No, they're not.
DACA is a 2-year renewable work permit for Childhood Arrivals.
DREAM is amnesty and permanent residency.
DACA is an executive order.
DREAM is a legislative action.
Shutdown?
- Thread starter SamSpade
- Start date
No, they're not.
DACA is a 2-year renewable work permit for Childhood Arrivals.
DREAM is amnesty and permanent residency.
DACA is an executive order.
DREAM is a legislative action.
That is not my understanding, just from listening to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. That's what they're bitching about, funding the wall.
But I admit again that I get lost with too much blather.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Actually your breakdown is incorrect.
Dreamers are the people who have been covered under DACA which is the EO Obama signed in 2012 and which is being debated as part of the CR to become legislation.
There is no such law, legislation, or EO known as "dreamer" as that is just a term used to refer to the group of people who have been covered under DACA.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
??? Not the ones I am hearing. No wall. OR I have heard - *maybe* wall, but later on.
Which means they'll change their mind on it. No DACA, no deal. Period. GFY about a wall Trump. DACA.
Look, the objection to the wall from the Democrats - at least, the STATED reason - is it's a waste of money.
Hi-speed rail - solar companies - seriously does anyone believe a Democrat when he says that wastes money?
It's what they do.
So if money isn't the reason - give them the damned wall. It's not even a rights issue. It's a wall.
Actually she is not incorrect. DACA are those approximately 800,000 protected by the Obama EO. DREAMers are those 3,600,000 that have been the subject of the proposed DREAM act since 2001. Even Steny Hoyer knows they are different. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...amers-and-most-may-face-nightmare/1042134001/
PsyOps
Pixelated
If the people were against the wall, Trump would have lost and we probably wouldn't see a GOP-controlled congress. You may have your ideas about how we handle illegal immigration, but this country decided on Trump's plan.
And I find it typically hypocritical that liberals suddenly get concerned about what something will cost when it doesn't fit their thinking.
Spend a few billion and build the wall - DONE!
Spend trillions on entitlements - FOREVER!
The lack of logic is astounding.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Feinstein called for a clean DACA bill. This means, pass it all by itself, nothing attached. I have heard no disagreement from any democrat to this. Schumer and Pelosi have stated they want a clean DACA bill, going back to mid-2017.
Lucy and the Football Syndrome .....
it would NOT be the 1st time Democrats said 'Syke' and refused to deal after they got what they wanted
awpitt
Main Streeter
Okay. So, DACA only covers a portion of the Dreamers. Outside of that, there is no legislation or EO that covers the rest of the Dreamers.
??
I don't know how to respond to that. You can look up DREAM and DACA and see for yourself that they are different and in what way.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You just admitted that the people that voted for trump did so on his promise to havemexico pay for the wall. Not to add the costs of a wall to the national debt.
No one voted for trumps new plan to spend our money to build a wall.
So a clean DACA bill for funding the wall. It’s called a compromise. If that is their starting point it should be easy to make a deal for the great deal maker
yeah except the Democrats want the Clean DACA Bill now, for Wall Funding Later .....
Ain't NOBODY Believing that S h i t
[if they are smart]
MiddleGround
Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight..
The whole reasoning for this bull#### is that one side of the aisle wants funding to create something that will enforce the laws that we already have in place meanwhile, the other side of the aisle wants funding for something that will protect people that are not even US citizens?
Did I get that about right? If I did, it sure seems like it should be an easy choice!
The whole reasoning for this bull#### is that one side of the aisle wants funding to create something that will enforce the laws that we already have in place meanwhile, the other side of the aisle wants funding for something that will protect people that are not even US citizens?
Did I get that about right? If I did, it sure seems like it should be an easy choice!
DREAM = Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act
DREAM has been introduced a number of times and not passed. That's where DACA, as an executive order, came in. The Dems couldn't get DREAM passed, so Obama just bypassed Congress, which if you recall caused quite a bit of consternation with the general public.
You got that exactly right.
And the GOP is supposed to trust that the Dems will hold up their end of the bargain, which we know will never happen. Fortunately, GOP leaders - led by the vociferous Trump - are onto the Dems' little reindeer games and refuse to be played again. A notable exception is Lindsey Graham, who apparently enjoys being weak and having the Dems make a fool of him.
Dems = Lucy with the football
Graham = Charlie Brown
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
To make it even more of a broad brush stroke, both sides are willing to hold up funding our govt. in order to get their way.
MiddleGround
Well-Known Member
Pardon my possible naive thinking on this but, how is it even legal for members of the US Congress to be able to propose or maybe even pass a law requiring funding by US Citizen tax dollars to aid or 'abet' Non-US citizens or even ILLEGAL citizens?
I never knew that OUR Congress could pass laws that govern citizens of other nations!
I say they pass a law that says Argentinian farmers MUST raise at least 5 cows per year so that we US citizens can have plenty of steak! It makes about the same amount of sense as this nonsense!!!
I never knew that OUR Congress could pass laws that govern citizens of other nations!
I say they pass a law that says Argentinian farmers MUST raise at least 5 cows per year so that we US citizens can have plenty of steak! It makes about the same amount of sense as this nonsense!!!
MiddleGround
Well-Known Member
Please see my above post for why I think this is just assanine!!
Not your post but the reasoning for the shutdown.
Both sides, are you meaning R and D or House and Senate? To be clear the House passed the CR and has previously passed appropriation bills for all of the government, the Senate is where the problem lies and that ridiculous 60 vote rule that allows for holding everything up. Reid pushed it aside when he needed too, why not eliminate it completely?