Øbama’s implementation of the “DREAM” Act

As SOS noted in an earlier post, Øbama has seen fit to unilaterally implement the so called “DREAM” Act through an executive order.  It is glaringly obvious – dare I say transparent – that a very desperate Øbama, with poll numbers in the toilet and an administration full of so called “experts” ineffectively flailing at the economy, is trying everything he can to bolster his voting base.  The Motor Voter Act and the Democrat’s constant resistance to any positive identification to vote will help guarantee that.

We are constantly told that illegal aliens “do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do”.  Okay, let’s accept that premise for a minute.  If true, then we are importing an effective slave class of workers to “do menial tasks that (we presumably) can’t get Americans to do” even with Øbama’s horrendous unemployment figures (even though that was shown not to be true when ICE did raids on Smithfield meat packing plants in Alabama in 2008).  Liberals also tell us how important it is to keep the families of illegals together, educate them as we do citizens, give them free welfare, medical care etc., and that we can’t possibly deport them as fast as they are flowing in.

Naturally, most of these people are grateful to be here, given the places and conditions they left.  My question is this: once the current crop (pardon the pun) of workers retires or whatever, who will replace them?

The liberals never seem to address this (yet another example of what Jim describes as liberal’s inability or lack of desire to figure out things to their logical conclusion).  Once we create, and are dependent on, these low wage workers, we will have to find more to replace those now working.

Will it be the people that have waited patiently to come in the front door?  Not likely.  They are usually well qualified individuals that have aspirations to set up businesses, teach whatever.

Will it be the children of the current illegals?   Very unlikely.  Once they go through our current school system, get exposed to our way of life, television, etc., they will likely develop the same aversion to fieldwork and other menial labor as the children of citizens.  As the old song goes, “How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they’ve seen Paris?”.

Will it be a new wave of illegals?  Undoubtedly.  It would have to be.  Given the liberal’s aversion to preserving/defending the borders, and middle America’s aversion to liberals, they need waves of new potential voters.  They are trying to buy into the rapid growth of “hispanic” community with entitlements and open borders.  They will recycle the arguments of today down the road, and we will be faced with the same problem in another 20 years or less.  Using the gratefulness of illegals to pad their voter rolls is both illegal and immoral.

Care for a vicious cycle, anyone?

Another thing to consider is whether this constant influx of illegals will actually prolong or maintain the high unemployment we see now.  It seems unavoidable, as there are only so many jobs available in the country, and illegals will continue to supplant citizen workers as they do now, working for minimal wages and requiring no benefits (for the moment), leaving the citizens to go on unemployment.  When you hire an illegal to do your roof to save a buck, it means that the American roofing company down the road gets no business, pays no wages or taxes.  Similarly, the children of illegals will supplant the children of citizens in college, as there will be seats set aside for them based on their illegal status or some “affirmative action” setup.  And don’t forget competition for limited student loans.

The point is, the constant, virtually unimpeded flow of illegals as a class of government dependent proles into the country benefits nobody except the politicians that believe they can milk votes out of them, and the system is set up to keep the flow going out of a contrived necessity.

Front door immigration is a great and good thing; backdoor illegal invasions are not, and half the battle will require the repeal of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The path to citizenship starts at the end of the line in their home countries, behind honest applicants waiting patiently to get in.  We must not reward squatters.

33 replies
  1. Clarity
    Clarity says:

    Jim, I couldn’t agree with you more.You just missed one VERY big point.Where were the Republicans when they had control?Why didn’t they do something to secure our borders?People have awoken to the fact that there?is no longer a 2 party system in this country.They have connected all dots,and realize this has been?not only ?”a vicious cycle”,but a PLANNED one. For this reason the Republicans are running out of “viable” candidates to put up against Ron Paul.Yes,I did say that,because Barack’s on the same side as the big govt. rinos.Both sides would hate to see the only candidate “truly” embracing the idea of? the restoring? our Constitution win.Their empire will slowly crumble,thanks to the Tea Party.

  2. just sayin
    just sayin says:

    Dimsdale, if you live in the dale, you’re sure not dim. ?Gotta love ya. ?Thanks for your post(s).

  3. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    Things are being twisted here yet again.
    DHS has limited resources..the new policy allows them to concentrate on deportations of drug dealers, gang members and other law breakers… not the kids brought here that attend school, are in the military, work hard and pay taxes.
    Earlier this year, Gov. Malloy intervened for a 22 year old from New Britain who was being deported 1 month shy of his attaining a degree in engineering. he was brought here when he was 22 months old.
    Look, not all of these people are criminals and a fence will not make our illegal immigration problem disappear…this is an important and good step in fixing things.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      As pointed out in the article, this will do nothing but make things worse.? It will inspire a new wave of illegals who (probably rightfully) believe that the Dems will do anything to get votes, including amnesty, which is what this is, and we, to preserve our “worker” (read it: slave) class will have to let them do it.?
      Legal vs. illegal: liberals need to learn the difference.
      The anecdotal story about the college student is nice (let him finish, then deport him), but says nothing about the problem.?
      I pose this question to you, crystal: I would estimate that in China and India alone, there are at least a billion people worthy of our largesse, just as in the case of your college student.? Should we let them in too?? Are we discriminating because some groups can just hike a few miles across a non existent border, and others have oceans and thousands of miles between them and us?? Where does it stop, crystal?? Aren’t they worthy of your compassion?
      The bottom line: they are all felons, regardless of how nice they are.? Let them get in line like the millions of others doing the right thing.? Spend money streamlining the process of legal immigration…

  4. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    What part of the sentence..”DHS has limited resources” did you not understand. What they have been doing is not working..do you not want them to now concentrate on the criminals?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      How much money would they save by not having to discriminate?? No papers?? Step aboard the bus!
      Who is limiting the DHS budget?? According to the Homeland Security Newswire, “DHS wastes billions in procurement process”.? There’s some money for deportation!
      Now try addressing my question.

  5. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    “I pose this question to you, crystal: I would estimate that in China and India alone, there are at least a billion people worthy of our largesse, just as in the case of your college student.? Should we let them in too?”
    That question?
    Where did i say let them all in?

    • rachel
      rachel says:

      You can’t ignore immigration laws for some and not for others.? The left is always screaming about being *fair*.?
      And as for the college student you mention:? if he came here at 22 months old, does that mean that his parents procured fake documentation for him which allowed him to go to school on the taxpayers’ dime?? Did his parents pay property taxes in the town where he attended school?? Did he or his parents pay for his college education, or did he just happen to take a college education that an American kid “didn’t want”??

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    “The path to citizenship starts at the end of the line in their home countries, behind honest applicants waiting patiently to get in.” Except for some, like Marco Rubio’s father.

  7. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The Democrats made Cubans a special case because of the communist nature of the country, no doubt a form of amnesty if you will.? As such, Rubio senior became a citizen by being here at least two years.

    The original Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 allowed Cubans to become permanent residents if they had been present in the United States for at least 2 years. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-571) reduced this time to one year. Caps on immigration do not apply and it is not necessary that the applicant use a family-based or employment-based immigrant visa petition.
    Two other immigration rules are also waived. Unlike other immigrants, Cubans are not required to enter the United States at a port-of-entry. Second, being a public charge doesn’t make a Cuban ineligible to become a permanent resident.

    Rubio’s father came to the US in 1956 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971).
    I am not aware of any such provision for members of other countries, at least until ?bama’s executive order.

    • crystal4
      crystal4 says:

      Oh Dimsdale, it was ok for Rubio’s father? What about your comment “let them get in line” from previous post?

      • Lucinda
        Lucinda says:

        According to the Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, #5 reads “I was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence…”, so yeah, it was ok.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        My comment is to follow the law.? If they made special rules for Cubans, then those are the rules, until changed.

  8. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    But Crystal it was the Democrats who made Cubans citizens by law. Of course it was to make more Democrat voters and vastly unfair as it was not equal among races.? The law is the law, except presently under the Obama Administration.

  9. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Cuban Americans are Democrats? News to me. Unless there is another caveat: all Cuban Americans are Democrats except for Marco Rubio.

  10. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Pride in their own, they will support. Just as most black people supported President Obama. The Dems may have failed in the Cuban case. They underestimated the intelligence of them. HAH (knew that would get you). Most Cubans are not in favor of abortion and very family orientated. Dems do not appeal to them. Love when that happens

  11. yeah
    yeah says:

    Hey Crystal, how does it feel to get regularly and repeatedly taken to the cleaners?? You must enjoy it, otherwise you wouldnt keep showing up here.
    Clarity, why didnt it get done when Rs “were in control?”? Oh its that little thing called BIPARTISANSHIP.? You know, the one where Democrats accuse Republicans of not having any sense of it unless the R happens to “reach across the aisle” but if the shoe is on the other foot, then its “those damned republicans being obstructionist and partisan” when it comes time for a D to compromise.
    Which leads us to….SUPERMAJORITIES – the republicans did not have one and thus needed bipartisan support – and wow, unless there was amnesty in there as a part of a grand compromise, then a whole crapload of Ds would not even think of it.?
    Nope, we couldnt just secure the border first, its comprehensive or nothing!? And we got nothing!? Thanks again to democrats, because they most certainly were NOT the ones standing up saying “we can fix this in due time but why dont we at least close the borders up first?”

  12. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Perhaps what is needed is that all Tea Party members/supporters? stand shoulder-to-shoulder along the US-Mexico border to make sure nobody gets across w/o the proper credentials.

  13. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    Like Reagan did?
    He granted amnesty to millions -the ones that were here for years.
    And Bush? He refused to secure the borders unless he got his demand for 12 million “guest workers” approved. He refused to secure the borders even after 9/11!

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Huge mistakes both.? So ?bama, continuing what you imply to be bad governing (amnesty) by Reagan/Bush, is acceptable?
      Two wrongs don’t make a right, and three wrongs is just plain stupid, especially by someone purported to be so intelligent…

  14. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Blame Reagan, blame Bush. Do you want secure borders, amnesty,what? Exactly what has President Obama done on this issue except to vilify Jane Brewer?

  15. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    I cannot stop bringing up Bush and/or Reagan when you vilify Obama for doing (or not doing)the exact same thing. Don’t you realize how hypocritical it is?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      To follow your logic, how come ?bama, who is purported to be soooo intelligent, is copying what you call a failed path?

      I don’t recall anyone here agreeing with ANYONE’S amnesty for illegals.

  16. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Dimsdale, I apologize for getting way off of the subject of your post.? You said “….Obama has seen fit to unilaterally implement the so called “Dream” Act through an Executive Order.”
    Per http://www.lasvegusun.com/news/2011/May/11/harry-reid-reintroduces-dream-act/
    “Dream Act has proven impossible to get past the Senate.” Reid tried to bring it to the floor twice.? A Democrat majority Senate voted on the Act ” the final vote 55-41″. In other words, Congress whose job it is to pass legislation did not pass this Act.
    Some of the objection to the act was the desire to secure the borders first and that there should be some source of ID for voters.? I do not vilify Bush or Reagan because they did not issue an Executive order to pass an Act that did not pass Congress. I believe the President should not impose his wishes on his/her country that could not pass the wishes of Congress.? I do vilify President Obama because he is imposing his personal will to pass legislature where even the Senate controlled by his own party does not agree.? In my opinion, President Obama is doing an unprecedented action and he is wrong.

Comments are closed.