Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Dream Act Is a Nightmare ^ | June 19, 2012 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 06/19/2012 6:07:03 AM PDT by Kaslin

"Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?" That was the obvious question Barack Obama refused to answer when a reporter, doing his job, sought an answer, rather than a canned teleprompter presentation.

That is, indeed, the question that begs for an answer. And Obama simply wouldn't answer that question, not in the middle of his remarks or at the end of his statement or at any other time.

Obama announced Friday afternoon that he would grant amnesty to 800,000 young illegal aliens, instead of deporting them, as the law requires. No, he didn't call it amnesty; he denied it was amnesty, but Americans recognize it as amnesty.

The 800,000 are aliens who were brought into the country in violation of U.S. law and have already been rewarded with a free elementary and secondary education paid for by the American taxpayers. Now Obama wants to reward them further by allowing them to stay in America, giving them work permits, driver's licenses and other documents they lack.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as many as 1.4 million aliens might be eligible for Obama's new announcement. The big majority are Latinos, with about 70 percent born in Mexico.

The illegality of these young aliens living in our country is exceeded by the illegality of Obama's action. Obviously, Obama thinks he, too, is above the law and can do by executive order what Congress has repeatedly refused to do.

As The New York Times delicately reported, "He did not consult with Congress." Obama's action is much more outrageous and devious than "not consulting."

Congress has refused, year after year, to pass the legislation, colloquially known as the Dream Act, that would allow these young aliens to remain in America, take U.S. jobs and attend U.S. universities at preferential rates and/or even get financial aid. This is one more example of Obama thinking he can take action without the consent -- indeed defying the opposition -- of Congress and do what he wants anyway.

To take the measure of the Obama administration, we should refer to the unprecedented memo signed by the Attorneys General of nine states. It sets forth 21 instances when Obama or his administration has committed an unlawful or unconstitutional act.

Obama is not fooling anyone about his motives in unilaterally announcing that his administration will not deport these young illegals but will give them the benefits of the unpassed Dream Act. The Obama-friendly New York Times admitted that this is "a bluntly political move," and "a clear play for a crucial voting bloc in states that will decide whether he gets another term. It also held the potential for considerable payoff."

We all concede that Obama is playing politics for the Hispanic vote. But unless our elections are more fraudulent even than Republicans suspect, the beneficiaries of Obama's decision will not be able to vote this November.

So what about youngsters of comparable ages who are American citizens who are eligible to vote this November? They are directly harmed by Obama's political gambit.

According to a report from the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, U.S. citizens of ages comparable to Obama's newly advantaged aliens face a discouraging situation and a bleak future. Only 1 in 6 is working full time and 3 out of 5 still live with their parents or other relatives.

In the high school classes of 2009-2011, only 16 percent got full-time jobs, and an additional 22 percent could get only part-time work. They won't show up on election pollsters' reports because a large number have had their phones disconnected.

These kids are pessimistic about America. More than half -- 56 percent -- of young people with only a high school diploma said their generation expects to have less financial success than their parents, and only 14 percent said they expect to do better than their parents.

Another big problem with Obama's executive decision is that it jacks up the magnet to encourage millions more parents to bring more children into the U.S. illegally and enter them on the road to amnesty.

Supporters of Obama's plan keep referring to "kids" as the beneficiaries of this amnesty. But the kids only have to be under the age of 30.

Obama's action is especially damaging to 18-to-29 year-olds when compared to the last two summers. From April to May in 2010, the number of unemployed 18-to-29-year-old kids increased by 70,000; in the same months in 2011, they increased by 142,000; and in 2012, the number of unemployed 18-to-29-year-olds increased by 256,000.

So we're back to the crucial question: President Obama, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans? Are you trying to create jobs for anybody except Americans?

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens

1 posted on 06/19/2012 6:07:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So who do we vote for in November?

A man who thinkshe is King, or a man who agrees with almost everything the King wants.

It’s a quandry. I have said anyone but Obama.
But damn; Except for a heavier tan one is almost as bad as the other. Perhaps Romney can create more jobs and perhaps he doesn’t want to be King,and he isn’t a Muslim, but a Mormon, but he sure is no prize.

I wish we could get a real candidate.Almost anyone but these two dorks.Where the hell is Sarah?

2 posted on 06/19/2012 6:19:41 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Where the hell is Sarah?

Off trying to sell another reality tv series?

Sarah got a taste of Hollywood and liked it too much.

3 posted on 06/19/2012 6:30:43 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

de jure adj. “by right; according to law”

de facto adj. “existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not”

It is very important to know the difference between these two things when discussing the DREAM Act or similar actions.

The simple, easy to understand, both wrong and impossible opinion is “Those 10-20 million illegals must be thrown out”. It is wrong and impossible because to do so would require America become and remain an absolute police state, with each citizen required to carry their papers at all times, and with internal travel passports, requiring authority from the government to work, own property or goods of substantial value such as vehicles, to obtain medical care of any kind, and the list goes on and on.

To be free of illegals in this way is to become slaves. Yet some hate illegals so much they are willing to do this to our country to get rid of them.

However (though many who read this will have intellectually halted at this point in utter denial), this does not mean that we are not able to expel many illegal aliens, in an orderly fashion, *without* becoming a police state in the process.

But this means, to some, the agonizing proposition of having a more complex solution, rather than a simple, easy to understand, emotionally gratifying wrong solution.

And, if I ever complement Obama for *anything*, likely not anything else, it will be because of the steps he has taken in this regard, that Republicans refused to do:

1) Recognize that the most problematic and troublesome illegal aliens are serious felony violent criminals, so they must be expelled first. And to Obama’s credit, his administration *has* prioritized doing this, something that Republicans refused to do.

2) That there are many young illegal aliens who have lived their entire lives in America, were educated in American schools, speak English very well, have integrated into our society, and are completely disconnected from the nation of their birth.

They are not ‘de jure’ Americans, but they most certainly are ‘de facto’ Americans. Importantly, for them to be deported to Mexico would be as traumatic to them as for any other American child to be forced to go to a 3rd world country where they do not speak the language and know no one.

Within a year, most of these children would either be slaves, prostitutes or dead.

And yet there are many Americans who think that is a smashing good idea. These people need to seriously reevaluate their humanity, especially if they think of themselves as religious people.

At the same time there are large numbers of illegals who are neither criminal, nor integrated into our society, who do not speak English. These can be subdivided into two groups: those who *want* to integrate and become citizens, and those who do not.

Those who do not *want* to integrate or become citizens need to leave. America does not need or want Mexican citizen ghettos. However, work permits for those who do want to pursue an orderly path to citizenship, is reasonable, as long as there is a quota system, to insure that America does not try to integrate too many people too fast.

4 posted on 06/19/2012 7:12:06 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
This has got to be illegal age discrimination. The young worker get a benefit denied to the older worker. Of course women and minorities are hardest hit by this blatant age discrimination. This policy violates discrimination laws even if it were not otherwise illegal and injurious to our country!
5 posted on 06/19/2012 7:39:41 AM PDT by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Note to Phyllis Shafly:

IF you really want to see illegals voting, take yourself to Las Vegas & watch them vote in droves there in Clark County.

Dirty Harry Reid has NOTHING to get clean voting in Clark County.

6 posted on 06/19/2012 7:51:03 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?"


7 posted on 06/19/2012 8:49:28 AM PDT by GOPJ (The 'doting court eunuchs' of the MSM fail to notice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


“Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?”

And remember, all of the newly-legal hispanics are eligible for affirmative action preferences over young Americans.

8 posted on 06/19/2012 10:50:01 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Do you “feel” good now?

You managed to mention illegals and slaves in the same sentence, and yet you still refuse to make the direct and logical connection between the two.

As if all the young illegal aliens who are children of older illegal aliens deserve extra special consideration over that given to natural born child citizens, legal immigrant children, and the children of legal resident foreign nationals.

If you are a legal USA citizen, you have the right to openly apply to sponcer through legal immigration processes everything you think the child of an illegal alien deserves.

How many deserving children have you “saved” by your own individual and totally legal actions?

9 posted on 06/19/2012 6:47:32 PM PDT by sarasmom (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Let’s simplify this.

All immigration should be for the benefit of US citizens.

There are some immigrants that we want and some that must be discarded.

There are laws on the books that delineate this, passed by the people of the US through their representatives.

There are politicians who think they can ignore the law who must be voted out.

Let’s start from here. No new legislation is necessary.

10 posted on 06/19/2012 8:27:50 PM PDT by Mr. Peabody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
“Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?”


And remember, all of the newly-legal hispanics are eligible for affirmative action preferences over young Americans.

I had forgotten that part... makes it worse alright - thanks for sharing.

11 posted on 06/19/2012 8:45:20 PM PDT by GOPJ (The 'doting court eunuchs' of the MSM fail to notice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy


At the risk of the being labeled some kind of illegal alien supporter, (FT in advance)I agree with you. There is just no doubt in my mind that a person brought here under the age of consent should not be sent back to a land they didn’t grow up in and do not know. I also don’t understand how taking the “send them all home” approach furthers conservative values.

Does Barak Obama have the singular power to reverse the current status of all these people? I don’t think he does. We all know the game he’s playing. He thinks he’s King. And from my perspective in the state of Arizona, he’s an antagonsitic jerkoff who has no respect for the rule of law. That said, Republicans had better come up with a reasonable solution, and soon.

While Obama may be breaking the law, people will largely see him as some kind of hero because of the targeted nature of his edict. As we all know, law and justice are not interchangeble. I know that it’s probably a small percentage of the people were talking about, but it would be unjust to remove a non-spanish speaking man or woman who grew up here, having virtually no ties to Mexico ouside of their birth certficate. To take a person who graduated from one our own high schools, right next to our own sons and daughters, and simply send them back to Mexico on a bus.

Most of the talkers here wouldn’t be so tough about it if they had to personally tell young Juan and Maria (your daugher’s best friends) that they’ll just have to make the best of it in a violent border town. If any of those on these boards could really do that, I sincerely feel more sorry for you than for them.

However, and some may not think this is consistent, I am totally on board with tossing thier parents back to Mexico without remorse. They will be the first to tell you that they only wanted a “better life for thier children”. Well, they got it. Now, they can leave knowing they did just that. THEY broke the law. NOT thier kids.

Next, these newly minted young immigrants should have some limitations placed upon them. They should not be permitted to obtain citizenship unless they go back to Mexico and apply from there. They are, after all, citizens of another country. They can’t have it both ways. The highest status they should be allowed to achieve is Permanent Resident status, so long as they have Mexican citizenship. They should not be allowed to sponsor another Mexican into the US until and unless they’ve become citizens of the US and relinquished Mexican identity.

There are dozens of other ideas that could be used to prevent the rewarding of illegality, but still give these young people a chance to make an adult decision.

Well, whatever. I just know that many folks will take this as some endorsement of Obamas tactics, but while you puff up your chest and convince yourself of purity, you couldn’t be more wrong. You would destroy conservatism with your actions, and I wish to save it. The media would sucessfully make mincemeat out of Conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans for decades to come if we can’t see the humanity in creating an option for this segment of the illegal population. It simply has to be done. I just hope we’re smart enough to dictate the terms.


12 posted on 06/19/2012 10:06:03 PM PDT by Greenpees (Coulda Shoulda Woulda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Greenpees

As far as closing the border, it is as much how you do it as that it is done. That is, prioritize by efficiency of how many illegals are kept out.

If you fence the narrow main corridors that illegals used, you get the most bang for your buck, blocking out anywhere from 40-60%, who cannot or will not “go around”. Then by blocking the much larger border area that can be used as “secondary” routes, but is much harder terrain with fewer roads, and lots of harsh desert, it costs a lot more, but you block a smaller percentage, say 20-30% of the original 100%.

At this point it is far more cost effective to use psychology to convince illegals to not come in the first place, as there are no jobs and no future, and they are likely to be arrested. That will block 10-15%, and costs a lot less.

From that point, other problems come to the fore, like drug smuggling, and non-Mexican illegals, as well as the pure criminals who use the border to escape justice. And this is a lot harder, meaner, a needs close to a paramilitary or military response. These people are very dangerous.

But approaching the border problem these ways will both save a lot of money and control the problem faster than as they are now, trying to build the fence at a snail’s pace, starting from desolate places where nobody crosses in the first place.

One issue of disagreement is requiring the younger, integrated ones to leave the US to apply for citizenship. For most of them this kills the idea because they don’t want to live in Mexico even for a while. They would rather stay up here, be illegal and take their chances.

The way around this is to allow them to apply for citizenship while here, but *paying* a premium to do so. For many, shelling out $5,000-10,000 is worth it to not have to leave the US at all and go to, what to them, is a scary foreign country, to apply.

13 posted on 06/20/2012 8:03:47 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson