So deporting them is what? Bringing the closer together? Deport both, dont separate families. We dont allow children to make official choices about their own futures, for the same reasons we dont let them drink or vote or own guns or drive cars.
DACA was completely, unConstitutional yet you seem just fine with it. That's why Obama's "legacy" is so easily, dismantled. He ruled by EO, constitution be damned.
Some of those 'children' our liberal friends are crying about are 39 years old. The DACAs already have had plenty of anchor babies themselves.....and they can take their own kids with them when they are deported.
No! My opinion of DACA has been impacted by time. We failed to resolve it long ago just as we failed to deal with the illegal entrant problem. Reagan went the amnesty "solution". Great " solution" right? He really did away with illegals did 't he? OMG Saint Tragan must have been a progressive liberal dibberal, right?
DACA is Unconstitutional. Why are you OK with this? I thought you were a military veteran. If you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States then how can you support DACA?
So they give the children the option of going with the parents? If no then I don’t see how you arrived at your comparison.
What do you not understand about “I support removing the parents, if the child is now of age and can remain they should be given the option of a fast track immigration to remain. If the child is a minor they would be deported as well.” We allow people that are not minors to make life choices.
Children are called minors, hope I helped clear it up for you. After 18, you are no longer a child or a minor.
Your simple logic is simple indeed. "any added crime is added crime" wow - I must say I am impressed. Why would crime by an immigrant be additive though ? If you have a set of 100 people - who happen to be us citizens - and you take 10 out -and replace with 10 immigrants. Will crime increase or decrease - given the data that Quantum provided ?
We dont deport our citizens or "take them out"...Hypotheticals are nice but not relevant. I see you are not a fan of logic but ifs and buts. Did you know if bullfrogs had wings, they would not bump their tiny asses, when they hopped?
OK - but that is not what is being discussed. It is one thing to have a rational argument - or at least not too irrational - like the one above. It is another to engage in demonization based on fallacious gibberish... see post 86.
We dont deport our citizens or "take them out" Correct - Undocumented immigrants in the US have decreased from over 12 million to roughly 10 million since 2006. Call the labor pool half of our population - rough but educated guess - 330 million/2 = 165 million. So assuming half this population is working .. at least because the demographic is going to be different .. probably less old people of non working age - and they are more likely to work in any case. That is 5 million jobs say 3.5% of the total. You can not just take many people out of the economy and not replace with other people - legal immigration. So as I said initially - it is not directly additive as you suggested .. and the logic is not near as simple as what you put forward.
You have done nothing, but change the subject. Any added crime, is ADDED crime, it adds to the total. It's that simple. Those who are not here, cant commit crimes here, it's just that simple. I dont know what you think the labor pool, has to do with that. I'm sure you will spin and obfuscate, though.
It doesn't add to the total crime - because it is not the person who happens to be an immigrant - it will be another Legal immigrant. Your logic is flawed. Your claim that we would not substitute the person we kick out - with another human - is fictitious nonsense - and that is exactly what you are claiming - whether or not you realize it.
No one is saying every illegal would be replaced with a legal, but you. It's basic math. Some can see it.
I am saying that the deported illegals would be replaced with a legal (another human) . Your argument assumes that the deported illegal is not replaced - which is the logical flaw in your argument. A flawed assumption does not make for good logic.
I see you cant get it. If 300K ILLEGALS are deported, they wont be here to commit, ANY CRIMES, ZERO crimes. No one is saying every illegal would be replaced with a legal, but you. It's basic math. Some can see it.
Those numbers represent arrest records, and not conviction records. Approximately 30% of all adult US citizens have arrest records, an arrest record means one was at one point apprehended by police, however it does not mean they were found guilty of a crime. Individuals are only eligible for DACA status if they do not have a have a felony conviction or significant misdemeanor on their record.
Correct - but that deported illegal would be replaced with another human who would commit crimes. We can't just deport 10 million people and not replace them with other people. What you are not factoring into your equation is that these other people will commit crimes I didn't claim that every illegal would be replaced - although that is true if the total population of the US keeps growing. Your claim that none would be replaced - is preposterous nonsense on steroids. Aside from the monstrous absurdity - that we could just deport 10 million people and not replace any of them - just due to immediate labor shortage. . If you start at a population of 330 million - and take 10 million out = 320 million - and at some point in the future that population grows back to 330 million .... guess what Watson .. you have replaced those 10 million souls. The only way your claim works .. is if the US population decreases to 320 million .. and never goes to 320 million and 1. Your claim is ridiculous.
Your pretzel "logic" and defense of crimes that need not happen here, is the only thing, ridiculous. And guess what "Watson" if the population grew back to whatever million, those deported would still be a subtraction from the total. I guess you think stating the population will grow, somehow changes that.