Gutiérrez Lashes Out After DACA Move: John Kelly Is ‘A Disgrace To The Uniform’

[fmw]

Who cares what John Kelly has to say? I do not. Or John Brennan or the rest of the crooks who run this government.

Judge them not on what they say. It is meaningless. Judge them on what they do. That is meaningful.

 

[ludin]

Your argument could not be more intellectually dishonest. The Dream Act already has majority support in both houses of congress. The problem is it does not have majority support among Republicans in the House. Thus it won't come to the floor in the House due to the Hastert Rule. The minority party cannot bring a bill to the floor in House unless the majority party agrees. Ryan won't bring it to the floor because he doesn't want to lose his speakership.

Then they should have no problems crafting a bill in 6 months then should they?
they have 6 months to get the collective heads together and pass a bill. if they can't do it
then that is their own fault.

DACA was an unconstitutional move from the get go. There is nothing at all dishonest with what i said.
Trump wants a immigration bill from congress and would support something to DACA if it was in the over all bill.

it is up to congress to get the bill too him.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why with all the legislation Republican Trump has been able to get this congress to pass, I am sure Obama would have been able to work with them and get them to pass some form of DACA. :roll:

If democrats agreed to funding a border wall DACA is as good as law

 

[JasperL]

Did you know that 64% of DACA applicants who initially applied were past High School age?

I didn't.

Sixty-Four Percent of DACA Applicants Past High-School Age

View attachment 67222404

So according to this data for 08/15/12 - 06/30/13 in the first year of applications of the 557,412 approved applicants 64% (356,744) were 19 or older. The remainder were 15 to 18.

Surprise, surprise, so many six year olds! :roll:

Obviously the median referred to the age when they were brought here.

And their age when they applied for DACA is just an appeal to emotion fallacy anyway....

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Then they should have no problems crafting a bill in 6 months then should they?
they have 6 months to get the collective heads together and pass a bill. if they can't do it
then that is their own fault.

DACA was an unconstitutional move from the get go. There is nothing at all dishonest with what i said.
Trump wants a immigration bill from congress and would support something to DACA if it was in the over all bill.

it is up to congress to get the bill too him.

Prosecutorial discretion is unconstitutional? That's a new one.

Seems over a hundred law professors disagree with you. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/...dfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf

I suppose you had similar concerns with all of the EO's Trump signed? Oh yeah, you didn't...

I suppose you also had similar concerns when say Trump's EPA refuses to enforce some environmental laws arguing prosecutorial discretion, but alas you have been silent on them.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If democrats agreed to funding a border wall DACA is as good as law

The border wall is nonsense. The Rio Grande is half the border. So you either build a wall on the Mexican side, which Mexico would never go for, or you build it on the American side and thus give the river to Mexico. It seems the border wall supporters flunked basic geography.

 

[JasperL]

Either way, it's not Trumps fault, its congresses. Remember that Obama had both houses of congress and the leadership chose not to put themselves on record. It's the same old story. Congress critters are afraid to take a stand they may have to defend. P

That's misleading. Obama had both House of Congress, but only a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a few months. The DREAM act passed the House in 2010 but died in the Senate where it was filibustered and 'only' 55 Senators voted YES.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Right because moving from Florida to Washington is just like moving from the USA to Guatemala. Dumb...

Ok, how about parents that move their children to other countries? Even impoverished ones because the parents want to help out so go there as teachers or doctors? Is that unconscionable also? Come on SouthernDemocrat, you know the gist of the question. Simply answer it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The border wall is nonsense. The Rio Grande is half the border. So you either build a wall on the Mexican side, which Mexico would never go for, or you build it on the American side and thus give the river to Mexico. It seems the border wall supporters flunked basic geography.

Note: I don't support the wall as I've stated around the forums before. That said, you do know that a wall can be built in the water also right?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Prosecutorial discretion is unconstitutional? That's a new one.

Seems over a hundred law professors disagree with you. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/...dfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf

I suppose you had similar concerns with all of the EO's Trump signed? Oh yeah, you didn't...

I suppose you also had similar concerns when say Trump's EPA refuses to enforce some environmental laws arguing prosecutorial discretion, but alas you have been silent on them.

