Politico reporting Trump is ending DACA

[Rockfish1]

I don't think you have a clear sense of leverage here. Does the GOP-controlled Congress have some affinity for DACA that the rest of the world is unaware of? Would DACA suddenly become constitutional if President Trump were to keep it in place and extend? That's a no on both counts, so there's not really much incentive here for Congress to change the course it would have already taken. And without that incentive, there's no leverage.

Maybe I'm mistaking your argument, but as I understand what crazed is saying, Trump has leverage because non-sociopaths in Congress might not want to devastate exemplary young people who grew up here and who've put themselves forward to be as American as the law allows them to be. Because any right-thinking person would regard this as heinous injustice, that gives leverage to those who don't care about heinous injustice and just want tax cuts or something. People like crazed and his boy Trump, for example. Hence the leverage that crazed sees.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Once again, I seem to have difficulty making myself understood to Trump supporters.

Trump has the power to devastate 800,000 innocents who were brought here as children by ripping away their lives and kicking them into some foreign country where they have nothing and no one. This is the sort of abject cruelty that only sociopaths would regard as leverage. ("Give the money, or I'll shoot the hostage.")

Your Olympic detachment from the suffering of people who aren't you is once again duly noted.

I believe Psychology Today absolutely nails the empathy discussion. There is a tremendous empathy gap.

 

[hoosboot]

Maybe I'm mistaking your argument, but as I understand what crazed is saying, Trump has leverage because non-sociopaths in Congress might not want to devastate exemplary young people who grew up here and who've put themselves forward to be as American as the law allows them to be. Because any right-thinking person would regard this as heinous injustice, that gives leverage to those who don't care about heinous injustice and just want tax cuts or something. People like crazed and his boy Trump, for example. Hence the leverage that crazed sees.

So, who are the "non sociopaths" in Congress who are sympathetic to DACA and where have they been for the last several years? I've not seen any evidence of a voting majority for that perspective in Congress, so I fail to see where the President gains any leverage by extending something that the majority in Congress do not appear to be sympathetic to.

 

[Rockfish1]

So, who are the "non sociopaths" in Congress who are sympathetic to DACA and where have they been for the last several years? I've not seen any evidence of a voting majority for that perspective in Congress, so I fail to see where the President gains any leverage by extending something that the majority in Congress do not appear to be sympathetic to.

Maybe I'm being unrealistic. This is personal for me.

 

[UncleMark]

Maybe I'm being unrealistic. This is personal for me.

It could be easily handled if Ryan would be willing to ignore the Tea Party nutters and Freedom Caucus anarchists, dispense with the so-called Hastert Rule, and put a bill on the floor. Same for McConnell. But so far, I've not seen anything that makes me think Ryan would set the political calculations aside and just do what's right.

 

[sglowrider]

Fox News would call Bush and Reagan unamerican today.


Boy... has the Republican Party changed or what!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't think you have a clear sense of leverage here. Does the GOP-controlled Congress have some affinity for DACA that the rest of the world is unaware of? Would DACA suddenly become constitutional if President Trump were to keep it in place and extend? That's a no on both counts, so there's not really much incentive here for Congress to change the course it would have already taken. And without that incentive, there's no leverage.

Are you joking? Not only has Paul Ryan been all over this, there are (Republican) bills being drafted in both houses to replace DACA.

Not only that, the corporate lobby has been putting all kinds of pressure on them to keep it in place.

Now, I don't think Trump has much pressure to do it. He doesn't owe a thing to the interests pushing for this. In fact, I strongly suspect that the 6 month delay was all about giving himself leverage to get something else that he wants...because both parties in Congress are going to have a lot of pressure to get this done, but he really doesn't.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This proves your epic ignorance.

What part of that is wrong?

 

[sglowrider]

This proves your epic ignorance.

Also shows how the world is evolving -- everything is like some TV game. Detached from old school politics of the people but into a game of winners and losers -- unlike real life where there are 80% various shades of grey and less binary.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Maybe I'm mistaking your argument, but as I understand what crazed is saying, Trump has leverage because non-sociopaths in Congress might not want to devastate exemplary young people who grew up here and who've put themselves forward to be as American as the law allows them to be. Because any right-thinking person would regard this as heinous injustice, that gives leverage to those who don't care about heinous injustice and just want tax cuts or something. People like crazed and his boy Trump, for example. Hence the leverage that crazed sees.

Heh, well....however you want describe it, I'm not wrong.

If Trump doesn't get a DACA replacement bill to sign -- under his conditions -- then he doesn't lose anything. If that's not right, then what's not right about it? Does he owe anything (politically) to those sympathetic to illegal immigration? If so, who? Does he owe anything to the Tim Cooks and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world?

I have no idea how he's going to attack this. But, with the 6 month delay, he put the ball in Congress' court and, with them having a good deal of incentive to do this, gave himself a lot of political leverage.

It's as if he said "You want this? OK, you have 6 months to do it and you'll need my signature to do it."

