The Dream Act: Page 3
See the summary for this topic on the main The Dream Act page.
Sen. Jeff Sessions has released "Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act" (via this) about the anti-American bill that Harry Reid wants a vote on during the lame duck session. See the DREAM Act page for more, and three things you can do to block it follow Sessions' article:
BILL WOULD GIVE COLLEGE PREFERENCE TO ILLEGALS OVER CITIZENS
...In addition to immediately putting an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens (including certain criminal aliens) on a path to citizenship, the DREAM Act will give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.
Aliens granted amnesty by the DREAM Act will have the legal right to petition for entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act.
Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act
1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans
Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.
The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.
2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.
4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply
Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.
5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.
6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.
If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.
7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.
Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.
8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.
Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.
9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid
Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.
10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process
When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.
There are many things you can do if you want to block the Reid's bill, but here are three:
1. Contact your representatives and tell them you oppose the bill. You can concentrate on the fence-sitters (per this): Olympia Snowe (202-224-5344; 207-874-0883), Susan Collins (202-224-2523; 207-945-0417), Lisa Murkowski (202-224-6665; 907-271-3735), Sam Brownback (202-224-6521; 785-233-2503), and, of course, John McCain (202-224-2235; 480-897-6289).
2. This one is seemingly impossible, but if people could recruit an experienced trial attorney to really press a politician on the question on the DREAM Act page and video of that were uploaded to Youtube, it would greatly reduce the chances that the bill would pass.
3. Find those who support the bill on Twitter and who have at least a few hundred followers and who are persuadable or at least could be embarrassed. Then, try to do one or both. For instance, here's one from me:
@BrookeJarvis: you've got 5 kids & 4 chairs; what happens when you stop the music? This: http://24ahead.com/n/10042 #DREAMAct #p2 #tlot #sgp
That tweet isn't the best, but enough better tweets than that might reduce the possibilities of "top liberals on twitter" from helping log-roll the bill.
Illegal aliens can get in-state college tuition, California Supreme Court says (ACLU, MALDEF) - 11/16/10
Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled  that illegal aliens and others can receive the in-state tuition rate at California colleges provided that they've attended California high schools for three or more years. They thus upheld AB 540, also known as the "California DREAM Act".
Both of those are anti-American bills that allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens. They're bad policy for other reasons too: they encourage illegal immigration and braindrain foreign countries. See the last link for the details.
All of this could have been prevented if people would do things in smart ways and use leverage. The only reason why there's an AB540 and a DREAM Act is because politicians feel free to support such anti-American bills. The way to get all (or all but the extremists) to drop support for such bills is to challenge them on video at their public appearances with the impacts of those bills; see the question at the last link. I've been trying to get people to ask that question for over three years with no help from major rightwing bloggers and the like. Instead, they simply encourage the tea parties types to wave signs and throw tantrums about less popular and less salient issues.
Regarding the suit, the attorney for the plaintiffs Kris Kobach says he'll appeal the decision. On the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union, MALDEF, and school administrators cheered the decision. (quotes to follow)
 From courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S167791.PDF
The main legal issue is this: [8 U.S.C. S 1623, link] provides that an alien not lawfully present in this country shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of this country is eligible for that benefit. In general, nonresidents of California who attend the state?s colleges and universities must pay nonresident tuition. (Ed. Code, S 68050.) But section 68130.5, subdivision (a), exempts from this requirement students — including those not lawfully in this country — who meet certain requirements, primarily that they have attended high school in California for at least three years. The question is whether this exemption is based on residence within California in violation of section 1623.
Because the exemption is given to all who have attended high school in California for at least three years (and meet the other requirements), and not all who have done so qualify as California residents for purposes of in-state tuition, and further because not all unlawful aliens who would qualify as residents but for their unlawful status are eligible for the exemption, we conclude the exemption is not based on residence in California. Rather, it is based on other criteria. Accordingly, section 68130.5 does not violate section 1623.
The ad appears to be vaguely referencing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act which Reid attached to the defense reauthorization bill last month as an amendment. The DREAM Act wouldn’t give undocumented students special tuition rates, but it would eliminate a federal provision that penalizes states that provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status. Angle’s ad doesn’t mention that it would also allow certain undocumented immigrant youth who were brought to the U.S. by their parents at a young age to eventually obtain legal permanent status by enlisting in the military or attending a university. A June 2010 national poll of 1,008 adults revealed that 70 percent of voters support the DREAM Act, across party lines.
1. As I stated at the Angle ad link, she should have run it by NumbersUSA or some other group first, because, unfortunately, Nill is correct in a technical sense: the DREAM Act itself wouldn't give "special tuition rates".
2. However, where Nill is misleading is with that same Orwellian sentence containing "special tuition rates". Federal law currently says that states can't give illegal aliens a rate that they don't give to citizens . The DREAM Act would do away with that, letting states give illegal aliens a better rate than citizens. The bill itself wouldn't give illegal aliens a better rate, it would just allow states to do that with impunity. What she says above is like saying, "this bill wouldn't raise the speed limit, it would just eliminate the speed limit and let people go as fast as they want". Needless to say, giving illegal aliens a better rate than citizens is openly anti-American and shows how little loyalty those Americans who support the DREAM Act have to their fellow citizens.
3. Nill doesn't tell her readers that the "federal provision that penalizes states" has not ever as far as I know been enforced; see this, which references this. The reason for that is federal corruption: those running the Department of Homeland Security are too corrupt to enforce the laws they're required to enforce.
4. The "poll" she mentions (from First Focus) was more of an advocacy poll designed to obtain a skewed result, and the poll question misleads about the DREAM Act. No respectable polling organization would ever ask such a blatantly biased question; most would try to hide it better. Take a look at the incredibly biased question that was asked at . That question includes, "To earn legal status, students must have come to the U.S. when they were very young." In fact, the DREAM Act that Harry Reid was pushing would be open to those who claimed they came here at 15 years or younger. Does anyone think 15 years of age is "very young"?
 Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623, link:
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.
Harry Reid recently announced he'd offer the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the Defense bill. Now, four days later, the most his opponent Sharron Angle has done in opposition is to appear on Fox News and oppose that anti-American amnesty from procedural grounds.
Not only that, but she seems to be adopting an immigration stance that's weaker than her previous comments. She appears to now be taking a "secure the border first" posture which begs the question of what exactly she'd support after the borders are secured. If she won't oppose a smaller anti-American amnesty now, exactly what would she support if she makes it into the Senate?
Angle was interviewed about various topics yesterday by Bret Baier; a video is at peekURL.com/vxhfdig Comments after the transcript:
ANGLE: He's incentivizing amnesty, this is just one of those ways. But, he's politicized this, he's looking for votes, he's looking for votes in those places where he thinks he can find them. And to attach them to the defense bill is truly an outrageous act of political maneuvering...
BAIER: Some Republicans support [the DREAM Act]. You're obviously not one of those.
ANGLE: Well, obviously, the American people believe that we're a country of the rule of law and anytime that we start to go around that rule of law and make one segment of our society outside the rule of law we're in trouble. The answer to these problems is first of all, secure our borders and then enforce the laws that we have. Then we can deal with the internal problems that we have left. But, first we've got to get those borders secure. We're a sovereign nation. We have a northern border that is more porous than our southern border and of course our coastal borders are also porous so let's get the borders secured, enforce the laws, and then we can talk about these other things but don't incentivize illegal behavior.
Note that she can't answer a straight question. Anyone who truly opposes amnesty in any form would answer directly that they oppose the DREAM Act. Angle just dances around the question . This is the same opposition to Reid's amendment that some GOP senators have offered, such as McCain: purely on political and procedural grounds and not based out of any real opposition to the DREAM Act.
A glimmer of a good argument does shine through in the "one segment of our society" part, but then she dashes all that with a stock GOP establishment response of securing the borders. Yes, obviously, the borders need to be secured. However, harping on secure the border - as discussed at the link - is frequently a dodge some use to mask how weak they are on illegal immigration and amnesty.
She then apparently realized she needed to fill space - instead of directly opposing the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty - and went off on a tear about our Canadian and coastal borders.
The final part is not in any way an unmitigated opposition to amnesty. In fact, she's leaving the door open to her supporting an amnesty after the borders are secure.
If you're an Angle supporter, read her comments or watch the video: nothing she says is something that John McCain or other politicians who are soft on amnesty couldn't have also said.
 That same dance is one I'm familiar with: in a Twitter conversation I had with her months ago she refused to come out against comprehensive immigration reform, and that's despite me suggesting she take the time to answer.
Senator Harry Reid says  he's going to attach the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, which will apparently be voted on next week. The DREAM Act is openly anti-American: it lets illegal aliens take college educations away from U.S. citizens. See the link for more information.
The Obama administration, while deporting a record number of immigrants convicted of crimes, is sparing one group of illegal immigrants from expulsion: students who came to the United States without papers when they were children.
In case after case where immigrant students were identified by federal agents as being in the country illegally, the students were released from detention and their deportations were suspended or canceled, lawyers and immigrant advocates said. Officials have even declined to deport students who openly declared their illegal status in public protests...
"In a world of limited resources, our time is better spent on someone who is here unlawfully and is committing crimes in the neighborhood," John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview. "As opposed to someone who came to this country as a juvenile and spent the vast majority of their life here."
The article also claims that there are 700,000 illegal aliens who'd be covered by the DREAM Act, an amnesty that would allow current or former illegal aliens to take college educations away from needy American citizens. And, it shouldn't be necessary to point out that by refusing to deport illegal alien college students DHS is sending a very strong welcoming message to those in foreign countries who might otherwise think twice about bringing their children here illegally.
Gary Johnson's immigration position disqualifies him for president or anything else (Our America Initiative, New Mexico) - 06/23/10
Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson started the "Our America Initiative" last year, possibly as a precursor to a presidential run. He's a libertarian and that means two things: a) he might as well save his donors the money because he's never going to get mainstream support, and b) he's wrong.
How he's wrong about immigration will be discussed below. First, here are two snippets showing his thinking, such as it is:
The National Association for College Admission Counseling  isn't doing college-level work, offering "Debunking Myths About the DREAM Act: A Response to Rep. Lamar Smith" . That anti-American bill would let illegal aliens take college educations away from U.S. citizens, and they offer their support for that anti-American bill with an attempt to respond to the Smith article here. They say:
[The DREAM Act would not] result in the loss of "seats" at colleges and universities for other students. The capacity for the American higher education system to absorb additional enrollments is far from being exhausted. In fact, even in the realm of four-year colleges, space is plentiful. Each May, our association publishes a list of between 200 and 300 four-year colleges with space still available after most students have already made their decisions about where to go to college. While much of our nation’s popular focus on "college" is, in fact, on the most highly-selective four-year colleges, the truth of the matter is that there exists a full range of postsecondary institutions which, taken together, will continue to have space for students well into the future.
Perhaps someone would like to take a look at one of their lists and point out other problems, but for now let's play along. Assume there are two types of college educations: one at the first set of schools (the ones that are filled) which we'll call "Wanted", and the other at the second set of schools (the ones that still have room) which we'll called "NotWanted". The NACAC would open competition to all schools to illegal aliens, and if even just one illegal alien gets into a "Wanted" school, they will have either deprived a U.S. citizen of a college education entirely, or they will have forced that U.S. citizen to attend a school in the "NotWanted" set. Of course, it won't work that way: hundreds or thousands of illegal aliens will be admitted to "Wanted" schools, forcing hundreds or thousands of our fellow citizens into the "NotWanted" set. Add in affirmative action and it gets even worse: Hispanic illegal aliens might be favored over lower-income whites and Asians with similar academic qualifications.
The bottom line is that the DREAM Act is a test of loyalty. Who do you stand with, your fellow citizens, or with foreign citizens who are here illegally? The NACAC is on the wrong side.
 They're apparently a real organization, and they claim they "now represent more than 11,000 college counseling and admission professionals" (nacacnet.org/AboutNACAC/Pages/history.aspx)
"Submitted by Moses Palacios, Public Policy and Research Assistant, National Association for College Admission Counseling, and Heath Einstein, Government Relations Chair, Texas Association for College Admission Counseling"
Discussing how the rest of it is wrong is left as an exercise.
