Kate O'Beirne alerts us that the Comprehensive Amnesty plan that was proposed in the spring, and shot down after Congress heard from we the people, is going to be repackaged ;and reintroduced as riders to legislation in a piecemeal basis .


Determined amnesty advocates who lost the fight for “comprehensive” immigration reform three months ago are now attempting to grant illegal aliens “amnesty on the installment plan.” Illegal aliens who entered the U.S. before age 16 and who have lived here illegally for five consecutive years will be the first to qualify under a bill the Senate is expected to vote on this week. Senator Durbin (D. Ill.) will offer his Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act as an amendment to the defense-authorization bill. Later in the month, senators will attempt to extend amnesty to agricultural workers.

Under the DREAM Act, applicants for amnesty who claim to be enrolled in a community college, technical school, or university will receive immediate “conditional” legal status. Sound familiar? The Migration Policy Institute estimates that about 1.3 million illegal aliens will be eligible for the amnesty. Because the act’s provisions are retroactive, additional illegal aliens will also qualify. Along with illegal aliens who have graduated from high school or completed a G.E.D. any illegal alien, regardless of age, who initially came here illegally before age 16 and meets the education provisions qualifies for a green card and eventual citizenship. As green-card holders, they can all sponsor their illegal alien parents for green cards. To accommodate DREAM Act aliens and their parents, numerical limits on green cards are lifted.

The DREAM Act also makes illegal aliens, present and future, eligible for discounted, in-state tuition rates by repealing the federal law that prohibits such a benefit for illegal aliens, unless it is also extended to citizens and lawful residents. Unlike legal foreign students, illegal aliens will also qualify for federal financial assistance.

The DREAM Act enjoys bipartisan support. It’s backed by Senators Clinton, Obama, and Kennedy and its Republican co-sponsors include Senators Hagel, Lugar, Crapo, and Craig. Senator McCain supports the bill even though last November over 70 percent of Arizona voters opposed a proposition that would have qualified illegal aliens for in-state tuition.

“Comprehensive” immigration reform included both beefed-up enforcement measures and amnesty for illegal aliens. The reform failed because public support for the former was overwhelmed by public opposition to the latter. “Comprehensive” reform may be dead, but amnesty is very much alive. Kate O'Beirne on Immigration on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhiMWMxMThjYjMyYmJjN2NmYWNiMzExN2M2YjkzNWU=)

So ;if Durbin gets away with this ,then any Senator who votes against the Defense Authorization Act because of this provision can be accused of denying the troops the funds needed to support them. The answer if you are opposed to this is to call as many Senators as possible and keep this rider off the bill. If this ever gets to the President's desk you know he will sign it.

The following Senators have made a firm commitment to vote NO on SA 2237, the DREAM Act amnesty amendment :

Alabama: Sessions
Arizona: Kyl
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning
Louisiana: Vitter
North Carolina: Burr
Oklahoma: Inhofe
Tennesee: Corker

The following senators have not made a firm commitment to vote NO on SA 2237 (all phone numbers in the 202 area code):


Alabama: Shelby – 224-5744
Alaska: Murkowski – 224-6665; Stevens 224-3004
Arizona: McCain 224-2235
Arkansas: Lincoln 224-4843; Pryor 224-2353
California: Boxer 224-3553; Feinstein 224-3841
Colorado: Allard 224-5941; Salazar 224-5852
Connecticut: Dodd 224-2823; Lieberman 224-4041
Delaware: Biden 224-5042; Carper 224-2441
Florida: Martinez 224-3041; Nelson (Bill) 224-5274
Hawaii: Akaka 224-6361; Inouye 224-3934
Idaho: Craig 224-2752; Crapo 224-6142
Illinois: Durbin 224-2152; Obama 224-2854
Indiana: Bayh 224-5623; Lugar 224-4814
Iowa: Grassley 224-3744; Harkin 224-3254
Kansas: Brownback 224-6521
Kentucky: McConnell 224-2541
Louisiana: Landrieu 224-5824
Maine: Collins 224-2523; Snowe 224-5344
Maryland: Cardin 224-4524; Mikulski 224-4654
Massachusetts: Kennedy 224-4543; Kerry 224-2742
Michigan: Levin 224-6221; Stabenow 224-4822
Minnesota: Coleman 224-5641; Klobuchar 224-3244
Mississippi: Cochran 224-5041; Lott 224-6253
Missouri: Bond 224-5721; McCaskill 224-6154
Montana: Baucus 224-2651; Tester 224-2644
Nebraska: Hagel 224-4224; Nelson (Ben) 224-6551
Nevada: Ensign 224-6244; Reid 224-3542
New Hampshire: Gregg 224-3324; Sununu 224-2841
New Jersey: Lautenberg 224-3224; Menendez 224-4744
New Mexico: Bingaman 224-5521; Domenici 224-6621
New York: Clinton 224-4451; Schumer 224-6542
North Carolina: Dole 224-6342
North Dakota: Conrad 224-2043; Dorgan 2551
Ohio: Brown 224-2315; Voinovich 224-3353
Oklahoma: Coburn 224-5754
Oregon: Smith 224-3753; Wyden 224-5244
Pennsylvania: Casey 224-6324; Specter 224-4254
Rhode Island: Reed 224-4642; Whitehouse 224-2921
South Carolina: DeMint 224-6121; Graham 224-5972
South Dakota: Johnson 224-5842; Thune 224-2321
Tennessee: Alexander 224-4944
Texas: Cornyn 224-2934; Hutchison 224-5922
Utah: Bennett 224-5444; Hatch 224-5251
Vermont: Leahy 224-4242; Sanders 224-5141
Virginia: Warner 224-2023; Webb 224-4024
Washington: Cantwell 224-3441; Murray 224-2621
West Virginia: Byrd 224-3954; Rockefeller 224-6472
Wisconsin: Feingold 224-5323; Kohl 224-5653
Wyoming: Enzi 224-3424; Barrasso 224-6441

Tom

I think that is a fine example of why it is so difficult to judge a politicians position on an issue by their voting record alone.

Hello tom:

"Amnesty is Durbin's Dream". It's my dream too. It's the RIGHT dream.

excon

excon

Maybe it is or isn't the " right dream " . That has been debated here before. Certainly if it was the right dream then the bill should stand on it's own without this sneaky back door way of getting it passed;especially given the fact that a "comprehensive bill " was debated and rejected in June.

DC

I fully agree with you on your point about voting records. Even worse is we have Senators like McCain and Lindsey Graham who have been walking around all summer and proclaiming to anyone who would listen that they heard the people and learned their lesson. My guess is the lesson they learned is that they cannot be upfront with the American people but instead can accomplish their goals through subterfuge.

excon

Maybe it is or isn't the " right dream " . That has been debated here before. Certainly if it was the right dream then the bill should stand on it's own without this sneaky back door way of getting it passed;especially given the fact that a "comprehensive bill " was debated and rejected in June.

DC

I fully agree with you on your point about voting records. Even worse is we have Senators like McCain and Lindsey Graham who have been walking around all summer and proclaiming to anyone who would listen that they heard the people and learned their lesson. My guess is the lesson they learned is that they cannot be upfront with the American people but instead can accomplish their goals through subterfuge.
A slick move that allows a way out for a negative vote either way... it will probably work too.:)

the bill should stand on it's own Hello again, tom:

I agree, it should. And, if the Democratic party ever again recognizes its roots, it would. But, the Democrats are pretty much moderate Republicans these days, doncha think?

excon

Tom-

You always come up with the most interesting posts. Thank you. I will be very disappointed if anyone receives amnesty after what I went through going the legal route with part of my family. I wonder if the government would be willing to make refunds to those of us who paid? To my reasoning the government can't go half way on this immigration issue. That will not repair future issues. We either have to (1)accommodate our neighbors to the south in an economic joined effort no matter their age or (2)seal those borders permanently and crack down here in the States like never before. I suggest the first option and make the best of it. We have too much history in the Southwest and peoples that are intertwined.



Bobby

Bobby , I think both 1and 2 are needed with 1 being a regional economic development plan with our neighbors to the south . The pro-amnesty crowd is fond of saying that family values doesn't end at the Rio Grande . True... but the United States does. This is about sovereignty and about fairness as you illustrated. If we need 20 million immigrants to "blow leaves " ,then by all means they should be welcomed .But; they should stand on line and be properly processed like every other legal immigrant .

Hello again:

History tells me that if a program isn't working, it's going to NOT work twice as much when we "crack down" on it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Some might argue it was never in effect in the first place. But knowing the history I don't think building fences would be sufficient alone, although it may be start.


Bobby

"We can't keep drugs out of prison, Bobby. That tells me a fence isn't gonna work."

I agree. But my objective wasn't addressing a drug issue in and of itself. I don't think everyone that comes across our borders illegally is doing drugs or dealing them for that matter. I'm speaking to the fact of being in the US legally or illegally.


Bobby

excon ; I have never seen a serious effort either at border enforcement or making employers accountable so I do not know it has failed.

Bobby ;no building fences isn't 100 % proof but it would stem the flow. The bill above guarantees even more of a wave into the country because it has provisions for family sponsorships .People like you who have played by the rules will stand no chance.

Hello again, Bobby:

I didn't mean that people coming over the border were carrying drugs. Most of 'em, of course, aren't. I was just pointing out, that prisons with the BEST security in the world, doesn't stop what they are aiming to stop. So, I don't think a fence will stop much.

excon

Hello again:

History tells me that if a program isn't working, it's gonna NOT work twice as much when we "crack down" on it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

I tend to agree with you. The Amnesty granted to the Marielettos was a total disaster. The Amnesty of the 1980s was another disaster. Trying it again with a "bigger, better amnesty bill" will be twice the disaster of the other two amnesties.

On the other hand, if we try something that we haven't ever tried before, ei: actually enforcing immigration laws and border control, we might be surprised at how effective this untried method truly is.

Thanks for proving our point.

Elliot

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html)excon (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html) agrees: We can't keep drugs out of prison, Bobby. That tells me a fence isn't gonna work.
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html)

In the same vain, we can't track the 11 million illegal immigrants we have now, including the ones we actually have records on. How in the heck do you expect us to be able to track them once we legalize them, much less the tens of millions more that will come here as a result of the Amnesty Bill? How do we confirm their identities, give them IDs, track their legallity, and do all the things that the Amnesty Bill calls for, if we can't even tell who and where they are right now? That tells me that the Amnesty Bill can't work.

Again, you are just making my point for me.

Elliot

How in the heck do you expect us to be able to track them once we legalize them, much less the tens of millions more that will come here as a result of the Amnesty Bill? Hello again, El:

I don't know. How do we track Jews?

This is more of your wrong headed right wing thinking. Once we legalize 'em, we DON'T track 'em. At least in the country I USED to live in, we didn't.

This is STILL a free nation. No? It wouldn't be, of course, if we started "tracking" people, which is what you righty's want.

excon

Excon,

Do you really think it is wrong to know who is coming into our country before granting them legal status? I certainly don't.

Do you have a habbit of letting complete strangers into your home to take your food, your money, using you spare bedroom as their own, etc? I sure don't. So yes, when someone knocks on my door, I usually ask "Who's there"? Before leting the person in. And if the person is a stranger, I don't let them wander around my house unwatched. You don't consider that sort of tracking appropriate?

And yet, ICE has proven its inability to do exactly that. They can't ask "Who's there" with any authority or rely on any answer they are getting. They can't track these strangers once they get in the door. And that is supposed to be their job.

So again, if they can't do that job now, when they have "only" 11 million strangers to ask "Who's there", how are they going to do that job for another 20 million once an amnesty bill is passed?

Elliot

Hello again, Bobby:

I didn't mean that people coming over the border were carrying drugs. Most of 'em, of course, aren't. I was just pointing out, that prisons with the BEST security in the world, doesn't stop what they are aiming to stop. So, I don't think a fence will stop much.

excon
Prison's are chronically underbudgeted and understaffed. Just like our border. Not enough of the right things have been done.

If at this point we show them there will be amnesty, the rush on the border will look like lemmings going over a cliff. Stem the flow.

Excon,

Do you really think it is wrong to know who is coming into our country before granting them legal status? I certainly don't.

Do you have a habbit of letting complete strangers into your home to take your food, your money, using you spare bedroom as their own, etc? I sure don't. So yes, when someone knocks on my door, I usually ask "Who's there"? before leting the person in. And if the person is a stranger, I don't let them wander around my house unwatched. You don't consider that sort of tracking appropriate?

And yet, ICE has proven its inability to do exactly that. They can't ask "Who's there" with any authority or rely on any answer they are getting. They can't track these strangers once they get in the door. And that is supposed to be their job.

So again, if they can't do that job now, when they have "only" 11 million strangers to ask "Who's there", how are they going to do that job for another 20 million once an amnesty bill is passed?

Elliot
WHOOOOOOOOO... :eek: .what a gigantic straw-man you have thrown in here.

They only have access to public property. If they commit crimes they will be tracked, just as excon can attest to.

WHOOOOOOOOO... :eek: .what a gigantic straw-man you have thrown in here.
Bull!


They only have access to public property. If they commit crimes they will be tracked, just as excon can attest to.
And bull! To think they only have access to public property is dellusional. Their version of public is the front of my property! I have no problem running them off but within a week or two, others show up. And not just ill-imms, any homeless and useless vagabond.

Bull!


And bull!! To think they only have access to public property is dellusional. Their version of public is the front of my property! I have no problem running them off but within a week or two, others show up. And not just ill-imms, any homeless and useless vagabond.
I suppose there is always some ideal for which people will set aside logic.

WHOOOOOOOOO...:eek: .what a gigantic straw-man you have thrown in here.

They only have access to public property. If they commit crimes they will be tracked, just as excon can attest to.

This whole country is "my house". Yours too, if you are a citizen. And if you are foolish enough to let perfect strangers into your house (even the "public areas" like the living room and kitchen) without knowing who they are and what their intentions are, you deserve what you get. I prefer to inquire as to identity and intentions of those entering my house.

And it is the "private vs. public property" argument that is a straw man. It doesn't matter whether the property they have access to is private or public. Either way, it is tresspassing since they have no right to that "public property", which is the common property of tax-paying citizens any more than they have the right to enter your "private property". A difference without a distinction for the purposes of the illegal immigration argument.

Elliot

Do you really think it is wrong to know who is coming into our country before granting them legal status? I certainly don't.Hello again, El:

No, I don't either. If what you meant by "tracking" them was you just want them to present their papers at the border, then I don't disagree.

But, mee theenks you were talking more about wanting to know where they are WHILE they're here. I mean, what if they steal something and we're not watching?

excon

This whole country is "my house". Yours too, if you are a citizen. And if you are foolish enough to let perfect strangers into your house (even the "public areas" like the living room and kitchen) without knowing who they are and what their intentions are, you deserve what you get. I prefer to inquire as to identity and intentions of those entering my house.

And it is the "private vs. public property" argument that is a straw man. It doesn't matter whether the property they have access to is private or public. Either way, it is tresspassing since they have no right to that "public property", which is the common property of tax-paying citizens any more than they have the right to enter your "private property". A difference without a distinction for the purposes of the illegal immigration argument.

Elliot
Another fallacy... when will it end. The fact of the matter, and that is what counts, facts... is that it is “our house,” to use your analogy, not “your house.” I prefer to assume “good intentions,” rather than assume a person with bad intentions is going to be truthful... what folly! There is a factual distinction for you.:rolleyes:

Hello... did I somehow say illegal immigrants had a right to public property and not hear it... or are you putting words in my mouth?:confused:

Tom

I agree 100% that immigration laws should be enforced, but the subject is, what to do about the ones who have been here for a long period.

I suppose there is always some ideal for which people will set aside logic.
I don't understand... what logic is set aside here?
If they trespass and were to be injured, who's liable?

Tom

I agree 100% that immigration laws should be enforced, but the subject is, what to do about the ones who have been here for a long period of time.
Pack them out! They got here illegaly by breaking laws of this coutry. Many stole identities and SSN's (read *Felony*) and steal services under false ID's, educational and health care to name but two!

Pack them out! They got here illegaly by breaking laws of this coutry. Many stole identities and SSN's (read *Felony*) and steal services under false ID's, educational and health care to name but two!
Have you really given the matter any logical thought?

First, the economy would collapse if all the illegal workers were deported.

Next, the government has its hands full tracking and deporting immigrants that are considered a risk... In all, deportations of illegal immigrants from Asian and African countries have surged by nearly 27 percent. The number of Pakistani, Jordanians, Lebanese and Moroccans deported has doubled, the statistics show; the number of Egyptians deported has nearly tripled.

Have you really given the matter any logical thought?

First, the economy would collapse if all the illegal workers were deported.

Next, the government has its hands full tracking and deporting immigrants that are considered a risk...In all, deportations of illegal immigrants from Asian and African countries have surged by nearly 27 percent. The number of Pakistani, Jordanians, Lebanese and Moroccans deported has doubled, the statistics show; the number of Egyptians deported has nearly tripled.

I'm not talking about vegetable pickers only. I'm certain they fulfill a role. If they didn't do the job, certainly there would be adjustments and the farmers would simply relocate on the other side of the border. I'm not sure why they don't now! Think of the tax and insurance saving they would realize!

I don't think every foreign national in the workforce is illegal. It's my understanding many are considered migrant LEGAL workers, if were talking about just the farm help. It's very apparent they get a toe in the door and just stay beyond their invite.

But, if the numbers being deported is going up, that tells me something is finally being done about their presence here.

DC

I for one am in favor of a modified version of (for lack of better word) amnesty . However it is noteworthy that a blanket amnesty was tried in the 80's and the enforcement provisions that were in the package was completely ignored. I think that is partly to blame for the increase in illegal crossing since. Shouldn't we just be enforcing the current laws on the books ?You would think that as a matter of trust they would conclude that .

I know that with any comprehensive plan like the one proposed last Spring the enforcement provisions will be similarly ignored . That is why I as well as the many "loud folks " who pressured their representatives say that prove to us you can enforce existing laws ;and control the border... then we can talk about "amnesty" .

This "DREAM ACT " is the worse of both worlds . It tries to force the issue on amnesty and does nothing to address enforcements. In addition it is inherently unfair to folks like Bobby and the many other families who have taken the time and expense to go it the legal way . In fact it is a betrayal of them. Who's the sucka? It would be difficult to exaggerate all of the perverse incentives in the "DREAM ACT", which provide illegals with better treatment than citizens and noncitizens who obey the law.

I'm not talking about vegetable pickers only. I'm certain they fulfill a role. If they didn't do the job, certainly there would be adjustments and the farmers would simply relocate on the other side of the border. I'm not sure why they don't now! Think of the tax and insurance saving they would realize!

I don't think every foreign national in the workforce is illegal. It's my understanding many are considered migrant LEGAL workers, if were talking about just the farm help. It's very apparent they get a toe in the door and just stay beyond their invite.

But, if the numbers being deported is going up, that tells me something is finally being done about their presence here.
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, facing intense political pressure to toughen enforcement, removed 221,664 illegal immigrants from the country over the last year, an increase of more than 37,000 — about 20 percent — over the year before, according to the agency’s tally.”

It is my guess that more came in than was deported; unless something has changed recently.
As Deportation Pace Rises, Illegal Immigrants Dig In (http://hispanic7.com/as_deportation_pace_rises,_illegal_immigrants_dig_ in.htm)

Totally correct, Tom

We have all the laws we need on this. Funding is an issue that needs to be addressed and then we'll see the enforcement.

Enforcement is the next step. Too many times it's been back-burnered.

“Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, facing intense political pressure to toughen enforcement, removed 221,664 illegal immigrants from the country over the last year, an increase of more than 37,000 — about 20 percent — over the year before, according to the agency’s tally.”

It is my guess that more came in than was deported; unless something has changed recently.
As Deportation Pace Rises, Illegal Immigrants Dig In (http://hispanic7.com/as_deportation_pace_rises,_illegal_immigrants_dig_ in.htm)
You can spout all the stats you want.

That isn't going to change the FACT that by them being here against the laws of our country and theirs, puts them at risk of deportation!!

You want to live in Baja. What if it was illegal to be there but you wanted to stay? Would those not being sent home with you stay there and cry? Of course they would, but just because they have children here shouldn't be an excuse to lie and deceive. Knowingly putting your children through unnecessary emotion.

If my cat had kittens in the oven, I wouldn't acalll them bisquits...

Now, either I didn't explain it right, or you just refuse to believe.

You can spout all the stats you want.

That isn't going to change the FACT that by them being here against the laws of our country and theirs, puts them at risk of deportation!!!

You want to live in Baja. What if it was illegal to be there but you wanted to stay? Would those not being sent home with you stay there and cry? Of course they would, but just because they have children here shouldn't be an excuse to lie and deceive. Knowingly putting your children through unnecessary emotion.

If my cat had kittens in the oven, I wouldn't acalll them bisquits...

Now, either I didn't explain it right, or you just refuse to believe.
I really don't know what you are going on about using such terms as, SPOUT. I did not SPOUT anything; the truth of the matter is that I did not bring-up the subject of family or morals. I simply was pointing out that the government is deporting illegals, and increasingly so. The other point was that more, I believe, are coming in than going out.
You would do well not to make assumptions and read what I write.

You would do well not to make assumptions and read what I write.
Why? What are you going to do? Post more articles about how mommy got sent back to Honduras? Or did you actually read that article? The whole thing is just too much of a tear jerker for me...

Why? What are you gonna do? Post more articles about how mommy got sent back to Honduras? Or did you actually read that article? The whole thing is just too much of a tear jerker for me...
Had the part you refer to been my point I would have posted that part, and no, I have not read the article; as I said, I posted the part that interested me.

Tom

I agree 100% that immigration laws should be enforced, but the subject is, what to do about the ones who have been here for a long period of time.


We don't do this :


The DREAM Act also makes illegal aliens, present and future, eligible for discounted, in-state tuition rates by repealing the federal law that prohibits such a benefit for illegal aliens, unless it is also extended to citizens and lawful residents. Unlike legal foreign students, illegal aliens will also qualify for federal financial assistance




So legal foreign students, are penalized because they want to add to the nations braintrust,

Meanwhile illlegal aliens, some of whom may not have thought about furthering their education get another incentive, at taxpayor expense.




Grace and Peace

we don't do this :


The DREAM Act also makes illegal aliens, present and future, eligible for discounted, in-state tuition rates by repealing the federal law that prohibits such a benefit for illegal aliens, unless it is also extended to citizens and lawful residents. Unlike legal foreign students, illegal aliens will also qualify for federal financial assistance

so legal foreign students, are penalized because they want to add to the nations braintrust,

meanwhile illlegal aliens, some of whom may not have thought about furthering their education get another incentive, at taxpayor expense.

Grace and Peace
I am completely against the DREAM Act being attached to any other Bill; however I’m not so sure the Act is a bad idea. What the student would have to accomplish in order to get a green card is substantial and would provide a much better citizen than the ones typically coming out of many American households.

Wikipedia provides the basis for my position.

DREAM Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act#Current_Status)

Hello again, El:

No, I don't either. If what you meant by "tracking" them was you just want them to present their papers at the border, then I don't disagree.

But, mee theenks you were talking more about wanting to know where they are WHILE they're here. I mean, what if they steal something and we're not watchin?

excon


This is how the immigration process works, for example: anytime my family moves I have to notify the government since I'm a sponsor (Form: I-865). Yes, my family is tracked (Form: AR-11). That's part of the process for the privileges to be part of this wonderful country. Unless immigration laws are reformed in the future otherwise, that's just the way it should be; fair application procedures for everyone. I have to disagree with any Amnesty effort route and definitely with giving anyone lesser responsibilities to the immigration standards. My own family does not get that special treatment and neither should anyone else.


US Immigration Forms (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/subscription_forms.php)


Bobby

This is how the immigration process works, for example: anytime my family moves I have to notify the government since I'm a sponsor (Form: I-865). Yes, my family is tracked (Form: AR-11). That's part of the process for the privileges to be part of this wonderful country. Unless immigration laws are reformed in the future otherwise, that's just the way it should be; fair application procedures for everyone. I have to disagree with any Amnesty effort route and definitely with giving anyone lesser responsibilities to the immigration standards. My own family does not get that special treatment and neither should anyone else.


US Immigration Forms (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/subscription_forms.php)


Bobby
Does the completion of your temporary status include the following requirements.

During the six years of conditional status, the eligible immigrant would be required to either (1) graduate from a two-year community college, (2) complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or (3) serve two years in the U.S. military. After the six year period, an immigrant who meets at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident (green card) status.

Or did your immigration begin with a green card status?

Does his immigrant status include eligiblity for discounted, in-state tuition rates ? No ;many legal foreign students pay a premium at American universities for the privilege. ;members of the US Armed forces are not automatically eligilbe . Many of them have to establish residency in the State in question .That is often very difficult given the moblile nature of military service.

UPDATE

Harry Reid has not announced when a vote will occur on the DREAM Act amnesty amendment (now SA 2919),but no more votes will occur this week. Any potential vote on SA 2919 will not occur until next week.

It will take 41 NO votes to kill this amnesty. Currently, only 21 Senators are telling their constituents that they will vote NO on the amnesty.

Does the completion of your temporary status include the following requirements.

During the six years of conditional status, the eligible immigrant would be required to either (1) graduate from a two-year community college, (2) complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or (3) serve two years in the U.S. military. After the six year period, an immigrant who meets at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident (green card) status.

Or did your immigration begin with a green card status?


My family came over on a legal status with relative and working visas. However if my family had to re-qualify for any of such I'd have to continue paying for that out of my own pocket, not at tax payers expence. But then again we already have college education and military service. :)



Bobby

UPDATE

Harry Reid has decided to TEMPORARILY shelve the Dream Act until he can find another piece of legislation that it can be piggy-backed onto.


But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. pledged that senators would vote on the measure, which is strongly opposed by anti-illegal immigration groups, before the Senate finishes its work for the year in mid-November. "All who care about this matter should know that we will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here," he said.
Senate temporarily sidelines immigration legalization bill | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5168101.html)

Semper vigilo