More than 100 business leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, urge U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan legislation dealing with ‘dreamers’

“More than 100 top business leaders, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook and IBM’s Ginni Rometty have signed onto a public letter urging Congress to pass legislation protecting hundreds of thousands of young people from deportation,” The Associated Press reports. “The letter to top congressional leaders organized by the Coalition for the American Dream will also run as full-page ads in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal Thursday.”

“It urges the passage of bipartisan legislation that would allow nearly hundreds of thousands of young people living in the country illegally to continue to live and work in the country by Jan. 19,” AP reports. “Other signatories include Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Marriott’s Arne Sorenson, General Motors’ Mary Barra and Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone.”

“President Donald Trump says he is getting rave reviews for a White House meeting on immigration,” AP reports. “Trump spoke at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, one day after meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on immigration. He said there is agreement to seek a deal that covers border security — including a wall — family-based ‘chain migration,’ a visa lottery that draws people from diverse countries and how to extend a program for young immigrants, many of whom illegally entered the country as children.”

“President Donald Trump says the U.S. court system is — in his words — ‘broken and unfair.’ That’s his reaction after a trial-level federal judge in California temporarily blocked the administration from ending a program that protects certain young immigrants from deportation,” AP reports. “U.S. District Judge William Alsup on Tuesday granted a request by California and other plaintiffs to prevent Trump from ending the program while their lawsuits play out in court. The Department of Justice has said federal government is acting within its authority to wind down the program.”

“White House spokeswoman… Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement Wednesday that the ruling was ‘outrageous, especially in light of the President’s successful bipartisan meeting with House and Senate members at the White House on the same day,'” AP reports. “Sen. Chuck Schumer also says that despite a judge’s ruling temporarily blocking President Donald Trump from ending protections for certain young immigrants, lawmakers still must quickly pass legislation permanently shielding them from deportation. Schumer says attaching an immigration deal to a must-pass budget bill is “the only way to guarantee” legal protections for nearly 800,000 immigrants who illegally entered the country as children. Congress must pass spending legislation by Jan. 19 to prevent a federal shutdown.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: A permanent legislative solution would benefit everyone involved.

Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Off-topic posts and ad hominem attacks will be deleted and those who post such comments will be moderated/blocked. Permanent loss of screen name could also result.

SEE ALSO:
Tim Cook and Charles Koch: U.S. Congress must act on the ‘dreamers’ – December 14, 2017
Laurene Powell Jobs backs ‘dreamers,’ says ‘hundreds of thousands of young people’s lives are on the line’ – December 8, 2017
Apple CEO Tim Cook ‘encouraged’ by President Trump’s movement on ‘Dreamers’ – September 21, 2017
After Trump administration sunsets DACA, Apple CEO Cook vows to work with U.S. Congress to protect ‘Dreamers’ in email to employees – September 5, 2017
President Trump ends DACA, but gives Congress 6-month window to deliver solution; Apple CEO Tim Cook ‘stands with’ 250 DACA-protected employees – September 5, 2017
Apple CEO Tim Cook signs letter encouraging President Trump to preserve the DACA ‘Dreamers’ program – September 1, 2017
Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective buying The Atlantic – July 28, 2017
President Trump tells Apple CEO Cook that U.S. needs comprehensive immigration reform – June 20, 2017
Laurene Powell Jobs launches new website in ‘DREAM Act’ push – January 22, 2013
Laurene Powell Jobs looks to create bipartisan support for DREAM Act immigration reform – December 18, 2012

113 Comments

  1. DACA was an executive order issued by Obama, Trump is merely using the same power that Obama employed to rescind DACA. In fact, Obama’s order was unconstitutional and Trump is correcting Obama’s error.

    1. Yup, and liberals are too blind to see that.

      Notice the article the other day that stated that all the Ds that are against Trump’s wall were for it when it was a Democrat’s project?

      1. The constitutionality of DACA has been successfully defended in the court of law on several occasions. President of the US does have the authority to decide how to enforce immigration laws.

        Your sources are incorrect.

          1. Well, duh indeed!

            He can certainly can change the DACA policy, if he thinks it is a good idea.

            The point is, nothing about DACA is unconstitutional.

            And the other point is, revoking DACA is simply very bad policy for your country. You’re banishing people who are, by all human measures (except what is in their passports) Americans, into foreign lands where they know nobody, speak no language and have never been. They were educated in America, on American cultural values, their lives, friends, families, jobs, property, savings, investments, all is in America. They pay US taxes, they bring money into the US economy, the only difference is they aren’t allowed to vote.

            1. No, it is good policy for our government to function like it was designed, not by how Obama wished and a few Socialist judges decide. We have a system, Predrag and it’s about goddam time you learn it!!

            2. You don’t seem to know your own constitution.

              Your system is working as designed. Within that system, decisions can be good and bad for the country. DACA was good, as it allowed the government to collect taxes from all those who were brought as children and grew up in the US.

            3. “the only difference is they aren’t allowed to vote.”

              1. Do you support voter ID laws and enforcement that prevent illegals from voting?
              2. Do you support E-verify that prevents illegals from obtaining unlawful employment taking jobs away from U.S. Citizens?
              3. Do you support the President’s position that DACA citizens apply for citizenship through the normal process?

            4. None of what you propose actually address what they purport to address. Voter ID laws have only successfully prevented legal citizens from voting, and everyone knows what group most of these belong to.

