Deportation delayed for St. Mary's graduate - Page 3

The whole "sponsor their parents/family" rhetoric is nothing more than a mere talking point.

The process would take in excess of 20 years.

Lets look at the case of a Dream Act beneficiary originating from Mexico with a parent who entered without inspection (who we all know is what these guys are against).

Best case scenario the Dream Act beneficiary receives their Conditional Residence status at 18, They would not become a citizen until they reached 24. Their parents would be in their 40's (best case scenario). With the petition backlog + 10 year ban. That's 15-20 more years (best case scenario). Their parents would be 55-60 years old before gaining residence. They would need to be alive another 25-35 years in order for a sibling (aunt/uncle) to gain residence if they die that's it the petition stops. Aunt's/Uncle's would be 85-95 years old (again this is best case scenario).

If they have got siblings chances are they are already a citizen (by birth) or also fall under the Dream Act. If they don't that would be a 20-25 year wait for them.

So what happens to her after 3 months?

Dream Act is not likely to pass in 3 months.

Hey Bruinman, maybe showing up sometime in 2010 or 2011 will make this forum happy....

Since you keep saying cir and dream does not have a possibility this year due to Health and energy bills, don't spend so much time here.

Save all your energy till when you really believe its going to pass.

Bye

LOL very true

Do you lack reading comprehension? Or can you not just look ahead?

Imagine a dreamy gets his residency and eventually citizenship. While every single citizen can apply for their parents/relatives, the dreamy citizen will not be able too. Thus we have a second class citizen, since the dreamy citizen does not have equal rights as the other ones.

And creating second class citizens is unconstitutional.


My parents, siblings, relatives and up to three generations of my family are either citizens or residences. So stop assuming things.

Well no. Your lack of reading comprehension is not really my fault .




So far Semi good. One thing i need to note here, is that the meaning of white was very different then than now. One example is that Mexicans were considered as legally white back then. other than that, so far ok.
Immigration reform laws have been changing much more often. Some of the major ones are the 1917, 1924 and 1952 acts. Then The next major one was the 1965 act. And yes, the 1965 immigration act did what you said.

But that is beside the point as i made a typo. I meant to say the " Civil right act of 1964"

I have no idea why you are talking about the immigration history. I know all of these ( and probably many other people on this forum know too).

The problem is you failed to read what i said and is going off-topic or since you have no counter argument, you are talking about something else.

I will write it in bold so you can understand,

Giving rights to one group of citizens while not giving them to another group of citizens is unconstitutional.

The future Dreamy will be a citizen one day. And when that happens, if that dreamy is not allowed to fill petitions for his/her relative while other citizens can, then that would be unconstitutional.

Yeah it seems you missed my typo as well. For some one claiming to have studied immigration law and knows so much, it is amazing how you missed it.

It is the Civil right act of 1964 and not 1965.

Also, although you "claim" to have read about these stuff before, your lack of knowledge does surprise me. I highly doubt you have taken any thing higher than a high school course around this subject matter.

Let me enlighten you as how Civil right act of 1964 is relevant. This act grants congress the power to enforce the " the equal protection under law" clause of the fourteenth amendment in the constitution, under the commerce clause of civil right act.

So what does this mean?

It means, Every one is equal under the law. And i will emphasize one more time ( since you lack reading comprehension), if the future dreamy to be citizen does not have the same right as all citizens , granted by the 14th amendment of the constitution, then that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Abaddon, would you quote me on where i was mistaken ?

Although i do make mistakes, as i would think every one would, i tend to only talk about things as facts, when only i know they are true.

I assume you are pointing the " Lack of knowledge" at me. If you are so kind, would you quote me on where i was actually wrong?

Currently there is no law that prevents citizens from doing so. What Bruinman is saying is to take away such laws from dreamies. These Dreamies will one day become citizens and not giving them the same rights as every one else would be unconstitutional.

I am not challenging what Bruinman said about the history of immigration reform ( Although he only talked about a fraction of it), but his very long post was complete off-topic.

I talked about the civil right act and he talks about immigration reform act.

I think he probably thought they were the same things. Just because two bills were passed around the same time, it does not make the same bill by the way ( of course you would know that ).

After browsing a few pages of your post, I got tired of trying to find what i was looking for. I didn't realize you babbled so much though. It doesn't bother me that you said CIR is unlikely to happen, i personally feel that will be a hard task to accomplish, but "realistically", since your a self appointed realist, you must realize anything is possible, no one can predict what will happen next. My comment wasn't manifested from thin air, I've seen some of the material you've posted, Its contents were very closely aligned to Fox news. Im not saying to shelter us from the harsh reality's of life, but do you have to spew it constantly, cmon now. It appears like its ur one and only agenda.


