Trump to DACA Recipients: Dream On

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Illegal aliens who entered the United States as minors are getting amnesty from the Trump administration at a rate that mirrors the Obama years. The latest government data show some 17,000 new two-year amnesties, under President Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program were issued and more than 107,000 renewal applications were approved in the first quarter of 2017.

Hey, it’s for the kids, right?

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services report, released on a day when James Comey’s Senate testimony sucked all the oxygen out of the news cycle, didn’t get much media attention. But the numbers are noteworthy.

USCIS’s continued soft treatment of DACA “youth” flies in the face of Trump’s pledge to reform and tighten the U.S. immigration system.

First, DACA applies to individuals up to age 35. Hardly children any more, despite the common characterization.

Second, many illegal aliens qualifying for DACA status had arrest records. Some continued to consort with violent gangs, according to a Seattle Times investigation.

Third, the DACA renewals mean fresh work permits for individuals who are statutorily prohibited from being employed in the U.S. Under Obama, up to 8 million aliens – including DACA recipients — misrepresented their status to work legally in the United States.

FAIR says: “Unconstitutional DACA program should be allowed to lapse”

Though President Trump issued Executive Order 13768 back on Jan. 25 with the intention of strengthening immigration enforcement, the continued laissez-faire handling of DACA undermines that directive

While mouthing the Obama-esque platitudes about innocent children caught in the system, the administration keeps granting deferments based on a program President Trump said is unconstitutional and vowed to abolish.

Share.

About Author

avatar

Content posted by current and previous members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) staff.

27 Comments

  1. avatar
    Patricia McGehee on

    I watched on TV, several years ago, when young people marched American streets carrying their MEXICAN FLAG and yelling, “I deserve, I’m entitled”. THAT what when my softness for DACA children went away. I realized the Democrats had done a great job in contaminating the youth, as good a job as our Universities are doing. They felt “entitled”. In America, NO ONE IS ENTITLED! These kids will NEVER make good citizens. They will become more thorns in America’s side. Please do NOT give them Citizenship. There should never be Amnesty or Citizenship for an Illegal, child or adult. Stop the stupidity!

    • avatar
      christian schmidt on

      So wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment regarding the explicit or even implied “entitlement”. And what do we foster as a society if we continue to give in to this kind of mentality ? The guiding principle among those who we elect as our “representatives” should in fact be “what kind of behavior and mentality do we want to incentivize as a society ?”, and “what types of the resultant behavior is long-term sustainable ?” .

      It seems to me that the average present-day politician is not sufficiently subjecting their decisions to that very important test, isn’t it ?

  2. avatar

    This is a tough one. I met a kid n his sister at a Dunkin Donut s in Chicago…..no accent…a lawyer n an engineer graduate……the lawyer did not get the job because of being Daca but the Engineer….

    Nice kids….well raised…. beautiful energy in their it eyes….. definitely not their fault but ours……

    • avatar
      christian schmidt on

      Yes, a tough one, but yet … if we always keep saying that the kids are not to blame and therefore must escape consequences, we perpetuate the problem. It is same about overpopulation here and in the 3rd world: we say “oh, when someone dirt poor has 6 kids, we have to help them”. really ??? By doing so, the problem is fed time and again and the sum total damage in the end is much larger than otherwise. It is like saying “we wont cut back the underbrush in forests, poor small trees !” only to end up with much bigger forest fire later on.

      Instead of asking “isn’t this inhumane ?” we should ask the realistic question: “isn’t it inhumane for future generations to let the problem grow to unsurmountable and catastrophic proportions ?”

      • avatar

        Christian you are exactly right and the reason it is your fault, my fault and The People’s fault for allowing and inviting them to stay…..

        • avatar
          christian schmidt on

          Thanks for agreeing, but … My fault ? even though I did not support it ???
          Let me give this some thought …
          You do in fact touch on an interesting question : Am I collectively responsible for the mess, even though I did not vote for it or approve of it ? You could say YES, because I should perhaps acted up against it more actively than I have. I could have / should have donated money to political action groups highly conservative on immigration. And maybe I should !

          That question goes in fact for any major disaster in the past or waiting to happen. Passivity or private disagreement are not enough. Even if we disagree, we may – unintentionally so – vote in favor of what we disagree with, merely by being passive. But I would therefore word your statement differently: “Agreement by practical abstention”.

    • avatar

      The DACA people should go back to their countries and apply for admission to the US.

      When they come back they can continue where they left off.
      Not that big of a deal.

      They should do that themselves without anyone telling them, if they don’t then that’s just being unaccountable, lazy and a definite character flaw.

  3. avatar
    Pearl Gamradt on

    I am definitely not an amnesty fan. Send them ALL back to their own countries.

    • avatar

      Be responsible and accountable…re-assess and do soul searching…….then be a World Class citizen…you are green,,,,

  4. avatar

    DACA REMAINS IN EFFECT

    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals began in 2012.
    It allows foreign young adults
    who have lived for many years in the USA
    to apply for a temporary legal status
    protecting them from deportation.

    The full requirements for DACA
    are found at this official link:
    https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

    And any changes in the program
    will be found at this location
    if and when they are made.

    DACA is not a new immigration law.
    Rather, it is an executive order by the President.
    And any executive order can be changed
    without any action by Congress.

    The new administration that took office in January 2017
    was originally expected to terminate DACA.
    But that has not yet happened.
    Thus, young adult foreigners who qualify
    can still apply for temporary status in the USA.

