Current Events > Trump Supporters of DACA repeal have NO sight of history.

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis

The refugees seeking haven in America were poor and disease-ridden. They threatened to take jobs away from Americans and strain welfare budgets. They practiced an alien religion and pledged allegiance to a foreign leader. They were bringing with them crime. They were accused of being rapists. And, worst of all, these undesirables were Irish.
---

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?

A lot of them came here to escape the famine
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?

---

Lol look at this triggered lib
---

"Surely the immigration policies, practices, and sensibilities of the 1800's should apply to current day America" - a dumb person
---

Medz1206 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?

Do y'all really think illegal immigration is something new and exclusive to brown people


Like are you real people that seriously think like this lmao
---

butthole666 posted...

Do y'all really think illegal immigration is something new and exclusive to brown people


Like are you real people that seriously think like this lmao

yeah I did a double take while reading his post
---

@butthole666 posted...

Medz1206 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?

Do y'all really think illegal immigration is something new and exclusive to brown people


Like are you real people that seriously think like this lmao

so where is your citation about thousands of Irish entering illegally?

I asked a question but rather than answer it honestly you divert to something like "oh really, I mean I can't answer that but, cmon they must have cause I want it to be true!"


From the tc article:

With immigration controls left primarily to the states and cities, the Irish poured through a porous border. In Boston, a city of a little more than 100,000 people saw 37,000 Irish arrive in the matter of a few years. Naturally, it was difficult to integrate the newcomers in such sheer numbers. The Irish in Boston were for a long time “fated to remain a massive lump in the community, undigested, undigestible,” according to historian Oscar Handlin, author of “Boston’s Immigrants, 1790-1880: A Study in Acculturation.”

so what law was being broke?

they were also refugees

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/07/24/the-myths-illegal-immigration/Od1tk9ISJCvZgfjQdZeGYK/story.html

One thing they weren’t called, though, was “illegal,” because that term hadn’t been conceived yet

People are shocked when I say before World War I, there were no green cards, no visas, no quotas, no passports, even. Really, you just showed up. And if you could walk without a limp, and you had $30 in your pocket, you walked right in,” said Mae Ngai, a legal and political historian at Columbia University, whose studies focus on immigration.

It’s worth remembering how malleable the rules of immigration have been, as each successive wave of foreigners has come across the border, drawing resistance from those who came before. And that mid-19th-century wave is especially noteworthy, because of the role Massachusetts played.

tl;dr

they didn't break the law coming here as the law didn't prevent them from doing so


@hortanz


so let's not be dishonest here

prove me wrong

show they were illegal

or are you unable to?
---

up
---

Wait you mean to tell me that when it was easier to enter legally there were fewer illegal immigrants? You're also telling me that undocumented immigration from ~150 years ago is poorly documented?


No way!
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?

Yes are you fuckin joking lol

Illegal aliens aren't a new thing
---

My grandfather's brother (Italian) was an illegal immigrant. He literally hid on the boat and jumped near shore. Lived here until he died.
---

@butthole666 posted...

Wait you mean to tell me that when it was easier to enter legally there were fewer illegal immigrants? You're also telling me that undocumented immigration from ~150 years ago is poorly documented?

No way!

not poorly documented
they were allowed in as in, they literally had the right by the law to enter

understand?


@Ilove4chan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

curious, did the Irish sneak in and avoid immigration officials?

Yes are you fuckin joking lol

Illegal aliens aren't a new thing

article suggests otherwise

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/07/24/the-myths-illegal-immigration/Od1tk9ISJCvZgfjQdZeGYK/story.html

One thing they weren’t called, though, was “illegal,” because that term hadn’t been conceived yet

People are shocked when I say before World War I, there were no green cards, no visas, no quotas, no passports, even. Really, you just showed up. And if you could walk without a limp, and you had $30 in your pocket, you walked right in,” said Mae Ngai, a legal and political historian at Columbia University, whose studies focus on immigration.

It’s worth remembering how malleable the rules of immigration have been, as each successive wave of foreigners has come across the border, drawing resistance from those who came before. And that mid-19th-century wave is especially noteworthy, because of the role Massachusetts played.

funny how you say illegal immigrants isn't new

but the article says that is actually new and didn't start until after world war 1
---

Ilove4chan posted...

