|
|
The same US government that said a video caused a riot resulting in the death of an ambassador, that said if you like your healthcare plan and doctor you could keep them, that said the president had no authority to grant amnesty or immunity from immigration laws to children of illegal immigrants?Originally Posted by Guisslapp
yeah....and the Indians believed in the US government too.
The bar for ethical behavior has fallen awfully low in here.
When "Clinton did it too" is seen as an adequate defense, our compass is broken.
And this (along with the transgender in the military ban) raise due process problems. Not that Trump knows or cares what that is.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate...er_troops.html
I need some help following the strategery here.
Trump has done the following:
1. Said he'll continue business as usual (non-enforcement) for 6 months.
2. Asked congress to enshrine DACA into law.
3. Said if 6 months passes with no law, he'll "revisit" - ie, do nothing. What else would he do? Suddenly start deporting DREAMers after he begged congress to enshrine the law when he didn't have to?
He's pissed off his conservatives and his base by not enforcing immigration law as promised, not to mention calling for congress to codify it. He's pissed off the left and center by threatening to kill a relatively popular, albeit unconstitutional, EO.
DACA was unconstitutional executive amnesty a couple years ago, now its part of his congressional agenda?
What exactly is the plan here?
Last ditch effort for border wall. He is using DACA applicants as pawns. Border wall is DOA, so DACA will either run out because Congress doesn't act or they will send him a legislative DACA. He will claim a political win no matter what happens, as he is only interested in "winning" and is not wed to any particular political philosophy or moral norms.
Sorry, but that doesn't add up. He hasn't said he'd do anything regarding DACA. They just said they'd deport criminal illegal immigrants like they've already been doing. Are you saying he would reject a legislative DACA if it didn't have wall funding tied to it? He hasn't once explicitly tied the wall to anything so far. He's intimated he'd sign a DACA bill without wall funding.
Moreso, he just agreed with Schumer, Pelosi to raise the debt ceiling by tying it to Harvey Funding, not a wall.
He really wants border enforcement tied to DACA. Huckabee Sanders said as much in the press conference that day.
He is not going to get that. If he gets a DACA only bill, I have no clue what he will do. Trump may not know that either.
He has talked out of both sides of his mouth regarding DACA as he does on many issues.
It gives him the wiggle room to claim victory for any outcome. The fact that his strategy is half-baked is not surprising. That, too, is his MO.
I guess. This one doesn't even appear half-baked. There is no baking at all.
We can safely assume congress will do nothing, especially republicans. So when six months pass, Trump will do........ what, exactly?
They have hundreds of thousands of applications on file, know exactly where everyone is, and the permits will begin to expire. What excuse will he have for not deporting every single one?
When he starts deporting kids en masse (he won't), is he going to blame republicans for not granting them amnesty? If he doesn't deport people, does he get to say "promises made, promises kept" to his base?
Whatever the strategy is, it's dumb, unless you think Trump is a democrat. The only winners here are the democrats. They'll get to put forth DACA legislation, get to look like they're working with the president in the name of bipartisanship. Republicans then will have to not only oppose DACA, but also the executive branch. If I was Pelosi, I'd introduce a DACA bill with hundreds of cosigners and publicly solicit Trump's stamp of approval for it.
The one thing that I can guarantee is that he will not accept responsibility for anything bad that happens.
Has the Supreme Court weighed in on this DACA thing? I don't recall.
No. In a 4-4 decision they upheld the 5th circuit's holding that the plaintiffs were likely to prove DAPA (and perhaps the expanded DACA [2010 cutoff extended from the original 2007 cutoff date] as implemented violated the Administrative Procedures Act as DHS did not follow the proper notice and comment protocol. Constitutionality was raised at the district court, but the district court did not make a determination on it and it was therefore not a subject of the appeal. So the SC had neither weighed in on constitutionality or the version of DACA that is currently in practice.
The negotiator is working his magic! The GOP had better work with Trump or he will use the DEMS. But the libs/Dems had better not renege on any deals Trump has cut with them or he will unlease all hell.
Trump, Dems agree to border security package; no agreement on wall
So now the Dems/Libs have been caught lying/going back on their word or misquoting??? Say it ain't so?
POLITICS
Trump tweets to deny Schumer, Pelosi claim of DACA agreement
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
