Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans set to support 9/11 bill Updated2x (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  all right, one last point. (0+ / 0-)

    why 35?  because these are the people NOT covered by reagan's last amnesty.  kids who were brought here AFTER the 1986 amnesty and the ones given a chance for eligibility for citizenship IF they meet certain requirements.

    it is worth noting that for four years after the reagan amnesty, those children brought here as infants will not quality.

    you asked WHY the age was set at 35.  

    do the math.

    2010 - 1986 = 24 years - add to that the 12 year old age limit and you have kids maxing out of eligibility at the 36th year.  why is this significant?  reagan's amnesty was in 1986 - this law covers the children brought here after that amnesty was enacted.

    this bill does NOT apply to the parents.  

    perhaps if you took a look at what the DREAM act will accomplish, you will change your opinion, as it appears from your comments that you have not done so.

    here is the heart of the bill for your edification:

    Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.

    and here is a link to a full explanation of what DREAM does and how...
    young people are not being handed anything for free - there is a price to pay... and a rigorous one.

    it helps to have fact to back up opinions instead of assuming what is being done.  i think after you read this and consider why the time frame is where it is, then it will make better sense to you.

    MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

    by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 06:53:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nobody is saying deport them... (0+ / 0-)

      unless they are convicted of a crime...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:28:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  without legal status, that is what they face. (0+ / 0-)

        deportation.  to a nation to which they have no connection.

        did you not read the article on the student in california who spend weeks locked in an ice detention facility awaiting deportation to a country he has never known?

        what do you THINK will happen to these kids?  this is a very serious problem and the ones facing the harshest punishment are those who were the innocents.

        they can not get student loans, they are not admitted to universities in some states - they are a group without status, no papers, no ability to live their lives except in fear of being sent to a world that is truly alien: the nation of their parents.

        look beyond the statistics and start looking at the faces of these kids and young adults.

        on the senate floor, the pictures of 3.9 and 4.0 students who cannot get into college or get student loans, cannot serve in the military, are non-citizens and in limbo due to their parents' decision when they were children - these are the ones you want to punish?

        on the floor of the senate i listened to the most sickening arguments comparing these outstanding youth to the illegal drug runners crossing the borders.  using these kids as political fodder is unconscionable.  we are a better nation than that - or we should be.

        MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

        by edrie on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 07:52:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right.... (0+ / 0-)

          and you act as if I don't care just because I think it is reasonable to debate the age limits and whether the program should be extended to those who have lesser felonies on their record...some people just have no sense of allowing for reasonable debate and are just plain emotional about public policy...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:45:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i don't think you are a bad person at all... (0+ / 0-)

            i think you are looking at ways to solve a difficult situation through more abstract thought.  theoretically, you are correct to ask - why the age group selected.

            this isn't just emotional for me, it is also practical.  how does a government correct a bad situation and start clean?  by starting "clean"!

            to create a system that gives a ten year window in which all those here could be deported or denied schooling, military service, etc., would be horrifc - how does one keep track and what about the child that misses the cutoff by one day?

            starting from the reagan amnesty and moving forward sends a powerful message that THIS cutoff will be at the age of emancipation for 16yr olds - and they need to resolve this prior to adulthood.

            there are still means to apply for amnesty case by case, but the grouping of a select range of young people now facing non-person status is one way to untangle the disastrous policies that have been uninforced and un-acted upon since 1986.  it gives us a chance to design real immigration reform while not creating a distraction over kids (AND we get to keep the brightest minds and good kids in the process!

            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:25:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Assuming you are correct in this assertion... (0+ / 0-)

              then I presume a debate for an ammendment making the age 26 instead would have failed or maybe would have passed then another incremental bill could have been brought up separately for the people left out...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:51:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  keeping the age at 26 would have brought up (0+ / 0-)

                the issue of those not covered by the gap.  oh, i was in error earlier.  the cut off age is 15, not 12.

                there is still a year gap that isn't covered according to my dyslexic math skills.

                MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:31:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  And if you had reduced the age... (0+ / 0-)

          to 25 the person in your horrific story would have been covered in the legislation...this might have gained enough Republican votes to pass...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:46:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that wouldn't cover the children brought in (0+ / 0-)

            after the last amnesty - that is the reason for this age delineation.  it really isn't arbitrary at all - it just hasn't been correctly explained.

            as a matter of fact, until YOU asked the question, i had not questioned why that age, either... and with some digging, i found the correlation.

            that is the problem with legislation not being fully covered in the media - we don't have all the facts and unless we spend time digging, we miss salient points.

            MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

            by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:21:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not every piece of legislation... (0+ / 0-)

              has to be perfect...to say the age has to cover since the last amnesty is a laudable goal but IMHO should not stop a negotiation to create a compromise that passes..

              Again letting the perfect be the enemy of the good or helping at least some of the people caught up in this horrible situation...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:49:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  my take is that it didn't matter WHAT the (0+ / 0-)

                age of the children would be - the bill was destined to fail due to the staunch anti-immigration (translate mexican prejudice) going on right now around the nation.

                listening to the republicans equate honor students with the drug runners and coyotes had no basis in reality for what this act would be doing.  

                instead, the republicans resorted to non-stop immigrant bashing instead of helping find a solution to a very unfair situation that impacts children who had no say in coming here.

                this is part of the republican strategy to combat all attempts at immigration reform.

                MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:34:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes I understand... (0+ / 0-)

                  that every legilsative defeat must be because they wanted any version of the law defeated and not that they wanted some reasonable changes...NOT

                  Obama - Change I still believe in

                  by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:54:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  unfortunately, with this congress (0+ / 0-)

                    that is exactly what is stated by the gop leadership.

                    MOVE'EM UP! ROLL'EM OUT... MOVE'EM UP RAWHIDE!!! meeeoooow! mrraaarrr!! meeeOOOOOW!

                    by edrie on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:32:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I guess we will never know... (0+ / 0-)

                      since no ammendments were offered to be voted on nor were alternative bills allowed on the floor...

                      Obama - Change I still believe in

                      by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 06:43:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site