This is my first attempt at a political blog. The reason why I’m writing this is because I hopped online to read a little about the proposed amendment to latest defense bill. This amendment has caused quite the stir. The dream act is billed by republicans as amnesty and the Democrats hype it as immigration reform.
Well after reading a couple articles I got frustrated. Not a single person backed up any of the facts that they stated in their blogs of news articles by sitting the actual legislation. Well that really ticks me off. I think I’m done with letting my politicians and news agencies tell me what something says. I’m a perfectly capable educated American. So I read the bill.
And then I reread it; I started following the bill cross-references and reading those. Then I started forming opinions. They are listed in the blue below. I also copied parts of the bill and put it in here for reference. I do encourage everyone to read it for him or herself and come their own conclusions. I did leave quite a bit of the bill out of this article just because of length. I kept coming back to one section of the bill. This is the section that I think goes beyond amnesty and totally misses the definition of the bill that every news agency and political pundent has failed to report.
I believe that the discretion that this bill gives to the DHS redifines American Immigration Policy. I feel that the SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS. , (d) DETAILS OF PETITION, (2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION (Sec.5 (d)(2). Creates a gigantic back door into the United States that is as large as our unprotected southern border.
This is the first definition of the Dream act.
- (1) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001
Below is the section of the Higher education Act that is referenced. This defines what this bill actually determines as an institution of higher learning.
`SEC. 101. GENERAL DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
`(a) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION- For purposes of this Act, other than title IV, the term `institution of higher education' means an educational institution in any State that--
`(1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
`(2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;
`(3) provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree;
`(4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
`(5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.
`(b) ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED-
`(1) any school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and that meets the provision of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subsection (a); and
`(2) a public or nonprofit private educational institution in any State that, in lieu of the requirement in subsection (a)(1), admits as regular students persons who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the institution is located.
This paragraph is the one that interests me. subsection(b)(2) a It scares me because these institutions could start to adopt a "pay for immigration status policy". Immigrants need only to sign up for classes and complete a 1 to 2 year diploma over a 6 year span to become naturalized citizens. This allows educational institutions to profit from our immigration policy. This will immediately lead to corruption in the educational system. Schools will tailor themselves to getting immigrants the required education amount to grant the citizenship.
Private companies that do not answer to any voters… Immigration should not depend on any for profit institution …enough said.
Furthermore at other state institutions the teachers, deans and administrators of educational institutions whom all might have different political views towards immigration will be helping to naturalize immigrants. This should not be part of a teachers job. No teacher should have to weigh weather giving a student a passing grade could determine weather or not they could be deported and separated from family based on the grade they receive in their class. (actually according t the hardship clause deportation or non naturalization due to not meeting the requirements of the bill could be very unlikely. This all depends of who is in control of the DHS, more on this later in the paper)
`(c) LIST OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES- For purposes of this section and section 102, the Secretary shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations that the Secretary determines, pursuant to subpart 2 of part H of title IV, to be reliable authority as to the quality of the education or training offered.
This is important
SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE
15 RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDU16
CATION BENEFITS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
19 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
Below is what is repealed.
SEC. 505. LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF ALIENS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT ON BASIS OF RESIDENCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount,
duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.
Below is the new language pertaining to Illigeal immigrants being able to obtain student Financial Aid.
21 SEC. 10. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) or any provision of title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1601et seq.), with respect to Federal financial education assistance, an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence under this Act and has not had the conditional basis removed shall not be eligible for—
(1) Federal Pell grants under part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.1070a et seq.); and
(2) Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants under part A of title IV of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1070b et seq.).
The catch for me in his paragraph is where they mention the "conditional basis". This conditional basis can be removed at any time after application to the DHS. so if a person can prove hardship in meeting the educational requirement of their conditional status they can have the conditional status removed so that they can pull financial aid and grants to aid them in meeting their educational requirements.
(2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION.—
A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional status of an alien if the alien—
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph(1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
This exemption gives the DHS the ability to naturalize people if
A. they have demonstrated good moral standing. (who decides that, this is very ambigious and leads to all kinds of arguable points, the first that comes tm mind is , who's morals?)
B. (C) the alien—
(i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), or (6)(E) of section 212(a) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:25 Mar 27, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1751.IH H1751 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS •HR 1751 IH of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)); and
this is another list of laws that cannot be broken or else citizen ship will not be granted, this list is filled with the loop holes of the already broken immigration legislation. this is not any improvement upon what we have for immigration in this respect.
(ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (2), or (4) of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1227(a)
This cover a whole slew of crimes that the person could be convicted of that would deny them entry, this is good it gives some added definition to the "Moral crime" and definition of many other crimes that would preclude someone from naturalization. It does also have loop holes because it goes to the digression of the attorney general.
(C) The alien has not abandoned the alien’s residence in the United States.
This provision is filled with holes and is just about un-provable. It is also stated that it itself is aivable due to hardship and separation clauses. So to become an immigrated naturalized citizen you don’t even have to stay in the country. I can understand that vacations and things like that should be allowed and travel not completely restricted, however the details of this provision allow for a person to live 1 out of six yeas in a foreign land and that can even be adjusted up to more time if need be.
With all of these clauses stacked up on top of each other it seems to me that the requirement of education (as thin a requirement as that is) one year or more in a college that is accredited correctly is almost an after thought. It is not a requirement to anyone that can prove it is a hardship to them, like (and I’m just speculating here) a mother of 4 or a father of 4 who needs to work or stay home to watch the kids.
Also another huge problem with this bill is that we are not supposed to give federal money to immigrants to become educated. This is already a law. This act will repeal the law and make a new one that is much more loose and full of holes than the existing law that we have. This is a tragedy. the main argument for anti illegal immigration is that federal tax dollars taken from Americans to help Americans are going to helping foreign nationals within our border while we do not help our own citizens. I fear this law only reinforces this policy.
Also under the hardship exemption is a clause that removes the education requirement completely. a person can become naturalized without completing the education if they "demonstrate compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements.
also under the hardship clause naturalization can take place without the education or military service that is supposed to happen in the dream act by proving that having to leave the country would cause hardship on your family in the US who are permanent residents of citizens. OK this is important.... If a person comes here hand starts a family illegally. IE anchor baby or one of their family members gets naturalized and they move here illegally. Then they sign up for this program. Without completing any of the requirements, education or military service, they can claim that if they have to leave it will cause a hardship (whatever a hardship is because hardship goes undefined.) they can become a citizen.......This is going to open the flood gates for the entire world to become a citizen of the USA.
Is this what we want…