Santa Ana College takes college educations from U.S. citizens, gives them to illegal aliens (Erlinda Martinez) - 05/28/10
A public community college in California [Orange County's Santa Ana College] has set up a scholarship fund for immigrant students - including illegal immigrants. The $2,500 scholarship has sparked anger by some, including at least one lawmaker who is threatening to cut off federal funding to the school... Students eligible for the new scholarship must have a 3.0 or higher grade point average, demonstrate a financial need and must also be trying to become an American citizen. Those eligible include students holding green cards, students who have permanent residency - and illegal, undocumented immigrants... [Laurie Weidner, spokeswoman for the Rancho Santiago Community College District, which governs Santa Ana College] repeatedly emphasized to FoxNews.com that no public funds would be used for the scholarship... But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., whose district includes the taxpayer-funded Santa Ana College, says that isn't quite true - because the scholarship diverts resources from Americans in need of education funds.
Indeed: what they're doing is explicitly anti-American: they're taking college educations from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally. The latter group has other options: they can return to their home countries and get free or low-cost college from their governments. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens are getting screwed by their government officials. See the DREAM Act page for more.
Please take a few moments and send an email to Santa Ana President Erlinda Martinez politely but pointedly suggesting she at least act like a patriotic American: martinez_erlinda *at* sac.edu
Devin Dwyer of ABC News offers "Defying Cops and Klan, Immigrants Trek 1,500 Miles to Washington" . It promotes the anti-American DREAM Act, but (as with almost all the other articles about that bill) fails to note that the bill would allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens.
ACLU of Georgia's highly flawed racial profiling report based only on anecdotes; dedicated to promoters of anti-American bill - 03/25/10
1. Despite admitting that they have no data that would back up any claims of profiling , they convict the sheriff's office anyway.
2. Lacking any hard data on possible profiling in that county, all they do is print ten anecdotes. All but one are from those who didn't want their names used; the only one with a name attached is based on something she witnessed. As far as I can determine, there's nothing in their report providing any independent corroboration that their anonymous sources are telling the truth is provided. There appears to be nothing indicating that they interviewed additional, possibly impartial witnesses. There appears to be nothing indicating that the interviewed police officers or officials of some kind about the alleged incidents. One would have to take the word of the ACLU taking the word of self-interested parties to believe what's in the report. Is anyone outside the far-left willing to do that?
3. This is in the frontispiece:
Published March 2010, on occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This report is dedicated to the Trail of DREAMS walkers who visited Georgia and Gwinnett County in March 2010 and inspired us with their courage.
That Day is a project of the United Nations and I'm going to guess that - as with their other programs - it has certain hidden surprises masked by a benign and laudatory name. And, the Trail walkers are supporters of the Dream Act, an anti-American bill that would take college educations away from lower-income U.S. citizens in order to give them to illegal aliens.
4. In a report about racial bias, they show their own biases:
Although complaints have come largely from Latino drivers, Gwinnett County also has large Asian and African immigrant populations, and it is likely that these communities are similarly victimized by this form of racial profiling.
Are working class whites also victims of profiling based on their race? Why isn't the ACLU concerned about that? Why do they assume that everything revolves around whites oppressing non-whites? (Answer: because they're very far-left).
University of Nebraska sued for giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens (Kobach; again) - 01/25/10
(Attorney Kris Kobach) filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the validity of a 2006 Nebraska law that allows some illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition... The lawsuit names the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and other state college boards as defendants.
...[His earlier] attempt to challenge Kansas' in-state immigration tuition law in federal court fell flat, when the court determined that the plaintiffs - a group of students paying higher out-of-state tuition - hadn't proven they were harmed by the law.
In the Nebraska case, Kobach argues that residents' taxes are being used to support the state's immigration tuition law in violation of federal law.
The latter is similar to a case he's pursuing in California which was dismissed by a lower court but after appeal it was reinstated is now pending before the California Supreme Court.
While it would be great if he succeeds, the way to block laws like this right now is to discredit politicians over the fact that they're willing to take college educations away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally. See the DREAM Act summary for a question you can ask. If even just a few people asked questions like that on video in an attempt to have an impact on the careers of politicians, it would send a very strong message.
