The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Throw the Bums Out!

Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007

Last summer we saw the American people rise up and put an end to the amnesty bill that was up before Congress. The overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats polled made it clear that most people did not want amnesty for illegal aliens. After that long battle, “our betters” in Washington D.C. have been trying to sneak amnesty back into various bills.

The latest attempt is with a bill called “The Dream Act”. This bill would allow an illegal alien, no matter how old, to claim without verification that they have been in the country since they were 16. If they signed up to go to college they would get a temporary immigration card and after two years that card is eligible to become permanent. The obvious problem is that someone could have walked across the border yesterday and today claim that they have been here since they were 16. The result would be more waves of people crossing our border illegally. This would also allow those same illegal aliens to receive subsidized in-state tuition rates.

According to Kris W. Kobach, Professor of Law at the University of Missouri, this amnesty works in four main ways:
There is no upper age limit. Any illegal alien can walk into a U.S. Customs and Immigration Ser­vices office and declare that he is eligible. For example, a 45 year old can claim that he illegally entered the United States 30 years ago at the age of 15.

  • There is no requirement that the alien prove that he entered the United States at the claimed time by providing particular documents. The DREAM Act’s Section 4(a) merely requires him to “demonstrate” that he is eligible—which in practice could mean simply making a sworn statement to that effect. Thus, it is an invitation for just about every illegal alien to fraudulently claim the amnesty.
  • The alien then has six years to adjust his status from a conditional green card holder to a non-conditional one. To do so, he need only complete two years of study at an institution of higher edu­cation. If the alien has already completed two years of study, he can convert to non-conditional status immediately (and use his green card as a platform to bring in family members). As an alternative to two years of study, he can enlist in the U.S. military and spend two years there. This provision allows Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to claim that the DREAM Act is somehow germane to a defense authorization bill.
  • An illegal alien who applies for the DREAM Act amnesty gets to count his years under “condi­tional” green card status toward the five years needed for citizenship. (Section 5(e)) On top of that, the illegal alien could claim “retroactive benefits” and start the clock running the day that the DREAM Act is enacted. (Section 6) In combi­nation, these two provisions put illegal aliens on a high-speed track to U.S. citizenship—moving from illegal alien to U.S. citizen in as little as five years. Lawfully present aliens, meanwhile, must follow a slower path to citizenship.
  • It would be absurdly easy for just about any ille­gal alien—even one who does not qualify for the amnesty—to evade the law. According to Section 4(f) of the DREAM Act, once an alien files an application—any application, no matter how ridiculous—the federal government is prohib­ited from deporting him. Moreover, with few exceptions, federal officers are prohibited from either using information from the application to deport the alien or sharing that information with another federal agency, under threat of up to a $10,000 fine. Thus, an alien’s admission that he has violated federal immigration law cannot be used against him—even if he never had any chance of qualifying for the DREAM Act amnesty in the first place.

These repeated attempts to buck the will of the American people have me totally fed up with both parties. The parties simply don’t respect the will of the people and now they are trying to sneak things passed and hope we are not looking. Enough is enough; it is time for a purge of both political parties to get some new blood in D.C. The latest approval polls put Congress at 11% which is the lowest in recorded history so they claim. Throw the bums out.

Chuck Norton

32 Responses to “Throw the Bums Out!”

  1. Doug said

    I am not certain if you actually think this way or if you just do not know what you are talking about. The dream act is intended for un-documented immigrants, not illegal. The people that this piece of legislation applies to are those who, basically, grew up in the United States but didn’t have the “good fortune” of being born here. The applicant is required to show some from of documentation to prove that they were in the states and abiding the laws for at least five years and under the age of sixteen prior to the passage of this bill. The six year conditional green card is actually a conditional residency period during which one has to work towards completing an associate’s degree, 2-years of a 4-year degree, or of two years of military service. Just incase you didn’t note the word completion in my previous statement, If the person does not complete the two years of college or military service they can not gain citizenship under the dream act. It seems like you either to do not actually, or completely, read the information before you start writing or you are purposefully printing inaccurate information so that you can get people to respond. That cheesy attempt for ratings will only go far in the business of supermarket tabloids. By the way, the dream act will apply to all undocumented immigrants, not just Mexicans like you implied in your comment of “just walk across the border”. While the majority of your piece, and I use that term liberally, is spent talking bad about the dream act when your last line is so ambiguous that it doesn’t state your point. You change your focus immigration to congress. Given the majority of the things you said we don’t know who you are talking about. Are you calling immigrants bums and trying to cover by throwing in congress or are you just in need of journalism classes?

  2. archangel7681 said

    Un-documented immigrants are illegal. It does not matter if they are 3 or 33 when they do it.

    Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by an Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

    Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
    Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
    Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
    has committed a federal crime.

    Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

    If the person did not have the good fortune of being born here, they can apply for citizenship, as all legal immigrants do. If the person is between the ages of 11 and 15 currently, they do not apply for the Dream Act (see the above note on Improper Entry by an Alien), as they have committed a crime by entering the United States.

    Personally, I am fine with the military service stipulation, that requires them to serve the country. If they do that, I think they should recieve a fast track to citizenship (and free health care, for that matter). I disagree with the working towards completing a degree. Who is going to pay for that? As a non-citizen, they should not be eligible for any financial aid provided to American students by American taxpayers. Also, you made sure to note the word “completing”, did you forget about the words “working toward”. This implies that they do not have to finish, they just have to keep taking classes. I can sign up for raquetball at IUSB and be working towards a degree.

    According to the Washington Times, in 2004, there were nearly 100K OTM (Other than Mexican) illegals that crossed the border at Mexico. That is just the number that they caught. There are many other agencies that report similar numbers. Maybe Chuck’s comment did refer to Mexicans, but the stats clearly show, and I believe most people are aware, that it is not just Mexicans sneeking across the border.

    As to your comment about who the article is referring to, I would point you to the following sentences in the article:

    “Enough is enough; it is time for a purge of both political parties to get some new blood in D.C. The latest approval polls put Congress at 11% which is the lowest in recorded history so they claim. Throw the bums out.”

    This clearly states that the bums are the men and women in Congress who want to circumvent the will of the American people.

  3. Doug said

    Illegal means that people came here by means that violate federal law. Un-documented immigrants are able to be here they are just not citizens yet. It is the rectangle/square argument. All Illegal immigrants are undocumented but not all un-documented immigrants are illegal. The information you cited only covers illegal immigrant but does not discuss un-documented. They are different issues. If person is a student or here for medical reasons is un-documented but not illegal. They are recorded somewhere as being here. Also, if a person is brought here as a child while their parents are working towards citizenship it would still be considered un-documented but not illegal. I think we do not have the same definition for these terms which may be causing part of our problem. As for your noting the working toward, it is an inaccurate statement. Basically, no degree means the dream act can not be used to gain citizenship. You make a good point about granting expedited citizenship to those who serve in the military, but what about those who work to gain medical degree to better help the people. Let’s remember that it is better to serve people than it is to serve the concept of this country. If the focus of this column was to be the men and women in congress then Chuck should have used more pieces of legislature than just the dream act. This legislature is going to help a lot more people than those who oppose it. The act is trying to prevent citizenship denial on the basis of a technicality such as be over the age of eighteen by the time ones parents are granted citizenship. Not to mention the fact that there are easier to sneak into this country than just the Mexican border. Chuck needs to watch how he phrases things in the first place and take into consideration that the right to free speech does not give him the right to offend people or spread false information. Had the vision been more than a school newsletter then he would have been at risk of a lawsuit. He has already acquired the image of a racist because of what said and how he said it regardless of what he meant or his intention.

  4. iusbvision said

    Sorry about your post, along with two by Andrew Filmer were being held in limbo. They were marked as spam, so we did not see them to approve them. I’m sure Chuck will address your concerns.

    Jarrod Brigham

  5. Rachel said

    Apparently, it takes very little brand somebody a racist nowadays. Chuck’s article very clearly indicates that by “bums” he means the politicians. I am sick to death of the implication that people who do not support illegal immigrants are racists. For many of us, it is not the immigrant part we have trouble with; it is the illegal part.

    This does not make me a racist. If a black man breaks the law, he should pay the consequences. If a white man breaks the law, he should pay the consequences. If a half-yellow, half-purple woman breaks the law, she should pay the consequences. What is racist about implying that a Hispanic who breaks the law should pay the consequences?

    A racist is a person who believes they are superior to somebody because of the color of their skin. The view above is not racism; it is closer to equality.

  6. Chuck Norton said

    When last I looked I at US Census form under “race” illegal alien was not an option.

  7. Chuck Norton said

    Its like when you break into K-Mart in the middle of the night and man the cashier, they arrest you. You say, but I am here to work and they say, ya but you still broke in.

    There is a big difference between an invited guest and a gate crasher.

  8. Doug said

    First of all I wish to make it clear that this is not an attack. I am trying to address Rachel’s response first. When I said chuck had acquired the image of a racist it was because he was not as clear about what he was focusing on. Any faculty, staff, or major in the English department would say that a few sentences at the end of an article are not enough to declare intent. If he wanted to avoid this resistance he should have focus more on politicians and less on the piece of legislature that is being processed. I never flat out called he a racist, I merely mentioned he has acquired the image of one from what he said. On the topic of your belief in paying the consequences, I agree and never said otherwise but, there is a difference in what is being discussed. Chuck is using incorrect, and to some offensive, terminology. This is another reason why he has this image regardless of him writing faulty information. As I have said before the dream act is going to help undocumented immigrants, not ILLEGAL. Being in this country is not a federal offense. Entering this country without the proper authorization is and those are the ones dubbed illegal when in actuality it is a status offense. People who entered the United States with the necessary authorization, yet not fully citizens, are undocumented. There was a point made in a blog from Los Angeles that I think is relevant. It points out that these people have entered the country by legal means, lived here for years, gave birth to children here, own a house, and run a business at what point will they not be considered an “immigrant” anymore? Now let’s spin this topic. If this issue had come up for our great grand parents, or for some grandparents, how many of us would not be here? Not to mention that we already have undocumented immigrants fighting in army and where is there citizenship? Also, Rachel, your definition of racism/racist is a little off. You only captured a fraction of it. Supreme-ism is one of the aspects of racism. There is also the wanting to remove all other races from a given area and wanting to stop the entrance of more immigrants. The list of characteristics could probably continue. But that was never the REAL ISSUE I was trying to address. Even now the wrong terminology is being used and as we all know terms change the meaning of the statement. There is also the issue that Chuck allowed false and misleading information to be printed. And if you believe he didn’t then I would request you read the dream act and then reread the article. The main thing is use common sense. The federal government rarely make things easy on those who were born here, why would it all of the sudden not require documentation that the person in question fits the requirements of the act? It is not logical to think that the government would change the way they work for people they do not give the same rights to.
    Finally Chuck, your comment on the census was foolish at best. You don’t seem to care that in this matter you have no credibility. You cited Kris Kobach as your source without even reading the actual legislation. You used a politically skewed source as fact without the actual facts. Considering that not very many people read what you write I can not say I am surprised that there haven’t been more complaints.

  9. Chuck Norton said


    The number of hits the Vision site gets is very large when compared to other publications.

    Second, let me be clear, I am GLAD that I offended you. Here is why.

    You see, far leftists both on and off campus have been trying to shut me up for a long time and try to silence others who have a traditional, common sense point of view.

    So what does the left do to silence, well the most common tactic of late, is to take what you say, strip all honest context out of it and manufacture a new context that is designed to smear the person you intend to smear.

    Look at Rush Limbaugh, he is one of the strongest media voices in support of the military, so the Democrats and the George Soros smear machine manufacture a lie and feed it to the press which fact checked nothing, even though his audio and transcripts are posted on his web site daily. Come to find out that Limbaugh funds the college education of over 1000 students who’s parents have fallen in the line of duty.

    Lets look at Ann Coulter, who espouses textbook Christian doctrine, albeit with her usual edginess, and the George Soros smear machine accuses her of wanting to wipe out Jews, in spite of the fact that Coulter is one of the strongest media voices in support of Israel there is.

    Than look at what some people on this campus did to a student who wrote for The Preface, by taking his questions and comments totally out of context, manufactured a new context and filed bogus sexual misconduct charges against him in an effort to shut him up. The FIRE and ACLU had to get involved to defend the guy.

    Now look at what you do to me, as others stated, it is clear to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language to see the “bums” I was referring to are politicians. But you see that doesn’t work for you, so as the far left so often does when it has no chance of winning an argument fair and square, on its merits, you try to brand me a racist.

    You see, the far left cant win a debate honestly, so they smear to discredit so debate isn’t necessary, and that is what you are obviously all about.

    By the way, my source published a peer reviewed article on the subject, maybe if you had actually done a little honest research, you would have found it. But than again, such facts would not have suited your smear.

    People like you use “being offended” as a tactic. Well take a look around as I have stated a great deal of facts that I am both confident and gleefully satisfied that the likes of you will find them offensive.

    As always, thanks for reading The Vision.

    P.S. – I got a good laugh out of your lawsuit comment.

