[agiopwer]

Thankfully, the camel didn't get its ugly DREAM Act head under the tent, or the rest of the horror of amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants was sure to follows:

Republicans Block Path to Citizenship for Young Illegal Immigrants


Senate Republicans on Saturday doomed an effort that would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a path to legal status if they enrolled in college or joined the military.

Sponsors of the Dream Act fell five votes short of the 60 they needed to break through largely GOP opposition and win its enactment before Republicans take over the House and narrow Democrats' majority in the Senate next month. Critics called the bill a backdoor grant of amnesty that would encourage more foreigners to sneak into the United States in hopes of being legalized eventually.

"Treating the symptoms of the problem might make us feel better ... but it can allow the underlying problem to metastasize," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Unfortunately, that's what's happening at our border." As Sen. Linsey Graham said, " We're not going to pass the DREAM Act or any other legalization program until we secure our borders. It will never be done as a stand-alone. It has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform."

Indeed, and that reform will righly be a complete blockade of all borders from illegal immigrants worldwide, not just south of the border as the unreal stereotype portrays, and that reform will also rightly reject any amnesty, guest-worker program or DREAM Act, and will encourage voluntary deportation of illegals.

Indeed, as long as Republicans are in charge of the House, there will be no amnesty, and for good reason. As one Los Angeles Times letter-writer, Mike Burns of Bakersfield wrote:

Even the most optimistic "Latino outreach" activists in the Republican Party have never talked about winning a majority of the Latino vote. The hope is to win a consistently respectable share of that vote, in the 30% to 40% range.

Political professionals know that most likely, Latinos will always give more votes to Democrats than to Republicans. There are a variety of reasons for this, but that is the consensus of opinion.

Therefore, though the DREAM ACt may "haunt" the GOP for some time, granting amnesty to potentitally 2 million enventual Democratic voters would haunt the party even longer. That's why most Republicans oppose the bill. And yes, considering that the Latino vote breakdown in the recent gubernatorial election in California was roughly 80% for Democrat Brown and 20% for Republican Whitman, that appears to be an intelligent strategy for the Republicans.

But that's just politics.

The great silent majority of Americans, centrists, who are indeed 75% of the population, are greatly opposed to illegal immigration and any form of amnesty.

From a democracy perspective alone, opposing the DREAM Act was the right American democratic thing to do.

[janeloveslifenow]

This is oustanding news...

[AliceFromHouston]

Dont worry, they will try amnesty some other way. Its a constant fight even though citizens repeatedly speak out against it.

[O25YtQnn]

Fantastic!

[janeloveslifenow]

Two undocumented students at UCLA, Leslie Perez (left), 22, and Grecia
Mondragon, 19, reacted Saturday as the DREAM Act failed to move forward in the
U.S. Senate. They were watching televised coverage in Los Angeles. I've got just two words for them: "Tough shit"...

[infollafago]

We need the very cohort that the Dream Act was intended to offer the chance of citizenship - young, college- or military-bound adolescents or young men and women, with ambition to become more.


They will likely prosper in any event, after additional difficulties; but it bodes ill for the commons ...

[janeloveslifenow]

We need the very cohort that the Dream Act was intended to offer the chance of citizenship...

Then let them come here legally under existing laws.

We don't need new laws. We need someone with the balls to enforce the existing ones...

[Anypeny]

We need the very cohort that the Dream Act was intended to offer the chance of citizenship - young, college- or military-bound adolescents or young men and women, with ambition to become more.


They will likely prosper in any event, after additional difficulties; but it bodes ill for the commons ...

The main problem is once they become citizens they bring every member of their family up with them. Every aunt, uncle 14th cousin everyone.

[Payodcapy542fro]

The main problem is once they become citizens they bring every member of their family up with them. Every aunt, uncle 14th cousin everyone.

*nods to Cutter and welcomes him to USPO*

ahoy Cutter!

what ye said be true. 'tis exactly what my own parents did the moment they became citizens.

- MeadHallPirate

[Rasklad]

Thankfully, the camel didn't get its ugly DREAM Act head under the tent, or the rest of the horror of amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants was sure to follows:

Republicans Block Path to Citizenship for Young Illegal Immigrants






As Sen. Linsey Graham said, " We're not going to pass the DREAM Act or any other legalization program until we secure our borders. It will never be done as a stand-alone. It has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform."

Indeed, and that reform will righly be a complete blockade of all borders from illegal immigrants worldwide, not just south of the border as the unreal stereotype portrays, and that reform will also rightly reject any amnesty, guest-worker program or DREAM Act, and will encourage voluntary deportation of illegals.

Indeed, as long as Republicans are in charge of the House, there will be no amnesty, and for good reason. As one Los Angeles Times letter-writer, Mike Burns of Bakersfield wrote:



And yes, considering that the Latino vote breakdown in the recent gubernatorial election in California was roughly 80% for Democrat Brown and 20% for Republican Whitman, that appears to be an intelligent strategy for the Republicans.

But that's just politics.

The great silent majority of Americans, centrists, who are indeed 75% of the population, are greatly opposed to illegal immigration and any form of amnesty.

From a democracy perspective alone, opposing the DREAM Act was the right American democratic thing to do.

Mike Burns has it backwards. The GOP was actually gaining Hispanic votes and when Bush and others promised pathways for those already here with immigration paths and border controls going forward, they gained Hispanic votes. It secured the Florida Cuban vote that way and still does so that way that has repeatedly delivered the White House to the GOP plus other representatives. They got over 40% of the Latino vote in the 2004 election, bringing the White House in a tough race and both chambers of Congress to the GOP. Hispanics tend to be religious and social conservatives.

Hispanic votes, however, fell like an anvil with the change of approach. With over 1 million new Hispanics hitting the rolls by 2012, it will get worse IMO unless the GOP reaches some pathway for those already rooted here along with a better pathway of legal entry with tougher border control going forward. Whitman got clobbered by Hispanics because of her nanny issue vis-a-vis her supposed 'hard stance' on immigration, and that was viewed harshly as it should have been by them.

[Rasklad]

The main problem is once they become citizens they bring every member of their family up with them. Every aunt, uncle 14th cousin everyone.

Current immigration law does not allow pathways for collateral relative sponsorship. You must be an immediate family relative...spouse, child, parent or sibling. As for siblings, they are the lowest priority and applications routinely take over a decade before an offering is made.

Moreover, anyone who has been in the US illegally for 1 year or more whether they entered legally or not is subject to a 10 year visa ban. Addtionally, those who entered without inspection (border jumped) cannot adjust their status in the US for any reason--they must return since they were never formally admitted to the US. Parents of DREAM Act kids who brought them here are going to fit into these categories.

DREAM Act kids would not have been eligible for citizenship for over 10 years following passage.

[Rasklad]

*nods to Cutter and welcomes him to USPO*

ahoy Cutter!

what ye said be true. 'tis exactly what my own parents did the moment they became citizens.

- MeadHallPirate

It was true once, but that changed 20-odd years ago.

[Rasklad]

We need the very cohort that the Dream Act was intended to offer the chance of citizenship - young, college- or military-bound adolescents or young men and women, with ambition to become more.


They will likely prosper in any event, after additional difficulties; but it bodes ill for the commons ...

My guess is that they won't prosper but just get by as they have been doing in the marketplace factors that illegals provide, driving down domestic labour in the process. It's imperative IMO that comprehensive immigration reform gets top priority that addresses all necessary aspects (dealing with those here, setting up a proper immigration system again, and tightening and enforcing the new legal framework going forward with border control and law enforcement).

[O25YtQnn]

Was the dream act just for Mexicans, orwould it have covered a Canadian that was here illegally? A cuban? A Hatian? Anyone know?

[infollafago]

"Alien Minors" - with a slew of conditions. You can read the history @ Wiki.

[Payodcapy542fro]

Was the dream act just for Mexicans, orwould it have covered a Canadian that was here illegally? A cuban? A Hatian? Anyone know?

ahoy chassisman!

imma lookin' 'round fer ye. everythin' i read on the Dream Act would indicate that children from canada, ireland, china, etc, etc, would be eligible fer it.

'tis not somethin' that would apply only to them swabby's from south 'o the border.

i think 'tis kinda unfortunate that this bill did not pass, also. these be children who were bought to our land, aye? they've got no record 'o bein' criminals themselves, and it requires'm to attend college or serve in our military...it'll get them folks on our tax rolls. i could go on and on 'bout the benefits 'o providin' this pathway to citizenship fer these kids, but the mighty O'SullivanBere has said it all.

this seems 'nother case 'o Principle over Reason, to me.

folks who are happy to see the Dream Act scuttled have no patience fer reasonable points that illustrate how this would be a grand thing fer our land....they just kinda hew to the idear 'o principle.

thar position be, "so what if its beneficial to our country? i don't care, i'm standing on PRINCIPLE!".

- MeadHallPirate

[ThisIsOK]

ahoy chassisman!

imma lookin' 'round fer ye. everythin' i read on the Dream Act would indicate that children from canada, ireland, china, etc, etc, would be eligible fer it.

'tis not somethin' that would apply only to them swabby's from south 'o the border.

i think 'tis kinda unfortunate that this bill did not pass, also. these be children who were bought to our land, aye? they've got no record 'o bein' criminals themselves, and it requires'm to attend college or serve in our military...it'll get them folks on our tax rolls. i could go on and on 'bout the benefits 'o providin' this pathway to citizenship fer these kids, but the mighty O'SullivanBere has said it all.

this seems 'nother case 'o Principle over Reason, to me.

folks who are happy to see the Dream Act scuttled have no patience fer reasonable points that illustrate how this would be a grand thing fer our land....they just kinda hew to the idear 'o principle.

thar position be, "so what if its beneficial to our country? i don't care, i'm standing on PRINCIPLE!".

- MeadHallPirate

Out of curiosity, if you receive stolen property should you be allowed to keep it? I mean, you didn't really do anything wrong. You just bought a watch from someone that you figured you could trust. It's a bummer that some guy got the watch stolen in the first place but hey, it's not your problem. Right?

[Payodcapy542fro]

Out of curiosity, if you receive stolen property should you be allowed to keep it? I mean, you didn't really do anything wrong. You just bought a watch from someone that you figured you could trust. It's a bummer that some guy got the watch stolen in the first place but hey, it's not your problem. Right?

ahoy thar Lutherf!

*frowns*

matey, imma doin' me best, but i can't figure out how this relates to children who be bought into our nation as illegals and the Dream Act. are ye sayin' that a 17 year old girl be like...i don't know...a Rolex?

aye?

i am curious though 'bout one thing...if bein' here in our country as an illegal immigrant be against the law, why weren't all them cryin' young people that i've seen in all these pictures not arrested, immediately, and deported?

would it be a cruel thing to do? probably...i mean, these youngin's hath lived almost thar entire lives as american citizen...but wouldn't it have been the just and proper thing to do, accordin' to the law?

- MeadHallPirate

[rassedgesse]

We need the very cohort that the Dream Act was intended to offer the chance of citizenship - young, college- or military-bound adolescents or young men and women, with ambition to become more.


They will likely prosper in any event, after additional difficulties; but it bodes ill for the commons ...

They can already gain citizenship through military service.

U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

[Rasklad]

Out of curiosity, if you receive stolen property should you be allowed to keep it? I mean, you didn't really do anything wrong. You just bought a watch from someone that you figured you could trust. It's a bummer that some guy got the watch stolen in the first place but hey, it's not your problem. Right?

Although that was addressed to MeadHallPirate, here's my take on that. I'd be more receptive to the analogy if the US hadn't pretty much led them into the situation and/or given it to them by its conduct and misconduct already for which they now wish to pull the rug out from under them. That's the key difference to me. Using legal analogies, it's more a case concerning the people at issue of these kinds of legal applications:

Unclean hands doctrine:

Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". Unclean hands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Connivance defence:

A legal finding of connivance may be made when an accuser has assisted in the act about which they are complaining. In some legal jurisdictions, and for certain behaviors, it may prevent the accuser from prevailing.

For example, if someone were to entice their spouse to commit adultery, they might be blocked (or estopped) from divorcing their spouse on grounds of that adultery. See Sargent v. Sargent, Court of Chancery of New Jersey, 1920 (Held a man who had not taken active steps to prevent his wife's adultery was not entitled to divorce because he was a participator and consenter to her adultery).

Connivance is the act of conniving or conspiring, especially with the knowledge of and active or passive consent to wrongdoing or a twist in truth, to make something appear as something that it is not. Connivance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Laches defence:

Laches (pronounced /ˈlætʃɨz/) (f. French, lâchesse, lâches) is an equitable defense, or doctrine. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim's being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin, "Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit." "Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones" (that is, those who sleep on their rights). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

Entrapment, etc.

If we were talking about a situation going forward with reforms that drew a firm 'zero tolerance' line against further illegal immigration with genuine enforcement, it would make sense to me and that's how it should be going forward.

The current bill, however, does not apply to any new children; it only applies to people brought here as children already here for more than 5 years already. Did the US take appropriate steps to remove these children? No, not at all.

In fact, they've been required to abide by the US school attendance laws. Did the ICE and former INS take steps to remove these children from the schools over the past years along with their parents or whoever else brought them here? No. The US government could have done a number of things to remove them but never did. And neither did the states and their local subsidiaries where they have long been authorised to enter into the 287(g) federal programme for enforcing immigration laws. Even states like AZ who are passing their own laws right now only just got started...they slept on the issue for the past two decades when the ball got rolling on large numbers of illegal residents now here.

The reasons why the illegal immigration situation exploded to where it is now concern very shady reasons of labour exploitation practices as well as completely negligent if not reckless defaults where not intentional. Unlike nations that have taken immigration and border security seriously, the US played a key role in 'winking and nodding' illegal immigrants into the nation and then allowing them to remain. Only now that it has crested into a ridiculous situation are there calls for crackdowns...more than a little too late and an insincere retroactive reaction to prior misconduct and negligence that caused it.

For the children at issue, they are innocent parties in this whole affair whilst their parents and, to the most faulting degree IMO, the American government by having allowed this situation to become what it has rather than having done what they should have been entrusted to do, namely provide and enforce an honest, sensible and effective immigration and border policy. The American public also bears fault for either not pressing the issue in a timely fashion and/or tolerating or desiring it for the ugly aims it got from it insofar as cheap labour and its benefits. After all, this is a democratic republic and the voters bear accountability for the actions of the people they elect as their representatives.

Given how long these minors now turned adults were allowed to vest themselves here where they are now Americans except in paperwork, it's acting in bad faith and dealings IMO to not hold its own conduct to account in creating the situation for which these children now turned adults are now in limbo. The act sets that right by acknowledging that the US let them vest and become American products, and even gets plenty back from them in addition such as military service and high level education for a productive presence as Americans.