DACA compromise I'd be OK with.

Thats known as the rule of law

I hope they located his parents and deported them too

 

Did she immigrate illegally? No.
Is she a citizen? Yes.
So much for your "similar situation" and imagined hypocrisy.
Try harder.

 

Well the Republican Party is split on immigration issues so there is no "strategy" involved on their part. Other than Trump's strategy I should say. The RAISE Act didn't even exist 3 years ago, and if it had, Obama wouldn't have signed it, so I'm not even sure what point you intend on making.

The Democrats on the other hand, are united on immigration issues. But the Republican Party is catching up. I suspect the Republican open borders amnesty nuts will be purged and over on your side in a few years.

 

Well the Dems are aware how important chain migration is to future electoral prospects.

 

She over stayed her visa. She was illegal

 

That's your issue here?

That they might vote against your party some day?

Nice to know this is over naked partisanship

 

Trump doesn't need to do anything about ICE; the courts have already saved DACA, so even though the beginning of the expiration of the DACA applications begins in March, effectively it's on hold until the court challenge winds through, so we could be talking about another year.

So the entire urgency on DACA is absurd.

 

Context is everything.

Go back and read the comment I was replying to and then you may make a response. Hopefully one that's relevant.

 

Nobody knows if Melaine tourist visa expired and wasn't valid.

I was also unaware that Melaine worked for Donald Trump.

You are correct that anyone who's not an American citizen or any alien not in the possession of a green card and their visa is not valid, legally they are an illegal alien.

But allowing a visa to expire while on American soil is a crime, it's a civil crime, no jail time, just a fine.

Entering the country illegally avoiding an official port of entry is a criminal offense punishable being sentence to prison for the first offense.

Back during the good old days, people who violated the sovereignty of a country were shot on the spot. Violating any country's sovereignty is a serious crime, even an act of war.

Los Angeles has been under enemy occupation for decades.

 

Did she immigrate illegally? No.
Is she a citizen? Yes.
Thank you

 

Please provide a link to the Garcia story. Thank you.

 

Actually, no. She was present legally in the country but had the wrong kind of visa to legally work. This was in 1996 - nine years before she married the Don.

 

And only for a short time.

 

She actually did enter the country legally. The issue is that she worked (ie was photographed for money) with the wrong kind of visa. This was nine years before she married Mr. Trump.

 

Right. That's what I said

 

There is evidence that she came over and worked illegally. She came over on a tourist visa, and worked as a model (and was paid), which is illegal. She later got work visas, but according to the linked article she made about $20k illegally in the U.S. before then.

https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d

 

No, she came in and worked illegally before they met.

 

No, he followed every rule on mail ordering eastern European women...bah doom cha!

 

What does enforcing our borders mean?

Think of it like thermodynamics. If you were to create a nation that was an isolated system, that is a place where nothing crossed the border, that would be very very bad. Obviously, you aren't proposing that. I don't think.

So then that leaves you with some form of porous border system, one where money and in turn people can cross, albeit with conditions. This is what we have today.

The real problem, which has nothing to do with enforcing our border, is what to do with the people/money that crosses that doesn't meet our conditions. That's harder. The money and people who cross benefit many Americans whether we like it or not. We can complain about drug dealers, but we WANT drugs. We consume more drugs than any other country because they are fun, let's not kid ourselves. So don't blame capitalists who are meeting demand with supply. At least, not 100%. We benefit from "illegal" immigrants too. Keeps our lettuce, among other things, cheap.

It's hard to stop "illegal" immigration and smuggling not because people have no ethics or morals, but because the stuff coming through that way is what people want. So how do you propose to solve the problem then? A wall will be tunneled under, flow over, boated around. It won't do anything other than be an expensive symbol. Is that a good use of money?

 

First, I take that to mean that you don't know about this. How can that be? WHY is it that the left and moderates and independents and many traditional conservatives know about Jorge Garcia's deportation on January 15, but the far right never heard about it? The answer is the pure diet of fake news biased garbage they follow on Fox, Newsmax, and other right wing propaganda source. What does it take to make them see they are getting a partial picture and missing much of the facts?

BTW, Google works.

 

Ah. You cannot show your story is true.
What a surprise.

 

It's not fair.

To put the parents of these kids in jail for 3 years isn't going to change anything. Deporting them only tears the family unit apart, thus making it pointless to keep the Dreamers here in the first place.

The only path forward is to call it a loss. We didn't catch the original immigrants in a timely fashion, so to bad. Their kids are here. If they some how get caught up in the legal system for breaking the law, fine, deport them, but forcing the kids to give names on their parents is ethically bankrupt. And two wrongs won't make it right.

Again, the past is done. Any compromise should be forward looking only.

 

It's the law.
If you don't want to go to prison and be separated from your children for the duration, don't break the law.
Do we not imprison people for other felonies because of their children? No? No difference.

 

The law says lots of things. But how it's applied matters. That's why we have police and courts. That's why we have judges to interpret and apply the law in a fair, ethical manner.

It's not fair or ethical to charge crimes that happened one time 30 years ago with 3 years in prison of this nature. No one was murdered to bring the Dreamers here. No one was raped. No one was robbed. And it's not a separation, when you imprison someone for 3 years and deport them, you take their entire life and livelihood. So you are not compromising, you are taking vengeance for something that in the end will only hurt America.

Do we imprison people for other felonies because of their children? I don't understand the question. We don't put people in jail for the crimes of others. YOU have to commit the crime to be punished under the rule of law.

 

If a mother committed murder, would we for a second consider not sending her to prison because she has kids?
No?
There you go.