              E-verify wouldn’t do much, as there are already laws on the books requiring verification. Current job market in the US clearly desperately wants immigrants, because Americans simply don’t want those jobs. The idea that illegals are taking jobs away from citizens is absurd.

              On the third question, I fully support the idea of DACA “citizens” (I assume you meant citizens of their native countries) apply for “citizenship” (I assume you meant first legal residence in the US, also known as ‘green card’, before becoming eligible for citizenship) through normal process. That is, if that process were to exist in the first place. But it doesn’t. President Trump apparently doesn’t know this, but there is absolutely no legal path for any person who is in the US in a non-resident status (,which means, either illegally, or legally, on a student, or tourist, or diplomatic, or some other kind of visa that prohibits work and staying indefinitely) to apply for a legal residency (green card, or H1B, or any other short-term, or permanent way of staying in the US).

              DACA people cannot apply for legal residency. Nobody can apply for citizenship unless they have been legal residents (with a ‘green card’) for at least five years (there are many other conditions for this, but five years of legal physical presence in the US is mandatory).

            5. “None of what you propose actually address what they purport to address.”

              I proposed NOTHING, not a lawmaker.

              None work for you? Gee, what a surprise! Mirrors your buddy TXuser who can’t think of a single policy accomplishment or positive thing to say regarding President Trump EVER, coming from a straight fiscal conservative. Two peas in a pod, how nice.

              VOTER ID works everywhere and every time it is tried. It prevents voter fraud in four key areas:
              1:Illegals voting.
              2: People voting more than once.
              3: Dead people voting.
              4: Busing homeless people to vote after handing them a $20 bill.

              The later would a common practice by the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail AGAINST Voter ID.

              I have witnessed three of four first hand for years. Reported to authorities and local newspapers and … ::crickets::

              Sorry to read you are CLUELESS to yearly voting irregularities, you don’t see it, so you and your pals DENY it exists. Wrong, happens every election.

              “Voter ID laws have only successfully prevented legal citizens from voting, and everyone knows what group most of these belong to.”

              Show me one voter ID law or one lawful person or one non-partisan survey where people were denied the constitutional right to vote as a RESULT of Voter ID. I’ll save you time, that would be illegal and does NOT EXIST. If it did exist the ACLU lawsuits and liberal media would be all over it 24/7 going non-stop bonkers, as they should.

              So please spare the rest of the class from typical Democrat political talking points with NO basis in fact.

              Really surprised at your comments directed to UNNAMED identity groups that you imply can’t do well on their own. Do you realize you are making excuses for whole races of people and not fixing the problem, which I contend DOES NOT EXIST. For example:

              Have no access to transportation and no access to registering to vote (🐂💩)! Where would that be, minorities in the desert?

              Your disingenuous pandering does NOTHING to HELP these groups, if the problem even existed, which I’ve said it does not.

              Voter ID is easier to get when you CONSIDER the following. Unlike a driver’s license that requires you take a test with auto insurance. Unlike a birth certificate that requires witnesses and notaries. Unlike a Social Security card that proves who you are before you can start receiving benefits or going to work. Unlike a passport that requires multiple IDs and background checks. Unlike a credit card that requires an income and ability to pay. I could go on. So, as always, that is totally FALSE Democrat talking points, nothing more.

              “E-verify wouldn’t do much, as there are already laws on the books requiring verification.”

              Yeah, well there are over 200,000 gun control laws on the books in the U.S. and the Democratic Party keeps asking for new laws after every hyper-televised shooting. Guess they are not working either?

              If instant background checks for gun purchases work, which I fully support and they DO WORK — E-verify is NO DIFFERENT. Certainly no system is flawless, simply the best that can be done at the time and can only improve.

              “Current job market in the US clearly desperately wants immigrants, because Americans simply don’t want those jobs. The idea that illegals are taking jobs away from citizens is absurd.”

              What is REALLY “absurd” is more of the same old, same old Democrat talking points with no reliable data to back it up.

              The job market by law is not allowed to discriminate. Anyone of any color who wants to pick fruit and vegetables SHOULD be allowed to do so.

              What you and your ilk NEVER MENTION is those greedy businesses you hate so much, that EXPLOIT and take advantage of foreign workers for high profits and worse, denying legal American citizens the first shot at employment. Why so silent on those issues, Predrag?

              My grandfather and my best friends dad growing up, both white, picked potatoes and corn in the Appalachians for years and raised families. That would be another time unlike today were farmers are allowed to DISCRIMINATE for PROFIT without legal ramifications. The sad part is you fully support and make EXCUSES for this type of discrimination.

              “On the third question, I fully support the idea of DACA “citizens” (I assume you meant citizens of their native countries) apply for “citizenship” (I assume you meant first legal residence in the US, also known as ‘green card’, before becoming eligible for citizenship) through normal process.”

              Yes, DACA citizens APPLY THROUGH normal immigration channels as a REQUIREMENT of legislation now under discussion.

              “That is, if that process were to exist in the first place. But it doesn’t. President Trump apparently doesn’t know this”

              Gee, then I wonder why President Trump has made it a CONDITION in the DACA debate bill? You’re wrong regarding President Trump. He is a lot smarter than you or me.

              “DACA people cannot apply for legal residency.”

              No sh*t Sherlock. It remains a vital part of the negotiations taking place. Obvious, you are not paying attention …

        1. The executive branch is obligated to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Any president who arbitrarily selects what laws to enforce or not to enforce is derelict in his responsibility and is a tyrant and dictator. That being said, some laws are worth rescinding, but that is a matter for congress to decide if permitted by the Constitution.

