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

[Kal'Stang]

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

So its perfectly OK for parents to move their children around, taking them from the only area's that they know of, taking them away from the only school system that they've ever known, taking them away from friends, taking them to a country that they've never known, taking them to an area where they know no one, and taking them to an area where the kids may not even know the language. But its wrong for the government to enforce the laws. Gotcha. Double standard noted.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So its perfectly OK for parents to move their children around, taking them from the only area's that they know of, taking them away from the only school system that they've ever known, taking them away from friends, taking them to a country that they've never known, taking them to an area where they know no one, and taking them to an area where the kids may not even know the language. But its wrong for the government to enforce the laws. Gotcha. Double standard noted.

Stupid comparison noted. For example, a parent can choose to raise their kids off the grid if they want in near total isolation. It might be a bad decision on their part, but they can. That would not be comparable to the government mandating hundreds of thousands of kids to be raised off the grid in near total isolation.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

What in the world makes you think that?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What in the world makes you think that?

Because:

1. It regularly changes its course.

2. It would be extraordinarily expensive because of the engineering challenges.

3. It would almost certainly change the course of the river.

 

[JasperL]

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".

But you just hand waved away the significant differences - they are really nothing alike. It would be like comparing taking a shower or a bath to waterboarding and then only pointing out that in both cases the person gets their face wet from water. Therefore, equivalent!!! Q.E.D. But that's nonsense, obviously, and so is your false equivalence that doesn't even consider the fundamental differences that make comparing the acts laughable, really.

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.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. If you're trying to make an actually objective analysis of the effects long term of ALL the people, you can't do that by pretending those 800,000 will will be forcibly deported will face no more problems than my wife did when she was "forced" to live in S. America and the ME with her family growing up. It's a dishonest comparison, and not a good way to have a productive discussion if that's your goal.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Stupid comparison noted. For example, a parent can choose to raise their kids off the grid if they want in near total isolation. It might be a bad decision on their part, but they can. That would not be comparable to the government mandating hundreds of thousands of kids to be raised off the grid in near total isolation.

It's only stupid to you because it shows how stupid your list was. Why was it stupid? Because it was an appeal to emotion and ignores the millions of kids put in the same situation as you described all across the globe.

 

[Kal'Stang]

But you just hand waved away the significant differences - they are really nothing alike. It would be like comparing taking a shower or a bath to waterboarding and then only pointing out that in both cases the person gets their face wet from water. Therefore, equivalent!!! Q.E.D. But that's nonsense, obviously, and so is your false equivalence that doesn't even consider the fundamental differences that make comparing the acts laughable, really.

So you really think that everyone of those kids that are forced to move by their parents has those advantages that you talked about?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. If you're trying to make an actually objective analysis of the effects long term of ALL the people, you can't do that by pretending those 800,000 will will be forcibly deported will face no more problems than my wife did when she was "forced" to live in S. America and the ME with her family growing up. It's a dishonest comparison, and not a good way to have a productive discussion if that's your goal.

Umm...didn't I admit in that post that they WILL face significant problems? How is that ignoring anything? Think you might want to re-read what I said there.

 

[calamity]

Appeals to emotion is all that such Progressive's have as arguments.

DACA was a Presidential policy established by Obama in 2012 under Executive decree, refusing to enforce existing immigration law.

Yet it is Congress that makes such laws, and the Executive branch is supposed to enforce them.

While DACA was still Executive policy, Kelly was right to say he would abide by it.

Once DACA is rescinded by the President, Kelly is right to then state he will enforce the original laws to the best of his ability.

The thing I don't understand with globalist ideology is that if "we are the world," then why is it problematic for people to be sent back the their section of origin?

Why must OUR borders be open to the BILLIONS of people in "less advanced" areas, placing a strain on what we have until we become as bad as those other areas remain?

Don't people understand that our standard of living exists because we remain exclusive?

If not, then why is it so hard for people elsewhere in the world to simply emulate our successes locally?

Now cue the "What harm can 800,000 'Kids' already here do?"

My answer? Serve as a beacon for tens of millions of others and their parents to flood the nation hoping for a similar amnesty, that's what the harm is.

Kinda like how prior amnesties created the current situation. :coffeepap:

What makes us great are the immigrants. It certainly isn't our homegrown "put your hand in someone else's pocket to see what you can extract" population making America great. So, you have immigrants like Tesla giving us our electrical grid and born Americans like Carnegie and Edison working hard to rip him off. That's the real America.

 

[Southern Dad]

Maybe Representative Gutierrez should get to work on passing some sort of immigration reform bill that can pass this into law.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because:

1. It regularly changes its course.

2. It would be extraordinarily expensive because of the engineering challenges.

3. It would almost certainly change the course of the river.

You do realize that people control rivers all the time? Flood walls, and dikes are just two of the ways that rivers are controlled. Example: The Kootenai River that I live by used to flood the town every year. It no longer does thanks to dikes and flood walls. And the river never changed course.

Look, I can understand you not wanting a wall. I don't either. But your excuse here is simply false.

 

[JasperL]

So you really think that everyone of those kids that are forced to move by their parents has those advantages that you talked about?

Not all of them, no, but most of them certainly. The key ones are 1) that for the American, the decision to go abroad is VOLUNTARY, and self selects those individuals and families who emotionally and financially can handle the experience, 2) a job when they get there, 3) support of the sponsoring org, and 4) the option to bail at any time if it doesn't work out, sickness, family emergency, etc.

Umm...didn't I admit in that post that they WILL face significant problems? How is that ignoring anything? Think you might want to re-read what I said there.

Then why make the false equivalence argument that forced deportation is somehow comparable to voluntarily working abroad? The closer equivalent is randomly selecting 800,000 workers or shoppers at Walmart, giving them a couple weeks, loading them on planes, and dropping them off with their savings and a suitcase in a few dozen random cities in S. America, with a hearty "good luck!" as they depart the plane. If you think that's anything like my wife's experience, you've not thought about it for more than a few seconds or so.

 

[JasperL]

You do realize that people control rivers all the time? Flood walls, and dikes are just two of the ways that rivers are controlled. Example: The Kootenai River that I live by used to flood the town every year. It no longer does thanks to dikes and flood walls. And the river never changed course.

Look, I can understand you not wanting a wall. I don't either. But your excuse here is simply false.

LOL, you've got to be kidding. Sure, we COULD control the river but it would add likely $hundreds of billions to an already expensive "Great Wall of Trump." It's simply not going to happen because the challenges of building a wall impassable to humans (and that is the point of the wall!) in the middle of a flowing river would be absolutely enormous.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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....

Not quite, since that FACTUAL information was provided in direct response to your post:

Yeah, f'ing children, coming over here with their parents, median age of 6. If a kid's old enough to be potty trained, old enough to know better than to break immigration law is what I say!

Which WAS both an appeal to emotion and a red herring. Try again. :roll:

(Meanwhile, my tagline is now in play) :coffeepap:

 

[JasperL]

Not quite, since that FACTUAL information was provided in direct response to your post:

Which WAS both an appeal to emotion and a red herring. Try again. :roll:

(Meanwhile, my tagline is now in play) :coffeepap:

Well, here's the comment that prompted by observation about 6 year olds:

Untrustworthy to who? People who broke our laws in the first place?

The Dreamers didn't knowingly break any laws, being carried here by their parents as CHILDREN median age 6 when they came here. Pointing out that many are now adults has nothing to do with anything, except that deporting adults seems less cruel, I guess, than loading children on a plane and dumping them in a random city in Mexico or elsewhere.

BTW, where in your tagline is the part where you ignore arguments that highlight your intellectual...challenges in this argument, such as the general one that you've repeated over and over that humanitarian concerns have no place in policy decisions (or at least THIS policy discussion) and are simply appeals to emotion? It's obviously false. "Appeals to emotion" or humanitarian concerns, or matters of basic human decency informed by our ability to experience empathy, are obviously core sources of support for any number of policy choices, such as e.g. SCHIP, Medicare, funding assisted living and nursing home care with Medicaid, etc...................................................

 

[Roadvirus]

Maybe Representative Gutierrez should get to work on passing some sort of immigration reform bill that can pass this into law.

He could do that, but it won't make it to the Senate.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You do realize that people control rivers all the time? Flood walls, and dikes are just two of the ways that rivers are controlled. Example: The Kootenai River that I live by used to flood the town every year. It no longer does thanks to dikes and flood walls. And the river never changed course.

Look, I can understand you not wanting a wall. I don't either. But your excuse here is simply false.

I don't care if they build a wall or not. However, the premise that you can build a wall in the middle of a river for over a thousand miles is absurd. That river has flood control structures up and down it, even if you went to the extraordinary expense of building a wall in the middle of it that could withstand the rivers flooding, flow, course changes and so on, you would then have modified the rivers flow with the wall so much that you would have to modify all the channelization, dikes, flood walls and so on that are presently in place on the river.

Sorry dude but you are talking nonsense, they are not going to build a wall in the middle of the river.

 

[Southern Dad]

He could do that, but it won't make it to the Senate.

Well, then he needs to work with Republicans and come up with something that will make it. Back in the Newt Gingrich days bills introduced in the House generally had a minority part cosponsor.

 

[Resles Leggs]

Appeals to emotion is all that such Progressive's have as arguments.

DACA was a Presidential policy established by Obama in 2012 under Executive decree, refusing to enforce existing immigration law.

Yet it is Congress that makes such laws, and the Executive branch is supposed to enforce them.

While DACA was still Executive policy, Kelly was right to say he would abide by it.

Once DACA is rescinded by the President, Kelly is right to then state he will enforce the original laws to the best of his ability.

The thing I don't understand with globalist ideology is that if "we are the world," then why is it problematic for people to be sent back the their section of origin?

Why must OUR borders be open to the BILLIONS of people in "less advanced" areas, placing a strain on what we have until we become as bad as those other areas remain?

Don't people understand that our standard of living exists because we remain exclusive?

If not, then why is it so hard for people elsewhere in the world to simply emulate our successes locally?

Now cue the "What harm can 800,000 'Kids' already here do?"

My answer? Serve as a beacon for tens of millions of others and their parents to flood the nation hoping for a similar amnesty, that's what the harm is.

Kinda like how prior amnesties created the current situation. :coffeepap:

You are absolutely correct in this matter. A HUGE proportion of those speaking most adamantly and emotionally about immigration controls are, themselves, recent immigrants. Silicon valley draws Hindus nearly to the degree Starbucks does and their positions in tech guarantee them a forum for their views, which, unsurprisingly, involve bringing in lots more Hindus to do the jobs that the less-fecund Americans will no longer do: breed recklessly and with no thought.

What I keep hoping is that SOMEONE will notice what they've done to their OWN country(s) and consider the consequences of importing yet another invasive species. Once again I must mention that my instinct and experience tells me that women play an outsized role in this black comedy, which makes them the PERFECT assistants in our own eradication. More wounded baby birds for "saving"...

 

[Resles Leggs]

Gutierrez.. Gutierrez... Is that Irish?... Well, whatever... We.. well... TEXAS exists entirely on land the U.S. stole from Mexico/Spain... well.. a LOT of it is in the Gulf now, but the REST of it. That's our history. Robert E. Lee was instrumental in the um... transfer of title. We DID that... nobody ever talks about giving it back either and the MEXICANS are wise enough at least, not to ask. There is no NEED to ask Mexico what it wants in this matter... just take what land we need and be done. That is our HISTORY... That is what we DO... That is who we ARE.

 

[cpwill]

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.

Illegal Actions by a President =/= A Promise by the United States.

 

[Chomsky]

Illegal Actions by a President =/= A Promise by the United States.

If you'd like to convince the Dreamers, the Hispanic community, and a wide swatch of Americans that they can now trust their government because "Obama", well good luck with that.

You seem to be placing blame, rather than accepting the fact of the damage just done to public trust. And it is great.

 

[cpwill]

If you'd like to convince the Dreamers, the Hispanic community, and a wide swatch of Americans that they can now trust their government because "Obama", well good luck with that.

You seem to be placing blame, rather than accepting the fact of the damage just done to public trust. And it is great.

OTC, you seem to lay blame on those trying to correct an illegal action, rather than on those who created this situation. If someone offered to sell you a stolen car at half of retail, the fault is with them, not the police when they return the car to its owner.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Illegal Actions by a President =/= A Promise by the United States.

If the Obama action was illegal why was it never challenged?

 

[Chomsky]

OTC, you seem to lay blame on those trying to correct an illegal action, rather than on those who created this situation. If someone offered to sell you a stolen car at half of retail, the fault is with them, not the police when they return the car to its owner.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I never laid blame.

I'm saying there's a large chunk of people who will no longer trust the government, or come forward with personal information.

You can blame whoever you'd care to.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

Granting them work visas outside the normal process might be