I came to this conclusion based on your opinions of illegals in this country. This forum is about passage of DREAM Act, not differentiating CIR from DREAM. And I believe this is all due to your personal affairs. I don't know the circumstances, so i apologize if i am misinformed, but weren't your parents "lawbreakers" too? Now you want to label all of our parents lawbreakers, but that label really doesn't matter too much to you, since everyone in your family has status, but you. According to the law, after 18yrs of age, your a law breaker too. You even went as far to stipulate how DREAM act should have a clause where we cant sponsor our parents, that doesn't matter much to you, because your lawbreaking parents aren't illegal. Once again, my apologies if this is misinformation.



In other words, Mabye you should take into account your "belittling and disparaging remarks". Your views and opinions, like Matias stated are "Advocating for DREAM while at the same time embracing the opposition's hateful rhetoric..." I quoted it, simply because it was written so eloquently. This is in no way an endorsement of Matias. Its a quite simply analogy, Treat others, the way you want to be treated.




"rofl" Tune into your realist perceptions, and it will make sense. Your going to self deport because as an illegal immigrant, your a lawbreaker. According to your own opinion, lawbreakers really have no merit. If you were focusing on passage of dream, why are your trying to distinguish and diminish other groups. The same groups that are fighting for us. Not to mention the personal aspect of our "lawbreaking" parents, who underwent so many sacrifices to bring us here.





Your misinformed, my views of you will break forum rules. Yes, i realize you are just stating your opinion, but that argument is getting a bit repetitive. Anti-Immigrant groups are just "stating there opinions", does that make it right? Thats what makes this so indescribable. As an illegal, you should understand the struggles we face day in and out, yet for some reason, some of your values are aligned with there train of thoughts. Im not saying your on there side, i just think this stems into the reality, that your only concern is yourself, and you dont mind climbing over a few people to complete your objective.

I didnt read all of the posts after Bruin rebutted bluestars argument about 2nd clas citizenship.

I dont see how you figure its not. If a beneficiary of DREAM, - once a citizen, is not allowed to sponsor family just as a natural born US Citizen. Then the DREAM Beneficiary does not have the same rights as a Natural Born US Citizen and therefore would become a "second-class citizen"

Eitherway if any no left organization such as the ACLU or MoveOn would back such a bill with an amendment, prohibiting any of us from sponsoring relatives.

I would not need that provision (I am the only undocumented in my family), just like many of us here. But there is also a greater majority of us who's whole family are undocumented and if CIR fails, DREAM is the best avenue for themselves and thier family. So on that note you are being selfish, Just dont think about yourself.

After a bill is signed by the president, it needs to go for court review. And creating a second class of citizens is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment's " Equal protection under law " clause.

Indeed. The chain migration argument from the opposition is quite baseless. They claim you'd be able to apply for just about anyone into this country but realistically it'd be just your immediate family and to be more exact pretty much just your parents. If your siblings happen to still be undocumented they're going to depend on the DREAM Act like kindawant said.

I just got my citizenship and from the looks of it I might just be able to apply for my parents right now, they're in their 50s. Siblings case may take years so the DREAM Act would be their one alternative. The opposition claims I'll be able to apply for uncles, cousins etc. and that is their main argument about it which is false . They just want to water it down for the sake of watering it down and making you less than them. (Have less rights then them). (Kindawant could you link me to where You get the info on applying for aunts/uncles? I didn't know it was even possible. Not that I'm planning to do it but curious.)

I'd say that the suggestion to take that option away from the DREAM Act makes sense just to shut the opposition up but then again their argument against it is baseless. I mean it doesn't really help me with my parents and my siblings would get their deal w/ DREAM but it's just not right to alter DREAM in such manner just to make someone who doesn't like its overall premise happy. While most parents would not mind as long their kids get their situation fixed, it is the creation of a second class citizen (as mentioned many times before). I mean what will happen if you get a hot Russian wife? You'd not be able to apply for her! Bummer

If you're happy doing that for the sake of shutting someone up GOOD FOR YOU, but at the end of the day the opposition will just come back with another baseless argument and little by little water DREAM down to where it won't even be the DREAM Act many are fighting for or even worst, A DREAM Act that you don't qualify for!

The DREAM Act is good as it stands and none of the fights here matter either way. As mentioned before, no Congressman reads the arguments here so trying to redefine DREAM on DAP is a waste of time, much all of the above I just typed.

Damn y'all must have lots of free time. I don't even bother to read thru all this