          1. Well, what you are saying qualifies as an opinion, according to many high courts that ruled on that matter. Apparently, courts agree that DACA was perfectly within constitutional bounds as a method of enforcing immigration policies.

            1. The Supreme Court announced a 4-4 decision in a case challenging President Obama’s plan to shield as many as five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and to allow them to work in the United States.

              So no, the constitutionality is still undecided until the Supreme Court revisits the case. With a conservative majority in place I would suggest the Supreme Court act ASAP.

          2. By your logic, the executive could not have the right to pardon an individual who was duly convicted of breaking a law passed by the legislature. Nevertheless, that seems to be a tradition in which every president indulges.

            So either the executive does have privileges to manage the enforcement of laws within reason, or he has no real power and the legislature must oversee all. If you have a problem with executive power, then perhaps its time the legislature stop its decade of inactivity and start passing laws that clarify the proper checks and balances. Especially now.

            1. The specific rationale for DACA was that there are not, and are unlikely ever to be, enough officers in the Homeland Security Department or enough prosecutors in the Justice Department to prosecute every person who has entered illegally or overstayed their visa. Even if the existing workforce was doubled and allowed to work unlimited overtime, they would still only be able to handle a fraction of the possible caseload. We may think that is HORRIBLE, but it is an undeniable fact.

              Therefore, the enforcement agencies and prosecutors will inevitably apply triage and set priorities. Some cases will be treated as urgent, others as routine, and others will never reach the top of the stack on somebody’s desk. If there is no national policy laid down by the President or Attorney General, there will be a local policy set by the US Attorney in each one of the 94 United States Judicial Districts.

              The Obama Administration thought that it would be better to have one uniform national policy setting priorities, rather than 94 separate policies. The policy was, simply put, to put violent criminals (particularly gang members) at the top of the list and persons brought to the US as minors at the bottom. Rather than treat the people who would never be prosecuted as outlaws, they should be encouraged to get an education and meaningful employment.

              Believe me: since resources are limited, prosecution is a zero-sum game. Every hour that federal agents and lawyers spend deporting a Dreamer is one less hour available to spend on a violent offender. By shifting resources to people that were formerly protected by DACA or a refugee program, resources are being shifted away from the guys who might actually kill us.

              The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not constitute an unconstitutional denial of equal protection. In a system with limited resources, prosecutors are not required to file every case that comes along. They can start with the most serious offenses and work down from there. That is not unconstitutional, but a key part of their legal responsibility.

          3. You seem to think the executive has to infinite resources to perfectly enforce all laws. Tomorrow you will be bitching that the government is too big and must be drowned in the bathtub. So what is it?

            DACA, much as xenophobes hate it, is just one policy that clarifies that the feds will prioritize nailing violent criminals over kids who aren’t hurting anyone.

            Right wingers flip flop second by second about cutting bureaucracy and red tape, then glorify policemen and advocate police state conditions. Why is it important to restrict economic progress and incur massive taxpayer expense to enforce the many many many stupid laws?

            Let’s set aside immigration for a second. Perhaps the next time you get a speeding ticket, you can come tell us how good it is that nanny state bs laws like arbitrary speed limits be rigidly enforced with great vigor. Such antiquated laws are primarily just revenue generators. But you think they are making the USA better ????

            1. That’s outrageous….irony has been all but eradicated from this site and replaced by hypocrisy dontcha know?
              “No aids infested rapist deadbeats from shithole countries allowed to dilute the true essence of the American Way”

  2. Higher courts have ruled several times over challenges regarding constitutionality in favour of DACA, so it is a big stretch to label it unconstitutional.

    More importantly, there are many valid reasons why terminating it without a replacement would be foolish, detrimental for the country, and more importantly, cruel to the people.

    DACA people know of no other country. They never broke any US laws (their parents did, buy crossing the border illegally and dragging their children with them). These people speak English, they only remember living in the US, many, if not most of them don’t speak the language of their former homeland, and have never been there since they were dragged over into the US. Nobody asked them if they wanted to move, they know nobody in their country of birth and deporting them over would be an extreme version of a cruel joke.

    It would be just like forcing any one of the people on this site to get on the plane and go live in Burma, without a possibility of ever coming back to the US.

    1. If they want to be in the U.S. so badly, these illegal aliens and their offspring should have invested some effort during the preceding decades during which they were illegally trespassing to become legal U.S. citizens.

      1. Exactly how do you propose those kids to it? What kind of effort should a child, age 4, have to make over the coming decades, so that they would be safe from deportation? How familiar are you with immigration laws of your country? From what I know (and I’m a foreigner), regardless of how you enter the US, if you remain in the country out of status (i.e. if you entered illegally, or stayed beyond the duration of stay stamped in your passport), you have no legal way to apply even for just a legal residency status (green card), let alone become eligible for citizenship. About the only way someone who illegally enters the US could plausibly legally remain is to claim political asylum (essentially, to defect), but such claim is carefully scrutinised and very few are actually granted asylum (you have to prove that you have been politically persecuted in your homeland, and your life would be in danger should you return). Most DACA people are children of economic migrants from poor countries.

        So, if they can’t get political asylum, and their are undocumented (i.e. their passports don’t contain a valid US visa and stamp of stay), exactly how would you suggest they work towards becoming legal residents?

        1. Perfect justification for a wall. Deal with the current mess of illegals while sealing the border as tightly as possible and then FOLLOW THE IMMIGATION LAWS while also ending such stupidity as chain immigration and lotteries. We don’t need any more poor, unskilled welfare leeches. Take in only those with skills to help Make America Great Again!

