Thread: Harry Reid wants amend defense bill to grant amnesty to illegals

Democrats have been tacking unpopular and unrelated amendments to defense bills for years and when Conservatives bitch, they say Republicans are the ones holding up defense spending.
I would love to see a proposal to require amendments to be actually pertinent to the original bill.
Reid has put the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal in there too. That is only pertinent in so far as it is a DOD matter.

The time is long overdue to drain the swamp. So let's get to drainin'.

Originally Posted by countryboy

The time is long overdue to drain the swamp. So let's get to drainin'.

No need to drain it. The TEA Party is tossing in a bunch of alligators to eat the vermin.

And then I wonder what the GOP will unleash to devour the alligators...

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

No need to drain it. The TEA Party is tossing in a bunch of alligators to eat the vermin.

So true... oh so very true.

And with this move Harry gave the election to the alligator that's biting his ass:

Sharron Angle.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

I would love to see a proposal to require amendments to be actually pertinent to the original bill.

As with all good ideas for real reform, it'll never happen as the complainers will want that option available when they're the ones in power.

Clearly Reid wants a whole bunch of voters he dreams will be casting ballots for him and his cronies.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

Democrats have been tacking unpopular and unrelated amendments to defense bills for years and when Conservatives bitch, they say Republicans are the ones holding up defense spending.
I would love to see a proposal to require amendments to be actually pertinent to the original bill.

I couldn't agree more about Porky Reid's behavior, and anyone's behavior who loads a specific-topic bill with a ton of irrelevant piggy meat excused by such being the only way to get the main bill passed.

If a desired single-issue bill can't get passed on its own merit, if it requires a bunch of back-sty deals to buy votes for it, then it simply isn't to get passed.

Porking a bill only means that the foundational topic at hand was not agreed upon .. and that we may need more American people-representative representatives in Congress.

Indeed, the amount of pork is directly proportional to the polemic fringe gap between the two factions .. which is also reflective of the huge number of American citizens not being represented by either.

As to Reid's amnesty American-defeating behavior .. should anything even close to amnesty ever get passed, we would never ever be able to pull ourselves out of the recession .. and we can kiss a return to the American dream of a high standard of living good-bye.

You think this sort of thing is new?

Read a bill congress passed. ANY bill, and actually read it all the way through to see all the goodies that never get talked about get added in and no one notices because it's just lost in the mass of gobbledygook.

Originally Posted by 9aces

You think this sort of thing is new?

Read a bill congress passed. ANY bill, and actually read it all the way through to see all the goodies that never get talked about get added in and no one notices because it's just lost in the mass of gobbledygook.

Oh, I know it happens all the time.

It simply needs to stop.

It's wrong on so many levels.

In fact, there should be a law again it.

If porking was illegal, then the public would see how the two extreme factions are useless .. and they'd likely then vote for more moderate candidates who can agree on a mainstream single-issue bill with a mainstream great majority benefit.

Although it's unfortunate that the bill is being tacked on a defence bill, it's often the only way a good piece of legislation as well as a bad one gets passed. It's also one that is nothing new and had had GOP support and even co-sponsorship in the past until the current climate--some of which they did for political whipping the seas purposes--got it through. It therefore provides good cover for those in the GOP who want it passed but don't want to take any heat from the base in the current atmosphere.

Here's what the DREAM Act does:

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The "DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that was introduced in the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives on March 26, 2009.

This bill would provide certain illegal immigrant students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. as minors, and have been in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency.

The alien students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."[1] "

Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated [according to the terms of the Act] shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act." [2]

DREAM Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMO, it's a great bill that ought to be made law ASAP. I'll outline some of the main points why I like it and look forward to conversing with anyone's opinions on it.

First, but not necessarily foremost but in conjunction with the whole scheme, I think it makes a good statement about the character of the American people insofar as the topic of being decent people even when there are objections to
the current illegal immigration situation. This bill only affects minors, not adults, who were either taken here or allowed to remain here outside legal immigration channels by their parents or guardians. Unlike those who brought them here, they aren't responsible for how they entered and/or remained in the nation because they were minors at the time. The concept of guilt for any person should be tied to culpable conduct committed by a person, and it doesn't apply to them. That the country would take a harsh approach to innocent minors would make a callous statement towards the character of the American people and ought to be avoided. Understanding the objections to illegal immigrations, to apply it to the affected class of people in the DREAM Act is an extension that does not serve that goal and makes Americans look bad. That ought to be avoided.

Second, it's a good benefit to the US. The affected class of people are those who have attended and graduated from US schools and have already spent at least 5 years in the nation by the act's adoption. Children who have been brought up in key formative years in the US and within the US education system are already heavily acclimated to US society as opposed to new adult arrivals and, in many cases, depending on the age of arrival--such as infancy--are already Americans in all respects but the actual technicalities of their situation.

It is also not a gift but a quid-pro-quo sought. The law places conditions upon adjustment of their status such as: 1) proving that the individual is of good moral character (like no criminal record, etc) and remains so during the conditional years for full adjustment, and 2) completion of at least an associates degree in college or other higher learning institute following high school graduation and/or at least a 2 year term of honourable service in the US military. If these terms are not met, then all bets are off for that individual and they go right back to the deportable status will all penalties associated with it. Those who successfully complete these obligations, however, have shown they are fit individuals who have also served the US in the military and/or are set to provide it other significant benefits in giving back to the community with their skill sets. That also includes higher levels of taxable income that will recoup any money invested in their high school education during their illegal years as a minor with the best shot of achieving good accomplishments for contribution to the US society.

Third, I think it's a good idea for the GOP to support this bill for its long term health and for good public relations. Taking the tough 'law and order' approach to illegal immigration is not well served as earlier explained in targeting innocent minors, and it would go a long way to tempering complaints and perception in the growing Latino community that the party is really just being harsh on Latinos and/or bigoted towards them. In short, it's good politics and allows the GOP to claim and exhibit evidence that the party does places a value on decency and that only fair motives of debate exist with its positions on the overall topic.

But in their mind it is related....

If the illegals are made citizens, they could then join the military.

Originally Posted by BamaGuy

But in their mind it is related....

If the illegals are made citizens, they could then join the military.

But they won't be illegal anymore. As raised Americans, they'll be formal Americans and serving their country. After all, if that's not what any particular person in the category wishes to do and be, the act tells them they'll get their trip back to where they were born if that's what they prefer. It sifts the wheat from the chaff in that regard quite wisely.