Thursday, September 7, 2017

Tucker Carlson on DACA

Tucker Carlson's dissent on DACA (via Maggie's Farm):


Jack Fisher said...

There is already a legal path for DACA-eligible adults and for most aliens who came here illegally. If one marries a US citizen, that citizen could file an alien relative petition on behalf of the alien spouse. The spouse would have to depart the US and there's a 3 year bar from returning (10 if deported), but there are various hardship (for the citizen) waivers available and these are granted where fair.

Anonymous said...

"Here for twenty years" means they are already adults. Have they started the path to citizenship? They should, or back they go. Most aren't, but are happily accepting the perks of this country. I have a nephew by marriage who was brought here as a pre-schooler, but when he turned 18 he started the long, expensive, frustrating process and is now a US citizen. My hat's off to him. He did it,(before DACA), others can too.

Jack Fisher said...

And how did he do that? He either married a citizen or claimed asylum or???

Ares Olympus said...

Ugh, way too much drama from Carlson in just the first 4 minutes, my head is spinning.

What Trump did was GOOD in the sense that he pushed the ball back into Congress to deal with it, and a republican congress at that. We know Democrats will support some replacement to DACA, and we know as long as only Democrats support it, its a partisan issue, and the Democrats are now largely the party of minorities, which benefits from an increase in new minorities.

So this is a place where Trump actually represents a position that can break the Republican stalemate against a path of citizenship to illegals. If the GOP congress fail to act, they look like losers who want to punish the innocent, and if they do decide to act, thanks to Trump's deadline, they can benefit by being the party in power where minorities were recognized as essential to the success of our country, rather than as "rapists and murders" for the actions of 0.0001% of them.

I was surprised to read recently that Saudi Arabia is 1/3 noncitizens, apparently in part because citizens don't want to do the jobs that need doing, and in many ways our country is like that as well.

I've wondered if there is a solution to ban a path of citizenship to people who have broken the law to get here, but give them a legal status so they don't have to live below the law. And of course, noncitizens may not have the same rights as citizens, and if they are convicted of crimes, they can be deported, just as we're doing now.

The important thing about "secure borders" isn't clearly about keeping people out - it's knowing who is who, and letting honest people live honestly.

Jack Fisher said...

Some crimes make an illegal inadmissible or removable (deportable), some are not bars. "crimes involving moral turpitude", "aggravated felonies", domestic abuse, "particularly serious crimes", offenses defined by the Adam Walsh Act are bars. All these are terms of art.

The typical misdemeanor offense is not an immigration bar.

Ares Olympus said...

I find it interesting when republicans object to the idea that Dreamers "deserve" a chance, that citizenship is a privilege not a right. I understand the logic. It's the same resentment logic you feel when you see someone cut in line, whether or not it affects you personally.

I'm thinking now perhaps citizenship should be seen as something closer to the home-ownership vs renter debate. Like owning a home changes your perspective so you have a stake in keeping up that home, and you don't trash something you own. So citizenship is about a wish to be responsible member of a society.

It would be interesting if we only had "residency" as a birthright, but not citizenship, which could requires higher tests of our devotion, including being able to show knowledge of the law and how government works. We can say only citizens could vote, only citizens could run for office, only citizens be called upon for jury duty, only citizens call upon for military service, and the list can go on.

But there must be a cost in having a high number of people who are not citizens, and perhaps are not even capable of passing the knowledge-based tests for citizenship. And there's a phrase for this predicament "Second-class citizens". We don't mind noncitizens who aspire to raise their status, but people who are not even temperamentally capable of rising up, they're dangerous people to social order, and under their real or imagined grievances without a political voice, may feel justified in using covert or overt destruction and violence against society.

And this is another reason why we should be hopeful about 12+ million illegals aspiring to citizenship, rather than fearing them. It's not safe to keep millions of people around who have no legal status as we've done. Millions of people have been rounded up before for being of the wrong sort, and I'm not sure that has ever ended up well.

Jack Fisher said...

Fortunately the Constitution stands in the way of your reich.

The vast majority of people who lease property, real or personal, do not destroy it, so your analogy argument that illegals are inherently dangerous is because they are not citizens, is, frankly, stupid.

Even the underpinnings of your analogy are false. This is not "citizens vs illegals". There are citizens, nationals, legal permanent residents, non-immigrant visas of many kinds and durations, asylees, refugees, people in temporary protected status, people who move into different categories.

It is a stone cold certainty that the difference between "permanent" and "temporary" visas has never, until the moment you read this, crossed your mind. And if it isn't, then pretending that legalizing the status of aliens must be to make them permanent residents on the road to citizenship is a theatrical piece of deception that liberals always engage in.

Except for the hysterics no one "fears" illegals, and it's laughable to hang that kind of label on those who want immigration policy decided by Congress, not in Mexico City or by illegals counting on the political wetdreams of liberals.

Ares Olympus said...

Jack Fisher said... Even the underpinnings of your analogy are false. This is not "citizens vs illegals". There are citizens, nationals, legal permanent residents, non-immigrant visas of many kinds and durations, asylees, refugees, people in temporary protected status, people who move into different categories.

Exactly, and soon we've better find a category for 12+ million illegals, while DACA of course was a bandaid that solved nothing real. It was always only just a wedge that tried to make the most innocent of illegals human beings again.

In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a bill that included amnesty. Of course that helped created the slippery slope we're at this time around, and no one wants to risk being labeled a "Ronald Reagan" any more.
in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.
"We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization."

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.

Jack Fisher said...

Start by acknowledging that no illegal has any right to be here (other than limited exceptions like asylees or someone qualifying under the Violence Against Women Act.

Any DACA-eligible person who arrived under the age of 12 stays provided that any illegal with a criminal record that would make him or her inadmissible (rather than removable, which is harder), get deported and permanently barred. for example, Hose A came here at age 6 and now, at age 30, runs a narcotics bund gets kicked out. Hose B, who arrived at age 3 is a model citizen, property owner, has a family-run business, is ok.

For anyone who came here age 12 and over, deport them unless they can show their departure would be an "extreme hardship" to a US citizen and aren't otherwise deportable, if so, give them a green card. For example, Juan Gohome arrived age 17, and now at age 30 but is married and supporting a wife, minor kids (born here) and elderly mom. Juan stays. Juana Neudrug came here at age age 16, now is 40, divorced, kids living elsewhere, gets kicked out of the country.