  10. Doug said

    FOR THE LAST TIME I NEVER CLAIMED TO CALL YOU RACIST! I stated that several times. I am not making this an issue of racism. I am pointing out that you are not giving accurate information. I am insulted that you would attempt to minimize this to an issue of politics. I am not a leftist as you put it. I am not aiming at you for any political agenda. I am trying to get you to actual be a responsible journalist and read the legislature and not some politically skewed source that doesn’t even tell all the facts as it is. The dream act states that documentation is required to prove that applicants were no more than age 16 five years before the passage of legislation and in good moral standing. If you choose to continue to say I am distorting the facts then I guess I will have to cite my source.
    Oh wait…I do you one better. I post the sections here and maybe you will actually read the document before you criticize it. “(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates that–
    (A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
    (B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
    (C) the alien–
    (i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(E), (6)(F), or (6)(G) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), or, if inadmissible solely under subparagraph (C) or (F) of paragraph (6) of such subsection, the alien was under the age of 16 years at the time the violation was committed; and
    (ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (1)(G), (2), (3)(B), (3)(C), (3)(D), (4), or (6) of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)), or, if deportable solely under subparagraphs (C) or (D) of paragraph (3) of such subsection, the alien was under the age of 16 years at the time the violation was committed;
    (D) the alien, at the time of application, has been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States, or has earned a high school diploma or obtained a general education development certificate in the United States; and
    (E) the alien has never been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, unless the alien has remained in the United States under color of law or received the order before attaining the age of 16 years.
    Further more I was never trying to smear you. I do not see how you are missing the point. You wrote about the DREAM act without even reading it. How does that make you reliable? As I have been trying to say although it doesn’t seem to be coming through clearly is that the information you gave was specifically intended to stop a good piece of legislation. I did research your source and I noted that the man who wrote it was made chairman of the Republican Party in the state of Kansas. Considering that piece of information, it seems he may have had his own political agenda. You should know as well as I do that peer-reviewed does not always mean accurate. There are articles that are peer-reviewed that have been found to have errors. You don’t offend me. You don’t have what it takes. If you would have look at the real document in conjunction with the article you read you would have seen the gaps also. You have tried to smear my image far more than I smeared yours. You are claiming I called you racist when I clearly did not say that. You claim that just because an article was written by a republican professor that it is correct without doing your own research. I am glad you enjoyed the lawsuit remark. It only shows that you are trying to use the freedom of speech excuse to oppress views that differ from your own. You don’t care about any other view out there because you think you are right. You truly do not get it. I’ll give you the “bums” argument because that is the only way you are going to win it. If that was your intention then you needed more proof.

  11. Chuck Norton said


    As far as your statement that you never intended to smear me, there is only one thing people think when you start playing the racial card…. and you know it. All this stuff you are posting now is just back peddling.

    Also your source….. …. I see that you did not bother to do a /whois on this URL. It goes back to a company that does ANONYMOUS web hosting. That means the source is anonymous, as are their intentions….but judging by the content on the page the motivations are obvious.

    So my source is a Law Professor who writes for major think tanks and peer reviewed publications, and yours is an anonymous guy who paid a specialty privacy web hoster to host his content. ….and you say that I dont do my research…. I have plenty more real and PUBLIC (as opposed to anonymous) sources I can start posting that stated similar things that the law Prof did.

  12. Chuck Norton said

    I did a who is search on who owns this domain, and they used a company in Scottsdale, Arizona that web hosts anonymously. By the way all – I did a google on “Dream Act” + “amnesty” and got 1,140,000 hits. Here is a link to one of them with Kate O’Bierne at National review.

    –Here is the whois lookup info—
    Domains By Proxy, Inc
    +1.(480) 624-2599 Phone
    15111 N Hayden Rd Suite 160, PMB 353
    SCOTTSDALE, Arizona 85260
    United States
    View Map
    Business Type(s):
    Services – Record Management & Storage
    Operating Hours:
    Monday: 12:00AM to 12:00AM
    Domains By Proxy was conceived to deal with one of the biggest shortcomings of the Internet — the loss of privacy. We believe you should be able to keep your personal information private when you register a domain — and now you can, by switching your “public” registration to a “private” one. Our private registration process is so unique that two patent applications are pending.

  13. Rachel said

    Doug, I did not realize the difference between undocumented and illegal. Not having read the specific act in question, I cannot speak intelligently on it, but I appreciate having learned that difference, so thanks for posting.

    Also, I went off on a bit of a rant based on a personal pet peeve of mine. I realize by your use of language that you personally were not calling Chuck a racist. But bringing up the fact that “Chuck has the image of a racist” still implies that you might endorse that view. My only point was that we need to be more careful about the language we use as a society, especially when it is so loaded.

    Thanks for your response.

  14. Doug said

    Rachel, I appreciate your point of view and it was not my intention to use the racist card in an offensive context. I am not around Chuck enough to be able to make that statement. I have heard statements and I was only trying to let him know that he needs to be careful on how he phases his statement because that could be detrimental to his credibility as a journalist/reporter.
    Chuck, as I said to Rachel I was not calling you a racist I was stating that I have heard some people call you that. I can not/will not make an accusation with out having personally viewing you acting in that way. Also, what you don’t seem to be mentioning is that your source is not a neutral party. He is a chair of a political party which can imply that he is voicing views that are not necessarily his own. If you had used his writing in conjunction with an article from the opposing party that drew the same, or similar, conclusion then we would not be having this conversation. I am not trying to attack, insult, smear, discredit, etc. you. I am pointing out that you used a source written by a politician instead of another journalist. Whether you share these views is not my concern. Kris W. Kobach has to make statements that align with the views of his party or he risks losing his status. Articles on legislation are fickle enough as it is, then add a politician author and the information is not accurate. This may seem like “back peddling” to you but, this is what I have been trying to get through to you. Your article did not offer a fair interpretation of the act. The domain is relevant but not everything. Looking up domains is good and all but, the author of the piece is questionable.

  15. Chuck Norton said

    This is rich, Prof. Kris W. Kobach now cant be credible because he once ran for office. So all of his peer reviewed publications that he has authored, all the activity with the think tanks, all of it….. it all became lies the minute he ran for office some years ago. So here we are with the smear again instead of honest debate, first it was the race card, now it is this. Of course, the thousands of articles, bloggers, lawyers and think tanks and such who accurately pointed out these same points too became liars the minute Prof. Kobach ran for office some years ago too.

    Do a google of “Dream Act” + Amnesty and take a look at the thousands of hits, countless sources, journalists, lawyers, think tanks, and politicians and others saying the same thing about the Dream Act. I could post several sources a day, every day until the day I died this is so well documented.

    Lots of conjecture about my sources, but no evidence from you that is credible. It all adds up to this, you don’t think that the sources I post are credible because you don’t like the information they bring….. or you don’t like their politics therefore they MUST all be liars seems to be the implication. For some people, conjecture like that is all they need, for thinking Americans, well…. they require more. So here it is again, debase and discredit so real debate isn’t necessary.

    Hey keep digging, maybe you can find one of Prof. Kobach’s ex-girlfriends to say something bad about him…….

  16. Doug said

    I can’t believe you are this thick to not be seeing anyone point of view but your own. If you wish to keep playing the race card then that is one you. I have already said several times that I was not calling you racist. Now you are twisting my words. First of all, if you are going to write about the DREAM act then write about it. No matter what you put with it you will always find negative information when you add amnesty onto your search. You keep saying I am smearing you instead of admitting that I have a point. You already have a strong political view point whether you are going to fully admit it or not. Adding a skewed source does not make your work any more valid. It was just your way of reinforcing your political views. You automatically assume that because someone disagrees with you that they are wrong because al you look at are articles such as that. Why are you looking at the real document instead? I have searched the dream act and found several sources like the one I displayed but, instead of looking at the document you tried to discredit it on the basis of a private domain. Private only means that this person probably didn’t want people to pay more attention to him/her rather than the document itself. I do not see why I waste my time writing to you. You are more concerned with degrading the other groups of people that differ from your own. You have attacked several so far and now you claim I am attacking you when I have clearly stated that is not my intent. You are interposing your desire to attack others, such as liberal, on me thinking that I am is some way interested in the same things you are. NEWS FLASH if I were I would let politics rule my life. If you wish to think this is all an attack on you so you can play the victim or martyred reporter then do it. Eventually people will see that this is all you are doing. People will only need to watch walk down the hall to know it’s true. We can tell you think you are better than the rest of us. I know a few people you have tried to be courteous to you and you snubbed them. How does that fit into your “no civility anymore” argument? Yes I am going to bring that in because it is the same as what you are doing here. You do not agree with us and will never admit that you may not have the correct information so you claim that we are attacking you. This was never a debate with you. I was not about to debate politics with anyone. Politics are a lose-lose situation for everyone except the politicians themselves. No matter what I said you would continue to smear and discredit me just on the basis that I don’t agree with you and you wonder why you face such adversity. Yes I will be changing the subject to the way you have acted. You try to defend so many things that are not worth it. Leaving out information or only citing sources that agree with you seem to be the only thing you are interested in. How is that good journalism? It is politically biased and when news publications are supposed to remain unbiased so as not to manipulate the public. From now on you can say whatever you want about this. It appears that you are just using this, what was originally supposed to be a civilized conversation, to gratify having no journalistic integrity. You knowingly tried to manipulate your reader’s by using and article that leaves out vital information. What will it take for you to realize that just because something is peer reviewed does not mean it is right. I have found comic strips that were peer reviewed. Does this mean that they are accurately depicting anything? No, they are an exaggeration like the rest. You can continue to think the way you do. It is only damaging to yourself.

  17. Chuck Norton said


    I am thick in that I will not stand buy and let you smear people without calling you on it. Engage in honest debate that stays in the arena of facts and ideas and we can talk like equals, keep up what you have been doing, and then giving silly denials when others can simply scroll up and see what you have been up to and you will get more of the same.

    As always, thanks for reading the Vision.

  18. Doug said

    if people scrolled up they would see that you aren’t using real fact you are using information that suits republican beliefs. If you thought I wanted a debate then you are thicker than you think. I have stated numerous that I do not want a debate. Like many republicans before you, you would rather stick with what you believe then look at the REAL information. I have also stated that nothing I have said was intended to smear you. I never called you racist and the fact that you continue to say I did only proves that you are too foolish to coninue this argument with. When you can get over yourself long enough to admit that you care more about your politics than finding the truth then we can talk. The only thing more pathetic than your ability to understand what is right in front of you is that scrape of paper that no longer fulfills it’s mission as a club newsletter. This could all be over if you would just say that you wrote and editorial of your views instead of an article of facts. The news is supposed to be unbiased and the Vision is not suppose to handle news. I have heard from several people that used to write for it and people in other organizations that state it no longer does what it was meant for. All it will take to end this argument is you to get your terms straight. Every time you try to be witty with your closing statement of thanking people for reading is pointless. It only shows that you get some form of pleasure out of arguing and spreading your political beliefs as if they were facts.

  19. Chuck Norton said


    Your “real” information turned out to be a joke, and it took me all of 15 seconds of checking to demonstrate it. If I am so pathetic as you say, how about you debate me on the subject in the cafeteria in front of an audience. Lincoln-Douglas style.

    I have seen people who use the same tactics like you have 100 times over, unbiased to you means anything that promotes your own point of view. You just cant handle the fact that the Dream Act as it was first proposed as an amendment, was designed to do exactly what the good law professor and Kate O’Bierne and the others said it did. If it was so innocent how come it got defeated?

    Also, if you think you are fooling anyone by pulling the race card on me and then stating “but I didn’t call you a racist” then you are just fooling yourself. There are lots of ways to state it by direct text or obvious inference without using the particular words “your a racist”. Backpedaling by playing semantics doesn’t fool anyone either. I mean I could call you a foaming at the mouth, knuckle dragging neanderthal with a white sheet, but then tell people “hey I didn’t call him a racist”…. it fools no one. You can keep denying your smear, but it is denial for denials sake no matter how many times you repeat the denial.

    Of course, you cant help but make even more attacks about me just like you have in the immediate post above, because it is a way of avoiding talking about the particulars of the dream act. Avoid the substance and attack the messenger, that is what you are all about. Thinking Americans, are not fooled by such tactics.

    Doug, even if you don’t take up the debate challenge, I am looking forward to offending you even more in future issues of The Vision.

    PS – As to your last statement, you are simply incorrect. No one is unbiased, however some are intellectually honest and the Vision has covered news and done news analysis since the very beginning. To state that we are not supposed to handle news is the silliest and perhaps most ridiculous statement ever posted here.

    Just like it says in the Vision Warning:

    This Weblog and The IUSB Vision Contain Critical Thinking by IUSB Students. Articles may seem unpopular or offensive and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the IUSB Vision staff as a whole or any club and advertiser therein. Viewer discretion is advised.

  20. Doug said

    The only reason you are doing this is because you want attention drawn to you. The second I step into the cafeteria you would bring up the fact that you say I called you when I clearly stated that you have “the image of a racist”. If I am smearing you why is it that the only people arguing here are us. You are trying to make it seem like I am trying to interfere with your right to free speech and free press. If you would actually listen to me you would see that is not what’s happening. You are purposely trying to stir up issues so that you can voice your opinions. I don’t care if you say what you think or sight others who think the same way, just don’t claim them to be facts. If you wanted to know the truth about the dream act then you would have talked to someone who actually knows. You are judging it based on what happened the first time and not even trying to reconsider that your opinion is not the only one. I refuse to give you another outlet for your politics. If you were really secure with what you believe then you would need to keep arguing or to a debate challenge. I will not debate you on this because you will never admit that you could be wrong. If I won the debate you would claim it was a conspiracy. If you won, you would claim that your views are right and that you are superior to me. You may even try to say that now in an attempt to manipulate me into it. For your information, my definition of unbiased is neutral. I don’t care if it goes with what I believe as long as it does not attempt to sway public opinion. I have already tried to discuss the Dream act and you, in turn, tried to discredit my statement on the basis of a private domain. You could seem to discredit what I said so you attack me on the domain. I find it odd that you mention I don’t bring up anything of substance on this topic and yet you aren’t either. Say whatever you want in the vision. I won’t be bother by it.

  21. Chuck Norton said


    Thanks for the chuckle :-)

  22. Ed Lima said

    Chuck, did you attend the DREAM Act event at IUSB this week?

  23. Chuck Norton said

    I just heard about this yesterday, and I also learned who is putting it in. Not sure if I iwll go yet or not, the vote is in DC, not here so it really doenst matter that much.

    Tom Tancredo put this clip from CNN about the Dream Act on YOUTUBE – and CNN says it is back door amnesty….just like my sources said.

  24. Ed Lima said

    The event was on Monday, so you missed it.

    So you think that a discussion about a matter that will affect us all is insignificant because the outcome will occur in DC?

  25. Chuck Norton said

    Not insignificant, but when in battle do we not ride to the sound of the guns? That is where the battle is, that was my point. Speaking of which, the Dream Act was defeated in the Senate today.

  26. Ed Lima said,1,39366.story

    In my past discussions with defenders of the Act, one thing that I had overlooked (my fault) in my sympathetic stance concerning the DREAM Act, is that there was no upper age limit. Which meant that a 45-year-old immigrant could in fact enjoy the privilege of legal residency that the DREAM Act afforded. Yet, in every defense I have heard of the bill, all I heard was the ‘think-of-the-children’-type of argument.

    Clever. Clever and conniving, but clever.

    Apparently, even Dick Durbin thought that might not play too well and introduced an upper limit of 30-years-old and dropped language that would have cleared the path for the students to receive in-state tuition. All for naught, as it turns out.

    Here’s my question: if it is true that in the bill phase the language of the law didn’t have to specify the type of documentation required to prove that an applicant had arrived here before the age of 16, why would Durbin introduce that upper age limit? If there was such an overall understanding that the documentation needed was going to be extensive, detailed, and severe once/if the bill passed and became law, why the limit? The easy answer is that he did it to appease the critics of the bill. Butm could it be that his reasoning was more malefic than that? Maybe he knew that, in the end, the requirements were not going to be as tough as everyone thought they were going to be, and envisioned the Act as a backdoor towards citizenship and full-on amnesty to MILLIONS of undocumented immigrants.

    Think of this scenario: the bill passes and becomes law, and one of the documents accepted as proof of living here before the age of 16, is a school transcript. I’m 30 and undocumented. The school transcript I present at application time may or may not have my Social Security number, but even if it does, it’s a fake one (you may think this is an exception, but trust me, it isn’t). At this point, there are two outcomes:

    a) My application is accepted.

    b) My application is denied because I can’t really prove the transcript is mine, or they suspect it might be fraudulent, et cetera.

    If choice (a) is a possibility, we are talking about MILLIONS that could be granted residency under false pretenses. If (b) happens, I hire a lawyer and dispute the legality of the process — not very far-fetched, since it is presently ILLEGAL for an employer to demand a specific document (like a ‘green card’) when an employee is filing an I-9. The counrts agree and finds in my favor, thus opening the door for a de facto amnesty.

    That is why I have to now declare my opposition to the DREAM Act, as it stands, and with the present language.

  27. Ed Lima said

    Here’s a response by a pro-DREAM Act immigration lawyer. Keep in mind that my most recent post was sent to him without my knowledge, and the subsequent response was unrequested. Quite frankly, I read the first paragraph, and gave up. It’s more important to this person to win the debate and make sure he is right, than analyzing what’s actually better for the country…

    If you can read the entire damn thing, you’re a better person than me. It’s pretty long, so grab some popcorn and enjoy — if you can.


    I’m afraid I don’t even really understand the argument advanced in this message. The age limit and the requirement for documents have nothing to do with each other. The documents are required to establish the required date of entry (before 16) and the required period of presence in the U.S. The age cut-off has nothing to do with that. The purpose of the age cut off is to limit the benefits of bill (legalization) to those for whom it was intended to benefit (young people who are seeking to get educated).

    Incidentally, the author of the message is incorrect when he states that the age cut off was recently added, insinuating that the only reason was to placate critics. The Dream Act has been around in various forms since 2001. There have been numerous versions of the bill. While not all versions of the bill have had age limits, many versions, dating back 5-6 years, have included age limits. Adding an age limit is nothing new.

    To claim that there’s going to be massive fraud and that it’s a back-door amnesty is just ridiculous, and it’s straight from the right wing’s talking points. Since we’re dignifying it with a response, I think it’s important to treat the assertion with a certain amount of disdain. I also find that suggestion that people can simply get a lawyer and reverse a denial, as if they enjoy an advantage, to be personally offensive and insulting to the plight of immigrants. Those who think that the Dream Act is going to be a back door legalization for millions of people and rampant with fraud, don’t know what they’re talking about. More likely, they use this argument as a red herring, namely as a supposedly “legitimate” reason to conceal their real reasons for opposing the bill. Manufactured arguments like this are used all the time in law and politics to mask the actual, but less acceptable reasons for opposing something. I highly doubt they’d like any version of the bill. You can’t allow restrictionists to frame the issues. Expose them for what they are. Since the supposed reasons for opposing the Dream Act “as it stands, and with the present language” are quite specific and apparently are not based on a fundamental disagreement with the basic rationale underlying the bill (i.e., young people who were brought here at a young age, who committed no immigration violations themselves, who have lived here a long time, and who have the ability and desire to go to college, should be given an opportunity to legalize), I suggest you ask him to say what type of a language he’d support. I’d warrant you wouldn’t get an answer, or that it would be one so filled with onerous requirements as to exclude almost everyone.

    In a previous message the author of this message, along with Mr. Norton in his article, contended that individuals will be granted status without proving their eligibility. Again, this claim is simply incorrect. The law requires that the applicant “demonstrate” eligibility. Dream Act of 2007, § 3303(a)(1). Anyone who claims that this will result in people being granted status without proving their date of entry into the United States and other requirements for eligibility either is seeking to deliberately mislead the readership or lacks basic knowledge of our legal system in general and the practice of immigration law in particular. First, in enacting statutes, Congress does not set out detailed requirements as to the specific documents and types of evidence which must be submitted. Rather, the statute sets out the general requirements. In general legal matters, the finder of fact, usually the jury, determines whether the specific evidence is sufficient to meet the legal requirements. For example, the law does not require specific types of evidence for an individual to be convicted. Likewise, in the area of administrative law – of which immigration law is a part – Congress passes a statute which delineates the basic requirements and the administrative agency promulgates regulations which carry the force of law which set out the specific requirements and documentation which must be submitted. Indeed, the bill itself calls for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to promulgate regulations implementing the law. See Dream Act of 2007, § 3304(e).

    Anyone with experience practicing immigration law can attest that DHS requires persuasive documentary evidence establishing a person’s eligibility for benefits. Since much of immigration law depends on proving a person’s date of entry and residence in the U.S., the agency has numerous existing regulations setting out the evidentiary requirements. Among these regulations are those implementing the 1986 legalization program in section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents under INA § 240A(b); registry under INA § 249; adjustment of status under INA § 245(i); and Temporary Protected Status under INA § 244. As a general rule, the regulations require documents such as employment records; W-2 Forms; income tax returns; bank statements; credit card statements; school records; hospital and medical records; church records; passport entry stamps; birth certificates of children born in the U.S.; automobile registration; mortgages, insurance policies; utility bills; phone records, etc. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. §§ 244.9(a)(1); 245.10(n); 245a.4(b)(4)(iv). Since the Dream Act it is not yet law, DHS obviously has not promulgated regulations. However, there is no reason to believe that its regulations governing the documents needed to prove entry and presence in the United States for the Dream Act would be any different than existing regulations governing other programs which are based on a certain period of presence in the United States. To suggest that the individuals will be given status under the Dream Act without proving eligibility is disingenous.

    With regard to his hypothetical about school transcripts, again the author of the message is confusing issues. One requirement of the Dream Act would be to prove entry before age 16 and whatever period of continuous residence is ultimately required. Another separate requirement would be proving the required college units. A college transcript presumably would be essential for the latter requirement. For the former requirement, school records (elementary, secondary and possibly college) would be one form of evidence. For most people they’d probably be the best form of evidence (because high school and college-aged people usually don’t have the types of evidence which “regular adults” have — work records, rental or mortgage records, utility bills, etc.). In most cases the college records used to prove compliance with the requirement for a certain number of units will be prospective, that is, acquired after the law passes and the student has applied for benefits and has obtained interim status (conditional residence). Why would these documents be forged and why would the SSN be invented? The person has the status to obtain a valid SSN and enroll in school.

    In terms of the documents used to prove entry before age 16 and the required period of residence in the U.S., usually what will be submitted are high school and elementary school records. Again, the risk of fraud here is very low. The records will need to be from five years before the date of passage of the act (assuming that the period of required residence is 5 years). Past attendance at school isn’t something someone can retroactively create. If someone didn’t attend school, he or she might be able to prove the date of entry and residence through other means, but (depending on the person’s age at the time of entry) this could be very difficult to do convincingly. For example, if someone supposedly entered at age 14, the person would have to give very persuasive reasons why he or she never enrolled in school (and submit very persuasive evidence regarding the date of entry). While it does occur that someone came to the U.S. at a young age and never attended school, it’s pretty rare. Also, a person who entered the U.S. before turning 16 but never attended school almost certainly would not be enrolling in college and successfully completing two years.

    The author of the message says that if school transcripts are accepted as proof of date of entry and residence it will open the door to massive fraud. But simply saying this doesn’t make it true. He gives no reason why this will be the case — probably because there aren’t any. Repeating a falsehood over and over doesn’t make it true. More fundamentally, his statement reveals a rather simplistic understanding of how the system works. We won’t have a situation where certain documents must always be accepted (or can never be accepted). If factors in a particular case suggest that a particular document is fraudulent or doesn’t relate to the applicant, the immigration officer is able to discount the evidence or request additional corroborating evidence.

    Generally speaking, how would the acceptance of school transcripts result in ineligible people obtaining benefits? I can only think of two ways: (1) through forged transcript or (2) by an applicant using someone else’s actual transcripts. The danger of forgery is virtually non-existent. School records are among the most reliable types of proof because they’re from an governmental agency, usually have an official seal, often have a photo of the student attached, etc. Likewise, people using other people’s school transcripts isn’t going to happen with any frequency. First, USCIS will require proof of identity. If you claim you’re someone else, you’ll also have to submit a birth certificate indicating that you’re that person. The date of birth on the birth certificate and the school records will have to match. Also, the names of the parents on the birth certificate and the names of the parents on the school records will have to match (yes, elementary and secondary school records have the parents’ names).

    So, the millions of people who will fraudulently get residence will all need to actually know rather intimate details (date of birth, place of birth, names of parents, names of schools attended, address at the time the schools were attended) of people who actually have valid school records from the time periods in question. Also, if those people were born in the U.S. or have valid immigration status, their identities won’t be very useful to someone intent on committing fraud because USCIS will ask why a U.S. citizen or legal resident needs benefits under the Dream Act.

    Thus, the millions of people who will fraudulently get residence this way will actually have to know the names of intimate details of an equally large number people who are undocumented and who qualify for the Dream Act. Well, I don’t think that most people who are undocumented and who qualify under the Dream Act are very likely to willingly cooperate with the millions of people who plan to commit fraud (since it would undermine their own application). And without willing cooperation from an accomplice, it’s extremely unlikely that someone will know all the necessary details about another person to get the necessary evidence.

    Let’s look at an example. I’m 23 years old and entered the U.S. two years ago at age 21. I want to file a fraudulent application under the Dream Act. First. I have to know someone who is about my age and who I know entered before the age of 16. Since I just entered two years ago, I probably don’t know a ton of people who meet even that basic test. Then, I have to know the person’s exact date of birth and place of birth (because I have to get his birth certificate). Overwhelmingly, the undocumented immigrants I’ve dealt with for over 23 years don’t even know their parents or spouses dates of birth. They’re hardly likely to know the date of birth of some acquaintance. Next, I have to know where that person lived 7 years ago (when I wasn’t even in the U.S.) Again, overwhelmingly the undocumented immigrants with whom I deal with every day have big problems telling me where they lived 2-3 years ago, let alone 7 years ago. It’s like pulling teeth getting that information — and not because people are trying to deceive me but because they really don’t know it because they’re from a culture where dates and addresses aren’t that important. Next, you’d need to know the name of the school which the person attended 7 years ago. Look at your own experience. How many people do you know who know your date of birth, where you lived when you were 15, what high school you went to, your parents names, what city you were born in, etc.? I highly doubt you’d be able to come up with more than a handful of people, most of them would be close relatives or close friends (who presumably wouldn’t steal your identity) I can’t think of many people who know that information about me, and I live in a society which stresses knowing that type of stuff.

    Now, let’s add on top of that the fact that USCIS officers aren’t complete idiots. They have some experience in detecting fraud (and most people, particularly unsophisticated ones, aren’t very good liars). So, hypothetically, let’s assume someone is somehow able get another person’s school records and claims to be that person. The officer looks down at the evidence and asks: “Mr. Martinez, tell me, what was the name of your 11th grade History teacher?” or “Mr. Martinez, what are you mother and father’s names?” or “Mr. Martinez, what was your address when you were in 10th grade?” or “Mr. Martinez, you indicate you’ve been here since you were 12 years old, and your transcripts indicate you got an A- in your 12th grade English class. How come you can’t speak English today, 7 years later?”