My grandfather's brother (Italian) was an illegal immigrant. He literally hid on the boat and jumped near shore. Lived here until he died.

was this after or before world war 1?
---

Before.

The modern concept of illegal immigrant may be relatively new, but the fact that you think there was always some sort of 100% perfect process of admitting immigrants in is so hilariously naive.
---

Ilove4chan posted...

Before.

The modern concept of illegal immigrant may be relatively new, but the fact that you think there was always some sort of 100% perfect process of admitting immigrants in is so hilariously naive.

no naivety about it

I am about citations

why don't you cite your source like I did instead of relying on a story about your grandpa's brother?


that after all is what the original question was soliciting

how ironic that a QUESTION that opens up for you to answer honestly makes so many people mad

why? you could just said "yes and here is the source" to the question

but you didn't

so we must wonder why you did not

and most likely because you just believe what you believe without a reliable source
---

I forget why I tagged you as a Jokeposter, but you're certainly living up to the tag.
---

TC, do you support Trump using executive action to bypass congress whenever he doesn't get what he wants? Because the 6 month delay is meant to give congress a chance to pass a real, permanent law instead of continuing what Obama did in effectively making his own laws through EE.

Letting the temporary executive action expire (when he already extended it once) seems like a 100% fair thing to do. I'd also like to point out that the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) action only DELAYS deportation as long as they have work. It does not grant them citizenship. It was NEVER going to keep them in the country by itself.
---

here

maybe we can nail down when immigration started becoming something that had lots of laws and regulations in the USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility.[31] In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875, also known as the Asian Exclusion Act, outlawing the importation of Asian contract laborers, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own countries.[32]

Prior to 1890, the individual states, rather than the Federal government, regulated immigration into the United States.[35] The Immigration Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.[36] The Canadian Agreement of 1894 extended U.S. immigration restrictions to Canadian ports.

:O

the power of sources!
---

s0nicfan posted...

I'd also like to point out that the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) action only DELAYS deportation as long as they have work. It does not grant them citizenship. It was NEVER going to keep them in the country by itself.

I don't think that's true.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

Congress passed a literacy requirement in 1917 to curb the influx of low-skilled immigrants from entering the country.

Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was aimed at further restricting the Southern Europeans and Russians who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. This ultimately resulted in precluding all "extra" immigration to the United States, including Jews fleeing Nazi German persecution.

The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America.

Restriction proceeded piecemeal over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries,

but immediately after the end of World War I (1914–18) and into the early 1920s, Congress changed the nation's basic policy about immigration. The National Origins Formula of 1921 (and its final form in 1924) not only restricted the number of immigrants who might enter the United States, but also assigned slots according to quotas based on national origins.

so is illegal immigration pretty new in the USA


the answer is

YES

since the early 1900s


disagree? then cite plz because I just gave you sources saying it is relatively new
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I'd also like to point out that the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) action only DELAYS deportation as long as they have work. It does not grant them citizenship. It was NEVER going to keep them in the country by itself.

I don't think that's true.

That's correct. I double checked and here are the criteria:
--had not yet turned age 16 when you came to the U.S. to live
--have continuously lived (“resided”) in the U.S. since June 15, 2010 up to when you apply (excluding any brief, casual, and innocent departures)
--were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and also at the time you apply for deferred action
either entered the U.S. without inspection before June 15, 2012, or if you entered with inspection, your lawful immigration status (such as a visa or Temporary Protected Status (TPS)) had expired as of June 15, 2012
--are either in school now (unless absent for emergency reasons), have graduated or earned a certificate of completion from an accredited high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States, and
--have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors; and do not otherwise present a threat to U.S. national security or public safety (such as by being a member of a gang).


So you had to finish school and not commit any crimes
---

s0nicfan posted...

