GOP Rep Explains How DACA Recipients Would 'Earn' Citizenship With His Bill

[rangerrebew]

GOP Rep Explains How DACA Recipients Would 'Earn' Citizenship With His Bill

Cortney O'Brien

Posted: May 29, 2018 9:30 AM

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) wants to see his USA Act reach the House floor for a vote. Short for the Uniting and Securing America Act, the bill would give DACA recipients a path to citizenship.

The USA Act represents a real bipartisan compromise that will provide a permanent legislative solution for Dreamers. Broader than just DACA recipients, the USA Act applies to all Dreamers. With a legally-defined status, these individuals would be able to remain in America while working towards full citizenship. This means they could continue to work, pursue a degree, enlist in our military and otherwise fully plan their lives without the fear that their futures could be destroyed by an administrative decision.


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...-bill-n2485226

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nope, try another way.  And it cannot end with citizenship.  The only exception I can think of is the unquestionable competency in the English language and serving at least 3 years in the US military.

[Jazzhead]

Sounds like a reasonable first step - but only if the bill includes real, additional funding for border security.   I like the proposal to increase the number of immigration judges.   Deportees need to be afforded due process, and backlogs in the courts serve no one's interests.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sounds like a reasonable first step - but only if the bill includes real, additional funding for border security.   I like the proposal to increase the number of immigration judges.   Deportees need to be afforded due process, and backlogs in the courts serve no one's interests.   

Why does someone deserve what you call 'due process' if one broke the law to come into this country?

Due process is a right reserved for citizens.

[driftdiver]

Why does someone deserve what you call 'due process' if one broke the law to come into this country?

Due process is a right reserved for citizens.

@IsailedawayfromFR
I believe the Supreme Court has granted due process to anyone in the US.

citizen or not

[Sanguine]

In case anyone wants to read the article before commenting, here is the real link:  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/05/29/gop-rep-explains-how-daca-recipients-would-earn-citizenship-with-his-bill-n2485226

[Jazzhead]

Why does someone deserve what you call 'due process' if one broke the law to come into this country?

Due process is a right reserved for citizens.

No it's not.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR
I believe the Supreme Court has granted due process to anyone in the US.

citizen or not

that may be, but that does not mean it is legitimate nor morally right.

If you break our rules, we break you, the way we wish to.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No it's not.

pretty haughty response, eh?

Do you wish to counter with substance?

[thackney]

Why does someone deserve what you call 'due process' if one broke the law to come into this country?

Due process is a right reserved for citizens.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Note the change in word choice that starts discussing citizens then uses person.

[Jazzhead]

pretty haughty response, eh?

Do you wish to counter with substance?

See @thackney 's post above.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Note the change in word choice that starts discussing citizens then uses person.

Oh, there is that 'within its jurisdiction' once again.  What do you believe that means anyway?  Think it pertains to an uninvited person who is not within the jurisdiction of the US as he came into this country without its permission?  And are you now advocating for those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay?

[Oceander]

Why does someone deserve what you call 'due process' if one broke the law to come into this country?

Due process is a right reserved for citizens.

Due process is not reserved for citizens. 

[skeeter]

I wouldn't agree to a damn thing re: DACA until the wall is not only funded, but built.

Just remember whom it is you are dealing with. Their word isn't worth the paper the bill will be written on.

[driftdiver]

that may be, but that does not mean it is legitimate nor morally right.

If you break our rules, we break you, the way we wish to.

@IsailedawayfromFR
I understand the point and agree to a certain degree.  This is greatly abused by people who want illegals in this country.   It causes enormous legal costs and greatly reduces our national security.

However, the opportunity for abuse is astronomical.   We've all seen what they do in other countries where non-citizens are arrested for trivial offenses and have very few protections.  IMO the correct move is somewhere in between.  Where the current abuses are reigned in but people still have the protection of law.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Due process is not reserved for citizens.

So you are advocating that the terrorist in Guantanamo Bay be treated the same as any citizen of the US?

Also, that any person anywhere in the world that has a beef against the US be treated the same way as any citizen?

Please, counselor, enlighten the rest of this country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR
I understand the point and agree to a certain degree.  This is greatly abused by people who want illegals in this country.   It causes enormous legal costs and greatly reduces our national security.

However, the opportunity for abuse is astronomical.   We've all seen what they do in other countries where non-citizens are arrested for trivial offenses and have very few protections.  IMO the correct move is somewhere in between.  Where the current abuses are reigned in but people still have the protection of law.

There is a strong differentiation between a citizen and one that is not invited into the country.

Are you differentiating between these two?

[Oceander]

So you are advocating that the terrorist in Guantanamo Bay be treated the same as any citizen of the US?

Also, that any person anywhere in the world that has a beef against the US be treated the same way as any citizen?

Please, counselor, enlighten the rest of this country.

Nope.  Simply correcting your clearly false statement. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nope.  Simply correcting your clearly false statement.

What pray tell is the false statement? @Oceander

[Oceander]

What pray tell is the false statement?

That due process is reserved for citizens.  It is not. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That due process is reserved for citizens.  It is not.

Please then let us all know whether any person anywhere in the world can have due process under US law including those held under Guantanamo. @Oceander

[Oceander]

Please then let us all know whether any person anywhere in the world can have due process under US law including those held under Guantanamo. @Oceander

No.  You tell us where in the Constitution it states that due process is limited to citizens. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No.  You tell us where in the Constitution it states that due process is limited to citizens.

Then you admit you sent out a false statement.

Your propensity for falsehoods is well known.

Check.

[Oceander]

Then you admit you sent out a false statement.

Your propensity for falsehoods is well known.

Check.

The only false statement is yours, regarding due process.  If it’s not false, then you should be able to prove that by a citation to the Constitution or to relevant caselaw.

Prove it, or stfu. 

[Oceander]

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US 678 (2001):  “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”

So no, due process is not limited to citizens.