Ethics Faith Government & Politics Law & Court Opinion Politics Social Issues

Why deporting the ‘Dreamers’ is immoral

Immigrants and activists demonstrate in front of the Republican Party headquarters in Washington. (AP Photo/Luis Alonso Lugo)

(The Conversation) — On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal judge’s order that the Trump administration continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

It was back in September 2017 that President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of the Obama-era program that shields hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Sessions argued that this program rewarded those who disobeyed the laws of the United States. The United States has an obligation to “end the lawlessness” of DACA, he argued, by winding down the program and, at the same time, making a case for the deportation of the “Dreamers” or those previously protected by DACA.

For now, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the program in place.

As a scholar, who has tried to understand how morality should be applied to politics and law, I do not agree with Sessions.

Respect for the law entails respect for moral values. Protecting the Dreamers isn’t about rejecting the rule of law. Rather, it reflects respect for the morality that the law proclaims.

Can children be held morally responsible?

The people covered by DACA came to the United States when they were children. Even if their entry into the United States was unlawful, the violation was committed by a child. The law of the United States affirms the common sense thought that children are unlike adults in the degree to which they morally responsible.

The Dreamers came as children.
Molly Adams, CC BY

The laws of the United States do not, for example, let children create binding contracts. Children are not allowed to perform many actions open to adults: They cannot smoke tobacco, get tattoos, drink alcohol, drive automobiles, nor vote in federal elections. Nor are they liable to the same sorts of criminal punishments as adults.

Their degree of culpability for criminal acts is generally taken to be lower than that of adults – and some punishments, such as the death penalty, are taken off the table for children entirely.

In the case of DACA, however, deporting the Dreamers would involve subjecting people to a significant punishment. And it would do so in response to an action people took when they were children. This is exactly the sort of action the law itself regards as morally inappropriate.

Punishment and deportation

One response to this argument against deportation might be to say that deportation is not, in fact, a punishment. It is simply refusing to provide a benefit – namely, the right to remain within the United States. The foreign citizen who is refused the right to migrate to the United States is inconvenienced – but that’s hardly the same as being punished. And, indeed, deportation is generally understood in law to be a “civil penalty,” rather than a punishment.

Even a civil penalty, though, is something whose imposition must be justified morally. The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have sometimes emphasized that being expelled from one’s home involves the destruction of much of what one values. It is the destruction of all that one has built.

This fact was recognized early in the history of the American legal system. Founding father James Madison, in discussing the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, argued strongly against deportation. He said:

“… if a banishment of this sort, be not a punishment, and among the severest of punishments, it will be difficult to imagine a doom to which the name might be applied.”

The Supreme Court agrees. It recently reaffirmed its commitment to the thought that deportation, even if a mere penalty, is “a uniquely severe” one.

Residency and rights

The DACA opponent might, in reply, argue that the morality of the law applies only to those people who are legitimately subject to the law. The laws of the United States might insist, in other words, that the United States has no particular obligations to those people who have entered into the political community, defined by its jurisdictional limits, without any right.

Here, too, the law of the United States disagrees.

The law itself gives certain rights to the undocumented.
David Davies

The mere fact of being found within the United States – whether rightfully or not – provides one with significant rights under the Constitution. The law itself gives the undocumented legal rights to bring claims in vindication of their constitutional rights.

Undocumented children, for instance, have a constitutional right to be provided with public schooling. The Supreme Court, in defending this principle, argued that all people within the state’s jurisdiction – “even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful” – are guaranteed due process under the law.

Morality and migration

Yes, nothing in the law requires the opening of all borders. And it is true that the United States does not have an obligation to provide the right to enter or stay in the country to all who might desire that right.

However, the Dreamers are not like other people. The simple fact of where they are now provides them with constitutional standing denied to outsiders.

And, as emphasized earlier, whatever wrong they might have done in crossing into the United States, they did as children. The revocation of DACA, however, would announce that they are rightly subjected to a significant – indeed, a devastating – punishment, in virtue of an act committed in childhood.

