Question On DACA

Fellas, I'm struggling with some cognitive dissonance over DACA. On the surface I agree with it because I support the strict enforcement of laws and I agree with arguments that programs like DACA only serve to incentivize illegal immigration and that if we don't handle the issue with a stern hand, we'll just be looking at another wave of amnesty debate in the next 30 years as more and more foreigners see illegal immigration as the path of least resistance because of our bleeding American hearts.

HOWEVER, there's one thing I can't reconcile and that's the "Sins of the father" issue. As a white guy in my late 20's I've dealt with this discussion plenty of times in regard to white guilt and the demonization of white people for things we've had no involvement in. I don't believe I can double-think my way into having the belief that people should not be judged for the actions of their ancestors but also that we should punish illegal immigrants who had no autonomy in the decision to come and live here. Am I missing an aspect to this argument?

Other urls found in this thread:

isgp-studies.com/2011-10-26-first-ever-documents-on-le-cercle-pinay
youtube.com/watch?v=X_NyayCTfS0
becker-posner-blog.com/2010/10/the-controversy-over-birthright-citizenshipposner.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They're breaking the law by existing here.

It's not hard to understand.

It is a conundrum, yes. The children were/are innocent, but at the same time, the law says they are not US citizens, and this does not give them the rights and privileges of other Americans. Simply put, we need more law on this issue to clarify things, which Congress does not seem to want to do.

Ylu still have to go back Pedro.

Because once white society isn't white anymore it's going to look and smell like dog shit. That's why. Just like every place nearly that white's aren't.
They have to go. Oh it might be hard. It might be mean. It doesn't matter. If our civilization is to survive it must retain a white majority. Otherwise it is destroyed. It will no longer be a white civilization. Non white civilizations look like ass. Particularly the kind of immigrants we're getting.
No, not all people are equal. Or we would all live about equal. Westernization was attempted. They just can't manage it.

Fuck these dirty spics

We are just sending them back, not into burn pits like I was promised.

I can't stand the fact that commiefornia gives them free college. Isn't that state broke?

What kind of laws would actually achieve something though? I mean we already have immigration laws and they seem to mean fuck all if someone's situation can make liberals sad enough. I don't want to do wrong by innocent people but I also don't want to live in a country too weak to enforce its own laws and borders. One thing people have said is why haven't these DACA "dreamers" so much as started a path to citizenship yet, and that does feel like a compelling argument to make but I don't understand the process well enough to really condemn someone based on that premise. I'm kind of surprised DACA doesn't have built-in mechanisms towards citizenship honestly, it seems like the logical end-goal of such a program.

Maybe the only answer I can get to is not to worry about it because I ultimately don't have any power to affect the situation anyway. I wish I could reconcile the rift in my beliefs though.

Shoo shoo stormfront, this thread isn't about muh skin color.

Billions of children get fucked because their parent's poor choices. I am sorry you are fed the illusion that you are American, but you are not.

If I though I am the prince, but it turned out to be a lie, am I still entitled to the throne? Because muh feelings?

>Shoo shoo stormfront, this thread isn't about muh skin color.

Sorry that it's entirely relevant. If you happen to be a race that builds fantastic societies of your own? Come on in. You will improve ours. If you don't? Bye.

They are 100% Mexican citizens, with full rights and benefits. American kids don't have that, therefore in a disadvantage.

I don't see any of them denouncing their citizenship and culture heritage. We only see their pride and loyalty in Mexican identity

this helps isgp-studies.com/2011-10-26-first-ever-documents-on-le-cercle-pinay

You just get over your guilt. It's easy. I only have so many fucks to give and I give a fuck about my people not central and south america's

I dunno which laws to propose, but at the very least, we don't want the whole situation being at the whim of the executive. Do we want the next Democrat president to just bring DACA back, and the next Republican to get rid of it again? That's not how we should be doing this; at the very least congress should limit the president's power in this area.

Parents and children often share consequences for each others actions. It's not a hard concept. The "sins of the father" issue doesn't go back more than a generation or two.

The topic of discussion is not racial immigration policy you stupid shit, it's about handling judicial punishment for people who've had mistakes made by other people on their behalf and beyond their autonomy and reconciling personal morality with policy; the topic has literally nothing to do with whether we should let brown people come in or not. Pic fucking related

Yeah I think you might be right. I know I probably just sound like a wishy-washy dumbass or maybe a liberal in disguise but I really just have a hard time being torn between compassion and principles that I agree with. My personality is predisposed to give lots of fucks where I can't afford it and I suffer for it.

I can agree with that. I've been thinking that for a while now into Trump's presidency, wondering "Are we just going to go back and forth repealing the other side's shit every 4-8 years?"

what does Daca have to do with sins of the father?

The Daca kids are here illegally, if Obama had not passed an executive order that congress would not pass we would not even be having a discussion about that. If trump removes that executive order they will be treated just like every other person who is here illegally.

>HOWEVER, there's one thing I can't reconcile and that's the "Sins of the father" issue.


Well think of it like this, you simpleton.

Of somebody stole your life savings and then died, passing the stolen money onto their child, would you want that money back or not? For the sake of the argument, assume that you yourself have a child too.


