News/ACTION: Dream Act is a Nightmare - Page 2

juan. he still didn't say "mandate" . ami the only blind person? why do you keep saying he said "mandates." he said "allows" and he is correct on that. and if you have stringent clauses, you don't need an age limit. people will be left out and it doesn't matter. let's make the a deal somewhere else.

so juan. showed me where he said "mandates."

People will not be left out. I have not seen a age limit for CIR. The age limit is for Dream Act.

Also if Republicans want the immigrants to go back to their home countries so be it but they have to guarantee a return ticket to USA.

In reality, Republicans do not want immigrants to go back to their home countries, they want them to work for the US pay the taxes, but at the same time they do not want them to have the benefits like social security, health care, unemployment benefits ...

We should not be advocating for an age limit. It will cut people out just like that and there is nothing they can about it. And if they are 40, that means they have been here for 25 years. And why 35? make it 30 or 40 or 25.
For the record. Had Rep. Smith said that the DREAM "mandates," then he would be wrong and all that. But he said "allows" and that is indeed the case.

you can't respond and make a big deal out of it and say the following and be wrong yourself.

"Maybe Smith should fire his staffers and hire some DREAM Act students, who can probably research and write better than the atrocious blog we were subjected to from an American lawmaker."

they can simply bring everything down by pointing out what i am pointing out. now, if he said things somewhere else, then fine.

The context of the word ALLOW. It allows the STATES to do their own will when it comes to the issue.

It does not ALLOW the bill to do anything but that, nor does it ALLOW the bill to give in state tuition right off the bat as Mr Smith implies.

Dont give them man any slack, the whole post is poison.

Moreover, the age limit can vary since t has changed in past incarnations of the bill.

Thats a contradiction then.

how is it contradicting? What republicans want is basically some kind of slaves. Cheap labor cost that can do works american people don't want to do and they dont want to be responsible for them when they get old. If the government legalized all the undocumented immigrants, it will add a large cost to the social security when they get old.

just think is our guy goes to him and starts the debate and rep. king starts say "mandates? not only did i not say that, i know the bill doesn't mandates anything.
as for the "allow" part. what are you referring to? as it stands the bill repeals the 1996 clinton law.:

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a) In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date- The repeal under subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).



it gives states the option to do what it wants. heck, school like ucla could go from giving instate to not even allowing future individuals to apply. university of alabama could go from not allowing to apply to offering free tuition.

there have only been one age limit and that was of 30. the rest were in the SAA. and i would rather see no age limit and force dreamies to prove they have been here for five years. they were in some soccer or volleyball team that won it all in 2007 and they can use that roster or picture. i would rather see the hardship clause go because the person will have six years to do two years of something. during those six years they can work and drive and all. but someone who can at the age 12 back in 1984 cannot even apply.

i have coordinated/initiated/took part of dozens and dozens of actions such as this one in the past with dozens of people throughout the country. we always did our research and made sure things were kosher. our approach to rep. smith would have been different and with no escape clause.

How we will be different having PR compare to people who already have one?

Employers haev 401K plans, I would not worry about Social Security that will cover your lunch.