Trump reverses Obama policy of deporting DREAMER parents!

[jmdrake]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Ha ha ha! I told you!

First, thanks to Anti Federalists for posting this story back in March. I missed it until today. So the bill that Trump signed the same day that he demanded emergency funding for the wall actually gave protection to illegal immigrant parents who brought in illegal immigrant children? LOL.

After a belligerent Friday morning press conference in which the president declared a state of emergency in order to allocate funds to build the wall, on Friday afternoon Trump signed an omnibus bill that ensured the wall would never be built. Not only that, the bill ensures the country will be flooded with more illegal aliens than ever.

Regarding the wall for which Trump had originally demanded $25 billion before backpedaling down to $5.6 billion, the bill doesn’t even deliver what the Democrats had agreed to, which was a puny $1.6 billion. It only allocates $1.375 billion—enough to build about 55 miles of bollard fencing rather than a concrete wall—and it limits construction strictly to the Rio Grande Valley section of the border. And even within that section, construction is prohibited on federal and state lands. Regarding the rest, it requires local authorities—which in South Texas are uniformly Democratic and largely controlled by Mexican drug cartels—to agree to the wall’s construction, which is like asking black people to agree that slavery benefited them. It will never happen.

Section 224(a) of the bill prohibits any illegal alien who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal…or who claims they may, you know, one day sponsor one…or who currently lives with an unaccompanied minor illegal…from being deported. This provides a massive incentive for illegal aliens currently bleeding the public coffers to call up minors from south of the border as little baby human shields against deportation.

What was Obama's policy on parents of so called "DREAMERS?'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp68QI_9r1s&t=7s

Note that DREAMERS are "sacred cows" of the immigration debate. These are children who were brought over when they were babies, sometimes speak ONLY English, and have only known the United States as home. Obama was willing to deport those parents. And Trump signed a bill giving protection not only to those parents, but also to the parents that bring over their 17 year old kids!

I told you so.

I told you so.

I told you so.

.
.
.

[Anti Globalist]

Deport all the illegals no matter how old or young they are.

[Swordsmyth]

That ‘amnesty’ claim is based on section 224 of the budget -- which appears, on first glance, to block the deportation of many people who are illegally in the U.S.
That’s because it states that no funds may be used to detain or deport any "sponsor" or "potential sponsor" of an "unaccompanied alien child." It adds that even any "member of a household" of a "potential sponsor" is now immune from deportation.
But a DHS official told Fox News that terms like "potential sponsor" have precise meanings in Department of Homeland Security regulations -- meanings that severely limit the number of people the budget keeps safe from deportation.


For example, to be a "potential sponsor" according to the DHS regulations, one must file significant paperwork -- such as showing ID (U.S. or foreign) and proof of residency. The adult applying must also submit documents about the child.
Further, because the bill only applies to kids who are unaccompanied, it does not provide protection for those bringing kids into the US.
That would significantly limit the number of people to whom the no-deportation provision applies.


Chris Chmielenski, the deputy director of NumbersUSA, which fights for lower immigration levels and which urged President Trump to veto the budget, told Fox News that the provision is still problematic despite DHS’s clarifications.
“We still have some serious concerns about the provision,” Chmielenski told Fox News. “It still protects these sponsors and/or relatives who make it into the US. That’s not a precedent we should be setting.”
He noted that, despite the paperwork DHS demands of someone to become a “potential sponsor,” some might still try to game the system and that it could still encourage “unaccompanied” kids to be sent over the border.


“We would prefer this wasn't in there. We would also hope this is something that expires at the end of fiscal year,” he said.
The provision in the budget will be replaced by whatever the next budget says.
Another major alleged “poison pill” that may be misunderstood is a clause requiring the federal government to "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" with local governments before building any wall.
The Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration levels, tweeted that “the spending bill would give local governments in the Rio Grande (all of which are *heavily* Democratic) the ability to veto the fence. If those blue municipalities don't agree with DHS, the fence can't get built.”
But the DHS official told Fox News on background that the exact language in the budget -- "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" – nowhere requires the federal government to actually reach an agreement before building fences.
Rather, it just requires DHS to consult with local governments – something DHS already generally does, the official noted.

Trump allies say that the information from DHS shines light on why Trump ultimately signed the bill after reviewing it. Some warned about “disinformation” on Thursday.
“Just spoke with the White House. There will be NO Amnesty and NO path to citizenship,” Sebastian Gorka, a former deputy assistant to President Trump and a Fox News contributor, tweeted Thursday.
Other criticisms of the budget Trump signed include that it allows the Department of Homeland Security to more than double the number of guest worker visas, from 65,000 to 135,000. However, the law merely allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to make such an increase; it would only happen if the secretary authorizes it.
Another matter of contention is that the budget authorizes 45,000 ICE detention beds; an increase from the past budget which paid for 40,520 beds, but less than the number of detention beds ICE actually has.
However, the number of beds authorized by Congress does not actually force ICE to reduce its number of beds, as they can use money from other parts of the budget.
Gorka says the claims of the sky falling are overblown, and also told Fox News that it was silly to call anything in the budget “amnesty” because it’s just an annual budget.
“How is a funding bill that expires before the end of the fiscal year able to create conditions for a lasting ‘amnesty?’” Gorka said.

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs...y-poison-pills (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-official-border-security-bill-does-not-contain-amnesty-poison-pills)

[r3volution 3.0]

If the protagonist of the story were anyone but Trump, this thread would be overflowing with DEEP STATE TRAITOR! WHITE GENOCIDE! etc.

[Swordsmyth]

If the protagonist of the story were anyone but Trump, this thread would be overflowing with DEEP STATE TRAITOR! WHITE GENOCIDE! etc.
Wrong, Trump isn't responsible for the temporary issues that are being misrepresented and he has taken measures to nullify them by keeping the invaders out and throwing them back to Mexico and other countries.

[r3volution 3.0]

Wrong, Trump isn't responsible for the temporary issues that are being misrepresented and he has taken measures to nullify them by keeping the invaders out and throwing them back to Mexico and other countries.

His stunt double signed the bill?

[Swordsmyth]

His stunt double signed the bill?
He needed funds to keep from having to release hordes of illegals.
But the provisions are being misrepresented anyway as the article I pointed out explains and Trump has more than compensated with the Remain in Mexico policy and the safe 3rd country agreements.

[r3volution 3.0]

He needed funds to keep from having to release hordes of illegals.
But the provisions are being misrepresented anyway as the article I pointed out explains and Trump has more than compensated with the Remain in Mexico policy and the safe 3rd country agreements.

Whatever helps you keep the Faith

[CCTelander]

Whatever helps you keep the Faith


Even when he flat out betrays them on their own pet issues Trump fans find some way to rationalize and justify it so they can remain faithful. It's really quite remarkable.

[Swordsmyth]

Even when he flat out betrays them on their own pet issues Trump fans find some way to rationalize and justify it so they can remain faithful. It's really quite remarkable.
That's nonsense, it was not a betrayal and he has done many far more important things about the issue.

Even Drake understands:


So and adult with child gets within visual sight of the border, tells the child to walk up to border agents by him/herself as to appear "unaccompanied", the person then goes across the border alone, jumps through some hopes to become an official sponsor of this "unaccompanied minor" and gets immunity from deportation. Explain to me why I am wrong.


Because they will be made to remain in Mexico or be sent to the safe third countries that Trump has arranged for.


Except....that's not at all what's been happening.

Edit: Nevermind. I saw this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/world/americas/asylum-seekers.html


Except it is.

POTUS to pursue an aggressive executive crackdown on immigration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533104-POTUS-to-pursue-an-aggressive-executive-crackdown-on-immigration/page16)




Yeah. I posted an edit while you were responding.

[CCTelander]

That's nonsense, it was not a betrayal and he has done many far more important things about the issue.

Even Drake understands:


Since I based my comment on jmdrake's OP, and he seems to have concede the point, I retract my comment. Appologies.

[Swordsmyth]

Since I based my comment on jmdrake's OP, and he seems to have concede the point, I retract my comment. Appologies.

Apologies aren't required for a difference of opinion. :)