Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 14, 2019

The justices are considering whether the Trump administration can shut down a program that shields about 700,000 young immigrants from deportation.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The embedded article perfectly articulates where I stand with DACA.

FTA:

DACA is more than a mere expression of prosecutorial discretion. It is a full-fledged policy that gives recipients"some 800,000 so far"lawful status in the United States along with work authorization and access to various benefits such as health care and driver's licenses. It deals with matters already covered by federal statutes, principally the Immigration and Nationality Act, that can be amended only by act of Congress. It was intended to replicate the essential features of DREAM Act legislation that Congress had considered but failed to approve. Obama himself described DACA a "stopgap measure" to provide temporary relief while Congress came up with a "permanent fix""implicitly conceding that the lawful status of the Dreamers is a matter of legislative policy.....

But if federal law grants the president "broad discretion" to make up his own rules for nearly 1 million Dreamers, then Congress has written itself out of immigration policy. Progressives should be equally concerned about the scope of this purported discretion. Under DACA's conception of prosecutorial discretion, there is no principled reason why Trump cannot direct the EPA to stop enforcing environmental laws against certain classes of industry, or to order the IRS to stop collecting capital-gains tax.....


As Loaf would say, QFT!

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:28 AM | Reply

The morality of this should have some strength of argument. Perhaps our Congress should get off their butts and legislatively enact DACA with a bill that should pass if any of our Congressmen, Senators and President are actually, living and breathing, human beings. Sending those young people back to a country they have never know is cruel and inhuman punishment for a crime they had no say in.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 10:34 AM | Reply

"access to various benefits such as health care and driver's licenses."

So a driver's license is a benefit? News to me.

Then again, this is like vaccines for illegal immigrants. Would you rather have folks who qualified for a driver's license, or a mass of folks driving who didn't?

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:35 AM | Reply

"Sending those young people back to a country they have never know is cruel and inhuman punishment for a crime they had no say in."

I've said it before, these people should be treated like victims of human trafficking. If they are adults they should be eligible for asylum. Any pathway to citizenship should be conditional on them helping bring those who trafficked them into this country to justice.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-13 10:49 AM | Reply

So a driver's license is a benefit? News to me.

That's because you are privileged.

Would you rather have folks who qualified for a driver's license, or a mass of folks driving who didn't?

If we enforced the law, I would rather we had mass people that didn't drive.

Given that your opinion is companies draw people to work at them, why not also limit there ability to get to work? Wouldn't this also be deterrent?

See you seem to want companies to enforce the immigration law; but the government itself not so much.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 10:51 AM | Reply

Perhaps our Congress should get off their butts and legislatively enact DACA with a bill...

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

You are echoing the gist of the article - this should be a legislative initiative.

So a driver's license is a benefit?

#3 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Yes. As is a work permit, which their illegal status prevents them from obtaining. DACA is more than just prosecutorial discretion. It confers positive benefits that are defied by law and statute.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:53 AM | Reply

Lol... all the President had to do is say he is getting rid of DACA because he just doesn't want it (policy shift). Yet, he refuses to say that.

Instead he wants to hide behind the claim that this is "illegal" or "unconstitutional".

Trump could have killed DACA with a "stroke of his pen" years ago. But, conservatives are too cowardly to actually take responsibility for their policies.

#7 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 10:53 AM | Reply

"That's because you are privileged."

No, it's because driver's licenses aren't usually referred to as benefits.

"If we enforced the law, I would rather we had mass people that didn't drive. "

Okay, but back in Reality 101, it's going to happen. Would you rather people pass a safety test, or not?

"Given that your opinion is companies draw people to work at them, why not also limit there ability to get to work?"

Because like vaccines, your ability to injure others is much greater.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:55 AM | Reply

"Yes. As is a work permit"

Whatever, Humpty. Any other words you'd like to redefine while we're at it?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:56 AM | Reply

What's truly absurd is that DACA isn't even an executive order, nor is it a "rule change" that was subjected to any kind of review. Obama wanted the DREAM Act and when congress failed to deliver it he decided that 22 prior statements that he didn't have the power to enact it be damned. He just went forward with it and said, "Catch me if you can."

That activist #Resistance hack judges have decided that Trump cannot undo an Obama directive because partisan hackery is absurd.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:56 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"See you seem to want companies to enforce the immigration law; but the government itself not so much"

It seems like you don't understand why it's a good idea to vaccinate folks here illegally. Better go sit at the kiddie's table.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:58 AM | Reply

Trump could have killed DACA with a "stroke of his pen" years ago. But, conservatives are too cowardly to actually take responsibility for their policies.

#7 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

He actually did just that. A hack judge said he couldn't because it was "arbitrary and capricious."

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:58 AM | Reply

Danforth,

This has nothing to do with vaccines. I don't know why you obviously feel compelled to move the goalposts.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You are echoing the gist of the article - this should be a legislative initiative."

I'm completely aware of that. Just like tariffs, when Presidents act with EOs they can be undone by the next President.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 11:00 AM | Reply

"This has nothing to do with vaccines. '

It's the same concept. Do you want folks out there as a greater threat to the masses, or a lesser threat to the masses?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:08 AM | Reply

I'm completely aware of that. Just like tariffs, when Presidents act with EOs they can be undone by the next President.

#14 | POSTED BY DANNI

I have seen you speak to that. You've always supported tariffs but have been critical of Trump's tariffs. Now, some would say that is just you being hyper-partisan. That's not how I saw it though. Your criticism of Trump's tariffs was that they were enacted unilaterally and could easily be undone by his successor. The lack of permanence means countries like China can just wait-it-out instead of taking corrective measures. While I disagree with you regarding tariffs - I think they are harmful - I agree with your nuanced criticism of Trump's tariffs.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 11:12 AM | Reply

As a matter of law and logic, a unilateral executive action by one president can be undone by a future president

This statement is entirely ignorant of how our government actually works.

Unilateral actions by executive agencies must meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires, in part, that agencies not be "arbitrary and capricious" in their decisionmaking - essentially, they must be able to demonstrate that a particular level of reasoning went into their process.

It is entirely possible that one administration could take a unilateral action that meets the requirements of the APA, and that a subsequent administration in its reversal might not abide by the APA.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 11:52 AM | Reply

"It's the same concept. Do you want folks out there as a greater threat to the masses, or a lesser threat to the masses?"

You're making a number of interesting assumptions here. One is that illegal immigrants are more likely to break laws (besides immigrating illegally). Another is that people cannot get instruction permits and learn how to drive safely without getting a drivers license.

#18 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-13 11:53 AM | Reply

"One is that illegal immigrants are more likely to break laws"

Nonsense. If you don't understand macro concepts, just admit it.

"Another is that people cannot get instruction permits and learn how to drive safely without getting a drivers license."

Again, macro: are folks who've passed DL tests generally better, or worse than those who didn't? IOW, which way does the dial turn?

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 12:03 PM | Reply

What Obama has done, Trump can undo

This is the perfect title for the book about Trump's Presidency.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:04 PM | Reply

#19, so you're saying illegal immigrants aren't more likely to drive illegally than the general population if they don't have a legal license?

#21 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-13 12:30 PM | Reply

Unilateral actions by executive agencies must meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act

DACA didn't even go through that process.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 12:44 PM | Reply

#22 That's true, i did not recall the "reliance interests" doctrine that kicks the APA into play. Doesn't change the point that just because one administration does something unilaterally does not mean another administration can reverse it without following the law. In fact it reinforces that point.

At the end of the day, Trump has lost in court repeatedly by sloppy policy implementation and ignorance of administrative law.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 12:58 PM | Reply

Trump has lost in court repeatedly by sloppy policy implementation

On that, I completely agree. Look no further than his first travel-ban. The policy itself was within his purview but its implementation was so bad that the court rightly threw it out.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:32 PM | Reply

"What's truly absurd is that DACA isn't even an executive order, nor is it a "rule change" that was subjected to any kind of review. Obama wanted the DREAM Act and when congress failed to deliver it he decided that 22 prior statements that he didn't have the power to enact it be damned. He just went forward with it and said, "Catch me if you can.""

Or, more correctly, he considered the plight of the Dreamers and decided to do whatever he could to help them. The morality of sending them back to a country they have never lived in is horrible and, since Congress was too concerned about being considered sympathetic to these "outsiders" and refused to do anything to help them, he did the only thing a moral human being could have done at the time. I find those who are so against DACA to be poor excuses for human beings.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 08:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From #1:

"It is a full-fledged policy that gives recipients"some 800,000 so far"lawful status in the United States along with work authorization and access to various benefits such as health care and driver's licenses."

The part about health care and driver's licenses is not true. DACA does not do that.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 04:59 PM | Reply

To be clear, where JeffJ stands on DACA ia right here:
We must round up 800,000 children and send them to camps.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 05:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I find those who are so against DACA to be poor excuses for human beings."

And what exactly was your response to the large increase of unaccompanied minors being trafficked to the border after DACA was announced?

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-14 06:16 PM | Reply

"unaccompanied minors being trafficked"

Hahahahahaha!!!

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 09:43 PM | Reply

Evidently his response to the trafficking of children is laughter.

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-14 09:54 PM | Reply

Here's your bus ticket little boy, make sure you go right to your pimp when you arrive in America, us child traffickers of unaccompanied minors are counting on your honesty!

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 10:15 PM | Reply

Under DACA's conception of prosecutorial discretion, there is no principled reason why Trump cannot direct the EPA to stop enforcing environmental laws against certain classes of industry, or to order the IRS to stop collecting capital-gains tax.

If you ever needed a starker reminder of why the parties aren't the same, read this line until it sinks in.

Only a "chreestian c-c-conservative" would equate protecting kids from the decisions of their parents with greed f---ers using destruction and exploitation to add more money to an already unreasonably large holding of money and assets.

Makes their supposed morals, values and priorities crystal clear.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-15 01:32 AM | Reply

I think Obama had a right to enact the DACA policy during his administration, but his party paid a political price for it because he failed to address the unintended consequences. The current president should not be bound to continue the policy, just like future Presidents should not be bound to continue Trump policies which were not enacted via the legislative process.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-15 01:37 PM | Reply

"DACA is more than just prosecutorial discretion. It confers positive benefits that are defied by law and statute."

I don't understand the angle you're trying to grind this axe at. So what if it confers benifits? So what?

Illegal immigrants are able to get a trial by jury too. Thus, the Constitution confers positive benefits on illegal immigrants.

Is that a problem too?

Is The Constitution the problem?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-15 01:42 PM | Reply

good....

but remember my dreamers... your only allowed to take $10k out of the country...

gonna have to sell the house, cars, boats, 401k's and so on and convert it to bitcoin... or silver/gold...

and sneak into canada or mexico and bury it...

can't leave it in the bank cause by the stroke of a pen... the government will take all of it...

#35 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-11-15 02:45 PM | Reply

can't leave it in the bank cause by the stroke of a pen... the government will take all of it...

done it before...

ww2 japanese were rounded up and placed in internment camps...

their businesses, houses, cars and their savings were gathered up, confiscated and sold at auctions...

today, the IRS is doing pretty much the same...

you could spend your time protesting and marching around in circles hoping for a 13th hour miracle or your could be planning an orderly exit before the feds close off the border going out the other way...

you do know the feds are planning and taking steps NOW to make sure 10k is all you'll take with you...

#36 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-11-15 03:47 PM | Reply

"today, the IRS is doing pretty much the same..."

Could you link to where you pulled that from, unless it's your backside?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-15 03:50 PM | Reply

Sure, I could... but why should I do your research for you... you can Google it as well as I can...

In fact, I'll double down... and say... add your local and state governments to that list...

Just don't pay state income or property tax and tell all of us what happens...to your backside...

DACA dreamers...NOW is the time.... once the stampede starts, it will already be toooo late.

By that time...

The feds will be leading you down the chute to the killing floor... because they always go after the weakest members of the heard.

The smart ones have already left the ranch with most of their wealth.

#38 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-11-15 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sure, I could... but why should I do your research for you"

Because that's the way it works with claims; you're not new here.

"you can Google it as well as I can..."

Glad to know you can. Please do, or retract your claim.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-15 05:18 PM | Reply

"In fact, I'll double down... and say... add your local and state governments to that list..."

In that case, I'll double down, and say you're full of schitt. Link or stink.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-15 05:20 PM | Reply

"Could you link to where you pulled that from, unless it's your backside?"

Aaaaannnnd....another one runs away.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-15 06:31 PM | Reply

Hahaha. Consuela R-rr-r-r-r-r-r-r-odriguezz-z-z-z-z is going back home, where she belongs. No longer a ward of the state, or grabbing more gibsmedats. Leftists will forget about her a week after she's fugg'd off to qqhwwereverrrr she came from. Fug off back to qhweherver, and don't come back.

#42 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 11:11 PM | Reply

ww2 japanese were rounded up and placed in internment camps...

their businesses, houses, cars and their savings were gathered up, confiscated and sold at auctions...

today, the IRS is doing pretty much the same...

"today, the IRS is doing pretty much the same..."

Could you link to where you pulled that from, unless it's your backside?

sure... but you could have found this yourself if you googled it...

www.treasury.gov

this is where all their property will end up after they are kicked out of the country...treasury.gov/auctions

#43 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-11-16 10:25 AM | Reply

"sure... but you could have found this yourself if you googled it..."

That's not what you claimed, --------. What you linked to is the regular IRS seizure sales. That's what they do when taxpayers can't and won't pay their tax bills. NOTHING LIKE what you claimed.

You're either lying, or too stupid to know what you're talking about.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-16 10:46 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort