Reid Adding Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill

Reid Adding Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he wants to attach an amendment to a defense policy bill that would help young people in the United States illegally become legal U.S. residents.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org

Here is another prime example of an out of touch Congress. I one hand the amendment would allow people who join the military or attend college to become legal US Residents. But why do you need another piece of Legislation when all you need is a green card to join the US military and then you are fast tracked to becoming a citizen; As well as you can study in America with a Student VISA?

Is this back door amnesty, like Congress and this Administration has been aiming for all along? Or is it just another amendment that is what it really is? With This Congress who knows? Thoughts?


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

With this administration I'd say it's a way to get afoot in the door for amnesty as well as a way to remind the democrats that sold their votes for healthcare for amnesty that they are working on it. Reid is a disgusting example of an American politician and as soon as people like himself and Pelosi are gone America will be much better off.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I'd suggest reading the fine print in that bill..Probably a 1000 pages long though..

reply to post by CynicalM


True. Make a Bill big enough and it will get passed without any senator reading what they are doing (ala - Patriot Act).
If they throw in a lot of dumb ammendments, what sections are they trying to bury amongst them?

reply to post by CynicalM


Thanks but I think I'll wait for Pelosi to tell me whats in it.

That sems to be how things work today.

This legislative effort has been underway for some time... since 2001, in fact.

The "2009" version was altered to remove some objections and resistance from the states:

2009 re-introduction

The DREAM Act was re-introduced in both chambers of Congress on Thursday, March 26, 2009. Introducing the bill were Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Harry Reid (D-NV), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), and Russel D. Feingold (D-WI) and U.S. Representative Howard Berman (D-CA). To date, 128 representatives and 39 senators (not including former Senator Edward Kennedy) have co-sponsored the bill.


Under the new DREAM Act, immigrants may qualify in part, by meeting the following requirements which have not been finalized by Congress:

* - Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time the Law is enacted
* - Must have arrived in the United States before the age of 16
* - Must have resided continuously in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years since the date of their arrival
* - Must have graduated from a U.S. High School, or obtained a General Education Diploma GED
* - Must have "Good moral character"

* Other benefits:

In addition to the temporary Residency, immigrant students who qualify would also be entitled to apply for student loans and work study, but would not be eligible for Pell educational grants.

* Termination of benefits:

In certain circumstances, the immigrant may lose temporary immigration Residency. This may occur if the immigrant does not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period or if they commit any crimes (other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors) regardless of whether or not they have already been approved for permanent status at the end of their six years. If an immigrant is convicted of a major crime, or drug-related infraction, (except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana) he or she would automatically lose the six year temporary residence status and be immediately subject to deportation.

From Wikipedia

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the Dream Act website (www.dreamact2009.org...) describes the purpose and effect of the Act as follows:

Overview of the new DREAM Act of 2009

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The "DREAM Act") is a long anticipated Immigration Bill which was just introduced in the US Congress (both Senate and House) on March 26, 2009. This bill will provide millions of immigrant children who graduate from U.S. High Schools the opportunity to receive U.S. Residency (a "Green Card") after so many years of being left in the shadows by State and Federal laws. The new legislation will provide immigration benefits to those who arrived in the United States as children, before the age of 16 and who have been residing in the U.S. continuously for at least five years prior to the Bill being enacted into Law.

Once made into law, immigrants meeting the criteria will essentially have the opportunity to "earn" Permanent Residency. This means that students will be issued temporary Residency for a period of six years, which is conditioned upon meeting certain educational or military requirements. Within the six year temporary Residency period, a qualified student must attend college, and earn at least a two year degree (AA), or serve in the U.S. Military for two years in order to maintain immigration benefits. Once the immigrant has met all of the conditions at the end of the 6-year conditional period, they will be granted Permanent Residency, which will lead to U.S. citizenship. However, if the student does not comply with either the college requirement or military service requirement, the temporary Residency will be taken away and student will be subjected to deportation.

It occurs to me to ask... is it true that "millions of immigrant children" fit this description:?

* - Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time the Law is enacted
* - Must have arrived in the United States before the age of 16
* - Must have resided continuously in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years since the date of their arrival
* - Must have graduated from a U.S. High School, or obtained a General Education Diploma GED
* - Must have "Good moral character"

And what possible outcomes can we expect?

For example does that mean that there will be potentially millions of new student loan applications? - If so, I can see why the banking industry would see this legislation as a cash cow. Does it mean that our future military servicemen will be replete with "new" citizens who (ostensibly being unable to secure a loan) will be paid by the tax-payer to perform such military duties as required by the President and Congress?

How much more expensive will it be to get security background checks for these new citizens? More money for the military-industrial complex, I suppose.

Something tells me that the heavyweights benefiting from this legislation will not rest until it is passed.

Here are the supporters:


Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 7/28/2009
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/31/2009
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 4/14/2010
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 9/8/2009
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 10/21/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 6/10/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 6/23/2009
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 4/15/2010
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 7/15/2009
Rep Cao, Anh "Joseph" [LA-2] - 3/26/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/31/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/31/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 4/22/2009
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 4/30/2009
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] - 9/8/2009
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 5/7/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 4/21/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 11/3/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/26/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 5/7/2009
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 6/15/2010
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 6/2/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 5/7/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/21/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 9/14/2009
Rep Delahunt, Bill [MA-10] - 7/10/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 5/14/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 3/26/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 3/26/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 6/23/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 6/16/2010
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 6/2/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/31/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 4/21/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/31/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/31/2009
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 6/19/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 3/31/2009
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 6/15/2010
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 7/28/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/31/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 12/11/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 5/7/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 9/8/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 9/8/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 4/15/2010
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 3/31/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/27/2010
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/21/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 5/13/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 5/5/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 6/2/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 4/30/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 10/28/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 4/20/2010
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 6/19/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 7/22/2010
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 7/15/2010
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/26/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 5/20/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 6/25/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 5/20/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 6/23/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 6/8/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 4/27/2010
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 3/31/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 6/2/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 6/19/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 4/22/2009
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 5/20/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/14/2009
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 4/27/2010
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/30/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 9/24/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 6/23/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 7/28/2009
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 7/14/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 3/3/2010
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 3/26/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 4/21/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 4/14/2010
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 4/27/2009
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] - 6/10/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 7/29/2010
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 3/26/2009
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 7/9/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 4/30/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 7/9/2009
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 4/23/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 4/14/2010
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 6/10/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 3/26/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 5/20/2009
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 3/26/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 10/20/2009
Rep Sablan, Gregorio Kilili Camacho [MP] - 6/16/2010
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 3/31/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 5/25/2010
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 7/15/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 6/9/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 4/21/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 10/28/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 4/29/2010
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 6/23/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 10/8/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/22/2009
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 2/24/2010
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 7/29/2010
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 7/9/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 9/8/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 5/19/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 7/28/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 4/21/2009
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 6/23/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 5/7/2009
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 9/15/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 5/14/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/22/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/22/2009

And here is the legislation text: thomas.loc.gov...:./temp/~c111s3nQzh



Happy reading.....

reply to post by Maxmars


I should add that this is an admendment to the defense bill, Now I am not sure if the Dream Act as a whole is part of the bill or if certian pieces are. But either way do you think The Liberal Dems will be trying to ram any and everything home till November? I am not sure how the elections will go but I do hope That it balances out.

reply to post by Maxmars


Great information and good questions.

Perhaps there should be a fee for becoming a resident simply for processing. say a 10 year plan to pay off the costs attributed to making them citizens...the problem is, any whom fail the background check or one of the other hurdles will of course not pay, so its still a loss game..but what choice is there really.

2001 is a long time to be kicking this bill around.

OPs...why did you make the title sound like Harry is the soul owner of this bill and he made it overnight and tried to hide it? the bill itself seems fairly straight forward and logical.

nothing really new in this policy...

if you all recall your history during the civil war the union offered citizenship to southern blacks if they joined the ranks... in almost ever war we've fought there have been people who came to fight on our side not just to help their own people but for that promise of a better life for themselves...

I say good for Reid, even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons...

Well, hey, after we let them in, can we get them to pay taxes?
Or, will they still be sending all the money back home...

On the one hand, if they paid taxes it might help states like California,
On the other hand, the State mismanages money so bad, what difference would it make.