Law is not the same as morality. But morality can sometimes look to law, in determining where its deliberations might begin. If the deportation of the DACA recipients would violate the moral principles that underlie the American legal system, there is at least some reason to think that such deportation is morally wrong.

The ConversationContrary to Jeff Sessions, I believe that the United States would not respect the law best by deporting the Dreamers. It would respect it best by living up to the moral ideals that make the law worth following.

(Michael Blake is a professor of philosophy, public policy, and governance at the University of Washington. This article was originally published on The Conversation, which you can read here.)

About the author

The Conversation

The Conversation is an independent, nonprofit source of expert news and views, from the academic and research community, written for the public.

23 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Its worse than immoral, its downright malicious. These are people who came here through no choice of their own and as infants (in the legal sense of the term).

    If the laws being violated were criminal laws, they would be exempt from prosecution based on having no intent to commit the act and being too young to prosecute for the offenses.

    The idea that we can and should discard 800,000 people, who have risked their lives to cooperate with the government, and are willing to serve the country to earn their place here, is repugnant. DACA was conceived as a quid pro quo agreement. The government got cooperative people to document themselves and pledge to stay out of trouble, in exchange the members would be spared deportation and possibly find a legal means to stay in this country. They held up their end, we as a nation owe it to hold up ours.

    But of course we have a president who as a businessman never saw an agreement or contract he could not treat like toilet paper. The man gets into trouble with his businesses because he will go out of his way to maliciously attack those who deal with him for some slight benefit. The way he goes through the motions of political leadership are no different. We as a nation should aspire to be better than the unethical cheat we put in the White House.

  • Immoral? They are here illegally and should go back to their home countries to assist said countries in bringing them up to the moral and economic standards of the USA

  • DACA was conceived as a political ploy by the head of the party of illegal immigration. It is not a law, it was an Executive Order.

  • Legally Reagan did not grant amnesty to anyone.

    Congress, which is the only national legislator in the United States, granted amnesty.

    DACA was an Executive Order by the then president to law enforcement to disregard the law as written.

  • Your stance is immoral claptrap with the goal of maliciously discarding hundreds of thousands of people who risked their lives here to serve our country and earn their place here.

    You are looking for legally and socially acceptable excuses to act badly to others here.

  • They did not come here on their own accord and we made a bargain with them to refrain from prosecuting them for their immigration violations.

    Ethically and morally we need to uphold our end of the deal.

  • Does not Christian theology teach that we all suffer the sins i.e. original sins of our parents?

  • People who talk of laws but are ignorant of them, of following rules blindly with no regard to consequences of them, are worthless in a free society. Your statements are of no value here.

    The “Judge Dredd” argument is more suitable for a dictatorship than a nation which aspires for just laws and has an ingrained right to protest and strike down unjust ones.

    Generalities here are what people use to cover their ignorance and clearly bigoted motives.

    You are simply a troll who is trying to avoid stating a reason for maliciously discarding a multitude of people. Because no moral or ethical one exists.

    If you can’t discuss why there is this need to break the prior bargain we made with these people, then you are simply engaging in dishonest deflection.

  • That’s one vote for “Screw the law, do what I want!”

    I certainly enjoy your daily recitation of “Your statements are of no value here.” multiple times to people who actually know what they’re talking about, which you almost never do.

    “We” did not make a prior bargain with these people, Barack Obama did in his personal capacity as the then Chief Executive.

    His hoped for successor did not get elected to renew the deal, so it’s a historical curiousity at this point.

  • The result of sin of the Dreamers’ parents so say good Christians. Does baptism erase the situation?

  • You are using ignorant generalities to avoid the moral and ethical issues involved here. You talk about law without context. Which makes it useless nattering. “The law is the law” is what people say when they want to ignore issues of justice, ethics, morals or a free society.

    That shows you are just looking for excuses for a position which you can’t defend on its facts or maintain a moral or ethical standee with.

    You are deflecting because you are covering up the obvious malice and bigotry inherent to your position.

    Your statement are of no value because the issue is morals of actions. You are avoiding those on purpose. There are none to be found with your position.

