• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31]

Would you support this compromised version of the Dream Act

  • Total voters
    29
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
I would not support compulsory military or other service.

I could only support a plan that has a path to full citizenship within a reasonable time for all.
Click to expand...

^^ This. As long as they are productive members of society, who either work or go to school, who pay taxes and who obey the law, they should not be forced into military service.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
DACA is illegal, unconstitutional and this has nothing to do with skin color

Trump kicked it back to Congress as he should have and I honestly dont see why everyone's so outraged over it
Click to expand...

Are you white, and an American citizen? Then of course you don't understand the outrage.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

I am fine with federal service being one pathway but I don't think it should be the only one. But it is a step in the right direction so I wouldn't oppose it.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
Why is there no path to citizenship in your proposal?
Click to expand...

People here illegally are not eligible for citizenship.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

jimbo said:
People here illegally are not eligible for citizenship.
Click to expand...

What did the Dreamers do that committed a crime?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
What did the Dreamers do that committed a crime?
Click to expand...

Came here illegally
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

jimbo said:
Came here illegally
Click to expand...

The Dreamers as small children committed a crime? How did the possess the capacity to do that exactly being children?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
The Dreamers as small children committed a crime? How did the possess the capacity to do that exactly being children?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how. It matters what.

If the parents forced the kiddos into crime, then the parents need to be punished. Any word on how or when that will happen?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cigar said:
... but this won't change the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

This is a rather interesting discussion. Too bad you have to bemuddle it with this trolling nonsense.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

It is a thoughtful compromise, but I have a problem with compulsory service as well, and of course moral character is very broad. It is a start, and it gives me hope that we may not all flock to some barbaric deportation measure.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

I could support that.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Dirt Sands said:
So you want to employ slaves? I do have a problem with illegals not getting paid. So you came up with a solution where they don't get paid again. All people's should get paid a living wage for work

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What? Where in the post is there anything about them not getting paid? Both military service and the peace corps provides some form of compensation.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Superfly said:
^^ This. As long as they are productive members of society, who either work or go to school, who pay taxes and who obey the law, they should not be forced into military service.
Click to expand...

So faced with the situation in this hypothetical, where the Dream Act as you've just described it (which is actually more liberal than the Dream Act was originally add simply being employed to the list) is unlikely to be passed and the "compromise" in the OP is the only thing actually reaching the floor to vote.....

You'd oppose it as opposed to support it, because such a "compromised" position is a non-starter in your mind?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:
For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?
Click to expand...

This is all well and good except we need to first fix the problem that put us in this situation.

What I don't like is the fact that we are telling all the people in the world that have been trying to come to America for decades that the path to citizenship in our country is by breaking our laws.

I say we concentrate on securing our borders and forcing business to pay minimum wage, taxes and follow all safety rules and regulations that our parents and grandparents fought for. End the exploiting and slave labor already. I think all people from other countries should have a work visa and pay a border tax to fund the securing of our border and pay the salaries of the people making sure our laws are enforced.

As far as all the people who have broken our immigration laws or circumvented them by some devious means should be taken on an individual basis. But just blanket rewarding people for breaking our laws is wrong and sends the wrong message to everyone in the world who wants to come to our country. We want law abiding people not lawless people.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

jimbo said:
It doesn't matter how. It matters what.

If the parents forced the kiddos into crime, then the parents need to be punished. Any word on how or when that will happen?
Click to expand...


A young child does not have the capacity to commit the crime you mentioned.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
A young child does not have the capacity to commit the crime you mentioned.
Click to expand...

But the parents do. What do you propose to do about parents forcing their young children to commit crime?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
A young child does not have the capacity to commit the crime you mentioned.
Click to expand...

This is what makes it an odd situation. Those that are underage when they come in do not have the capacity to commit the crime of illegally entering the United States. That said, those who, as an adult, continue to stay within the country illegal absolutely DO have the capacity to commit that civil violation. Specifically, a civil violation who's punishment is deportation.

I.E. They're not responsible for the criminal act of entering illegally, but they are guilty of the civil violation of remaining in the country illegally after they became of age.

It also walks the delicate balance between two notions within our legal system. On one hand, we do not actively seek to punish a child for the crimes of the parent. On the flip side, we also do not allow a child to maintain the spoils of a criminal undertaking.

Ultimately, whether or not one believes that the child has the capacity to commit a crime coming into this country is irrelevant. The question ACTUALLY is whether or not they have the capacity, once they are an adult, to commit a civil violation of REMAINING in this country unlawfully. It is difficult to put forth any reasonable argument that the answer to that is anything other than "yes". Now, arguments can be made that they should be forgiven or it should be ignored, but no real reasonable argument can be made that they do not have the capacity to commit said violation.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Zyphlin said:
This is what makes it an odd situation. Those that are underage when they come in do not have the capacity to commit the crime of illegally entering the United States. That said, those who, as an adult, continue to stay within the country illegal absolutely DO have the capacity to commit that civil violation. Specifically, a civil violation who's punishment is deportation.

I.E. They're not responsible for the criminal act of entering illegally, but they are guilty of the civil violation of remaining in the country illegally after they became of age.

It also walks the delicate balance between two notions within our legal system. On one hand, we do not actively seek to punish a child for the crimes of the parent. On the flip side, we also do not allow a child to maintain the spoils of a criminal undertaking.

Ultimately, whether or not one believes that the child has the capacity to commit a crime coming into this country is irrelevant. The question ACTUALLY is whether or not they have the capacity, once they are an adult, to commit a civil violation of REMAINING in this country unlawfully. It is difficult to put forth any reasonable argument that the answer to that is anything other than "yes". Now, arguments can be made that they should be forgiven or it should be ignored, but no real reasonable argument can be made that they do not have the capacity to commit said violation.
Click to expand...
Well, that is pointless since DACA makes their presence lawful.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

jimbo said:
But the parents do. What do you propose to do about parents forcing their young children to commit crime?
Click to expand...

The parents can be dealt with as the authorities see fit as they were the ones who did what they did. The children are not responsible and should not and cannot be punished for any allegation of a crime as they did not have the capacity to commit the crime you mentioned.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Zyphlin said:
This is what makes it an odd situation. Those that are underage when they come in do not have the capacity to commit the crime of illegally entering the United States. That said, those who, as an adult, continue to stay within the country illegal absolutely DO have the capacity to commit that civil violation. Specifically, a civil violation who's punishment is deportation.

I.E. They're not responsible for the criminal act of entering illegally, but they are guilty of the civil violation of remaining in the country illegally after they became of age.

It also walks the delicate balance between two notions within our legal system. On one hand, we do not actively seek to punish a child for the crimes of the parent. On the flip side, we also do not allow a child to maintain the spoils of a criminal undertaking.

Ultimately, whether or not one believes that the child has the capacity to commit a crime coming into this country is irrelevant. The question ACTUALLY is whether or not they have the capacity, once they are an adult, to commit a civil violation of REMAINING in this country unlawfully. It is difficult to put forth any reasonable argument that the answer to that is anything other than "yes". Now, arguments can be made that they should be forgiven or it should be ignored, but no real reasonable argument can be made that they do not have the capacity to commit said violation.
Click to expand...

Can you cite the law that these children grown to adulthood have broken given that the authorities have provided for them to stay?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
The parents can be dealt with as the authorities see fit as they were the ones who did what they did. The children are not responsible and should not and cannot be punished for any allegation of a crime as they did not have the capacity to commit the crime you mentioned.
Click to expand...

But the parents aren't being dealt with. Which is the problem. Nobody is responsible.

Here's my proposal:

Dreamers get recognized for what they are. People who are here illegally. As such they get no bennies, including and especially education and citizenship.

Dreamers illegal status gets a temporary pass provided they apply in a legal manner for work permits in the same manner as non illegals and on the same we'll call you if we need you basis. You do not get to go to the head of the line.

If you don't have skills that are in short supply in our nation, you get them at your expense.

If you can't or won't fulfill these conditions, you're gone.

The parents better come up with some really good reasons why they should be here, or they're gone.

The inflow needs to stop. Free passes will not stop the inflow. Drying up the reasons they're here and prosecuting those already here will. There is no need for a wall to stop illegal human traffic. Drug traffic is a different matter.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

jimbo said:
But the parents aren't being dealt with. Which is the problem. Nobody is responsible.

Here's my proposal:

Dreamers get recognized for what they are. People who are here illegally. As such they get no bennies, including and especially education and citizenship.

Dreamers illegal status gets a temporary pass provided they apply in a legal manner for work permits in the same manner as non illegals and on the same we'll call you if we need you basis. You do not get to go to the head of the line.

If you don't have skills that are in short supply in our nation, you get them at your expense.

If you can't or won't fulfill these conditions, you're gone.

The parents better come up with some really good reasons why they should be here, or they're gone.

The inflow needs to stop. Free passes will not stop the inflow. Drying up the reasons they're here and prosecuting those already here will. There is no need for a wall to stop illegal human traffic. Drug traffic is a different matter.
Click to expand...

I do nto see your plan as having a snowballs chance.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
I do nto see your plan as having a snowballs chance.
Click to expand...

I agree. It makes too much sense. As it stands now there are two possibilities. The dreamers go back to country of origin or they stay here. I don't see going back as having a snowballs chance. Too much boo hooing.

Out of millions of illegals, the dreamers are a small percentage and not the problem. I can live with that. But we must work with the real problem. There is nothing to stop this from happening again, and again. I've always suggested we fight the problem from within. Fine Tyson and construction companies a couple hundred/day/illegal. Require proof of citizenship for entry into schools. Cut off all bennies for illegals. Prohibit the outflow of of money illegally earned. Stop the harboring of illegals by any group. The problem goes away on its own.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Gimmesometruth said:
Well, that is pointless since DACA makes their presence lawful.
Click to expand...

Correct, but to my understanding of the back and forth that was going on, it was speaking in a general sense and not SPECIFIC to those who have signed up for DACA. Also note that point, signed up for DACA; deferred action does not just automatically occur. People have to sign up for it. And until they do, they're not protected under DACA. Plus, DACA is going away, at which point those who haven't signed up or those who's deferred action agreements expire would no longer be protected.

haymarket said:
Can you cite the law that these children grown to adulthood have broken given that the authorities have provided for them to stay?
Click to expand...

See above. Authorities have provided for them to stay ONLY if they've gone through the process for DACA, and even then only for the 2 years period that their agreement was for. Unless I was misreading things (and if so, just say so and I'll be happy to indicate my misreading of the back and forth), it seemed the talk was more in a general sense about children brought into this country underage and not SPECIFICALLY those who have already applied to DACA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom