DACA ‘Dreamer’ Wanted for Murder of Texas Store Owner

[nac386]

Let's not play dumb. Punctuation does matter in the English language. There's a difference between "Dreamer" and Dreamer. And when we aren't limited to 30 characters, we can use more accurate language.

Seems like a strange thing to get caught up on. How would you like to refer to these people moving forward? How can this conversation continue in a way that allows us to talk about the actual issue instead of the term we've both been using?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Oh, I forgot that whites are being replaced. When's the next rally?

Lol. You're ridiculous.

 

[waiguoren]

How would you like to refer to these people moving forward?

"DACA recipient"

Much more accurate than "Dreamer".

 

[Byron Carter]

No amnesty.

Build the wall.

 

[nac386]

Lol. You're ridiculous.

Why did you bring up being "replaced"?

Are DACA recipients replacing people? For each one who stays, somebody has to leave? Where did the term "replace" come from?

 

[waiguoren]

No amnesty.

Build the wall.

So simple, and yet so right.

 

[jk7707]

If he was convicted of a felony before he would have lost his DACA status then. That's one of the stipulations of the program.

 

[waiguoren]

If he was convicted of a felony before he would have lost his DACA status then. That's one of the stipulations of the program.

He could have lied on his application. You're assuming perfect information sharing between government agencies, which is a pipe dream.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Why did you bring up being "replaced"?

Are DACA recipients replacing people? For each one who stays, somebody has to leave? Where did the term "replace" come from?

Hahahahaha!
You sound like a race-obsessed psychotic.

I was making a joke and you're spazzing out about it.

 

[HomeRun916]

If he was convicted of a felony before he would have lost his DACA status then. That's one of the stipulations of the program.

That’s the issue, he wasn’t properly vetted for the program.

 

[KILL KILL]

What a shit thread.

"One person did something somewhere, so that proves my stupid views about hundreds of thousands of other people."

 

[BassAckwards]

best and brightest

 

[waiguoren]

What a shit thread.

"One person did something somewhere, so that proves my stupid views about hundreds of thousands of other people."

You misunderstand.

The first point is that the claims of the Democrats on this issue are not true. These are not "children" (they are almost all adults), and they are not all upstanding citizens.

The second point is that by seeing stories about "bad" DACA recipients, people will get a more balanced view of the issue. If you spend a bit of time to think about it, you'll how the media has framed the issue in a biased manner. Just think about the use of the term "Dreamer", for example.

 

[nac386]

You misunderstand.

The first point is that the claims of the Democrats on this issue are not true. These are not "children" (they are almost all adults), and they are not all upstanding citizens.

The second point is that by seeing stories about "bad" DACA recipients, people will get a more balanced view of the issue. If you spend a bit of time to think about it, you'll how the media has framed the issue in a biased manner. Just think about the use of the term "Dreamer", for example.

I think this post should have been the OP. That would have given people something to respond to, other than the basic idea that one of the DACA recipients committed a crime (pinpointing a criminal in a large group, by itself, is really is not compelling regardless of the greater political issue).

The Democratic leaders are idiots, just like most of our current crop of politicians. They present ideas with a slant to score political points, just like Republicans do.

As Americans, we should not be taking our cues from Nancy Pelosi. We need to be smart enough to not allow those hacks to divide us so easily.

My opinion is that DACA recipients who have not committed a felony should have a path to citizenship. That is the only stance I've taken on the subject. That is the same stance as Donald Trump. In this thread somebody said I was a "cuck" for having that stance, but that person also likes Donald Trump.

People are not even paying attention anymore. They are just slinging shit and picking values based on tribalism. It is weird man, I don't understand how so many people don't realize it.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Are any of them DACA recipients though? Trying to stay on the topic of DACA because it's coming down the legislative pipeline soon.

Uhhhh, they're Latinos. If you're young and have a Spanish surname = DACA.

No racist though and the liberals need to stop putting that label on everyone.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

That’s the issue, he wasn’t properly vetted for the program.

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.

 

[waiguoren]

As Americans, we should not be taking our cues from Nancy Pelosi. We need to be smart enough to not allow those hacks to divide us so easily.

Yep. That's a big motivation for this thread and my other posts on the matter.

My opinion is that DACA recipients who have not committed a felony should have a path to citizenship.

1) You don't worry about moral hazard? For example, the flood of unaccompanied minors at the US-Mexico border from El Salvador and Honduras occurred shortly after Obama signed DACA. Granting amnesty would be an even stronger move and therefore would likely encourage even more illegal immigration.

2) Note that the illegal immigrant featured in the OP might have received DACA status after committing a felony. I'll continue to monitor the story for updates, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. The federal government is just not very good at vetting people, and our federalist system is designed to keep the feds out of the states' business.

That is the only stance I've taken on the subject. That is the same stance as Donald Trump.

I oppose Trump on this. He needs more Bannons and Millers in his ear, in my opinion.

 

[waiguoren]

Uhhhh, they're Latinos. If you're young and have a Spanish surname = DACA.

No racist though and the liberals need to stop putting that label on everyone.

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.

 

[waiguoren]

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.

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.

 

[nac386]

Yep. That's a big motivation for this thread and my other posts on the matter.

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.

1) You don't worry about moral hazard? For example, the flood of unaccompanied minors at the US-Mexico border from El Salvador and Honduras occurred shortly after Obama signed DACA. Granting amnesty would be an even stronger move and therefore would likely encourage even more illegal immigration.

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.

2) Note that the illegal immigrant featured in the OP might have received DACA status after committing a felony. I'll continue to monitor the story for updates, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. The federal government is just not very good at vetting people, and our federalist system is designed to keep the feds out of the states' business.

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.

I oppose Trump on this. He needs more Bannons and Millers in his ear, in my opinion.

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.