Actually paul did her a favor, by framing the issues in the way many see them and in part how the…
Susan McMahon

Thanks for the measured reply. DACA is indeed a mess, one I would handle following way:

  1. Allow no further applications in the program.
  2. The people currently in the program would continue until their application expires.
  3. Upon expiration, they would be evaluated for residency (NOT citizenship) based on specific factors like work history and criminal records. This would be an in depth evaluation — NO BLANKET AMNESTY. Any criminal record — not simply violent felonies — would be grounds for rejection, as would participation in any welfare program. Also any gang participation, including gang ink, would be grounds for rejection (Cholos and cholas need not apply).

Now the case Areli Zarate is interesting. Assuming she doesn’t have a criminal record, you would have to evaluate her job history, which is problematic. By her own story here, her work consists of helping others with their DACA applications (entirely useless), teaching Spanish speakers in a heavily illegal community (actually a magnet for illegals — Austin is a Sanctuary City notorious for its lack of cooperation with US and TX law) and political advocacy on behalf of things like Amnesty (not helpful).

I’d argue she fits the profile of the type of person we would reject for residency, given the goal of reforming immigration in a more pro-American, pro-assimilation direction. Last thing we need are more La Raza types.