SENATE BILL: The 'DREAM' Act (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

Just so we don't forget, Ben's amendment is next.

See, page changes are very, very bad kids. It would help it if people paid attention daily, then I wouldn't forget things like this.


Scott's has passed, BEN'S IS NOW!!!


Scott, co-sponsorship doesn't provide for succession of sponsorship when the primary one leaves. You have to move to withdraw the legislation, Ben desire to take over sponsorship, and then a 48 hour objection period opened.

You're just deciding to ignore Senate tradition?

[Napoleon]

Cosponsors aren't treated currently than the regular sponsor. At least that's how it was when I left the Senate and I don't know when or why that would have been changed. There's no reason to make people jump through procedural hurdles that weren't necessary in the past.

[Napoleon]

Scott, does the amendment in your view punish students for taking electives?

It punishes them for having a different skill set than others.

[Napoleon]

A BILL

To provide a path to citizenship for offsprings of undocumented migrants

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This legislation may be cited as the ‘Development, Relief, and Education Act for Alien Minors’ or the ‘DREAM Act.’

SECTION 2. PERMANENT RESIDENCY FOR ALIEN MINORS

Undocumented migrants below the age of eighteen that arrived to the Republic of Atlasia before the year 2012 will be afforded permanent residency status, provided that the following standards are met:

    The undocumented migrant lacks a criminal record or any recorded history of juvenile acts
    The undocumented migrant undergoes security and background checks
The undocumented migrant graduates from an Atlasian high school without any history of expulsions
    The undocumented migrant demonstrates the ability to read, write, and speak English and demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, principles, and form of government of the Republic of Atlasia
    The undocumented migrant serves a period of at least two years in the Atlasian military and, if discharged, receives an honorary discharge, or successfully completes four years at an accredited institution of higher learning
    The undocumented migrant lives in the Republic of Atlasia at least five years prior to the enactment of this legislation


For the purposes of this act, successful completion of a four year program at an institute of higher learning, shall be defined as have completed a course of study with grades at a satisfactory level to receive certification or degree in said course of study and having done so in a manner within the ethical and moral standards expected of students at the accredited institution.

SECTION 3. RESTRICTIONS

1.) Citizenship status possibilities will be revoked from any undocumented migrant who has done the following:

    Has committed one felony or three misdemeanors
    Has engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting
    Has abused a student visa
    Has engaged in persecution, or;


2.) Undocumented migrants that are guilty of the previously mentioned activities may be subject to deportation or detainment.  Penalties shall be determined in a court of law.

SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION

$25 billion will be allocated to the Department of Internal Affairs for implementation of this law.

[Napoleon]

I'd like the new text to be considered.

[Napoleon]

I certainly hope the Senate has an alternative solution to ensuring that the children of illegal immigrants do not fall through the cracks with a low GPA.  I'll interpret the removal of that standard as a signal that there will be something to replace that.

What do you mean?

[Napoleon]

That is correct.

Hopefully the Senate can pass my proposed compromise bill.

The senate reached a compromise that managed to garner "aye" votes from nine out of ten senators. Apparently this compromise means very little.

I know thinking has always been your strong suit, so consider me surprised to see this sort of post from you, but this compromise I've proposed is more likely to get that Nay voter on board. I'm reaching out to build consensus here and you're just continuing to throw around attacks to amuse yourself.

[Napoleon]

I already explained it.  The GPA requirement was included to help prevent beneficiaries of the program from not being successful.  If we're taking away that standard, the least we should do is put a new one in that fulfills the same purpose.  I urge the Senate to defeat this bill if the President's proposal ends up being the final text.

The GPA requirement will not prevent beneficiaries from being unsuccessful, it simply prevents beneficiaries. You're automatically counting what is likely a majority of people who would otherwise be eligible through that single requirement. A 2.7 GPA could be difficult to reach for someone who might not have as good a grasp of the English language as a native Atlasian. The military or college degree requirements are what will determine the success of these citizenship-hopefuls.

[Napoleon]

I request a veto override.

As an expert on our great Constitution, I must remind you that you do not have that ability.

[Napoleon]

There's absolutely no need for an "alternative". Removing a bad policy is addition by subtraction.

The GPA requirement is unnecessary. Students have the incentive to do good in school because doing good in school is necessary to get in to college, and a college degree or military service is necessary. Someone with a 2.3 GPA and fifteen years of military service wouldn't even be a citizen because he struggled with math when he was fifteen. That's completely ridiculous.

If they need citizenship to motivate them to be successful, instead of the rewards success brings, then there's obviously other problems with those affected. The GPA requirement still wouldn't be necessary, and why not make citizenship contingent on high school GPA for native-born Atlasians, to motivate them so that they don't fall in to poverty?

[Napoleon]

That is correct.

Hopefully the Senate can pass my proposed compromise bill.

The senate reached a compromise that managed to garner "aye" votes from nine out of ten senators. Apparently this compromise means very little.

I know thinking has always been your strong suit, so consider me surprised to see this sort of post from you, but this compromise I've proposed is more likely to get that Nay voter on board. I'm reaching out to build consensus here and you're just continuing to throw around attacks to amuse yourself.

Yes, Mr. Wonderful, and your so-called "compromise" is certainly going to lose at least one vote anyway. So instead of appreciating the decision the senate came to, you'd rather have us jump through bureaucratic hoops for a result that will at best include the same number of ayes that it recieved in the first place. And, quite frankly, I don't think that best case scenario is all that likely. So congrats on your selfless compromise.

Yeah, obviously I need to be considered with whether 60% or 80% or 100% of the Senate wants to vote for the bill instead of what the effects are. I'm here to serve you, those petty little people be damned!

[Napoleon]

By your logic, Mr. President, why not just let the entire world just stroll into the country?

I thought it was well-understood by all when the bill was proposed that everyone affected by this is already in the country.

[Napoleon]

Mr. President, will you please take action on this bill? Veto it, and we'll work on an override. Sign it, and I will personally introduce a new bill that amends the DREAM Act to incorporate your recommendations.

I've already taken action on this bill. Read the thread. Jesus. F'ing. Christ.

[Napoleon]

Yeah, obviously I need to be considered with whether 60% or 80% or 100% of the Senate wants to vote for the bill instead of what the effects are. I'm here to serve you, those petty little people be damned!

Don't worry, you've made it clear you don't care on whit for the Senate, and prefer to be as obstructionist and confrontational as possible.  Sign or veto the damn bill, and use the words.

You're the obstructionist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

Mr. President, will you please take action on this bill? Veto it, and we'll work on an override. Sign it, and I will personally introduce a new bill that amends the DREAM Act to incorporate your recommendations.

I've already taken action on this bill. Read the thread. Jesus. F'ing. Christ.

You went and introduced a new text, Mr. President. You know very well I am asking you to either veto or sign this bill.

I can't do either until Senator Ben performs his constitutional duty.

[Napoleon]

I'm embarrassed that a former Secretary of External Affairs feels our military personnel doesn't deserve citizenship unless they earn a B average in high school.

Here are the facts:

1) Getting a college degree is more likely to give you a successful future than having a good high school GPA.
2) A good high school GPA is pretty much necessary to get to college.
3) To quote Scott, the bill's original author:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4) Someone with a 2.0 GPA can be a very productive member of our society. That person may not go to college and become a doctor but if they are willing to put their life on the line for this nation's security, and you're still willing to tell them they aren't welcome here, it's not that that there is a problem with that person. There's a problem with you.

[Napoleon]

I'm actually very much in favour of the President's proposed redraft, whatever the controversy it's caused.

Here's a breakdown of the controversy:

Action 1: President proposes a redraft in accordance with the Constitution
Reaction: Is accused of obstructionism, told to take action.

Action 2: President proposes a version of the bill that meets the concerns of the bill's opponent.
Reaction: Is said to be unwilling to compromise.

Action 3: President proposes slight modifications to the bill.
Reaction: Is accused of wanting to let everyone in the world stroll into the country (the bill only deals with people already in the country) and wanting the beneficiaries to fail (they are still required to serve in the military or complete college, each of which is more likely to lead to a successful future than high school gpa success by itself).

[Napoleon]

None of that really has anything to do with the actual question. The question is not "What, if any, restrictions should be placed on citizenship applicants related to their high school grade point average?". The question is "Why should restrictions be placed on citizenship applicants related to their high school grade point average?".

The collective opposition's answer, correct me if I am wrong, seems to be that citizenship should be used to motivate students to do well in high school, which will prepare them better for the future.

It is the opinion of this President that students must perform to their best in high school, and that strong standards are in place to help them succeed. I certainly share the concern for these citizenship-hopefuls that Scott and Ben do.

However, I must ask that the redraft I have presented be considered with this in mind:

A good high school GPA is often necessary to succeed, but the correlation is largely because a good high school GPA is needed to get in to a university. I think a good argument can be made that a 4.0 high school GPA, 2.4 GPA college graduate is less likely to be successful than a 2.5 high school GPA, 4.0 GPA college graduate.

Many students may struggle with the daily tasks of homework, might not have a good grasp of math or English but are otherwise smart and talented individuals. These students may decide to go another route, and serve our nation honorably in the military, build character and learn skills, and go on to be leaders in the work-place, or own a small business. How could you say these Atlasians do not deserve citizenship, that they are not welcome to participate in our democracy despite putting their life on the line to preserve it?

In other words, I don't want them to succeed so they can get citizenship. I want them to get citizenship so they can succeed.

[Napoleon]

Because, as I've explained a million times, there needs to be some type of safeguard for those who are more likely to be unsuccessful because of their disadvantages. 

How does a GPA requirement act as a safeguard in this case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the bolded statement is true, then you are admitting that the GPA requirement itself is unnecessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It may not negate the importance of a good high school performance, but it certainly should negate the importance of a good high school performance when deciding who is eligible for citizenship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

College graduates and military personnel have all the tools to succeed. No high school GPA is going to change that. Even for those who don't believe a military career can actually lay a foundation for success (those people are wrong), a military career can open the door for college in the future, for those who may not have been so successful in high school. I understand this forum is largely comprised of, well, nerdy upper middle class white males with two parents but a B average in high school is really asking a lot from some good people who have talent and the will to succeed in this country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have those things- it's called the college requirement and the military requirement. How are those people going to fall through the cracks? The only people falling through the cracks are the students who got a 2.6 GPA in high school and put their life on the line to defend us or worked hard and still managed to graduate from college, yet will never be able to earn citizenship and participate in normal Atlasian society. So, I guess it depends on how you define "cracks" or "something that will help immigrants find good jobs". I promise all of you that a 4.0 high school GPA, 2.4 GPA college graduate is less likely to find a good job than a 2.5 high school GPA, 4.0 GPA college graduate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know how to respond to this. I think you're just getting a little emotional. One of the requirements in this bill is that the applicants "succeed in college" so this is a little over-dramatized.

[Napoleon]

I haven't painted those who disagree with me at all. What I have done is point out that the very same guy wanted to keep these people in Iraq and Afghanistan says they are undeserving of citizenship and I am offended by that.

Its fair not to expect someone to succeed in college if they don't succeed in high school, but the bill requires that they succeed in college. But- there are many cases where this is not true. Do you believe that students who succeed in college but didn't have a B average in high school should not be eligible for citizenship? This seems to be the disagreement but I still haven't received an explanation for why one would support that.

Or I could be reading your post wrong.

[Napoleon]

Would you be open, Napoleon, to making the aforementioned changes?

What are you proposing?

[Napoleon]

I still don't understand. There is a graduation requirement for college. Are you suggesting GPA requirements for college? If so, I would not support that change. Are you suggesting that the college graduation requirement be applied to everyone, essentially taking military service out of the equation entirely? Again, I would be opposed to that.

I'm not opposed to encouraging early success. I'm opposed to singling out immigrants and having someone's freshman year of high school determine their future as a member of this society.

There is still a high school graduation requirement.

I was proposing moving the standards from high school to college.  I also suggested the creation of an educational/vocational assistance program for applicants, earlier.

Perhaps that would help if this bill existed in a vacuum, but I'm pretty content with the established programs that all residents can take advantage of. I think this would make the bill more bureaucratic without providing benefits that aren't already available.

[Napoleon]

I haven't painted those who disagree with me at all. What I have done is point out that the very same guy wanted to keep these people in Iraq and Afghanistan says they are undeserving of citizenship and I am offended by that.

Please do not misrepresent my views like that.  I assumed sponsorship of this bill because I believe in it.  I also believe there need to be minimum standards, especially since it's easy to inflate a GPA with classes that don't actually help people contribute.

And a 2.7 is not a B average.

It's closer to a B average than a C average. Would you stare a veteran in the face and tell him he doesn't deserve citizenship because he only earned a 2.5 GPA in high school?