Monday, September 20, 2010

A Stupid Idea Graduates

The latest stealth amnesty maneuver comes from Harry Reid as he continues to push the DREAM Act. Among the idiotic tools of the Act would be granting citizenship to a couple million illegal aliens if they have two years of college education. I wouldn't allow native-born college graduates to vote without first giving them a literacy test, let alone grant citizenship to illegals based on college credits.

Reid is using a much-labored Democratic tactic to slip amnesty past the public. He's going to attach the DREAM Act to a defense authorization bill. Unlike the non-relationship of fighter planes and gay partner benefits, this ploy actually has a "national defense" element to it. At the same time we would grant citizenship to college indoctrinated illegals, we would also grant it to illegals who somehow manage to serve in the US military. The latter was a brilliant idea supported by the Bush administration.

The Democrats come to the table with violins and heart-rending stories of college-age illegals who, through no fault of their own, were brought into the US illegally as small children by their parents. Boo hoo. An illegal act doesn't become legal merely with the passage of time. Those who serve honorably in the US military at least have a somewhat logical and valid argument for a fast-track to citizenship on a case-by-case basis. But the leftocrats want blanket amnesty for all, regardless of the circumstances, and want to bring the illiterate college students along with them.

I can see how loyal service in the US military could be used as a national defense/national security reason for fast-tracking citizenship. But given the dreadful state of "higher education," I can't for the life of me find any reason to use a junior college diploma as an excuse for granting citizenship to illegals.

Forty years ago, the two-year programs at junior colleges were parodied as "high school with ashtrays." Well, the ashtrays are gone, and most high schools back then delivered better educations than most four-year colleges today. Now we are expected to believe that students, already here illegally, will make better citizens after getting left-wing indoctrination in the two year institutions of higher illiteracy.

Blue states are usually known for marching in lockstep with the federal government if the Democrats are in charge. Yet when a federal law was passed that prevented any state from granting benefits to foreigners and illegals that were greater than anyone else's, ten states discovered states rights. They offered special preferential educational treatment to illegals (my home states of Illinois and California among them). So not only will the DREAM Act provisions grant illegals citizenship, but will do so based on two years of college education during which they received benefits not available to local and native-born citizens.

So now the reward for being in the country illegally and receiving an education preferentially-subsidized by native-born taxpayers is quick, painless citizenship. That sounded like such a good idea that when the DREAM Act was first brought before the Senate, RINOs like Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and several moderate Republicans who should have known better crossed the aisle to support the no-borders no-sovereignty amnesty act. McCain ran against DREAM during his recent primary, then as sure as night follows day, last week he made another sharp left turn and vowed to get the Act passed after all.

A recent Quinnipiac poll showed how Americans feel about DREAM Act-type legislation. The poll asked a question that should have skewed the result toward amnesty because it posed a tough option against a very American-sounding option: "Do you think immigration reform should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?" Phrased that way, it sounds like the great American melting-pot versus hang 'em high law. And yet solid majorities supported stricter enforcement by large margins across both major parties and independents.

Reid and the Obamists need Hispanic votes desperately, so after suffering a very public defeat on DREAM, they are looking for a way to pass it without full and open debate on the issue of illegal immigration standing by itself. Declaring that Republicans are "holding up a vital defense bill for purely partisan reasons" is the preferred Democratic tactic for getting special interest legislation passed when the vast majority of Americans oppose the sneaky rider to the legitimate legislation.


Joel Farnham said...


Typical leftist ploy. Bastards.

Isn't there on the books a citizen system to fast-track people who join the military?

November is only 43 days away.

Tennessee Jed said...

Just great, Hawk . . just great. I leave for a few days, come back, and you start my week by pissing me off. I want to kick John McCain in the groin so hard I can hardly stand it.

Anonymous said...

Joel: The ability of illegals to gain all the benefits (and even some of the burdens) of actual citizens never ceases to amaze me. How are we supposed to keep al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists out of our military and our national security apparatus if we can't even determine the citizenship of military volunteers? I expect huge holes of logic and loyalty at our colleges and universities, but the military?!

There is a citizenship fast-track for non-citizen volunteers, but it's supposed to apply only to those legally in the US. Obviously, that has failed miserably.

Anonymous said...

Tennessee: Welcome back to Alice-in-Wonderland reality. Fantasyland at Disneyland makes more sense than the string of suicidal measures the Democrats keep sneaking past the American people. As for McCain, he should be singing the old song "foolish woman, you knew I was a snake before you brought me in."

Notawonk said...

today is "punch something monday" over at my site and well, this fits in perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Ah, Patti: Another reason I'll miss San Francisco. There I had nice soft drywall to punch. I'm getting badly-bruised knuckles here from the hardwood paneling, and the cats are too fast for me. LOL

LL said...

Foreigners who serve in the French Foreign Legion honorably for six years earn the right to French citizenship. It's worked for a couple hundred years. The US has had that policy for time to time in the past, but I think you had to serve honorably for 8 years. Perhaps we put them in the same category as legionnaires, pay them 1/2 as much and they have US officers. Let them slog it out in the hell holes and if they survive and serve, what's wrong with making them citizens? The FFL vets their recruits to keep out riff-raff like Al Qaeda and it works. If anyone is suspected as a fifth columnist, they go on trial and if it's found to be true, they're shot.

I'd favor that option. Men could earn their citizenship.

Now the rest of it is some sort of leftist wet dream.

AndrewPrice said...

I agree with LL, I think there used to be (could still exist) a program that let foreigners service in the military for some period of time. If they served honorably, they could become citizens. I don't object to that at all, because I would assume those people are responsible and have come here to be Americans.

The rest is garbage.

Anonymous said...

LL: I'm not sure we need to be even that draconian. I'd be happy with fast-tracking citizenship for legals who serve honorably in a war-zone for even two years and who can also pass a full-screen security check. Frankly, though, if their illegal arrival in the US was incidental to their subsequent service in the military, I might be looking at your more stringent standards. Even in the French Foreign Legion the purpose for their entry outside the French homeland into French territory had to be solely service in the Legion with French citizenship following only after that specific purpose.

Anonymous said...

Andrew: You are correct, as I mentioned to Joel. There are ways of accelerating citizenship for non-natives who serve honorably in the American armed services. But it is based on their having come to American legally in the first place. Current law makes no provision for illegals to sneak into the military, merely stay out of trouble, then get American citizenship. That's what Reid is proposing.

The other thing to keep in mind is that nobody is opposing granting citizenship, even to illegals who have served in the military, on a case by case basis. The objection is to Reid's blanket amnesty and citizenship for illegals who managed to sneak into the military or get a two-year college "education."

Joel Farnham said...


Off topic: I just checked RealClearPolitics and found that the munchkin, "Call Me Senator" Boxer, is up by 3%. It seems the PPP has a new poll that shows Boxer winning by 8%. Fortunately I went to Rasmussen and found that the rolling poll is 47 Fiorina 44 Boxer. The question I have, is that with all the problems that PPP has with it's polling, why does RCP use them?

Off topic over

Anonymous said...

Joel: PPP tends to use statistics based on registered voters and automated responses, where Rasmussen uses likely voters and accounts for very recent changes in voter attitudes.

Why RCP would want to cite a poll that is consistently less accurate than Rasmussen is a mystery to me. If they were trying to fight complacency by skewing the numbers in favor of the Democrat, I might think that's a good idea.

On the other hand, RCP/PPP shows generic Republicans ahead of generic Democrats by a little more than 4%. I think that may be low, too.

Tam said...

The senate is voting on the DREAM act tomorrow, and Michelle Malkin has a list of names and numbers of senators who are on the fence, and the hard-sells. I've been on the phone all morning telling them how dispicable this back-door amnesty piece of crap legislation is. I was a little more articulate than that on the phone.

Anonymous said...

Tam: Good for you! We need more people like you manning the phones voluntarily and without any need for an organized effort. I do it too, but I think they have an automatic "ignore this guy" filter when they hear my name. I'm on a list with Boxer and Feinstein, and it isn't the wish list. LOL

StanH said...

Zebras don’t change their stripes, and McCain is still a RINO. What a lying bastard. Thanks Arizona, and is a prime example of an “R” by the name of the candidate, has nothing to do with conservatism.

Anonymous said...

Stan: Or, as the great Al Gore once said: "A leopard can't change its stripes." I am amazed that Arizonans fell for his crap again. Even our moderate Republican Senatorial candidate Fiorina is more conservative on several major issues than McCain, and this is California, for God's sake.

Post a Comment