Help me understand something.
A new report released by the Center for American Progress and the Partnership for a New American Economy (created by independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch) says that if illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children were given legal status, their improved access to college and better jobs would add $329 billion and 1.4 million jobs to the nation’s economy over two decades.
The report found that up to 223,000 of the 2.1 million young illegal immigrants eligible for the DREAM Act would have an easier time enrolling, paying for and finishing college, which would lead to the increased economic gains.
If this is even remotely the case, then why has the DREAM Act not been passed? After all, it was first introduced in 2001 as a bipartisan effort sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Further attempts in the past few years have all failed, primarily because it has become more partisan. For example, the House of Representatives passed it in 2010 with minimal Republican support, and it failed in the Senate when only three Republicans voted for it.
There are many requirements that need to be met in order to achieve permanent residency. Lots of checks and balances to abvoid abuse. But I want you make note of this:
These would be the children of illegal immigrants.
Children brought to the US by their parents, children who are of good moral character (no run ins with police for example) and who have graduated from high school (or obtained the GED equivalent). In order to remain, they must get a degree within a specified period of time.
So where is the biggest opposition coming from?
After helping write the original bill in a bipartisan fashion, the new GOP opposes it. The Tea Party sent over one million faxes to the Senate and then gloated that the “DREAM Act Goes Down in Flames in Senate…delivering a critical blow to Democrats and Hispanic activists.”
Mitt Romney has vowed to veto it.
I am confused.
The GOP advocates a total ban on abortions - even in the cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.
They say that “a baby that is a product of rape should not be killed. It is not the fault of the baby that it has been brought into the world. Why should the life of the baby be sacrificed because of the indignity suffered against the woman?”
It is that second quote that is of interest to me – “It is not the fault of the baby that it has been brought into the world.”
If you follow this logic, logic that is part of their 2012 election platform, then how does it reconcile when they oppose the DREAM Act and oppose helping out “children who have been brought to the US by their parents”? Those children did not ask to be brought to the US.
Protect unborn children, even in the cases of rape and incest, but punish those brought to the US by their parents, through no fault or choice of their own?
I just don’t understand. Do you?