Opinion of the DREAM act

[angus]

I see, so you willingly admit that this is an effort to indoctrinate immigrants into an affection for the U.S. government. I still feel that the immigrant gardner who provides labor for much cheaper than the domestic market can provide does more good than the immigrant in the army trained to kill Iraqis and Afghans.

There are two salient points, but I was only addressing one of them:  yes, clearly the plan makes sense from the perspective of cultural indoctrination and skill provision.  Two birds, one stone.  I'm sure that the congress understands and intends this.  I don't think we're arguing about the efficacy, just about whether it qualifies as "conscription."

The other point you made before, and you are making again, is a good one as well, but it is less relevant here.  I, too, oppose federally-mandated minimum wages.  We've had lots of debates about minimum wage laws and examined their effects on the economy in this forum many times.  In the end, no one ever convinces any one.  Generally, you either support the idea or you don't.  Moreover, generally speaking, I have never had the idea that illegal immigration was the huge problem that the popular media is making it out to be.  I'm not for walls and fences, and I'm certainly not for open-ended detentions of illegals, which I find to be both inhumane to the migrants and costly to our society.  waves of migrants who wash dishes and pick oranges cheaper than gringos will?  I do not now, and never have had, a problem with that.  They have an opportunity to better their lot, feed their families, perform needed services, and it costs me nothing.  Walls and fences, on the other hand, are very expensive and wreak havoc with the natural ecology and are generally undesirable.  So I think we're generally in agreement about that sort of thing. 

But this law really doesn't attempt to address those issues directly, does it?  Tangentially it does have some effect, and a good one.  These US-nurtured people risk becoming a permanent underclass unless something is done to fully indoctrinate them, and given that they are likely to be productive members of the community with just a little push (call it by whatever name you wish), then that's probably a good idea since the creation of a permanent underclass of Americans have moral and economic implications for all of us.

Are you old enough to remember when "amnesty" was a good word?  When I was ten or eleven I could probably give you a general definition of that word, and it would have made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  It is, to me, a word like love or friendship.  Hard to imagine that it would have evolved into such an emotionally-charged negative word.  Really, amnesty is a nice concept, and if it weren't for the talking heads distorting the isssue--leftists injecting jobs into the matter, and rightists injecting security concerns--then it would still be a positive sort of word.

In short, I guess I discriminate between a 20-year-old who sneaks across the border to work illegally in the US and a 20-year-old who has been here since he was a baby and knows nothing else.  It would not be inhumane, in my opinion, to deport the former to his country of origin, whereas it is, in my opinion, inhumane to deport the latter to his country of origin.  Not that I'm gung ho about deportation of illegals, but at least the former can get off the bus in Tijuana and be no worse off than they were the day they started digging the hole.  These latter persons are, as a philosophical matter, stateless.  The have technicality in one nation, but practicality in another, and don't quite fit in either in the limbo of their existence.  This bill attempts to resolve that limbo in a strategically beneficial way, with consequences both moral and economic.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I don't like the idea of conscripting foreigners into the military to make them citizens. Wouldn't they be doing much more good for society if they continued to provide needed services at a reasonable price?

uh, yeah. This is basically what the act is proposing.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Very favorable.

[Χahar]

I voted very favorable, but only in comparison to the status quo. Ideally we would have freedom of movement.

[I left.]

Very favorable.

[Grumps]

Favor......uneducated individuals are not good for the county.

[SPC]

I don't like the idea of conscripting foreigners into the military to make them citizens. Wouldn't they be doing much more good for society if they continued to provide needed services at a reasonable price?

It's not conscription.

If American citizens could theoretically be deported if they didn't enlist in the military, would that constitute conscription?

[angus]

If American citizens could theoretically be deported if they didn't enlist in the military, would that constitute conscription?

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines conscription as " compulsory enrollment of persons for military service."  If the US government wanted to compel its citizens to serve in the military, it would not use deportation as a threat.  (Cassius Clay and others who left the country to avoid conscription did so willingly, but they were not forcibly deported.)  So the question's material conditional phrase doesn't hold.  Although, technically speaking, a truth table will easily confirm that a logical conditional statement is valid when the first operand is false, no matter the value of the second.  So I guess you could argue syllogistically that the quoted statement holds.  But in what universe would the US government use deportation of its citizens as a threat to any means?  And to what fictitious land would they be deported?  

In any case, none of that bears on the original proposition that the DREAM bill represents conscription since it doesn't compel persons to military service.  It merely asks the question, "Would you like a green card?  And all the privileges thereunto appertaining, including, but not limited to, getting a decent job?  If so, then you need to finish secondary school and then go on to complete a program of higher education and training either through a university or military service."  It's a stretch to call that conscription.  Call it cultural indoctrination, or brainwashing, if you want--and I'm sure that's an intended consequence--but don't call it conscription.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Somewhat unfavorable.

[phk]

Support.

Put the ex-illegals on the front lines of combat.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Support.

Put the ex-illegals on the front lines of combat.

lol

[GMantis]

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage illegal immigration nor do I like the rather transparent attempt to provide cannon fodder. Still, an improvement on the status quo, so somewhat unfavorable.

[Badger]

I think its a bad idea really. I feel that it is essential to not encourage future illegal immigration and the best way to do that is to put a touchback provision into any legalization plan, requiring illegals to go back to their home country as part of the penalty for crossing the border illegally. Of course I think the IRS should hold them 100% responsible for any unpaid taxes incurred under a stolen ID and so should all debt collectors. The ID theft victim shouldn't be held liable and neither should the creditor be forced to eat the loss either. A crime was committed that is the equivalent of Larceny or embezzlement and some form of restitution should be required. If you want to make military service a potential way of paying of that crime to society, then fine, but I won't even begin to consider supporting it till the touchback and restitution provisions are included. Maybe then people will get the idea to follow the law. And repeat illegal entrants should be barred from ever entering the US legally upon the third attempt. Then of course make it impossible to survive as an illegal by cracking down on document fraud, employers (after implementing E-Verify). Illegal immigration would drop dramatically for fear of never getting to come here legally and millions who were considering it would switch over to legal avenues. Then lets reform the legal avenues reducing red tape and nonesence that delays the process to legal entry.

Anything less then is atrocious political correctness and pandering that will only make the problem worse down the road just like Social Security and the Debt and so many other problems, where weak politicians choose to kick it down the road.

Yank, there's nothing in DREAM to pardon people guilty of committing identity theft. Forget back taxes' people guilty of that can ans should be prosecuted (keeping in mind there's a difference between giving a generic fake SSN and using the credit card number of "John Doe".

[Magic 8-Ball]

Very favorable.

[-]

One of the most disgusting bills I've seen in a long time.

[I left.]

One of the most disgusting bills I've seen in a long time.

Then you haven't been paying very good attention.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you were to design a bill that strictly did what this bill supposedly does it would be fine in my opinion.


The problem is, that in my opinion, this is a back door amnesty. The key is always the damn standards, which are far too lax and thus it will be taken advantage of and we will have far more people "recieving amnesty" then is claimed by this bill's proponents.

I think its a bad idea really. I feel that it is essential to not encourage future illegal immigration and the best way to do that is to put a touchback provision into any legalization plan, requiring illegals to go back to their home country as part of the penalty for crossing the border illegally. Of course I think the IRS should hold them 100% responsible for any unpaid taxes incurred under a stolen ID and so should all debt collectors. The ID theft victim shouldn't be held liable and neither should the creditor be forced to eat the loss either. A crime was committed that is the equivalent of Larceny or embezzlement and some form of restitution should be required. If you want to make military service a potential way of paying of that crime to society, then fine, but I won't even begin to consider supporting it till the touchback and restitution provisions are included. Maybe then people will get the idea to follow the law. And repeat illegal entrants should be barred from ever entering the US legally upon the third attempt. Then of course make it impossible to survive as an illegal by cracking down on document fraud, employers (after implementing E-Verify). Illegal immigration would drop dramatically for fear of never getting to come here legally and millions who were considering it would switch over to legal avenues. Then lets reform the legal avenues reducing red tape and nonesence that delays the process to legal entry.

Anything less then is atrocious political correctness and pandering that will only make the problem worse down the road just like Social Security and the Debt and so many other problems, where weak politicians choose to kick it down the road.

Yank, there's nothing in DREAM to pardon people guilty of committing identity theft. Forget back taxes' people guilty of that can ans should be prosecuted (keeping in mind there's a difference between giving a generic fake SSN and using the credit card number of "John Doe".

That was about Amnesty in general, which I oppose for those reasons.


It its my opinion that this bill opens a door that will be impossible to controll. It is a boondoggle in the making.

One of the most disgusting bills I've seen in a long time.

Damn right.

One of the most disgusting bills I've seen in a long time.

Then you haven't been paying very good attention.

On the contrary, this bill gets uglier the more you look at it.

[Secretary Polnut]

Very favorable, except for the name. The name is execrable.

[-]

If you were to design a bill that strictly did what this bill supposedly does it would be fine in my opinion.


The problem is, that in my opinion, this is a back door amnesty. The key is always the damn standards, which are far too lax and thus it will be taken advantage of and we will have far more people "recieving amnesty" then is claimed by this bill's proponents.

^^^

[Frodo]

Very favorable, though I hold no hope of it ever passing as long as the GOP and their spineless Democratic allies control either house of Congress. 


Slightly OT (but not by much) -sometimes I wonder how differently Bush's second term had turned out had he turned to immigration reform instead of attempting the partial privatization of Social Security right after his second inauguration in early 2005.  That is one he could have pulled off instead of waiting until 2007 when it failed.  

[Elyski]

Somewhat Unfavorable
I don't think children of illegal aliens should be citizens just because they were born here, yet I see no problem with this act given current law.