Opinion: What to do with Dreamers?

Trump's policies will hurt a lot of people.
Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals act according to their own self interests to the benefit of others. Trump's America First policy is a return to capitalism on a national scale. This will not go well for everyone.
There are millions and millions of Americans who resent having their economic wellbeing dependent upon their willingness and/or ability to be of benefit to others. They are committed to transforming our economic system into one wherein one's economic wellbeing is dependent upon their value as a human being: in other words, a value equal to every other human being. There are millions of Americans who consider an economic system that requires one to be of benefit to others as smacking of slavery.
Trump has done everything that he can to help those like himself- those who are willing and able to be of benefit to others out of their own self interests. Those who pursue their own self interests by being of benefit to others will prosper in the economy now emerging. Those who are unwilling and/or unable to be of benefit to others will find themselves entitled to less and less of what the others produce and trade among themselves. They will be ever increasingly at the mercy of those who offer charity.
Trump's policies will hurt some people and they will help others. Trump's policies will help those who act in their own self interests to the benefit of others. Trump's policies will devastate those who resent being of benefit to others in pursuit of their own self interests. For those who resist capitalism, Trump's policies will be absolutely devastating.

 

WHOA, HOLD IT! That's not a definition. It's propaganda and demonstrably untrue. How does pollution benefit us. How does the end of net neutrality benefit us. Or how about planned obsolescence, or spraying Roundup on our food, or global warming, or ending pensions, or flat real wages, or shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor? Those things don't benefit us! ...Oh, but wait a minute. You didn't say "us". You said "others". --Like maybe some who share in the dirty spoils of harming the rest of us, huh?

So now you admit that "a return to capitalism" isn't beneficial to everyone.

Yup, that conflicts with your claim of capitalism "benefitting others".

You keep spouting propaganda like this. To avoid that you need to offer examples of such "slavery" that you're referring to.

More propaganda. In fact, trump has done much to help those like himself: the rich, the privileged, the elite.

More propaganda. To avoid that you need to offer examples of how this "new economy" will actually "benefit others". When he is actually imposing austerity on the middle class and handing huge windfalls to the rich and ending important, effective programs like the EPA and undermining alternative energy, he certainly isn't benefitting the middle class. But that's not what you said. You referred to "those who pursue their own self interests", which I interpret as code-talk for "new capitalists". But those "who pursue their own self interests" by pursuing an education and a good job are not assured of prosperity at all. Their failure and poverty is more likely.

What in hell does your code talk mean? Plain English too risky? Does it risk blowing your game?

That's certain!!

LOL!!!!!!!! Or those who are tired of capitalism's cruel game will destroy him and those who support and defend him.

 

Let any who are here already stay as long as they dont have any history of violence. No more bringing in family- if they're not already here, they'll have to apply for citizenship (which needs major overhaul and streamlining). After a year 'probation' without any violence, they gain citizenship. Citizens should then be able to sponsor their families to further expedite citizenship.

I dont think we should require fluent english, but we should make it a requirement that children not fluent in english take english speaking classes in school.

 

Oh, so the amnesty in that case didn't have a cut off at a time before amnesty intentions were announced? That's just madness. DACA obviously did that, with 2007 as the cut off year.

 

Actually, you were talking about children born in the USA to illegal immigrants. So they cannot be called illegal. You just didn't correct me.

 

I think it depends when they were brought over (how old they were as a child and how many years they have been allowed to stay). The hard part is in many cases it will be difficult to know with certainty.

 

OK but, the above argument could also be applied to children not born here but brought here by illegals.

 

One wonders, though (completely hypothetically here) if they could be called illegal, how many there'd be.

 

Yeah, well there in lies the difference. The problem with DACA is that it is only for a certain group of childhood arrivals. People who arrived as children prior to 1981 are not safe from deportation, even though they are over 35 years of age, many with families, a house in the burbs and a dog! That is the FARCE of DACCA! (Deferred Action for CERTAIN Childhood Arrivals.)

 

Why would it matter?

 

The farces and fallacies abound. I think that any kid who was brought here should be allowed to stay. The idea that these kids have done something illegal is not defendable on a legal basis.

 

Correction: Brought here and allowed to live out their entire childhood here.

Any kid who came before they were 5 and has spent 15 years in the country should stay. The fault is not theirs, the fault is those who refused to enforce the law for so long.

If a kid came over when he was 15 and/or has only spent 6 years in the country, I'm not sure that that's "a Dreamer"

 

What do you mean "allowed" to stay? Who has allowed them to stay?