![]() |
Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall (/Thread-Schumer-Trump-and-GOP-agree-to-protect-DACA-w-o-funding-the-Wall) |
RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - GMDino - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Do you have any idea the protocol to obtain a visa then a green card? I asked the question because the argument being made against DACA cites several things that in reality the people in that group are doing. It's not to undermine those going through a different process. It's to explain that there is a legitimate process for a group that would get swallowed up in the green card system through no fault of their own. In the end though I'll assume the answer to my question is "no". Quote: But these over 18's have had plenty of them to get themselves right with the law. They obviously don't care about the laws. They only did daca because obama promised then they wouldn't be deported. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - BmorePat87 - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 09:57 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: People who have openly thwarted the law for up to 18 years. The people who have actually needed to wait to get visas then endless paperwork and time to get green cards are the ones being screwed. I'm sure they would have preferred to sneak across the border like a thief in the night. If you don't force people to respect your laws then what's the point. That's fine, but it's not even close to throwing people into camps. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - BmorePat87 - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: I asked the question because the argument being made against DACA cites several things that in reality the people in that group are doing. It's not to undermine those going through a different process. It's to explain that there is a legitimate process for a group that would get swallowed up in the green card system through no fault of their own. Also, they don't qualify because they were brought here illegally. So kids who only know the US as a home would have to leave the US and wait months or years to become citizens. DACA gave them a legal status as residents. If it went a step forward and gave them a pathway to citizenship, they would most likely take it. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - GMDino - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, they don't qualify because they were brought here illegally. So kids who only know the US as a home would have to leave the US and wait months or years to become citizens. Yep. It's just another path for those who would fall through the cracks of a different one. Complete with rules and risks and costs. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - Johnny Cupcakes - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 08:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, giving people who have lived in this country nearly their whole lives the ability to get visas is as bad as putting citizens into internment camps because of their ethnicity. It took 15 posts for someone to point out that this dude used a racial slur in his post. That's rough. Is this just one of those 'acceptable racial slurs', or is everyone just desensitized to this guy using them? RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - BmorePat87 - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:41 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: It took 15 posts for someone to point out that this dude used a racial slur in his post. it was two separate threads at first. In his thread, I was the 3rd post. But the answer is the latter RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - michaelsean - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: it was two separate threads at first. In his thread, I was the 3rd post. But the answer is the latter Since it was combined with American, I just saw it as an abbreviation not an attempt at a slur. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - BmorePat87 - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Since it was combined with American, I just saw it as an abbreviation not an attempt at a slur. I don't think it has been in common usage as an abbreviation since the 40's. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 12:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/report-trump-caves-on-daca-wants-quick-amnesty-for-800k-illegal-aliens/ "jap Americans"? RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - GMDino - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Since it was combined with American, I just saw it as an abbreviation not an attempt at a slur. Actually I did too. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 04:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yes, ruined! Shit has been going down hill ever since they let those undocumented Pilgrims into Plymouth Rock. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - michaelsean - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 11:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think it has been in common usage as an abbreviation since the 40's. Well that's how I read it, but I take responsibility for my actions and am ready to receive the full wrath and fury of Johnny. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - Benton - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 09:57 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: People who have openly thwarted the law for up to 18 years. The people who have actually needed to wait to get visas then endless paperwork and time to get green cards are the ones being screwed. I'm sure they would have preferred to sneak across the border like a thief in the night. If you don't force people to respect your laws then what's the point. I understand why many are upset about some folks getting moved to the front of the line and allowed to stay in a country where, effectively, they're already citizens. But where I struggle with his line of thinking is, that the DACA kids are lawbreakers, what does anyone expect? An elementary age kid to report to social services and say 'excuse me, but I think I'm not supposed to be here'? These aren't people who spent 18 years cheating on their taxes or committed a felony and hid out for a couple decades. It's unrealistic to think a child is going to deport themselves. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - Bengalzona - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, they don't qualify because they were brought here illegally. So kids who only know the US as a home would have to leave the US and wait months or years to become citizens. IF they can ever become citizens. We only allow a tiny fraction of people who apply for citizenship in. And the system favors wealthy applicants. But, hey, when you are talking to folks who yell hate speech and insults to a bus full of grade school-aged kids seeking asylum, what can you expect? RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - StLucieBengal - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Since it was combined with American, I just saw it as an abbreviation not an attempt at a slur. You sir would be using common sense. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - StLucieBengal - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 12:06 PM)Benton Wrote: I understand why many are upset about some folks getting moved to the front of the line and allowed to stay in a country where, effectively, they're already citizens. But where I struggle with his line of thinking is, that the DACA kids are lawbreakers, what does anyone expect? An elementary age kid to report to social services and say 'excuse me, but I think I'm not supposed to be here'? For children under 18 you are exactly right. Those 18-36 have had 18 years to get themselves right with the law. Yes the process is a pain and inconvenient but you either follow the laws or you do not..... they could easily go back to their country and apply for a visa then move on to the green card. I do not think it's too much to ask that these people do what we expect any other immigrant to do...... the fees paid and paperwork on top of paperwork for legal immigrants is not something we should be dismissing. I'm sure every legal immigrant would have preferred to cross the border illegally if they were going to save their time and money. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - StLucieBengal - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:41 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: It took 15 posts for someone to point out that this dude used a racial slur in his post. Settle down and use a bit of common sense. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - Belsnickel - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 10:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, they don't qualify because they were brought here illegally. So kids who only know the US as a home would have to leave the US and wait months or years to become citizens. This is the point a lot of people tend to miss when talking about this. They would have to leave the country, the only one they have known as home, to go somewhere else where they likely have no support structure in place, may not speak the language, etc., in order to then try to come back in legally. For someone that was brought here with no choice in the matter, that seems an illogical process to force them into. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - StLucieBengal - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the point a lot of people tend to miss when talking about this. They would have to leave the country, the only one they have known as home, to go somewhere else where they likely have no support structure in place, may not speak the language, etc., in order to then try to come back in legally. For someone that was brought here with no choice in the matter, that seems an illogical process to force them into. It's not an issue. Most illegal immigrant homes speak Spanish so the idea they couldn't speak the language is a stretch. Going to their country to file paperwork isn't difficult: I don't mind prioritizing them over other applicants from their country but they should be forced to pay double so the people who actually follow the law are getting the break. RE: Schumer: Trump and GOP agree to protect DACA w/o funding the Wall - Johnny Cupcakes - 09-14-2017 (09-14-2017, 12:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Settle down and use a bit of common sense. ![]() |