DACA ‘Dreamer’ Wanted for Murder of Texas Store Owner

Then the problem is with the vetting or background check process, not with DACA itself.

Absolutely no one is arguing with DACA's non-criminal requirements.

A small point: I really don't like the ''no one is arguing'' approach to any issue. If the internet has taught us anything, it's that no matter how batshit crazy an idea is, someone, somewhere is arguing it. It should be an addendum to rule 34. I call it rule 34 a.) If you can conceive it, not only is someone making porn about it, but they're advancing it as a serious position.

I'm unsure what to substitute in its stead. Maybe ''I don't agree with x,'' or ''in the aggregate, it's not a dominant or even major position represented in x community.''
 
Most politicians are just terrible to listen to. I watched Schumer and McConnell make total asses of themselves over the government shut down in back to back interviews. It was like watching two little kids point their finger at each other. Schumer even brought a blown up photo a Trump to point at, no kidding.
Agree, but I thought Schumer was more dishonest in that case. That's not to say I'm a McConnell fan. Just look at that abomination of a spending bill that he pushed last week.


Not if you secure the border and make it clear that we're done with amnesty. I don't think it's as complicated as a lot of people make it out to be. Build a better barrier in some spots, increase security in some spots, and make it know that you will not be staying if you somehow get in. Pretty simple.
That's a very long border and it will never be easy to secure. "The wall" will be a great start but most illegal immigrants are actually visa overstayers. Also, Trump or the Republicans declaring that we're done with amnesty won't have much weight when the next Democrat takes over. The pendulum swings hard and fast in US politics.

Mistakes definitely happen. Like that psycho guy who shot up the church in Texas who never should have been able to own a gun, but somebody just messed up the paperwork apparently. We need to get better at that type of thing, obviously. But I do believe we are fully capable of vetting people if the appropriate amount of attention is giving to making it happen.
Is there even a federal database for state felony convictions? If not, I can imagine that vetting all 1.8 million DACA-eligible people is going to be very costly and very error-prone.

I appreciate the consistency. It is easy to have a debate about something when the person you're talking to seems to actually have consistent ideas to argue over.
Likewise. (virtual bro hug)
 
They get arrested daily by me.

If i had time I would link them all.

18 homeless immigrant robbed 711 with knife
Ms13 member raped a baby
Another guy just got arrested for the second time for chicken fighting.
Bodega just got shut down for illegal gambling and drinking alcohol on site.

List goes on and on.

All could have been prevented
 
Having DACA status is not the same as being DACA-eligible. That's the reason for the discrepancy between the two figures of 690,000 and 1.8 million.

WTF does this have to do with that idiot putting up a story of a completely unrelated drug seizure? Aside from the fact that in both stories there were people with Spanish surnames involved?

Try to hide your racism a little bit.



It might not be practical to enforce those requirements. The illegal immigrant featured in the OP had a felony conviction from 2015 but appears to still have been enrolled in DACA when he murdered his victim.

Here again, no one is going to argue with DACA kicking out recipients once they commit a crime.

Seems like failure in implementation, not principle.
 
WTF does this have to do with that idiot putting up a story of a completely unrelated drug seizure? Aside from the fact that in both stories there were people with Spanish surnames involved?

Try to hide your racism a little bit.
Huh? I'm pretty sure many of the people in that fentanyl story are confirmed as being in the US illegally. I'm just not sure if any are relevant to a thread about DACA.

How did you reach the conclusion that I'm racist?



Here again, no one is going to argue with DACA kicking out recipients once they commit a crime.

Seems like failure in implementation, not principle.

We live in the real world, where feasibility of implementation matters most.
 
Last edited:
They get arrested daily by me.

If i had time I would link them all.

18 homeless immigrant robbed 711 with knife
Ms13 member raped a baby
Another guy just got arrested for the second time for chicken fighting.
Bodega just got shut down for illegal gambling and drinking alcohol on site.

List goes on and on.

All could have been prevented
Do you work for ICE?

I would be interested to know if any of the people you mentioned were DACA recipients or at least DACA-eligible.
 
Cops: Levittown grandmother was killed in revenge plot | Newsday
Newsday › Long Island › Crime
 
They get arrested daily by me.

If i had time I would link them all.

18 homeless immigrant robbed 711 with knife
Ms13 member raped a baby
Another guy just got arrested for the second time for chicken fighting.
Bodega just got shut down for illegal gambling and drinking alcohol on site.

List goes on and on.

All could have been prevented

It could have been prevented, but the Federal government failed to do their job like 20 or 30 years ago.

DACA is part of the solution, not the cause.
 
Do you work for ICE?

I would be interested to know if any of the people you mentioned were DACA recipients or at least DACA-eligible.

He's full of shit he digs holes in Long Island.
 
A small point: I really don't like the ''no one is arguing'' approach to any issue. If the internet has taught us anything, it's that no matter how batshit crazy an idea is, someone, somewhere is arguing it. It should be an addendum to rule 34. I call it rule 34 a.) If you can conceive it, not only is someone making porn about it, but they're advancing it as a serious position.

I'm unsure what to substitute in its stead. Maybe ''I don't agree with x,'' or ''in the aggregate, it's not a dominant or even major position represented in x community.''

When discussing politics, the only arguments that should be taken seriously are the ones that have some sort of collective support.

In other words, stop taking the "no one is arguing" thing literally. In this case, the movement for legalization/amnesty/the Dream Act, etc., have made their points very clearly, and none of them are proposing that the non-criminal record requirement be waived.
 
It might not be practical to enforce those requirements. The illegal immigrant featured in the OP had a felony conviction from 2015 but appears to still have been enrolled in DACA when he murdered his victim.

Enforcement, either way, is the issue though with any immigration policy: up to and including mass deportations. If the argument is that we need to get rid of all them just to be sure, people will naturally raise the arguments that it's amoral, impractical, and just not the best course of action. With more sensible immigration requirements like asylum/amnesty programs the question is similarly raised: what do you do with the people who don't qualify? At least I'm willing to engage on that point: if you don't have a way to actually filter the applicants, you don't have an amnesty/asylum program.
 
When discussing politics, the only arguments that should be taken seriously are the ones that have some sort of collective support.

In other words, stop taking the "no one is arguing" thing literally. In this case, the movement for legalization/amnesty/the Dream Act, etc., have made their points very clearly, and none of them are proposing that the non-criminal record requirement be waived.

Sure. It's just a pet peeve of mine. How it usually goes is someone will google until they find a lunatic, present them to you, and then you have to give me the speech you just did. Then it looks like you have to ''retract'' your original statement. Of course a clarification isn't a retraction but if you give retards an inch...

I mean, a pretty standard debate tactic around these parts is to play dumb and ask interminable, stupid questions until someone makes even a superficial mistake, at which point they'll declare victory.

In any case I feel like I'm distracting from the main point of the thread now.
 
Huh? I'm pretty sure many of the people in that fentanyl story are confirmed as being in the US illegally. I'm just not sure if any are relevant to a thread about DACA.

How did you reach the conclusion that I'm racist?

There's zero connection between those criminals and DACA (aside from the fact that a lot of DACA recipients are also young and have Spanish surnames) yet you liked that dumbass's post and then questioned me when I ridiculed his posting it.



We live in the real world, where feasibiltiy implementation is all that matters in the end.

I agree. But this thread is about principle and policy, not about organizational competence.
 
Agree, but I thought Schumer was more dishonest in that case. That's not to say I'm a McConnell fan. Just look at that abomination of a spending bill that he pushed last week.

I'll give the win to McConnell for not making some staffer run to kinkos to make a prop.

That's a very long border and it will never be easy to secure. "The wall" will be a great start but most illegal immigrants are actually visa overstayers.

I agree, which is why I always thought the 2,000 mile wall or whatever was absurd. A wall and security can help in some spots though.

Also, Trump or the Republicans declaring that we're done with amnesty won't have much weight when the next Democrat takes over. The pendulum swings hard and fast in US politics.

This is a good point, but it also highlights why I don't think deporting DACA recipients right now would have much of a positive effect on future immigration. Like you said, the pendulum swings. As soon as there is a new President, or a new party, every could change.

I think the negative effect of deporting hundreds of thousands of people would outweigh any positive effect that it would have on future illegal immigration. A lot of DACA recipients have families they'd be separated from. Sometimes they have kids, sometimes they are the home's breadwinner, etc. That would wreak havoc that the US would still have to deal with. If my dad was suddenly deported when I was a child, our family would have been absolutely broke. That's bad for everybody, including the tax payers.

They'd also be sent back to places they do not even know. If you left Mexico when you were 4, then you're suddenly sent back to Mexico when you're 20, that borders on cruel to me. You may have no connections, no family, no friends, and no money to live there. You might not even speak Spanish that well. There are certain lines that seem too cruel to cross for a country like America and that seems like one of them.

There's not a perfect answer for what to do with the DACA recipients. Nothing checks all the boxes. I think the main focus should be on figuring out how to prevent the next million illegal immigrants from coming here with children.


Is there even a federal database for state felony convictions? If not, I can imagine that vetting all 1.8 million DACA-eligible people is going to be very costly and very error-prone.

If not, there certainly should be. There's no excuse why this type of thing should not be easy to do at this point. I have a phone in my pocket that can bring up court records, the government should be able to make an easily accessible database with all the relevant information.
 
The Dreamers are a huge group. Nearing a million or so, I believe.

If you want to make an argument to send them home you're going to have to come up with something better than finding a few criminals. Any population that size will have criminals.

Condolences to the victim, by the way, who's death will undoubtedly be turned into a political talking point for people who don't actually care.
Nearing a million...so instead of having strict borders to ensure you get the right people in, are you suggesting let's get them all in since only about a hundred would be bad...you're playing lottery with the lives of your citizen at that point which is stupid.
 
Back
Top