Whoopee! Patriots Have Same Old DREAM Act Amnesty To Kick Around Again
Print Friendly and PDF

I just may get my wish after all!

Last week I wrote that in an odd way I was sorry that a good amnesty dust up would not be taking place anytime soon.

I took my cue from Arizona Senator John Kyl's statement (repeated verbatim this week by Vice-President Joe Biden) that in light of President Barack Obama's overflowing plate of complex, compelling and divisive issues, so-called comprehensive immigration reform is going nowhere. [Immigration Reform Tough During Crisis, Says Biden, by John McPhaul, Reuters, March 30, 2009]

Although it would mean hours of faxing and writing yet more columns exposing the treasonous amnesty proponents, I was certain that those in Congress who had the temerity to endorse (non-patriotic) "comprehensive immigration reform" would suffer the consequences in 2010—a good thing for America.

Now look! The Dream Act is back!

Let the battle begin!

As I ponder it all, I imagine myself as a National Football League head coach. Preparing for the big game against our cross-town rivals, I'd sit down to review films from previous contests.

Watching the tape roll, I'd ask myself: "Is this the same futile game plan the DREAM Act team has drawn up for the last eight years? The one where we hammered them up one side of the field and down the other?"

And I'd answer my own question: "By golly, it is!"

I should know. I've been following the DREAM Act since 2001 when it first appeared, under a slightly different guise, in the 107th Congress as H.R. 1918 and in the Senate as S. 1291.

Since then, it has been introduced multiple times over the years in both the Senate (as the "DREAM Act") and the House (as the "American Dream Act"): in the Senate as S.1545 (108th Congress), S.2075 (109th Congress), S.774 (110th Congress), and S.2205 (110th Congress) and in the House as H.R.1684 (108th Congress), H.R.5131 (109th Congress), and H.R.1275 (110th Congress).

More doomed efforts followed. The DREAM Act text was also placed in various other failed immigration-related bills, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348).

With the failure of all the "comprehensive" reform bills, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, the DREAM Act's chief Senate proponent, made its passage a top 2007 priority.

Durbin then spearheaded a failed effort to bury the DREAM Act deep in a Department of Defense Authorization bill (S. 2919).

But it died a quick and painful (for Durbin) death when critics labeled it non-germane to defense matters and also noted that without an age cap, adults would qualify for a DREAM Act amnesty.

By my count that's 12 DREAM Act defeats: a dismal, back-to-the-low-minor leagues 0-12 record for the other side.

See how many similarities you can find to the 2009 DREAM Act from among these lowlights in its long history:

According to Murguia in a press release:

"Our country is deprived when hardworking immigrant youth are unable to pursue a college education and contribute to our economy.  These students have extraordinary potential, and we must cultivate it to address the challenges before us."[NCLR Applauds The Reintroduction Of The "Dream Act", March 26, 2009]

Where have I heard that before?

Take it from someone who recently retired from working with "hardworking immigrant youth" at California's Lodi Unified School Districtonly some have extraordinary potential.

Most immigrant students require remedial math and reading courses when (and if) they enroll in college.

But whether or not they're extraordinary, the DREAM Act would only continue their free, taxpayer subsidized ride that began in their mother's womb.

  • Smeared indignant patriots, this time accusing them of "unleashing their unrestrained fury" on Congress.
  • Promoted outrageously as having "wide bi-partisan support". If that were true, why didn't the DREAM Act pass in its many earlier versions?

In one of VDARE.COM's first columns about the DREAM Act, Editorial Collective member Juan Mann, a lawyer and the proprietor of DeportAliens.COM, asked: whose "dream" is this?

Mann noted that among others who share the "dream" are the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the ethnocentric lobbyists, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the whining alien families.

What the DREAM Act means to you is this: you will pay for illegal aliens' university tuition. Then, those who graduate will take their diplomas into the super-competitive, affirmative action oriented job market to unfairly beat your kids out of the few opportunities remaining in shrinking employment world.

In the process, the amnestied young adults will be able, through the "family-reunification" farce written into current immigration law,  to bring in their parents, older siblings and eventually even aunts, uncles and cousins, many of whom were guilty of breaking our laws and bringing the illegal-alien teens into the country in the first place.

Then, once the family has settled in, it can go about the business of getting low wage jobs—still coveted by poorer Americans.

What a deal—for them! Diplomas, jobs, family reunification, more jobs and American citizenship—all at your expense.

For you: absolutely nothing except a higher tax bill and fewer opportunities all around.

Shame on you for objecting!

Right about now you are probably wondering how I think DREAM Act 2009 will shake out. I'll answer you in a roundabout way.

When I lived in California, I frequently took long weekend kickback trips to Lake Tahoe. I always cruised through the sports book with my ear to the ground hoping to overhear a tidbit from one of the wise guys that would accrue to my financial benefit.

In the sports book, two schools of thought prevailed:

But another truism was much more widely embraced:

  • "The trend is your friend." When a team is on a prolonged winning streak, ride it right to the end.

As for the DREAM Act, anything is possible—especially with this anti-American crowd.

Nevertheless, I love—absolutely love—the probability that the other side's record will soon sink to 0-13.

And I'm looking good so far. When I filed my column early Friday morning, S. 729 had 18 co-sponsors and H.R.1751, 20—underwhelming, to put it kindly.  

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Print Friendly and PDF