Sigh...

that small little addition about excluding marijuana charges was the only part of the bill that i liked. and only because i was so surprised to see it there.

i think this is the total wrong direction. we need to be pulling out of our current wars, not outsourcing recruits to foreigners for new ones.. also, if they do go through with this they need to offer the same thing to kids here in juvie, because ex-prisoners are going to be a big chunk of who takes advantage of this program. think about it the civil war was a real war, but are these? are we in the same peril that we were domestically then?

the real danger is going on right here at home. *some* of these kids are likely to be the same punks who are down there throwing rocks and shooting at our border patrol. you think the "cartels" wouldnt take advantage of this little program? i assure you they already are, this just makes it easier.

i also think this is the first omen to there being a draft for the future war against Iran.

After reading the article and the actual text of the Dream Act, that was introduced in 2009, the following can be stated:
Harry Reid, did cosponser and write this bill originally, and it is very straight forward, it is going to make those against the anchor baby, and wanting to change the 14th admendment or the laws to where the children of illegale immigrants can no longer have an instant path to citizenship.
It would also prevent the deportation of the illegale immigrants who have children of a certain age that live in the US and are enrolled in school. It is a means to amnesty for all illegale immigrants, cause all they would have to do, is claim it would be a hardship and that would essentially prevent their immediate deportation.
Now the questions that many people should ask, and it sticks out in my mind, is why now do you announce such to the press and the voting public? What possible gains does he hope to get from this action, or could it be, the main reason is that he is wanting to gather votes for himself in the state of Nevada, thus proving his prior statement that the majority of the Hispanic community is mostly democratic, and not republican?
As this is a voting year and he is under the threat of being unseated, the reason for this is a political stunt, done for the bennifit for him, to gather together a large block of voters, those who are not only against the State of Arizona, but also to turn around and gather the hispanic population to vote for and back him. He is in a close political race with his contender, and he is hoping that this will ensure that he wins and keeps his seat. I am hoping that the voters of Nevada, see through this political trick and vote their conscious and who they believe will best represent their interest.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Because that is the name of the story.

This is the kind of thing that irritates the daylights out of me. It's a defense bill and the only things in it should be defense related items. Not this crap.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

hen all you need is a green card

Which the people who would benefit under the dream act would not be eligible for.

A green card is only rewarded under a certain set of conditions. The conditions are such that exclude a vast majority of people.

The dream act will benefit those people who were brought into the country as children and are thus illegal aliens due to no fault of their own. Deporting them would be cruel as they are American in every way that counts.

You must understand ( and I know this from personal experience), that getting a green card under the conditions which the dream act addresses, is next to impossible.

So another proposal to award criminals. Fabulous! It's just so awesome that some crimes aren't really crimes when congress says so. I'm so glad that a third of the money i work damn hard for is being spent on rewarding people who've broken Federal law! Maybe congress can give me a list of federal laws i can break and be rewarded for? 'Cause that'd be awesome.

Originally posted by Jenna
This is the kind of thing that irritates the daylights out of me. It's a defense bill and the only things in it should be defense related items. Not this crap.

Not that I agree with the addition of this 'rider.' But since the military stands to benefit from "millions" of people who want to be citizens, but don't want to go into massive debt to buy a degree, it could be argued to be defense-related.

And since "millions" of potential citizens would rather go into debt than fight a corporate war, they will opt to endure decades of interest-bearing payments for student loans.... so it can also be called an "educational" initiative...

Funny how making money for the robber barons becomes twisted into a 'legislative' affair....

The only thing that irks me is that they (the proverbial "they") think we're too stupid to see it for what it is... and as usual, it's about money and power for those who have too much of it already.

And people wonder where the Tea Party movement came from?

The answer is quite simple.

People are sick and tired (and now rightfully angry) over their elected representatives going off to Washington to do their own thing, or whatever their party bosses tell them to do instead of paying attention to their constituents - you know, the ones that elected them.

Here, Reid is serving as the "poster boy" for what I just said. I can guarantee that a majority of the people of Nevada do not want what he is trying to do.

Prostitution is legal in Nevada, so what you are seeing with Reid is a politician turned into a pandering (this time to hispanics) vote whore because he finds himself locked in a tight race with a Tea Party supported candidate.

Originally posted by Jenna
This is the kind of thing that irritates the daylights out of me. It's a defense bill and the only things in it should be defense related items. Not this crap.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You are correct, I would like to see a constitutional amendment that gives the President line item Veto's; then it goes through the process of a normal veto bill. Also I would like Congress to be able to give an up or down vote on Presidential Executive orders for it to be a full law.