The children do not belong here. You yourself said that you understand forgiving this transgression would incentivize more illegal immigration. So what are you even trying to do here?

Think with your head and not your bleeding heart.

Christ, are you an adult?

dont let your "fee fees" get in the way of law. We have laws and the constitution for a reason. Plus congress needs to come up with a solution.

Who exactly qualifies for DACA? That's what gets me confused and concerned
>be born in murrika
>parents are registered US citizens now
Am I still fucked?

youtube.com/watch?v=X_NyayCTfS0

Might makes right user. Quit being a pussy and MAGA.

They're goin home to the place where they belong, and thats good enough for me, because they are screwing up the country, The law they have been running from, no you got this all wrong, I have no regrets about this fast track to made of cardboard cities -Based Chris Daughtry

And what have you contributed to society exactly? FYI, feeling special about your lack of melanin does not help build a fantastic society.

>So what are you even trying to do here?
Nothing really, I'm not advocating for anything I'm just looking for some viewpoints that might help develop my own into a more cogent set of ideas, because I have some conflict between principle and compassion going on in my head. Sorry I've wasted precious kilobytes on your afghani feminism board, no need to be such a dick about it.

I guess it's partially fee-fees, but I guess it's just got me pondering over the nature of guilt and innocence a bit. I'm aware of the long reaching implications of any sort of amnesty programs like voting demographics, incentivized illegal immigration, racial demographic shifts... but the fact that a lot of these people didn't do anything of their own accord to personally deserve it resonates with me.

Not being given something you don't have a right to is not a punishment for your parents' "sins".

>If your parents don’t pay the rent, is it the landlord’s fault when you are evicted, or is it the fault of your parents?

>If your parents sneak you into Disneyland without paying, is it Disney’s fault when you are booted out, or is it the fault of your parents?

>If your parents sneak you into a country illegally, is it the country’s fault when you get deported, or is it the fault of your parents?

>Blaming America or Trump or anyone other than the parents for any of this, is a ruse, a con, a rhetorical trick.

>Am I missing an aspect to this argument?
Yes, you're missing the fact that the United States never told them or their parents that they were allowed to be here. If we give amnesty to every kid that's brought here by their parents then that just incentivizes more parents to either bring or send their kids here.

It's not tenable. They should be thankful they were able to stay as long as they were and go the fuck back where they came from.

If your parents give you a stolen car as a gift for your 16th birthday do you think you should have to give it back or because you didn't directly commit the crime you should be able to keep it?

Make no mistake, I definitely understand it's the parents fault and the parents fault alone. If we had some policy in place that put punitive action entirely on the parents I wouldn't have any issue with it. I dunno how you'd do that though, I guess deport them to an even worse country than Mexico? I'd be for it.

kek.

Having slaves wasn't illegal.

Why do you want the kids to stay you fucking cuck?

Because proxy-guilt doesn't make sense, which is essentially the topic of this thread.

There's no "sins of the father". The "drummers" are breaking the law as much as the fathers. They entered the country illegally, and lived in the US illegally. It doesn't matter if they lived since they were six until they were sixteen, or if they lived since they were fifty until they were sixty.

They should have been deported immediately. The fact that it didn't happen then doesn't change their status as illegal aliens. They have to go back.

It's not proxy guilt. They were not admitted to the country legally. Therefore they are illegal immigrants. It's really just that simple.

winner winner chicken dinner

Yes, you are missing that deportation is not a punishment, it is an administrative action, and we are not taking away their rights by doing so. We are sending them back to the country of their own citizenship, where they should be in the first place. Immigration laws protect our long-term national security and are necessary. Foreigners are not entitled to be here. They are responsible for fixing their own countries if those countries have problems. That's what the earliest British settlers did when they got here. No one gave them anything. Other people must do the same. To deny their ability to do so is racist.

Birthright citzenship is bullshit anyway. Read Posner's article on it.
becker-posner-blog.com/2010/10/the-controversy-over-birthright-citizenshipposner.html
Trump could stop birthright citizenship tomorrow, citing Posner. Just tell State Dept. and SSA to stop recognizing it.
Only cucks support birthright citizenship.
As an alternative, consider that service in the mobile infantry guarantees citizenship. Do you want to know more?

>Yes, you are missing that deportation is not a punishment, it is an administrative action
Yeah I think you're right, I was considering it as a punishment for a crime but just like in 's example, taking the car back is not criminal punishment or holding the child guilty for the crime. That's where I was making a mis-step with my logic on the issue.

birthright citizenship is in the constitution for any kids born under the jurisdiction of this country.

So yeah, if an illegal alien has a kid and it is considered to not be under the jurisdiction of this country it would not be a US citizen. There is a case here that could be taken to court.

I would say we need at least one more liberal supreme court to croak for this to have a chance, more likely we would need two.

The average age of them is 26.

They have had plenty of time to fly right.

It's not in the constitution. Read Posner.
My point was that, nevermind DACA kiiids, even anchor babies have no right to be citizens. Of course DACA kiiids have no right.

1. Do they identify as a person of color?

2. Or do they identify as white?

3. Do they speak in heavily accented or broken english?

4. Or do they have an American english accent?

5. Have they ever taken welfare or committed more than one misdemeanor?

6. Are they middle class and pay taxes?

Answering yes to questions 1, 3, and 5 will put them on the fast lane of deportation.

Answering yes to questions 2, 4, and 6 will likely protect them once Congress figures out a replacement for DACA that Trump is willing to sign.

I can read, here is the relevant section of the 14th amendment.

>"Section 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."

You need to get the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" interpreted as "not if you are born here illegally" by the supreme court, OR you need 75% of congress and senate to vote to modify the 14th amendment.

Currently, neither of those things is going to happen. If one more liberal justice croaks during Trumps era there is a 40% chance for it to pass. If two liberal judges croak it goes up to 70%

fpbp

>to the tune of "let's all go to the lobby"

Get the fuck out of my country,
Get the fuck out of my country,
Get the fuck out of my country,
Go back to Mexico.
X4

>birthright citizenship is in the constitution for any kids born under the jurisdiction of this country.
No, it isn't.

>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.
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

That last part means something. They didn't just throw a meaningless clause in there just for fun.

what they "meant" means nothing.

What means something is how the supreme court would rule on how to interpret it. Right now they would vote that it means "born here, citizen"

>It's not proxy guilt. They were not admitted to the country legally. Therefore they are illegal immigrants. It's really just that simple.

this implies they are criminals

they are not criminals, they committed no crime, they had no choice in the matter, and once they are old enough to realize a crime was committed; it is too late because America is the only country they have ever known

sorry guys but repealing DACA is straight up unchristian

get the millions of non-DACA spics out first, then lets talk about this

>Right now they would vote that it means "born here, citizen"
First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't "vote". They choose to join opinions, write concurrences, or write dissents.

But would they? United States v. Wong Kim Ark is an old decision and it could potentially be overturned. Possibly Congress could pass a statute defining "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean you're the child of legal immigrants with steady jobs or going concerns in the United States, and deal with the eventual Supreme Court challenge.

>what they "meant" means nothing.
Also, what they "meant" means absolutely everything if you're a textualist or originality, which every good legal scholar is.

we tell that to everyone so you guys fuck off
we can't take any Texas or Florida refugees, sorry

>originality
I typed originalist but it was auto corrected.

Shitskins all need to go back. Even American citizen shitskins should go back.

If a kids parents rob a bank. you sent them away.. the child suffers due to the parents actions.. no different here.. the child suffers and most return home as a result of the illegal actions of their parents.

The children aren't innocent. There is no age limitation for crossing the border.

There are 9 fuckers and what the majority of them say, goes. Call it whatever the fuck you want.

>But would they?
yes, right now 100% they would. Take out the octogenarian and put in another gorsuch and you may have a shot

>lets just repeat 1986 over and over until this place is turned into niggerland
>rabbi goldbergstein said i'm a good humanitarian for thinking this way

t. OP

The thing you are ignoring is another consequence of them STAYING, that is, you have to force legal americans to pay lots of money for them. Did you get their consent? If not, they have to go back.

>your parents rob a bank
>you later find out it's stolen
B-buh muh money. Gibs me dat. I dindu nuffin an is mine now nigga. Shieeeeet dats unChristian an shit nigga.

I don't get it... why not just get a real Mexican to get his dick sucked?

It doesn't fucking matter. It was an executive order that grossly violated consititutional limits on the separation of powers. Obama's own lawyer said it wouldn't survive a court challenge. Trump is going to make Congress put something in place but he knows they couldn't work together to finish a children's jigsaw puzzle.

And if I'm 15 and my dad asked me to kill someone and I did. I still committed a crime. Sure an infant doesn't possess the requisite mens rea but there has to be a cut off. Not every kid under the 18 lacked the requisite mens rea to be found guilty of a crime.

The kids illegally entered as well, that's why they are illegal. These are not anchor babies.

OP raises a valid issue. Having to live with the "Sins of our fathers" is a reality, but there's a difference between your great grandaddy owning slaves, and the children of illegal immigrants.

MY great/greatgreat grandpappy owned a fucking plantation, and they had fucking house negroes and shit. I have a direct lineage to slave owners within a few generations. It was legal at the time. My ancestors were racist, and I'm a racist; I will admit that freely.

These people's parents were never here legally. Their children are still here ILLEGALLY. They have to go back.

FPBP

That's their plan. If we let the daca illegals stay then that is a green light to every potential illegal form south america, africa and asia that all they need to do is illegally immigrate with their kids and somewhere down the line their kids will be able to stay.

And then we become a third world shit hole.

They're not being *punished*, so "sins of the fathers" isn't the point. They're simply being sent home because this isn't their home. They've been living in someone else's home without permission. They aren't being charged for that crime, and they've been treated ridiculously well, better than many ofthe people who have a right to live in the home, but now it's time to go.

Sending them back where they belong isn't a punishment.

The fact that they didn't go back to mexico when they were 18, knowing they were here illegally just proves that they are complicit in the crime.

Right, that's the same conclusion I came to further up the thread. I was misconstruing deportation as a criminal punishment.

lol dude we can just change the law and have them stay