That signature won't come for free.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Also shows how the world is evolving -- everything is like some TV game. Detached from old school politics of the people but into a game of winners and losers -- unlike real life where there are 80% various shades of grey and less binary.

But what part of it is wrong?

Can anybody answer that? It doesn't seem so.

 

[sglowrider]

But what part of it is wrong?

Can anybody answer that? It doesn't seem so.

Right now, the Trump is the president of 30% of the population. Is that right?

 

[UncleMark]

What part of that is wrong?

"These people" aren't citizens. They can't vote.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Right now, the Trump is the president of 30% of the population. Is that right?

I'm not sure what that means in the context of this question. Any president's powers are the same regardless of his popularity.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

"These people" aren't citizens. They can't vote.

Oh, I'm talking about those who can.

Surely you realize that there are more people who want to see DACA (or something like it) remain in place than the ~800K who are directly affected by it.

It's those other people I'm referring to.

 

[UncleMark]

Oh, I'm talking about those who can.

Surely you realize that there are more people who want to see DACA (or something like it) remain in place than the ~800K who are directly affected by it.

It's those other people I'm referring to.

Then you're even more reprehensible than I thought.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Then you're even more reprehensible than I thought.

...but not mistaken!

 

[Fro]

Been posted here before, but appropriate again for this issue.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

its highly unlikely there will be 2/3 support in both houses to overcome his veto pen.

Since Congress wants this so badly

These two statements seem mutually incompatible. If Congress really cares that much about DACA, they can probably come up with a veto-proof version. Considering the alternative, just about any version would earn nearly unanimous support from the Democrats, so the GOP wouldn't have to overcome all internal divides, just enough of them to tip the scales over 2/3 with the Democrats added.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

These two statements seem mutually incompatible. If Congress really cares that much about DACA, they can probably come up with a veto-proof version. Considering the alternative, just about any version would earn nearly unanimous support from the Democrats, so the GOP wouldn't have to overcome all internal divides, just enough of them to tip the scales over 2/3 with the Democrats added.

Oh, not at all Goat.

Republicans would get killed in '18 if they voted to bypass a Trump veto because of a refusal to couple a DACA replacement with something for border security. Surely you realize that. If you don't, you should think again.

I won't say Congressional Republicans are all that smart. But they're not politically suicidal.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

One thing I'd like to know is why so many people -- here and elsewhere -- are so viscerally opposed to securing our borders.

Is there any persuasive argument to be made in favor of that? If so, why is it so infrequently made? I hear a lot of whining and moaning about taking steps to secure it....but very little expressing why that's a bad idea.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh, not at all Goat.

Republicans would get killed in '18 if they voted to bypass a Trump veto because of a refusal to couple a DACA replacement with something for border security. Surely you realize that. If you don't, you should think again.

I won't say Congressional Republicans are all that smart. But they're not politically suicidal.

If that's the case, the GOP is in even worse shape than I thought.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

One thing I'd like to know is why so many people -- here and elsewhere -- are so viscerally opposed to securing our borders.
.

The wall is a complete waste. Ever hear of tunnels or ladders?

Also, when Trump first pitched this, he said it would cost around 7 billion. Now, they're saying 25 billion.....and that's still low.

 

[UncleMark]

Also, when Trump first pitched this, he said it would cost around 7 billion. Now, they're saying 25 billion.....and that's still low.

Mexico's payin'. Who cares what it costs.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If that's the case, the GOP is in even worse shape than I thought.

It's the case. It would be political suicide for Republicans to override that particular veto. The support for increased border security among Republican voters is overwhelming.

Is that genuinely surprising to you? Or are you just being coy?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's the case. It would be political suicide for Republicans to override that particular veto. The support for increased border security among Republican voters is overwhelming.

Is that genuinely surprising to you? Or are you just being coy?

No, I know the party's base supports anything that looks like border security, whether or not it works. It's an important optics issue for them.

But, still, most Republican money would support Congress on this issue. And the party would have to know that the kinds of people who might primary these folks would be terrible general election candidates.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, I know the party's base supports anything that looks like border security, whether or not it works. It's an important optics issue for them.

But, still, most Republican money would support Congress on this issue. And the party would have to know that the kinds of people who might primary these folks would be terrible general election candidates.

C'mon Goat. Money doesn't vote. Did you hibernate through the 2016 cycle or something?

I don't know if DJT is going to insist on getting a border security bill as the price for signing a DACA replacement. But it certainly seems plausible, if not likely. He's clearly not going to get such a bill by simply asking. But now he's got genuine leverage. The only way he doesn't is if Congress decides to just let DACA die. But that doesn't seem like a very favorable alternative for them.

Could you imagine the political bloodbath if Congressional Republicans decided to override a veto to thwart a border security bill in favor of reinstating DACA?

You're engaging in wishful thinking here -- viewing it through a lens of what you want to see, not what the political reality is.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're engaging in wishful thinking here -- viewing it through a lens of what you want to see, not what the political reality is.

It's not wishful thinking. I'm just reading the political tea leaves differently than you.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's not wishful thinking. I'm just reading the political tea leaves differently than you.

You're reading them incredibly poorly if you really think Republicans running for reelection are not only going to say Yes to codifying DACA and No to securing the border, but are going to take the rare step of joining all the Democrats in overriding a veto to do so.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're reading them incredibly poorly if you really think Republicans running for reelection are not only going to say Yes to codifying DACA and No to securing the border, but are going to take the rare step of joint all the Democrats in overriding a veto to do so.

I didn't say they will. I said they easily could, and I rejected your claim it would be political suicide. For some of them, maybe it would be. For others, not so much.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I didn't say they will. I said they easily could, and I rejected your claim it would be political suicide. For some of them, maybe it would be. For others, not so much.

It would be political suicide for enough of them to keep it from happening.

Why do you think Trump chose 6 months? My guess: it requires Congress to act before primary filing deadlines....which would be pretty shrewd on his part.

 

[Rockfish1]

It is?

The tax hike I support would cost me money. And I don't stand to personally gain a thing from increased border security (or, for that matter, from a failure to secure the border). I don't have a dog in the latter hunt at all, really. In both cases, I just think it's the right thing to do.

Killing me. The stuff you claim to support is all vaporware while the candidate you actually supported is wreaking havoc. You aren't morally superior to your own actions. You're a Trump guy, so you own what he does.

Again, your Olympic detachment from the suffering you voted for is reprehensible. So much for the party of personal responsibility. You guys shrug off the consequences of your own decisions like it was the weather. Pathetic.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Killing me. The stuff you claim to support is all vaporware while the candidate you actually supported is wreaking havoc. You aren't morally superior to your own actions. You're a Trump guy, so you own what he does.

Again, your Olympic detachment from the suffering you voted for is reprehensible. So much for the party of personal responsibility. You guys shrug off the consequences of your own decisions like it was the weather. Pathetic.

Also, I'm not just "claiming" to support something. When I say I support something, I support it.

I do think that corporate taxes need to be cut, FTR. But not because that would benefit me (my companies are S Corps). I just think we need to reassess the competitive global landscape and enact policies that don't, for instance, encourage American multinationals to park trillions overseas. That doesn't help anybody, including federal tax coffers.

But, as for personal income taxes, CGs and such, they need to go up.

And I'm not just "claiming" that.

 

[zeke4ahs]

One thing I'd like to know is why so many people -- here and elsewhere -- are so viscerally opposed to securing our borders.

Is there any persuasive argument to be made in favor of that? If so, why is it so infrequently made? I hear a lot of whining and moaning about taking steps to secure it....but very little expressing why that's a bad idea.

I think most people are fine with taking steps to make the border more secure. But most of us are smart enough to realize that a wall is not the most feasible or helpful way to do so. It's merely a symbol of hatred
for Trump and his deplorables.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think most people are fine with taking steps to make the border more secure. But most of us are smart enough to realize that a wall is not the most feasible or helpful way to do so. It's merely a symbol of hatred
for Trump and his deplorables.

Then what alternative steps do you support?

I'm not sold on a wall either, FTR. Not because I think it's a "symbol of hatred" (in fact, that's silly). I'm just not sure the cost/benefit works out for such a thing. But it may well for just finishing off the fencing we currently have in place.

That said, we need to start taking more about what we should do to secure the border. But, sadly, there hasn't been much political will to do that. And that's because I don't think you're right that most people are fine with it...not the ones who matter, anyway.

There is a huge vested interest in keeping the border porous. And don't kid yourself that there isn't. Just because the people who want to keep it that way don't often express that sentiment publicly doesn't mean they don't hold it.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

No, I know the party's base supports anything that looks like border security, whether or not it works. It's an important optics issue for them.

.

No kidding.

Trump could say, "I'm hiring an extra 1,000 border guards and spacing them out every 25 miles with binoculars and a sniper rifle and that will keep us safe" and declare victory and his fans will demand he be put on Mount Rushmore......even if he never hires any.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Just some facts on the Dreamers: average age of coming to country: 6 years old
Average age now: 26
91%employed
100% no criminal records
They pay $500 every 2 years to remain here.
These are the bad hombres Trump has promised to protect us from.

 

[toastedbread]

100% no criminal records

um what? 100% of anything is usually impossible.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

um what? 100% of anything is usually impossible.

Not in this case. It's a trick of definition. A criminal record makes one ineligible for DACA status.

 

[toastedbread]

Not in this case. It's a trick of definition. A criminal record makes one ineligible for DACA status.

Not true goat. Only felonies and "significant misdemeanors" make you ineligible. Criminal record isn't the limiting factor. Also, it's unclear to me if committing a felony/serious misdemeanor would get you deported immediately, or if it only prohibits you from applying for DACA renewal?

Anyhow this was a minor quibble, but on the surface 100% of 800k people seems improbable.