Deferred Action on Childhood Arivals (DACA)

"Normal" immigrants are vetted prior to being paroled into the US. They only have to "be good" for five years (3 years if married to a US citizen) and be self-sufficient or have a financial sponsor, in order to become citizens. They are not eligible for benefits during the five year period.

All accepted DACA applicants are vetted and meet all these same requirements and more. They also have to pay $465 every two years to continue their deferral. 76% are employed 20% more in school. 65% total in school, (all without any benefits). Most have little or no memory of their prior country. 79% are from Mexico, 16% from South of Mexico, 3% unknown, and 1% from each of Korea and the Philippians. If they commit a felony, or more than three misdemeanors, they lose DACA status. The majority have little or no knowledge of their past lives. By this time, they have proved they are good "citizens". They are no risk and they benefit our society. I am in favor of letting them go through the naturalization process, as they will make better citizens that a lot of people born here. Those that served in the military, should get citizenship as soon as they get honorably discharged if that comes before the 5 year immigration wait. At minimum they should get a green card after 5 years of DACA status.

BACK

My MoveOn.com conversation

Demand Congress pass a #CleanDreamAct: moveon.org/heretostay

2017-09-08 FB

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: We, the people, reserved the right to revise the laws when we created the constitution, and the current rules dictate that no one is guilty (illegal) until proven so by due process. "Undocumented" is a discoverable fact, "Galilean" (guilty) is a judgement determined by due process.

Replies:

Steve Pearce: Really?? What dictionary did you use? Webster defines illegal as: : not according to or authorized by law ..., The word undocumented does not occur in the US Code that applies to Illegal Aliens.... nice try at redefining terms...

Stephen Mayo: Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights. Only US citizens do.

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: They are "alleged" illegal until they have been convicted by a judge or a trial. The Supreme court has said persons who are not citizens do have rights. Google "supreme court decision entitling non-citizens to due process" and learn something about our laws.

2017-09-09

Anthony Tompkins: Ralph I'm sorry but this is semantics. If you are sited for speeding , the instance of judgement is the moment the ticket is given. If you were doing 75 in a 50 that is wilfully flaunting the law. There is no hint of ignorance to the folks that come here. They come by night, they refuse to be open in regards to their whereabouts and pay, they have no method through taxes or otherwise to track them. They are guilty by intent, and the proof is the action, not the process. We are not violating civil​ or hu!an rights to tell a speeder not to speed, or a drunken person not to drive. Likewise, there is nothing immoral with describing an act that wilfully flaunts the law as illegal. It is an act of intent 'against' the law.

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: The law is not as simple as people may think. There is de jure law and de facto law, there is legislative law and there is case law. There is civil law and there is criminal law. There is administrative law and there is due process.

The judicial branch is mostly appointed under the Constitution and empowered to decide cases by the Constitution. The SCOTUS decisions, treaties, and the Constitution are the supreme law of the US.

The administrative branch administers and enforces legislated law as modified by case law and de facto practice. Once the Supreme Court has spoken, it is the law to be enforced until Congress legislates a change that the President signs or Congress overrides his veto.

Appointed judges have the same authority as elected ones. Judges don't make laws, they decide cases which result in clearer meaning and understanding of who can do what.

Unlike the old USSR, where "if it wasn't expressly permitted, it was prohibited", the USA is based on the principle "if it isn't expressly prohibited, it is permitted".

We in the USA, starting with the Declaration of Independence, have a long history of de jure and de facto law involving a right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" including to sue the government, "peaceably to assemble", to speak freely, to engage in civil disobedience, and to challenge unjust laws through test cases initiated by ignoring the laws in question.

De facto law includes the notion that statutes regularly not enforced are effectively nullified. Consequently, common practices, declared prohibited by de jure statutes, may be labeled 'illegal', but by de facto practice and lack of enforcement become de facto 'legal'.

As our USA society has matured, over the now centuries, many originally de jure statutes have undergone reversal through the process of all the aforementioned methods of change. It should also be noted that the common law holds that these rights and privileges, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, applies to everyone, a point that SCOTUS has explicitly made with regard to non citizens.

Having freedom and rights entails that everybody has a duty not to interfere with other people's freedom and rights.

Anthony Tompkins: Correct. And I don't for a minute call into question your grasp of the various parts and principles of the law. You have obviously invested the time and personal effort to understand the nuances better than most.

However, this all clouds the issue. These folks come here [allegedly] knowingly in violation of the standing law. They have every right to be expect to be treated humanely and with respect, but [they] should also expect to be treated [as] a criminal if they commit criminal acts.

The notion of whether or not they admit to these acts is neither here nor there. They can certainly ask for due process. That process comes at the expense of the citizenry that are , excuse me, legal citizens.

At what point do we protect the interest and security of the current and legally enrolled citizens of our country, Mr. Kenyon? Where is their recourse when our finances, our security and our character as a nation are being cheapened to benefit those who will not do their part to support them?