    If you want an easy slogan how about this, “a deal is a deal”. Trump has no clue what that ever meant. The only contract he ever honored to the letter was the one to lay Stormy Daniels upfront for sex. 🙂

  • Oh, you mean ignorant generalities like the Constitution, which grants to Congress only the power to make and implement a DACA-like law, which restrict the President power to make law ad hoc, and our national laws on immigration?

    I plead guilty.

  • Like you have any clue about the legal issues here? Don’t make us laugh. You are incapable of representing such things in an informed or honest manner.

    That is some Grade A avoidance of the main point of the article here.

    Rather than discuss the morality of ethical issues raised in article, you take a specifically legalistic stance. These people being attacked because you feel there is a legal excuse to do so with impunity.

    It bespeaks of the lack of morals and ethics inherent to supporters of lie president.

    Face it, you are demonstrating yourself to be a terrible person. Your regard for rule of law being based on how it can be invoked to harm others.

    Your comments simply indicate what kind of malicious scum support such a wasteful and nasty minded breach of trust by the government.

  • “Like you have any clue about the legal issues here? Don’t make us laugh. You are incapable of representing such things in an informed or honest manner.”

    Okay, rocket man. Exactly WHAT are the legal issues here?

    – can the President override immigration law, yes or no?

    – if the answer is yes, for what reasons may the President so?

    – if a President issues an Executive Order, are succeeding presidents bound by that Executive Order, yes or no?

    You keep making general disparagements of other people’s knowledge.

    Establish your bona-fides, rocket man, to say anything at all about the legal issues.

  • Still desperately trying to justify an immoral and unethical position by hiding behind legalistic generalities. Yet showing no actual knowledge of the facts or law at hand.

    These DACA members relied upon assurances of the government to their own detriment. Estoppel incarnate. We owe them something besides threat of deportation.

    I couldn’t care less what you think the legal issues here. The subject here is the morality of the act. You are desperately avoiding discussion of that because you clearly do not have a morally justifiable position here.

    All you have demonstrated is that the laws involved here are arbitrary, capricious and not related to any form of justice, ethics or moral action. That it serves a purpose of enabling bigotry and malice that does a disservice to our government and nation in general.

    “- can the President override immigration law, yes or no?”

    Actually the immigration laws are chock full of carve-outs, waivers and opportunities for discretionary pardons/amnesties and the like. So the answer is YES. Immigration enforcement is controlled entirely by the executive branch. That discretion is rather wide ranging and has been exercised on numerous occasions. Like virtually every conservative who chimes in on the subject of immigration law, you make a big deal of enforcing it, without actually knowing what is being enforced.

    “Ia President issues an Executive Order, are succeeding presidents bound by that Executive Order, yes or no?”

    If it is the right thing to do, why not? That is what having ethics, morals and a conscience is all about. Abiding by actions because they should be done. Not doing something just because it can be done.

    More importantly, just because the previous administration does something, it is not a reason to undo it. The Trump administration has made a name for itself for using power to intentionally pointlessly and maliciously attack people who benefited from the previous administration’s policies.

    “You keep making general disparagements of other people’s knowledge.”

    Not really. Just those who demonstrate clear ignorance on given subjects. Like you. 🙂

    Why are you so hesitant to discuss the moral or ethical issues involved with attacking the DACA members? Because you can’t defend your own position on the subject if you had to justify them in such a fashion. As I stated originally here, it is an act of malice done primarily to appeal to bigots. Ones who think deporting 800,000 people of color will bring the nation closer to the all white paradise they envision.

  • “These DACA members relied upon assurances of the government to their own detriment.”

    No, they relied on the personal word of Barack Obama. Smart illegals kept below the radar realizing that he lacked the legal authority to bind the government.

    Congress, which represents the people, is the only branch of the government that can pass laws.

    ‘- can the President override immigration law, yes or no?’

    “Actually the immigration laws are chock full of carve-outs, waivers and opportunities for discretionary pardons/amnesties and the like. So the answer is YES.”

    Yes, and the courts have – with some limitations – recognized that, as you note, “Immigration enforcement is controlled entirely by the executive branch. That discretion is rather wide ranging and has been exercised on numerous occasions.”

    ‘If President issues an Executive Order, are succeeding presidents bound by that Executive Order, yes or no?’

    “If it is the right thing to do, why not?”

    The correct answer is “no”. At the beginning of each presidency in the incoming President voids hundreds and sometimes thousands of Executive Orders. Executive Orders rest completely on the authority of the Chief Executive. Nothing binds a new Chief Executive to his predecessor’s executive decisions, period.

    https://reason.com/archives/2014/12/16/why-obamas-immigration-policy-is-constit

    “In addition, the people covered by Obama’s order are hardly in the clear. The deferral of their deportation may be reversed at any time, either by Obama himself or a successor.”

    You left out “- if the answer is yes, for what reasons may the President so?”.

    The answer was provided by the Memorandum Opinion provided by Obama’s own Office of legal counsel:

    http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf

    In simple English there are so many illegal aliens the Department of Homeland Security cannot find and deport them all. The President has the authority to prioritize which should be found and deported to use limited resources effectively. Period.

    So, as a matter of law your position has zero merit. The current President has complete authority to redirect resources and void the former President’s Executive Orders.

    Let’s return to your fairness/charity/whatever argument.

    It is reasonable to pass a law making some sort of accommodation for the individuals who were the subject of Barack Obama’s Executive Order IF actions are taken to ensure that the inability of the Department of Homeland Security to find and deport illegal aliens is not made permanent by a conscious decision to not secure our southern border.

    If the border is not secured this becomes a permanent condition at which point it is irrational to even pretend that there is any distinction between legal and illegal immigration. This means additional generations of children will wind up in the same situation as the current subjects of your concern, which is a major injustice to both them and the people of the United States.

    But you oppose securing the border.

    That leaves you in a situation where you have no legal basis for opposition to the revocation of Barack Obama’s Executive Order, and no bargaining chip to trade for making some version of that Order into law.

    Here is the way this is going to play out.

    The Supreme Court is eventually going to support the President’s decision to void his predecessor’s Executive Order. It will take awhile as the issues simmer at the District level, but any other decision would give presidents legislative power which belongs solely to the Congress.

    Then your side is going to face a harsh reality: if you don’t agree to closing the southern border so violations drop into the low thousands or hundreds instead of millions, you are not going to get what you want.

  • Bob, you are avoiding the point here. Because you can’t address the main point here concerning morality of the actions. Because there is none.

    The president is not obligated to have them deported. He can do it. He does not have to.

    Should he? Hell no.

    Is there a morally and ethically justifiable reason to do so? Hell no.

    “The President has the authority to prioritize which should be found and deported to use limited resources effectively. Period.”

    And a multitude of people who are demonstratively not a harm to the nation and willing to serve it and stay out of trouble are somehow a priority for ICE resources for deportation? Nope. But they are an easy target. So you can’t even claim there is some obligation to go after them here under that DOJ position.

    BTW your prior link from Reason.com already explained why Obama’s prior order was legal and undermines your whole argument.

    From the opening sentence of your own link:
    https://reason.com/archives/2014/12/16/why-obamas-immigration-policy-is-constit
    “Obama’s actions were well within the scope of executive authority under the Constitution.”

    You just quoted the last section, in your usual dishonest manner and pretended the rest of the article did not exist.

    You also deliberately avoided the section where it said

    “Obama is far from the first president to exempt large numbers of illegal immigrants from deportation. Past presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have done so as well, including some 1.5 million people in the case of Bush. …But it does at least provide an important precedent, especially since few in either party claimed that the prior administrations’ actions were illegal at the time they were done. In this field, Congress itself has delegated wide latitude to the president, which makes the exercise of discretion even less problematic than in many other cases where the law is written in a more categorical way.”

    “But you oppose securing the border.”

    A flat out lie.

    Never addressed the border. It is not part of the discussion because these people are well past it already. Nativist bigots use such statements to avoid discussion of the subject and build strawman arguments. When have you stopped being dishonest?

    Border security has nothing to do with dealing with those already past it. To premise dealing with illegal aliens on first having “secure enough borders” is to play avoidance games. The border will never be “North Korea tight” or to your satisfaction, so there will always be excuses by people like yourself to avoid the ultimate issues here.

    You had to lie about my position to make your argument here. So obviously you can’t really justify it.

    As I said, your posts are worthless.

    Your whole point is that if the law can be used to harm others in a malicious manner that doesn’t affect you, then why not. This is what makes you, our president and his supporters immoral slime.

    Answer this question or shut your piehole?

    Is it morally justifiable to deport the DACA members?

    Until you bother to address that, all I am getting is excuses from a clearly dishonest bigot who just wants to see 800,000 brown skinned people harmed for its own sake.

  • “Because you can’t address the main point here concerning morality of the actions. Because there is none.”

    Of course there is a moral issue:

    “We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

    If the President were to be given sufficient resources to enforce the laws, and refused to do so, then his excuse of “discretion” would disappear and he could be impeached for failing to do his constitutionally mandated duty to to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” – Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

    Read the Memorandum Barack Obama’s legal counsel prepared justifying his DACA order – I already provided the url.

    With sufficient resources he is obligated to have them deported. He has to.

    “The President has the authority to prioritize which should be found and deported to use limited resources effectively. Period.”

    The fact that the people are not, in his opinion or yours “demonstratively not a harm to the nation and willing to serve it and stay out of trouble” does not relieve him of his duty to faithfully execute the laws AS WRITTEN. Changing the law is up to Congress, not the President.

    “BTW your prior link from Reason.com already explained why Obama’s prior order was legal and undermines your whole argument.”

    No, it actually supports exactly what I am saying, that it was within Obama’s discretion to do what he did, that when he left office his successor was free to exercise his own different discretion, and that if he had unlimited resources, his discretion would evaporate.

    Yes, I quoted a portion of a much larger article, no, I did not so in a “dishonest manner and pretended the rest of the article did not exist”. That is why I provided the url.

    The section where it said:

    “Obama is far from the first president to exempt large numbers of illegal immigrants from deportation. Past presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have done so as well, including some 1.5 million people in the case of Bush. …But it does at least provide an important precedent, especially since few in either party claimed that the prior administrations’ actions were illegal at the time they were done. In this field, Congress itself has delegated wide latitude to the president, which makes the exercise of discretion even less problematic than in many other cases where the law is written in a more categorical way.”

    does not alter my position at all. The discretion is up to the individual President, which undercuts YOUR position, and it rests on the fact that he can’t do it all, which also undercuts YOUR position.

    If “But you oppose securing the border.” is “A flat out lie.” then you will have no problem agreeing to a deal: DACA for border security.

    “Border security has nothing to do with dealing with those already past it.”

    No, but it has a lot to do with whether Congress should legalize the presence of these illegals. If there is not going to be end to them, if we will be dealing with this every decade or generation ad infinitum, then we should drop the pretense of making any distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

    To premise dealing with illegal aliens on first having “secure enough borders” is to test your sincerity.

    If you believe that children are victims when their parents bring them with them when they enter the country illegally, you should support not only legalizing their presence but ensuring future young people are not put in their predicament.

    Suggesting that the border will never be “North Korea tight” is playing an avoidance game.

    Millions of illegal aliens in the USA is not the result of the border not being “North Korea tight”. It is the result of a border so porous you can literally drive trucks through it.

    I am not lying about your position to make my argument here. I’m suggesting that all the tears over the DACA youth are crocodile tears, that the former President and his party had no intention of doing anything other than keep on trucking, which is exemplified by the current positions and actions of his party members in California, in a cynical ploy to keep supplying new party members with illegal immigration.

    You say that is not the case, that your earnest moral concern is these young people.

    Okay, if you agree to creating an actual southern border you can help them. By doing so you also help all those future young people who will be put in the same situation if we don’t finally get serious about our southern border. Then folks will know where your concerns really are.

    Either you agree to finally fulfill forty years of empty promises about security on our southern border, the fulfillment of which also appears to be a moral obligation, to obtain what you claim is justice for the young folks already here, or you continue this preposterous obstructionism about “North Korea tight” and walk away from getting what you claim you want for these folks only because you’re a moral, upright, righteous dude.

    It is one, or it is another, but you cannot play both sides with a straight face and have anyone believe it.

  • Your “moral” position begs the question. Being able to do something legally does not mean it is moral. Nor is there a morality in upholding laws in of themselves without question or considerations of whether they are just. You are simply saying, “if the law says so, it is moral”.

    That is neither a moral nor an ethical position. It is simply deferring to arbitrary authority for its own sake. Just as expected, complete and utter bullcrap.

    It is all just excuses for acting badly with impunity. It is clear from the situation of the DACA members that such laws have a particularly arbitrary and unjust result here. You are too spineless to address such things because they work well with your malicious point of view.

    “If the President were to be given sufficient resources to enforce the laws, and refused to do so, then his excuse of “discretion” would disappear and he could be impeached for failing to do his”

    If a fantasy situation exists, you have your argument. But you won’t, so you don’t.

    The fact that several prior presidents have exercised such discretion undermines your entire argument. Discretion means discretion. The laws themselves allow for selective enforcement, waiver and amnesty within the power of the executive branch. So no, the president is not compelled to deport the DACA people here under the duty to enforce the laws. You are making up a position because you are ignorant as to the scope and nature of immigration laws.

    “The section where it said…does not alter my position at all.”

    Because you failed to read it or in context, or are just a liar. It undermines your entire position that the prior executive order creating DACA was somehow illegal or that the president does not have the discretion to stay or prevent prosecution for immigration law violators. Your inability to read your own sources closely or honestly is already established here and elsewhere. I couldn’t care less what kind of excuses you come up with here.

    “and that if he had unlimited resources, his discretion would evaporate.”

    A fanciful fiction. Such unlimited resources do not nor ever will exist. Undermining any pretension of a rational position in opposition.

    “No, but it has a lot to do with whether Congress should legalize the presence of these illegals.”

    Not at all. As I said before, such a premise is a bad faith requirement to addressing the subject. Because the border will never be secure enough to satisfy people who bring up the position, how to handle illegal aliens never gets addressed. Border security is border security. Immigration law enforcement for those within our borders is an entirely different matter. You are simply trying to avoid any discussion of the problems we have with our immigration laws.

    “I am not lying about your position to make my argument here.”

    Of course you did. I made no mention of border security. You dishonestly imputed a position to me which was never taken and frankly is a fiction. People who oppose the conservative take on immigration law/enforcement are not talking about “open borders”. Nobody is. Its simply a smear to pretend opposing views are somehow unreasonable.

    ” in a cynical ploy to keep supplying new party members with illegal immigration.”

    Now you are trading in conspiracy theories and acknowledging the inherent bigotry of conservatives. Immigrants would not be assumed to be liberals or Democrats if not for the efforts of conservatives to demonize them and attack them for political brownie points. Many immigrant groups are quite conservative socially and fiscally. But they go diving for cover when conservatives call them all “rapists and murderers”, and make crap up about them. The last Republican president made significant inroads with immigrant communities. The current one in his effort to appeal to white supremacists torched such efforts.

    “It is one, or it is another, but you cannot play both sides with a straight face and have anyone believe it.”

    Its neither because your options are based on false premises and a dishonest take on an opposing position. You felt the need to lie about my position and to wildly misquote a source you linked to. You have forgone any pretension of being taken seriously here.

  • “Your ‘moral’ position begs the question.”

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/why_deporting_the_8216dreamers8217_is_immoral/#comment-3793260842

    “Of course there is a moral issue:”

    “‘We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.’”

    and:

    “If you believe that children are victims when their parents bring them with them when they enter the country illegally, you should support not only legalizing their presence but ensuring future young people are not put in their predicament.”

    Upholding laws in of themselves is the duty of the President. Questions or considerations of whether they are just are directed to the courts, the legislature, or both.

    And that is a moral and ethical position, and the position the President is sworn to uphold.

    The fact that several prior presidents have exercised such discretion supports my entire argument. Discretion means discretion when there are limited resources.

    President Trump’s discretion differs from President Obama’s discretion differs from President Bush’s discretion. That pretty much wraps up your argument on that side of it.

    “The section where it said…does not alter my position at all.’”

    “Because you failed to read it or in context, or are just a liar.”

    No, because you’re an ignorant nit. I HAVE NEVER taken the position that the prior executive order creating DACA was somehow illegal. I have taken the position that ended when it was revoked by the succeeding President.

    Your inability to read what’s posted closely or honestly is already established here and elsewhere.

    “’and that if he had unlimited resources, his discretion would evaporate.’”

    “A fanciful fiction.”

    No, that’s the law. The discretion rests in the limited resources. “’No, but it has a lot to do with whether Congress should legalize the presence of these illegals.’”

    “Not at all. As I said before, such a premise is a bad faith requirement to addressing the subject.”

    There’s not bad faith on the part of the Congress or the people. Neither it nor us entered into any sort of agreement. Those who expected better should head down to DC with picket signs and march up and down in front of the ex-President’s residence.

    “Because the border will never be secure enough to satisfy people who bring up the position, how to handle illegal aliens never gets addressed.”

    Since it hasn’t been tried after forty years of promises we don’t know.

    “Immigration law enforcement for those within our borders is an entirely different matter.”

    No, the two are linked.

    “You are simply trying to avoid any discussion of the problems we have with our immigration laws.”

    No, you’re not discussing petitioning Congress into amending the immigration laws, you’re pushing compelling the current President to honor the former President’s ignorant political stunt.

    “’I am not lying about your position to make my argument here.’”

    “Of course you did. I made no mention of border security.”

    Right, and I pointed that out. That’s not lying. Your unwillingness to recognize that millions of people here illegally indicates we do not have a secure southern border. You’re not even willing to entertain remedying that.

    “Now you are trading in conspiracy theories and acknowledging the inherent bigotry of conservatives.”

    The evidence that illegal immigration is fueling the huge Democratic majority in California is overwhelming.

    So, you’re planning on bellying up to the bar and demanding free immigration drinks by calling those who oppose you immoral despite the fact that this President was elected on a promise to close the border, and the American public demands that it be secured.

    Good luck with that, Don Quixote.

  • Bob point one: Its legal for the president to do it, therefore it is moral and must be done.

    Bob point two: DACA was illegal, even though a source I referred to clearly says it isn’t.

    That is the entirety of the bullcrap you have been putting up.

    There is no moral position here because you are simply deferring to what is apparently arbitrary authority without considering consequences. Upholding laws is not a moral act in of itself. That is something one expects from people in a dictatorship. You are making a very good impression of a nazi here.

    Immigration laws are a hodgepodge of conflicting and confusing interests and lack any kind of due process which would link their enforcement to any sense of justice, morals or ethics.

    Bob, you flat out lied about my position. Your excuses only make you look like a more dishonest slime than usual.

    Your attempt to link this issue with border security is complete and utter garbage. I never advocated open borders nor even addressed its security. It is a separate issue altogether. Once you started blathering about “open borders” and whatnot you have told me you are full of crap and don’t really want to discuss the subject here.

    Even if our border was as secure as humanly possible, it has no relation to people on this side of it. You are simply looking for a dishonest dodge to the situation. But since it will never be secure enough to the conservatives’ satisfaction, they will avoid dealing with the situation like honest sane adults.

    “The evidence that illegal immigration is fueling the huge Democratic majority in California is overwhelming.”

    So overwhelming that you provide no evidence for it. You are a lying turd trading in bigoted canned talking points here. But what can be expected of someone trying to find excuses for clearly malicious action proposed by the immoral garbage in the White House.

ADVERTISEMENTs