He Immigrated to the U.S. as a Child. He Was Just Kicked Out—Despite Coming Here Legally.
"Documented Dreamers" continue to have to leave the country even though this is the only home many have ever known.

Roshan Taroll says his mother, Beena Preth, brought him to the United States as a child in hopes he would put his nose to the grindstone and shoot his shot at accessing the bounty of opportunity uniquely offered by America. He will not have the chance.
In 2008, Taroll arrived in the U.S. as a 10-year-old with his younger brother and Preth, who had secured a job in the States at a tech company on an H-1B visa. He subsequently became a Dreamer: the moniker given to migrants who arrived in the U.S. as children through no fault of their own.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), instituted during President Barack Obama's administration, shielded many of those individuals—who often do not know any other country as home—from deportation. But core to being a Dreamer under DACA's purview is that you must be undocumented.
Taroll* and about 250,000 others, meanwhile, are known as "Documented Dreamers": those who came to the U.S. as children lawfully but face self-deportation if their parents cannot help them get a green card, or if they cannot find another visa, before they age out of dependent status at 21 years old. DACA does not apply to them, so in many cases, Documented Dreamers are vulnerable to expulsion not in spite of coming to the U.S. legally—but because of it.
One typical reaction: These migrants must not have done their due diligence in trying to obtain permanent residence; they came here as kids, so they had plenty of time.
It's a core misconception that obscures how topsy-turvy the U.S. immigration system is. It can take decades—or more—to get through the green card application process, thanks to stratospheric wait times wrought by country-of-origin caps.
The federal government allots approximately 140,000 employment-based green cards annually. But each country can nab a maximum of 7 percent of those in a single year, meaning people from nations that produce a disproportionate amount of highly skilled immigrants are punished based on where they were born. And thus the backlog was born.
India, where Taroll is originally from, is a prime example. There are about 1.8 million cases in the backlog. Over one million of those are from India, and they are waiting in a line that continues growing longer and longer with little hope in sight. Many will wait decades. Most perverse is that that is essentially the best-case scenario, as new applicants today now face a wait time that requires defying mortality: about 134 years. Hundreds of thousands will die waiting.
Taroll's mother was one of them. In 2018, Preth died of cancer before she could make it to the front of the line. Although the federal government allows family members to apply for permanent residence after their principal petitioner dies, that hope was more theoretical than practical, as Taroll predictably aged out of dependent status before he, too, could reach the front of the line. He subsequently converted to a student visa to finish his degree at Boston College and then received a temporary work permit allotted to international students who graduate with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees. His employer, a semiconductor company, submitted Taroll in three H-1B visa lotteries, of which the odds of winning have dropped off a cliff in recent years. He wasn't selected.
So last month, Taroll was forced to self-deport to Taiwan, where his employer was able to secure him a spot. He does not know the language nor does he have any family ties to the country. "I grew up in my hometown of Boston as just a regular kid, never imagining that my status would define my decisions later in life," he tells me. "And like many Documented Dreamers, we only truly understood the ramifications once we get closer to aging out and have to start planning for ways to remain in the only country that we know as home."
Though the architecture of the law doomed Taroll's chances at getting permanent residence from his mother, some Documented Dreamers never have any such hope to begin with, as certain visas do not have pathways to permanent residence or citizenship. In 2005, Laurens van Beek's parents moved him from the Netherlands to Iowa on an E2 small business visa, which allows for extensions so long as they meet certain requirements.
It does not, however, allow them to get in line for a green card. Van Beek attended the University of Iowa on an international student visa and, like Taroll, received a temporary extension based on his studies in STEM. But in 2022, after three failed H-1B visa lottery attempts, he had no choice but to leave the country. At the time of his expulsion, van Beek says, his father—who remained in Iowa to run his small business, Jewelry by Harold—was suffering from grave kidney disease. "I believe DACA is a good thing," van Beek tells me, "however why are these protections not extended to Documented Dreamers as well? Or at least something to prevent us from having to give up our lives and roots?"
Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have tried to answer that question. In 2021, Rep. Deborah Ross (D–N.C.) introduced a bill in the House to effectively close the Documented Dreamer loophole and pave a pathway for citizenship. It also would have addressed another one of the more harebrained inconsistencies with DACA, whose recipients can apply for work permits. Documented Dreamers cannot. "When I was a freshman and sophomore, I didn't go to any of the career fairs," Documented Dreamer Pareen Mhatre told me in 2021, "because I knew that I wouldn't be able to apply for any of the internships."
That same legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Alex Padilla (D–Calif.) and Rand Paul (R–Ky.). "My bill America's Children Act fixes the documented dreamer problem by prioritizing the children of legal immigrants for permanent status," Paul tells Reason. "So, a child whose parents came legally will not have to face deportation when they turn twenty-one."
In 2022, it looked like change was nigh. A version of that bill passed the House as an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). And then it was laid to rest in the Senate's legislative graveyard after Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa) rebuffed the proposal. So the change, despite being widely uncontroversial and not rupturing along predictable partisan fault lines, remains paralyzed for now. "Comprehensive immigration reform has become the enemy of incremental reform," adds Paul.
The momentum isn't dead. In June, Padilla and Ross submitted a bipartisan letter, signed by 43 lawmakers, urging President Joe Biden's administration to make the plight of Documented Dreamers less tenuous via executive action, although a legislative solution is by far the superior option, should Congress find the political will to do its job. "Every day without action results in young adults, who have been lawfully raised in the United States by skilled workers and small business owners, to be forced to leave the country, separating them from their families and stopping their ability to contribute to our country," says Dip Patel, founder of Improve the Dream, a group that advocates for Documented Dreamers. "The economic case is clear and the moral case is clear. It is common sense."
Taroll is just one such casualty. He still hopes he'll get a different ending. "This country means everything to me and I owe everything to it," he says. "While I always say that my parents raised me and my brother, I also believe that this country raised us. It afforded us the opportunities to participate academically, personally, and professionally. We always saw it as home and as a duty always made sure to leave our positive mark on it." Van Beek agrees: "My current hope is that my employer is able to secure a visa for me to come back to the United States," he tells me, "but in the meantime I'm doing my best to stay positive."
Both also have strong familial reasons to return to the U.S., albeit in different ways. Van Beek's father "is not in the best medical state," he says, but he survived—after one of his employees donated her kidney to save him. Taroll's mom, meanwhile, has been gone for over six years. But he still wants to come back for her. "All she wanted was for me and my brother to work hard and have a chance at the American dream," he says. "It feels as though I am letting her down by not fulfilling her one wish."
*CORRECTION: The original version of this article partially mischaracterized Taroll's relationship to DACA.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There seems to be an assumption in the article – with no support for it cited – that because the mother had a visa then her whole family were included forever.
I think the more rational assumption is that limiting the movement of peaceful and productive people is a futile exercise in inventing reasons to be a jerk. The vast bulk of immigration law, ever since the very beginning with the Chinese Exclusion Act and just like the TSA, serves no purpose.
So if you invite me over for dinner and one of my kids takes up residence in your guest bedroom during that time YOU are the jerk for saying "no, you don't live here you need to go home"? Somebody is being a jerk there but it isn't the homeowner but the entitled kid.
So if a woman gives birth in a hospital does the child get to own the hospital through birthright?
Your example is ridiculous and conflates two completely unrelated concepts of private property and geopolitical borders. One is property and one is a line in the sand that defines which government rules over people standing on a particular side of it. No one is invading anyone's home. Immigrants live in homes just like everyone else. The ones that buy a home buy it from willing sellers. The ones who rent rent them from willing landlords. They work jobs from willing employers. No one is being harmed by their continued presence.
