The Dream Act: Page 2
See the summary for this topic on the main The Dream Act page.
10 things Obama's "Blueprint for an America Built to Last" doesn't tell you (immigration) - 02/01/12
After the State of the Union speech, the Barack Obama administration released a "Blueprint for an America Built to Last" . I'll briefly describe what the section about immigration doesn't tell you. Here's the section of the Blueprint that deals with immigration:
Immigrants Occupy December 18, 2011: OWS are useful idiots for big banks, big business, Federal Reserve, Koch, Bloomberg... - 12/16/11
On Sunday, December 18, 2011, Occupy Wall Street will be conducting "ImmigrantsOccupy Global Day of Action". This "Action" will put them on the same side of immigration as the Koch brothers, the US Chamber of Commerce, big banks, big businesses, the Federal Reserve, and virtually the entire establishment.
In 2001, Rick Perry signed a law letting some illegal aliens get in-state tuition. That law undermines the concept of citizenship: it lets illegal aliens deprive some U.S. citizens of college (see the DREAM Act page for an illustration of how that works).
Media misleads: Rick Perry's in-state tuition for "children of illegal immigrants" was for illegal aliens *themselves* - 10/02/11
It's an extremely rare occurrence when the mainstream media doesn't mislead about immigration. An example in the news lately is the misleading claim that Rick Perry signed a bill that gives in-state tuition to the "children of illegal immigrants" . In fact, the bill was for those who are themselves illegal aliens, irrespective of their parents' status(es). Parents and children can have different immigration statuses.
Full text: Texas in-state tuition for illegal aliens law (Rick Perry, Texas Education Code 54.052 j) - 10/02/11
As most people know by now, Rick Perry signed into law a Texas bill that lets illegal aliens get college educations in Texas at the in-state rate. What many might not know is that the bill he signed lets illegal aliens deprive some citizens of college. For an explanation, see the DREAM Act page; that's mostly about the national bill but the same process applies.
Last month, Adam Serwer (now of Mother Jones) mightily spun Obama's mini-amnesty for up to 300,000 illegal aliens in a guest post on Greg Sargent's blog in the Washington Post
Tonight CNN will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with the Teaparty Express organization. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Public Religion Research Institute's misleading poll (immigration, DREAM Act, Brookings Institution) - 09/06/11
The Public Religion Research Institute ("PRRI") has released a poll called "What it Means to be American: Attitudes in an Increasingly Diverse America Ten Years after 9/11" (publicreligion.org/research/?id=680) which includes a few questions about immigration. I'll explain how two of the poll questions are misleading (see immigration poll for other misleading polls about this issue).
YouTube Town Hall: bogus debates between those on basically the same side (DREAM Act, Durbin, Johanns) - 08/17/11
Youtube is trying to mislead about immigration yet again.
Obama at NCLR: "yes, but..." on immigration enforcement; promotes jobs for possible illegal alien construction workers; DREAM Act; comprehensive reform... - 07/25/11
Barack Obama appeared at the National Council of La Raza convention earlier today; see the last link for our extensive coverage of that group. His unremarkable remarks are at : he didn't really say anything that he hasn't said before. As he's done before, he misled, such as by using the system is broken canard.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011: new amnesty push from Leahy, Menendez, Durbin, Reid, Schumer, Kerry, Gillibrand - 06/23/11
Yesterday the U.S. Senators listed in the title introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011, this year's version of a major amnesty bill.
A California law lets illegal aliens get in-state tuition rates which, as described on the DREAM Act page, allows illegal aliens to deprive some citizens of college or get a better rate on college than some citizens. The US Supreme Court earlier today refused to hear a challenge to California's law .
On December 8, 2010, Rep. Anthony Weiner cheered the House passing the anti-American DREAM Act, a bill that would let the illegal aliens covered by it deprive some citizens of college. Weiner's press release is at , and for the facts that Weiner won't tell you about the bill he supports, see the last link.
Jon Huntsman would still help illegal aliens take college educations from Americans (immigration, George Stephanopoulos) - 05/20/11
George Stephanopoulos interviewed potential presidential candidate Jon Huntsman yesterday; a transcript is here and the quotes are at . In the interview , Huntsman doesn't back down from his previous support for giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
As discussed in greater depth on the DREAM Act page, that would allow those illegal aliens to take college educations away from Americans. Whether Huntsman supports the (national) DREAM Act or just state-only versions isn't known; in either case Huntsman would hurt Americans in order to help citizens of other countries.
The pro-American solution would be to encourage illegal aliens to return home via attrition. That would free up college educations and discounts for Americans at the same time as helping the foreign countries from which those illegal aliens came. It would also discourage future illegal immigration.
Huntsman's plan would deprive some citizens of college, would help further braindrain struggling foreign countries, and would encourage more illegal immigration.
George Stephanopoulos: On civil unions and on immigration, no walking away from your past positions?
Jon Huntsman: No. No. I think, in the case of civil unions, I think it's a fairness issue. I believe in traditional marriage. But subordinate to that, I think we probably can do a better job when it comes to fairness and equality. And I don't believe in penalizing the younger generation coming across our borders who have no say whatsoever over their journey and destiny.
They want to integrate into the American system. If they're willing what needs to do be done and work hard, then I think if we're giving them an in-house tuition break, that integrates them into the system, and makes them part of ultimately contributing to our country.
 Needless to say, George Stephanopoulos only asked Huntsman horserace and other light questions and didn't call Huntsman on supporting depriving some citizens of college. Stephanopoulos - probably in an attempt to mislead - referred to "the children of illegal immigrants be able to pay in-state tuition in your state". In fact, the bill Huntsman supported was for those who are themselves illegal aliens, irrespective of the status of their parents.
The DREAM Act is an anti-American bill that would let the illegal aliens covered by it deprive some U.S. citizens of college. Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner - discussing Obama's latest immigration speech - isn't exactly perturbed by the anti-American bill (link):
It's obvious that nothing like the legalization (opponents say "amnesty") provisions considered in 2007 can pass in this Congress. They can never pass the Republican House, where Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is a long-standing opponent and Speaker John Boehner will not schedule a bill not approved in committee.
Nor will this Congress pass the most attractive proposal Obama mentioned, the DREAM Act, providing a path to legalization for those brought in illegally as children who enroll in college or serve in the military. That failed last December in a more Democratic Senate and won't pass now.
It's not clear whether Barone means "attractive" in the "it is in fact an attractive bill" sense or whether he means it "attractive only when compared to Obama's other immigration ideas" sense. But, neither are good.
However positively Barone meant "attractive", calling it that shows that he isn't really concerned about the illegal aliens covered by the bill being able to take college educations from Americans. And, it shows that he isn't willing to use the fact that many Democratic Party leaders who support the bill.
Not all is bad: Barone does stick up for eVerify and doesn't appear to support massive low-skilled immigration. However, instead of reducing immigration across the board, he wants more high-skilled immigration (via a Brookings Institution plan) which would lead to problems similar to those caused by mass low-skilled immigration.
Illinois' state Senate recently passed a state version of the DREAM Act; the bill is designed to make it easier for illegal aliens to attend college (and, it's not the same as the national bill; see ). One Tea Parties group in that state is opposing it, but for the completely wrong reasons; see below.
Obama misleads on immigration at Facebook; Zuckerberg and incompetent/corrupt GOP, Teaparty leaders help - 04/21/11
Barack Obama spoke live over Facebook yesterday at an event sponsored by that company. He misled about immigration and promoted an anti-American bill. He got direct help with his attempt to mislead from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and he got indirect help from corrupt or incompetent GOP and Teaparty leaders:
AskObama: did Steve Grove choose an unpopular immigration question because of Voto Latino? - 01/28/11
Yesterday, Steve Grove of Youtube interviewed Barack Obama with a series of questions that users had submitted through the "Ask Obama" event. The Youtube interview was a scam; see that link for the details and the backstory.
To further drive home just how much of a scam it was, Grove appears to have undercut the implied rules of the competition by choosing an unpopular video as the only question about immigration. However, that video just happens to have been uploaded by an organization that's partnered with Youtube.
According to the implied rules of the competition, Youtube visitors would vote on the most popular questions, and then Youtube would select from those top-voted questions the ones they were going to ask.
Yet, the video they selected only has 17 up votes and 10 down votes, and not only is it very difficult to find, but its popularity is swamped by dozens of other questions . One wonders how Grove picked that particular video out of such a crowded field.
Perhaps a clue comes from the fact that the uploader  was Voto Latino, a Washington DC-based organization started by the actress Rosario Dawson. On their Youtube home page (youtube.com/user/votolatino) they include this:
Volunteers called thousands of voters and documented their experiences at the polls through our YouTube partnership Video Your Vote.
And, Grove today references this odd coincidence, retweeting this from VotoLatino:
RT @votolatino We helped get this video up & the President watched it. Thx Mario Lopez & Steve Li: http://fb.me/T7i8fqtj & @grove!
twitter dot com/grove/status/30945241347391488
The link in that tweet leads to this Facebook page containing a screengrab of the video as shown during the AskObama event and a repeat of their claim.
A screengrab of the video in a search for "ice" is attached, as is the video in question. See the first post for the full video.
Please contact @Grove and ask him to explain this odd coincidental discovery of his.
 For instance, I clicked "Next" countless times trying to find it at youtube.com/worldview after choosing "Video questions" and "Sorted by popularity". I gave up, and then searched for phrases I thought would be in the description. The only way I found it was through a search for "ice" (as in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement), and even then I had to click several times. In fact, it's only the 35th video shown for a search for "ice". There are 929 questions in a search for "dream act", and it's not in the first 100. And, there are dozens upon dozens of more popular questions - a few with videos - in the immigration category. The top five questions in the immigration category have between 1723 and 1899 up votes.
 Currently, the video is in the "SteveProd" account, but in Google Moderator (see the screengrab), the video is clearly marked as coming from "votolatino, Washington, D.C." and the small icon with the check mark is votolatino's logo. The "SteveProd" account just has that one video; it probably had other videos since the channel has lists total upload views of 44,574 and the only video in the account just has 386 views.
[UPDATE: Make sure and see this too]
Youtube and Barack Obama are conducting yet another scam, soliciting questions for Obama based on the State of the Union that he'll answer on Thursday, January 27. Other users vote up or down submitted questions, and then Obama will answer the top vote-getters.
The questions that get the most votes will invariably not be the best questions, the ones that Obama should be pressed on. In fact, they're likely to be some of the weakest questions of all. Obama and all other politicians should be "cross-examined" over their policies, and this latest scam will not even come close.
How systems like this are scams has already been discussed over and over with several examples involving Obama, Youtube, and others on the popular voting systems and Youtube corporate pages. If you don't agree that such systems are scams, see those pages and the past examples.
I submitted the following three questions to their immigration category; I'm not even going to bother suggesting voting them up because I know they'll never get enough of a vote differential between up and down.
For instance, at post time, six people like the DREAM Act question but five don't. The question is perfectly valid, very important, and needs to be asked. Yet, five people don't want it to be asked despite how valid it is. Under my plan (see the popular voting systems page), that wouldn't happen: known quantities who participated would be voting on how tough a question is, and if they unjustifiably voted a very tough question down they could be held publicly accountable.
Here are the questions; you might be able to find them through a search or here:
The Fed is profiting from money that illegal aliens send home to Mexico through their Directo a Mexico program ( http://24ahead.com/n/5978 ). Do you agree that a federal entity seeking to profit from illegally-earned money is a sign of corruption?
Do you agree that both college slots and college funding are finite? Do you agree that any college slots/funding given to illegal aliens under the DREAM Act will deprive some U.S. citizens of college? (attached video: youtube.com/watch?v=WZkvEmSy1vk)
Due to massive legal & illegal immigration, do you admit that the Mexican gov't has political power inside the U.S.? Do you agree that foreign countries shouldn't have political power inside the U.S.? What do you intend to do about it?
1/27/11 UPDATE 1: As yet another example of how Google Moderator (the software used in this case) and popular voting systems in general don't work, with voting closed the top 80 or so questions are all about pot. Those voting up the questions didn't abuse the system, they followed the rules of the system. And, the system revealed its flaws.
As for my questions, they have up/down votes of 9/6, 6/5, and 4/4 respectively. Meanwhile, this has 3152/282:
Mr. President, what is your stance on Net Neutrality? What do you intend to do to keep the internet free from censorship?
Obama's stance on Net Neutrality has been known for years and years and the FCC has taken steps in that area. A question that was going to do a public service would ask Obama a specific question about what his FCC has done in that specific area, based on a full knowledge of what they've said and done. Instead, questions like that just allow politicians to give stock speeches they've given many times before.
And, MoveOn voted up a similarly weak question about Net Neutrality in 2007 in a similar sham.
1/27/11 UPDATE 2: The event went exactly as expected: it was a complete sham. Steve Grove asked a series of weak questions, including some that were even weaker than "boxers or briefs?" And, Youtube managed to get in various plugs for their service, occasionally using the president of the U.S. as little more than a prop to promote a commercial company.
Video is attached, and at 33:00 you'll see Obama answer the only immigration question, about the anti-American DREAM Act. Instead of calling Obama on the downsides of that bill, Grove simply introduced a video of an apparent illegal alien and asked Obama when the bill might pass. (And, didn't call Obama on his use of nation of immigrants).
Personal anecdotes about the DREAM Act are not at all difficult to find (see dozens on the PIIPP page), but a debate about the downsides is very difficult to find. There are two or more sides to every story, yet all Youtube could do is present one side without acknowledging the viewpoint of another side.
1/28/11 UPDATE: I fixed the bad year (10) in the updates above. More importantly, the DREAM Act question that Grove chose is unpopular, but just happens to be from an organization that's partnered with Youtube in the past. See the link for the details.
Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico offers "Lamar Smith avoids hard line on immigration" . Because we're dealing with definitions of those who aren't trustworthy (such as Brown), it's difficult to tell whether Smith will be weak on immigration matters or whether he just won't support nonsensical "boob bait for Bubba" policies.
Smith's first two hearings as head of the House Judiciary Committee will be about eVerify. However:
At the same time, he downplayed the key planks in the conservative immigration agenda... He won’t say when his committee plans to tackle birthright citizenship, the policy of granting citizenship to every child born in the country. He doesn’t want to talk about whether he will pursue reducing the level of legal immigration, family migration or work visas - all at the top of the wish list for anti-illegal-immigration advocates... “That is later on in this Congress; that is not our initial focus,” Smith said. “We don’t have any specific plans now in the early months to move on these issues. The focus is on creating jobs and protecting jobs.”
In the current environment, it isn't really possible to restrict birthright citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Much groundwork would need to be done, specifically involving discrediting those groups that would oppose such a move. Few people with megaphones have shown any ability at discrediting groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. Further, restricting birthright citizenship, at least when proposed by those like Lindsey Graham, is just a political ploy.
Legal immigration is a different matter and is less prone to being emotionalized because those involved aren't physically present in the U.S. There is, however, a lot of money from those like Microsoft involved. It wouldn't be good for Smith to be weak on that, especially since the rationale the GOP appears to be using is to help with unemployment.
“If he is not willing to do it - there is a lot of public support for reducing legal immigration - he is going to find he will be pressured on that issue"... Camarota said he believes Smith is enough of a dealmaker that he might even consider a modified DREAM Act legalizing young immigrants, if it was coupled with a cut in legal immigration and stronger enforcement — although pro-immigrant advocates would be all but certain to dismiss it as a bad deal.
"People like to really vilify Lamar Smith, but he is not Tom Tancredo... He is someone who will not push legislation if he thinks it doesn’t have the wide support of the American people."
* Frank Sharry:
“He is a very disciplined politician, but he is also very ideological. He is very smart at having lots of smallish-looking measures that add up to a whole lot of harsh enforcement."
* Rep. Steve King:
"I read the Pledge to America. It wasn’t particularly moving... So, OK, they decided not to write the treatise that I would have on immigration. It wouldn’t be the first time that I worked on an agenda that wasn’t laid out for me. I can deal with that."
* Roy Beck of Numbers USA:
"We think there are a lot of issues in the Internet world that people get really excited about, and in many ways, it is a side show,” Beck said, referring specifically to cutting off benefits for illegal immigrants. “It is not as important as one thing, which is taking away the jobs. So if Lamar Smith is going to focus on keeping illegal aliens out of the jobs, that is more important than all the illegal immigration stuff put together."
Current Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, writing at the official blog of the USDA, offers "The DREAM Act for Our Rural Communities and Our Nation". Not only is the DREAM Act anti-American - it would let the illegal aliens covered by the bill take college educations away from U.S. citizens - but he misleads about the details of the bill.
I left the following comment which at post time has not been approved:
One of the foreign treats Vilsack helped introduce into IA was foreign street gangs, something they hadn't seen before.
He's also lying above:
1. They aren't necessarily the "children of undocumented immigrants". They themselves are illegal aliens, and children and parents can have different statuses.
2. They could have "[chosen] to come here". There's no restriction that them coming here be involuntary, and some older children cross on their own.
3. Those covered would only be "the best and the brightest" in the broadest sense possible. The education requirements are minimal.
4. Vilsack lies about or doesn't understand what it means to "qualify for the DREAM Act". It would grant conditional legal status to 1 to 2 million.
And, this part is especially ironic: "And many of the best minds in their high school classes choose to pursue opportunities away from home."
The DA isn't just an anti-American bill that would deprive some U.S. citizens of college. It's also an anti-Mexico bill and a bill that doesn't represent good policy for other sending countries. It would continue braindraining the Third World and depriving those countries of the people they need. If all the Mexican citizens who'd be covered by the DA returned home they could help that country be a bit less dysfunctional, and that would help the U.S. far more than any benefits we'd receive from them staying here.
The DA also represents the political elites turning their backs on their fellow citizens and supporting taking away educational resources from Americans in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally.
Vilsack and the rest of the Obama administration need to remember who they're supposed to be working for.
UPDATE: It took until the next day or the day after that, but the USDA did publish the comment above.
The National Council of La Raza has sent an open letter  to senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell urging them to pass the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college resources from Americans: it would deprive some Americans of college educations. And, the NCLR's letter is misleading and signed by a small grab bag of very questionable people.
As Latino leaders in government, business, entertainment, and sports, we urge members of Congress to support the "Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act." This modest and sensible piece of legislation would allow young people who were brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to pursue higher education or serve in the military.
1. The DREAM Act ("DA") is a power grab by various forces: the Democratic leadership, religious leaders, the far-left, and so on. The NCLR letter makes clear that to a great extent it's a race-based power grab. Those signing on don't care about American citizens not being able to attend college; obtaining race-based power is a much higher priority.
2. The DA is hardly a "modest and sensible piece of legislation". It could cover one to two million illegal aliens, and those covered could eventually sponsor other family members. That would take many years, but it would happen. It would also encourage even more illegal immigration with others seeking to take part in a "DREAM Act 2". Passing one amnesty would give even more power to those who'd push for yet more amnesties in the future. So, it's hardly "modest".
3. There's no requirement that those covered would have had to have been brought here by their parents; some older children cross on their own. They have to have arrived here before they were sixteen, which is hardly "a very young age".
Then, the NCLR misleads about who'd be covered:
These students are success stories in their communities, serving as student body presidents, star athletes, and performers, graduating often with honors from schools in their hometowns.
Certainly, some are as described. However, the educational requirements in the bills are minimal; there are no requirements that those covered must have graduated with honors or anything similar.
In addition to a few minor celebrities, those signing on include (see each link for more on them):
* Janet Murguia of the NCLR
* Antonio Villaraigosa (former leader of a racial separatist group)
* Linda Chavez (sits or sat on boards of two large companies that employ large numbers of low-wage workers)
* Carlos Gutierrez (George W Bush Commerce Secretary who promoted amnesty while in office; see his name's link for much more)
* Lionel Sosa (wanted to and may have taken money from the Mexican government to promote amnesty inside the U.S.)
* Henry Cisneros (see the other letter he signed on to at the link)
* Maria Contreras-Sweet (affiliated with Promerica Bank)
* America Ferrera
* Monica Lozano
* Federico Pena
* Bill Richardson
* Solomon D. Trujillo (U.S.-born business executive who led an Australian company but who left that country in disgrace)
Senator Bob Bennett's parting gift to the U.S. might be to push a Republican version of the anti-American DREAM Act. The current versions of that bill would let the illegal aliens covered by the bill take college educations away from Americans, and it's hard to see how a GOP version would be any different.
Per this in a conference call with reporters Bennett said:
"Now, I know a lot of my colleagues are not happy to vote for [the current version of the DREAM Act], and I don't think the votes ... are there to pass it in this Congress... And as I've talked, particularly to my Republican friends, I've said we really need to do this. Their reaction has been to me, privately, 'You're right. We do really need to do it.' ...We don't like the specifics coming out of the House ... but we agree that, once the Republicans control the House, the Republicans have the responsibility to write a bill that we would vote for and send it over... And we, at least the Republican senators I've talked to, we think that if we get a DREAM Act worded the way we like, we will vote for it, and we want to do it early next year... It's my hope — I don't expect it — but it's my hope that we can do it this year. If not, it's my hope a little bit stronger that it can be taken care of next year."
Tea Party "Patriots" mostly silent about anti-American DREAM Act (and rightwing bloggers too) - 12/07/10
The "patriots" in the tea parties aren't exactly going all out to oppose the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty. The loudest voices against the Obama administration have mostly gone silent against an amnesty which could cover between one to two million illegal aliens and which would allow those illegal aliens covered by it to take college resources away from their fellow citizens.
Newt Gingrich supports some parts of DREAM Act; supports guest workers; uses false choice; sounds like Hoffenblum - 12/06/10
The audio below (also at peekURL.com/vkhylh1 ) has Newt Gingrich clarifying his immigration stance to Laura Ingraham. A round-up is here. In the interview, Gingrich supports at least one part of the anti-American DREAM Act:
"I think that it’s legitimate to say, if you’re willing to risk your life for two or three years, serving to protect the United States, we will be willing to consider you for citizenship."
However, he claims to oppose broad programs that would give a "pathway to citizenship", preferring instead the more George W Bush-like approach of a massive guest workers plan. Such a plan would have huge social costs such as are to be found in Germany. And, the children of those "guests" would be U.S. citizens, making it very difficult to deport them. Our "guests" would never leave but instead would stay here as second-class citizens of a sort.
And, he also sounded like Allan Hoffenblum:
Gingrich replied that no election, including the Colorado governor race that saw the openly anti-illegal Tom Tancredo lose to his Democrat rival, has been won on the idea that 11 million people can be deported. This led to a heated argument between the two conservatives, with Ingraham saying that both Republicans and Democrats have “fallen down” in their basic responsibility to enforce the border.
Tancredo supports attrition rather than mass deportations, so Gingrich either doesn't know or lied about Tancredo's position. And, Gingrich engaged in the deportations false choice by failing to acknowledge attrition as an alternative to mass deportations or a legalization program.
And, as with every other hack, Gingrich supports secure the border:
Gingrich said he is in favor of deporting illegals who are gang members or arrested for a felony, and is “committed 100-percent” to enforcement of the US border, noting his past accomplishment as Speaker when he helped enforce the first control of the San Diego border. He also said he committed to having English as the official language of government.
In other words, he does want to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, but he thinks 11 million is too many to deport. And, whether he'd support English only laws is unclear, but it is slightly ironic since Newt Gingrich is promoting bilingualism.
Newt Gingrich: And our very deliberate goal, as with the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, is we’re talking about how can we create a space that is sort of center-right, pro-jobs, pro-entrepreneur but where the entire Hispanic community feels comfortable arguing, talking, and thinking. We’re going to be putting the DREAM Act on that space and we hope to have, before the beginning of the year, with Jeb Bush’s efforts and others, a very lively debate about whether or not we can develop a step by step solution to help everybody in America come out from outside the law and find a way to ultimately have every person in this country living within the law. That’s got to be our goal.
...Jorge Ramos: So if you say, as one of the most prominent Republicans, that you are for immigration reform, you know many Republicans are going to follow you. They are going to follow your lead. Are you for immigration reform?
Newt Gingrich: I am for immigration reform and the person who I think has had the most courageous position in this is Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush is co-author of a report on immigration reform, which is much bolder than the Republicans will be ready to be in Washington, but he moves us in the right direction.
Unpresidential: Whitehouse.gov promotes, misleads about anti-American DREAM Act (Stephanie Valencia) - 12/03/10
The White House blog has a completely unpresidential post called "10 Reasons We Need The DREAM Act"  in which staffer Stephanie Valencia  promotes - and misleads about - the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college educations away from U.S. citizens and, depending on the version, would allow states to give some illegal aliens a better college tuition rate than some U.S.
CBO estimate: anti-American DREAM Act would reduce deficit $140 million a year (i.e., by 0.001%) - 12/02/10
The current U.S. deficit is $13,840,173,213,129 . Per a new Congressional Budget Office estimate, the anti-American DREAM Act would reduce that by around $140,000,000 per year over the next ten years. Over that ten years, per the CBO, the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by 0.01% from its current value, a miniscule amount.
The half-hour video below features Cecilia Munoz of the Barack Obama administration promoting the anti-American DREAM Act in an online chat yesterday. Some of the ways she misled viewers are discussed below.
Munoz was formerly with the National Council of La Raza and there's more about her at her name's link. Nowadays she's the "Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs" and in the chat she fielded a series of questions from her side and bad questions from those on the other side; all of the latter she was able to deflect with ease. Since the questions were pre-screened it probably would have been pointless to try to ask something she'd have trouble with, but readers are urged to go to public appearances by her and other administration officials and really press them on the downsides of the policies.
