There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Deserving DREAMer’

[rangerrebew]

    There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Deserving DREAMer’



    by Michelle Malkin

    Over and over again, from the mouths of politicians in both parties, along with identity-politics purveyors and cheap-labor lobbyists, we hear the same refrains about President Obama’s 800,000 amnestied illegal-alien youths: “They don’t deserve to be punished.” “They deserve protection.” “They deserve the American dream.”

    Deserve, deserve, deserve.

    Over and over again, in countless cookie-cutter op-ed pieces published over the past month, so-called DREAMers have vociferously lamented President Donald Trump’s push to eventually undo their unconstitutional five-year reprieves from deportation plus coveted work permits:


    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...born-americans

[driftdiver]

meanwhile Congress continues to defecate on American citizens

[HoustonSam]

I would favor deferring deportation of the so-called "dreamers" for as long past their 18th birthday as it takes to become a US citizen, with each "dreamer" being required to document his progress toward citizenship.  If the "dreamer" isn't pursuing legal citizenship or progressing toward it then it's time for him to get a wake up call.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

By definition, a Dreamer is illegal, hence cannot possibly be deserving of anything other than the punishment for the offence, i.e. - deportation.

To do otherwise is to shred our laws.

[HoustonSam]

By definition, a Dreamer is illegal, hence cannot possibly be deserving of anything other than the punishment for the offence, i.e. - deportation.

To do otherwise is to shred our laws.

Agreed, they are here illegally.  But my position is subjunctive, about what the law *should* say, not indicative, about what it *does* say. 

In the case of a minor brought here, I would "start the clock" on their 18th birthday with a fixed time to become legal, and no option to sponsor their parents or others into the US once legal.

Some of the current "dreamers" are well up in their twenties.  Absent documentation that he is actively pursuing legal citizenship I would offer such a person no leniency.  In fairness perhaps current immigration law offers no effective option for this person to pursue citizenship without risking deportation.  But I consider that a person brought here as a minor who has recently achieved majority is qualitatively different from a person who has knowingly lived here illegally as an adult for any significant period of time.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Agreed, they are here illegally.  But my position is subjunctive, about what the law *should* say, not indicative, about what it *does* say. 

In the case of a minor brought here, I would "start the clock" on their 18th birthday with a fixed time to become legal, and no option to sponsor their parents or others into the US once legal.

Some of the current "dreamers" are well up in their twenties.  Absent documentation that he is actively pursuing legal citizenship I would offer such a person no leniency.  In fairness perhaps current immigration law offers no effective option for this person to pursue citizenship without risking deportation.  But I consider that a person brought here as a minor who has recently achieved majority is qualitatively different from a person who has knowingly lived here illegally as an adult for any significant period of time.

This is where we disagree.  A person brought here as a child has no more right to be here than the parent who brought them.

That person should be assessed as a potential citizen within the queue already applying for citizenship.  Should that person be assessed to bring forward value towards this country as a citizen, just like any other applicant would, then I would favor pursuing their application.

No one should ever be rewarded for breaking the law, no exceptions.  Otherwise, all one is doing is inviting the next lawbreaker to come.

[Bigun]

This is where we disagree.  A person brought here as a child has no more right to be here than the parent who brought them.

That person should be assessed as a potential citizen within the queue already applying for citizenship.  Should that person be assessed to bring forward value towards this country as a citizen, just like any other applicant would, then I would favor pursuing their application.

No one should ever be rewarded for breaking the law, no exceptions.  Otherwise, all one is doing is inviting the next lawbreaker to come.

  

[HoustonSam]

This is where we disagree.  A person brought here as a child has no more right to be here than the parent who brought them.

That person should be assessed as a potential citizen within the queue already applying for citizenship.  Should that person be assessed to bring forward value towards this country as a citizen, just like any other applicant would, then I would favor pursuing their application.

No one should ever be rewarded for breaking the law, no exceptions.  Otherwise, all one is doing is inviting the next lawbreaker to come.

I'm not seeing any disagreement between us, unless you believe that a "dreamer" who applies for citizenship on his 18th birthday, or within some short "grace period" beginning on the 18th birthday, should immediately be deported pending the completion of citizenship.  All I'm saying is if someone was brought here illegally as a minor, give them a fair chance to become legal once they are accountable for themselves.

As a practical matter the 18 year old "dreamer" trying to make himself legal would not be able to demonstrate as much immediate value to the US as an entrepreneur or educated professional seeking citizenship, and we might identify some disagreement on particulars if we consider those possible details.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm not seeing any disagreement between us, unless you believe that a "dreamer" who applies for citizenship on his 18th birthday, or within some short "grace period" beginning on the 18th birthday, should immediately be deported pending the completion of citizenship.  All I'm saying is if someone was brought here illegally as a minor, give them a fair chance to become legal once they are accountable for themselves.

As a practical matter the 18 year old "dreamer" trying to make himself legal would not be able to demonstrate as much immediate value to the US as an entrepreneur or educated professional seeking citizenship, and we might identify some disagreement on particulars if we consider those possible details.

Am not saying the only immigrants we should allow in should be professionals or entrepreneurs, although that might be nice.  What I am saying is to be of value one must be able to demonstrate literacy, speak English, pass an American Civics test and exude abilities to be a productive citizen.  An example of that, for example, would be if that 18 year old entered the Armed Forces.   

What I am vehemently against is moving him higher in the applicant line just because one feels sorry for him.

[Fishrrman]

I would reckon that at least half -- possibly more -- of the "dreamers" aren't "kids" at all, and that a modestly surprising number of them are involved in criminal gang activity as well...