Do you always simply hand-wave away things like the fact that resources (housing, schooling, etc.) are finite and cost money? Money used to school illegal immigrants is money not used to educate American citizens; wouldn't you say that is a bad thing?
'No one is being harmed...' is a provably wrong statement. Their is a societal cost.
In my experience, only dumb people with barely any potential feel like they're competing against illegal immigrants for resources in their own home country. Smart people don't rely on the government to educate their kids, and it's hard for me to care about your whining when I and my kids have never and will never encounter the problems of deadbeats forever barking up the wrong tree.
In my experience, only dumb people with barely any potential feel like they’re competing against illegal immigrants for resources in their own home country.
You're mistaken; in fact, they're competing against organized theft of their labor (taxes) taken by force (government) to support citizens of another country here illegally.
Nah. I'm fine paying my taxes because I make enough to mostly not have to care. I also don't think an illegal immigrant is a worse bet than dumb nearly-homeless citizens who already squandered their chance.
Ah, you’re a Marxist Democrat who hates other Americans and doesn’t believe in citizenship.
Nope. I guess that means you're a pedophile?
Maybe you can screw those blinders on a bit tighter.
Read the freaking comment again; resources are not infinite.
Only dumb people think we should be paying for the world's poor.
So we should end public education?
Are you saying such people aren't Americans or aren't due consideration because you have a boner for illiterate 3rd world immigrants?
> Money used to school illegal immigrants is money not used to educate American citizens; wouldn’t you say that is a bad thing?
Public schooling system should be shut down for all including American citizens. For example you can argue that money wasted on educating teenagers is less money available for social security of childless couples.
Public schooling exists under a garb of argument that it is a "public good" to ensure that every young person gets education without which the society at large will be harmed. This logic applies to all young people irrespective of their immigration status.
If illegal immigrant kids can't go to public schools, they can turn to crime and then you have bigger problems on your hands.
Because I point out we don't owe the children of illegals to pay for their education, we now should not educate any of our children? Wow. Did you read that out loud before you wrote it?
Public schooling exists under a garb of argument that it is a "public good" that children (that are legally within the US) gets an education. Why is this so difficult? Your line of reasoning means we should pay to educate the poor of the planet.
Your whole 'argument' is nonsense, thanks.
> One is property and one is a line in the sand that defines which government rules over people standing on a particular side of it.
Incorrect, that line defines a group which has its own economy, resources, rules, or in other words 'property'. The country does not just remake itself every day based on who happens to be in the country at that time. Its a civilisation passed down from generation to generation, owned by heirs of the people that built it.
If its an imaginary line, why then do I have to pay taxes to it, to be paid to a malingerer who also just happens to be on the same side of the line.
The social contract was not open to unlimited parties.
Wow you're stupid. Maybe you should talk to Eric Adam's about how all those immigrants are actually costless. Maybe try understanding analogy is not literal and the whole point is the forced usage of space and resources on people you did not choose hat are no longer available because some invader is now consuming them.
I think you are missing the point. Had this kid been 'illegal' he would have been allowed to stay under DACA. US federal government grants immigration benefits specifically to illegals which it refuses to grant folks who are in exact same situation but because they followed law. The article is pointing out that absurdity.
> So if you invite me over for dinner and one of my kids takes up residence in your guest bedroom during that time YOU are the jerk for saying “no, you don’t live here you need to go home”?
Wrong analogy. Correct analogy is that you invite your friend home but your HOA (federal government) claims you need to take their permission first and then denies that permission. However, when someone breaks into your house and squats on your lawn, the HOA decides that the lawn belongs to the squatter.
You'd like your wife, girlfriend, daughter, sister to get raped.
What the actual fuck? Is this like some new bottom level of the argument pyramid? How would you even go below this? Incoherent screeching?
You say so many stupid, vapid things. What else are we to do?
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank You! -Reason Staff
That would be a reasonable policy, but the law was pretty clear when the family moved here.