Near the beginning of the chat, she makes the ludicrous claim that "we don't see a downside to the DREAM Act." Munoz puts her ethnicity before the national interest, so she probably doesn't think that the many downsides of the bill - such as taking educations away from U.S. citizens - are that great.
Later she warns against "depriving ourseleves of the talents of these extraordinary people". First, the DREAM Act has no meaningful academic limits: it's not just limited to extraordinary students. Certainly, some of those who'd be covered by the bill have shown themselves quite adept at gaining publicity (aided by immigration lawyers and the media) , but that doesn't make them extraordinary.
And, by taking advantage of the talents of those who'd be covered by the DREAM Act, we'd be depriving their home countries of those talents. Munoz is supporting the further braindraining of Third World countries.
Then, she makes another ludicrous claim: "you can't make the argument that the DA will act as some sort of magnet for people to come here in the future". Of course, one can easily make that argument. The DREAM Act would send yet another message to potential illegal aliens that powerful forces inside the U.S. aren't serious about immigration enforcement. It will send the message that all they need to do is come here illegally with their children and, as long as there's a sympathetic administration and with enough pressure their kids will be eligible for an amnesty. Those who'll be covered by the DREAM Act will confer even more political power on the far-left and racial power groups, and those groups will push for "DREAM Act 2". And, since the DREAM Act only covers those who've been here for at least five years, there's already a new population of illegal alien students who'll follow in the footsteps of the current activists.
Continuing her deception, Munoz repeatedly uses the system is broken canard and around the 7:00 minute mark she engages in the deportations false choice. She follows that with another false choice, pretending that the only alternative to the DREAM Act is for illegal alien students to remain in the U.S. Another alternative - one that would be far better policy - would be to repatriate those covered by the DREAM Act. That way they can help build up their own countries, and at the same time they'll be kept from taking college educations away from U.S. citizens.
Then she says the following:
"As a member of the White House staff I can't ask anyone to reach out to Congress or to lobby the Congress, so I won't. But, I will say that there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about what the DREAM Act is about, and there are a lot of organizations that are engaged in telling the story of DREAM Act students. Because, when you're actually talking about specific individuals with names and histories and faces it's really hard to say some of the kind of ugly stuff that gets said about passing these kind of proposals."
Making up your own joke about the first sentence is left as an exercise. The more important point is that, rather than being willing to debate the huge and obvious downsides of her policy, she's promoting the use of propaganda designed to pull heart strings via PIIPP articles (see the link).
Then, when she's asked how the DREAM Act will be funded, all she can think of are processing costs. She fails to either understand or reveal the huge cost to Americans as some of them are unable to attend college, or the huge cost to Americans as some states decide to give in-state tuition to the illegal aliens covered by the DREAM Act. There are also huge hidden costs: braindraining countries like Mexico makes that country even more dysfunctional, and unless we're able to build a very tall wall completely across our southern border the last thing we want is for them to be even more dysfunctional.
Once again I urge everyone to organize efforts to go to public appearances by Munoz and other administration officials and really press them on the points above and on the DREAM Act page. A video of an administration official being discredited over this issue would have a very meaningful impact on not just this issue but politics in general.
The video is below and is also available at peekurl.com/vzqcpca
The Wall Street Journal offers the immigration editorial "A Worthy Immigration Bill" (link) in which they endorse the anti-American DREAM Act (S. 3827), a bill that would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college slots and possibly discounts away from U.S. citizens.
Not only does the Wall Street Journal endorse a bill that would harm American citizens, they also mislead about the bill:
Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and rewarded.
1. Those covered have to be "younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien initially entered the United States", but there's nothing in the bill requiring them to prove that they were brought here by their parents; older children do occasionally cross the border alone.
2. The DREAM Act grants "conditional permanent resident status" - lasting six years - and the minimum requirements are to have "earned a high school diploma or obtained a general education development certificate in the United States". Not to diminish those who have GEDs, but is that what most people have in mind when they hear the phrase "school achievement"?
3. Many things would be gained from not passing the DREAM Act. If we could encourage those illegal aliens to return home they could help their own countries. The alternative the WSJ wants would continue braindraining Mexico and other sending countries. We'd also free up education slots and possibly discounts for American citizens, something that's vitally important due to cut backs in community college budgets that cause many Americans not to be able to obtain retraining.
We'd prefer that border reform start by expanding legal channels of entry for people who come here to work. There would be little need for a Dream Act if more U.S. work visas had been available for the parents of these children. The U.S. focus on border security has, along with the economic downturn, had some effect on reducing illegal entries. But walls, fences and employer crackdowns mainly produce thriving markets in human smuggling and document fraud and make a mockery of the rule of law, especially in some border areas.
1. If all the work visas in the world were available and everything else were the same, we'd still have a large illegal alien population, and it would probably be higher due to the network effect.
2. Those making "a mockery of the rule of law" include the WSJ and all the other sources that oppose immigration enforcement.
Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans, who will have a tough time winning national elections without more Hispanic support. Polls show that Hispanic-American priorities tend to match those of other voters—the economy, jobs, education and so forth. Nevertheless, immigration has symbolic importance among Hispanics as a sign of political recognition and respect.
The DREAM Act is an openly anti-American bill that would help foreign citizens who are here illegally at the same time as it hurt some American citizens who won't be able to go to college. Most GOP leaders are certainly corrupt enough to put their political interests well ahead of the interests of the U.S. To some extent many Hispanics are willing to put their ethnic solidarity interests ahead of the interests of the U.S. as a whole; if most GOP leaders weren't corrupt they'd realize how serious a problem that is and take pro-American steps to counter it.
Community college budgets cut across U.S. & many turned away even as some want to give college slots to illegal aliens - 11/27/10
The Washington Post offers "Workers seek new skills at community colleges, but classes are full" (link) about the budget cuts that community colleges are making across the U.S. and focusing on Nevada. Needless to say, Peter Whoriskey of the WaPo doesn't reveal that even as Americans are being turned away from community colleges, Harry Reid wants to give limited college resources to foreign citizens who are here illegally with the DREAM Act.
In fact, those who'll probably complain the loudest about this situation will likely be DREAM Act supporters; they live in a fantasy world where we have enough college resources for both citizens and for illegal aliens.
On the other hand, making cuts like those described in the article is right up the tea parties/fiscal conservative alley: saving money now no matter the costs down the line.
The pro-American solution would be to enforce our immigration laws and encourage illegal aliens who want to go to U.S. colleges to return home instead. That would have the impact of freeing up jobs and college resources for Americans at the same time as reducing social welfare spending. Don't expect either the Democrats or the teaparty types to support such a plan however in both cases because their leaders are corrupt.
All over the United States, community college enrollments have surged with unemployed and underemployed people seeking new skills.
But just as workers have turned to community colleges, states have cut their budgets, forcing the institutions to turn away legions of students and stymieing the efforts to retrain the workforce.
...The institutions are "a gateway for millions of Americans to good jobs and a better life," President Obama said at a community college summit in the fall.
...Even as community college enrollments have climbed during the recession, 35 states cut higher education budgets last year, and 31 will cut them for next, according to survey data from the National Association of State Budget Officers. Those shortages are expected to worsen next year when federal stimulus money that had plugged holes in state budgets is no longer available.
In California, with a budget cut of 8 percent across the board, the community colleges turned away 140,000 students last year. In Colorado, the waiting lists for nursing programs at some of the state's community colleges have grown to as long as 3.5 years. In May, New York's community colleges stopped accepting applications for the fall semester and added students instead to a wait list.
...Here in Las Vegas, with among some of the nation's highest unemployment, the College of Southern Nevada last fall turned away 5,000 students who sought classes that were filled.
For a single biology class, "BIO 189," a prerequisite for most of the degrees in the popular health-care fields, more than 2,450 students applied for 950 seats. The college now turns away students from every class in biology, the physical sciences and math, said Sally Johnston, dean of the School of Science and Mathematics at the College of Southern Nevada.
...In Virginia, a series of reductions since 2008 has dropped annual state funding for community colleges by $105 million, while enrollment has grown by 26,000 students. In Maryland, state funding per full-time student has dropped 12 percent over the last three years.
Here in Las Vegas, state funding for the College of Southern Nevada has dropped more than 17 percent while the number of students, on a full-time basis, has risen 12 percent. While a federal stimulus bill provided funding to community colleges, that money is about to run out, too.
"In Nevada, we have to accommodate state budget priorities such as Medicare, public safety, including corrections, and K-12 education," [CSN president Michael D. Richards] said. "Higher education comes in fourth or fifth in the list."
To combat the budget cuts, the College of Southern Nevada has increased the proportion of cheaper adjunct faculty, closed two of 11 learning centers in the community, and held classes at midnight to maximize the use of class space.
"Some of the time, we simply do not have enough physical space to accommodate everyone," Richards said.