Thread: BLITZ........................... NO TO DREAM ACT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

OK ALIPAC PATRIOTS we are off and running again, we had a great VICTORY yesterday in Waukegan and we can do it again! WE ARE ON A ROLL BECAUSE OF OUR GREAT BIG ROAR

Thanks April!!

ABSOLUTELY and your're welcome SOSAD!!!!!

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

I was just informed that Senator Hutchinson has not yet released statement on the Dream Act. I commented that we do not want any further education benefits for illegal aliens at taxpaper expense.

Contacted Senator Sessions office and Senator Lamar Alexander of TN also.

That was a great answer GeorgiaPeach!!

Bottom-line, you can't be a legal resident of a state if your an illegal immigrant of the country. If illegals are authorized in-state tuition to a state college or university, Americans should be able to apply for in-state tuition in any state they desire to attend college (that'll never happen). Giving illegals in-state tuition is discriminatory, pure and simple!

In view of the fact that some states already give illegals in-state tuition, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court yet.

Thank You SoSadForUs. Just glad we are continuting the fight together. I was not asking the Senators' stance on the issue at first, just made my comments, but then thought I should ask first, and then comment.

Psalm 139:14

Originally Posted by MW

Bottom-line, you can't be a legal resident of a state if your an illegal immigrant of the country. If illegals are authorized in-state tuition to a state college or university, Americans should be able to apply for in-state tuition in any state they desire to attend college (that'll never happen). Giving illegals in-state tuition is discriminatory, pure and simple!

In view of the fact that some states already give illegals in-state tuition, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court yet.

DITTO MW!! good question just why has it not been challenged? probably because people are as oblivios with this subject as they are with illegal immigration all together!!

Here is a 2006 report from Kris Kobach of the Heritage Foundation that succinctly outlines why the "Dream Act" is a nightmare. Among other reasons, 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."

I don't believe the basic outlines of the Nightmare Act have changed much from 2006, but if they have, please advise:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg1960.cfm

Called Senator Chambliss and Senator Brownback. Senator Chambliss's Washington Office said he has not commented since no legislation introduced.

When asked for my message, I responded with I am an American, a taxpayer, a Republican and a voter. No more benefits for those illegally here. This is a benefit not granted to American young people.

Thank you Populist.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

Called Senator Chambliss and Senator Brownback. Senator Chambliss's Washington Office said he has not commented since no legislation introduced.

When asked for my message, I responded with I am an American, a taxpayer, a Republican and a voter. No more benefits for those illegally here. This is a benefit not granted to American young people.

Thank you Populist.

GeorgiaPeach, I think we just talked to the same person, she said I'll tell you what I told the last caller!! She repeated the same thing she told you, I had to smile so I said OH! that was my sister American their are about 200 million of us sisters and brother taxpaying Americans that are sick and tired of paying for free bee's for illegal aliens, Please tell that to the senator!! in other words NO TO THE DREAM ACT!! good by!

More on Sen. Dick Durbin, major proponent of the Nightmare Act:

http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/record.cfm?id=241498

I posted this in another thread, but it needs to be here also.

Right now, it looks like 29 for and 29 against. That leaves 42.

The following are undecided:

Akaka, Allard, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Brown, Brownback, Burr, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Coleman, Conrad, Craig, Crapo, Dodd, Domeici, Dorgan, Feingold, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Harkin, Hatch, Inouye, Johnson, Klobuchar, Kohl, Kyl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Lott, Lugar, McConnell, Mikulski, Murkowski, Pryor, Reed, Schumer, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Voinovich, Warner, Webb, Whitehouse

At least 12 of the above must vote against to defeat