Read about CIR ASAP: "Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009" (Luis Gutierrez) - 12/11/09
[A DISCUSSION OF SOME OF THE PROVISIONS IS HERE, AND MORE UPDATES ARE BELOW]
On Tuesday, December 15, 2009 Rep. Luis Gutierrez will introduce an amnesty bill called the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009". His announcement (luisgutierrez.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1406) provides no details, however:
1. Details on the bill will be provided here when it becomes available; expect it to be a bit on the far-left side and expect it to not go very far, except perhaps if it's watered down. In the latter case it might present a problem.
2. The way to deal with things like this is outlined on this page. It's also necessary to deal with those on the conservative/Republican side who'd take a fall; that includes the tea parties or at least their leaders as well as some major bloggers and pundits.
3. Those involved are from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus and include: Nydia Velazquez, Yvette Clarke, Mike Honda, Lynn Woolsey, Judy Chu, Joseph Crowley, Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rico), Jared Polis, Jan Schakowsky, and Jose Serrano.
12/15/09 UPDATE: Per this, Gutierrez claims he has 80 co-sponsors, and his press conference including young people wearing t-shirts saying "Future Voter". Guess which party they'll be voting for. And:
One key Republican who said he was “disappointed” by Gutierrez’s bill is Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Flake’s opposition is important because in past years he has worked with Gutierrez on immigration reform. But because this bill includes a lottery where 100,000 new workers could come in each year for three years, instead of a temporary worker program, Flake said he cannot support it... Flake said the bill “repeatres the mistakes of the ‘86 reform - massive legalzaiton without a temporary worker program to accomodate future labor demands.”
12/15/09 UPDATE 2: Per this:
The 700-page bill... will carry the name of Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, the longest-serving Latino currently in the House and selected by his peers to shepherd the legislation through Congress... The bill would create a Southern Border Security Task Force composed of federal, state and local law enforcement to crack down on crime, increase the number of inspectors at border land ports and provide more training and equipment for Border Patrol agents... It would include a worker verification program and visa reforms that promote family unity and expand those for agriculture-related work.
There's an audio report here; per another page on their site the fee to get on the "path to citizenship" is $500.
Among those cheering the bill are:
* UFW Foundation Director Diana Tellefson "said her group and agricultural employers backed the bill" (last link; that group is associated with the United Farmworkers of America).
* Rep. Sam Farr of California; he notes that the bill includes AgJOBS, the DREAM Act, and his "Proud to be an American Citizen Act" (link).
* Proud former MEChA member Rep. Raul Grijalva (link).
* The AFL CIO, which says that it includes the following from their "joint framework for immigration reform" (link):
- An inclusive and effective solution that allows a path for undocumented immigrants to come forward and regularize their status. Trumka says “this is fundamental to our ability to crack down on employers who are using unauthorized workers to drive down wages and other standards.”
- An independent commission to assess and manage future flow of immigrants, based on labor market shortages that are determined on the basis of actual need.
- Reform, not expansion of existing temporary worker programs immediately to stop the exploitation of workers and safeguard standards in impacted industries.
12/15/09 UPDATE 3: Per this:
A draft overview of the bill, circulated with the letter, ends some enforcement tools such as the 287(g) local police cooperation program, calls for an electronic verification system to replace the voluntary E-verify program, argues that there's no need for more U.S. Border Patrol agents or fencing, and establishes a long-term path to citizenship for illegal immigrants... That path would require illegal immigrants to pay a $500 fine, pass a background check and learn English and civics to gain legal status. After six years, they could apply for legal permanent residence, or a green card, which is the interim step to citizenship. There is no "touchback" provision requiring them to return to their home countries at some point in the process.
They also quote someone who I stumped four years ago:
"Of course [the high unemployment rate] complicates [the push for amnesty]. Of course the public's first reaction is understandable, it's why do we need more workers when upwards of 15 million Americans are out of work," said Tamar Jacoby, president and chief executive officer of ImmigrationWorks USA, a coalition of businesses pushing for immigration reform... But she said history has shown that there are some jobs that American workers won't take and immigrant workers will... She pointed to resort communities in Michigan that struggled to find workers this summer even though they were just a couple of counties away from Detroit, which has been devastated by layoffs... "Laid-off autoworkers in Detroit don't want to travel across the state, let alone across the country, to pick pears, pick apples," she said.
The example she provides is the same as that recently used by America's Voice.
12/15/09 UPDATE 4: I take a look at some of the provisions here; they're as bad as you'd expect.
Sen. Bill Nelson has called for authorities to halt the deportation of a Miami man whose immigration story has inspired protests and riled up immigration activists throughout South Florida.
In a letter last week addressed to a top federal immigration official, Nelson praised Walter Lara, a 23-year-old who is to be deported July 6. He called him ''exactly the type of person'' a new immigration bill is ''trying to help.'' Lara's story ''vividly illustrates'' the need for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, Nelson, a Democrat, said.
Now, for the facts that neither Levine nor Nelson will tell you, see the last link. The bill both support would not just lead to more similar cases, it would let foreign citizens take college educations away from U.S. citizens. Senator Nelson is turning his back on U.S. citizens in order to support foreign citizens, and his constituents should respond by turning their back on him.
With the Capitol Dome behind them, hundreds of youth from all over the country, along with education, faith, business, immigrant and civil rights leaders are expected to participate in a National DREAM Graduation ceremony, hosted by the United We Dream Coalition (UWD).
That, and apparently several other events across the U.S., will be held on Tuesday June 23 in support of the anti-American DREAM Act. The illegal aliens covered under that bill would be able to take college educations away from U.S. citizens. See the PIIPP page for endless examples of the mainstream media advocating for the bill without revealing its downsides or supporting the proper public policy of encouraging those illegal aliens to return to their home countries for educations there.
Expect the mainstream media to continue that with the latest event. If anyone can find a list of those who'll be involved please leave a comment.
College Board comes out for anti-American DREAM Act, depriving U.S. citizens of college educations (Gaston Caperton, Thomas Rudin, Roberto Gonzales) - 04/21/09
The College Board - the group of over 5600 educational institutions that administers the SAT - has released a report advocating for the anti-American DREAM Act; that would let the illegal aliens covered under the bill take college educations away from U.S. citizens. See that link for the details and a question you're urged to ask those politicians who support the bill in order to discredit them. No matter how they want to evade the truth, the bottom line is that what the College Board supports would cause some U.S. citizens to not be able to go to college.
The report was authored by Roberto Gonzales of the University of Washington; his blurb is at . An Associated Press article on them by Hope Yen is here. The PDF can be downloaded from professionals.collegeboard.com/policy-advocacy/diversity/undocumented
The president of the Board is former West Virginia governor Gaston Caperton, and the AP article quotes Thomas Rudin, their "Senior Vice President for Advocacy, Government Relations, and Development". If anyone can find direct contact information for either, please leave a comment; until such time, please contact them via collegeboard.com/about/contact.html?region=NYO
A quick scan of the report shows this misleading paragraph:
Such legislation has not precipitated a large influx of new immigrant students, displaced native-born students or been a financial drain on the education system. In fact, these measures tend to increase school revenues by bringing in tuition from students who otherwise would not be in college.50
The footnote is to NILC's Basic "Facts" about In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrant Students. If one assumes based on the paragraph that that footnote shows how those "undocumented" students don't displace the "native-born", one would be wrong since it just handwaves that impact away.
Please go to public appearances by supporters of the bill and get video of you asking them the question on the DREAM Act page. Really pressing even just one nationally-known supporter on this issue would have an impact on their political career and send a message to the rest.
The National Immigration Law Center offers a misleading report called "Basic Facts about In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrant Students", last revised February 2009: nilc.org/immlawpolicy/DREAM/instate-tuition-basicfacts-2009-02-23.pdf
1. They say:
The anti-American DREAM Act was re-introduced yesterday in the House and the Senate. The bill is an amnesty for a potentially large number of younger illegal aliens, and it would allow those covered under the bill to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. In other words, because of this bill, some U.S. citizens will have their college educations taken away from them by former illegal aliens.
Considering that, it's incredibly easy to block the bill and discredit those who support it. The way to do that is to ask a politician who supports the bill the question at the link above, and then upload video of their response to video sharing sites. What I need you to do is to organize local efforts to go out and do that as described here. Even if you can't start a local group, you can still urge others to form such a group in your area.
The text of the bills isn't at thomas.loc.gov yet, but there's a probably accurate stock description here; those meeting the following qualifications would be temporarily legalized:
* They arrived in the United States before age 16.
* They have been otherwise law-abiding citizens for at least five consecutive years since the date of arrival and have registered for the Selective Service in case the military needs them.
* They must be older than 12 years old but younger than 30 when the bill becomes law.
* They have either graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a general equivalency diploma.
* They have "good moral character."
...those immigrants who satisfy these criteria would get conditional legalization and would have to either complete study at a community college, complete at least two years toward a bachelor’s degree or serve two years in the U.S. military to get their permanent residency.
The House version is H.R.1751 from Howard Berman, currently co-sponsored by Lincoln Diaz Balart, Mario Diaz Balart, Zoe Lofgren, Joseph Cao, John Conyers, Devin Nunes, Jared Polis, Ileana Ros Lehtinen, and Lucille Roybal Allard.
Colorado: discredit Peter Groff over in-state tuition for illegal aliens (bill passes Senate committee) - 03/06/09
Colorado state senator Chris Romer is pushing for that state to give in-state tuition to illegal aliens, and yesterday his bill passed a state senate committee (link). CO senate president Peter Groff is quoted as saying:
"For me, this is a moral issue, that we should not shackle the future of children because of the sins of their fathers."
If you oppose this bill, one of the best ways to fight it is to have an impact on the career of one of the politicians who supports it. And, you can do that by asking either Romer or Groff a very tough question - not a rant - designed to show that they're engaging in false compassion and that they're putting the interests of foreign citizens ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens. Video of their response can then be uploaded to Youtube. If the person's name is put in the title of the video and it gets enough views and high ratings, it will probably end up on the first page of Google search results for their name. And, that will send a message to other state or national legislators who try to take things away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally.
Here's a sample question you can ask:
You support giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens. But, each such discount given to an illegal alien represents one that's taken away from a U.S. citizen. What would you say to a U.S. citizen who can't go to college because of what you support?
If you aren't in Colorado or can't ask either of them that or a similar question, then please promote this plan via forums, local groups, and the like.
Excerpt below, and note also that one of the best ways to reduce illegal immigration is to discredit those politicians who support the DREAM Act by asking them questions like this one on video.
Phillip Brownlee /Wichita Eagle supports depriving U.S. citizens of college educations, encourages giving in to corruption - 12/24/08
The new year apparently will bring another quixotic attempt to repeal the law allowing some qualifying children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state universities and colleges. Rep. Lance Kinzer..., R-Olathe, and some other conservative lawmakers plan to take another charge at the 2004 law next session despite the fact that past efforts to repeal it have failed. Or that costly court challenges to the law have failed. Or that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius would veto any repeal that happened to make it out of the Legislature. Or that the state universities support the law. Or that law benefits the state's economic development efforts. The only encouraging news is that Kinzer and others don't plan to revive - at least not next year - this past session’s failed attempt to turn employers into immigration police.
1. He's supporting a state version of the DREAM Act; see that link for a description of how such bills take college educations away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally.
2. For some reason, hacks keep misrepresenting laws like this, claiming that they're for the children of illegal aliens when in fact they're for those who are themselves illegal aliens. See this for a previous example involving someone else. (Note also that the national DREAM Act covers "children" as old as 30 years of age.)
3. Rather than encouraging his readers to fight against obvious government corruption and support for illegal activity by lawmakers, Brownlee wants his readers to just give in and accept their fate.
Ali Frick from ThinkProgress - whose parent fund is linked to the Obama campaign - breathlessly informs us that "Joe the Plumber" apparently just said something we're supposed to be shocked about (link):
McCain has fought and bled for our country, and loves our country. There's too many questions with Barack Obama and his loyalty to our country. And I question that greatly...
Does Tanya Schevitz understand and support fundamental American concepts? (Chris Patti, Claudia Keith) - 09/16/08
Tanya Schevitz of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Undocumented students' college aid in jeopardy" (link) about the recent ruling reinstating a suit over the California law giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens. That law is explicitly anti-American: it gives citizens of foreign countries who are here illegally a better deal than some U.S. citizens, and laws like that prevent some U.S. citizens from going to college. In other words, illegal aliens take a chance at college from U.S. citizens. Such laws are a direct attack on the fundamental concept of citizenship.
The title of the article is about what you'd expect from San Francisco in general: putting the interests of foreign citizens ahead of U.S. citizens. While Tanya Schevitz might not be the one that come up with headline, the article itself is as bad as the title.
Before getting out your handkerchiefs, Tanya Shevitz does do one service: letting us in on the fact that the politicians who crafted the law (AB540) did it in such a way as to evade the spirit of federal law:
"The central issue in the case is whether or not the criteria for in-state fees is based on residency or not, and the Legislature carefully constructed the statute so that it was not based on residency," [University of California attorney Chris Patti] said. "It is based on whether you went to a California high school and graduated from a California high school, and those criteria are not based on residency."
The rest of the article wholy sympathizes with those illegal aliens who would be affected and doesn't show any concern for those U.S. citizens who will have their college educations taken away from them:
A state appellate court has put a financial cloud over the future of tens of thousands of undocumented California college students... ...If the law is struck down, it has the potential to financially devastate undocumented students, who are not eligible for state or federal aid. For many, it may mean the difference between attending school and dropping out, Patti said... ...The ruling was disturbing news to those undocumented students who need the subsidy to stay in school...
Unlike Schvitz, my concern is with the U.S. citizens who are victimized by laws like this. Those who are "undocumented" should be encouraged to repatriate themselves and their home countries should be encouraged in one way or another to take care of them. Needless to say, the California State University doesn't agree:
"What we are concerned about are the students who are caught in the middle of this legal dispute," said CSU spokeswoman Claudia Keith.
Near the end of the article Tonya Shevitz plays a common trick in articles like this, quoting a sympathetic "undocumented" victim. As has been done in countless other articles, the "undocumented immigrant" doesn't give her last name, and also stresses that she's only used to the U.S. Considering all the other articles containing those exact same components, a real reporter might consider whether they were being played:
Gesel, who declined to give her last name because of her immigration status, has lived in California since she was 9 but is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico with no path to legal status under current immigration laws... "We were raised in this country. Most of our life is here," she said.
Considering the number of times that something very similar to the above has been used in other articles, does anyone think Schveitz is a real reporter?
Note also that Tyche Hendricks was involved in some way with the article.
Send your polite thoughts to tschevitz *at* sfchronicle.com
After speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention, John McCain held a Q&A session.
Massachusetts governor (and Barack Obama quote source) Deval Patrick is back to supporting giving the in-state college tuition rate to illegal aliens (link). He considered trying to sneak it through without getting their legislature involved in January. This time around it's part of a larger proposal, the "Readiness Project", and he says:
"It makes good sense for us economically, and for me it's just a matter of simple justice... We don't say to these kids they can't go to state colleges and universities; they can go. What we say to them is that they have to pay a different rate from the kid who sat across the aisle from them all through middle school and high school."
If anyone wants to do a good turn, go to one of his public appearances and point out to him that, due to limited resources, any slot or discount given to an illegal alien is one that was taken away from a U.S. citizen. He wants to provide foreign citizens who are here illegally with "simple justice", but he doesn't want to give the same to his own fellow citizens. Get his response on videotape, and then upload it to video sharing sites.
John McCain "flip-flops", will support "comprehensive immigration reform"; DNC still concept-challenged - 05/07/08
John McCain has "flip-flopped" on immigration. Except, it's not really a flip-flop because it's been his position all along, despite attempts by the Democratic Party and others (such as Media Matters) to pretend otherwise. On May 5, while announcing his new Spanish-language website, he said this:
"Unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform I don't think you can take it piecemeal... In other words...
Earlier I noted that Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films was going to start producing immigration documentaries. Their first is a video (link) and site (adreamdeferred.org) supporting the DREAM Act, one of the most anti-American pieces of legislation ever devised. It would let illegal aliens take college discounts and slot from U.S.
Ripping a page from Mr. Power Glutes himself, I'm announcing a new feature, the awarding of The Peter Slevin Award for Mainstream Media Puffery.