Sunday, September 3, 2017

BREAKING: Trump Has Decided to End DACA



President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, reports Politico.

Got that? This is about preventing people from working in the United States.

Trump really thinks like a central planner who believes he knows exactly what the world should look like, the hell with free markets.

The White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, which according to Politico will give Congress a window to block the move.

Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning.

 -RW

Also see: Stephen Miller is an economic ignoramus.

UPDATE

(via Breitbart)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will brief reporters 11 a.m. on Tuesday about the administration’s decision to end the quasi-amnesty for young illegals imposed by former President Barack Obama in 2012.

UPDATE 2

CONFIRMED: Trump is Going to Throw the Hard Working Kids Out

31 comments:

  1. Excellent because they have no right to be here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's also expel all new automation technology, since that is also reducing job opportunities for locals, and all foreign capital, since that is reducing opportunities for locals' savings to earn a return.

      Delete
    2. They have just as much right to be here as you do.

      Delete
    3. Re: Marmite,

      --- Excellent because they have no right to be here. ---

      Yes, they do have the right. The government doesn't confer rights. Their right to be here comes from two places: their humanity and the fact they were invited in by The Market.

      Delete
    4. Excellent is correct.

      Unfortunately this has a 6 month delay, plenty of time for Cuckservatives to undermine it.

      Delete
    5. @FormerLibertarian

      At least there's some silver lining. Trump throws some red meat to the racist rubes, but avoids most of the ensuing economic damage when it gets shot down, which he can then blame on "cuckservatives" who apparently don't realize how much cooler white nationalism is than freedom.

      Delete
    6. White Nationalism is far cooler than the non freedom to be overrun by MS-13 and Somalis.
      I don't know why libertarians equate that with freedom, but clearly it is why OpenBorderTarianism is fading away.

      Delete
    7. I'm not sure what's hard to understand. Freedom is the state leaving you alone, not asking it to aggress against others in order to indulge your racial fetishes.

      Delete
    8. Re: FormerThinkingPerson,

      --- White Nationalism is far cooler than the non freedom to be overrun by MS-13 and Somalis. ---

      Paranoids do have reasons to fear Somalis... Or green men from Mars.

      --- I don't know why libertarians equate that with freedom, ---

      We don't and you're a liar.

      Delete
    9. Evan doesn't lock the doors of his house because the rest of the world has just as much right to be inside it as he does.

      Delete
    10. PH, you're overlooking the notion of private property rights. Assuming Evan owns his own home, he has the right to allow in and exclude anyone he sees fit. As do you with your owned property.

      But neither of you owns so-called "public property" or, if one does, both do. If you and Evan have different wishes for that property, whose wish prevails? You're hoping to co-opt the state to enforce your desires, and I think Evan is saying that the state has no legitimacy to make that decision, just as it has no legitimacy to make decisions anywhere else in society, since it is a wholly illegitimate entity. What is your theory of legitimacy for the state?

      Delete
    11. PH doesn't understand the difference between private property and so-called public property.

      Delete
    12. @TheNAPster

      Thank you.

      I have no problem if PH wishes to lock HIS door. But he seems to want to use the state to bar others' doors as well.

      Delete
    13. Throughout history tribes have controlled who may join the tribe. Gates in fortified cities, home owner association rules etc. The state's immigration law is reflecting the wishes of the majority.

      Delete
    14. Re: PH,

      "Tribes" don't control anything. The only beings of will that step on this good earth are individual humans. Only hunan individuals get to say who they deal with and with whom they don't. But they don't get to tell OTHER individuals with whom they can trade with or ibvite to their homes. And "we" are not a tribe, Kemosabe.

      Delete
    15. @PH

      How are "the wishes of the majority" relevant to what's right or wrong? Taxes, regulations, and war also "reflect the wishes of the majority." Should libertarians support these as well?

      Delete
    16. PH, there's a huge difference between voluntarily joining a group that operates by "majority rule" (which you can also voluntarily leave) and having "majority rule" imposed on you whether you like it or not. HOAs are examples of the former, and cities and states are examples of the latter.

