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

[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?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Let me explain.  The original intent of this bill was to allow young undocumented immigrants to either earn citizenship through the military or through the education system alone.  In order to get into college, of course, students must do well in high school, and that's why the requirement was set for high school in order to prepare for the higher expectations of college.  Essentially, it was an idea for promoting early success and long-lasting success.  I need to emphasize that it's not that I'm anti-citizenship, it's that I'm for social insurance, and if you disagree with the method I used to apply that, I respect it and I'm more than willing to hear new ideas that are better and produce results that we can still have confidence in.  That's why it isn't necessarily GPA itself that I consider the underlying issue here, but simply removing the requirement just wasn't what I had hoped for as a constructive response to the proposal.

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

What are you proposing?

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.

[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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The bill requires that applicants "successfully complete" four years of college, but sets no numerical standards.  If you are opposed to that as well, then I hope you at least consider the assistance program.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Ideally, the program would provide assistance to those whom, for what ever reason, are not adequately helped by the law itself.  But if this is the route you want to take things, then I suppose I have no control.

[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?

[Simfan34]

Can't we just create a separate eligibility for veterans? As in join the armed forces and be eligible for citizenship? This is how it works in the US...

[Speed of Sound]

Can't we just create a separate eligibility for veterans? As in join the armed forces and be eligible for citizenship? This is how it works in the US...

If I'm not mistaken, this is the President's position.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ONCE QUIT PULLING A DAMN ANTONIO, HERE!!!! Only, Nathan, myself and Ben (when both myself and the VP have been gone for five days minimum or other specified and involved circumstnaces detailed in the OSPR are invoked, which they haven't been), MAY ALTER SENATE BUSINESS!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The President has returned the underlying bill with a preferred redraft. The sponsor, Senator Ben, has requested a vote on the above redraft. This is a simple majority vote and will be conducted according to the same rules a final vote (please don't take seven days here. ). Senators please vote, Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY!!! NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO!!!!!!

[Franzl]

AYE

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

This nay also comes with a series of underlying expletives directed at the president.

[Niemeyerite]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If this fails, the sponsor can motion to resume debate. Hence why I mentioned the issue with the slot in the PM last night, which seems to have confused some. I feared as much. Anyway we can amend the bill at that point, even if this fails.

I would be fine with removing the GPA requirement for the military personell. But I want it maintainined for the College path. There is a tendency for colleges to drop their standards or create junk programs just to look good, or in the case of the athletics, get the good players who aren't necessarily college material and thus rake in the dough in football. Considering the amount of pressure exerted by certain groups on this immigration issue, I would fear a good number of the colleges would start to recieve and likely would submit to such pressure and thus would start to establish or utilize existing programs with low or even no standards to get degress into the hands of some of these illegals who are by no means college material. I don't want institutions of higher learning to become further degraded by yet another influence with motives other than getting people educated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

As effective a point that may be, passed results from amnesty programs, that were likewise only applied to people already here, resulted in even more illegals being present in the country afterwards. That happened after 1986 and again after 1996, precisely because

1) Amnesties/Paths to Legal Status are incentives in and of themselves and especially once you are doing it cyclically even whilst they are sold as "permenent fixes".

2) The enforcement measures rarely if ever materialize as promised.

Applicability to only current illegals, is hardly a solid provision in terms of removing the open borders encouraging incentivization inherent in the concept.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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 problem with the President's viewpoint and even some of the Senators, is that they makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Thus he doesn't account for that fact that you are making a big loophole in the law with the bill itself. Considering that, I don't think asking some conditions be met in return for us generously waiving our immigration laws for a specified group of people, is too much to ask. Some senators refer to this as jumping through hoops. No, jumping through hoops is the ridiculous red tape and bureaucratic nonsense in the legal process that has inflated illegal immigration numbers ( because people who would be legal otherwise, fell through the cracks) and encourage more illegal immigration (if the enforcement is lax on the illegal side, the complexity of the legal process is the perfect "repellent" from doing it the legal way). Asking that a group of people who have already violated our laws to meet a few simple and straightforward standards to demonstrate their good faith and intent to be law abiding and productive citizens if granted such status, is a reasonable demand to make and is both in their interest as well as everyone elses that they meet these requirements.

Even beyond all that, is that you have a large number of people who will in fact seek to take advantage and abuse this program. For those who think that having immigration laws or any enforcement of the borders at all is contrary to our heritage, I guess there would be a collective response of "Fantastic". However, for those of who live in real ville where every country has limits including us (and the only way to maintain those limits is to control who enters the country and when, and in turn only way to do that is to make sure you have immigration laws that are taken seriously), that isn't something that kind of behavior isn't something which can be allowed to occur. We have to make sure that this program meets its intended purposes. One of the big reasons there was such a public outcry on the immigration issue is because people have seen gov't not take it seriously and lack faith and trust in the gov't to keep its promises here. Considering the record, there is much justification for that viewpoint.

We have these people who didn't follow the legal path to get here, in my opinion any path to legalization, more or less citizenship, would be the perpetuation of a failed policy and strategy of cyclical mass amnesty and thus a mistake that should be avoided. However, this specific subgroup were not competent decision makers when they arrived and thus there is a legimate reason in my opinion to bend a little and create a "conditioned path" only for them. That is what this bill does in return for making sure that certain standards are met. Some of these standards ensure that legal status/citizenship is earned through making contributions to society, and in the process of doing that, helps the perspective citizens get a leg up in society, rather being handed citizenship and then dumped on the outer fringes of society. They can earn there way into a better standard of living at the same time they earn citizenship and we can ensure that the program isn't being corrupted or abused.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Abstain, at least for the moment.

[Simfan34]

Abstain

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I know we should be voting on the merits of the re-draft itself, but there's definitely an elephant in the room here. What we decide with this vote will determine whether we validate or condemn Napoleon's recent attitude. If you ask me, there's no way we should send the message that his recent actions have been okay.

[Simfan34]

I know we should be voting on the merits of the re-draft itself, but there's definitely an elephant in the room here. What we decide with this vote will determine whether we validate or condemn Napoleon's recent attitude. If you ask me, there's no way we should send the message that his recent actions have been okay.

I agree entirely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is 2-2-3-2



Come on people.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nay