Is The DREAM Act DOA?

06 Dec, 2010 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

The Hill offers up some potentially good news

The DREAM Act – a priority of Democrats in both Congress and the White House – faces a difficult future in the lame duck.

Even as Democrats in both chambers prepare to consider the measure this week, Republicans and centrist Democrats are already lining up to shoot it down.

The climb is particularly steep in the Senate, where Republicans will filibuster the hot-button bill, and even former sponsors now stand in opposition.

Some previous Republican supporters, such as Orrin Hatch and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, are now against the Act, because of its expansive nature, and, oh, yeah, those pesky 2012 elections

“The current legislation would include green cards and citizenship, which under present law would follow with amnesty for those who came here illegally as adults,” the e-mail read. “[Hutchison] has and continues to support allowing for student and temporary, renewable visas for qualified students and graduates who have grown up and been educated in the United States. But she will not support legislation now being put forward as the DREAM Act because it goes far beyond dealing with these affected young people.”

And some Democrats are against it, such as John Tester and

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who voted in favor of the measure in 2007, says he won’t do the same this time around. His opposition, according to spokesman Jake Thompson, is twofold. First, the Senate should be focusing on jobs and the economy before it does anything else, Thompson said. And second, the provisions of the DREAM Act should be included as part of comprehensive immigration reform – an effort, he said, that shouldn’t proceed “until the borders have been secured.”

How about we combine securing the border with certain parts of the DREAM Act, instead of going all comprehensive-ee? Here’s the big issue: as a conservative, I would like to see all illegals gone, regardless of the age they were brought (and not all who came while under 16 came with their parents, mind you). They are a drain on our society, they are filling up our prisons – and quite a few are really nasty people – they’re over-running our hospitals, damaging our social services, and harming American citizens.

As a realist, though, can we seriously believe that we can get rid of all the illegals? Well, yes, if we passed tough laws that penalized employers harshly, not to mention ones which kept a better eye on those who came legally and could overstay their visas. Remember, approximately 1/3rd of all illegals did not leave when they were supposed to. Unfortunately, the borders are still open to those who come here and have anchor babies, and will continue to do that. Oh, and then there is the matter of Really Bad People crossing the border illegally, like Islamic jihadis, gun runners, drug runners, and criminals from Mexico and Latin America.

We are spending quite a bit of time, money, and resources dealing with many of these non Really Bad People illegals, so, is there any that Conservatives could support some sort of DREAM Act? Captainfish (snapped shot) offered up these terms

Serve in active military in a war area for 5 years. Must be in a gun-wielding form of duty. Not kitchen staff or paper-pusher.
Enroll, pay full tuition without any federal or state assistance, and complete a degree in Science, Mathematics or Engineering field.
Spend 5 years building the southern border fence as a registered guest worker. Any mishaps with the law will mean immediate disqualification.

I could live with that. My own list would be

Must read and write literate English. Period.
No criminal incidents. Must keep a clean record for 10 years after entering the program
May not receive public support from any government level
May either join one of the 5 service branches (must serve in operations, not back office), or attend a four year college, and pay for the college themselves. They may get loans, but, not from the government
Must pay the same citizenship fees, and fulfill all the same terms as those who came legally and applied
No public support after they become citizens
Any breach of these terms will mean immediate deportation, as laid out in some sort of contract. No hearings, no stays, just bye bye.
Any illegal, regardless of age, who enters the USA after the day the ACT is signed in to law would be inelligble, and would be deported toot sweet. No hearings, just, see ya!

What are your ideas? Would you be willing to accept a tough Act?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we’ll dRive!