Thread: DREAM Act as an amendment to H.R. 1585!!!

These greedy ingrates did it to themselves. Give'em an inch, they want a mile!

What do you mean IndianaJones?

Originally Posted by Populist

Let's get the word out on this to talk radio ASAP, blogosphere etc.

I agree!!!! The word needs to get out!!!!! Here is a list!


http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... y+humphrys

Originally Posted by 31scout

a RAND study showed that a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman who graduates from college will pay $5,300 more in taxes and cost $3,900 less in government expenses each year than if she had dropped out of high school.

She'll cost even less when she's back in Mexico. $0. Nada. Zip. What she should cost us.

Originally Posted by Bowman

The DREAM act is a sneaky back door general amnesty. An illegal would only have to go to two years of trade school part time to qualify. After the two years then they can get a green card and sponsor their family members. I can see all kinds of bogus "trade schools" springing up.

I agree. If something like this passes just wait to see standards lowered for jobs that would previously require a full college education. Especially in the medical care field and over time further destroying our quality of life just so we can lower the bar for the illegals to be able to compete (unfairly) with an American.

This article is almost a year old, but in view of what's happening now, it's well worth the repeat:

[quote]August 14, 2006
The Senate Immigration Bill Rewards Lawbreaking: Why the DREAM Act Is a Nightmare
by Kris W. Kobach
Backgrounder #1960

It is no secret that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), passed by the U.S. SenÂ*ate on May 25, 2006, contains numerous provisions that reward illegal aliens for violating federal immigraÂ*tion law. What is less well known is that the Senate bill also condones the violation of federal law by 10 U.S. states. Indeed, S. 2611 expressly shields these states from liability for their past violations of federal law.

These absurdities are found in the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act provisions of S. 2611.[1] Just before the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the first version of the bill in the evening of March 27, 2006, Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL) offered the DREAM Act as an amendment. It passed on a voice vote and was in the compromise version of the bill that the Senate passed in May.

The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 federal law that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. On top of that, the DREAM Act offers a separate amnesty to illegal-alien students.

The DREAM Act

On its own, the DREAM Act never stood a chance of passing. For years, polls have shown consistently that overwhelming majorities of voters oppose giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. Not surprisÂ*ingly, the DREAM Act languished in committee for four years until the opportunity arose to hitch it to the Senate’s immigration bill.

Events of the past 10 years illustrate how the DREAM Act would undermine the rule of law. In September 1996, Congress passed the landmark Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant ResponÂ*sibility Act (IIRIRA). Led by Lamar Smith (R–TX) in the House of Representatives and Alan Simpson (R– WY) in the Senate, Congress significantly toughÂ*ened the nation’s immigration laws. To his credit, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

Open-borders advocates in some states—most notably California—had already raised the possiÂ*bility of offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who attend public universities. To prevent such a development, the IIRIRA’s sponsors inserted a clearly worded provision that prohibited any state from doing so unless it provided the same disÂ*counted tuition to all U.S. citizens:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.[2]

Members of Congress reasoned that no state would be interested in giving up the extra revenue from out-of-state students, so this provision would ensure that illegal aliens would not be rewarded with a taxpayer-subsidized college education. The IIRIRA’s proponents never imagined that some states might simply disobey federal law.

States Subsidizing the College Education of Illegal Aliens

However, that is precisely what happened. In 1999, radical liberals in the California legislature pushed ahead with their plan to have taxpayers subsidize the college education of illegal aliens. Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh (D) sponsored a bill that would have made illegal aliens who had resided in California for three years during high school eligible for in-state tuition at California community colleges and universities.

Democrat Governor Gray Davis vetoed the bill in January 2000, stating clearly in his veto message that it would violate federal law:

[U]ndocumented aliens are ineligible to receive postsecondary education benefits based on state residence…. IIRIRA would require that all out-of-state legal residents be eligible for this same benefit. Based on Fall 1998 enrollment figures…this legislation could result in a revenue loss of over $63.7 million to the state.[3]

Undeterred, Firebaugh introduced his bill again, and the California legislature passed it again. In 2002, facing flagging poll numbers and desperate to rally Hispanic voters to his cause, Governor Davis signed the bill.

Meanwhile, similar interests in Texas succeeded in enacting their own version of the bill. Over the next four years, interest groups lobbying for illegal aliens introduced similar legislation in most of the other states.

The majority of state legislatures had the good sense to reject the idea, but eight states followed the examples of California and Texas, including some states in the heart of “redâ€

We have to scan each bill they come up with, because they're going to sneak parts of the immigration bill into everything they can until they have it all passed. Sneaky buggers.