    As of the end of 2016, about 750,000 were registered.
    The estimated number of foreign young adults eligible
    is more than two million.
    Thus, less than half of those
    who could have this protection from deportation have applied.

    Each foreign national who receives deferred action
    must renew that registration every two years.
    And if the individual commits any crimes
    or otherwise falls outside the requirements,
    DACA can be terminated for cause at any time.

    Given that any other unauthorized foreign nationals
    may be deported at any time,
    DACA offers a way for foreign nationals
    brought into the USA while they were children
    to register with the U.S. government without being deported.

    DACA might be the beginning of a wider program
    that will register other law-abiding foreign nationals
    and grant them temporary immunity from deportation:
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark—freelibrary-3puxk/CY-REG-D.html

    • avatar

      Dude you are lucky to be in this land…..you are not welcome here with such an attitude…..you are the reason people are against this….go back to where you came from!!!

  5. avatar

    Well to bring an interesting point in our history n legal system regarding precedence:

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

    We definitely immigration reform to enforce, validate n improve our system. One learns new things every day!!!

      • avatar

        There is no “precedence” in the Wong Kim Ark decision concerning illegals. He was born here. If there is precedent in that Supreme Court decision which declared him a citizen, it has to do with the fact that in the final paragraph in the majority ruing, the justices made a point of noting that his parents were known to the authorities in San Francisco, were engaged in business there, and had a long time “permanent domicile” there.

        In other words, they were what we now call permanent residents, which is a legally defined classification. It is people who are here for good with the approval of the government. For those who insist that walking over the border, or arriving on an airplane 3 days before, makes their children citizens because of the Wong Kim Ark decision, it begs the question of why the court in 1898 made the observations that his parents had entered legally and had been here many years. You can’t cite that decision as proof that everyone born on US soil is a citizen, and then ignore that the justices emphasized his parents long time legal presence here.

        • avatar

          The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] and thus it grants U.S. citizenship to all children born to alien parents on American soil, with only a limited set of exceptions.[2][3]
          Court membership
          Chief Justice
          Melville Fuller
          Associate Justices
          John M. Harlan · Horace Gray
          David J. Brewer · Henry B. Brown
          George Shiras, Jr. · Edward D. White
          Rufus W. Peckham · Joseph McKenna
          Case opinions
          Majority Gray, joined by Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham
          Dissent Fuller, joined by Harlan
          McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
          Laws applied
          U.S. Const. amend. XIV
          Chinese-American cook Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873,[6] had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government’s refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.[7]

          The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court’s majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners on American soil (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.[8]

          In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, “The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts.”[9] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship “applies to children of foreigners present on American soil” and states that the Supreme Court “has not re-examined this issue since the concept of ‘illegal alien’ entered the language”.[10] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[11][12] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

          Background

          Opinion of the Court

          Subsequent developments

          See also

          Notes

          References

          External links

          Cases

          Last edited 26 days ago by InternetArchiveBot
          Wikipedia

          Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
          Terms of UsePrivacyDesktop
          CITATIONClose[3] Glen (2007), pp. 74–76. “At common law, the fundamental principle relating to English nationality was that of jus soli; children born in England, including to friendly aliens, would be deemed natural-born subjects. The only exceptions to this principle were children born to foreign diplomats and those born to alien enemies…. [T]he Fourteenth Amendment, by its clear terms, establish the U.S. citizenship of every child born within its jurisdiction, no matter the race or color, so long as they do not fall within one of the recognized exceptions to jus soli.”

          • avatar

            Most all of the words have many definitions in Webster’s Dictionary. You have your interpretation. Others see it very differently. Just because we have had some left wing judges does not necessarily mean they interpreted the law the way it was intended. It was written to be sure that the freed slaves got citizenship.
            It was not written to create anchor babies.

          • avatar

            Don you are correct you interpret the Laws your way, the reality has been differently, If you are born here you are a US Citizen.

            That is why we have the US Court Supreme to interpret the Law. If you were correct the and the above not correct….I did to write it…..then how come the US court Supreme has not changed what you believe is not true?

        • avatar

          In those times anyone could enter the US legally; later on when that Chinese family wanted to return to the US, the child/man was allowed because he had been born here. The US Supreme Court said the following: “…birth here (US) is a complete and sufficient qualification of citizenship”.
          All of this at a time when the Chinese where forbidden of entering the US.

          • avatar

            The Law about immigration is the way it is is because it was intended to surpass and overcome any racist and bigoted lower court judge, prosecutor, governor, or politician of a particular time.
            Think about this, every year nearly 1 million US born Hispanics reach the age of 18 and allowed to vote; any racist piece of filth out there is actually on the loosing end of the equation.
            Picture that.
            If the politicians want to change the Law and it’s not done through a Constitutional Amendment, the next POTUS can just change everything as it was again and fix things.

          • avatar

            Pacomanto the hispanics….meaning The Cubans who got green cards for free and are in Welfare voted Republican and always do…….you are generalizing

            Define “in those times”…not really….actually History repeats itself, black and their children were considered illegals then the italians. the irish…..chinese….same thing nowadays different spin…..

          • avatar

            You are completely wrong when you say “anyone could enter the US legally”. There were many people who were turned around at Ellis Island because they had communicable diseases or it was felt they might become a public burden. His family entered legally because at the time they were allowed to.