    In the movie Body Heat (a great modern film noir), Mickey Rourke (the criminal) says to William Hurt (his lawyer who’s contemplating committing a crime) “Anytime you try a decent crime there is 50 ways to fuck up. If you think of twenty-five of them, you’re a genius. And you’re no genius.” (Mickey Rourke’s character was throwing back in his lawyer’s face a statement which the lawyer previously said to Rourke’s character). My point is that there are dozens of ways which a fraud can be discovered and most people can’t anticipate even a small fraction of the ways. Most people simply cannot successfully carry off a fraud. In the small number of cases where it’s successful, it’s discovered later. Why? Because most people simply lack the capacity of anticipate how they can get caught. They file want to file for their real parents. They apply for naturalization years later, when they’ve forgotten all the information which was so important when they applied under the Dream Act. They’re asked in their naturalization application where they previously lived and they give the true information. USCIS has the old Dream Act application in the file and compares the answers. Bingo! These are only a small number ways fraudulent applications are discovered.

    Finally, the author of the message claims that if USCIS rejects the school records (or presumably other evidence), he can just hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and prevail. That’s the ticket! Nothing to it. Just hire a lawyer and you’re home free. The government will just roll over. I really think this person should stop trying to play a lawyer . . . at least until he actually is one and has some experience and knowledge about how the system works. What does the fact that an employer can’t tell an employee what documents to submit in an I-9 situation have to do with the price of tea in China? (And as an aside, it’s not exactly true that an employer can’t demand specific documents in an I-9 situation. As long as the employee submits a document which is on the list of acceptable documents, an employer can’t demand other documents. However, an employer can demand a document which is on the list of acceptable documents. And there are good reasons for that rule, but I digress.) Just because an employer can’t demand additional documents in an employment case doesn’t mean that the government can’t demand documents in an application for benefits. The burden of proof in an application for benefits is on the applicant. An I-9 situation is entirely different. It isn’t an application for benefits and it doesn’t involve an adjudication. The rules with respect to an I-9 involve competing interests of (1) ensuring that employers aren’t knowingly or recklessly hiring ineligible workers, (2) not imposing undue burdens on business, and (3) protecting the rights of authorized workers. The rules were crafted to balance those competing interests.

    This person has watched too much TV if he thinks that the courts will just reverse the government and grant legal residence to millions of people who have based their applications on fraudulent evidence. In fact, decisions by USCIS regarding the Dream Act probably won’t even be subject to judicial review. The bill states:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for relief under this Act, except where the alien has been placed into deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings either prior to or after filing an application for relief under this Act, in which case the Attorney General shall have exclusive jurisdiction and shall assume all the powers and duties of the Secretary until proceedings are terminated, or if a final order of deportation, exclusion, or removal is entered the Secretary shall resume all powers and duties delegated to the Secretary under this Act.

    What this means is that USCIS (part of the Department of Homeland Security) has exclusive authority to decide an application for benefits under the Dream Act. If DHS initiates removal proceedings, then the Immigration Judge (not a Article III court, but rather part of a federal agency under the authority of the Attorney General) will have exclusive authority to decide the application. The language giving “exclusive jurisdiction” to DHS or DOJ probably means that the courts don’t have jurisdiction to review the decision. In addition, other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act also probably will preclude judicial review of decisions involving the Dream Act. Section 242(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory) . . . and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review —

    . . .

    (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this title to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 208(a) [applications for asylum].

    Decisions to grant or deny applications under the Dream Act would be discretionary. The language of the Dream Act specifies that “the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel the removal of, and adjust the status of” an applicant who meets the legal requirements. (Emphasis added.) The use of the word “may” means that approval of an application is discretionary, which is the case with most immigration remedies. (When Congress wants to make the relief mandatory, it uses the term “shall.”)

    In any event, even if the courts did have jurisdiction to review a decision, the review would be highly deferential. In administrative law (of which immigration law is a part), when a court reviews a decision of an administrative agency, the highest level of judicial review occurs when the court is reviewing a question of legal interpretation. In these situations, the review is often (but not alwasy) de novo, meaning that the court owes the agency no deference. The court is free to adopt it’s own interpretation if it disagrees with the agency. This level of review makes sense because courts have greater expertise in legal interpretation than do administrative agencies. (Still, in many situations, even an agency’s legal interpretation must be given deference.) However, an agency’s factual determinations and it’s exercise of discretion given great deference. Again, this makes a certain amount of sense. The agency interviews the witness and assesses his credibility based on factors such as demeanor which will not show up on the strictly paper review which takes place when the court reviews the case. (In administrative law, a court — even if it’s a trial court — will act like an appellate court in others areas of law, meaning that it doesn’t receive new evidence and witnesses don’t testify. It just considers the record which was established before the agency.) The decision whether a particular witness was credible or what weight to give to a particular piece of evidence is a quintessential question of fact, meaning that a court sitting in review will adopt a very deferential approach. It can’t overturn the agency’s determination simply because it disagrees; it must determine that the decision was clearly unsupported. This is rare. So, it will probably impossible for a court to review an individual decision denying relief under the Dream Act. However, even if review is available, it will be very rare where a court will reverse an agency’s decision regarding the weight of the evidence.

    But, let’s indulge this person’s theory a little more. Someone commits fraud and is denied. No problem, just hire a lawyer and take the case to court. So, his theory of massive fraud requires not only incompetent immigration officers who will approve the millions of fraudulent applications, but also incompetent judges will overturn cases where the incompetent immigration officers actually got it right and discovered the fraud, but also on incompetent and unethical attorneys, who, like the incompetent immigration officers and the incompetent judges, will be either be too stupid to detect the fraud or who will be willing to risk their law licenses by helping an applicant to continue to perpetuate the fraud.

    But there’s more. We all know that lawyers grow on trees. Your fraudulent Dream Act case is denied. No problem, just go down to your local Wal-Mart and hire a lawyer to represent you for $1.99. Litigation is very expensive under normal circumstances. In cases involving judicial review of immigration decisions the game is highly rigged in the government’s favor, even when the government is wrong. Very few lawyers have the expertise and technical ability to have any kind of chance of prevailing at this level. The case wouldn’t be like a simple divorce or a slip and fall case; it would involve highly complex litigation in federal court. If you did the equivalent of hiring a lawyer from the local Wal-Mart to represent you for $1.99, it would cost you about $3,000 – $7,000. More importantly, you’d lose. The type of lawyer who might give you a chance of success (and it would only be a chance) would be prohibitively expensive for most people. And that type of lawyer wouldn’t be interested in taking a case if it even smelled of fraud. The fact of the matter is that even when people are wrongly denied immigration benefits (including cases when the denial is egregiously wrong), it’s exceptionally difficult to get a competent lawyer to rectify the injustice.

    What I see in this posting is someone who has already made up his mind and isn’t going to listen to anything which will change it. You blow one set of arguments out of the water, and he invents more reasons to oppose it. If he were truly open to the issue, he would solicit opinions about the validity of some of his claims before making them. In fact, he’s just making the stuff up and hoping no one has the technical expertise to disprove what he says.

    (Incidentally, the Dream Act was not defeated. A motion to close debate, requiring a 60% supermajority, was defeated 52-44, with four Senators not voting. However the four Senators who didn’t vote all supported the Dream Act: John McCain [R-AZ]; Barbara Boxer [D-CA]; Christopher Dodd [D-CT]; and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Also, I understand that several other who voted against cloture indicated that they would have voted in favor if their votes would have made a difference. So, we have a solid majority of at least 56 Senators, and possibly 58 or 59, who support the Dream Act.)

