The NY Times Finally Slips in Some Unflattering Facts About 'Dream Act' Amnesty
New York Times reporter Julia Preston provided her predictably pro-amnesty slant in Wednesday story on the apparently deathless Dream Act, a bill up in the lame-duck session of Congress (it passed the House Wednesday night) that would provide amnesty for illegal immigrant students: “Illegal Immigrant Students Await Votes on Legal Status.”
With both houses of Congress set to vote this week on a bill that would give legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students, one of those students will wait for news of the outcome at an immigration detention center in Arizona.
The student, Hector Lopez, 21, was deported to Mexico in August after having lived with his family in Oregon since he was an infant. After two months of trying to find his bearings and a job in Mexico City, Mr. Lopez, who does not speak Spanish, traveled to the border last month and turned himself in to the immigration authorities, requesting asylum in the United States.
Mr. Lopez’s deportation and effort to return offer a look at one prospect awaiting illegal immigrant students if the bill, known as the Dream Act, fails.
....
Many Republican senators, led by Jeff Sessions of Alabama, have denounced the bill as a “nightmare act” that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and provide safe harbor for some with criminal records. Other Republicans, including several who supported the bill in the past, said they would not vote for it this time because they believe Democrats are pushing it to please Latino voters.
In demonstrations this year in support of the bill, hundreds of immigrant students declared their illegal status and thousands joined street protests. Young illegal immigrants like Mr. Lopez are regularly caught in sweeps by immigration agents.
Preston belatedly provided some of the nitty-gritty details the paper reliably omits from its incredibly favorable coverage of the Dream Act’s progress and protests.
The Times has been selling the Dream Act as an educational lifeline for blameless immigrant children, but Preston mentioned, deep in the story, that to make the legislation more palatable, a liberal supporter in the Senate was obliged to lower the eligibility age for amnesty to 29 from 35 and to tighten exclusion based on criminal records.
The lead sponsor of the Senate bill, Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, made changes to it in an effort to attract more votes, lowering the maximum age for eligibility to 29 from 35, and tightening the exclusion of immigrants with criminal records.
When interviewing potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act, the Times inevitably homes in on sympathetic young high school or college students, never 35-year-old felons.
A Nexis search suggests this is the first occasion in its many articles that the Times has mentioned the eligibility age of 35 -- in an article appearing after the age was lowered.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Stop The Flow
Submitted by SnapTie on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:17am.
I hope they can kill the bill.
Maybe this isn't a good analogy, but here goes . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:20am.
SCENARIO: My grandfather dies when I'm six months old and leaves me $100,000 in a trust fund to be managed by my father until I turn 18. My father steals all the money before my 18th birthday.
QUESTION: Do the American taxpayers owe me $100,000 to make things right?
The argument that the DREAM Act advocates offer is that the child of the illegal immigrant had no say in coming here illegally, and thus shouldn't be "punished" for the wrongs of the parents.
But American taxpayers aren't responsible for the acts of the parents, either. Those acts have consequences, and we should not be obligated to grant citizenship to individuals solely because their parents came here illegally. They have already profitted from the public services of this country; we owe them nothing.
We owe them nothing
Submitted by ArcherB on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:41am.
You are correct. These people do deserve to get anything from the government, just as you and I deserve nothing from government. But as far as I can tell, these people are not asking for anything. All they want is to live the same way they have lived all their lives and not have to worry about being shipped to a land that is completely and truly foreign to them. These people did not come here illegally and have therefor committed no crime. It was their parents who are illegal. Their parents broke the law, not them. I can't blame them for remaining in what has become their home. Other acts they can do like serve in our military should go a long way in making them legal.
There are problems however that need to be addressed before this law should be passed, like, what to do with the still illegal parents. I have addressed this in another post.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Well, sort of
Submitted by mzk1 on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:05pm.
They are asking for something from the government - legal residency. Not mention High School tuition discounts. I would be all for an exemption for those who clearly speak English as their first language - but I wonder how high a percentage that is.
There are LOTS of problems with the law
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:34pm.
We've already seen the most severe problem: Enforcement. ICE is already instructed to enforce the immigration laws only against illegals with criminal records. They certainly aren't going to pay any closer attention to this. Afterall, Secretary Napolitano herself has testified to Congress that the focus is on criminals and not illegal immigrants in general.
The system proposed by the DREAM Act is ripe for corruption. I can sell someone a counterfeit GED and college enrollment records -- that industry already exists.
It's amnesty.
But back to one of your points -- you are wrong. The children may not have cmmmitted a crime, but they are here illegally, and therefore are subject to the same law as the parents. Deport the parents, and the children go with them.
If they want to serve in the US armed forces, they can do what other non-AMCITS do: apply through a US embassy or consulate. There are thousands of non-citizens serving in the armed forces, but they have green cards, and they can earn American citizenship much like other legal residents do. Every year, hundreds if not thousands of service members are gratned their citizenship. That system works fine.
Can you tell me of any other country that grants citizenship to illegal immigrants who merely graduate from high school and attend college for two years?
No, the government would owe you
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:27pm.
the initial $100,000, PLUS interest, pain and suffering, etc., etc. Just like the recent bill signed by Obama...wherein black and indian folks and their descendants are due reparations for loans that they were denied in the eighties and nineties. Imagine that...you were denied a loan for perceived biased reasons, and years after the fact, years after normal people would've moved on, you demand free money. And Obama and the Dems give it to you.
Actually, the government
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:37pm.
Actually, the government would not owe you, but it would be the job of the prosecutor (acting on behalf of the government) to seek restitution for you through legal action. Although unlikely that you would receive the full amount back, as with other theft cases, the father that stole the money could be ordered to pay you back.
The Dream Act is not "giving" anything to the youngsters who it helps. Allowing them to become citizens through this act actually helps the country. These kids will become tax-payers, college graduates and active military personnel. It isn't a perfect solution, but the belief that these kids will become leeches on the system or democrat voters is little more than political hyperbole. The vast majority will become tax payers, homeowners, parents and valued members of their communities.
My $0.02
Submitted by ArcherB on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:35am.
In cases like the one mentioned in the story, where a child was brought here illegally by illegal immigrant parents and is raised in the US, I have no problem with them becoming legal. I can't fault a child who came over here with his/her parents and had no choice in the matter. I have a hard time calling these kids, or now, adults, illegal since they have really committed no crime.
The problem is, what happens to the parents who are still here illegally? Do we legallize the child and deport the parents? It certainly wouldn't be fair to legallize the parents over other illegals who don't have kids or ahead of those trying to get here legally.
So this kind of partial amnesty is not the answer. There needs be more of a comprehensive plan to solve the problem. I feel the only solution is to seal the borders and open immigration centers. It should be easier to get here legally than illegally. This means that there can't be a 10 year wait and a cost of thousands of dollars for new immigrants to be legal. The wait time from application to admittance should be days, not weeks, not months, and certainly not years. It also means that getting here illegally needs to be extremely difficult so that the only ones willing to chance it are those that we don't want here who couldn't pass the loose standards to get here legally. These are the ones I don't want here anyway. With all the welcome immigrants doing it legally, rounding up the remaning ones that are not welcome should be much easier. For those here illegally now, all they would have to do is go back to their country of origin, get at the end of the line, apply for entry and wait the couple of days to come back legally. Problem solved.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
What if they get to the back of the line . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:49pm.
. . . and then we say, "No, we've got enough this year." Where do they go?
Of course, if what you're actually advocating is essentially open borders where immigrants just show up at the door, fill out forms, pass a criminal check, and walk in, then it doesn't matter.
It's all poison fruit from
Submitted by Bruzilla on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:19pm.
It's all poison fruit from the poison tree, where in this case, the tree is the original illegal act by the parents. The parents committed a crime, therefore anything that crime yields would be illegal. Trying to impose varying degrees of criminality/liability does nothing but turn the law into a swamp.
For example, you support the Dream Act because the kids can't be held accountable for the actions of the parent, and a child had no say so in coming here illegally. Okay, so what about the rights of children who are two years old? They had no say so in coming, and have no say so in if they should go back, so if the rights of the child are apex, shouldn't we deport all parents and keep all the kids here... until they reach age 16 or 18 and can decide what they want? That's the only way to be fair if the deciding factor is whether or not the kid had a say so in things.
If someone steals a painting, sells it to someone else, who sells it to a third party, when the painting is discovered to be stolen, the third party has to return it and suffer a loss of whatever they paid for it right? Even though they had no say so in how it was originally obtained, that painting is still stolen and the third party is forced to suffer. The same applies here. The child may have worked hard to obtain their education, just like that third party may have worked hard to pay for that painting, but that child being in the US still stems from an illegal act in the same way the third party having possession of that painting stemmed from an illegal act. No where else in the legal system is there a break in the line between a crime and the fruits of that crime, and there shouldn't be one for immigration either.
Come on, Bruzilla
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 6:06pm.
There's way too much common sense in your post for an issue as complex as illegal immigration. You need to base your arguments on feelings instead to come up with a real solution.
I guess Archer will be telling us next that the children of bank robbers should be allowed to keep the money because they didn't commit the crime themselves.
Hey genius...
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:32pm.
If it only took a few days and a few dollars to become a citizen, and there were no quantity or quality limits (which is what you implicitly suggest), why would anyone even TRY to come here illegally?
And if it were as easy, loose and quick as going back across the border and waiting in line a few days...why would we even bother with that? Why not just grant amnesty/citizenship immediately to every non-felonious immigrant?
Seriously, did you even think that one through???
Frankly, there are only two
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:11pm.
Frankly, there are only two valid reasons to deny citizenship to the country:
1. Security: Both from a military (terrorist) or criminal standpoint. This reasoning is obvious, at least to conservatives and Libertarians. Foreigners have no "rights" under the Constitution, though those rights do NOT extend to a citizen who may commit a crime upon the non-citizen. But the country has a legal and moral obligation to repel those who mean physical harm to our citizens and our private property holdings.
Prior to 9/11, I had advocated that ANY person who serves at least 3 years in the US Military honorably gets fast-tracked to permanent status. My reasoning is that anyone who would put their own life to the interests of the US deserves citizenship, and for the most parts, the benefit to the country far outweighs the benefits that the person gets from the country. I do NOT advocate "equivalent non-military service" options for such fast-tracking though.
However, with 9/11, the acknowledgment that a "mole" can be placed in the military becomes more probable, and such a policy may not be viable. Of course, home-grown American terrorism still becomes a problem, though identification of such terrorists have been profiled to a very specific group as of late (Islamic arabs).
2. Benefit costs: Welfare, free schooling, medical, etc. which are not available to the average citizen, and that the same citizen has to pay for. Frankly, most people are far less concerned with people whom are working for their bread than those who game the system. This is the most prevelant argument given to deny others the place in this country, though we are one terrorist tragedy away from tipping the scale back to argument 1.
The answer cannot be a one-time solution. It entails several factors. First and foremost, our own country must reassert its preeminence as a TRUE capitalistic, free-enterprise system with limited governent except in strict state/state mediation and negotiation with foreign nations. Once we have prosperity, we must EXPORT ITS INFLUENCE to other countries, such as Mexico. Once Mexico become a vibrant economic country, then there is no need for Mexicans to come to the US to work; they will have opportunities in their own counry.
Finally, once Mexico (and other formerly-socialist countries) becomes economically viable, there is no need to have a strict border patrol EXCEPT for Item 1, security. And I was being rather simplistic in my explanation. However, simplicity begets clarity, and without clarity, the immigration argument can ONLY escalate into the conditions that lead to Hector Lopez's troubling situation. And I know damn well what caused this situation, and it wasn't conservative policy.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
You're forgetting another one, unless it's a part of #2
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:43pm.
...which is that we can only support so many non-skilled, non-assimilating workers. Any society benefits from educating (or having been educated) people in it. With education comes ambition, good moral values, a desire to protect what you've built. We don't want those that have no skills, no roots, no desire to better themselves, and no desire to actually become an American. Let Mexico and other Central American nations keep their ne'er-do-wells. If we don't have enough people to pick lettuce, an educated person will develop a machine to do it when the cost of labor creates that opportunity.
Partially correct
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:20pm.
Your statement sounds correct, but it does have a fallacy: That we can only support so many "non-skilled" workers. The point is that with a vibrant economy, the job list can be EXPANDED for such a category.
However, you did bring out a point I ommitted because I was responding specifically to the DREAM act, or immigration in general. That point is the fact we need to seriously curtail ALL benefits for ALL citizens. These "benefits" will carry over to the private charity sector for the most part. But with Obamacare, bailouts, current IRS standards, the drug Cartels (which, in my opinion, are the REAL government oppressors in Mexico and south), I can see how your concern is valid.
In short, the immigration issue cannot just be dealt with as an isolated problem. The reason it IS a problem is because it is intertwined with all the other crap that it become easier for the socialist left to ratchet up the hate, and for the conservatives and even libertarians to respond in kind. Saul Alinsky has us right where he wants us, and we need to turn it back the next two years.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
more theft
Submitted by Mike76 on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:14pm.
In addition to the Dream act,
Obama gives free money to black "farmers."
Depite the language in the
Submitted by SonnyPalermo on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:47pm.
Depite the language in the bill, we know those with a criminal past will be given a free pass, just ask Whitman's maid. And we also know the sad truth - it will pass in the senate. A couple whores will show their price and a couple rhinos will show their true colors, the usual suspects like Collins and Snow who know they are gone in the next cycyle anyway.
I admit I am new to politics, and there is much I am still learning, but I do know this: the lefties at the top of the food chain care nothing about illegals, they have no use for them except to serve drinks at their next cocktail party. This is about are securing future D votes to extend their power and increase their wealth. Passage makes winning future elections more difficult for R's.
So, why the silence on dream act from the loudest voices on the right?
Defeat? Inclusion?
Risking sounding liberal for a minute
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:20pm.
I know this comment will make me sound like a liberal (I'm not) but I support the Dream Act and think it actually makes some sense. This act helps kids who are here by no fault of their own and unless we want to become a nation who punishes children for the sins of their parents, we were in need of a sensible solution. The Dream Act is not perfect, but by encouraging military service among these kids it will hopefully foster a sense of American patriotism in them and encourage them to become tax-paying full-fledged members of society. The alternative to the Dream Act is to go on as we have, ignoring the fact that these kids had no say in their illegal move to America. Sending them back to a country they were not raised in isn't practical (and attempts to do so would end in costly legal battles for the US). Expecting them to remain illegal is not practical either - as illegals they can't work, pay taxes, get a drivers license, serve in the military; they're at risk for a life of crime (which costs the taxpayers a lot of money) or living on the edge. In the end, the Dream Act will save us money and ensure a steady stream of new tax-paying citizens.
Let's be clear, the DREAM act is only a START
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:26pm.
The DREAM act is just a start. Once the children become citizens, then this becomes the starting point to say, "Well, why should children who don't want to be in the military be forced to be in the military? How about the Peace Corps, Obama Corps, etc?" In addition, this will allow the process for the children to sponsor their parents, who actually committed the crime in the first place.
Frankly, I'd just like to bill Mexico or whatever country they come from for the citizenship and benefits they use. That would be a financial deterrent that would be harder to get around in court.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Are you sure you're not a liberal?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 6:16pm.
"This act helps kids who are here by no fault of their own and unless we want to become a nation who punishes children for the sins of their parents, we were in need of a sensible solution."
Are you sure you're not a liberal? You've sure got their talking points down. Not giving someone something they aren't entitled too isn't punishing them.
Sure sound like a bleeding
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 6:24pm.
Sure sound like a bleeding heart duped liberal to me. If you think what you have been told about the DREAM is all there is to it, or it has not been sugar coated, (health care anyone), you need to do some serious study.
This is another trojan horse bill, like the health care. Lowering insurance costs? HA! Increased access to insurance for children? HA! Everything they told you about the health care bill was a lie. What on earth, if you are conservative, makes you think they are telling you the truth about this?
And lets not forget the unions in the DREAM...cant leave them out.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
You forgot
Submitted by Ciampino on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 8:00pm.
the part where they can "try" college for two years or assert they are going to college (at our expense) and then drop out. After all at least 50% of freshmen don't make it to graduation.
You are delusional if you think they are going to choose the Military (Iraq and Afghanistan anyone?) over an attempt at college.
The One's we been waiting for...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:40pm.
Just behind the door on the left.
spew alert...
You Didn't Build That.
Haha! That's really going to get Tingles & Olby "excited"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:52pm.
Sproing!!!!
Roy Beck of Numbers USA, on Dream Act
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 4:01pm.
Roy Beck of Numbers USA had a very very good piece on some of the details in the Dream Act, yesterday:
Congress Votes on Millions of 10-Year Work Permits for Illegal Aliens
(;~> gary