            1. The U.S. has enough uneducated people sucking up tax dollars, we don’t need any more. And, yes, skilled workers add to U.S. economically and culturally. Educated people are an asset, they add to the country, not take from it.

            2. ??

              You need to re-read carefully who said what.

              Jane Adam Smith suggests ending the immigration lottery programme (“…We don’t need any more poor, unskilled welfare leeches. Take in only those with skills…”), to which I respond, immigration lottery doesn’t bring uneducated people, because they aren’t eligible to apply. You repeat Jane’s argument, which essentially is in favour of DV visa programme, not against it.

              Perhaps it was way too late in the evening for coherent thought…

          1. Give it up, Predrag.

            There is such a thing as invincible ignorance—someone who is so out of touch with reality that he cannot recognize that he is living a lie. You could take your lead from A Clockwork Orange and tie them into a chair with their eyes taped open to watch the truth for days on end, and they still would prefer their isolationist fantasies to provable facts.

            They will continue to believe that a minor child can apply for citizenship on his own and that an undocumented adult can easily “get legal.” In other words, that he can somehow apply for residence without going back to his country of citizenship (which he does not remember and may, in fact, have never visited), finding some provision of the immigration laws that would allow his entry to the US (preferably a provision that will not be abolished before he gets in), and finding some way to pass all the security checks when he has no local references. They will believe that it is easy to wait patiently in line for years until an immigration slot opens without starving or getting killed in a dangerous and utterly foreign culture where the Dreamer may not even speak the local language.

            As I have pointed out before, my wife was a white Englishwoman with a graduate-school education and substantial financial means even before she married an American employed in law enforcement. We went through the permanent residence and citizenship processes before they were enormously tightened up after 9/11. It still took her five years of constant paperwork and interviews to gain permanent residence and another five for citizenship.

            1. “It still took her five years of constant paperwork and interviews to gain permanent residence and another five for citizenship.”

              tough…it’s the law, “law enforcement officer.”

            2. It appears that libtards are more interested in allowing uneducated, unskilled, government trough swilling foreigners into U.S. rather than educated, skilled, self-supporting people. Gee, I wonder why?

            3. Are you pretending to be stupid or you really aren’t getting what he said???

              The “law enforcement officer” married a foreign-born woman (who happens to be from one of the most favoured nations by the US), and even then, it still took five years of interviews and document filing before she even got permanent residence, and five more before she was eligible for naturalisation.

              DACA people aren’t from the UK. There is absolutely no legal way for any of them to pursue green card if they entered the US on non-resident visa (or illegally).

            4. That’s easy.

              Let’s look at the Dishonest Democrat playbook on just about ANY issue.

              Appeal to the bleeding heart greater good in EVERY ISSUE, while NEVER MENTIONING the direct ulterior (INTENTIONALLY HIDDEN) motives.

              As Botty is correct in mentioning the Plantation Party where Democrats are hoping DACA citizens apply for a FREE lifetime membership. Cost of admission: VOTES.

              That’s really about it, in a nutshell. A not so cleverly devised or transparent effort to get out the vote, but NOT with my tax dollars.

              I can never never imagine limousine liberal lawmakers like Hillary or Schumer taking a detour from uptown to drive out in the country and have breakfast or wings with the heartland rabble they PRETEND to support and care SO MUCH about. Just a daily “grand illusion” in the swamp never quenching the insatiable search for money and power.

              After working 12 years in D.C. the first thing you learn in lawmaker town is don’t watch a politician’s mouth, watch their feet and their campaign contributions …

            5. By that concept, Bernie Sanders was the only politician who talked to the real people and masses. Of all candidates, he received the highest percentage of contributions from ordinary people, $50 and $100 cheques from the working class.

            6. Uh sorry, I’m not talking about Bernie Sanders in my post. If you can’t answer my points directly, then spare me an unnecessary deflection.

              That said, I posted here a few times really like Bernie’s honest populist appeal and was pulling for him to win the party nomination. But the corrupt Clinton machine and sycophants in the media and DNC cut him off at the knees behind the scenes over a year before the election.

              So much for the populist “party of the people” years ago became the elitist party of the powerful …

            7. And who is the only US President to plan a trip to Davos (bring along seven of his Cabinet members) so he can hang out with the world’s wealthiest oligarchs?

              That would be the same “populist” (your word, not mine) who was so afraid of the reception he would receive from “the people” in London that he cancelled his trip there.

            8. I’m not suggesting it isn’t the law, botvirnnik.

              I am suggesting that the law was very tough twenty years ago and has gotten much tougher since. Suggesting that legal immigration to the US is something that kids brought to America as children can reasonably be expected to manage without something like the Dream Act is simply untrue.

              Even under Obama, there was strict vetting of anybody seeking long-term entry to the United States. That has gotten tighter over the last year, and is going slower because so many Consular Service positions have been left unfilled. It is the next best thing to impossible for somebody who is, in effect, a recent immigrant to (say) El Salvador to provide all the local references necessary to get a US visa.

              Call it what it is—deportation and permanent exclusion of American residents from the country where they were educated and supported with their taxes. Don’t pretend that there is any reasonable possibility that more than a few of them will ever make it back.

            1. Check with Israel about their wall that WORKS to protect them from being surrounded by the worst terrorists in the world.