The crime , and it is a crime, regardless of the weight of legal terminology ( which you yourself admit has shifted with time, and is open to interpretation) , is one of institutional and emotional security, regardless of the letter of the law.

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: The DACA recipients are culturally and educationally American. They pay their own way, contribute to the economy and don’t live off government handouts.

Also, the "letter of the law" is what it comes down to in case law that interprets legislation. The point of the judicial system is to eliminate "open to interpretation" through criminal and civil cases. One problem with the lay people who abstract, short-cut, and misinterpret, inadvertently and intentionally, in order to try to make the laws sound like what they want it to be, is that the vast majority don't even try to find out and understand our legal system. Most groups, particularly religions, the ultra-rich, and fringe elements, and political groups, try to interpret legislation and cases in favor of their desires, religions to force their system on everybody else, the ultra rich to make it easier for them to get more at the expense of everybody else, fringe groups to favor themselves over everybody else, and political groups to keep themselves in power, for example gerrymandering, pork barrels, etc. The GOP (Greedy Oligopoly Party) have an ideology based on self-sufficiency at the expense of everybody else.. See my Problems of Democracy at xenodochy.org/pod/

"Open to interpretation" does not follow from evolution of laws through due process, legislation, and case decisions. That is a logical fallacy. Every case resolved a dispute between parties as to what a given "law" says, so the evolution reduces the "open to interpretation" case by case. The best case shows a clear interpretation in the given case, but does not go beyond that case. Going beyond the given case is "making law", which is scrupulously avoided by the vast majority of judges.

Anthony Tompkins: Again. I have no issue with the breadth of your knowledge as to the process by which we determine what is our isn't proper interpretation of the law , case or otherwise.

In laying out your stance here though, you've given me something to pause over, because you spend a good deal of time demonstrating your position as quite left-centric. That in itself is fine, but it would make the debate much simpler ... unfortunately.

This isn't an issue of I'm right and your wrong...or vice versa. The issue is the ethical and moral compass we decide to follow when we allow intentional (and actively supported ) flaunting of the law.

If I wake up in the morning and find you've entered my house , eaten my breakfast , and helped yourself to my wallet...are you an undocumented visitor, or are you a home invader?

To be honest , I'd welcome a breakfast debate, and anyone is welcome to my couch...when they're invited.

As for the rest, the fringe groups , political groups and others you mentioned ... That is balance. Middle ground exists if we allow it to, even in areas like immigration.

There is however, no middle ground to an ethical law, such as ... I will not take or assume a right to what does not belong to me or I didn't earn.

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: Non-homeocentric Communication: When in the course of the evolution of an intelligent species, sentience is achieved, it becomes possible for members of that species to perceive that what exists cannot be directly known, but merely inferred from their varying perceptions. It then becomes imperative that a formulation be made of the (more).

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: "Normal" immigrants only have to "be good" for five years and be self-sufficient, or have a financial sponsor, in order to become citizens. They are not eligible for benefits during that period. They are vetted prior to being paroled into the US. All accepted DACA applicants are vetted and meet all these same requirements and more. They also have to pay $465 every two years to continue their deferral. 76% are employed 20% more in school. 65% total in school, (all without any benefits). Most have little or no memory of their prior country. 79% are from Mexico, 16% from South of Mexico, 3% unknown, and 1% from each of Korea and the Philippians. If they commit a felony, or more than three misdemeanors, they lose DACA The majority have little or no knowledge of their past lives. By this time, they have proved they are good "citizens". They are no risk and they benefit our society. I am in favor of letting them go through the naturalization process, as they will make better citizens than a lot of people born here. Those that served in the military, should get citizenship as soon as they get honorably discharged if that comes before the 5 year immigration wait. At minimum they should get a green card after 5 years of DACA status.

Ralph E Kenyon Jr: Anthony, I can't leave your rhetoric "If I wake up in the morning and find you've entered my house, eaten my breakfast, and helped yourself to my wallet...are you an undocumented visitor, or are you a home invader?" stand. Under presumption of innocence, your use of the pronoun "you" shall be presumed to be the "slang" use of 'you' to indicate any generic unknown person other than yourself and not an intended slur or jab.

You may file a complaint for "breaking?" and entering and theft. Said facts are "ipso facto" entry, absent breakfast, and missing items from the wallet, depending on if the alleged perpetrator is still present, (not in your report), in which case you can press charges. Documentation (of any kind) is only relevant to identifying the alleged intruder. There is certainly no analogical relation between a suspected burglar and DACA recipient, or even a DACA reject, except possibly through uncritical and false propaganda stereotyping. The statistics show that the undocumented commit far fewer infractions and crimes than those born here. They have an extra motive to "be good", namely risk of deportation, which those born here are not inhibited by.

Ralph E Kenyon Jr:
191 White Oaks Road
Williamstown, MA 01267