I decided to look up "chain migration," to see if these hard-line anti-immigration types were representing it accurately.  

Here's what I found:

Chain migration is a term used by demographers since the 1960s[1] to refer to the social process by which immigrants from a particular town follow others from that town to a particular destination city or neighborhood. The destination may be in another country or in a new, usually urban, location within the same country.

Chain migration can be defined as a "movement in which prospective migrants learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants."[1] Or, more simply put: "The dynamic underlying 'chain migration' is so simple that it sounds like common sense: People are more likely to move to where people they know live, and each new immigrant makes people they know more likely to move there in turn."[2]

Since approximately 2013, the term "chain migration" has been used in the United States by political opponents of immigration to refer to the distinct process of family reunification,[2] that is, the process by which foreign nationals immigrate to a new country under laws permitting their reunification with family members already living in the destination country. Demographers reject this usage, noting for example that "There is a distinction between conventional family reunification on the one hand, where a migrant husband invites his family to join him abroad, and chain migration on the other, where women invite sisters, mothers, female cousins and friends to join them."[3]

And why isn't "family reunification" used by anti-immigration supporters?  Because it doesn't scare anyone.  Because it sounds like it makes sense - who can't understand wanting to bring one's family members here?

Why else is it being used?  Because of the children here under DACA.  The children brought here illegally by their parents, who are still here illegally.  If we protect the DACA kids, isn't the next step to protect the parents that brought them here, to make sure these families are unified?

And God knows we can't have that.  Why?  Because it smacks of something immigration hard-liners hate even more: amnesty.

"People must be punished."  I think that's the first line of every chapter in the "We hate furriners (especially the brown ones from poor countries)" handbook.

In spite of the fact that you would be hard-pressed to find any sitting member of Congress, or even the president, who is not here because at some time, at some point, they had relatives who came to this country - some legally and some not.  I guess it's a case of "that was then, this is now" or "this isn't about me, it's about them."

I am not saying I think our doors should just be unconditionally open to anyone who wants to come here.  But neither am I saying we should be deporting people who are here, working, supporting themselves and their families and contributing to the community.

Swell.  I feel a major snit fit coming with even more self-pitying blather.

As you know, it wasn't that you looked something up online, linea - we all look things up, for heaven's sake - it was the way you presented your so-called legal conclusion.  As if, as Peter said, you could define the subject via one court opinion.

The same principal applies when people express opinions in response to Trump's repeatedly demonstrated grandiosity and childish hypersensitivity, insistence on drawing attention to himself.

Are we supposed to be normalizing this?   Soon we may have to dig a trench so the bar can be lowered again.

I sure hope you're not suggesting that, were he to be ignored, Trump would not escalate his crazy, but would somehow turn into something resembling a sane, rational statesman, because if you are, I'd like to suggest you don't know Trump's MO very well.

I believe the overreaction by the media and sometimes people in here is far worse behavior than anything the president has said or done.

A POTUS who brags about sexually assaulting women.  Who insults actual war heroes.  Who makes bigoted attacks on Gold Star families who's son died for their country and compares his own "sacrifice" during Vietnam working in his daddy's business.  Who defends white nationalists and neo-nazis.  Who calls other countries "$hitholes".

Do people usually laugh at you when you make these claims in person ... or do you only do it from behind your keyboard?  Because I would laugh about 1/2 inch away from your face.