  28. Joe C. said

    “Quite frankly, I read the first paragraph, and gave up. It’s more important to this person to win the debate and make sure he is right, than analyzing what’s actually better for the country…”

    A word to the wise- don’t admit that you haven’t read an article, and then proceed to criticize that same article.

  29. Chuck Norton said

    Wow Ed,

    I read what that guy had to say.

    Talk about right from the “pro amnesty talking points”.

    I said that because the response above by the immigration attorney uses that exact same tactic to smear so that debate, real debate is not necessary. It’s so much easier to just dismiss something out of hand than to really deal with it isn’t it.

    Ok now on to the substance. Let us get a few things straight.

    The fact that it was written by an immigration attorney does not impress me in the least. It is no secret that a great deal of immigration attorney’s are activists on this issue. So pulling the “I’m an immigration attorney” card to somehow give you an aura of objectivity or some kind of cloak of infallibility is a cute rhetorical tactic, but in the end that is all that it adds up to.

    Now let us deal with his “demonstrate” point above.

    He admits that regulations would have to be drawn up to define just what “demonstrate” means. Well that can change from one bureaucracy to the next. How many federal regulations are published and or changed every year? As an immigration attorney, he knows VERY well that there is a huge difference between the law, and the law applied. The Law Professor that I used as a source along with the other sources are quite right that “demonstrate” can mean anything, including just a sworn statement saying “yes I have been here since I was 16”. We have all heard of cities that don’t check the legal immigration status of certain offenders, it is NOT a stretch to say that “demonstrate” could/would be used in a similar fashion or intent.

    A good example would be to look at the last attempt to get an amnesty bill, where the government had all of 24 hours to determine if an application was right and the applicant had no felony record. Not an easy task when we are talking about illegal aliens who have been either undocumented, or fraudulently documented.

    For many of those who are illegal and have used fake documents, these people have not been honest about their legal status for years in many cases, and yet we are to believe now that there isn’t a chance they would lie about their immigration status now? Does he really believe we would throw someone in jail for many years for doing so? Of course not…. and that’s where the rubber meets the road.

    I have heard that some teachers have brought this issue up and this web log in class. I am glad to hear it. We are truly fortunate that the code of conduct, and just plain ethics, give the STUDENTS academic freedom in the classroom, and gives profs academic freedom in their research. As it would be unethical to just have one point of view, or one partisan point of view, given to a class as if it were objective truth, or the only academic truth.

    PS – Ed what I really liked was when this guy said:

    “What I see in this posting is someone who has already made up his mind and isn’t going to listen to anything which will change it. You blow one set of arguments out of the water, and he invents more reasons to oppose it. If he were truly open to the issue, he would solicit opinions about the validity of some of his claims before making them. In fact, he’s just making the stuff up and hoping no one has the technical expertise to disprove what he says.”

    Maybe he did not read the article carefully enough to see that I made nothing up and gave legit sources. I read his entire statement.

    Me thinks thou protests too much and he has described himself. He is so “confident” in his “aura of infallible truth” that his argument just wasn’t cutting it so here we go with the personal attacks….. why… how scholarly of you.

  30. Jarrod Brigham said

    One thing that jumps out to me about why this attorney supports the Dream Act is that he probably going to profit by this Act. If we need to give blanket citizenship to millions of individuals, who do you think is going to process all those applications? Immigration attorneys.

    I am still in the process of reading this document, so I will just comment on the first few paragraphs, as I am sure that no one will read beyond that. As I do, I will leave more comments.

    First, in the third paragraph, the phrase “plight of immigrants” is used. Plight? Plight? If things are so bad for them here, why do they keep coming? I would imagine that things are so good for them here that they would risk being shot illegally crossing the border, or starving, or dying under the desert conditions. What other country in the world gives free healthcare and education to non-citizens?

    In the next sentence, it reads “Those who think that the Dream Act is going to be a back door legalization for millions of people and rampant with fraud, don’t know what they’re talking about.” Can you name me one government bureaucracy that is not riddled with fraud?

    At the end of the paragraph, the lawyer writes that all illegals who have been here, “should be given an opportunity to legalize”. And they do, the same opportunity anyone outside the country has.

    The next paragraph reads, “Congress does not set out detailed requirements to specific documents…” Yes they do. Try to get a title on a vehicle w/o the specific documents the DMV requires. The governement wants specific documents to perform thier services. Go to any government agency and stand in line all day long. What happens if you don’t have the proper paperwork? You have to go home and get it and then come back. Specific documents are required.

    The next paragraph gives examples of previous acts passed by Congress to somehow legitimize the DHS as a competant agency. If these programs work so well, explain to me why we need the Dream Act? Why do we have over 10 million undocumented illegal immigrants here if the DHS is such a fine agency that does not make mistakes?

    Finally, in that same paragraph, the lawyer gives examples of documents deemed acceptable including: bank statements and credit card statements. How do these prove anything. A dog can get a credit card application. A three year old can get a credit card application. Church records? Are you kidding me? Was it not just a few weeks ago where an illegal alien taking shelter in a church for years was arrested while protesting the immigration problem? Besides, illegal immigration is helped by their uncanny ability to forge documents and steal identities. Only a fool would think that they would be incapable to forge church documents, birth certificates, billing statements, etc. By the way, why would a child with a birth certificate from the US even need to apply under the Dream Act?

    I will continue my comments as I comb through the rest of this post. One thing I am wondering about, why is a lawyer so desirous that millions of people should be able to circumvent the law? I would think a lawyer would be in favor of law enforcement.

  31. Chuck Norton said

    You know Jarrod, when people bought illegal fireworks to use in Indiana they had to sign a legal document stating that they will be taken and used out of state.

    The law, and the law applied = world of difference.

  32. Chuck Norton said

    Hmm I guess Rasmussen Polling has joined the “right wing machine”

    Senate Heeded Public Opinion By Rejecting Dream Act

    A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that only 22% of voters support the proposal introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). The Dream Act would have given legal status to children of illegal aliens who complete two years of college or military service. That low level of support is very similar to support for the “comprehensive” reform measure that failed in June.
    Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters oppose the Dream Act concept. Republicans oppose it by a 5-to-1 margin and unaffiliateds are opposed by a 3-to-1 margin. Democrats are a bit more evenly divided—49% opposed and 31% in favor—but Nancy Pelosi’s party certainly doesn’t provide a base of support for the Dream Act.

    Fueling opposition is a concern that passage of the bill would encourage more illegal immigration in the future. The view is held by 68% of the nation’s voters. The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 15% disagree and 17% are not sure. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans, 76% of unaffiliated voters, and 55% of Democrats believe that passage of the Dream Act would encourage more illegal immigration in the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: