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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Scott Ben

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is Atlasia, do you really think that the progressive paradise hasn't already "solved" this problem, Scott?


MasterJedi once told me that Ebowed gave amnesty to all the illegals, though I don't recall when or what bill he mentioned.


Oh yea, you got 24 hours to advocate for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was amnesty afforded to illegal immigrants residing in Atlasia at the time, or amnesty to all illegal immigrants permanently?  Personally, as someone who feels that immigration laws need to be enforced, I oppose amnesty if it's unconditional, but I support a path to citizenship for those who demonstrate appropriate behavior.  That's why the bill I introduced is not intended to create an 'amnesty program' because it requires a lengthy and rigorous process to be eligible for the benefits.  However, if this is already a settled issue, I suppose I should withdraw it.

No, I wouldn't withdraw it based on a fading memory of second hand comment from three years ago about a bill that occured years before that even. I would suggest diving through the wiki and seeing if anything close to that is on there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you have the links, so I can take a look at them. I fear this thing will be even slower on the wiki.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would suggest seeing what the GM says about the costs before moving forward.

Giving Amnesty to illegals is one of the most insane proposals out there. I understand compassion but it is a cyclical, self-fullfilling prophecy. I understand compassion and I understand idealism, but it is essential to understand the reality of the situation. 1) Every country retains the sovereign rights to control what comes across their borders. 2) Choosing not to do so is just as much an assertive action as choosing to do so. 3) The impact of this decision not is a distortion on the economy. 4) This distortion is manifested in wage depression which hurts the working poor. 5) Nothing in 3 or 4 should be taken to mean that immigration hurts the economy, it helps, but it has to be controlled and regulated. 6) No amount of idealism will change the fact that there is a certain numerical threshold for the number of new immigrants that society can absorb at one time, and crossing that limit will do more to harm your idealistic vision then help it. That number is a mystery but I am not inclined to tempt fate. As much as believe in "country exceptionalism", such is limited to certain things and just like no country is exceptional enough to not have to pay its bills forever, no country can escape these limits in terms of population upheaval. That leads to 7) With just legal immigration you can bring in people within an acceptable range, and not risk that.

That said, if you put enough standards and qualifications, I can accept making exceptions for the children since they weren't the decision maker at the time. The standards must be tight, they must have to pass whatever schooling they are in and/or serve honorably for the entirety of their military service. Mass cheating of the system is indicative of a disturbing process whereby people who have cheated the system once (though not by their choice), continue to have no other desire but to cheat the system when the opporunity affords them. That shouldn't be rewarded. As for having no standards at all, see what I posted above. I just listened to "Crazy on You" by Heart, I can't think of a better description for what Redalgo's amendment is doing to us.

It may be in the morning before I can process the amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Senators this amendment is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY!


Sorry, Redalgo, but someone has to protect the working people here, both domestic and immigrant actually.

Damn, these are pretty bad times for the Labor party, one of their Senators has gone Tea Party and the other is throwing workers under the bus.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to know how many illegals are currently in the country, before I make any agreement with you, sbane.  It may be significant enough to be a concern, say 2 to 3 million, but not the 10 to 15 million people that have rendered the "you can't deport 12 million people" as a practicality. The gov't deports 300,000 illegals or so every year in RL, and twice as many "self-deport" because of economic hardships caused by the recession. There is no practical hindrence and thus with the exception of say the kids who didn't have a say and such, I see no reasonable justification for mass amnesty. If you do that, you are basically, sending a message, that Atlasia will never deport anyone nor will it enforce its own laws. I didn't realize "Atlasian exceptionalism" was so big a force among liberals in this game. Because clearly you must think so in order to hold so idealistic and completely unrealistic a position.

I have already answered the question of who I wouldn't deport, how about you answer who you would, sbane?

I will process Scott's reasonable amendment as soon as this vote is done, hopefully with a negative result.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Scott, you posted in the GM thread, have you tried PMing him directly?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Define "Originally voted Nay", I don't recall any vote having been cast here by any one name Marokai Blue.

We have procedures that allow for that it is called, "abstain". We have a man in RL who became President by doing that all the time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on amendment 51:14:

Aye (2): Franzl and sbane
Nay (6): Ben, Hagrid, Marokai Blue, NC Yankee, NVTowsend and Scott
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Bacon King and Redalgo

With six nays, the amendment has failed, no vote change period is in order for amendments.


Marokai did something usefull for once.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Dependent on Feedback

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh yea this is Scott's bill. After a deluge of so much of Marokai's stuff, I tend to automatically assume everything is his. Unfortunate habit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

May I know the reasons?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Objection entered by Senator Franzl, this amendment is now at vote so please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


I'll check back at Christmas, since thati s likely how long it will take you lazy bums to vote on this.


Damn my finger still hurts!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Some Libertarians are pretty weak on the border, perhaps you a Ron Paul Tea Partier.


Giving a guarrateed, indefinate free pass to "future" violators of a law you plan to continue, is perhaps the most insane idea I have ever heard of. I too support reforming and simplifying the legal immigration system, but sorry Marokai, you are in fact creating not a laissez faire immigration policy, but you are openly admitting that we have no immigration policy, that the legalities and circumstances of person's entry in the country are irrelevant. To someone as a protectionist as you yourself have shown over the years (Remember the buy America provisions? Atleast Franzl was on the side of sanity on that issue, back then, if memory serves me. ),  such should not even be a consideration. Now, on the other hand, one can be a free trader (espeically since that means different things to different people) and still support border security and regulating (like safety inspections, making sure there are no nukes in the containers, etc etc) the flow of goods in such a trade system (if it means a economic policy decision rather than a philosophical view of gov't. Hence why libertarians see a contradiction). For practical reasons though protectionism and complete open borders are impossible, because you are conceding the ability to enforce the trade policy when you surrender your immigration policy.

As for Scott said about border security not being able to pass the Senate, so he didn't include it. WTF!!! Has the desire on the part of Democrats in RL to pander to Hispanics and lock the GOP out of power driven the all of them to completely surrender any sense of reality regarding borders for political gain? Have you convinced yourself in a conspiratorial fashion, akin to birtherism and trutherism, that it is "just another racist code word"? It is a constitutional obligation to sustain sovereign control of the country's borders, otherwise you can't protect the people.  Control does mean a wall, it is a door that we can than determine whne to close an open it.  

I would continue, but I am tired.

THe vote turnout here sucks!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FTR, it's not really that I was "pandering" to anyone per se, but I just proposed what we have now for practical reasons since, as we can all plainly see, immigration policies aren't particularly easy to pass in this body if they have the slightest regulations or conditions attached, kind of like abortion.

I wasn't insinuating anything about you personally. I knew what you were saying and that is what I was talking about with the pandering comment. And yes, it is just the like the abortion bill. RL politics is crossing in and making too many of this Senate too uncomfortable to engage and do their jobs. You were responding to that obvious situation when making that decision not to include border security. My tirade was against that situation existing in the first place.

To explain myself:

I have no intention of changing my vote here. Just as I agree with birthright citizenship as a principle, for the same reason, I don't believe in punishing people who came to Atlasia as minors with their parents and are not responsible for the illegal behavior. (Now that I think about it, that does mean I would be willing to support an addition stating that they must come to Atlasia with parents or legal guardians to qualify, otherwise any minor could go across the border himself and claim residency status.)

We don't have a disagreement regarding the children born here to illegal aliens or even on giving amnesty to the children who crossed with their parents. The key though there is the past tense, you have to time limit to certain period otherwise you create a permenent incentive for parents to continue come because their children can get legal status once they cross.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This vote ends tomorrow night. As usual, the turnout is a terrible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I urge the senators that have already voted nay to reconsider, and I hope those that have not yet voted are in the affirmative on this.  I will work for the defeat of this bill if it ends up detracting from its principles the way those in the far-left apparently want it to do.

What I would like is amnesty for all non-criminal illegal aliens in exchange for E-Verify. Hell, throw in more border control as well. I don't see anything wrong with that. And Yankee, I doubt you will see a lot of opposition to that in RL either. It's laws that empower racists, such as AZ SB 1070, that are troubling.

Ever heard of the Chamber of Commerce? Big Agra doesn't like it either.

AZ SB 1070 was a serious tactical mistake motivated by momentary fear and anger over the killing of that rancher in 2010, and the political calculations of an almost certain primary loser in Governor Jan Brewer. If they had stuck with just e-verify and beefed up police and other enforcement in the Southern part of the state, they would have been far better off. Arizona hispanics haven't been very sympathetic to illegals either, with 47% of them having voted for something similar to Prop 187 in 2004, banning benefits and such. Turning them against the immigration enforcement crowd was a big mistake.

I don't think the Senate is capable of handling the indepth detail of a broad ranging comprehensive immigration bill with an election coming that will drowned activity even further (I got a scheme to respond to this by the way, but people would have to cooperate with me). And I haven't changed my opinion regarding mass direct amnesty, though an exit amnesty to provide an alternative to "self-deportation" would be a different story. But we have had this discussion before on a different board and somehow I doubt you have changed your mind either, so lets not get into that again.

Lets keep this effort simple. Provide amnesty for the children brought in by their parents, when they weren't capable of making a choice, provided they contribute to society by successfully graduating from college, or by serving honorably in the military. Lets make sure there are tough standards to ensure that no one defrauds this or that it becomes a magnet for furtuer illegal immigration into the country. Those are my standards for supporting a Dream Act.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 51:15:

Aye (4): Ben, Hagrid, NC Yankee, and Scott
Nay (3): Franzl, Marokai Blue and sbane
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (3): BK, NVTowsend and Redalgo.

With time having expired (with 24 hours and some change to spare ), the amendment has passed (barely). Ben's shall commence in the morning, so people won't think it is the same one and that they already voted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

...Cross the highways of fantasy and meet me on the other siddddddeeeeeeee! ewwwww, Dream Weaver! I believe you can get me through night...


You knew I was going to do that sooner or later on this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.