dream act?? any news??
- Thread starter puceml72
- Start date
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
Currently there is a battle going on. Let's wait and watch the upcoming elections. If the pro amnesty side wins, illegals, and to a some extent, legal immigrants should directly benefit for few more years to come. Yes, you should get your Dream Act and amnesty bill passed. I think that is possible. Given the current atmosphere, personally I believe that eventually could trigger a reaction force enough to make a Tancredo or a Sen. King be elected years from now. However, we could be fine by then.
On the other hand, if most pro illegal alien incumbents get kicked out of the office and replaced by yes, Republicans who are immigration restrictionists, then the immigrat community in general will be in a bad shape in the short-term. Forget CIR and your Dream Act. That would be "just a dream". That is specially true for the illegal alien population.
I will leave up to you observe and decide which scenario you believe in. From my personal observation, I believe that the latter is the tendency. I may be wrong though. Let's just watch.
If you think that the US has been sympathetic to immigration in general so far, there is just one explanation:it is because so far it has absorbed all of us. The day that we start to come here at larger numbers, that will piss off Americans and then this will become a kind of Europe. No longer as good for immigrants. It is already happening, too bad many of us don't get it.
In 1986 there was a big amnesty here. There were others after that, including the ingenous 245(i) in 2001. The difference is that now is you have the public way more involved and fed up. You have the Internet. That is a very, very powerful democractic tool. It is not longer all that easy for lobbysts pay Congressmen and get away with it. People can attempt to introduce buzzwords to mask 'amnesty' etc, but people are way more informed these days.
Good luck to us all.
On the other hand, if most pro illegal alien incumbents get kicked out of the office and replaced by yes, Republicans who are immigration restrictionists, then the immigrat community in general will be in a bad shape in the short-term. Forget CIR and your Dream Act. That would be "just a dream". That is specially true for the illegal alien population.
I will leave up to you observe and decide which scenario you believe in. From my personal observation, I believe that the latter is the tendency. I may be wrong though. Let's just watch.
If you think that the US has been sympathetic to immigration in general so far, there is just one explanation:it is because so far it has absorbed all of us. The day that we start to come here at larger numbers, that will piss off Americans and then this will become a kind of Europe. No longer as good for immigrants. It is already happening, too bad many of us don't get it.
In 1986 there was a big amnesty here. There were others after that, including the ingenous 245(i) in 2001. The difference is that now is you have the public way more involved and fed up. You have the Internet. That is a very, very powerful democractic tool. It is not longer all that easy for lobbysts pay Congressmen and get away with it. People can attempt to introduce buzzwords to mask 'amnesty' etc, but people are way more informed these days.
Good luck to us all.
TheInquisitor said:
Last edited by a moderator:
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
From all reports I read so far, including an article from one of the authorities who executed the 1986 amnesty, they also had conditions extremely similar - if not the same - to the one proposed now. Just because one introduces few rules or conditions, that doesn't necessarily change the main nature of an action. The definition of amnesty is simply a pardon to someone who broke laws. It is the same idea that on could meet you in the park, tell you "good morning", offer you a $100 bill, offer to buy groceries for you. Then next thing the person pull a gun and rob you and take your wallet away. Well, any judge would rule that based on robbery, not a "involuntary donation of your wallet". Buzzwords just makes people using them look awful and stupid. Most important of all, buzzwords are very inefficient. I think they don't work well in America because people are more educated here. In my home country that has more chances to fool people.
You might want just relax and watch. Let's see what happens. No reason to worry now. As TheInquisitor said, who knows a "miracle" may happen.
Some few texts I grabbed from a quick search:
"Immigration Reform and Control Act Amnesty of 1986:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was enacted by Congress in response to the large and rapidly growing illegal alien population in the United States. The final bill was the result of a dramatic compromise between those who wanted to reduce illegal immigration into the United States and those who wanted to "wipe the slate clean" for those illegals already living here by granting them legal residence. As enacted, IRCA included a massive amnesty program for two main categories of illegal aliens:
1) those who could show that they had resided illegally in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 1982; and
2) those who had worked as agricultural workers for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986.
Amnesty, in English
The debate over amnesty ought to be waged in plain English.
By Mark Krikorian, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies.
September 4, 2001 12:20 p.m.
lfred Kahn, an economic adviser to President Carter, was instructed by the White House to avoid using the word "recession" for fear of its political implications. So instead, he impishly used "banana," as in "Between 1973 and 1975 we had the deepest banana that we had in 35 years."
The current administration is trying the same thing with its proposed illegal-alien amnesty, which presidents Bush and Fox will discuss this week during the latter's state visit. But this time the objective is to sweeten an obviously unpalatable policy.
If "amnesty" means anything in the context of immigration, it means granting permanent residence to illegal aliens, as we did for 2.7 million illegals in 1986 (a move billed as the first and last amnesty in American history). But last month, when the White House floated its plan to grant legal status to some or all of the 3 to 4 million Mexican illegal aliens in this country, it met a firestorm of GOP criticism. And ever since, there's been a mad rush to come up with alternative descriptions for what is plainly an amnesty.
"
and
"...
Amnesty, in English
The debate over amnesty ought to be waged in plain English.
By Mark Krikorian, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies.
September 4, 2001 12:20 p.m.
lfred Kahn, an economic adviser to President Carter, was instructed by the White House to avoid using the word "recession" for fear of its political implications. So instead, he impishly used "banana," as in "Between 1973 and 1975 we had the deepest banana that we had in 35 years."
The current administration is trying the same thing with its proposed illegal-alien amnesty, which presidents Bush and Fox will discuss this week during the latter's state visit. But this time the objective is to sweeten an obviously unpalatable policy.
If "amnesty" means anything in the context of immigration, it means granting permanent residence to illegal aliens, as we did for 2.7 million illegals in 1986 (a move billed as the first and last amnesty in American history). But last month, when the White House floated its plan to grant legal status to some or all of the 3 to 4 million Mexican illegal aliens in this country, it met a firestorm of GOP criticism. And ever since, there's been a mad rush to come up with alternative descriptions for what is plainly an amnesty.
..."
You might want just relax and watch. Let's see what happens. No reason to worry now. As TheInquisitor said, who knows a "miracle" may happen.
Some few texts I grabbed from a quick search:
"Immigration Reform and Control Act Amnesty of 1986:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was enacted by Congress in response to the large and rapidly growing illegal alien population in the United States. The final bill was the result of a dramatic compromise between those who wanted to reduce illegal immigration into the United States and those who wanted to "wipe the slate clean" for those illegals already living here by granting them legal residence. As enacted, IRCA included a massive amnesty program for two main categories of illegal aliens:
1) those who could show that they had resided illegally in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 1982; and
2) those who had worked as agricultural workers for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986.
Amnesty, in English
The debate over amnesty ought to be waged in plain English.
By Mark Krikorian, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies.
September 4, 2001 12:20 p.m.
lfred Kahn, an economic adviser to President Carter, was instructed by the White House to avoid using the word "recession" for fear of its political implications. So instead, he impishly used "banana," as in "Between 1973 and 1975 we had the deepest banana that we had in 35 years."
The current administration is trying the same thing with its proposed illegal-alien amnesty, which presidents Bush and Fox will discuss this week during the latter's state visit. But this time the objective is to sweeten an obviously unpalatable policy.
If "amnesty" means anything in the context of immigration, it means granting permanent residence to illegal aliens, as we did for 2.7 million illegals in 1986 (a move billed as the first and last amnesty in American history). But last month, when the White House floated its plan to grant legal status to some or all of the 3 to 4 million Mexican illegal aliens in this country, it met a firestorm of GOP criticism. And ever since, there's been a mad rush to come up with alternative descriptions for what is plainly an amnesty.
"
and
"...
Amnesty, in English
The debate over amnesty ought to be waged in plain English.
By Mark Krikorian, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies.
September 4, 2001 12:20 p.m.
lfred Kahn, an economic adviser to President Carter, was instructed by the White House to avoid using the word "recession" for fear of its political implications. So instead, he impishly used "banana," as in "Between 1973 and 1975 we had the deepest banana that we had in 35 years."
The current administration is trying the same thing with its proposed illegal-alien amnesty, which presidents Bush and Fox will discuss this week during the latter's state visit. But this time the objective is to sweeten an obviously unpalatable policy.
If "amnesty" means anything in the context of immigration, it means granting permanent residence to illegal aliens, as we did for 2.7 million illegals in 1986 (a move billed as the first and last amnesty in American history). But last month, when the White House floated its plan to grant legal status to some or all of the 3 to 4 million Mexican illegal aliens in this country, it met a firestorm of GOP criticism. And ever since, there's been a mad rush to come up with alternative descriptions for what is plainly an amnesty.
..."
puceml72 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
you must understand that a program where illegals would get legal status where after one year immigration comes and takes them away in the middle of the night like the kgb did in the old soviet union, would still be amnesty because people for one year would be legal. because amnesty by any other name is still amnesty. so one must take their oponion with a grain of salt. and so what if it is an amnesty? let's put everything on the table.
i still say there will be a deal. and keep an eye for july 1st when marie gonzales (a public face for DREAM) is set to be deported. and you guys do know that rep. king was a sponsor of the House's 2003 DREAM Act version? and so was dreir and shays.
i still say there will be a deal. and keep an eye for july 1st when marie gonzales (a public face for DREAM) is set to be deported. and you guys do know that rep. king was a sponsor of the House's 2003 DREAM Act version? and so was dreir and shays.
ok! I got the amnesty mean, but it still stupid because I been here since 2000
2 years illegal and then got a work permit and 2 years ago got married to a green card holder since 2 years I do not have any status,,, so because I try to legalise my self if I can use this word if amnesty comes I' wont be able to use it because I got a work permit so if somebody been illegal for 5 years will get everything but people like me will be punish to try to be legal?????
2 years illegal and then got a work permit and 2 years ago got married to a green card holder since 2 years I do not have any status,,, so because I try to legalise my self if I can use this word if amnesty comes I' wont be able to use it because I got a work permit so if somebody been illegal for 5 years will get everything but people like me will be punish to try to be legal?????
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
if you have no status, you are in. for the record, i am for all to get DREAM if they have been here for five years and came before the age of 16.
TheInquisitor said:
they said 5 years illegal, I been illegal then legal and no I have no status but I wasn't illegal fro 5 years???? that's why I think I'll not be in?? and it will be only 2 years now that I have no status???
they said 5 years illegal and then another thing 2to 5 years blabla....
I don't know??
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
you couuld have bene legal for the last ten eyars and still be in. if you become illegal today and DREAM becomes law tomorrow, you are in. so if you have no status, you are in.
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
>>>> Put pressure on employers and many things can be automated. Not everything can be automated, but a lot can. Personally I think those non-violent prisoners could be better used as well.-me- said:a few comments on this... rubbish.
decent wages == increased prices. I seriously doubt that Americans (especially retired ones) want to pay more for almost everything.
>>>> Part of the savings are not passed to consumers. At least from the hearing during the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the economists said the same. It is hard to find out exactly the figure for this, but it seems that many business owners are getting higher profits. That means that if you start paying a decent wage, prices may go higher, but not necessarily too high.
well, agreed.
No they are not critical for the economy of the U.S. However, increased prices are definitely not what American wants. They love cheap labor and cheap prices. Could you imagine a price of (e.g.) tomatoes, picked by a white American?
They reduce prices and do all dirty jobs for pennies.
>>>> As is now, people are already paying a very high price for the tomato. You pay $1/lb on the store as a downpayment, then you tway more in social services. It has been that way for a long time. Listen, a person from my wife's church, just got a medical procedure last week. That was not an emergency. The gentleman makes $8,000/month (and remember, he pays no taxes). He walked into the hospital saying that he has no money, just complained that it hurts a lot. Well, don't ask me how, but the hospital went ahead and performed the procedure. Later, they will send him the $75,000 bill, he said. He is simply going to the court and tell he has no money. Tell me how many tomatoes you can buy with $75,000. Examples like that are everywhere. The idea that the cheap labor/illegal alien business is a wonderful gain is just a myth. Very few are fooled by that.
Is he talking about those guys who took over control on the lands of Native Americans by guns and money? I seriously doubt that this way can be called "legal".
Really? Does this guy have any understanding of backlog, priority dates and visa bulletin? I guess not.
(from visa bulleting) 226,000 family visas + 140,000 EBs + 55,000 DVs = 421,000 visas anually.
Canada stamps 300,000 visas anually. I don't have statistics on AU and NZ, but I guess these three countries together issue more visas than US. However the population of these countries is less than US population.
So that is an obvious BS.
>>>> Canada stamps 300,000 visas, but take a look at how many leave the country after getting the visa stamped
BS. Latinos will vote for an "amnesty" guy no matter which party (s)he is from. White Americans don't understand a very simple thing. Latinos want to get their relatives/families legalized. They don't care which party will take a lead on this.
>>>> Some latinos disagree with you:
Hispanic American Coalition, You Don't Speak for Me!, Joins With House Leaders to Oppose Senate Amnesty Plan
Group Urges a 'Reverse Migration' Enforcement Strategy
WASHINGTON, May 12 /PRNewswire/ -- You Don't Speak for Me!, a new national coalition of American Hispanics that supports immigration enforcement, is joining with leaders in the House of Representatives who have sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist opposing legislation that would grant amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens. Members of the You Don't Speak for Me! coalition will be renewing their call for swift Senate action on an enforcement only bill at a Capitol Hill news conference on Wednesday, May 17 with leading members of the House and Senate
...:
Definitely it'll be the end for white Americans.
Something tells me that it might be the truth. At least a part of the truth.
again agreed. Breaking the law is definitely not a way to go.
And the First one in about a week. ;-)
... cheap prices and slaves (aka temporary alien workers) working for free. Americans want to get all possible benefits of being the leader country, but don't want to pay the price.
Nice. So we guys are nothing else than trash. Very nice.
Yeah. They want to take managerial positions and $XXX,XXX.00 salaries. Nobody wants to pick crop on the fields. ;-)
again, make a white American to pick crop. ;-)
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
marlon, when will you learn? and do you think we will let you even do that? we might not be strong enough to win, but we could tie. and since you actually think attrition will work, then you obviously don't know that the both the far-left and the far-right will destroy you. and the beauty of it is that they won't know that they are doing my dirty work.
puce, there are children of hb1 people that have been here like since the age of 14 and all. some when they turn 21 go out of status. if they turn 21 on tuesday (and lose staus) and DREAM becomes law on monday, they are out. DREAM becomes law on tuesday, they are in. i am in favor of getting DREAM to any individual that has been here for five years and came before the age of 16.
i still like DREAM's chances. cornyn and kyl both support DREAM with an age limit . kyl is really big on that. some say perhaps 30. but we will fight that. and cornyn wants to make sure people really do two years of school. he would rather have people that go to a four-year school get a bs/ba. and in march both cornyn and kyl said they would be for amnesty for high-skilled people. three of the most powerful house members when it comes to immigration have supported DREAM in the past and about half (if not more) of the republicans that will go on the conference cmte support DREAM. and Bush doesn't think we should punish children (on the record) and will sign DREAM if it gets to his desk (let it be known). and he already wants those who have been here for five years to get legal status.
the road is set. and with marie gonzales set to be deported on july 1st, the issue will be on the table. and it will be the last item to be taken off the table in any negotiations. and who knows, it might even becoem law via some other bill. so just hand in there. it will be hard, but it might happen this year.
puce, there are children of hb1 people that have been here like since the age of 14 and all. some when they turn 21 go out of status. if they turn 21 on tuesday (and lose staus) and DREAM becomes law on monday, they are out. DREAM becomes law on tuesday, they are in. i am in favor of getting DREAM to any individual that has been here for five years and came before the age of 16.
i still like DREAM's chances. cornyn and kyl both support DREAM with an age limit . kyl is really big on that. some say perhaps 30. but we will fight that. and cornyn wants to make sure people really do two years of school. he would rather have people that go to a four-year school get a bs/ba. and in march both cornyn and kyl said they would be for amnesty for high-skilled people. three of the most powerful house members when it comes to immigration have supported DREAM in the past and about half (if not more) of the republicans that will go on the conference cmte support DREAM. and Bush doesn't think we should punish children (on the record) and will sign DREAM if it gets to his desk (let it be known). and he already wants those who have been here for five years to get legal status.
the road is set. and with marie gonzales set to be deported on july 1st, the issue will be on the table. and it will be the last item to be taken off the table in any negotiations. and who knows, it might even becoem law via some other bill. so just hand in there. it will be hard, but it might happen this year.
TheInquisitor said:marlon, when will you learn? and do you think we will let you even do that? we might not be strong enough to win, but we could tie. and since you actually think attrition will work, then you obviously don't know that the both the far-left and the far-right will destroy you. and the beauty of it is that they won't know that they are doing my dirty work.
puce, there are children of hb1 people that have been here like since the age of 14 and all. some when they turn 21 go out of status. if they turn 21 on tuesday (and lose staus) and DREAM becomes law on monday, they are out. DREAM becomes law on tuesday, they are in. i am in favor of getting DREAM to any individual that has been here for five years and came before the age of 16.
i still like DREAM's chances. cornyn and kyl both support DREAM with an age limit . kyl is really big on that. some say perhaps 30. but we will fight that. and cornyn wants to make sure people really do two years of school. he would rather have people that go to a four-year school get a bs/ba. and in march both cornyn and kyl said they would be for amnesty for high-skilled people. three of the most powerful house members when it comes to immigration have supported DREAM in the past and about half (if not more) of the republicans that will go on the conference cmte support DREAM. and Bush doesn't think we should punish children (on the record) and will sign DREAM if it gets to his desk (let it be known). and he already wants those who have been here for five years to get legal status.
the road is set. and with marie gonzales set to be deported on july 1st, the issue will be on the table. and it will be the last item to be taken off the table in any negotiations. and who knows, it might even becoem law via some other bill. so just hand in there. it will be hard, but it might happen this year.
who's marie gonzales??? and why they want to deport her???
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
don't quote me on the figures, but she came like at the age of 5 and been here like for 12 years. her parents got caught in the late 90's if not mistaken. then a big deportation fight came about. last year on july 5th her parents were deported and she got to stay for one more year. unless they give another extension, is over her. so if she is deported, the outrage will be huge. and even if she gets another extension, we (or at least the powers that be behind close doors) will be hearing about her 24/7 very soon. and that will add pressure. and getting no bill is not a very good option either.
here is some info:
http://www.fairimmigration.org/youthcampaign/learnmore.php
here is some info:
http://www.fairimmigration.org/youthcampaign/learnmore.php
ok! thanks! well I spoke to so many people that are fedup with immigration it is all about the green color (money). it is ridiculus but we don't have power over that! so hopefully they will pass that bill in a positive way soon and they wont wait to long!
I don't know how long in 1986 when they declare amnesty it took by the time they say it and the time they were doing it???
I don't know how long in 1986 when they declare amnesty it took by the time they say it and the time they were doing it???
is it true that the congress send a letter to the president saying that they refuse the bill??? that's it over? that's somebody saw the news??? I read this on this website on the s-2611 bill somebody wrote that it didn't pass?????
I read what the letter is about but can somebody go and read it and tell me what they think?? in washingtontimes.com
I read what the letter is about but can somebody go and read it and tell me what they think?? in washingtontimes.com
Last edited by a moderator:
marlon2006 said:
They will be high enough to crack a budget of families with low income. Middle class families will be very uncomfortable when they start paying more for everyday purchases. What do you think they gonna say about this? I don't think they will love it.
marlon2006 said:
$75,000 treatment is not an emergency??? Pal, there can be two possible scenarios
1. the treatment didn't cost $75,000 and it' wasn't an emergency
2. the treatment did cost $75,000 and it wan an emergency.
Pick one and we'll discuss it, ok? I had dealt with ER and you know what? They are way too overpriced.
Disclaimer - I have medical insurance and I've seen how the insurance company cut the ER bill in half.
1. The author of the letter was talking about the overall immigration stream. He said an obvious lie.marlon2006 said:>>>> Canada stamps 300,000 visas, but take a look at how many leave the country after getting the visa stamped
2. less than 10%. I saw the statistics on cic.gc.ca somehow. Ask me why I was interested in that? I'm one of those 10% ;-) However nobody from Canadian immigrants, who I know, have left Canada yet. I'm sorta exception. ;-)
marlon2006 said:
Has anybody heard something about these guys action on May 17? I doubt it.
Let's just compare how many Latinos will vote for CIR and how many against, ok? ;-) I've seen anti-immigration meeting nearby my home. Man, there were about 50 white Americans. That's it. No Hispanics, no Asians. Make a conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
-me- said:
Last edited by a moderator:
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
TheInquisitor, the far left or right cannot destroy me. Where I am not welcome, I just leave. My home country is still my home country (provide it is not a hostile place). If they mess around with things here a little more, I am getting tired of all this. We shall go back and live our lives back home.
Personally I think that one cannot talk about stopping illegal immigration and at the same time you reward people who came here. Opposers are not dumb, they know that if you let the children stay, the children could apply for legalization of millions of parents by the age of 21. It is a loophole to grant amnesty not only to the children, but to the entire family. I know many senators are in favor of that one. Pres. Bush is known to pander to illegal aliens. No wonder why his job approval rates are so low.
If fairness is what is being discussed, how fair is the DREAM act to others who did not jump the fence to come here ? How about very poor children who stayed in a poor country and did not come here because they respected the laws of the US ? HOnestly, I feel badly for those. I think it is not right to argue that the DREAM act should be passed because of fairness. In my personal view, it has nothing to do with being fair.
In the worst case scenario, you have to see this from a positive side:these children already enjoyed good education, a "free ride" paid by taxpayers, they have learned English, etc. If they come back to their home countries, they should be way better off than most children who never came here anyway. A real solution to this, would be by letting the US put a request to the respective home countries in which these children came from and let the embassies create a special reintegration and repatration program to accomodate those children in their home countries. I am sorry, but if one is discussing ways to reduce illegal immigration, that would be a realistic approach.
Personally I think that one cannot talk about stopping illegal immigration and at the same time you reward people who came here. Opposers are not dumb, they know that if you let the children stay, the children could apply for legalization of millions of parents by the age of 21. It is a loophole to grant amnesty not only to the children, but to the entire family. I know many senators are in favor of that one. Pres. Bush is known to pander to illegal aliens. No wonder why his job approval rates are so low.
If fairness is what is being discussed, how fair is the DREAM act to others who did not jump the fence to come here ? How about very poor children who stayed in a poor country and did not come here because they respected the laws of the US ? HOnestly, I feel badly for those. I think it is not right to argue that the DREAM act should be passed because of fairness. In my personal view, it has nothing to do with being fair.
In the worst case scenario, you have to see this from a positive side:these children already enjoyed good education, a "free ride" paid by taxpayers, they have learned English, etc. If they come back to their home countries, they should be way better off than most children who never came here anyway. A real solution to this, would be by letting the US put a request to the respective home countries in which these children came from and let the embassies create a special reintegration and repatration program to accomodate those children in their home countries. I am sorry, but if one is discussing ways to reduce illegal immigration, that would be a realistic approach.
TheInquisitor said:marlon, when will you learn? and do you think we will let you even do that? we might not be strong enough to win, but we could tie. and since you actually think attrition will work, then you obviously don't know that the both the far-left and the far-right will destroy you. and the beauty of it is that they won't know that they are doing my dirty work.
puce, there are children of hb1 people that have been here like since the age of 14 and all. some when they turn 21 go out of status. if they turn 21 on tuesday (and lose staus) and DREAM becomes law on monday, they are out. DREAM becomes law on tuesday, they are in. i am in favor of getting DREAM to any individual that has been here for five years and came before the age of 16.
i still like DREAM's chances. cornyn and kyl both support DREAM with an age limit . kyl is really big on that. some say perhaps 30. but we will fight that. and cornyn wants to make sure people really do two years of school. he would rather have people that go to a four-year school get a bs/ba. and in march both cornyn and kyl said they would be for amnesty for high-skilled people. three of the most powerful house members when it comes to immigration have supported DREAM in the past and about half (if not more) of the republicans that will go on the conference cmte support DREAM. and Bush doesn't think we should punish children (on the record) and will sign DREAM if it gets to his desk (let it be known). and he already wants those who have been here for five years to get legal status.
the road is set. and with marie gonzales set to be deported on july 1st, the issue will be on the table. and it will be the last item to be taken off the table in any negotiations. and who knows, it might even becoem law via some other bill. so just hand in there. it will be hard, but it might happen this year.
Last edited by a moderator: