Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who would actually refuse citizenship for someone who had volunteered to serve in our military? Don't you think that person should be rewarded before someone whos name just happened to be next on a list? What is so amazing about how we grant citizenship now except that "it's always been done that way"?? Once you start thinking like that there is no hope for you.
Why in God's name should getting any college degree, much less a measly associate's degree, be a path to citizenship? At least military service means service to the country one wishes to become a citizen of. Going to college is service to.... oneself. I'm puzzled that serving oneself should be considered as a path to citizenship, and positively dumbfounded that a solid majority of Americans agree that it should be.
Why in God's name should getting any college degree, much less a measly associate's degree, be a path to citizenship? At least military service means service to the country one wishes to become a citizen of. Going to college is service to.... oneself. I'm puzzled that serving oneself should be considered as a path to citizenship, and positively dumbfounded that a solid majority of Americans agree that it should be.
52% of a measly 1,000 polled is hardly a solid majority..........just more spin from the pro illegal advocates
Originally Posted by Benicar:
No, not at all. We are all entitled to our opinion. However, many have formed an opinion based on deception. If the entire truth were told, few would even consider supporting the Nightmare Act. Why do you think the sponsors only emphasize college students and military recruits, while ignoring untold millions of others who would also be covered under this bill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by califreeman
Because it's pretty logical to try to normalize the status of those fighting in wars and those that would increase the collective college attainment rate (there is a direct correlation between college attendance and competitiveness abroad).
Quote:
Benicar: I see old habits die hard. It’s so much easier to respond to “quotes†than when you insert your comments within my responses. When you do that, and I respond by quoting you, nothing is quoted other than your words, “comments in red.†Now, I have to copy and paste the entire post and then separate my comments from yours. Can you not understand how inconvenient this is? As I told you in the past, t1g, I’m not going through this again just to respond to your posts.
In any case, we aren’t talking about legalizing the status of people fighting in wars, are we? DREAMies aren’t currently enrolled in our military, so how can they be fighting in wars? The Nightmare Act would legalize their status to qualify them for “possible†enlistment. There is no mandate requiring them to enlist, nor is there any guarantee they would meet the requirements.
Originally Posted by Benicar:
Why don’t we ever hear them utter a word about the millions enrolled in our primary and secondary schools who would be legalized through the DREAM Act? In addition, wouldn’t their parents also be legalized? After all, we certainly can’t expect children age 12-17 to remain here on their path to citizenship unless their criminal parents also remain, now can we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by califreeman
This has nothing to do with the actual policy.
Quote:
Benicar: Oh no? Please read the following from the DREAM Act. As you can see, the bill covers those enrolled in primary and secondary school. A fact the sponsors conveniently omit when promoting this travesty. Now tell me how minors can remain in this country without their parents. Not only them, but those 18-25 are most likely still at home with their parents unless they are married. So again, what happens to the status of their parents? I’ll tell you. . . they will be legalized along with their children. Thus, they will be rewarded for flagrantly violating our laws.
BTW, they introduced a new bill a couple of days ago. It is still not available, so I don’t know if anything was changed. The bill number is S.3827.
(b) Stay of Removal of Certain Aliens Enrolled in Primary or Secondary School- The Attorney General shall stay the removal proceedings of any alien who--
(1) meets all the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (E) of section 4(a)(1);
(2) is at least 12 years of age; and
(3) is enrolled full time in a primary or secondary school.
Originally Posted by Benicar:
Why don’t they emphasize those in their 20’s and 30’s who are married with children, who would also qualify due to the 35 age limit? Oh, that’s right. . . . they were brought here by their parents. Someone 35 would have to have been here for 20 years due to the requirement that one must have entered prior to age 16. So, in 20 years they were unable to change their status or attend college? Well, that's just too bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califreeman
There is nothing about the actual policy, simply assumptions and speculations.
Quote:
Benicar: Assumptions and speculation? I think not. The DREAM Act covers those between the ages of 12-35. Are you suggesting that NO illegal in their 20’s or 30’s is married with children? Even you don’t believe that. There is no provision in this bill disqualifying them. Therefore, ADULT DREAMies who are married and raising families will be eligible for legalization if they agree to attend college for 2 years. What a joke.
There is also nothing speculative regarding those who are 35. The bill specifies that one must have entered this country prior to the age of 16. Do the math. If a DREAMie is 35 and entered the country before 16, he/she would have been here for 20 years. This isn’t rocket science.
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
(F) the alien had not yet reached the age of 35 years on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Originally Posted by Benicar:
Why have DREAMies been instructed to send their baby pictures to members of Congress? I can hear them now, “Oh, look how cute he/she is. Surely, this innocent baby deserves a chance.†Mind you, these DREAMie “babies†are now in their 20’s and 30’s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califreeman
Again more speculation and assumptions. Nothing factual or actually dealing with the actual implications.
Quote:
Benicar: DREAMies were indeed instructed to send their baby pictures to members of Congress. You can search the threads at DAP.
Originally Posted by Benicar:
On Tuesday, the DREAM Act peddlers touted this bill as being the answer to every recruiter’s prayer. When in reality, all branches have met or surpassed their quotas. They aren’t hurting for recruits. More importantly, a large segment of the DREAMie population would be ineligible due to age limits. DREAMies over the age of 28 would be ineligible for the Air Force, Coast Guard, and the Marines. As a matter of fact, at the DREAMie age limit of 35, one can ONLY join the Army. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califreeman
This is true. There has been an upswing in recruitment. However, if you increase the number of people, statistically you also increase the odds of getting more qualified candidates. When you open to more people, you can get a higher number of extremely qualified individuals.
Quote:
Benicar: We don’t need DREAMies to enter our military. They have shown where their loyalties lie when they march through our streets proudly waving foreign flags.
Originally Posted by Benicar:
If passed, not only would adults “DREAMies†be legalized, but also the parents of minor children -- the same parents who willfully violated our laws. Tell me this isn’t piecemeal amnesty. Tell me this isn’t total BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califreeman
Now the question becomes is that a bad thing? Not on a moral perspective, but rather on a policy perspective. If so, how would you change the proposed policy?
Quote:
Benicar: Yes, it is bad. The DREAM Act would legalize millions of children and their lawless parents. No amnesty, period.
I'm liberal on many issues but helping illegals is not one of them.
It's turned into a nightmare and should have been stopped long before it went this far.
MAYBE for the kids who were brought here, some form of amnesty. Not a free college education though -- lots of Americans can't afford college, why should someone get it just because they are illegal? Makes no sense at all.
Maybe they could have the children of illegals apply for a green card -- that means they have to pass the background check and medical check (that would have been required if they had come here legally). Most immigrants have to pay thousands of $$$$$ to get a green card but maybe make one exception for these people -- let them work first and earn the money for their green card.
So they would have a conditional, temporary green card and would have a certain number of years to finish paying for it. Then they would get a real green card. Then they would, like any other immigrant, be able to apply (and PAY $$$$$$ again) for citizenship. No jumping to the head of the line. It shouldn't be made easy for them and it's not easy to do it LEGALLY either.
I'm liberal on many issues but helping illegals is not one of them.
It's turned into a nightmare and should have been stopped long before it went this far.
MAYBE for the kids who were brought here, some form of amnesty. Not a free college education though -- lots of Americans can't afford college, why should someone get it just because they are illegal? Makes no sense at all.
Maybe they could have the children of illegals apply for a green card -- that means they have to pass the background check and medical check (that would have been required if they had come here legally). Most immigrants have to pay thousands of $$$$$ to get a green card but maybe make one exception for these people -- let them work first and earn the money for their green card.
So they would have a conditional, temporary green card and would have a certain number of years to finish paying for it. Then they would get a real green card. Then they would, like any other immigrant, be able to apply (and PAY $$$$$$ again) for citizenship. No jumping to the head of the line. It shouldn't be made easy for them and it's not easy to do it LEGALLY either.
Sounds all fine and dandy.
Except you are still rewarding lawbreakers.
If illegals are not sent home and told to try the legal way in, then they are being placed well ahead of the line. You see, the line STARTS on the outside of the US borders. Legal immigrants START the process in their own countries - they do not come here and demand citizenship.
Illegals go home. Their children go with them. No rewards for any of them.
Your mixing apples and oranges just as the democrts did. College students and those who served in the miltary are just that. Not much suppport for college students that are illegals, There is for thsoe who served in the military tho.
or are you just referring to illegals seeking amnesty
EVERYONE, why should those who haven't the guts to go to Afghanistan be judging the fitness of an illegal who is
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
