The word "dreamer" is a politically-charged term. Difficult to have a serious conversation with anyone who uses it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Tim Cook and Deirdre O'Brien Urge Supreme Court to Protect Dreamers by Upholding DACA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like a good way to shut down a conversation you don't want to have.
Do you have a better term?
You say that as if his colleagues at Apple weren’t already aware about his sexuality before he came out publicly.
Was this after they offered him money and then he changed his mind? Selective memory?
Let's talk about Obama's "Wingman" Eric Holder. Lol....? talking about Naive and simply...Lol
DACA was illegally pushed by the big "O" and the USA is stuck with innocent "once upon a time" children brought to the Country illegally. There's a certain part of the USA society that wants open borders and the Country to be more like the UK... which is not going to happen for the throw back Progressives.?
I don't call it pointless....The wall is the cheapest and most efficient way to control illegal aliens and there's No wiggle room for politicians. No one is trying punish these now adults but certain percentage of the society doesn't want it to keep repeating over and over again...there's also percentage who are against the USA and will be against the USA. ?
Trump should learn to take yes for an answer:
www.wsj.com
Too late now, and in all likelihood the SCOTUS will strike down DACA as immigration is the purview of Congress, not the Executive.
Leaving us with a situation no one really wanted, having to deport valued members of our society.
The Wall Funding Deals Trump Rejected
President Trump says he’s ready to negotiate over funding for a border wall. Here are three deals he has already rejected, some of which provided funding for a wall but which he said didn't do enough to curb legal immigration.
www.wsj.com
Too late now, and in all likelihood the SCOTUS will strike down DACA as immigration is the purview of Congress, not the Executive.
Leaving us with a situation no one really wanted, having to deport valued members of our society.
Chuck (D), Nancy(D) and John Kelly (D) should learn how to say no to Amnesty.
You do understand, I assume, that DACA was implemented to protect immigrants who were already here and had no home to return to but the US?
It also helps if you actually take the time to understand a group you don't see eye to eye with rather than dismissing them with straw men (straw people?) that will only appeal to your own political tribe. Certainly there are people who want open borders, but what poll or other evidence do you have showing they're not in the extreme minority?
What does it even mean, to you, to "be more like the UK" in terms of US borders? The US has certainly never been a part of anything resembling Europe's Shenzhen Economic Zone.
Cheaper than implementing reasonable immigration policy?
Do we even have a concrete price tag on the cost of a wall spanning the entire US / Mexico border? What about the portions that are bordered by private property? Environmental impact? (Remember, humans aren't the only species that needs to cross the border.)
At this stage, "The Wall" is little more than fairy tale we supposedly weren't going to pay for. (But actually maybe we're going to pay for using funds intended to counteract Russian aggression in Europe? Who knows?!)
I don't know of any "reasonable immigration policy" if we can't at least get rid of most illegal crossings, but this would also include the need to rework the visa processes, as most illegal aliens just overstay visas.
We can't just keep offering amnesty every 30 or 40 years, because that just undercuts legal immigration.
I'll note the vast majority of the focus is on one particular border. Maybe there's a reason no one seems to be proposing we build a border wall with Canada, and maybe that points to a path forward for the Mexican border?
The solution isn't to first stop illegal immigration and only then rework the legal immigration process. The two problems are closely related and need to be solved together. You can even find a few bipartisan proposals that might have served as a starting point just a few posts above.
This is the awkward part, where you’re totally wrong.
Steve Jobs caused a scene at a high profile dinner with several sycophantic tech leaders from Google, FB, etc. by telling Obama that his immigration policy geared toward unskilled immigrants was idiotic and he needed to focus on getting more skilled and educated immigrants into the US.
Jobs wasn’t a DNC partisan drone, and had no problem correcting the party faithful over bad immigration policy.
I agree, somewhat, but I don't think we are going to see a workable plan that doesn't include both border security and pathways to citizenship of people that have stayed here illegally.
You have to admit that this type of amnesty makes us a target for illegal immigration, because people get it in their mind that if they can just get here somehow, and not commit dangerous or violent crimes, that we won't deport them, and sooner or latter we will make them, and their children citizens.
We wouldn't have this issue if Congress would do its duty.
The wall is only .11% of the budget.
By itself, it can't do much but it is a force multiplier when combined with our existing border security.
The wall is only .11% of the budget.
By itself, it can't do much but it is a force multiplier when combined with our existing border security.
Overspending is not justification for increasing spending for something we factually know will not work
We don't factually know it won't work, we can only assume it won't work on it's own.
Likely, the better solution is to go after people that employ illegal aliens, as it's the hope for wages that is the biggest magnet, but neither party is willing to do that.
If you mean by factually known that it will not stop illegal entry, I would agree.
If you mean by factually known that it will not reduce illegal entry, I would disagree.
[automerge]1570065602[/automerge]
and I agree that it's a good assumption that it will not work on it's own.
What I don't agree with is the premise that it will not help to reduce illegal border crossings when combined with our existing border security.
I don't think that there is any way to stop people illegally crossing the border but the wall is a necessary part of reducing illegal crossings.
Last edited:
What drives me crazy about the immigration debate is that there’s no concrete solutions to preventing “another round of amnesty”. By approving the DACA kids, you basically give a massive incentive for another round of mass illegal (not undocumented - another stupid PC term) immigration. I tell you what: do the DACA thing, legalize current productive illegals, in return beef up border security, dump stupid amnesty laws that are being taken advantage of, automatically deport unaccompanied minors and for God’s sake get rid of birthright citizenship. You will significantly curtail future illegal immigration.
Stay out of politics, Timmy. You are a loudmouthed moron, no one cares what you think. Just run your damn company and hire more Americans
Agents have told anyone who will listen that the wall is needed and part of an overall strategy to patrol the border. It makes their job easier and helps.
What is really needed is to stop the ridiculous policy of allowing illegals into the country in the first place. They show up they should be deported immediately. Street crime and poverty does not entitle them to amnesty.
Get in line and wait like everyone else in the world. We need to stop being such saps
What is really needed is to stop the ridiculous policy of allowing illegals into the country in the first place. They show up they should be deported immediately. Street crime and poverty does not entitle them to amnesty.
Get in line and wait like everyone else in the world. We need to stop being such saps
I just hate to see those folks caught in the middle. They're just trying to live their lives.
And this is why modern politics is stupid and pointless. These people we elect are trying to stay in power, because it pays well. It used to be that members of Congress made almost nothing, and it was assumed that not a single person would be able to serve more than a term or two, because serving more would cause tremendous turmoil in their families due to the lack of a breadwinner. Now we have this evil thing called a career politician. These gremlins have a single purpose: to stay in power. I don’t care if the gremlin is a leftist gremlin or a member of the right, there’s hardly any difference.
The traditional democracy fan may say that it’s a great thing, because that means they’re extra dedicated to making sure we vote for them! Except, that’s also part of the problem. Democracy with *smart* career politicians leads to an entire class of public officials who play games and scheme, for the purposes of convincing and in many cases tricking people to vote for them. Indeed, modern politics is filled with such examples.
This is of course why so much important legislation gets put on the back burner, as you so correctly stated. Why should they solve your problems? You’re a sheep whose purpose is merely to get them re-elected. If you can be swayed, you are useful. If not, you are a threat and must be silenced.
This Congress, this government, will not care a thing about what you want. Right now, their agenda is solely about dethroning a particular guy whom I’m sure we are all aware of. To the career politician, dreamers are not relevant. To the career politician, the environment is not relevant. To the career politician, states rights are not relevant. To the career politician, neither the right to life, nor the right to choose are relevant.
To the career politician, you are not relevant. To the career politician, only they are relevant.
Last edited:
This should be “overturned” because it’s not a law. It was the previous president going against the wishes of Congress. Congress can make this a law anytime. Anytime they want. If Obama had persuaded people instead of trying to just make laws this would not be an issue. Cook you should lobby Congress not the surpreme court.
Yes but that still doesn’t make them legal citizens under the law.