Department of Defense (DoD) authorization bill - amendment #2919 (the Dream Act)

Why would Senator Dick Durbin attempt to add a massive amnesty for illegal aliens into a Defense Appropriations bill? I believe this is another attempt to slip this massive amnesty through the cracks against the very obvious will of United States citizens. The June avalanche of phone calls that shut-down the Capitol switchboard for the first time in history was a very clear statement by the citezens that we are against this. Why do both sides of the isle continue to try and slip it through?

budparker's picture

Emphasis on Illegal, please

Far too many other-wise intelligent Americans can not think this issue through.  It seems as though everyone thinks that “immigrant” is not different from “illegal immigrant.”  These are two totally different concepts.  An immigrant implies that the person is in the United States legally.  An illegal immigrant speaks for itself.  This person has broken the law by sneaking into the US.


If a person sneaks across the border, bypassing US Customs, they have violated a serious law.  This is especially serious in today’s world of terrorists and international criminals.  The issue of Immigration is not the decent people that are here legally. It is about the “Border Jumpers.” Are they criminals?  Are they even Mexican Citizens, or are they up from South America, Central America, or some other part of the world?


Why do they need to enter America illegally?  The second time a person enters the USA illegally he has committed a felony.  Are cities that proclaim to be “Sanctuary Cities” aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony?  Yes.  Are Federal and State government agencies that provide welfare, health services, housing, and so forth aiding and abetting?  They are if even one has entered illegally more than one time.


This issue is far more important than the press it is receiving.  This is not about Americans being nice to poor, oppressed Mexican that are just looking for a better life.  This is about National Security and violating Federal and State Laws.  These laws are on the books because various Legislatures have created them.  California is in serious financial straits, in part because illegal immigrants have sucked billions of dollars out of the State coffers.


Wake up Americans. 


Bud Parker
First Sergeant
US Army, Retired

budparker | March 8, 2009 - 2:41pm
talker's picture

a couple more tidbits

Bob -

I didn't know that the cut off for when you apply was 30, but the bill still says you have to have been here since you were under 16. And even though, yeah I agree, the sworn affadavit thing is flaky, remember they also have have gotten a high school diploma. I happen to know a lot of amazing immigrant kids in NYC, but even the most spectacular have a hard time graduating from high school if they arrive older than 16 - which is to say, even if a few 29 year olds came when they were older than 16 and managed to graduate - most of them while learning English - I'd say, let's keep 'em! They're probably rock stars and not taking US jobs, but starting companies and creating US jobs.

On another note, if the US always had a policy of doing background checks on immigrants, we'd be a pretty piddly nation today - and I wouldn't be surprised if we never expanded past the Mississippi. Let's remember this nation is made stronger by immigration - not less safe.

With all that said, I still agree that immigration bills shouldn't be slapped on to defense bills. Just read, by the way, in Congress Daily that there are about 250 amendments the Senate may consider in its defense authorization bill. Who knows how many others have nothing to do with defense?

talker | September 23, 2007 - 11:19am

Rockstars maybe, but...


They may be rockstars, and would probably be wondeful additions to these United States except for the fact that their parents made them the unfortunate victims when they decided to migrate illegaly. Anything done to allow them to stay and give them citizenship would encourage other groups to by-pass our legal immigration process, very much the same affect seen after the massive amnesty in the '80s. As for background checks, it is not the same world out there as it was during most of this countries growth. Weapons powerfull enough to kill thousands can now be carried in a briefcase! Drug dealers and murderers are common border crossers.


Autobob | September 24, 2007 - 8:46am

I must disagree


I think if you read further, the cut-off age, as changed, for this amnesty is age 30. Little more than a sworn statement is required of these people, so basically, anyone under 30 can make a sworn statement that they have been here illegally for 15 years, and they are okay.  There is, however, a "family unity" and "humanitarian" waiver that can be granted by DHS.  Also, because of chain migration, as soon as the teens turn 21 they can bring their parents into the country (the original law breakers) and begin to bring in aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents.


These illegal aliens are at no time required to submit fingerprints or undergo background security checks.  This is, even with the added age limit of 30, still a massive amnesty not to mention the huge security problem. 



Autobob | September 20, 2007 - 5:27pm
talker's picture

a little perspective

Bob -

You know I'll always agree that politicians are sneaks (or snakes, if one prefers) when it comes to slipping in "non-germane" (I think that's the official term for "completely irrelevant") actions into bills - so, yeah, I'd rather Congress vote on an immigration matter in an immigration bill and not a defense bill.

Nonetheless, I thought I'd add a little perspective to your post.

I couldn't find any recent numbers, but one study from Urban Institute (center left) in 2003 suggests that the Dream Act would not be a "massive" amnesty; instead it would let about 65,000 high school graduates a year who were brought here before they turned 16 stay and go to college. That's less than how many kids graduate from NYC public schools and I'd ball park about 1% of all 17 year olds. So not so massive. (I'll just tack on that we also wouldn't really be giving them amnesty, since they didn't really have a say in whether they were coming here - when you were 15 would you have told your parents "Sorry, i can't go with you to America because it's illegal, so I'll just stay here on my own in Bangladesh?"). The 2003 study is here -

I also think it's taking a leap to say that because there was a strong push by a number of Americans (albeit a lot of Americans) to call Congress to stop the immigration bill over the summer, that "we" the "citizens" are against the Dream Act. A CNN poll over the summer showed that 30% of Americans supported the Senate's bill, while 15% said it didn't go far enough to let more immigrants stay - as opposed to 28% who opposed the bill because it went too far.

talker | September 20, 2007 - 3:03pm