      Delete
    17. So why do we have to have the wishes of you and Evan to let these people in the country rule over our wishes not to have them into our country?

      Until you privatize all property (which I'm fine with), I don't want the government just letting anyone into the country.

      Delete
    18. Matt, as a matter of justice, when the state acts to prohibit someone's movement it is unjustly using coercion against someone (who has not initiated the use of force). When the state does not so act, it is not acting unjustly (in that particular matter).

      As a practical matter, whenever the state acts it creates an irreconcilable conflict, since there are over 300 million people in this country, each with different preferences, and the state can only pick a single policy. It makes no more sense to depend on the state to enact an immigration policy than it does to depend on the state to enact an education, environment or any other policy.

      For all I know, you and I may have a similar desire in terms of the neighborhood and culture in which we want to live. I just don't see why we should grant the state any more legitimacy in this area than in any other. I regard the state -- which can only act by unjustly initiating force -- as indefensible morally, and that is true for all matters in which it might act.

      Delete
  2. "Trump really thinks like a central planner who believes he knows exactly what the world should look like, the hell with free markets."

    Obama really thought like a central planner who believed he knew exactly what the world should look like, when he ignored the law and launched a rogue course of action instituting DACA. He did not have the authority to do that.

    Trump is ending DACA, immediately suspending implementation, and allowing Congress to do what it is supposed to do and give Congress six months to change the law . . . if it can get the votes.

    Picking and choosing which dictator or dictatorial actions you like and getting outraged about the ones you don't like is not being consistent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So NOT arresting people for working is "central planning?"

      Very Orwellian.

      Delete
  3. How strange that to love your country and want to preserve it's culture is called racism. Notice it is only the culture of the West that the globalists want to destroy. No pressure on China, India, Arabia etc to accept millions of aliens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: PH,

      Lots of people preserve their culture by writing plays and novels, or composing music or making movies. You're not interested in preserving anything except your idea of an ethno-centric utopia.

      Delete
    2. There seems to be some confusion in terminology.

      The globalists want one state to rule the world and dictate who can travel and live where. The anti-immigration statists want many states to rule their respective societies and dictate who can travel to and live within those states (as do the pro-immigration statists, but they just have a different list of people compared with the anti-immigration statists). The libertarians want no states to rule anywhere, and to let private property owners make their own decisions about who can come and go with respect to their respective individual properties.

      Delete
    3. @The NAPster

      I've seen this more and more lately. Libertarians who argue that the right to freedom from aggression is universal, and not specific to those inhabiting some particular state jurisdictional territory, are accused of being "globalists."

      Delete
  4. Thank you DJ! This is why you were elected. Stop incentives to the damn illegal immigration. I'm sure corporate America with a double digit unemployment rate will be able to find some 'Muricans to do those jobs. Besides, if they are Mexican, well, Carlos Slim can probably find some money to help them out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Which side of the DACA is not for central planning? Neither.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean, in this particular case, wouldn't banning a person from working constitute a greater degree of central planning than not banning him from working?

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't someone banning an intruder from using the bathroom in his house constitute a greater degree central planning than not banning him from using the bathroom?

      What part of "they have no right to be here" do you not understand?

      Delete
    3. An intruder is trespassing on private property and has no right to use any of the property. That has nothing to do with immigration, where the issue is use of so-called "public property."

      Why do "they" have "no right to be here"? If any human has a right to occupy or traverse private property if the owner (e.g., landlord, employer, etc.) invites him to do so, then every human has that right. You seem to be implying that states get to define for us what is "right" and "wrong," as opposed to using logic and reason.

      If you believe that the state has the final word on what is right and wrong, that means "right" and "wrong" are entirely arbitrary and shift with political winds. Murder could be "right" if the state deemed it so. It also means that when the state sets an immigration policy with which you don't agree, you'd be in the wrong.

      Delete