New Details!!!!!! - Page 5

I'm sorry if we do that then the bill won't pass. Sorry, but thanks for your efforts.

Sound familiar? It made me upset to see you be so hypocritical now. Of course I want it to benefit you too, but realize what you were doing. Here is the actual thing you said I hope it helps in retrospect.


"You guys are ridiculous. Go ahead and advocate that we should include the DREAMers who are like 45 years old. But if the DA fails because of that, you'll be the ones getting stones thrown at for your stupidity of "all or nothing." If you really want to include the original DREAMers, you first need to boost DA's chances of passing in the first place. Then you need to prove to the Republicans why adding them would be a 'good idea.' Do you have any clue as to why they should be included, when as of now, they don't even have pity for people under 30? Heh.....that's just my opinion. By the way, most of the 'fighting' was done in the congress in politics. No DREAMer was a congressman who actually went and moved forward the cause [even though they mailed and rallied and all that stuff]."

That is a very interesting analysis. From what I can tell Obama still has strong support. (And around my college so does Ron Paul) Joking aside, I think the Dream Act or the alternative are not getting enough national spotlight and are hardly an issue anymore

Kevin, i'm not 45 years old. If i turn about 30-35 years old, and the DA still hasn't passed. I wouldn't be sticking around here knowing that my life is already ruined because i'm not going to be included if it does pass later on. If i was over to about 40 years of age, i would know that i'm out of this race. I wouldn't go advocating things like "include everyone!" just because i would benefit. You have to realize the DA would stand much of a lower chance to pass if that happens. I'm not just about to plummet the bill's chances for the reason that i'd be included.

What i said in my post earlier was reasonable and wouldn't affect the bill's chances.

Actually it would affect it's chances just as much as raising the age would. That is being hypocritical. If they set the cut off date at 2001 it has a better chance of passing. Because it will help less people and not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This had nothing to do with age. I'm going to stop addressing you because you seem to not consider anything or even briefly understand my points. I just wanted you to think about things and all you seem to do is defend your opinions when I'm not even arguing. Like I said before I want it to help you too.

It would actually improve the chances of the bill if the cut off date was less recent then usual. Such a cut off would help republicans to state that they in one move would discredit any member of the vast 2000s illegal immigration influx. Plus if Rubio's words can be taken at face value this bill will fuse both a limited Cut-off date and AN AGE LIMIT! This bill then seems as if it will be very interesting indeed, not only will you have needed to have gotten in here by a specific date but you will also need to fit an age span. I don't think if many people realize that this bill has the chance to be quite limited.

Ah,glad to see younger dreamers are starting to understand the concept of what it will take to pass the bill and the accurate dynamics surrounding of what it will take.A "Ploy" simply cannot become law if it is one sided and that is just how this is shaping out.You've basically highlighted another transition to what happens in the next Congressional cycle,which has been going on ad nauseum over the last decade.

Great analysis! Those of us who have been following the politics around DA and CIR for over a decade are obviously less excited about the Rubio "DREAM" act than the younger DA kids. I will be glad to take advantage of Rubio act if it passes before the election. But I am reluctant to keep my hopes up based on our past experiences with congressional bills. DA had been presumed to be a LOT closer to passage in the past than what we are seeing now. Suffice it to say, it didn't happen!

GOP is obviously playing election year politics. I don't expect the democrats to fight like they did for health care reform. What may eventually happen is mass registration with deferred action, mandatory e-Verify - all through administrative policy changes and not through congressional legislation. If Obama wins the re-election, I have a strong feeling that things are gonna change for the better.

I agree with you. I think around 2009 would be a reasonable cutoff date. Those who entered the country in the last 3 years have a much better chance of adjusting back to their old lives when they go back.

IMO age limit would leave more people behind than a cut off date would, and also age limit would be unfair for those whom have been here for a long time but are over the age limit.

I personally prefer a cut off date over age limit b/c I don't want my mom to be left behind. She left everything behind back in our home country and came here with me. She has nothing to go back to and it'll be too late for her to start over back there now b/c she's sick and is in her 50's.

I just hope something happens soon though. At least I'm relieved that there's a really good chance that Obama will win this year's election.