Add a new provision to help pass the DREAM Act. - Page 3

lol is it deja vu?

nah mama just trying to bring awareness to this issue that hits home to a few but enough people.

Based on the MPI study (page 5), the age cap on Retroactive Benefits removes ~1% or 18,000 Dreamers. If you think removing 18,000 potential beneficiaries who have already fulfilled all requirements or have one or more college degrees is a major compromising, you are living in a "dream" world.
One percent is nothing to Republicans.

To put it bluntly, "Why is the Man putting us (the already educated Dreamers with degrees, etc.) down?"

Are they afraid we will get our papers and start to fight for others like us? From History, you will see many times that to stop a revolution, the key is to stop the educated. The latter are the one with new and better ideas and go against the status quo.

I am not saying that the potential dreamers under S.3992 are not educated. I am just saying the most educated at the moment will NOT benefit from it. Why would you remove Dreamers that can contribute to society now? NO need to wait for 4 or 8 years of education! In this type of economy and with our deficit going through the roof, we need more tax payers. Bring these highly educated Dreamers out from the shadows so that they can use their degrees to help our society is paramount.

In Financial terms, ROI (return on investment) is something all investors want to know. In our situation, America has invested in us (Primary, Secondary education, etc). Immediate / short term returns would be the Dreamers with one or more college degrees that can contribute to society now as compared to long term returns which would be potential Dreamers that have not fulfilled the college or military services.

Bring back the original Retroactive Benefits provision (no age cap), America's investment on us would be a win-win deal including both immediate / short term and long term returns.


Back to regular programming.

wont work.

yes it will work. House Democrats wont go for that if that bill gets through the senate.

Stripping the benefits from 18,000 doesn't seem like a big thing, but when you consider how it lowers the age from 35 to 30, it lets the people who voted for it have some breathing space. After all, this is meant to be a 'but think of the children!' bill and it's hard for some illiterate hick to swallow that a 35 year old is a child by any means.