So you had to finish school and not commit any crimes

that's pretty much a permanent solution as long as you don't committ crimes

I think the deferred in the title of the program is supposed to refer to the fact that its an executive action stopgap that supposedly was to give congress time to fix the problem through real legislation
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So you had to finish school and not commit any crimes

that's pretty much a permanent solution as long as you don't committ crimes

I think the deferred in the title of the program is supposed to refer to the fact that its an executive action stopgap that supposedly was to give congress time to fix the problem through real legislation

Sure, but then under that justification it's 100% fine that Trump is letting it expire. It already was extended once, and if it was always meant to be temporary wouldn't it be better for him to let it expire than continue to (what someone people feel) abuse executive actions?
---

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

"Surely the immigration policies, practices, and sensibilities of the 1800's should apply to current day America" - a dumb person

"Surely these people who came to America as children and only know America, work here, go to school here and contribute to America should be sent back to a life they don't know at all for no legitimate reason" - a dumb person.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

"Surely the immigration policies, practices, and sensibilities of the 1800's should apply to current day America" - a dumb person

"Surely these people who came to America as children and only know America, work here, go to school here and contribute to America should be sent back to a life they don't know at all for no legitimate reason" - a dumb person.

"Surely we should arbitrarily ignore/rewrite laws for these people through executive action rather than change the immigration policy through congress as it the entire purpose of the 3-branch system"
---

s0nicfan posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

"Surely the immigration policies, practices, and sensibilities of the 1800's should apply to current day America" - a dumb person

"Surely these people who came to America as children and only know America, work here, go to school here and contribute to America should be sent back to a life they don't know at all for no legitimate reason" - a dumb person.

"Surely we should arbitrarily ignore/rewrite laws for these people through executive action rather than change the immigration policy through congress as it the entire purpose of the 3-branch system"

Why can't we do both? Why can't we use common sense and allow those people to remain here instead of forcing them back to a life they never knew? While congress tries to tries to work things out why can't we work with these people to help them? Many of them came over as kids under no control of their own, contribute to society and have families of their own. Are we gonna send their entire family back?

This isn't nearly the same situation.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

"Surely the immigration policies, practices, and sensibilities of the 1800's should apply to current day America" - a dumb person

"Surely these people who came to America as children and only know America, work here, go to school here and contribute to America should be sent back to a life they don't know at all for no legitimate reason" - a dumb person.

"Surely we should arbitrarily ignore/rewrite laws for these people through executive action rather than change the immigration policy through congress as it the entire purpose of the 3-branch system"

Why can't we do both? Why can't we use common sense and allow those people to remain here instead of forcing them back to a life they never knew? While congress tries to tries to work things out why can't we work with these people to help them? Many of them came over as kids under no control of their own, contribute to society and have families of their own. Are we gonna send their entire family back?

For how long should we arbitrarily ignore our own constitution and let the executive branch make new laws instead of congress? It's been almost 6 years.

EDIT: And if you support this, are you willing to also support whatever other executive actions Trump puts into play using the same mechanics as Obama? Because we don't as a country get to allow one president to bypass checks and balances and not another simply based on whether we like the actions they're taking. That's not how government works.
---

Ask congress. It's up to them to work something out. They don't seem to have much of a sense of urgency. I don't think a man who came here when he was 3 and has started a family of his own while contributing to society and doing nothing wrong should be punished for that. So the only other option is "just send them back and we'll deal with it later!"....yea sure..."later"...

Edit: I can support Trumps right to use executive actions without supporting what he uses them on. What kind of question is that? So if I supported something Obama did with Executive action I have to support everything Trump does? It doesn't work that way.

ITT: "I need an easy scapegoat on which to blame all of my hardships and my own crushingly mediocre existence and will argue semantics down to the most insignificant and inane detail just to preserve my image of an entire demographic as a boogeyman responsible for my problems"
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Ask congress. It's up to them to work something out. They don't seem to have much of a sense of urgency. I don't think a man who came here when he was 3 and has started a family of his own while contributing to society and doing nothing wrong should be punished for that. So the only other option is "just send them back and we'll deal with it later!"....yea sure..."later"...

Edit: I can support Trumps right to use executive actions without supporting what he uses them on. What kind of question is that? So if I supported something Obama did with Executive action I have to support everything Trump does? It doesn't work that way.

I'm pointing out that people who assaulted Trump's use of executive actions as bypassing congress are being hypocritical for supporting DACA. You may not be one of those people, and that's fine. You may very well have more integrity than that.

As to your first point, it's still congress' job. DACA needs to expire because it's been 6 years and its not, nor should it be, Trump's job to make laws. If people are pissed at DACA going away, they should take their fury to congress, not to the president.
---

butthole666 posted...

ITT: "I need an easy scapegoat on which to blame all of my hardships and my own crushingly mediocre existence and will argue semantics down to the most insignificant and inane detail just to preserve my image of an entire demographic as a boogeyman responsible for my problems"

who are you attempting to strawman with this drivel?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, but then under that justification it's 100% fine that Trump is letting it expire. It already was extended once, and if it was always meant to be temporary wouldn't it be better for him to let it expire than continue to (what someone people feel) abuse executive actions?

I don't disagree, it is very unrealistic to expect Jeff Sessions to defend DACA in court. I was just pointing out that the protection itself really isn't contingent on continuing to do anything except not commit crimes (I consider that a lower bar than keeping a job)
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, but then under that justification it's 100% fine that Trump is letting it expire. It already was extended once, and if it was always meant to be temporary wouldn't it be better for him to let it expire than continue to (what someone people feel) abuse executive actions?

I don't disagree, it is very unrealistic to expect Jeff Sessions to defend DACA in court. I was just pointing out that the protection itself really isn't contingent on continuing to do anything except not commit crimes (I consider that a lower bar than keeping a job)

That's a fair point/correction.
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, but then under that justification it's 100% fine that Trump is letting it expire. It already was extended once, and if it was always meant to be temporary wouldn't it be better for him to let it expire than continue to (what someone people feel) abuse executive actions?

I don't disagree, it is very unrealistic to expect Jeff Sessions to defend DACA in court. I was just pointing out that the protection itself really isn't contingent on continuing to do anything except not commit crimes (I consider that a lower bar than keeping a job)

Why deport someone who didn't do anything wrong, then?

They were literally brought here without consent. It's not like they snuck past the border on their own volition. And the protection isn't just "don't commit crimes" you have to re-register for the protection every 2 years.

These aren't "undocumented immigrants" they are among the most extensively documented immigrants we have. They're just not Citizens. Not everyone in the country is a citizen anyway.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Why deport someone who didn't do anything wrong, then?

Their personal sob story is irrelevant. It is not the president's job to make laws. It is congress's job to make laws. I don't want them deported, but I would prefer we not unravel our constitution's carefully designed checks and balances system to help one arbitrary group simply because it's easier to beg one person to do it than a group who's actual responsibility it is.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Why deport someone who didn't do anything wrong, then?

Some administrative actions that just prioritize certain goals to the exclusion of others (the decision to target criminals for deportations under Obama, rather than raiding churches and schools, for instance) are in compliance with the law of the land. Presidents can do that kind of thing to pass de facto policies imo

But DACA is more than that. It sets up an entirely new program without Congressional approval. I think sonicfan is essentially correct about the precedent it sets. I am against the imperial presidency even when it supports goals that are in line with mine, which DACA is
---

s0nicfan posted...

Their personal sob story is irrelevant. It is not the president's job to make laws. It is congress's job to make laws. I don't want them deported, but I would prefer we not unravel our constitution's carefully designed checks and balances system to help one arbitrary group simply because it's easier to beg one person to do it than a group who's actual responsibility it is.

well, that bell rang a long time ago, but the Trump presidency does hopefully force liberals to acknowledge the downsides to governing by presidential fiat at least
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Their personal sob story is irrelevant. It is not the president's job to make laws. It is congress's job to make laws. I don't want them deported, but I would prefer we not unravel our constitution's carefully designed checks and balances system to help one arbitrary group simply because it's easier to beg one person to do it than a group who's actual responsibility it is.

well, that bell rang a long time ago, but the Trump presidency does hopefully force liberals to acknowledge the downsides to governing by presidential fiat at least

Which is what's so perverse about the DACA ruling. Trump openly admitting that it's not in his power to do what DACA does actually restores some semblance of that divide.
---

Balrog0 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Why deport someone who didn't do anything wrong, then?

Some administrative actions that just prioritize certain goals to the exclusion of others (the decision to target criminals for deportations under Obama, rather than raiding churches and schools, for instance) are in compliance with the law of the land. Presidents can do that kind of thing to pass de facto policies imo

But DACA is more than that. It sets up an entirely new program without Congressional approval. I think sonicfan is essentially correct about the precedent it sets. I am against the imperial presidency even when it supports goals that are in line with mine, which DACA is

The president doesn't make laws, but chooses when and where to enforce them. This is one of the reasons he grants pardons.

The previous president chose not to enforce ICE regulations on a specific group of people. That's completely within his prerogative to do. It's likewise also Donald Trump's prerogative to reverse that decision. It's just that his decision is extremely unethical even if it is within the scope of his power.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Balrog0 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Why deport someone who didn't do anything wrong, then?

Some administrative actions that just prioritize certain goals to the exclusion of others (the decision to target criminals for deportations under Obama, rather than raiding churches and schools, for instance) are in compliance with the law of the land. Presidents can do that kind of thing to pass de facto policies imo

But DACA is more than that. It sets up an entirely new program without Congressional approval. I think sonicfan is essentially correct about the precedent it sets. I am against the imperial presidency even when it supports goals that are in line with mine, which DACA is

The president doesn't make laws, but chooses when and where to enforce them. This is one of the reasons he grants pardons.

The previous president chose not to enforce ICE regulations on a specific group of people. That's completely within his prerogative to do. It's likewise also Donald Trump's prerogative to reverse that decision. It's just that his decision is extremely unethical even if it is within the scope of his power.

DACA is far more than "choosing not to enforce ICE regulations". Either you're being intentionally obtuse or you have a fundamental misunderstanding in what DACA does and how it works.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

The president doesn't make laws, but chooses when and where to enforce them. This is one of the reasons he grants pardons.

The previous president chose not to enforce ICE regulations on a specific group of people. That's completely within his prerogative to do. It's likewise also Donald Trump's prerogative to reverse that decision. It's just that his decision is extremely unethical even if it is within the scope of his power.

DACA is more than the president choosing to selectively enforce the law. I specifically said that I was okay with that.

This is not about enforcing ICE rules and regulations. This is about a program created whole-cloth by the president. Similar programs created the same way have already lost in court, and DACA would almost certainly lose, too.
---

People are arguing "i don't want the president to be able to do this. Follow the law. Trump overturning this means things are back to normal"...

Ok fine, but what is Trumps reason for doing so? It's not the reasons you guys are citing for why it's good. He has no problem using EOs and using his power to go over laws. How can you justify what he's doing and his reason for doing it? Why is this a "good" thing....because most people saying it's good aren't worried about EOs and the constitution.

s0nicfan posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

s0nicfan posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Mr_MacPhisto posted...

"Surely the immigration policies, practices, and sensibilities of the 1800's should apply to current day America" - a dumb person

"Surely these people who came to America as children and only know America, work here, go to school here and contribute to America should be sent back to a life they don't know at all for no legitimate reason" - a dumb person.

"Surely we should arbitrarily ignore/rewrite laws for these people through executive action rather than change the immigration policy through congress as it the entire purpose of the 3-branch system"

Why can't we do both? Why can't we use common sense and allow those people to remain here instead of forcing them back to a life they never knew? While congress tries to tries to work things out why can't we work with these people to help them? Many of them came over as kids under no control of their own, contribute to society and have families of their own. Are we gonna send their entire family back?

For how long should we arbitrarily ignore our own constitution and let the executive branch make new laws instead of congress? It's been almost 6 years.

EDIT: And if you support this, are you willing to also support whatever other executive actions Trump puts into play using the same mechanics as Obama? Because we don't as a country get to allow one president to bypass checks and balances and not another simply based on whether we like the actions they're taking. That's not how government works.

Good luck with all your logic and common sense.
---

Imagine calling illegal immigrants "refugees"

Thry're largely fleeing Mexico. There's no war in Mexico.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

There's no war in Mexico.

do you even narcos bro
---

Balrog0 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

There's no war in Mexico.

do you even narcos bro

The death toll caused by cartels doesn't hold a candle to the casualties caused by actual wars.

Calm thine tits.
---

This gooby out here yelling "CITE REAL SOURCES" but quoting Wikipedia lmao
---