US immigration law is as clear as mud.
No. The law was not clear at all.
The law imposes 7% country cap on people which if the USCIS had strictly enforced it would not have mattered much. However USCIS out of its sheer incompetence computes these numbers in such a weird way that thousands of visas get wasted making the queue lot longer.
Always read the fine print.
The mother planned to stay in the US forever but failed to pursue citizenship for herself?
My SIL, from Mexico, will have a green card by the end of the year, sponsored by my American citizen brother. They managed it and we're poor and unskilled.
Sounds like she was in the process but passed away before she could get her permanent residency status or citizenship. But yes it’s a lot easier when you marry a citizen but that’s not an option for everyone (and doesn’t even address the criticism of “green card marriages”)
Please stop using "pathway to citizenship".
There is already a "pathway to citizenship", and at least some of the people in the article tried to follow it. The bumps and twists in the path are real and frustrating, "to be sure", but it exists.
Advocate for smoothing the way, streamlining the process. Fine, but stop talking like there is not a pathway to citizenship that some 1M people use every year.
I won't even begin to harp on Reason's open-borders uber alles slant, except to say that Reason would still not be happy if every single resident of planet earth was living in the USA.
Doesn't seem like a viable pathway to citizenship if it takes 134 years to to travel it.
This is called "equality in action". the 7% per-country cap is to prevent a handful of countries from dominating the immigration process and be fair to everyone in the world. By contrast, places like Canada have no per-country restrictions on immigration and their immigration process is dominated by Indian nationals.
The people to blame are the nationals of those countries seeking to immigrate elsewhere in great volume. They are competing with themselves. US policy is designed to be fair to everyone and not play favorites. This is what fairness looks like in reality.
The process should be improved. That doesn’t mean we throw open the borders either. Immigration should work for the citizen first, not the foreigner.
Be still my poor bleeding heart. Will somebody think of the children!?
You mean pups. Saying "children" implies that the vermin are human.
Poor, broken sarc.
Just saying what you are thinking.
Don't you always throw a fit when someone tries to say what YOU'RE thinking? Why is it okay for you to do that to others?
Pour Sarc.
Isn’t this just another overstayed a visa situation?
Yep. His mom failed him. I'm open to discussions of an easier path to citizenship after having been a legal resident, however he and his mom remain foreign nationals.
From the article it sounds like his mother was in the process, but died before it could be complete. The son was also in the process but aged out of dependent status before he it was complete.
It's such a simple logical scheme.
Sure it would be fair. Some kid dragged here, illegally, but he's a kid, he has to go where his parents go. He's six months old, two years old, and grows up learning English and not his parents' language because they want him to be an American.
And then to deport him to a country and culture and language he doesn't know? Isn't that almost the definition of cruel? Punishing the kid for the crimes of his parents?
Sure sounds fine to me. Which brings up questions:
* Why hasn't it been law since 1924 or whenever they started tightening immigration?
* Why did it only become effective by Obama telling his prosecutors to not prosecute the kids? Whatever happened to the idea of, you know, passing an actual law? Did Obama not have a phone? Did he not have a pen?
* Why was prosecution deferred only until they became adults? Isn't it just as cruel to adults as children?
Yeah, too bad for the kids, it really is a terrible thing to do. But this is on Obama. If he had actually cared for the kids, or even if all he had cared about was a new generation of Democratic voters, he would have done this the right way, cajoling Congress to pass legislation. That he didn't tells me he was just scoring cheap political points at the kids' expense, and that he knew he was too lazy to get Congress to pass it the right way.
He always was a lazy entitled politician. Fuck him.
So as long as you pass your ill-gotten gains off to someone else then it’s suddenly legit? Would you call it cruel to impoverish Bernie Madoff’s wife and kids once he got caught? Sure it’s cruel but the cruelty is by the parents not the application of law.
If the article were looking for a special visa class for such people and/or a path to citizenship tailored to their circumstances it would be less objectionable but the open borders uber alles attitude just makes me say “fuck em all”
Let them all stay and just stipulate that there is NO path to citizenship for anyone who entered the country illegally adult or otherwise. They can stay, pay taxes work…. just not vote – ever.
Their path to citizenship would be to leave the country for x years and apply for entry and citizenship.
... it doesnt have to be so hard
Add in "and not get welfare, ever" and maybe you've got something there.
Them watch the flurry of democrat lawsuits for, people like Pedo Jeffy and Sarc (if Sarc weren’t a worthless drunk).
I doubt Bernie Madoff's was ignorant of what he was doing, unlike little kids.
Not the point, Bernie Madoffs wife and kids were also probably ignorant of what he was up to. The point still stands.
Civilisation does not have to make up for everyone elses fuck ups at the expense of people who don't fuck up, work hard and maintain that civilisation.
That is the crux.
The criminal's children frequently have no clue what their father did. Did Michael Milken's kids know what he did? They did not get to keep the money regardless.
And then to deport him to a country and culture and language he doesn’t know? Isn’t that almost the definition of cruel? Punishing the kid for the crimes of his parents?
Didn't the parents bring the kids to the US, a a country and culture and language they don't know? Was that a "punishment" for them to come here?
2-year olds are more adaptable than adults, and they had no choice but to go where their parents went.
Parents knew that they might not get citizenship, took a chance. Shit happens.
And similarly now they have no choice if they are being deported.
Why did it only become effective by Obama telling his prosecutors to not prosecute the kids? Whatever happened to the idea of, you know, passing an actual law?
Congress, on about a dozen occasions, chose to NOT implement such a thing. Which is to say, bills like the DREAM Act and others versions of the same concept, all failed to pass Congress over the course of some 2 decades. Obama knew his actions would be a stretch, that Congress had to act for real change, but in the end, he said screw Congress I make the rules.
Now, you can disagree with Congress's choice to not pass anything, but it's just wrong to pretend that Congress never said anything about it. The inability of this idea to pass Congress, not once, not twice, but 10-12 different times, indicates that "Congress has spoken".
One of my biggest annoyances.
Congress did not "fail to act:" by not passing legislation. Not passing it WAS the action.
Haven't they read the "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS" clause in the Constitution?
It's RIGHT THERE you propagandist buffoon.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against *Invasion*"
Article IV: Section 4.
Good point. Also when it comes to gun laws, haven’t they read the “SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS” clause in the Constitution?
Good.
Go fuck yourself.
You need to leave too, Binion.
This whole rag should, be gutted and restarted. Maybe get someone like Stossel to do the hiring.
https://x.com/DurhamWASP/status/1810083808223396280?t=_wvUMHGQB3E1V8tuvoS-Og&s=19
“I was very shocked that it [The Great Replacement] was called a theory. It's not a theory, it's a fact.”
Michel Houellebecq
“The Great Replacement is neither a theory nor a concept. It is a name for what is happening, the change of people and of civilization.” - Renaud Camus, Enemy of the Disaster
n an interview with In Search of Aztlán on 8 August 1999, José Ángel Gutiérrez, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, stated:
We're the only ethnic group in America that has been dismembered. We didn't migrate here or immigrate here voluntarily. The United States came to us in succeeding waves of invasions. We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that's their problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest.... It is not our fault that whites don't make babies, and blacks are not growing in sufficient numbers, and there's no other groups with such a goal to put their homeland back together again. We do. Those numbers will make it possible. I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's irridentism [sic]. One Mexico, one nation.[12]
In an interview with the Star-Telegram in October 2000, Gutiérrez stated that many recent Mexican immigrants "want to recreate all of Mexico and join all of Mexico into one. And they are going to do that, even if it's just demographically.... They are going to have political sovereignty over the Southwest and many parts of the Midwest."[13] In a videotape made by the Immigration Watchdog website, as cited in The Washington Times, Gutiérrez was quoted as saying, "We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."[8]
Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, a proponent of the widespread popularity of Reconquista, stated in 2004:
Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well under way. [However, a] meaningful move to reunite these territories with Mexico seems unlikely.... No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can and do make that claim.[16]
The neoliberal political writer Mickey Kaus remarked:
Reconquista is a little—a little extreme. If you talk to people in Mexico, I'm told, if you get them drunk in a bar, they'll say we're taking it back, sorry. That's not an uncommon sentiment in Mexico, so why can't we take it seriously here?... This is like a Quebec problem if France was next door to Canada.[17]
Cultural supremacists always start pissing and shitting all over themselves when confronted with the idea that someday they might be outnumbered.
What could ever be scarier to a bigot?
sigh, nobody is pissing or shitting themselves, in fact most people here won't be around when it happens. The bigotry is in thinking its acceptable, not only in basic principle, but also in the fact that there is people of the home team rooting for replacing them with a society that has already failed in comparison.
I love coming home to my nice house and thinking, man, I wish I lived in a shithole.
Yep. DACA was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL executive order that an honorable SCOTUS should've thrown out the door.
Funny how Reason rolls over on principle like a dog in heat when their agenda is on the line. Libertarian? BS......
Open borders at any cost!
Obama had to "save [our] democracy" by over-ridding it.
“Documented Dreamers” continue to have to leave the country, despite this being the only home many have ever known.”
Your point? Immigrant children continue to leave their home countries of India, Guatemala, China, etc despite those being the only homes many have ever known. Yet the author never sees that as a bad thing. It’s like migration is only good when it’s in one direction only.
“India, where Taroll is originally from, is a prime example. There are about 1.8 million cases in the backlog. Over one million of those are from India, and they are waiting in a line that continues growing longer and longer with little hope in sight. Many will wait decades. Most perverse is that that is essentially the best-case scenario, as new applicants today now face a wait time that requires defying mortality: about 134 years. Hundreds of thousands will die waiting.”
What is the alternative?
Here’s the facts. The population of India is 1.417 billion people. The population of the United States is only 333 million. If we opened up the gates, got rid of the backlog and sped it up so everyone from India who wants to can come here, we would no longer be the United States. We would simply be a new state in the Republic of India.
And that’s just India! We also have to contend with overwhelming numbers from China, South America, etc.
That's the funny thing about the United States. It's the only country in the world defined not by where its constituent people come from, but the idea that those people can govern themselves. Native American tribes not withstanding, the United States is entirely comprised of immigrants. The idea that a United States full of people of Indian descent becoming an extension of India is as silly as the idea that the 13 original colonies becoming an extension of England.
That's straight nonsense other than the 'people can govern themselves' bit. Even Europeans have absolutely no idea where their constituent people came from because, notably, all that happened long before recorded history started. The Americas are a little more unique in that everyone, including 'Native Americans' immigrated here from somewhere else. There is no native human group that evolved on this continent.
And besides all that, Europe has a ton of immigration legal and otherwise making the idea that those are somehow native Europeans super suspect. Especially once you notice all those European wars and constant redrawing of national boundaries over the centuries.
That's a fair take. Maybe I went a little far with that.
I just draw issue with the idea that if America allowed unlimited immigration it would somehow "become" another country, as if what land comprises "India" (a land which might be more accurately described as a united set of states than the United States itself) is defined by whatever land supposed "Indian" people are in, that if enough people from China show up in an area that area will itself become China. It's still America.
The United States isn’t “entirely comprised of immigrants”. The foreign born population is about 14% (still the highest we have seen in a very long time).
I think what you actually meant was that everyone’s ancestors here came from somewhere else. Yes, that’s true, but that’s nothing special. That's even true for the Native Americans. In fact, it’s true of the majority of people in every country in the world, with the possible exception of some countries in Africa.
BTW, the 13 original colonies WERE an extension of England. That’s what the American revolutionary war was about.
Australia?
Canada?
Do you even think about what you write? Are you saying every other country in the world, its people have always been there and define who their country is? Seriously?
Reason doesn’t care. The writers here have no concept of citizenship.
"He Immigrated to the U.S. as a Child. He Was Just Kicked Out—Because He Came Here Legally."
It's because he's not an illegal that he was kicked out.
Now if he had come across the border illegally like millions of others, he wouldn't have been deported.
Let that be a lesson to him and others.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, instituted during President Barack Obama's administration, protects people from deportation if they arrived in the U.S. unlawfully as children through no fault of their own.
Last I checked, DACA isn't the law it's a super special executive order that can't be reversed by other Presidents because reasons.
So to claim they are here 'legally' is a bit dubious. According to the actual law, instead of executive orders, they are not here 'legally'.
In fact, the name of DACA itself should be a clue in that it is 'deferred action' which implies action will still be taken, merely at a later date.
One wonders if executive orders are now 'the law' and, if so, what this might mean for the continued existence of Congress.
Hey, I thought only Trump did this....
And dependent visas expire? Who knew? Seems like a long time to apply for citizenship.
These unusual circumstances really don't sound like they give the president unilateral authority to invent a legal status for immigrants who have no legal right to be here.
If you don’t have citizenship here, and your parents fail to teach you the language used in the country where you do have citizenship, the fault is on the part of your parents, not the US.
If we were to give people citizenship on the basis that their parents didn’t raise them to easily live in their home country, that creates *bad* incentives for parents. And surely a quasi-libertarian blog understands the concept of incentives.
Gee, I wonder if adding some 10M "newcomers" in the last 4 years has anything to do with it?
------------------------------
Making matters even worse, another report that was released on Friday revealed that owning a home in the U.S. is officially less affordable now than at any other time in the last 17 years.
Also from The Hill:
The typical costs of a home, including mortgage payments, property insurance and taxes, consumed 35.1% of the average wage in the second quarter, according to the report. This is the highest share since 2007 and is up from 32.1% since last year.
Rob Barber, CEO of ATTOM, said in the report that this affordability data presents a “clear challenge” for home buyers.
It should be noted that 2007 was right before the housing bubble burst. That makes these numbers especially terrifying, as we can only imagine what is to come.
I suggest a reparations program where we just take stuff from democrats whenever we need it, as a form of ‘reparations’ to compensate Americans for what democrats have inflicted on them. Which fits very nicely into their victim/oppressor dynamic they I pse on every situation.
Here you go, from the Department of Labor, and I’m not kidding:
“The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability…. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers…by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals….”
Of course we let fashion models in. Gotta watch the ration, and more hot chicks is always a good thing.
Mom didn't follow the rules and now the kid is paying the price. The kid should be very angry with his mother. I'm not sure why anybody else should care.
Stopped caring. I did once. I don't anymore.
Close the border, nationwide dragnet, mass deportations, no due process for non-citizens. Round them up and ship them out. I don't care anymore. Get them out of this country. I don't care if you were brought illegally by your parents. I don't care if you're persecuted. I don't care if you'll face danger or death. Illegals abused the term "asylum." Illegals abused the term "amnesty." Illegals abused the term "refugee." I don't believe them anymore. As usual, the worst people ruined it for everyone else.
Immigrate legally, or be packed into a shipping container and airdropped back to your country of origin.
I. do. not. care. anymore.
I'm done. Get out.
I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I did not vote for him in 2020. If he's even HALFWAY serious about his plans for dealing with the illegals and the border, he'll get my vote in 2024. But I want to hear it from his mouth: "I will dragnet this country, and I will immediately remove them without any consideration of circumstances. I will reduce the population of illegals in America by 80-90%." He gives me some version of that, with an articulable plan on how to do so - and I'll give him my vote.