DACA etc.
 

So the price for keeping the DACA recipients in the country is apparently deporting everyone on TPS, ending the DV lottery, ending the family reunification program and building a stupid wall.

Oh is that all. :lol:

What I love about this and none of the journalists can say is that it is a pretty transparent attempt at maintaining the Republican white power structure.

Because if you let the people on TPS and DACA become US citizens, they will vote Democrat overwhelmingly and they can then sponsor in their parents who will vote Democrat overwhelmingly. At least that's what Republicans seem to think.

So let the people on DACA stay, but don't let them become US citizens and failing that, end family reunification so they can't sponsor their (unlawfully present) parents.

And get rid of all the people on TPS as soon as possible before their kids get old enough to sponsor them for AOS.

Methinks the DV lottery is going to be repealed and probably some of the preference categories (you'd be dead if you applied in 3rd or 4th preference by the time a visa number came up, if you applied today).

The Democrats are going to be in a quandary about parents of US citizens though.

God forbid the Republicans might actually adopt political positions that make them more palatable to the public at large. Let's choose the voters instead.

Re: DACA etc.
 

The TPS for El Salvador which will ceased in 18 months was put in place due to earthquakes which happened 17 years ago. That's awfully long time to give you the opportunity for AOS. The overall number of people holding TPS is 325,000 which is a lot in absolute terms but relatively speaking I'm not sure that's going to swing an election for you given eligibility, distribution, turnout, etc.. The 1.9 million people eligible for DACA on the other hand probably would.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Curiously, El Salvador was granted TPS twice. It was one of the original TPS countries when it was created. Many of the beneficiaries obtained LPR via the NACARRA legislation.

Re: DACA etc.
 

It will all more than likely end up nowhere. DACA don't need to worry either

Re: DACA etc.
 

I have always been of the view and one I know shared by many that CIR was going nowhere, not so sure now.

Will everything be addressed, probably not, but some of the major aspects might.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Interesting. Do you know what kind of numbers we would be talking about?

Re: DACA etc.
 

Just saw a story on national news yesterday about tourism to have your baby in US. A Russian tour company is selling up scale packages for wealthy young Russian women to come to Miami stay in luxury hotels have their baby here to gain us citizenship for them. The business is booming even at a cost of around 100k.

Re: DACA etc.
 

IRS will be happy.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Saw a similar thing on one of those CBP shows on Netflix. Couple from Africa flew over to have a baby (think their POE was Detroit) and they let them through even though they clearly stated their intentions. Never realized it was so cut and dry.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Tourist agencies do the same thing for South Koreans.

LA targets Korean 'birth tourists'

Re: DACA etc.
 

This is not something for which I know any of the details, but I would imagine it very much depends on how many are located in swing states. Wikipedia lists Trump/Pence having a majority of about 800,000 in Texas, so DACA could maybe make a sizeable cut into that.

Re: DACA etc.
 

I somehow doubt that Russian financial institutions comply with FACTA and consequently whether there's much tax compliance by dual Russian/US citizens living there.

Re: DACA etc.
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...egally-n836521

Interesting case, sounds like there are a lot more in the pipeline.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Putting 800,000 DACAs on a path to citizenship in Texas would net about 115,000 votes for the Democratic Party there, at current turnout and trend levels. Trump won Texas by about 800,000 votes.

Nowhere near enough to swing an election, and the senior politicians know that even if the media and Facebook class don't. That is at the presidential level - Party ID effectively dissolves once you get into gubernatorial and lower-ballot races. Potential and future DACA votes are not, and will not, be a factor in negotiations.

By the way - Hispanics cannot be programmed. They have their own minds, don't owe anybody anything, and are going to vote however they want to vote. They are also not "all the same" and a Venezuelan is not going to vote for someone on the basis that they did something for Mexicans or Cubans. In very recent times, Hispanics have broken to the Democrats by about 2:1, but Trump out-performed Romney and McCain, and in 2004, at the height of the Iraq War, Kerry only beat Bush by 9% among Hispanics. The Cuban-American segment of the Hispanic vote also tipped Florida away from Al Gore.

Do not think that legalised DACAs will feel they "owe" something to the Democratic Party and that their vote will be a gimme. They won't and don't owe anything, and their vote won't be a gimme.

Of all the reasons to, or not to, legalise DACAs - "we don't want to engage in any self-reflection or examination of why our policies didn't resonate among voters to the extent we thought they would, so instead of changing them, our strategy instead will be to give citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and tell them that they need to vote for us at the polls as their pay back to us" is about as cynical as I can think of.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Showing the math: 800,000 times 48% turnout = 384,000.

384,000 times 65% (Democratic support) = 249,600

384,000 times 35% (Republican support) = 134,400

Net difference: 115,200