1: There is a difference between prosecutorial discretion and making an EO that specifically gives illegals permission to stay in the US. One is the absence of any action being taken. The other is actively taking action and going against federal law which had been established before Obama was ever President by a previous Senate/Congress and President.

2: Are they environmental laws passed by Congress and signed by the President? Or were they regulations which the EPA had established itself? There is a difference. Please give examples.

 

[Fletch]

I think a large part of the problem here, is the Dreamers had to come forward out of the shadows by filling out the federal paperwork disclosing all their personal & private info, thereby baring themselves and making themselves vulnerable.

Now the government, in part through Kelly, reneged on their promise. And that's a big deal. It makes our government appear untrustworthy.

You need to put the blame for that where it belongs--on Obama. He had no constitutional authority to do what he did and he knew it. But all the wailing and moaning about this issue is easily solved. Congress needs to pass legislation. Period. It is the job of congress to set immigration policy, not the president.

 

[chuckiechan]

That's misleading. Obama had both House of Congress, but only a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a few months. The DREAM act passed the House in 2010 but died in the Senate where it was filibustered and 'only' 55 Senators voted YES.

But he had everything necessary to fix it, and BTW, also had the votes for instant amnesty.

That is the only bright side of the Obama administration.

 

[Fletch]

Prosecutorial discretion is unconstitutional? That's a new one.

Seems over a hundred law professors disagree with you. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/...dfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf

I suppose you had similar concerns with all of the EO's Trump signed? Oh yeah, you didn't...

I suppose you also had similar concerns when say Trump's EPA refuses to enforce some environmental laws arguing prosecutorial discretion, but alas you have been silent on them.

Obama rewrote the immigration laws of this country with his EO. He, himself, said dozens of times he had no power to do this and even after he signed it called on congress to make it law. Trump has just made sure that will happen. If DACA has popular support in congress it will pass. If it doesn't, it wont. That's how our government works.

 

[chuckiechan]

The border wall is nonsense. The Rio Grande is half the border. So you either build a wall on the Mexican side, which Mexico would never go for, or you build it on the American side and thus give the river to Mexico. It seems the border wall supporters flunked basic geography.

Texas has the political will to handle illegal entry. The problem is the entry port into California and Arizona. From there they can do anywhere in the USA they choose.

 

[chuckiechan]

Note: I don't support the wall as I've stated around the forums before. That said, you do know that a wall can be built in the water also right?

If congress was really interested in a border all, they would make E Verify a federal law for all businesses. That will wall off the incentive for them to come here in the first place.

 

[JasperL]

But he had everything necessary to fix it, and BTW, also had the votes for instant amnesty.

That is the only bright side of the Obama administration.

Don't know what "it" is or how you conclude he had the votes for "instant amnesty" whatever that means. :roll:

 

[Kal'Stang]

If congress was really interested in a border all, they would make E Verify a federal law for all businesses. That will wall off the incentive for them to come here in the first place.

Not just businesses. Also rental homes and banks. Maybe even require it for any money to be sent outside of the US.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ok, how about parents that move their children to other countries? Even impoverished ones because the parents want to help out so go there as teachers or doctors? Is that unconscionable also? Come on SouthernDemocrat, you know the gist of the question. Simply answer it.

This is piss poor false equivalence on your part. It is one thing to be transferred along with your parents to a foreign country where you will have the support of your parents along with an expat community. It is another to be forcibly sent back to a country you don't even remember and have never really known, where you are not going to know anyone and may well not even speak the language.

 

[Fletch]

This is piss poor false equivalence on your part. It is one thing to be transferred along with your parents to a foreign country where you will have the support of your parents along with an expat community. It is another to be forcibly sent back to a country you don't even remember and have never really known, where you are not going to know anyone and may well not even speak the language.

I agree that doesn't seem to be a good thing, but it is the law. But guess what? We can change the law through our elected representatives. And that is what we are about to see happen.

 

[Kal'Stang]

This is piss poor false equivalence on your part. It is one thing to be transferred along with your parents to a foreign country where you will have the support of your parents along with an expat community. It is another to be forcibly sent back to a country you don't even remember and have never really known, where you are not going to know anyone and may well not even speak the language.

It fits all of your criteria.

1: Children being forced to live in a country that is not like the one they were being raised in, taken away from the only country they've ever known.
2: Children being forced to be taken away from the only school system that they've ever known.
3: Children being forced to leave behind friends.

And with the additional criteria that you just moved the goal posts to here in this post:

4: Forcibly being sent to a country that they have never known.
5: Not going to know anyone.
6: May not even speak the language.

My example fits all of your criteria. So....is it unconscionable or not?

And fyi, most immigrant families children, be they legal or illegal, speak two languages. Their parents native language and English. So if they get sent back to their home country they will more than likely be able to speak the language just fine. Even here in Idaho our schools have programs to specifically help children that don't speak English, or very little English because they were raised to speak their parents native tongue.

 

[ludin]

Prosecutorial discretion is unconstitutional? That's a new one.

The president does not have blanket authority to grant amnesty to anyone. please see the DAPA ruling in which the judge said the same thing.
DAPA was based off of DACA. Therefore if one was unconstitutional so was the other.

I suppose you had similar concerns with all of the EO's Trump signed? Oh yeah, you didn't...

Most of the EO's coming from trump are to undo what obama did. That is within the authority of the EO.
So please show me where Trump attempted to thwart congress.

I suppose you also had similar concerns when say Trump's EPA refuses to enforce some environmental laws arguing prosecutorial discretion, but alas you have been silent on them.

attempting to re-write immigration legislation is not prosecutor discretion.
so your strawman continues to be just that a strawman.

 

[JasperL]

It fits all of your criteria.

1: Children being forced to live in a country that is not like the one they were being raised in, taken away from the only country they've ever known.
2: Children being forced to be taken away from the only school system that they've ever known.
3: Children being forced to leave behind friends.

And with the additional criteria that you just moved the goal posts to here in this post:

4: Forcibly being sent to a country that they have never known.
5: Not going to know anyone.
6: May not even speak the language.

My example fits all of your criteria. So....is it unconscionable or not?

And fyi, most immigrant families children, be they legal or illegal, speak two languages. Their parents native language and English. So if they get sent back to their home country they will more than likely be able to speak the language just fine. Even here in Idaho our schools have programs to specifically help children that don't speak English, or very little English because they were raised to speak their parents native tongue.

You really can't compare voluntary ex-pats who do an at least very often temporary stint abroad with forced deportation of 800,000 individuals, with 800,000 unique family stories.

My wife spent most of her childhood abroad because of her dad's job took them all over the world. You're ignoring several things that made that life a good one for her:

1) All the U.S. to foreign country relocations are completely VOLUNTARY. So those who accept the post are those with the temperament and support to succeed at it. Even if your employer gives you no choice, the option to quit and find another job is available.
2) Dad had a job, which means money wasn't ever an issue for them. If he lost that job, they return to the U.S. and the safety net available here, both family and our government.
3) Stable family support. Mom never worked - it wouldn't have been possible because dad was gone for weeks at a time.
4) A welcoming ex-pat community, generally including other Americans, generally special schools or special classes within foreign schools.
5) Extensive support from the sponsoring group (employer, church, non-profit org, etc.).
6) The support of the United States, such as the State Dept, should it be needed. My wife's family did need it, and it was there for them.
7) The option to bail at any time, board a plane back to the U.S., such as in case of serious illness, family emergency, just don't like it and can't cope with it.

I could keep going but the point is obvious - the voluntary decision to work abroad is NOTHING like being forcibly deported.

And as a general comment, it's pretty cowardly in my view to pretend that those affected will not face any significant problems. First of all, with 800,000 possible deportations, it's certain that some large number will be personally devastated by the act. And the bottom line is you cannot care at all what happens to them, anyway, because those rounding them up and sending them back to a country many have never really known do not care, there is no provision in the process to give them any support in the new country, etc. So just admit that their personal situation doesn't matter, if the home they left was a gang infested war zone, that's OK, send them back anyway, with no money and no family and no support. It does not matter because what matters, and the only thing that matters, is they get deported.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You really can't compare voluntary ex-pats who do an at least very often temporary stint abroad with forced deportation of 800,000 individuals, with 800,000 unique family stories.

