Status of DACA parents.

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (33 posts)
  1. profile image78
    Hxprofposted 7 months ago

    Should parents of the beneficiaries of DACA be granted legal status or citizenship?  Why or why not?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, And anyone else who doesn't have Native American blood in their veins should be ousted. Luckily, I'm in!  cool

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Why?  Because they were the last group before Europeans to oust the people living there and take their place?  Does it make that much difference where the conquerors came from?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Who did the Native Americans oust, Dan?

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            The people before them.  The first people in the America's came, as near as we can tell, some 10,000 years ago.  Do you really think the Apache tribe, just as an example, as been there for 10,000 years?  Or did they boot out the people that conquered the people that conquered the people that conquered the people that came across the land bridge?

            It's always a little comical to see those that think the Indians of the 1700's walked in from Asia, or that their grandparents did.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Actually the first to cross the Bering land bridge may have arrived as early as 40,000 years ago, Dan. But that's beside the point. They had no one to oust because there were no people here. Owning land was unthinkable to them as they considered it impossible. Sure, they had certain hunting areas they considered their right to hunt, but this wasn't on an individual basis.

              So tell me again, who did the earliest arrivals steal from?

              It's always comical for those trying to educate others on history to be more uninformed than the listener. tongue

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                You're trying to insinuate that Europeans took the land from the people that crossed over from Asia.  Didn't happen and you know it - those original tribes were wiped out thousands of years ago by either people that came with them or people that floated in by boat.  Nor do you have a clue what those people thought of land ownership or hunting rights; there are no written records and even tribal tales vanished thousands of years ago.

                So what ARE you trying to say, if not simply chastising Europeans for doing what Indians did but with more technology to back it?  That violence between red people is OK but when white people do the same thing it's not?  Is it because one group was from Asia and the other from Europe?  Is it because one thought God gave them the land while the other thought many gods gave it to them?  What is the difference that makes it wrong for one but not the other?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm saying the Native Americans are ancestors of the original immigrants who found a vast unspoiled wilderness teeming with game. They were hunter gatherers who didn't till the land but lived off of it.

                  There is no proof these original immigrants were wiped out in the same event which caused the Mega fauna to go extinct. Yes, there were further waves of immigration across the land bridge, both ways in fact. The horse originated in the Americas and migrated to Asia before becoming extinct in the same period the mastodons, mammoths, giant bison and saber tooth cats.

                  Yes, anyone can overpower a weak civilization especially, especially if they welcome you in the beginning. Doesn't make it right though.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    OK - great!  And we're all ancestors of much older peoples out of Africa - Asians, Indians, Eskimos and yes, even those terrible Europeans.  So it must be all right for all of them to conquer if one of them can, right?

                    Randy, you may believe that the cultures and societies that took root in the Americas 10,000 years ago remained the same societal/culture/"government" until the 1700's.  I don't, and that means they conquered each other, but hey - if you want to make up myths that the Apache, the Cherokee, the Blackfeet, the Incas, the Aztecs and all the hundreds of Indian tribes in the Americas all existed for ten thousand years, why have at it.  But don't try to feed them to me.

      2. profile image78
        Hxprofposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        So even though white Europeans AND the DACA parents are here illegally, you want to give the DACA parents a pass.  Why's that?

      3. Live to Learn profile image79
        Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I'm in too. But, couldn't disagree more with your comment. That's like saying a bank robber shouldn't be held responsible for stealing, simply because he's related to some guy who worked in a money printing company, in Taiwan, but is descended from a guy who helped design the dollar.

        Not to mention our ancestors might not have had initial consent from the woman who ultimately became one of our ancestors.

        Having native American blood in your veins, along with others, doesn't make you special. It makes you an average American.

  2. Onusonus profile image78
    Onusonusposted 7 months ago

    According to the president;
    "Those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws."

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      And yet, as I understand it, the president's proposal on the dreamers includes their parents.  No other relatives, but parents can stay with their children.

  3. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 7 months ago

    My opinion is "No".  It is one thing to allow children, that have violated no laws of their own volition and that know no other country, to remain - it is quite another to welcome known lawbreakers, people that have shown no respect at all for our laws.

    1. profile image78
      Hxprofposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Agreed.  They've shown no respect for our laws, and to give them legal status, or citizenship, as we did in the 80's, only encourages more lawlessness; others will follow their example, and we'll end up with the same problem a few years down the road.  By setting an example, that is, enforcing our laws and making sure that none (or few at least) of these EVER is granted legal status, is the way to do.  Give the so called dreamers a path to citizenship, but bar their parents......deport them.

  4. GA Anderson profile image81
    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

    From DACA parents to stealing land from Native Indians, to who first crossed the "land bridge" ... whew! Where is peoplpower73 when you need him?

    But since we're here... which category would fit the Native American tribes that "stole the use of territory", (taking ownership?), from other Native American tribes - often massacring and enslaving the "beaten" tribe? Conquers and thieves like the white Europeans? Or just bad neighbors? Was it only the conqueror's land as long as they could defend it from the next tribe that wanted it?

    Of course those are leading questions, whose answers I think are relevant to the point being made - but maybe not. Are the implied answers wrong?

    And would a counter-point even need to address the Native American angle? Regarding the U.S. wouldn't just going back to the Mexicans be far enough to cover the same point being made about first inhabitants?

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, the NAs often warred among themselves and even took captives as slaves, but they were made part of the family in many cases and often married into the tribe. The deaths among warring tribes was often rare with counting coup on an enemy--physically touching the adversary--being a greater act of bravery than killing him. The ancient ball games were often more injurious than warfare.

      One fact remains, the earliest people had no one to overthrow when they arrived here. cool

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        "deaths among warring tribes was often rare" You ever hear of a place in Georgia called "Blood Mountain?"  Know how it got its name?  Nothing to do with Europeans.  Seriously Randy, do you know the recorded history of tribes completely wiping out other tribes?  They also had some pretty effective torture techniques.  When tribes went to war and captured one another it was not nice.
        http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/i … ifferently
        The plains Indians were exceptionally brutal.  I'm a student of history and I've read quite a few bits of recorded history.  All tribes were different, but when things got tough and food was scarce, life and death battles were common.

      2. GA Anderson profile image81
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I am certainly no expert on early Native American ways Randy, and I didn't go on a long Google quest to find specific facts and histories of what we are describing. But what I did find contradicts your benign scenario of being "... made part of the family in many cases and often married into the tribe". There were multiple historical references of just what I first said; complete massacres and survivor enslavement, of the "conquered" tribe.

        What you say may well have happened, but what was the norm, your version or mine? And does it even matter, the point is that Native American Indian tribes "stole" land just as you describe our American ancestors as doing.

        As for the part that they had "...no one to overthrow when they arrived here", there seems to be some that say "Paleoamericans" might offer a disagreement with that.

        But, we should just let that go and get back to the DACA parents. Do you think they should be allowed to stay with their DACA kids? If they aren't now, or haven't been, in jail... I do.


        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I was speaking of Paleo tribes, GA. I didn't have to search google for anything I stated because I've researched the subject for years. I didn't claim there was no enmity between the tribes or specific to the many small groups of folks, just that they looked at the land as being permanent while they moved around.

          I feel the DACA group should have citizenship, not those who came here voluntarily. And I don't think a wall is the solution to the problem.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            The DACA "group" being the (ex) kids brought here involuntarily but not their parents, who came of their own free will?  I disagree with GA here - parents can reside in their home country, just as millions of parents of real immigrants do.  I'd accept making them citizens as a compromise, though.

            Would you consider an electronic wall?  One composed of men, likely with guns?  A concentrated mine field?  Blanket the area for a mile inland with thousands or millions of armed drones on automatic pilot (what would you do with the bodies)?  The invasion needs to end - what's the best solution that will at least slow it dramatically and be affordable in the long term?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I have no problem beefing up security, especially with electronic surveillance and other techniques. A physical wall described by Donnie is simply a waste of money, as his proposed parade for himself.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                "Beefing up".  As in adding a few hundred border patrol to cover 2,000 miles?  Or as in  pouring a few more Billion into it each and every year?

                One is "simply a waste of money" and the other doesn't sound very affordable.  But I DO think that a physical wall in spots, combined with electronic surveillance in others and more patrols might work.  The problems associated with one section are not those of the next, and require a different solution.  Of course the best thing we could do is put some real teeth, and lots of additional enforcement, into labor laws.  Take the jobs away and they'll no longer come.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  From what I understand, many of  the illegals have gone back home starting during Obama's admin. I can see a fence of some sort aided by electronic surveillance, but a wall such as Trump promised is a huge waste of money.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, they headed home during the recession.  And when it ended they began streaming back in...until Trump began cracking down.

                    I agree that 2000 miles of 20' (or whatever) stone wall is silly.  But that same wall near towns or near popular crossing spots sounds like a winner to me.  Coupled with men and surveillance, of course.  One problem we'll probably see is that if we make it difficult at the popular crossing spots they WILL move to another, meaning more wall.  But we won't be the first modern nation to wall off their borders, and I don't mean Berlin.

          2. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Randy, I worked for a few years with a company that did movie shorts for American native tribes.  There are over 240 different native tribe in the United States.  Some have histories as peaceful people who fished and lived off the land and others lived by attacking and taking things from other tribes.  When people say "Native Americans" it covers lots of different traditions, language, dress, food and more.

            Sorry, I think the DACA people should have to go through the entire citizenship process just like my friends and family members.  Having them wait 12 years to become citizens after passing the citizenship test seems about right to me.  They should also have to pay just like every legal immigrant has to who comes to the United States legally.  It's NOT an easy process.  I am for the wall and getting to choose who does or does not come into our country.

            I'll give you credit on the slave issue.  I read diaries of Europeans who had learned the Indian language and lived with some native tribes in the Eastern United States.  Army troops would barter or fight to free Europeans from the Indian tribes.  More than one diary spoke about how younger Europeans would leave settlements and go back to the Indian tribes because they liked the life they had with the tribe.  Traders would take Indian wives and live with the tribes.  Did you know the Cherokee was one of the few and maybe only Native American tribe to have a written language?  Some of the stories their writings provide are absolutely fascinating.  So, enough of that, I could go on as the subject is very interesting to me.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              It is a very interesting subject, Mike. One which I've eagerly researched for many years. Yes, the Cherokee was a settled tribe with stationary homes and excellent farms. Unfortunately for them, the whites coveted their already cleared fields and homes and was eager to send them to Oklahoma so they could have their possessions for themselves.  A sad chapter in American history!

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Randy, you're absolutely right.  I have a friend in Oklahoma who is a Cherokee.  I can see the daily frustration of Native Americans through him.  He has land on a reservation where he lives, but the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) told him he can't sell the land and can't borrow against it.  They often refer to the BIA as "Bossing Indians Around."  He was able to still start his business, but the reservation where he lives has its own set of politics among members of the tribe.  I could go on, but yeah, you're right on this one.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm pleased we've found something we agree on, Mike! smile

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)