Call the Senators to get the age cap back to 35 and/or the original Retroactive - Page 5

So what about the person who is one month less then 30 and has no degree?

No, its not that. 4a1 means you have to fullfill all including section F.

And I just noticed something on the new version: They also removed the option for *vocational* school unless the two-year college requirement does not preclude work towards a bachelor's degree; but still counts towards the *qualifiying* requirements.

Instead of taking out stuff, why not add fines to boost the economy?

I feel sorry for DA User, but the reality is that it's not going to happen. The bill S. 3992 Would be almost 99% the House would passed after all compromises are made with the senate. S. 3992 it''s certain the final version (if it ever passes in weds)
Let's call to passed the Dream Act S.3992 It' has a more opportunity to passed. And I feel horrible for the DA User but We can't support older dreamers now.

DA User , a reality CHECK, Senate just file for S.3992 To be voted there's no way it can be change right now or in the compromise.

I say just make it 45 and say you can come in up to 22. Forgive one felony. Does that make everyone here happy?

It will be debated and they can make changed after they get 60. If both Senate and House passes then they can compromise on the age part.

Q. So you are hoping that after 60, they can do whatever?
A . Wrong
Why?
A. Because, you have to think that in order to get 60 (If we even get them), these Senators voted for the bill S.3992 and would really not supported if they know when they voted for it the Majority would changed back again when they only need 51.

If I'm Senator Mukowski and say Yeah I like this bill I'm going to voted for it , but I have heard rumors about it to putting back the age to 35 when we start debate, oh well I have to talk with Sen. Durbin to make sure that thing doesn't passes IF Not , I would voted against cloture on S.3992


You get what I'm saying?



But you can still have hope that they would bring it back if it's even possible to get a compromise.

DA don't listen to ignoramuses that prob never took a civic class and know little on how the US congress work. I think these ignoramuses just want a little attention. House is going first and there will be a compromise.

Again, never take advice from fools.

As of last night, this new crap version of DA had *2* co-signers. The original DA bill has *40*. A recent post in the news section has updated the new version as having now 19 co-signers. Third conference call with WH. The votes aren't there yet. And as such, is useless to struggle to gain as many co-signers as the original bill when we already have 40 Senators supporting the measure. MSNBC had a report this morning about a brewing revolt in the Democratic caucus against the President's deal with the Republicans to extend the tax cuts another two years. Led by Sen. Chuck Schumer no less.

President Obama promised to sign the tax extension in exchange for extended unemployment benefits. That is his bargaining tool; not DA; not DADT; not anything else. Tweaking the act at the last minute is a gimmick which won't buy us extra votes. Political muscle is what's advancing it right now, not the changes made. See example below:

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org...sure-vote-week

DIAZ-BALART - “On the merits of the Dream Act, I support it. But what they are doing is not serious , is not leadership, is not real.”

South Florida Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, like many Republicans, blames Democrats for the lack of debate on broad, comprehensive immigration reform.

Pro-immigrant advocates are furious at Congress ignoring their top issue. Democrats in turn blame Republicans for refusing to negotiate with them, especially when there’s an increased conservative sentiment against anything that could be labeled amnesty. Meanwhile, they’ve tweaked the Dream Act proposal to appease critics.

ROS-LEHTINEN - “I think they have made some good changes. They have lowered the age of the kids who can apply, that says they can’t bring in their family members for X number of years, and t hat’s a very good thing.”
– “Will any of those changes bring one more vote, I don’t think so.”

News to Rep. Ros-Lehtinen: Lowering the age eligibility to a 29 year-old is independent of sponsoring relatives. Either the law allows it or doesn't regardless of whether you are 5 or 90. Keep the faith DA user; you and many, many deserving people that are fighting to be included with you.