              Stopping poverty illegals from Mexico should be a piece of cake …

            2. Hadrian’s wall was anchored at each end by a seacoast, so it was possible to sail around it. If the Picts had airplanes, they could have flown over it. My guess is that most of the traffic from north to south, like most of the illegal traffic across the Mexican border now, was through established gates in the wall at official ports of entry. Most Pictish immigrants to Roman Britain, like at least half of undocumented migrants to the US now, were folks who crossed the wall (or entered by sea) with official permission and then overstayed their “visa.” Hadrian’s Wall was marvelous architecture, but almost completely ineffective in keeping the barbarians at bay.

        2. We are a nation of laws and children often suffer the consequences of their parents’ poor decisions. And there are established procedures for foreign nationals to become U.S. citizen so that is the way for people to become nationalized citizens.

          1. What procedures?? There are no procedures for children to become legal residents (or naturalised citizens) if they arrived illegally and if their parents are illegal. This was precisely the purpose of DACA; to allow them to stay until the congress finally passes a law. Several attempts have been made, but failed, either in the house or in the senate.

            1. “There are no procedures for children to become legal residents (or naturalised citizens) if they arrived illegally and if their parents are illegal.”

              The parents can take their children with them. I am not suggesting that U.S. house, feed, and clothe them. Children are their parents’ responsibility first and foremost.

            2. Most of those DACA people are adults by now, educated and with jobs. I get it, you want to kick them out, since you presume they are taking some American’s job, but morally, you have no ground to stand on. They never violated any laws (their parents did), they went to school, got educated, got jobs, pay taxes and contribute to the US economy. You seem to prefer that they take all the education they got in the US for free and take it to some other country.

              There are countries in the world that tax their expats proportionate to the level of education they attained at home. If the country spends resources to educate you, it expects that you give back by being a productive member. DACA people are doing exactly that — returning (through taxes) to America for the education they got.

            3. These so-called Dreamers should have applied for citizenship when they were able. If they are too stupid or lazy to follow the rules it’s their problem.

            4. King,

              The Dreamers were NEVER able to apply for citizenship. Stupidity or laziness had nothing to do with it. There simply is no procedure for an undocumented US resident just reaching the age of majority to gain lawful residence without self-deporting. If the Dreamers left America, they would no longer be US residents and would go to the back of the line behind people who do not remotely have the connections with the US that they do.

              Predrag (who is a foreign national living legally in the US) and I (a man married to a woman who went through nationalization) know what we are talking about. You don’t, and repeating the notion that the Dreamers could somehow become American legal permanent residents without a Dream Act does not make it true… no matter how many times you repeat it.

            5. Quite so.

              I think the most serious threat to the American system of governing is the profound and ever deepening level of ignorance among those who vote in elections. There is good (and natural) correlation between the level of education and level of political ignorance, and unfortunately, in the two-party system (unique to America), the level of education isn’t even and skews noticeably towards one of the parties, leaving the other politically ignorant (and easy to dupe). It explains Bush and Trump.

              There is some light at the end of the tunnel. Demographic trends are irreversible and powerful, so the party of the less educated now has virtually no chance holding onto the White House the next time voters get to chose their president. There will be four years’ worth of teenagers coming of age. Research shows that significant majority of them are progressive and favour Democrats, and much larger percentage than the average voting population are “minorities” (non-white), who vote for Democrats by a significant margin.

              Bottom line, your country will survive (up to) four years of Trump and his evangelist conservatives, but fortunately, their numbers are shrinking and, unless their party dramatically changes its platform, they will see their last president out of office in just about three years.

            6. “There is good (and natural) correlation between the level of education and level of political ignorance, and unfortunately, in the two-party system (unique to America), the level of education isn’t even and skews noticeably towards one of the parties, leaving the other politically ignorant (and easy to dupe). It explains Bush and Trump.”

              Yes, it explains why Hillary LOST and serial philanderer Clinton and clueless Libtard Carter. At least Carter build houses for the poor and has my respect.

              President Obama lost both houses of Congress in his first term and still WON a second term. So in 2020, I will remind you of your presidential predictions …

      2. You think they didn’t? DACA specifically is a program for them to do exactly that. If they don’t honor the requirements of DACA, they do get deported. What DACA represents is a very good additional channel for identifying productive immigrants and cutting the red tape to get them officially documented.

        Odd that the USA is essentially a corporatocracy, with multinational corporations given special privileges that the common citizen could never enjoy, and therefore the universal message from corporate pleaders constantly broadcast through their newspapers, television, NGOs, and political parties has always been the desire to cut red tape and allow freer trade. Now the great unwashed demand more red tape, more trade restrictions, and more isolationism. When the dimwit orange mussolini demands Amerikka First, he fails to realize that he’s facing backwards in history and is doing everything Rome did to accelerate its decline: isolationism, economic debt, internal divisionism, massive gap between rich and poor. Modern Rome is aflame.

    2. Funny, their parents only knew of one country, only spoke Spanish (most likely) and they BROKE the law, so Dreamers can do the same as their parents.

      As an aside, I want DACA to be overturned and a REAL law written to allow them to stay on conditions of obtaining citizenship. I want it in the same bill that funds the wall, stops the UNCONSTITUTIONAL law that allows anyone born here to become a citizen regardless of how they got here, delete the clause that allows a legal immigrant to bring any family member over who can immediately begin getting government aid (unless from a truly refugee nation, unlike the Palestinians) and deport criminals that have green cards but get a felony conviction.

      There, I said it.
      (Standing by with a fire extinguisher in hand….)

      1. …”law that allows anyone born here to become a citizen regardless of how they got here,”…

        They “got here” by being BORN here! You would deport them exactly WHERE? Let’s say, father came from Brazil, mother came from the Philippines, baby is born in the USA, both parents undocumented. Where do you deport the child? What if that child managed to grow into adult (undetected by the law enforcement)? Parents are dead, so exactly where do you deport a person who never stepped foot outside of America from the day he was born???

          1. Exactly HOW do you ban “anchor babies”? Do you force-sterilise illegal immigrants? What happens when a baby is born (from undocumented parents)? What do you do with that baby? What happens if that baby grows into an adult, in America, before law enforcement ever catches whiff?

            Let us not forget the 14th ammendment: ““All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

            How would you go around that little wrinkle, called the constitution of the United States??

            Do you truly believe your “anchor babies” and “chain migration” are the most serious threats to your security and economy? If yes, I have this great bridge to sell you dirt cheap.

            1. Sure, we could repeal the Fourteenth Amendment just like we repealed the Eighteenth.

              Is that what you are seriously suggesting? Do Equal Protection and Due Process really bother you that much? How about the notion that state and local governments should obey the Bill of Rights just as strictly as the federal government?

              While we are at it, how about the other two Reconstruction Amendments? Without the Fifteenth, we wouldn’t have to worry about that socialist Voting Rights Act. Without the Thirteenth, we could go back to the days that Roy Moore describes as the last time America was great, even if we had slavery.

              We could also add the First Amendment, which Mr. Trump suggested today could be amended to allow public officials to sue over criticism more easily.

              What ever happened to conservative reverence for the United States Constitution?

            2. As reports have indicated, the U.S. and Canada are the only two developed nations that grant automatic citizenship at birth to the children of illegal and temporary immigrants.

              Time for U.S. to join the rest of the planet’s developed nations on this idea.

            3. The United States is also the only country subject to the United States Constitution. I guess you think it’s time to abandon that unique feature, too.

          2. Predrag,

            You beat me to it about the Fourteenth Amendment. These nativists have no knowledge of or respect for the United States Constitution. You cannot ban anchor babies without either amending or violating the 14th.

            Similarly, you cannot “change the law to make it easier to win defamation suits,” as the President proposed today, without either amending or violating the First Amendment. It clearly allows the criticism of public figures as long as the alleged facts in the criticism are not intentionally false or uttered with reckless regard for the truth. Mr. Trump would make an honest mistake actionable, which would all but end freedom of the press, of speech, and of petition.

            Again, who are the “strict constructionists” and who wants to interpret the Constitution out of existence?

            As an aside: several hundred Russian mothers each year fly into Miami to give birth while living at the Trump Towers. Ironic, isn’t it… right up there with the fact that somebody with four grandparents born outside the US wants to ban immigration.

            1. wrong again…Congress can pass a federal law with stricter libel/defamation statutes and the president can sign it. You can read all about that process in the…dare I say it?

              The United States Constitution

            2. And the Supreme Court can and will invalidate any law that violates the First Amendment and its consistent construal. I thought you understood that theUS isn’t an absolute democracy.

            3. There is no violation of the First Amendment that allows congress to pass stricter libel laws…or intellectual property laws.

              Where’d you go to law school?

            4. You need to re-read that first amendment. And if you don’t understand it, you need to re-read it again.

              It is the one piece of law of the land that people of the world envy the most.

              Multiple supreme court precedents exist that clearly show the requirement of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice for a libel / defamation suit to stand.

            5. I have yet to meet one libtard that could cite from memory the five rights guaranteed in the First Amendment without googling.

              I expect you are no different.

            6. botvirnnik,

              Congress shall make no law infringing the rights of free speech, free press, free exercise and non-establishment of religion, free assembly, and free petition for grievance.

              The Supreme Count of the United States has repeatedly and for decades held that it would be a violation of both the free speech and free exercise clauses to allow someone recovery for defamation against a public figure without showing actual malice, defined as either knowing that the statement is false or disregarding the knowledge that it is likely false.

              That is exactly what Mr. Trump has proposed. Congress has no power to do that under the express terms of the First Amendment. Congress can do whatever it damn well pleases, so long as it complies with the Constitution… but not otherwise.

              No amount of phony conservative posturing is going to justify the violation of the First Amendment by infringing free expression, of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying persons under the jurisdiction of the United States due process and equal protection (regardless of their religion or national origin), or of the Fourth Amendment by facilitating warrantless access to personal electronics.

              I haven’t proposed any of those. I haven’t heard any other Democrat, Independent, or mainstream Republican propose any of those. Donald Trump has.

          3. Good idea. Citizenship in the USA should require a rigorous exam. Anyone who fails, no matter where they were born, should be deported to the penal colony of Guantanamo where physical labor can be used to extract economic benefit to pay off the costs of breathing your precious air.

            Oh, and if the orange Mussolini failed the Citizenship Exam, perhaps his claimed billions should be earmarked to pay for construction projects that voters were stupidly promised that foreign sovereign nations would pay for.

      2. By the way, typing it in ALL CAPS doesn’t make it more believable.

        Constitution of the United States, 14th amendment, Clause 1:

        “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

        I’m sure that’s fake news…

          1. Because they are NOT the United States, you know, the country that has the United States Constitution, with its amendments, which includes the 14th.

            Because the United States has apparently been the beacon of civil liberties and rights that is a model for the world to which most countries aspire.

            We can argue whether “anchor babies” are a good or bad “philosophy”, but there is nothing that your Congress (or President) can do about it unless they choose to change the constitution. And good luck with that.

          2. So why are you anti-immigration people not proposing an update to the Constitution????? Your party spent the last 8years obstructing all things, repeatedly voting on a pointless healthcare repeal bill that would never ever pass because anyone with any medical knowledge knows it was an empty shell of knee jerk stupidity. Now your party has claimed itself emperors of the republic, slayers of the other faction…. and the government is on the verge of budgetary shutdown. In your first year, all you did was reward multinational corporations for their campaign donations. No closing of loopholes, no election reform, no infrastructure renewal, nothing for the working class except promises of isolationism If you haven’t noticed, Carrier fired employees, Ford is moving production to Mexico, Boeing is in talks to buy a Brazilian plane maker, Apple continues to cowtow to whatever China wants, and foreign tax havens remain flush with cash that DOES NOT circulate through America’s rust belt, which literally stretches from coast to coast now.

  3. Let the ‘Dreamers’ go back to Mexico. The US owes them nothing.

    Does the EU owe the waves of Libyan / Syrian / N Afrian ‘dreamers’ a better life than they had back home? They’ve been a blight on Euro culture; raping children in bath houses, demanding that their religious cultures be recognized, and generally, overwhelming local communities and villages. The immigrants don’t respect the local European cultures, nor will they assimilate. This is why they’re not welcomed in Poland or Hungary.

    If they want ‘a better life’ they need to go back home and make their own countries places they want to live. Not demand eveyone else change to accomodate them.

    1. Mexico?? What about thousands of them who are from the Philippines? Brazil? Guatemala?

      I am pretty sure you wouldn’t know a person was a Dreamer if you met them. They are Americans by all possible measures. They grew up in America, on a steady diet of American culture (movies, sports, burgers, rock / rap). Most don’t know anyone in Mexico, have never been to Mexico since being dragged across the US border when they were very little. They live in the US, own houses, cars, invest in 401k, pay taxes and some even raise their own children (who are acutal Americans, being born in the USA).

        1. I accept that if we exclude all central and south americans we are likely to limit potential gang members. However, I fail to see how we can exclude Puerto Ricans. They form gangs, too, according to Leonard Bernstein, but if they were born there they are American citizens so we can’t keep them out. Can we?

          1. Puerto Rico, my heart’s devotion
            Let it sink back in the ocean
            Always the hurricanes blowing
            Always the population growing
            And the money owing
            And the sunlight streaming
            And the natives steaming
            I like the island Manhattan….

      1. Predrag,

        I think our effort here has brought all the results that it was ever likely to bring. Nada. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The discussion is now starting to bring out some hardcore racists in addition to the usual suspects.

          1. “factual responses?”

            Doubt you would know a factual response if it hit you between the eyes.

            Guess you missed the NATIONAL media firings at the highest levels, demotions and multiple retractions for making false reports amounting to dozens of embarrassing media moments since Trump took office. Pulitzer Prize reporters were forced to resign in disgrace for false reporting using whispers and swamp anonymous sources.

            TXuser on a DAILY denigrating basis uses exactly the SAME TECHNIQUES. Half-truths, innuendo, extrapolation, double speak and personal opinion that every Trump hating Marxist Democrat, like him, has in their toolbox.

            “Factual” is only on the surface and does define the equation. Results are ALL that matters and the only goal is to make Republicans LOOK BAD before the mid-terms. Many on both sides play the same game, so nothing new in the struggle for power.

            It’s OK to be a FOOL for so long (me in my college days) since that can be fixed by paying attention to ALL SIDES of the argument as you MATURE.

            “If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at 40 you have no brain.”

            Said Winston Churchill, quoted by gadfly

            Three variations:

            Not to be a républicain at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.

            If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head.

            If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head.

            Love the reality of those quotes …

            1. “Factual” is only on the surface and does define the equation.

              I neglected to include the word NOT, as in; “Factual” is only on the surface and does NOT define the equation.

              My bad …

            2. “Factual” is only on the surface for those to whom facts do not matter.

              The irony is that you and your “conservative” fellow-travelers have fallen for the post-modernist liberal theory that truth exists only in the eye of the beholder and has no objective existence apart from subjective opinion. Alternative facts are just as good as real facts, and even better when they support a purely ideological argument.

              No wonder that the Trump Administration is trying to eradicate the terms “science-based” and “evidence-based” from government policy-making. When opinion is everything, facts and science are nothing.

            3. “The irony is that you and your “conservative” fellow-travelers have fallen for the post-modernist liberal theory that truth exists only in the eye of the beholder”

              Good to read a self-described FELLOW “straight white male fiscal conservative Republican” is here DAILY in FULL SUPPORT of President Trump. And just then, I woke up.

              The irony is that you are HALF-RIGHT. Yes the “modernist liberal theory” is FAKE, FALSE and just a THEORY.

              WRONG. The only thing the “Trump Administration is trying to eradicate” is broad based PC narrative terminology that is political party based and means NOTHING.

              My “conservative” fellow-travelers” and I will continue to point out your FAKE FACTS from the Democrat talking points.

              Half-truths and extrapolation is no way to go through life, son … 😎

            4. GeoB,

              You and I have been dueling here for months and you have never yet—not even once—pointed out a single “FAKE FACT” that I have stated. You have attacked me personally and repeated unsubstantiated falsehoods any number of times, but not once have you pointed out a factual error in anything I have posted. To repeat Patrick Daniel Moynihan yet one more time, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

              See the Gospel According to John, Chapter 8, verse 44.

    1. that’s the pertinent point. As well, Tim’s social justice warrior-ism implies it’s the fair and just thing to do. I have my doubts about the purity of his pursuit I think the dollar powers the greatest portion of his vigor on this point. Same with the co-creator of the world’s largest “social-validation feedback loop” (Facebook, if you haven’t heard it described by another co-creator).

  4. What is Cook doing with politics?? It would be far better to take care of business. The usual new products that comes so late it looks like vaporware, is a problem he should wrestle. I really don’t care about his politics.

  5. Hey they just discovered another “bug” in High Sierra 10.13.2. It lets you put any password in and gain access to some part of iCloud I believe. The news is posted on MacRumors. I wish like hell Tim Cook would keep his happy ass dealing with Apple’s internal issues.

  6. Isn’t it more important to build the border wall to keep out the bad hombres, the rapists and drug smugglers, than it is to deport people that have already assimilated into American society? I understand that we should do both according to the letter of the law. And it doesn’t matter much if the law is flawed. Of course it is; it’s a human invention. But it it ought to be followed in every case. Congress may become persuaded to change a bad law, but until they do, the law should be followed. No matter who gets hurt. Tears, hopes, and dreams are for snowflakes and liberal apologists. All the same, President Trump is apparently not without compassion and has invited Congress to write new laws protecting some potential deportees. We’ll see what happens.

    1. Actually BOTH need to be done, because if we build a wall with no promise of deporting people who come here illegally there will be an onslaught of border crossing until the last stone is set.

      At the same time if other governments see we are serious about this they might quit encouraging their poorest to run here instead of having to deal with them.

      Once this system is established, the wall is being built and illegals have given up, THEN we can say to the DACA and many other illegals who have been here years and maybe decades, do THESE things and you can be a citizen. BUT if we do that before the wall is built, the flood of people will NEVER, EVER stop!

      1. If you are using “the wall” as a metaphor for stricter border enforcement, I might agree. If you mean a literal wall, it would be no more effective that much less expensive alternate means. Very nearly a majority of undocumented residents of the US entered the country legally through an official port of entry and then overstayed their visa. A rather substantial majority of the illegal drugs and other contraband being smuggled into the US from Mexico comes through an official port of entry.

        Building a wall along the border does not address those issues. Rather, it wastes money that could be spent in much more efficient ways to address the problem of border security.

        1. The wall can be a technological construct with scanning technology in place of material barriers, and Trump has signalled his acceptance of such a system. Silicon Valley engineers surely have the ideas and technology to make that happen, but there is a certain ambivalence in place, partly due to political compacts made with the previous administration and partly due to present and future labour force concerns. There is little real moral substance to arguments presented by either side.

          As for port of entry details, you are right, but what is more right is a pressing need for a clear policy signal. The lack of an established policy is a swamp of uncertainty that is just as deleterious to the economy as an outright embargo.

  7. “A permanent legislative solution would benefit everyone involved.” NO! How does legalizing 20 million invaders who can sponsor 100 million more illiterate relatives benefit anyone? It doesn’t even benefit the illegal aliens beyond the short-term, when within a generation the country collapses into civil war and separation. Some say this is inevitable, because there’s no way to fix the mess created by both DNC and GOP traitors since the 1986 amnesty scam that promised enforcement and delivered none.

    1. Or, as Our President observed today, ““Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out. Immigrants from Haiti should be left out of any bipartisan immigration deal.”

      Later, in reference to African immigration, he said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should bring in more immigrants from countries like Norway.”

      This fits in with his earlier comments that “All the Haitian immigrants have AIDS,” and Nigerian immigrants “would never go back to their huts.”

      The White House Press Office did not dispute the accuracy of any of these quotes, saying only that “President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation.”

      That confirms that the official position of the Trump Administration is that people from countries occupied mainly by black people cannot meet those goals as well as white people. Immigrants from Haiti or Nigeria should be rejected, regardless of their individual qualifications, in favor of immigrants from Northern Europe.

      It is hard to find any non-racist interpretation of those remarks. I certainly can’t imagine how they comply with US laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.

      1. Trump had me at “we need more Norwegian immigrants.” Yeah, but they all want to go live in Minnesota, the Land of a Thousand Lakes, another backwater. Do they even have coal mines there? I don’t think so. Trump needs to rethink this, maybe ask some of his advisors, if he has any, which people from which countries are likely to positively impact our economy by importing their skills. Instead of relying on his primitive instincts, which I recognise from kindergarten.

      2. He keeps railing against the visa lottery, but refuses to recognize that nobody can even get into that lottery unless they meet substantial guidelines for education, job skills, and security. The average immigrant from Africa and the other s’hole countries is more likely to be a college graduate or have a professional degree than the average native-born American.

        How is the President going to make the system more “merit-based” than it already is? Apparently, by selecting a much smaller group of successful candidates according to some set of largely subjective criteria, rather than using an objective means such as random selection. From his comments yesterday, which have now been confirmed on the record by at least one hearer, it sounds like he wants a return to the system of national quotas based on immigration patterns prior to 1900 (but excluding persons of color).

        1. You are correct.

          TXuser is putting quotes around Trump statements that were supposedly spoken in a private meeting and unless I missed it, no audio or video tapes have surfaced to back them up.

          Nuff said …

Leave a Reply to Gaelic1 Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.