How I view Trump’s DACA policy

What exactly do we have here? To describe Trump as politically incorrect would be an understatement. He is the father of political incorrectness. And that only means that he encourages the same from the American People.

Let’s begin with his DACA position, which offers amnesty in exchange for funding of the Wall. Wait a minute. Did he not say Mexico was going to pay for the Wall? But, more to the point, are people simply bargaining chips? Next time funding is needed to stave a government shutdown will another group of people be used as pawns?

The very idea of deporting people – young or old – who have set roots in this nation, ie., who have been granted driver’s licenses, work permits, health insurance, construction permits, and college degrees in what are referred to adhesion agreements offered to persons who are not citizens by each state (as per the 14th Amendment), is repugnant to our sense of common decency and humane behavior. Little does the manipulated mainstream media know about MAVNI, the path to citizenship after serving in the military. Again, the message is clear: a person must be of some utilitarian purpose to the nation in order to be granted citizenship. Never mind that a person may have already set roots through adhesion contracts and paid local and state taxes, and in many instances even federal taxes.

As I have said before, the litmus test is Root-Setting. It is incumbent on the States and the Federal Government to deport illegal aliens before they set roots, not after. Also, it is incumbent on the States and the Federal Government to not grant services that may be deemed adhesion agreements to illegal aliens.  An adhesion agreement adheres or glues the parties to the agreement. An Adhesion Agreement confers certain rights and remedies to both parties, without even invoking the 14th Amendment that offers the same rights under the law to persons who are not citizens. In simple language, the Constitution applies equally to citizens and non-citizens (persons).

The Constitution is mute on immigration, but vocal on naturalization. And the laws on immigration have morphed over the last two centuries according to the needs and security threats the United States has faced. Even President Trump’s views on immigration have evolved over time. Note how the President’s tone was drastically conciliatory in 2012.

In 2015, his tone became more controversial. He wanted to uproot people who were given a pass by the State and the Federal Government. In 2016 it became more pragmatic. Of course dangerous illegal criminals should be deported.

The “humane solution” involves restricting access to adhesion agreements (ie., government services) in the first instance when illegal immigrants request them. It also entails allowing residence and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have posed no threat to the nation and might or might not have entered into adhesion agreements with a State or the Federal Government, and who would have otherwise been granted residence status had they gone at the back of the line.  But to require that they sell everything, break all social contracts, and self-deport so that they can apply legally is not only impractical, but inhumane. The onus was on immigration officials and the states to make it impractical for such persons to set roots when they first arrived, not after they set roots.

We can reach back to a time in American history when each State prescribed its own immigration policy. We can develop policy which leaves the determination of State Citizenship (but not Federal citizenship) to each State as the first step in the path to American citizenship. This would serve as a probationary period to determine the worthiness and viability of an immigrant. We could also introduce fast-tracks to citizenship based on Merit, such as military service, philanthropic activity, productivity, volunteering, mentoring, etc. Another fast track could include giving work permits to immigrants coming from nations that enjoy all the social safety nets, such as Sweden, Canada, Norway. For a person to leave a nation with healthcare, welfare, disability and unemployment insurance, and come to the US means the person is interested in more than handouts, in contrast to a person who comes from a third world country in search of social safety nets.

Finally, there is a category of immigrants who come into the US for neither economic reasons nor for a quick path to citizenship. They come simply to make America stronger. Their cause is ideological. They want nothing from America. They want to give everything to America. Such people can be best described as American super-patriots, in contrast to patriots who are born in the US and serve the nation out of a sense of duty and patriotism. Such super-patriots were the founding fathers who hailed from England, Scotland, Ireland and the Caribbean – Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury, was born in Saint Kitts and Nevis.