Thoughts on DACA
America today: The Obama administration issued a memo (DACA) that Obama earlier said was unconstitutional. Trump rescinds the unconstitutional memo causing Governor Cuomo and New York AG Schneiderman to sue Trump for rescinding Obama’s unconstitutional memo, citing the poem on the Statue of Liberty instead of law. The mainstream media doesn’t even clutch its pearls. Blogger Gus points out Lady Liberty isn’t even a member of Congress or a natural born citizen.
Speaking of offensive monuments: Blogger Barbara would like to keep the Statue of Liberty but chip way the Emma Lazarus poem from the Statue of Liberty the words which have become more sacred to the left than the Constitution. “Either remove them or add a proviso that these people, like my ancestors, are welcome as long as they abide by our laws and follow the process for legal immigration.”
Return trip: Blogger DebinGA points out that in Lazarus’ day any immigrant deemed “likely to become a public charge” was immediately turned around on arrival and sent back.
High winds: Blogger MM says, “We have reached Category 5 in virtue signaling: Marco RubioVerified account @marcorubio, ‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me’; Matthew 25:35.
The DACA debt: Blogger OL is concerned that Democrats always want Republicans to pay for the things they want to legislate. He offers, for every DACA person allowed to stay, strip ten welfare recipients of federal benefits for life, and fire ten federal employees all drawn by lottery.
In a quandary: Blogger Gus asks why is it that some are okay with people breaking the law to be laborers, to illegally come to the U.S. to work but breaking the law to vote is wrong? What if they want to come here illegally because [someone] needs labor, but they decline to pay taxes or follow other laws? Which laws do I have to follow?
Prediction: Blogger Rocco predicts, “the undocumented Democrats (Republicans) will join the documented Democrats and pass legislation legalizing dreamers.
Applying immigration law: Justice Scalia wrote, “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.” He ended with this question, “Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?”