"Whining" is not a category of immigrants; it identifies a large number of illegals who are demanding that their illegality be ignored. The supposed name "Dreamers" does not categorize them or identify them; those lumped under that are all different as individuals and not deserving of special treatment by calling them "dreamers".

Nothing can be decided objectively on a case by case basis when there are no rational standards and there is no public discussion of what the standards should be, only demands for perpetual amnesty except for those struggling to come legally for proper reasons, versus demands to throw out or bar all the "outsiders" who are deemed to not be a collectivist "asset". How would any rational government decision be made on a case by case basis in this mess?

Amnesty isn't the fault of laws. There is no concern for those trying to emigrate for the right reasons and struggling with bureaucratic restrictions, no talk of correcting the laws imposing it, and an attitude of anything goes towards those flagrantly violating laws who don't belong here at all.

I don’t expect anything. Whether you reply is up to you. But you are lumping all of them them into a category, “whining illegals”, without regard to their individual characters, achievements or beliefs. Most of them did not come here voluntarily, and many of them have no ties to their “home” countries. Many of them do not “live off the taxpayers” and some are even taxpayers themselves. Furthermore, legal residency is not a zero-sum game where granting one person legal status means that another person must be denied. Residency for illegals brought here as children can be decided on a case-by-case basis without in the least impacting the fate of those going through the standard immigration process.

Do believe you've nailed the reason why I have in the past described Trump as a well-meaning flawed bull in a china shop.

He may have.

You are "lumping" them into a category of their own. I am not. No separate category is needed. They are just immigrants like all the others and should have to qualify under the law just as all others.
I have explained my rational point of view repeatedly.
They ARE whining that they are special and deserve preferential treatment. Not because of anything they have achieved or produced, but because their parents broke the law. Rubbish. That does not deserve a reward of citizenship or of residency. They are not as a class any better than other prospective immigrants.
You insist on rewarding these people by giving them a category separate from other immigrants that doesn't require them to be as qualified as others.
That sends the same wrong message that has been sent in every amnesty given to illegals in the past..
Unless you have something new to add that changes their status don't expect another reply.

That's the fault of the laws themselves and the way they are enforced (or not). It's not the fault of those who were brought here illegally as children and have no personal or cultural ties to their "home" country. Trump's current plan provides both for tough border security and for a way to resolve the ill-defined status of this particular class of immigrants.

They are not being put “ahead” of anyone, they have their own separate category. There’s a big difference between a potential immigrant and a person who was brought here as a child and has no personal link to his/her supposed “home” country. To lump all these people into a group you choose to label with the pejorative “whining illegals” does not make sense in the context of a philosophy of individualism.

It's naive on my part, I admit;^) I'd love to see part of their real agenda exposed.
They'd probably respond by accusing those proposing it of being racists, or by saying it would be taxation without representation, although other law breakers are not allowed to vote.

There is no one-time amnesty. We have been through this before, with false promises of reform. That is one legitimate reason why there is so much opposition to even discussing any kind of amnesty without first firmly stopping the influx of illegals.

The "wall" isn't nearly enough. It may slow down some gangs sneaking over the border at night, but without government policy enforcing protection of the border and the entry points it would not solve the problem. I suspect that many who support the "wall" do so in part as a barrier against our own government malfeasance, as if a physical barrier could be a substitute for rational government. It isn't.

You have to wonder how they would respond? We already know that.

A lot of those slated for a "path to citizenship" by the Trump scheme haven't bothered to register even under Obama's constitutionally illegal program.

Any "hardships" are the fault and responsibility of the lawbreakers who brought them, not an excuse to ignore the problem. The fault of the lawbreakers has been exacerbated by government complicity in refusing to enforce the law. Some of them may qualify for legal immigration in accordance with proper laws (that still do not exist), but calling them all "dreamers" to promote them in contrast to everyone else is dishonest political hype, and there is no excuse to give them special privileges either now or for citizenship later. The appeal to "innocent dreamers", without regard to what different people are and are not as individuals and as if we are responsible for them, is the equivalent of creating a hostage situation for moral intimidation for political ends. Government policy has been an irrational mess and none of these "amnesty" schemes either acknowledges what is wrong or offers rational reform.

This has been discussed here before https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Ayn Rand was strongly pro-immigration on principle as a consequence of the principles of individualism, but she also explicitly did not support invasion or anarchism.

Conservatives promoting economic protectionism, government protection of "tradition" against "outsiders", subjectivism in choosing who can come, and demands that emigrants only be allowed for a collectivist national benefit are package-dealing that with legitimate objections to terrorists, government welfare seekers, and a large influx of illiterate tribalists seeking socialist changes to our political system in what amounts to invasion -- encouraged by collectivists already here who want their illiterate "votes".

There were big problems with crime from immigrants in the late 19th century and early 20th century, including anarchists, union violence, and riots run by socialists, but it isn't clear what the percentages were. It's not an argument against immigration, but it appears that much more should have been done to keep out the uncivilized and ideological rabble who were intent on imposing an unjust burden on innocent citizens.

But they don't have to 'assimilate' to self reliance. In the growing welfare state they can and do remain balkanized, and that cannot be ignored in assessing the problem. An "opportunity to make a better life" does not mean what it used to: it now includes entitlements to subsidies. Even many of those willing to work take on low paying jobs with the expectation that government subsidies are part of the package.

I wonder how the Democrats would respond if Trump proposed letting the dreamers stay but never being able to vote or have any access to public benefits- no unemployment, medicaid, food stamps, medicare, social security; they are legal residents who can work and pay taxes but not as US citizens.
The alternative for them is to comply with the law and get the same treatment as all other potential immigrants. So far they are illegal and are violating the law. No reward for violating the law.

Democrats call all their political enemies "racist". Trump is an emotional thinker who is unpredictable and incapable of articulating a rational policy for rational reasons.

Yes, the comparison to the draft was nonsense. The draft should not have existed at all. People do have a right to migrate around the world, provided they do it lawfully. Perpetual amnesty for illegals while perpetually doing nothing to control the illegal immigration, let alone implementing rational reform of immigration restrictions, is all we get out of these "deals" for amnesty. Those who try to come legally are smothered in restrictions, enormous legal costs and bureaucracy. There is never any "amnesty" for them.

I said that they would NOT be penalized, but treated under the law the same way as all other potential immigrants and judged only on their merit. Giving them preferential treatment above other potential immigrants is what you are saying should be done. They are violating the law now as adults. Have they all gone to the nearest immigration office and declared their status? If not, they have violated the law. Have they taken jobs without lawful immigration status? Have they represented themselves to employers as legal residents? These actions are violations of immigration laws.
Yet you want to reward them by putting them ahead of other potential immigrants.

Trump may have gained the upper hand in this debate. According to the polls, most Americans favor not deporting most "dreamers" and most Americans favor tighter border security. Trump's latest gambit may marginalize the all-or-nothing proponents in both political camps.

Since Ayn Rand "never discussed this topic at length", it is not appropriate to expand her spontaneous remarks at a Q&A session to an overall Objectivist policy on immigration. Especially when her remarks were in reply to a questioner who brought up an improper argument for restricting immigration.

The comparison to draft evaders is totally relevant. The legal status of those evading the draft was of no personal consequence to those who were drafted. Likewise, the legal status of this group of immigrants is of no personal consequence to any legal immigrants. Certainly the character and circumstances of each individual “dreamer” is relevant in determining who should go and who should be permitted to stay, but it would be unfair to penalize an entire category of immigrants just because they were brought here illegally as children with no choice in the matter.

They want to be treated as better than other prospective immigrants. That is whining, and unfair to others who may be better qualified. No special deals is what America is about. Give these whiners a special deal (just because they have already had the benefits provided at the expense of others) is a mistake and a continuation of the unethical looter rubbish that has created many problems worldwide. The comparison to draft evaders is not relevant.

Reminds me of the argument decades ago that granting "amnesty" to draft evaders would not be "fair" to those who were drafted and went to Vietnam. Some situations simply do not have a solution that is "fair" to everyone. Each "dreamer's" situation is unique and should be evaluated according to his/her own individual circumstances and personal (not parental) decisions. Lumping them all into a collective group of "whiners" is certainly unfair.