Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Valrifell]

For the record, the Constitution is not a set of laws passed by Congress.

So what makes it unconstitutional?

It directly flies in the face of immigration laws already passed by congress.

[Proctopeo]

What makes you think these people will have a choice as to where they're going, if they're deported? They go back to the country their parents came from. That they've never lived there makes no difference.

Of course they don't have a choice, especially with Trump's hard line immigration policies in place. I'm saying that its not compassionate and is against the embracing of immigrants that America, as a nation, does.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" - Statue of Liberty

I assume that statement applies to legal immigration, especially through Ellis Island.

[Neutraligon]

Unconstitutional like Trump's Muslim ban done by Executive Order?

That was upheld by the Supreme Court. DACA was not.

It was taken up by the Supreme Court and parts allowed through but there has been no ruling as to the constitutionality last I heard.

[Vassenor]

And while we're on the subject:

http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-travel-ban/

[Kekistonia]

That was upheld by the Supreme Court. DACA was not.

Ergo any law not brought before the Supreme Court is de facto unconstitutional?

DACA is not a law. A law has to be passed by congress.

[Vassenor]

Ergo any law not brought before the Supreme Court is de facto unconstitutional?

DACA is not a law. A law has to be passed by congress.

So when was the Muslim Ban passed by Congress?

Also it doesn't change the fact that you seem to be saying "this is unconstitutional because SCOTUS hasn't said otherwise".

[Neutraligon]

Ergo any law not brought before the Supreme Court is de facto unconstitutional?

DACA is not a law. A law has to be passed by congress.

Correct it is a policy in which agents focus their attention on those who are committing criminal acts. You have yet to say how this is unconstitutional.

[Kekistonia]

DACA is not a law. A law has to be passed by congress.

So when was the Muslim Ban passed by Congress?

The muslim ban was not intended to be a law, it was intended to be a temporary restriction on certain people entering the US. Even then, the muslim ban is irrelevant. This is about DACA.

[Kekistonia]

DACA is not a law. A law has to be passed by congress.

Correct it is a policy in which agents focus their attention on those who are committing criminal acts. You have yet to say how this is unconstitutional.

It is an overreach of executive power that effectively exempts people on American soil from American law.

[Neutraligon]

So when was the Muslim Ban passed by Congress?

The muslim ban was not intended to be a law, it was intended to be a temporary restriction on certain people entering the US. Even then, the muslim ban is irrelevant. This is about DACA.

The DACA is not a law either. It is instructions to agents on which illegal immigrants to focus on.

[Vassenor]

So when was the Muslim Ban passed by Congress?

The muslim ban was not intended to be a law, it was intended to be a temporary restriction on certain people entering the US. Even then, the muslim ban is irrelevant. This is about DACA.

So in other words a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's discrimination protections.

[Neutraligon]

Correct it is a policy in which agents focus their attention on those who are committing criminal acts. You have yet to say how this is unconstitutional.

It is an overreach of executive power that effectively exempts people on American soil from American law.

It does not. It instead is instructions on who to focus on when it comes to deportations, since deportations tend to cost money. Who would you rather have deported, a student who has only committed a civil violation and did so as a child, or someone who has actually broken criminal law. The president is perfectly within his rights to set policy when it comes to the federal agencies. That is why the ban, had Trump not made a mess of it, could very well been legal.

[Staniel]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

[Kekistonia]

It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

[Kekistonia]

It is an overreach of executive power that effectively exempts people on American soil from American law.

It does not. It instead is instructions on who to focus on when it comes to deportations, since deportations tend to cost money. Who would you rather have deported, a student who has only committed a civil violation and did so as a child, or someone who has actually broken criminal law.

Get rid of them both. All illegal aliens must go. It is the law.

[Vassenor]

It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

So I guess that means people need to stop lionising Kim Davis then?

[Proctopeo]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

[Vassenor]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

Territorial waters count, as do US-flagged aircraft anywhere IIRC.

[Kekistonia]

It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

So I guess that means people need to stop lionising Kim Davis then?

Yes. She had a legal obligation to do something and chose not to. Just like the government has a legal obligation to deport illegals, and that includes Dreamers.

[Proctopeo]

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

Territorial waters count, as do US-flagged aircraft anywhere IIRC.

Birth-based citizenship laws are pretty messy tbh

[Salus Maior]

It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

So I guess that means people need to stop lionising Kim Davis then?

Why is she still relevant?

[Vassenor]

So I guess that means people need to stop lionising Kim Davis then?

Why is she still relevant?

An example of someone on the right refusing to enforce a law.

[Seangoli]

It does not. It instead is instructions on who to focus on when it comes to deportations, since deportations tend to cost money. Who would you rather have deported, a student who has only committed a civil violation and did so as a child, or someone who has actually broken criminal law.

Get rid of them both. All illegal aliens must go. It is the law.

The President has authority to grant both pardons as well as clemency and repreive from federal crimes under Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution. Given that immigration is subject to federal law, and those that break it are breaking a federal law, it is entirely within the President's power to provide reprieve and clemency to people who break said law. The President has all the authority in the world to grant clemency to specific groups of people.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So, I'm gonna regret this, but DACA news?

[Northern Davincia]

The muslim ban was not intended to be a law, it was intended to be a temporary restriction on certain people entering the US. Even then, the muslim ban is irrelevant. This is about DACA.

So in other words a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's discrimination protections.

Does the constitution apply to foreigners outside the country?
The answer is no.