Under the initiative, more than 100,000 illegal immigrants will be granted free healthcare under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The so-called “Dreamers” will be able to enroll in the program’s health care system beginning next year.
young people impacted by DACA and the DREAM Act are often referred to as “Dreamers.”
The recipients of DACA are young people who have grown up as Americans, identify themselves as Americans, and many speak only English and have no memory of or connection with the country where they were born. Under current immigration law, most of these young people had no way to gain legal residency even though they have lived in the U.S. most of their lives.
Since DACA began, approximately 800,000 people have been approved for the program. To be eligible, applicants had to have arrived in the U.S. before age 16 and lived here since June 15, 2007. They could not have been older than 30 when the Department of Homeland Security enacted the policy in 2012. DACA applicants have to provide evidence they were living in the U.S. at the prescribed times, proof of education and confirmation of their identities. They also had to pass background, fingerprint and other biometric checks that record identifying biological features.
Well, now we know who they are, but ARE THEY LEGAL? That’s the fundamental question in this carnival of marginalization.
No. No, they’re not. But by law, they are protected from deportation, authorized to work and go to school, get a social security number, and some other stuff. And the only reason they’re not legal is because the “We support a legal path to citizenship for immigrants that go through the proper channels” people do not, in fact, support a legal path to citizenship for them, with a bit of help from weak-kneed Democrats.
And now, this article has the audacity to stoke the fears of illegal immigration? Standard Republican politics: Republican solutions for Republican-caused problems.
The recipients of DACA are young people who have grown up as Americans, identify themselves as Americans, and many speak only English and have no memory of or connection with the country where they were born.
You would send someone to a country they have no memory of, no connection to, and cannot speak the language and not call it abuse? They’re not being sent home. They’re effectively being sent to a foreign country.
Exactly. That’s why it’s abusive. It’d be like sending a random conservative to Hungary. Though CPAC attendees may love Hungary, I doubt they’d like to be sent there forcefully when they identify as an American through and through.
Who the eff are Dreamers?
From the pro-genocide Anti-Defamation League:
Well, now we know who they are, but ARE THEY LEGAL? That’s the fundamental question in this carnival of marginalization.
No. No, they’re not. But by law, they are protected from deportation, authorized to work and go to school, get a social security number, and some other stuff. And the only reason they’re not legal is because the “We support a legal path to citizenship for immigrants that go through the proper channels” people do not, in fact, support a legal path to citizenship for them, with a bit of help from weak-kneed Democrats.
And now, this article has the audacity to stoke the fears of illegal immigration? Standard Republican politics: Republican solutions for Republican-caused problems.
Republicans didn’t invite people to come here illegally.
No, they didn’t. They were given a chance to “protect the innocent”, as they call kids, and decided to betray them anyway.
Dreamers are illegal immigrants who were abused by their parents. This does not mean we shouldnt deport them.
Abuse for abuse is not a cure.
Deportion is not abuse, why on Earth would it be?
I think we have fundementally different ideas of what abuse and deportation are
You would send someone to a country they have no memory of, no connection to, and cannot speak the language and not call it abuse? They’re not being sent home. They’re effectively being sent to a foreign country.
Exactly. That’s why it’s abusive. It’d be like sending a random conservative to Hungary. Though CPAC attendees may love Hungary, I doubt they’d like to be sent there forcefully when they identify as an American through and through.
It’s not an apt comparison.
It is not sending a random person to a random country.
It is sending a citizen of that country back to their country.
One can agree or disagree with doing it, but it isn’t a random person being sent to a random country.
If we want to get particular, it is the right thing to do under international law.
When you say “their” country, what do you mean?
The country of their origin and citizenship. You don’t identify as an American; you ARE an American.
They were not born here, and their parents were not citizens. They are not citizens of American.
If they are deported, they are being sent back to their rightful country. The one that can issue them a passport.
The abusive thing was to not deport them sooner.