Hello Mike,

 >> President Obama was right.  We do have a moral obligation
 >> to offer citizenship to those who are here not of their own
 >> accord.  Or rather a path to citizenship, as citizenship is
 >> and should be a free choice, never something forced.

 MP> They should have to go through the same path that those who come here
 MP> legally do.

They did not have a choice in the matter.
Since they have been here longer than a year,
if they return to wherever their place of origin
is, they would have to wait ten years in order
to apply to return.  Thems the rules.

The solution you cited is a non-starter, from their
perspective.  The odds of them being able to return
would be slim to nill, closer to nill.

 MP> Oh, I know, that is too difficult for someone who does not want to learn
 MP> anything about the country they are in, so we need to "create a(n easier)
 MP> path" just for them while making those who came legally take the tests, do
 MP> the interviews, etc., on that more difficult path.

There is DAPA and there is DACA.  DAPA is for the parents, DACA
is for the children.  Both groups are undocumented immigrants.
After the creation of DAPA, Obama issued a policy memorandum known
as DACA.  That way, children who are undocumented immigrants also
had a legal basis to stay (according to the Obama administration).

The Congress passed the INI, which is the basis for immigration
law.  DAPA/DACA runs in a different path than INI.  Which way
will the courts ultimately rule?  Is DAPA/DACA constitutional?

Can a president rule by policy memorandum?  Just write a note
to a cabinet secretary as to how he wants things done, and that
will be the law.  Kind of neat, don't you think?

--Lee

-- 
Often Licked, Never Beaten

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb