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

[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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

[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.

[Simfan34]

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.

In any case Ben, can we just take a vote on the President's proposal?

[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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Since I cannot override the veto, I ask that the Senate approve Napoleon's redraft.

[Simfan34]

Do we need the PPT to conduct this or is Ben's declaration sufficient?]

Nay on the President's redraft.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

In my view, those who come into Atlasia with less advantages have more hoops to go through in general.  If we don't include something in the bill (if not more standards, but something else) that ensures that these students will succeed in spite of their disadvantages, they are more likely to end up in poverty than a native-born Atlasian.  With no other safeguard against that, the bill would not be fulfilling its central purpose.  I'm willing to support removal of the GPA requirement if something else is added, but again, that hasn't happened yet, and I cannot endorse a bill that guarantees citizenship but nothing else to those who are disadvantaged.

If I might suggest, perhaps the Senate can consider creating a program that's tailored to the needs of those who were not born in Atlasia and helps them succeed, as a substitute.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you seemed very "considered" with senate consensus just a few minutes ago when you said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyhow, I love that you're debating the merits of the GPA requirement now instead of when we were all actually talking about this issue. Your opinion would've been much more welcome then. Instead, you're stirring up controversy at the last minute when it could have easily been avoided. Do you really get off on conflict this much? Or are you actually just this bad at working with others?

Yankee will hopefully turn up soon. I'm not voting on a re-draft until he disseminates what's gone on here. I will vote against it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nix, I did not know that actually.

I encourage everyone to defeat the President's alternative.  NAY!

[Oakvale]

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


Aye.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Again, I reiterate my opposition to this bill.

[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.

[Speed of Sound]

For what it's worth, despite the poor way, to say the least, that it all has been gone about, I support the argument of the President. Millions of Atlasians have lived wonderfully productive and co-operative lives with lesser GPAs, and the bill already fixes the problems created by removing the GPA requirement: without a good one, one cannot get into college; if they then do not enter the military, then they are removed; if they serve our country and have a high school diploma, they deserve to stay, gentlemen.

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.

As a former SoEA myself, I am equally disheartened.

[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).

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

If don't have a decent high school GPA, you will have a much difficult time getting into college.  People wanted a lower GPA.  Okay, we did that.  Eliminating it entirely wasn't necessary.  While I don't think grades themselves are everything, they are unfortunately the only way of measuring academic success with the current system.  I would anticipate a change to that provision of the DREAM Act if the student evaluation system were changed as well, but for now we are left with GPA.

Earlier, we could have discussed using different methods of measuring student success and improving the requirement itself (which could have even meant making it less restrictive in its nature), but you chose to wait until the last minute to make emotional appeals and completely misrepresent why some of us feel that there should be GPA requirement in the name of political correctness.

[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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.  I laid those out in the original draft of the bill to be discussed.  The standards were intended to be altered in a way that would make them better for people who take advantage of the program, but should not have been removed if they serve a purpose.

The GPA requirement, in my view, served a very important purpose, and if it wasn't acceptable in the eyes of my colleagues, could have been replaced by something that carries its same intentions.  Indeed, a high GPA is essential to get into a good college, and that's what draws the connection between that and living a successful life.  It goes without saying that the GPA wouldn't have to be the absolute maximum, but it should be reasonable and it should be enough to incentive success in high school as long as it's there.

You mention students who struggle.  That is a problem that could have been addressed much earlier in the debate.  And of course, even if a student does take a military career, that doesn't negate the importance of a good high school performance.  It isn't that I'm against giving citizenship to those who want it, it's that I don't want our message to be, "We'll give you your citizenship, but leave you to fend for yourself after that."  And such was the reasoning behind the GPA requirement.  It's not necessarily the GPA itself I care about -- that's not the issue at all -- but it's the placement of something that will help immigrants find good jobs and not fall through the cracks because they were off to a rough start.  I was open to alternatives.  I was open to compromise and not causing disdain for myself for literally every single person I've met on this site.

But was an alternative proposed?  No.  Instead, we've seen a barrage of strawman arguments, personal attacks, emotional appeals, and absolutely no willingness to compromise on this issue, all over a disagreement that could have been settled weeks ago.  Now people want to pass this bill with less standards and nothing to adequately ensure that these people succeed in high school, succeed in college, and succeed in life as an Atlasian citizen.

[Speed of Sound]

Just to stay up to date, with Ben's opposition, does this bill now return to the President's desk for signature or full veto?

[Speed of Sound]

Just to stay up to date, with Ben's opposition, does this bill now return to the President's desk for signature or full veto?

If the president's re-draft passes, it becomes law. If it fails, Ben can file a motion to send the original bill back to the president's desk for executive action.

Ah, a re-reading of the procedure helped me find my misunderstanding; thanks Senator!

[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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It's simple: the GPA requirement is an incentive for citizenship.  Nowhere in that post did I say that the requirement is unnecessary, and I have no idea where you got that from.  You can't expect someone to succeed in college if they didn't in high school.  I will admit that maybe such a requirement should be applied to college instead of or as well as high school (not that I have any confidence that such a change would get support from the Senate), or only to those who opt not to serve in the military, but that was never put on the table as opposed to the proposed plan that removes the standard entirely.  Being in school is great; succeeding in school is better.

I'm not getting emotional.  I just think the way you paint your opponents on this issue is, quite frankly, silly.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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