My wife spent most of her childhood abroad because of her dad's job took them all over the world. You're ignoring several things that made that life a good one for her:

1) All the U.S. to foreign country relocations are completely VOLUNTARY. So those who accept the post are those with the temperament and support to succeed at it. Even if your employer gives you no choice, the option to quit and find another job is available.
2) Dad had a job, which means money wasn't ever an issue for them. If he lost that job, they return to the U.S. and the safety net available here, both family and our government.
3) Stable family support. Mom never worked - it wouldn't have been possible because dad was gone for weeks at a time.
4) A welcoming ex-pat community, generally including other Americans, generally special schools or special classes within foreign schools.
5) Extensive support from the sponsoring group (employer, church, non-profit org, etc.).
6) The support of the United States, such as the State Dept, should it be needed. My wife's family did need it, and it was there for them.
7) The option to bail at any time, board a plane back to the U.S., such as in case of serious illness, family emergency, just don't like it and can't cope with it.

I could keep going but the point is obvious - the voluntary decision to work abroad is NOTHING like being forcibly deported.

His comment was that it would be unconscionable to move kids back to their country of origin. And he provided a list of reasons why. Every single one of those reasons apply to kids whose parents voluntarily move...and force their kids to move with them. And not all of your examples applies to everyone that moves. So we still have that dilemma. But even if it did for conversations sake, what I stated is still equivalent to his stated reasons for it being "unconscionable".

And as a general comment, it's pretty cowardly in my view to pretend that those affected will not face any significant problems. First of all, with 800,000 possible deportations, it's certain that some large number will be personally devastated by the act. And the bottom line is you cannot care at all what happens to them, anyway, because those rounding them up and sending them back to a country many have never really known do not care, there is no provision in the process to give them any support in the new country, etc. So just admit that their personal situation doesn't matter, if the home they left was a gang infested war zone, that's OK, send them back anyway, with no money and no family and no support. It does not matter because what matters, and the only thing that matters, is they get deported.

Who's pretending that? I'm sure that they will face significant problems. But anyone, anywhere, will always face significant problems in life. The answer to those problems is to face them and fix those problems. Not run away from them. Yeah, I know, not all problems are fixable in a timely manner and may cost people their lives. But guess what...those problems will NEVER go away or be fixed if you run away from it. Running away only gives a temporary reprieve for those that run. It does not fix those problems for those that have no choice but to stick around. The idea here is to think long term for ALL the people. Not short term for self gratification.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It fits all of your criteria.

1: Children being forced to live in a country that is not like the one they were being raised in, taken away from the only country they've ever known.
2: Children being forced to be taken away from the only school system that they've ever known.
3: Children being forced to leave behind friends.

And with the additional criteria that you just moved the goal posts to here in this post:

4: Forcibly being sent to a country that they have never known.
5: Not going to know anyone.
6: May not even speak the language.

My example fits all of your criteria. So....is it unconscionable or not?

And fyi, most immigrant families children, be they legal or illegal, speak two languages. Their parents native language and English. So if they get sent back to their home country they will more than likely be able to speak the language just fine. Even here in Idaho our schools have programs to specifically help children that don't speak English, or very little English because they were raised to speak their parents native tongue.

Parents choosing to move with their own children is not equal to government forcibly deporting 800,000 people that were brought here as children.

For example, parents are perfectly within their rights as parents to choose to send their kids to a school that teaches their kids nonsense like the story of Noah's Ark being literal history. Even if it is a terrible idea. That is not the same as the government forcing those kids to learn nonsense like the story of Noah's Ark being literally history.

Point being that even if moving with your kids to a different country was the same as forcibly deporting kids to a different country, which it isn't, it still would not be comparable to the government forcibly deporting 800,000 people. Furthermore, why do you care? Those kids that grew up here have no impact at all on your life. Whether they are thrown out of the country or live productive lives here makes no impact on your life at all.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Note: I don't support the wall as I've stated around the forums before. That said, you do know that a wall can be built in the water also right?

You cannot build a wall in the middle of a river that regularly floods.