LA Times: House passes immigration Dream Act

[JMS]

"In order for a non-citizen to enlist in the military, he/she must first be a legal immigrant (with a green card),"

Never mind. Point has been covered.

Yeah I think that's another one of those soft recruiting rules.

Illegal Immigrants: Uncle Sam Wants You

Latino teenagers, including illegal immigrants are being recruited into the military with false promises.

How many of these young Latino recruits are illegal immigrants? “Nobody knows,” says Flavia Jimenez, an immigration policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza. “But what we do know is that recruiters may not be up to speed on everybody’s legal status. … We also know that a significant number of [illegals] have died in Iraq.” The recruitment of illegal immigrants is particularly intense in Los Angeles, where 75 percent of the high school students are Latino. “A lot of our students are undocumented,” says Arlene Inouye, a teacher at Garfield High School in East Los Angeles, “and it’s common knowledge that recruiters offer green cards.” Inouye is the coordinator and founder of the Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools (CAMS), a counter-recruitment organization that educates teenagers about deceptive recruiting practices.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3271/illegal_immigrants_uncle_sam_wants_you/

Should illegal immigrants serve in U.S. military?

AP Photo/Moises Castillo

U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, as seen in photos at the home of his sister in Guatemala City, was one of the first combat casualties of the war in Iraq. He had come to the U.S. illegally from Guatemala as a teenager.

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/03/post_98.html

Marines: Looking for a Few Good Aliens?

Recruiter on trial for selling IDs to enlist illegals

A A A Comments (1) By Douglas Gillison Tuesday, Sep 27 2005

This week, a general court martial is to begin at Parris Island, South Carolina, for a U.S. Marine recruiter accused of selling and delivering counterfeit documents to illegal aliens in order for them to join the service.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-09-27/news/marines-looking-for-a-few-good-aliens/

Jim Clyburn (6th U.S. District for S.C.) “illegal immigrants served in our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

[nonniey]

I'm surprised (and impressed) to see you post this.

Why? I've mentioned in the past similar views on immigration (If it is something I think is beneficial to the country I always support it. Remember I'm conservative to neo-conservative in philosophy - if I could, I would make everyone American, by force if neccessary -:evilg: ).

[DjTj]

There is really nothing reasonable about this. Their parrents put these kids in a terrible situation and we are going to reward both of them for doing so. We are going to take responsibility for this irresponsible breaking of our laws by the parents... That's not reasonable. You can argue it's the right thing to do; I don't think you can argue it's reasonable. The distiction is if you do this for 2000 kids in 2010 you will be doing it for 20,000 kids in 2020. Rewarding forlks for breaking the law is never reasonable, and it rarely leads to less suffering or justice in the long term.

The bill would not apply going forward, so it's not going to create the incentives that you fear. Basically, you have to be eligible the day the bill is passed, so illegals crossing the border tomorrow will not be able to benefit. The current version of the act also prevents the beneficiaries from sponsoring their parents or any relatives for legal immigration for at least 12 years, so it's not going to that incentive is also removed. I think it's very reasonable and is the right thing to do.

Coarse nobody is looking at the long term.. Which is why the proponents of illegal immigration are smoking us and will continue to smoke us.

They're trying to pass the DREAM Act because nobody is willing to agree on a long-term plan. Both sides of the immigration debate are to blame for this.

I could be wrong here again, but I though they put a provision in the dream act to reward elite college graduates who were here studying legally. Unrelated to the first catagory of applicants...

That's what I'm arguing against..

I think that maybe you're talking about the STAPLE Act?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1791

Anyway... this "Dream Act" could happen. I'm against it just because I believe it creates more problems than it solves.. orders of magnatued more problems. It's knee jerk legislature based upon the injustice of the day, blind to the injustice of tomorrow it will cause. Congress doesn't have the will to deal with the real problem so they will just do these little feel good bills whcih ultimately make the problem worse.....

The feel-good bills are the low-hanging fruit on the citizenship side, just like deporting drug smugglers and violent criminals on the enforcement side. With the country so polarized on this issue, I don't know that we'll get real reform anytime soon.

[JMS]

The bill would not apply going forward, so it's not going to create the incentives that you fear. Basically, you have to be eligible the day the bill is passed, so illegals crossing the border tomorrow will not be able to benefit. The current version of the act also prevents the beneficiaries from sponsoring their parents or any relatives for legal immigration for at least 12 years, so it's not going to that incentive is also removed. I think it's very reasonable and is the right thing to do.

I totally disagree with you... Ronald Reagan passed the first amnesty for illegal workers and 3 million people took advantage of it in 1986. It didn't apply to folks going forward either but a decade latter the problem wich Reagans amnesty was supposed to solve had turned a problem into a crisis as illegals swarmed across the boarder to take advantage of the next round of amnesty. Today that problem reagan fixed in 1986 has increased by nearly an order of magnatude...

They're trying to pass the DREAM Act because nobody is willing to agree on a long-term plan. Both sides of the immigration debate are to blame for this.

See I'm a cynic. I think some folks are trying to pass a dream act to help the kids. I think these folks are pretty misguided and nieve but their hearts are in the right place. I think the real culprets are the folks who exploit the illegals for their own profit. Those folks want to pass the dream act caused they know it will create a new rush across the boarder as despreate people come to collect their kids American citizenships. It will definitely have that effect too. Handing out rewards to desparate people willing to break our laws will always have that type of predictable effect.

I think that maybe you're talking about the STAPLE Act?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1791

Maybe so, we should drop it from this conversation because it seems to be tangential.

The feel-good bills are the low-hanging fruit on the citizenship side, just like deporting drug smugglers and violent criminals on the enforcement side. With the country so polarized on this issue, I don't know that we'll get real reform anytime soon.

On this we agree. and it's a shame. worse than that it's criminal. Industries are making billions off the backs of these poor people. If we cracked down on employers tommorrow you could solve this problem in a few days. It's all about the political will and the misplaced blame for the problem.

[DjTj]

I totally disagree with you... Ronald Reagan passed the first amnesty for illegal workers and 3 million people took advantage of it in 1986. It didn't apply to folks going forward either but a decade latter the problem wich Reagans amnesty was supposed to solve had turned a problem into a crisis as illegals swarmed across the boarder to take advantage of the next round of amnesty. Today that problem reagan fixed in 1986 has increased by nearly an order of magnatude...

Well, I think one major difference is that the DREAM Act isn't even pretending to solve the problem going forward. It is just trying to do the right thing for a group of illegal immigrants that are here now (with some benefits to military recruiting and to the bottom line at USCIS with the collection of fees). The DREAM Act doesn't pretend to solve the illegal immigration issue like Reagan's immigration reform. It is a stopgap measure and people are pretty up front about that.

See I'm a cynic. I think some folks are trying to pass a dream act to help the kids. I think these folks are pretty misguided and nieve but their hearts are in the right place. I think the real culprets are the folks who exploit the illegals for their own profit. Those folks want to pass the dream act caused they know it will create a new rush across the boarder as despreate people come to collect their kids American citizenships. It will definitely have that effect too. Handing out rewards to desparate people willing to break our laws will always have that type of predictable effect.

I guess I'm not that cynical, and I think you overstate the effects on future immigrants. I think the effect of Reagan's amnesty is also overstated. 95% of those people would have continued to come even if the amnesty had never been passed. The choices are made on an individual level based on economics, and immigrants don't cross the border looking for future amnesty - they just want a paycheck. I don't think their incentives really change that much based on the possibility of future legislation.

On this we agree. and it's a shame. worse than that it's criminal. Industries are making billions off the backs of these poor people. If we cracked down on employers tommorrow you could solve this problem in a few days. It's all about the political will and the misplaced blame for the problem.

I don't think it's as easy as a few days, because it will require a lot of manpower and, to be truly successful, some serious database work. But I do think you're right that the majority of politicians don't want to do the hard things to actually solve this problem ... and frankly, the voters aren't giving them strong incentives to really do it yet.

[elkabong82]

Granting citizenship to those who were brought here by their parents if, as 18+ year olds, they either enlist in the military or enroll in college seems to me to be addressing a real issue with a practical solution that could result in strengthening our military forces, increasing our higher educated citizenry, both paths give these people a real chance to succeed here and ultimately could strengthen the country.

It's an actual solution to a real problem. These kids didn't have a say in coming here. Instead of just complaining about it and leaving them in a position where they will likely continue to only contribute at the level illegals do, this act will let them contribute in a better way. It works out for both sides IMO.

[twa]

There is no military recruiting problem

[SnyderShrugged]

I have way less of a problem with immigration (legal and illegal) and making folks citizens than I do with the entitlements we tend to give our citizens that we simply cant pay for.

[JMS]

Well, I think one major difference is that the DREAM Act isn't even pretending to solve the problem going forward. It is just trying to do the right thing for a group of illegal immigrants that are here now (with some benefits to military recruiting and to the bottom line at USCIS with the collection of fees). The DREAM Act doesn't pretend to solve the illegal immigration issue like Reagan's immigration reform. It is a stopgap measure and people are pretty up front about that.

It holds out a huge reward for those who are persistant in breaking our laws. That's a very large incentive.

I guess I'm not that cynical, and I think you overstate the effects on future immigrants. I think the effect of Reagan's amnesty is also overstated. 95% of those people would have continued to come even if the amnesty had never been passed. The choices are made on an individual level based on economics, and immigrants don't cross the border looking for future amnesty - they just want a paycheck. I don't think their incentives really change that much based on the possibility of future legislation.

I think the facts refute your assertion. The facts are illegal immigration accelerated after Reagan's amnesty. Reagan's amnesty incentivized illegal immigration. It compounded the missery and greatly expanded the cheap labor pool coming here to be exploited.

I don't think it's as easy as a few days, because it will require a lot of manpower and, to be truly successful, some serious database work. But I do think you're right that the majority of politicians don't want to do the hard things to actually solve this problem ... and frankly, the voters aren't giving them strong incentives to really do it yet.

If private industry were doing it, it would take a few days. Today every employer must verify ones citizenship before giving one a job. Problem is the penelties are all based upon whether his effort was reasonable, not whether it resulted in an illegal hire. Technologically it would be a simple task to create a non counterfeitable verifiable certificate of us citizenship. With that in place the anouncement of a hefty fine for employers would dry up the illegal

jobs very quickly. If the jobs were gone, the people would return to their own country on their own. And just as importantly illegal traffic across the US boarder would cease...

Coarse nobody wants to do this. US politicians don't want to do it because they don't want to alienate hispanics or big buisness. Big buinsess doesn't want to do it because they are making billions off the backs fo these people.

[ACW]

WASHINGTON – Democrats have delayed a showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally.

Facing GOP Objections, Democrats are putting aside the so-called Dream Act. They're short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_go_co/us_immigration_students

Thank God. They should be deported, along with their parents.

No vacancy.

Because it's their fault their parents came. I'd rather deport anti-immigrant bigots.

EDIT: NavyDave can also leave :ciao:

[Redskins Diehard]

Our military has done so for ages.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/f/noncitizen.htm

Question: Can a non-U.S. Citizen join the United States Military?

Answer: Yes. A non-citizen can enlist in the military. However, federal law prohibits non-citizens from becoming commission or warrant officers.

In order for a non-citizen to enlist in the military, he/she must first be a legal immigrant (with a green card), permamently residing in the United States. It's important to note that the military cannot and will not assist in the immigration process. One must immigrate first, using normal immigration quotas and procedures, and -- once they've established an address in the United States -- they can find a recruiter's office and apply for enlistment.

For details, see our article, Enlistment Qualification Standards

Correct

Yeah not even sure you have to be docuemnted. The military will get you your documentation if you sign up, and if you serve so many years honorable their is a path to citizenship. We've had that for decades.

BS. The military will not "get you documentation". You are pretty persistent in making this incorrect claim.

[Teller]

I don't see any details about the actual law, so I'm going to assume that it's the one I heard discussed, last year. The way it was explained last year, it would permit a path to citizenship to people who:

Were brought to this country before the age of 12.

Are now at least 18.

Graduated High School in the US.

And have either:

Received at least a 2-year college degree, or

Are willing to serve in the US military

I don't got a problem with that. These kids already are Americans.

And, um, if they're UNDOCUMENTED (your side's word, not ours) how do you PROVE all that? Funny. Anytime the state or federal government wants proof of something from me, it requires, what is it? Oh yeah. Documents.

[DjTj]

And, um, if they're UNDOCUMENTED (your side's word, not ours) how do you PROVE all that? Funny. Anytime the state or federal government wants proof of something from me, it requires, what is it? Oh yeah. Documents.

They will have school records, medical records, a driver's license in many states, and a birth certificate from their home country.

Undocumented doesn't mean no identifying documents. It just means no immigration documents. Actually, it means no currently valid immigration documents. In many cases, they may even have immigration documents because they came to the United States on a temporary visa that has now expired.

[Beans]

Because it's their fault their parents came. I'd rather deport anti-immigrant bigots.

EDIT: NavyDave can also leave :ciao:

Good thing no gives a rat's ass what you think. Unfortunately for you, there is not a law to deport "bigots" (egregious misuse of the word by the way, I mean c'mon). Fortunately, there are laws on the books to deport illegals, yet our government refuses to enforce. If you don't think NAFTA and illegal immigration are/has been detrimental to our economy in the long run, go back to school.

[Larry]

Good thing no gives a rat's ass what you think. Unfortunately for you, there is not a law to deport "bigots" (egregious misuse of the word by the way, I mean c'mon). Fortunately, there are laws on the books to deport illegals, yet our government refuses to enforce. If you don't think NAFTA and illegal immigration are/has been detrimental to our economy in the long run, go back to school.

Yeah, people who don't support their claims with anything but name calling and insults really do make convincing arguments, huh?

[Beans]

There is no military recruiting problem

Exactly, the armed forces doesn't need illegal immigrants to fill their ranks, unless we are talking about "Operation: Human Shield."(I'm kidding)

---------- Post added December-9th-2010 at 07:58 PM ----------

Yeah, people who don't support their claims with anything but name calling and insults really do make convincing arguments, huh?

:insane:

Did he drop the bigot bomb? Yes.

[sacase]

AND who are willing to join the military now (or go to college and get good grades) to validate their American-osity.

Their parents did something wrong, but the kids were not involved in that decision, and were raised as Americans. This is a chance to let them prove they deserve to stay.

Am I missing something?

Yes you are. You do not have to be an American citizen to serve in the military. If you do serve in the military as a foreign citzen, you already have a path to citizenship. So this bill is not needed.

This bill is for the college kids who haven't sacrificed a thing for this country.

[ACW]

Good thing no gives a rat's ass what you think. Unfortunately for you, there is not a law to deport "bigots" (egregious misuse of the word by the way, I mean c'mon). Fortunately, there are laws on the books to deport illegals, yet our government refuses to enforce. If you don't think NAFTA and illegal immigration are/has been detrimental to our economy in the long run, go back to school.

NAFTA hasn't hurt. Free trade is good.

---------- Post added December-9th-2010 at 08:14 PM ----------

Did he drop the bigot bomb? Yes.

Geeze, don't think the world revolves around you. Did I mention you? Something you'd like to share?

[Larry]

Did he drop the bigot bomb? Yes.

Did you drop the "If you don't agree with my opinion, you're an idiot" bomb? Yes.

---------- Post added December-9th-2010 at 08:26 PM ----------

Yes you are. You do not have to be an American citizen to serve in the military. If you do serve in the military as a foreign citzen, you already have a path to citizenship. So this bill is not needed.

The rule that was quoted, however, does say that you have to be legal. Permanent resident. Green card. (Although there was some other poster, who made the claim that illegals are serving. I'll admit that I still have trouble believing that. For example, I have trouble believing that our military would accept somebody who they can't establish a positive ID and background check for. But I'll also admit that I don't know enough to be claiming BS, either.)

So, yes, this bill would appear to have an effect. (Whether it's needed, I suspect, depends on your opinion of whether it's desirable.)

[Beans]

NAFTA hasn't hurt. Free trade is good.

NAFTA is anything but a free trade agreement. Certain terms within the agreement actually make fleeing the U.S. much more attractive for businesses. Look it up. NAFTA was great for Canada and Mexico. The U.S....not so much.

There is really no such thing as free trade. It just doesn't exist. Just because they put "free trade" in the title, does not mean it is so. There is no such thing as truth in advertising these days. Sad, but true.

[elkabong82]

And, um, if they're UNDOCUMENTED (your side's word, not ours) how do you PROVE all that? Funny. Anytime the state or federal government wants proof of something from me, it requires, what is it? Oh yeah. Documents.

School records. You have to produce eviden of a high school degree to go to college, and at least some HS credits or GED equivalent for military. To get to high school you need middle school documents, before that elementary. If they want citizenship thru service or college, they legitimately will have to have been here, kind of hard to fake that amount of documentation.

[JMS]

BS. The military will not "get you documentation". You are pretty persistent in making this incorrect claim.

It doesn't seem to be policy. Just a not uncommon practice. See post #26

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 08:37 AM ----------

NAFTA is anything but a free trade agreement. Certain terms within the agreement actually make fleeing the U.S. much more attractive for businesses. Look it up. NAFTA was great for Canada and Mexico. The U.S....not so much.

Business flees to Mexico from the United States because all other things being equal, ( access to our market) Mexico has cheaper labor and it's much more difficult for that labor to organize and effect pro labor changes upon that business.

It's true Nafta has resulted in many businesses leaving the US. It's also true that those businesses were leaving anyway. IT's to the United States advantage that those fleeing jobs go to Mexico or Canda rather than Asia. Because frankly Mexicans and Canadians buy more goods from the US than Asian countries do..

It's not like NAFTA killed the US textile industry. That industry was going anyway. Nafta just shifted those jobs into Mexico rather than philipines, Indonesia, or China.

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of NAFTA. What I'm saying is as far as our open trade policy goes, NAFTA is a lower priority than trade with other countries like China, Japan, S. Korea, and Germany.

There is really no such thing as free trade. It just doesn't exist. Just because they put "free trade" in the title, does not mean it is so. There is no such thing as truth in advertising these days. Sad, but true.

I agree with that. How can it be free trade when we are the only country on earth which does it. Everybody else in the world pursues balanced trade, or a trade policy based upon exports. Nobody runs these massive one sided trade deficits. It's not trade when they send the goods over here and mostly what we send over their is cash.

[GSF]

I think the Dream Act is a great idea, though there do seem to be some loopholes and grey areas in how it is written. Also, I think they might have a tough time getting it passed into law. I was watching the house debate this on cspan the other night and the reps were really slamming it.

[JMS]

I think the Dream Act is a great idea, though there do seem to be some loopholes and grey areas in how it is written. Also, I think they might have a tough time getting it passed into law. I was watching the house debate this on cspan the other night and the reps were really slamming it.

I think there is a grass roots insurgency inside the GOP which wants to get practical on illegal imigration. I don't think that insurgency represents the leaders of the party or the republican platform...

The Dream Act will pass, not because it's good policy, but simple because both parties want to knock each other out of the way in order to prove to hispanics they are on their side. Hispanics are the largest minority in the country and have facits from both GOP and Dem philosophies important to them. Both parties would love nothing better than to lock the growing hispanic population into a solid voting block on their side of the political devide.

As Mormons, Blacks and Jews are solid voting blocks. Hispanics easilly could be the most important voting block in the future United States. Might already be.

That's why neither party has been interested in passing any immigration reform which excludes or goes beyond amnesty. It's why we will never secure our boarder with Mexico. It's why our countries are destined to grow closer and closer together economically, politically, and culturally until neither of us can do without the other, resulting in some sort of union.

[adam@section118]

I'm surprised (and impressed) to see you post this.

I have no problem with the military, but I do not agree with including college students.