Thread: Why the DREAM Act Is a Nightmare

August 14, 2006
The Senate Immigration Bill Rewards Lawbreaking:
Why the DREAM Act Is a Nightmare
by Kris W. Kobach


It is no secret that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), passed by the U.S. Sen*ate on May 25, 2006, contains numerous provisions that reward illegal aliens for violating federal immigra*tion law. What is less well known is that the Senate bill also condones the violation of federal law by 10 U.S. states. Indeed, S. 2611 expressly shields these states from liability for their past violations of federal law.

These absurdities are found in the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act provisions of S. 2611.[1] Just before the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the first version of the bill in the evening of March 27, 2006, Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL) offered the DREAM Act as an amendment. It passed on a voice vote and was in the compromise version of the bill that the Senate passed in May.

The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 federal law that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. On top of that, the DREAM Act offers a separate amnesty to illegal-alien students.

The DREAM Act

On its own, the DREAM Act never stood a chance of passing. For years, polls have shown consistently that overwhelming majorities of voters oppose giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. Not surpris*ingly, the DREAM Act languished in committee for four years until the opportunity arose to hitch it to the Senate’s immigration bill.

Events of the past 10 years illustrate how the DREAM Act would undermine the rule of law. In September 1996, Congress passed the landmark Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon*sibility Act (IIRIRA). Led by Lamar Smith (R–TX) in the House of Representatives and Alan Simpson (R– WY) in the Senate, Congress significantly tough*ened the nation’s immigration laws. To his credit, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

Open-borders advocates in some states—most notably California—had already raised the possi*bility of offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who attend public universities. To prevent such a development, the IIRIRA’s sponsors inserted a clearly worded provision that prohibited any state from doing so unless it provided the same dis*counted tuition to all U.S. citizens:

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.[2]

Members of Congress reasoned that no state would be interested in giving up the extra revenue from out-of-state students, so this provision would ensure that illegal aliens would not be rewarded with a taxpayer-subsidized college education. The IIRIRA’s proponents never imagined that some states might simply disobey federal law.

States Subsidizing the College Education of Illegal Aliens

However, that is precisely what happened. In 1999, radical liberals in the California legislature pushed ahead with their plan to have taxpayers subsidize the college education of illegal aliens. Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh (D) sponsored a bill that would have made illegal aliens who had resided in California for three years during high school eligible for in-state tuition at California community colleges and universities.

Democrat Governor Gray Davis vetoed the bill in January 2000, stating clearly in his veto message that it would violate federal law:

[U]ndocumented aliens are ineligible to receive postsecondary education benefits based on state residence…. IIRIRA would require that all out-of-state legal residents be eligible for this same benefit. Based on Fall 1998 enrollment figures…this legislation could result in a revenue loss of over $63.7 million to the state.[3]

Undeterred, Firebaugh introduced his bill again, and the California legislature passed it again. In 2002, facing flagging poll numbers and desperate to rally Hispanic voters to his cause, Governor Davis signed the bill.

Meanwhile, similar interests in Texas succeeded in enacting their own version of the bill. Over the next four years, interest groups lobbying for illegal aliens introduced similar legislation in most of the other states.

The majority of state legislatures had the good sense to reject the idea, but eight states followed the examples of California and Texas, including some states in the heart of “red” America. Today, the 10 states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens are California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

In most of these states, the law was passed under cover of darkness because public opinion was strongly against subsidizing the college education of illegal aliens at taxpayer expense. The governors even declined to hold press conferences or signing ceremonies heralding the new laws.

However, in Nebraska, the last of the 10 states to pass the law, something unusual happened. During the 2006 session, Nebraska’s unicameral legislature passed an in-state tuition bill for illegal aliens. Governor Dave Heineman vetoed the bill because it violated federal law and was bad policy. In mid-April, the legislature, which included 20 lame-duck Senators, overrode his veto by a vote of 30 to 19.

The veto would become an issue in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary. Heineman’s opponent was the legendary University of Nebraska football coach and sitting U.S. Representative Tom Osborne, a political demigod in the Cornhusker State. Osborne had never received less than 82 per*cent of the vote in any election. Heineman, on the other hand, had not yet won a gubernatorial elec*tion. He became governor in 2005 when Governor Mike Johanns resigned to become U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

Few believed that Heineman had a chance of winning the primary, but Coach Osborne fumbled. He criticized Heineman for vetoing the in-state tuition bill and indicated that he favored the idea of giving subsidized tuition to illegal aliens. The vot*ers reacted negatively, and Heineman surged ahead in the final weeks to beat Osborn by 50 percent to 44 percent in the primary election on May 9, 2006. After the vote, both candidates said the tuition issue had been decisive.

State-Subsidized Lawbreaking

In all 10 states, the in-state tuition laws make for shockingly bad policy.

First, providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens amounts to giving them a taxpayer-financed education. In contrast, out-of-state students pay the full cost of their education. This gift to illegal aliens costs taxpayers a great deal of money at a time when tuition rates are rising across the coun*try. The costs of these subsidies are staggering. For example, California taxpayers pay more than $50 million annually to subsidize the college education of thousands of illegal aliens.

Second, these states are encouraging aliens to vio*late federal immigration law. Indeed, breaking fed*eral law is a prerequisite for illegal aliens because state laws expressly deny in-state tuition to legal aliens who have valid student visas. An alien is eli*gible for in-state tuition only if he remains in the state in violation of federal law and evades federal law enforcement. Legal aliens must pay out-of-state tuition. The states are directly rewarding this illegal behavior.

This situation is comparable to a state passing a law that rewards residents with state tax credits for cheating on their federal income taxes. These 10 states are providing direct financial subsidies to those who violate federal law.

Third, not only are such laws unfair to aliens who follow the law, but they are slaps in the faces of law-abiding American citizens. For example, a student from Missouri who attends Kansas University and has always played by the rules and obeyed the law is charged three times the tuition charged to an alien whose very presence in the country is a viola*tion of federal criminal law.

Even if a good argument could be made for giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens, the bottom line is that the policy violates federal law. These 10 states have brazenly cast aside the constraints imposed by Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

( continues )

Pending Lawsuits

In July 2004, a group of U.S. citizen students from out of state filed suit in federal district court in Kansas to enjoin the state from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.[4] They pointed out that Kansas is clearly violating federal law and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by dis*criminating against them in favor of illegal aliens.

The district judge did not render any decision on the central questions of the case. Instead, he avoided the issues entirely by issuing a particularly weak ruling that the plaintiffs lacked a private right of action to bring their statutory challenge and lacked standing to bring their Equal Protection challenge. The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Regrettably, the wheels of justice grind slowly, and a decision is unlikely before the spring of 2007.

Meanwhile, in December 2005, another group of U.S. citizen students filed a class-action suit in a California state court.[5] They too maintain that the state is violating federal law and the U.S. Constitu*tion. Pursuant to a California civil rights statute, they are also seeking damages to compensate them for the extra tuition that they have paid above that charged to illegal aliens. Additional suits will likely be filed by U.S. citizens in the eight other states.



Another Senate Bill Amnesty

Just when it looked as if U.S. citizens might vin*dicate their rights under federal law and the way*ward states would be held accountable, the Senate passed the immigration bill, offering the offending states a pardon.

The DREAM Act provisions, which are buried more than 600 pages into S. 2611, grant an unusual reprieve to the offending states. They ret*roactively repeal the 1996 federal law that the 10 states violated, making it as though the provisions in the 1996 law never existed.[6]

On top of this insult to the rule of law, the DREAM Act would create a massive independent amnesty in addition to the even larger amnesty that the rest of S. 2611 would confer. This amnesty opens a wide path to citizenship for any alien who entered the country before the age of 16 and has been in the country for at least five years. As with the rest of the Senate bill, the guiding notion seems to be “The longer you have violated federal law, the better.”

Beyond that, all the alien needs is a high school diploma or a GED earned in the United States. Alternatively, he need only persuade an institution of higher education in the United States—any com*munity college, technical school, or college—to admit him.

The DREAM Act abandons any pretense of “tem*porary status” for the illegal aliens who apply. Instead, all amnesty recipients are awarded lawful permanent resident (green card) status. The only caveat is that the alien’s status is considered “condi*tional” for the first six years. To move on to the nor*mal green card, the alien need only obtain a degree from any institution of higher education, complete two years toward a bachelor’s degree, or show that doing so would present a hardship to himself or his family members. Of course, an alien with a normal green card can bring in family members and seek citizenship.

Furthermore, the DREAM Act makes it absurdly easy for just about any illegal alien—even one who does not qualify for the amnesty—to evade the law. According to Section 624(f), once an alien files an application—any application, no matter how ridic*ulous—the federal government is prohibited from deporting him. Moreover, with few exceptions, fed*eral officers are prohibited from either using infor*mation from the application to deport the alien or sharing that information with another federal agency, under threat of up to $10,000 fine.

Thus, an alien’s admission that he has violated federal immigration law cannot be used against him—even if he never had any chance of qualify*ing for the DREAM Act amnesty in the first place. The DREAM Act also makes illegal aliens eligible for various federal student loans and work-study programs.

Conclusion

In addition to being a dream for those who have broken the law, the DREAM Act raises an even larger issue regarding the relationship between states and the federal government. The 10 states have created a 21st century version of the nullifica*tion movement—defying federal law simply because they do not like it. In so doing, they have challenged the basic structure of the republic. The DREAM Act would pardon this offense and, in so doing, encourage states to defy other federal law in the future.

One thing that has been learned in the struggle to enforce federal immigration laws is that states cannot be allowed to undermine the federal efforts to enforce them. Rule of law can be fully restored only if all levels of government are working to uphold it.

Kris W. Kobach is Professor of Law at the Univer*sity of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law and is rep*resenting the U.S. citizen plaintiffs in the Kansas and California cases. He served as counsel and chief adviser on immigration law and border security to U.S. Attor*ney General John Ashcroft from 2001 to 2003.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg1960.cfm

This post sums up the longer one quite well ( TY ! ) so I will cross-post it here :

Originally Posted by hblueeyes

Amnesty Senators have snuck an amnesty bill back onto the Senate floor and a crucial vote will take place this week.
Sen. Dick Durbin is attaching the so-called "Dream Act" to the Defense Appropriations Bill.

We're calling the Dream Act the "Nightmare Amnesty Act."

Here's why:

--The Dream Act gives amnesty to any illegal alien
claiming to have arrived in the U.S. prior to age 16.

--Any illegal alien can apply, no matter the current age.
So if a 35 year old illegal can make a claim
to have been in the U.S. prior to age 16,
he can apply.

--Those who get amnesty through the Dream Act
can then sponsor family members.
It creates million of "anchor teens"
who create a direct amnesty path for their family.

--Illegal aliens who apply cannot be deported.

--Plus, the bill allows illegals to get in-state tuition rates,
meaning your tax dollars will pay for illegals to go to college!

The Dream Act is truly a nightmare.

If you are from Illinois:
Call your Senators and these key senators

After scheduling your FaxFire faxes, please call your two Senators
as well as these key senators:

Sen. Durbin 202-224-2152
Sen. Obama 202-224-2854


Sen. Dick Durbin (sponsor) -- 202-224-2152
Majority Leader Reid -- 202-224-3542
Minority Leader McConnell -- 202-224-2541
Minority Leader Lott -- 202-224-6253

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is on the fence : her office’s response to whether she supports or opposes the DREAM Act:

Thank you for contacting me regarding in-state tuition for long-term resident immigrants. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On March 1, 2007, Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1275, the American Dream Act. This legislation would allow states to offer in-state tuition rates to long-term resident immigrant students. Specifically, it seeks to repeal a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which requires states providing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants to offer the same benefits to out-of-state residents.

A similar measure, S. 774, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2007, was introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) on March 6, 2007, and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I do not serve. This measure would also allow certain long-term residents who entered the U.S. as children to have their immigration or residency status adjusted to conditional permanent residents or permanent residents. Should H.R. 1275 or S. 774 come before the full Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

On June 17, 2001, Texas began allowing nonresident students who have graduated from a Texas high school and resided in the state for at least three years to qualify for in-state tuition. These students are also eligible for state financial aid programs such as the Texas Public Educational Grant Program and the Students Incentive Grant Program.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Give her a call: 202-224-5922.

-----

So, which will it be:
Sanctuary Nation
or Sovereign Nation?

Via Numbers USA, you can send a fax to your Senators now:

Please do not attach any amnesty amendments to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

I am especially concerned about Amendment 2237, which would attach the DREAM Act to the bill. The DREAM Act is a loophole-ridden amnesty that would grant legal status to almost any illegal alien who applied for it.

On its surface, the DREAM Act would provide amnesty to illegal aliens who entered the United States before the age of 16 and grant them in-state tuition. At the very least, these provisions give preferential treatment to students who shouldn’t even be in the country over our own young people - many of whom will struggle to afford higher education.



But that is not all that is wrong with the DREAM Act. The bill was written in such a way that there is no upper age limit and very little burden of proof placed on the applicant. A 45-year-old illegal alien who had entered the country less than a year ago could game the system by simply walking into a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office and providing a sworn statement that he had been in the country since before he was 16. Thus, this is an invitation for just about every illegal alien to fraudulently claim the amnesty.

This is a perfect example of the slippery slope of amnesty. Once you start rewarding some law-breakers, you end up rewarding them all.

Here are Durbin’s co-sponsors…and their phone numbers:

Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE]
202-224-4224

Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN]
202-224-4814

Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
202-224-4242

Sen Obama, Barack [IL]
202-224-2854

Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT]
202-224-4041

Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA]
202-224-3841

Sen Kerry, John F. [MA]
202-224-2742

Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]
202-224-5323

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]
202-224-4451

Sen Bayh, Evan [IN]
202-224-5623

Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]
202-224-4744

Sen Murray, Patty [WA]
202-224-2621

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA]
202-224-3553

Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA]
202-224-3441

Sen Salazar, Ken [CO]
202-224-5852

Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT]
202-224-2823

Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

***

Who supports the coming scheme by open-borders politicians in both aisles to slip the DREAM Act into the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585).

Numbers USA reports that only 18 Senators have committed to voting no.
http://www.numbersusa.com/index

They are:

Alabama: Sessions; Shelby
Arizona: Kyl
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning; McConnell
Louisiana: Vitter
Mississippi: Lott
North Carolina: Burr; Dole
Oklahoma: Inhofe
South Carolina: DeMint; Graham
Tennesee: Alexander; Corker
Wyoming: Enzi

Fire up your phone lines. According to Numbers USA, “the senators noted below voted NO on the Comprehensive Amnesty in June, but have not yet pledged to vote NO on the DREAM Act amnesty. Phone them by contacting the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121.”

Alaska: Murkowski, Stevens
Arkansas: Pryor
Colorado: Allard
Idaho: Crapo
Indiana: Bayh
Iowa: Grassley, Harkin
Kansas: Brownback
Louisiana: Landrieu
Maine: Collins
Michigan: Stabenow
Minnesota: Coleman
Mississippi: Cochran
Missouri: Bond, McCaskill
Montana: Baucus, Tester
Nebraska: Nelson (Ben)
Nevada: Ensign
New Hampshire: Sununu
New Mexico: Bingaman, Domenici
North Dakota: Dorgan
Ohio: Brown, Voinovich
Oklahoma: Coburn
Oregon: Smith
South Dakota: *Johnson, Thune
Texas: Cornyn, Hutchison
Utah: Hatch
Vermont: Sanders
Virginia: Warner, Webb
West Virginia: Byrd, Rockefeller
Wyoming: Barrasso

----

Like Sen. Jeff Sessions says, “We may be heading for another immigration battle.”

We’re there.

October 23, 2007
Dream or nightmare?

On Wednesday, I understand, Harry Reid will seek to invoke cloture for the purpose of passing the latest version of the so-called Dream Act. This legislation, which has never been debated in committee, would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, or adjust to lawful permanent resident status, any alien who can demonstrate that he or she: (1) has maintained continuous presence in the United States for five years and was not yet 16 years old upon initial entry, but is no older than 30 years of age; (2) is of "good moral character" and is not inadmissible or deportable on certain criminal grounds or as a risk to national security; (3) and has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has attained a high school diploma, or has obtained a GED in the United States.

This is amnesty legislation.

The group NumbersUSA estimates that it would grant amnesty to an estimated 1.4 million illegal aliens between the ages of 5 and 19 and several million illegal aliens between the ages of 20 and 30. It would also grant amnesty to the family members of those illegal aliens [actually, there is no formal grant - see below]. Moreover, this is no one-time amnesty grant. According to NumbersUSA, the legislation has no time limit. As such, it would undoubtedly serve to attract many more illegal minors and their families.

No amnesty of this sort should be considered until the government demonstrates that it can control our borders. Will Senator McCain adopt this view, or will he vote for a free-standing mass amnesty bill?

UPDATE: According to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the March 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau, an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants under age 17 have been here long enough to qualify for legalization under the Dream Act. There are an estimated 900,000 parents of these illegal aliens. It is unclear under the Dream Act whether the government would deport these parents. It is also unclear what would happen to the siblings of legalized illegals who are themselves illegal, but do not meet the Act’s requirements. There are an estimated 500,000 of these siblings. The Dream Act also allows illegal aliens ages 18 to 29 to become legal if they arrived prior to age 16. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 1.3 million meet this requirement.

Thus, an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants would receive amnesty under the Dream Act, and an additional 1.4 million (estimated) parents and siblings might end up with de facto amnesty. Moreover, these estimates do not take into account the likelihood of fraud, which has plagued prior legalization programs. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, one fourth (700,000) of those legalized in the 1986 amnesty are estimated to have accomplished this fraudulently.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../10/018833.php

color=red]Shamnesty alert[/color]
Dems prepare to ram DREAM Act through with cloture vote
Where do your Senators stand?
By Michelle Malkin • October 23, 2007 11:04 AM Update 7:30pm Eastern.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/23...-cloture-vote/

I’m bumping this post to the Lead Story slot and will keep it here through tomorrow’s cloture vote. Where do your Senators stand? Let me know what responses you get. If Republicans had brains, they would put attrition through enforcement first http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx and Just Say No to any new illegal alien magnets.


Noam Askew has a list of possible fence-sitters. You’ll notice a lot of open-borders Republicans on that list. http://noamaskew.blogspot.com/2007/1...out-dream.html


Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) sent his statement this evening. Kind of wishy-washy, but at least he comes down on the right side:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement this evening regarding his intention to vote tomorrow against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act (S. 2205), which was introduced by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

“As I have long said, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of children who have no moral culpability for being in this country illegally. Congress should continue seeking reasonable and responsible ways they can complete their education and achieve opportunity.

“Unfortunately, the Durbin bill contains a number of gaping loopholes, while failing to address the much larger need for comprehensive immigration reform and the immediate crisis at our borders. For example, it contains no firm requirement for the illegal immigrant to graduate with a degree from an accredited U.S. institution of Higher Education (either a two or four-year institution), it grants them broad access to federal student loans at a time when we are struggling to meet loan needs for our own citizens, and it extends the benefits to adults, rather than focusing on children. Moreover, from a law enforcement perspective, his bill does nothing to prevent fraud, allows certain criminal aliens to qualify for legal status, and ties the hands of law enforcement by severely limiting their access to application information.

“If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America’s immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers.”

Here are the others targeted by the DREAM-pushers:

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054
Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641
John Sununu (202) 224-2841
Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Warner (202) 224-2023
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551
John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Crapo (202) 224-6142
Bennet (202) 224-5444
Martinez (202) 224-3041
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824
Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244

***

I’ve been keeping you up to date with the latest on the Dems’ attempt (with help from open borders Republicans) to ram the DREAM Act through the Senate. It now looks like a cloture vote is set for tomorrow.

Numbers USA reports: http://www.numbersusa.com/index “Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed to invoke cloture on S. 2205, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill. The cloture vote, for which 60 YES votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster on the measure, is set for Wednesday, October 24. Reid is attempting to bring this nightmarish amnesty bill to the floor under Senate Rule XIV without it ever having been debated in committee.”

This morning, I received the following e-mail circulated today by Sen. Durbin’s Judiciary staff:

From: Dodin, Reema (Judiciary-Dem)
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:36 AM
To: All Judiciary Users
Subject: Briefing on the DREAM Act: TODAY at 3pm in SC-6

Durbin-Hagel-Lugar DREAM Act Briefing: Tuesday, October 23rd at 3PM in SC-6

Senators Durbin, Hagel and Lugar invite you to a staff briefing on S. 2205, the DREAM Act. A cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act will take place this Wednesday morning (tomorrow). The briefing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, in SC-6 of the U.S. Capitol.

The DREAM Act would make it possible for certain long-term undocumented immigrant children to go to college or join the military if they meet stringent requirements. It does not address the status of their parents, but simply allows children-who had no choice in the decision to come here-the opportunity to continue their education and give back to the country that they call home.

This bipartisan legislation has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee three times in various forms, and was approved by the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration bill, S. 2611.

The briefing will feature presentations by:

Several students who would benefit from the DREAM Act; Angela Kelley, Director, Immigration Policy Center; Melissa Lazarin, Director of Education Policy, First Focus; Alfred Campos, Federal Lobbyist, National Education Association; Stephanie Grosser, Outreach & Program Coordinator, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; and Kevin Appleby, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This event is for Congressional staff only (no press). For more information, please contact Reema in Sen. Durbin’s office at 4-1158.

For more on the DREAM Act, please see the new report from the Immigration Policy Center. http://www.ailf.org/ipc/infocus/ipc_..._07dream.shtml

Hope to see you there!

They’ve moved from health care kiddie human shields to illegal alien youth human shields.

The Democrat Party: It’s the Party That Won’t Grow Up.

It’s baaaack: The DREAM Act returns
March 27, 2009 11:36 AM

The shamnesty crowd is ready to roll again. The illegal alien college tuition discount bill known as the “DREAM Act” has been reintroduced — with bipartisan support, as usual: http://vivirlatino.com/2009/03/27/dr...ream-alive.php

Congressmen Howard Berman (D-CA) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), announced the reintroduction today of the DREAM Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation will restore the States’ rights to determine residency requirements for higher education benefits - giving states the option to provide in-state tuition. The American DREAM Act seeks to facilitate access to postsecondary educational opportunities for immigrant students in the United States who currently face barriers in pursuing a college education.

Reminder: http://www.opencongress.org/articles...oming-Up-Again

Last year, the DREAM Act fell eight votes short of cloture in the Senate (see Donny’s detailed post for more). As with several other pieces of legislation in the 111th Congress, however, this time around the bill has a supporter in the White House. President Barack Obama helped to pass similar legislation while in the Illinois state legislature, and has voiced support for the federal legislation on the campaign trail.

Critics contend the legislation would spend federal money on undocumented immigrants at the expense of American citizens, and that the bill would encourage illegal immigration. They also argue that citizens and residents would be forced to compete with undocumented immigrants for spots in college and university classes.[/quote]


Of course they would. DREAM is the camel’s nose under the comprehensive shamnesty tent. This assessment of the previous DREAM legislation sponsored by GOP Sen. Hatch in 2003 is exactly right: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...edia_mediaf23a

“This bill is a crass political calculation aimed at selling an amnesty disguised as an educational initiative,” charged Dan Stein, FAIR’s Executive Director. Stein noted that Democrats have already publicly stated that the DREAM act is just the beginning of a larger amnesty bidding war, and the bill will be used as a vehicle to extend amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Stein noted that since the number of slots at universities is fixed and tuition dollars are short, that for every illegal alien admitted an American student, or legal resident was being turned away. “This massive give-away of higher education to illegal aliens comes at a time when every state university system is raising tuition and cutting education benefits,” Stein continued.

Even more so today.

***

One other reminder: Recall that last fall, a California court ruled that the state’s version of the DREAM Act ( providing in-state college tuition breaks to illegal aliens while denying those benefits to law-abiding native Americans, naturalized Americans, and legal out-of-state residents ) conflicted with federal immigration law.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BANQ12UI6C.DTL

[quote]A state appellate court has put a financial cloud over the future of tens of thousands of undocumented California college students, saying a state law that grants them the same heavily subsidized tuition rate that is given to resident students is in conflict with federal law.

In a ruling reached Monday, the state Court of Appeal reversed a lower court’s decision that there were no substantial legal issues and sent the case back to the Yolo County Superior Court for trial. “It has a huge impact,” said Kris Kobach, an attorney for the plaintiffs and a law professor at the University Missouri at Kansas City. “This is going to bring a halt to the law that has been giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.”

He said it is a big win for California taxpayers who have been subsidizing education for undocumented immigrants.

The suit was filed in 2005 by out-of-state students attending California colleges. They challenged the state’s practice of allowing illegal immigrants to pay significantly lower tuition than they pay at the University of California, the California State University and the California Community Colleges.

UC charges out-of-state students nearly $18,000 a year more than it charges resident and undocumented students who graduated from California high schools. At CSU, out-of-state students pay about $8,000 more. And at the state’s 110 community colleges, they pay an average of about $160 a unit instead of $20 per unit - or $1,920 for a full load instead of $240.

The suit was dismissed by the Yolo County Superior Court in 2006, setting up the appeal.
On Monday, three justices of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said that a 2001 state law, AB540, conflicts with federal law. The state law provides the benefit of in-state tuition to undocumented students while the federal law says an illegal immigrant cannot receive that benefit unless the same benefit is extended to all U.S. citizens without regard to California residency.

The three California college systems specifically limit the benefits to students who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated from a state high school.

In the ruling, the appellate justices said: “The state statute allows the benefit to U.S. citizens from other states only if they attend a California high school for three years. Thus, the state statute does not afford the same benefit to U.S. citizens ‘without regard to’ California residence,” as required by the federal law.

April 6, 2009

Well, this is very noteworthy. Today, the Colorado state legislature defeated an illegal alien in-state tuition discount bill. Five Democrats crossed over and joined pro-enforcement Republicans to kill the DREAM Act legislation. Open borders lobbyists and local columnists poured on the victim-card propaganda, but taxpayers weren’t buying it. And Democrats are starting to listen.

Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12084135

Democratic Sens. Morgan Carroll of Aurora, Jim Isgar of Hesperus, Moe Keller of Wheat Ridge, Linda Newell of Littleton and Lois Tochtrop of Thornton voted against the bill.

Carroll, after the debate, referred reporters to a statement on her website that said she could not support the bill “in a climate where the state is cutting or eliminating over $1 billion of benefits to the people and is facing a $300 million cut to higher education, which virtually ends higher education as we know it in the state of Colorado.”

Isgar and Tochtrop made similar comments about cuts to colleges, while Keller declined comment on her vote.

Newell, who was elected in November by a razor-thin margin, simply said “I listened to my constituents” when asked about her vote.

Newell, who was elected in November by a razor-thin margin, simply said “I listened to my constituents” when asked about her vote.

Any questions on what needs to happen?

:

I’m not sure why Drudge is hyping the New York Times’ stenography piece on Obama’s plans to carry through on his promise to pitch a shamnesty bill. It’s not news. It’s a White House-planted distraction sourced mainly to La Raza/The Race lobbyist-turned-White House open borders czar Cecilia Munoz.

I pointed a few weeks ago to Obama’s meeting with Latino groups pushing for faster action on paving the pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens. You know that the DREAM Act has been reintroduced in Congress. You know about the Obama Census plan to Leave No Illegal Alien Behind. And you know that Nancy Pelosi has been banging the “stop the unpatriotic raids” drum.

You also know that there is already a de facto shamnesty plan already in place — overseen by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is eroding interior immigration enforcement. A West Coast ICE source tells me that agents have been ordered not to confiscate any more fake IDs from illegal aliens. ICE agents are feeling pressure to curtail workplace investigations. And illegal alien deportation fugitive Zeituni Onyango, aunt of the president, is going nowhere.

What is more newsworthy is the rising tide of voices standing up against lax immigration enforcement and its costs.

It’s not just conservative immigration enforcement activists.

It’s politicians who have to answer to their law-abiding constituents demanding to know why scarce resources should be allocated to illegal aliens over citizens. Like the five Democrats in Colorado who helped kill the state version of the DREAM Act. And the local health officials in northern California who are finally ending taxpayer subsidies for non-emergency illegal alien care.

It’s citizens who have suffered the loss of loved ones as a result of bloody sanctuary policies. Like Ray Tranchant, who testified on Capitol Hill last week on how failure of local and federal immigration officials to cooperate contributed to the death of his daughter and her best friend at the hands of a revolving door illegal alien drunk driver. Or like Daniella Bologna, who filed suit against the open-borders government of San Francisco on Tuesday:

The family of a father and his two sons who were gunned down last year have filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco, claiming its sanctuary policy contributed to their deaths.

Anthony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were gunned down in the Excelsior District on June 16 after possibly being mistaken for rival gang members, according to police.

Edwin Ramos, 22, a suspected member of the MS-13 gang, has been charged with their murders.

The Bologna family lawsuit alleges that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants - even those charged with a crime - allowed Ramos to stay in this country illegally. Ramos had a history of violence and several prior contacts with San Francisco police as a minor. But city policy prevented officers from turning him over to federal immigration authorities for deportation.

“What we’re saying is that the city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Michael Kelly, an attorney for the Bologna family, said Tuesday.[

Since the last immigration battle, more and more citizens and local and state officials have begun to recognize the ravages of lax enforcement. When Obama moves forward with his official shamnesty legislation, he better be prepared. We’ve been there. Done that. And the White House should know that we are ready to stop the Open-Borders Express again.

Stick that on your front page, Fishwrap of Record.