[Lnc-business] EMAIL BALLOT 190906-1 RESOLUTION ON DREAM AND PROMISE ACT

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Mr. Henchman, those are reasonable reasons.  My response is on the first
point, that already happens, so the more weighty concern IMHO is the second
one.  However, their position is not as secure as you say and it needs to
be weighed whether it is better to give legal recognition with conditions
(that are limited to this group) in order to give them security and
stability to plan their lives.  Their current status is "illegal" and
anyone can decide to remain in that status but others may, in their own
rational self-interest and calculation, determine they are willing to do
that for the security.  Since this was brought to me by members of that
community, I think they deserve the chance to make that decision for
themselves.  It is a messed up situation and these people want some
certainty.  There is not a realistic alternative now, and if Trump wins
again, there will not be.  If were one of those folks, I would want the
opportunity to make that decision for myself.  That is why I support.
Given the choice between this and the status quo and the fact that anyone
can simply choose to stay in the status quo and fight against it, I don't
want to close the door to those who want any opportunity for security.

-Caryn Ann

*  In Liberty,*
* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.  *


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:54 AM Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>
wrote:

> I vote no.
>
> (Joe, your statement is convincing.)
>
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 Representative (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>
>
> On 2019-09-06 11:45, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business wrote:
> > I vote no.
> >
> > I am not totally against passing resolutions endorsing specific
> > legislation, although (as I wrote in April) I understand and respect
> > those who prefer the LNC generally not take policy positions on
> > anything, or at least things outside of ballot access and electoral
> > issues. We aren't a legislative body and we aren't set up to evaluate
> > legislation nor is there much evidence that we add anything by doing
> > so.
> >
> > Someone suggested instead passing a generalized statement on the
> > issue, which I do not favor because it (a) is puts us at
> > cross-purposes with the Platform Committee and (b) shows us as
> > disconnected from the actual issues of the current day. I would prefer
> > that if we are going to endorse and lobby for things, that we have
> > something of a strategy rather than random one-offs. But I have no
> > doubt immigration and the terrible situation the DACA recipients are
> > in would make any top issues list.
> >
> > However, if I was a congressperson or a Senator, I would vote against
> > H.R. 6. The poison pill for me is Section 111(c)(3) of the bill, which
> > gives the Secretary of Homeland Security total discretion to deny
> > green cards (and thereby begin deportation proceedings) to any Dreamer
> > he/she decides are a threat to public safety, concludes have ever been
> > placed in a juvenile facility, or decides is or was a member of a
> > street gang. You better believe this President would love that power,
> > which he currently does not have. The status quo is that these people
> > are staying and he can't kick them out. This provision was why Rep.
> > Amash voted against this bill when it was considered by the House.
> >
> > There is also the provision, Section 122, flagged by Ms. Adams at our
> > last meeting, which requires DACA recipients to submit biometric
> > information or else face deportation, a government power we should be
> > rolling back, not expanding.
> >
> > As a pragmatist, I know the importance of not letting the perfect get
> > in the way of the good. But in my opinion, the status quo is
> > preferable to this bill passing.
> >
> > JBH
> >
> > ------------
> > Joe Bishop-Henchman
> > LNC Member (At-Large)
> > joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> > www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
>
> >
> > On 2019-09-06 04:49, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> >> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> >>
> >> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by September 13, 2019 at
> >> 11:59:59 pm
> >> Pacific time.
> >>
> >> Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Longstreth, Merced, Phillips
> >>
> >> =============================================
> >>
> >>
> >> *Motion: *Resolved, until such time that the immigration process in
> >> the
> >> United States of America acknowledges the human right of peaceful
> >> people to
> >> move freely across national borders, the Libertarian National
> >> Committee
> >> supports the passage of the American Dream and Promise Act by the US
> >> House
> >> and urges the US Senate to pass same.
> >>
> >> =============================================
> >>
> >> THRESHOLD REQUIRED: 3/4 as per the following Bylaw:
> >>
> >> ARTICLE 7: NATIONAL CONVENTION
> >>
>
>