immigrants wait in lines and fill out forms, these other illegals can just act ignorant and too busy to become citizens of a place where they "belong".

It would seem that DACA applicants are doing exactly the same sort of thing - waiting in lines and filling out forms. On top of that, they also seem to be working legally, paying taxes, and generally maintaining a productive and law-abiding status. So, given that DACA was and is a legitimate option for them, what is your complaint, more specifically? That they didn't stand in this line as opposed to that line?

...needing to hire a lawyer. This isn't a very practical option for normal working folks, is it?

yes, normal folks are citizens and when they have legal issues they have a wide variety of lawyers to acquire....as mentioned before the list of pro bono lawyers that specialize in this very topic are widely available.

I see that you conveniently edited that sentence to suit your own agenda. Here, let me repeat it intact, with emphasis -

"So you're essentially asking why DACA status holders don't willingly go down to their local law enforcement and ask to be arrested... and then end up dis-employed, in jail, and needing to hire a lawyer. This isn't a very practical option for normal working folks, is it?"

You seem to be supporting the idea that an illegal immigrant is justified in avoiding any citizenship process because it might be burdensome and thus they are entitled to wait until a better offer comes along that is more convenient and for-sure....correct?.

Incorrect, especially since it has now been demonstrated to you that DACA is a legal option for their status, and that other options open to many illegal residents are not open to DACA applicants.

[_canpakes]

... pretty sure (...) the juvenile exception (is) pretty simple...

Oops. Forgot to educate you on the 'simplicity' of applying for the 'juvenile exception' :

To qualify for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status:

- A juvenile court, family court, or similar state court must find that the child has been abused, neglected or abandoned. The court must either make the child a ward of the state (a "court dependent") or place the child in the custody of a guardian, a state agency, or family member.

- The same court must also find that it is not in the child's best interest to return to his or her home country.

This must be determined by a judge in a court in the state where the child lives, not by immigration officials. Which kinds of courts can make such a determination, and what the legal standard is for abuse, neglect, or abandonment is a question of state law and differs from state to state.

Courtesy of: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... gible.html

So, not so simple, nor widely applicable.

[_subgenius]

Incorrect, especially since it has now been demonstrated to you that DACA is a legal option for their status, and that other options open to many illegal residents are not open to DACA applicants.

Nope - pursuing citizenship has always been an option for those that were brought here by their parent(s) when they were an innocent minor. Just because their parent chose to come here illegally and then remain illegal does not exclude the child, now grown, from the burden of becoming a citizen. Again, your argument fails to address the reason why you consider it appropriate for their path to citizenship to suddenly be as convenient as possible.

And "Oops" - you are once again arguing the exception instead of the rule with regards to military enlistment....the "cancellation" you reference would only (possibly) apply to about 1,000 enlistees, whereas it has already achieved citizenship for +10,000 in the past 8 years alone.....again - you argue the exception not the rule (and in this case you are simply arguing "what if") - Read your own citations, please. Also note that the military option was available years before DACA applied that option...in other words, you did not have to be a Dreamer to seek this rather simple option...just ask the 10,400 successful enlistees.

.

[_canpakes]

Incorrect, especially since it has now been demonstrated to you that DACA is a legal option for their status, and that other options open to many illegal residents are not open to DACA applicants.

Nope - pursuing citizenship has always been an option for those that were brought here by their parent(s) when they were an innocent minor. Just because their parent chose to come here illegally and then remain illegal does not exclude the child, now grown, from the burden of becoming a citizen. Again, your argument fails to address the reason why you consider it appropriate for their path to citizenship to suddenly be as convenient as possible.

Of course my argument "fails to address the reason why you consider it appropriate for their path to citizenship to suddenly be as convenient as possible", because that's not my argument. That's your retreat to something that you hope distracts from the fact that your options are not as available as you pretend them to be.

And "Oops" - you are once again arguing the exception instead of the rule with regards to military enlistment....the "cancellation" you reference would only (possibly) apply to about 1,000 enlistees, whereas it has already achieved citizenship for +10,000 in the past 8 years alone.....again - you argue the exception not the rule (and in this case you are simply arguing "what if") - Read your own citations, please. Also note that the military option was available years before DACA applied that option...in other words, you did not have to be a Dreamer to seek this rather simple option...just ask the 10,400 successful enlistees.

The rule, in this case, is that the program you are referencing has been suspended for a year, with no guarantee of renewal. And when it was available, no applicant was guaranteed to be accepted, being put on a waiting list sometimes for up to two years.

I'm not responsible for your failure to read and understand the linked sources and why they dismantle your complaint.