Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Nightmare Amnesty Hits The House Floor

By Greg L | 8 December 2010 | National Politics, Illegal Aliens, US Congress | 112 Comments

The so-called “DREAM Act”, a nightmare back-door amnesty for illegal aliens, is now on the floor of the lame duck Congress, which suggests that Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass it.  While it’s being billed as a way to give amnesty to minors, what it actually does is set up a mechanism to allow two million illegal aliens under the age of thirty to apply for amnesty for their illegal alien parents once they reach age twenty one.

Nice message to send.  Ignore the law long enough and we will reward your unlawful behavior by making that behavior legal.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2010 at 11:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Here’s some more detail on this characteristically horrible legislation:


    1. Application: The DREAM amnesty begins with illegal aliens filling out applications. They merely have to claim — not provide evidence — that they meet criteria of having been brought to the U.S. before age 16 and being under the age of 30 at time of enactment and being present in the U.S. at least 5 years before enactment of the amnesty, among other criteria.

    2. Work Permits Given: Once they allege these minimal criteria, the illegal aliens are given “conditional lawful permanent resident status” and are given a 10-year work permit to compete directly with the 22 million Americans who want a full-time job but can’t find one.

    Estimates suggest that up to 2 million illegal aliens could legitimately qualify for the opening application, and perhaps a couple million more might be or look young enough to fraudulently apply.

    Those millions would immediately be able to legally compete for any U.S. job.

    3. Ten Years of Work Before Education Required: Despite all the talk about how this amnesty is just for people who go to college or serve in the military, the illegal aliens don’t have to do much of anything in that regard to have the legal right to work for 10 years.

    Everybody who applies and gets the work permits has 10 years to complete two years of college or two years of military. Ten Years!

    By the way, despite the fact that some media outlets have taken to referring to the potential recipients of the amnesty as “the best and the brightest” and “stars,” illegal aliens can get the 10-year work permit merely by completing a GED and enrolling in a single course in a community college or trade school.

    4. When 10 Years Are Up, What’s The Chance of Anybody Being Asked to Leave? At the end of 10 years, illegal aliens who have not compiled two years of college or military would finally lose the right to compete legally with unemployed Americans for a job.

    But they also would have sunk 10 more years of roots into their communities, building up an even bigger claim that it would be a hardship to be forced to leave this country. In addition, their advocates in the open-borders groups can say that they aren’t really illegal aliens since they have just spent 10 years living and working as legal residents.

    Fortunately for them, the DREAM amnesty allows those who fail to meet any of the criteria after 10 years to file a claim of hardship. The US Citizenship & Immigration Services agency is given the right to issue waivers and allow these illegal aliens to stay. By the way, they can get a waiver if the hardship is to them, or if it would be to a spouse, one of their children or one of their parents.

    In the end, it is not only the 2 million potential qualified opening applicants but millions of potential fraudulant applicants who will get 10 years of legal competition against unemployed Americans. The only way the frauds can lose their work permit is if the government brings individualized cases to prove that they lied on the applications. Want to guess how many of the millions of fraud cases the government would have time to investigate and prosecute — one by one?

    Are any of the pro-DREAM amnesty supporters thinking about that?

    Aside from all the issues of rewarding or encouraging law-breaking, there is the question about why this Lame Duck Congress at this time of 9.8% unemployment would feel the need to greatly increase the job competition for unemployed Americans.

  2. yuk said on 8 Dec 2010 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Even if fifty investigators were hired and assigned, that’s merely one investigator per state, which is completely insufficient. And furthermore I would be shocked if there were fifty new people hired solely for this function. It is, in my humble opinion, more likely that the investigative function would merely be added on to people already assigned to other functions.

  3. Freddy Fender said on 8 Dec 2010 at 12:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amnistía, no.
    Deportación, sí.

  4. Robert L. Duecaster said on 8 Dec 2010 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    If George Allen were in the Senate, I bet he’d co-sponsor this piece of garbage legislation.

  5. Doug Brown said on 8 Dec 2010 at 2:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    The fees, the fees, look at the fees. These jokers in Congress are too funny. Most of them know that USCIS is a criminal enterprise, operating on fees for sometimes as much as 99% of its budget, they have never and will never be able to pass a legitimate audit. The stories behind their failure to keep track of the money they collect are legion, going back to the good old INS days.

    So what does the Congress and the feds dream up for themselves in the Dream Act to address this issue? Congress and the feds decide that they want to get in on a piece of the action. They allow USCIS to keep their adjudication and other processing fees but they want a little something for themselves. $2,525 sounds good, hey?

    Shaken down by your own government, welcome to America kids.

  6. Politico said on 8 Dec 2010 at 2:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    You idiots are incredible. What grinch stole your Christmas? These are the same children who sit in your pew at a different hour, celebrate the same Christmas and celebrate this country as theirs.

    You are a reflection of hate. A business tie instead of a bed sheet. A mistake that has a charred soul.

    They will stand in judgement of you some day. I will help them to remember.

  7. Doug Brown said on 8 Dec 2010 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Politico said:
    “They will stand in judgement of you some day.”

    It looks like you already did that for them.

  8. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2010 at 4:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    I dont believe the senate has the votes to pass this!!

  9. Robert L. Duecaster said on 8 Dec 2010 at 4:05 pm:
    Flag comment


    They can sit in my pew, Politico, and they can eat at my table, also. I bear no ill will toward illegal aliens or their children individually, or collectively, for that matter. They are merely doing what is in their best interest, i.e., escaping from failed states and self-destructive cultures. But rewarding that immigration with citizenship only encourages the failed states to continue on their failing courses, it enables the self-destructive cultures to continue their self-destructive behavior, and it invites more illegal immigrants to flaunt our borders and laws.

  10. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2010 at 4:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    US citizens did not ask these “children” OR their parents to come here.

    US citizens did not get to vote over this influx of foreigners.

    So why these should “children”, and by extension their law breaking, gate crashing parents, be in any way rewarded while we, the citizens, are penalized by having to pay for these so-called innocents and their so-called DREAM.

  11. Pat said on 8 Dec 2010 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    and we have none other than the original author of the Dream Act to thank - Orin Hatch. But that was back in the day when the Republicans wanted the Hispanic vote.

  12. Enough is enough. said on 8 Dec 2010 at 6:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have much more angst over the law enforcement community of America which is more eager to slam the average American over some BS, revenue enhancing scam than to actually protect the citizens (we have to assume that means legal citizens).

    I don’t blame the illegals for taking advantage of a system engineered by our venal politicians.

    I have used the analogy before, and I think its perfectly appropriate: What moral authority does a leo have to give a speeding ticket in a subdivision, under construction, heavily populated with illegal aliens?

    There is no moral authority. Why do we see so many instances of clap trap cars, missing the most obvious of parts, driven by obviously hispanic drivers - when we know if we are too busy working to pay taxes to get our cars inspected, we will be nailed?

    Why do we have to do business with people, who when estimating and selling the job, send out well dressed Americans and when its time to do the job - we see a truck load of El Salvadorans - none of which can speak English?

    Why do we tolerate this?

    Why do our stinking so called representatives allow this to plague our neighborhoods?

    It has to stop somewhere.

  13. citizenofmanassas said on 8 Dec 2010 at 7:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    And of course it won’t stop at this if the bill passes. child rape supporters will then say, we can’t divide families by deporting their illegal parents, so of course their next bill will be to grant amnesty to those illegals whose children were granted amnesty under this bill.

  14. Yawning Wolf said on 8 Dec 2010 at 8:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    If we grant amnesty to 2 million illegals… we will quickly have 4 million more. If you reward bad behavior… you get more bad behavior.

  15. citizenofmanassas said on 8 Dec 2010 at 9:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    The House passed the bill earlier tonight, 216 to 198. Eight “gop” members voted to support criminals.

  16. Citizen12 said on 9 Dec 2010 at 3:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Once again the subversive elements in our elected body of government are moving forward their Marxist agenda.

    Support of the DREAM act in any way is anti American. The fact that it even exists speaks to the depth of subversion within our government.

    Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; “We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it.”

    “When the government violates the people’s rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties.”
    Marquis De Lafayette quote

  17. USA said on 9 Dec 2010 at 6:36 am:
    Flag comment

    On the bright side, the Americans on the Supreme Court appear to be looking favorably upon Arizona’s law stripping business licenses from employers of illegals.

    If they uphold Arizona, it will probably not mean that Virginia will suddenly grow a spine and follow suit, but it will at least be a step in the right direction.

  18. Anonymous said on 9 Dec 2010 at 7:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Eleven Republican representatives who did not even bother to vote.

    # Brian Bilbray, California
    # Roy Blunt, Missouri
    # Steve Buyer, Indiana
    # Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
    # Phil Gingrey, Georgia
    # Kay Granger, Texas
    # Parker Griffith, Alabama
    # Kenny Marchant, Texas
    # Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington State
    # George Radanovich, California
    # Marlin Stutzman, Indiana

  19. Freedom said on 9 Dec 2010 at 7:50 am:
    Flag comment

    Although at first, I may appear to be off-topic, but I’m really not, it’s all related.
    Many of us don’t like what the liberal politicians (notice that I didn’t use the terms Republican or Democrat) are doing about illegal aliens and we complain to each other about them. However, when it comes to the point of actually getting out and visibly/actively supporting the rule of law…when it comes to the point of working to support individual choice and freedom…when it comes to the point of insisting upon individual responsibility and accountability…and when it comes to the point of demanding that politicians become better stewards of our hard-earned tax dollars, we don’t have much stomach for that.

    In this country, we have needy people, of course, but we have far, far more who are capable but don’t care about individual responsibility and want only to eat and live “for free.” We can’t wait for the next election; if we don’t get busy…and get busy soon, we’re going to lose this country that our ancestors have worked and fought so hard to build.

  20. Doug Brown said on 9 Dec 2010 at 7:53 am:
    Flag comment

    Bilbray is surprising, it may be a personal reason.
    Blunt is not surprising.

  21. Forgotten Man said on 9 Dec 2010 at 8:27 am:
    Flag comment

    What a shocker. It looks as though our just elected Congressman Gerry Connolly voted YEA for the bill. So much for representing his district I suppose.

  22. somadmom said on 9 Dec 2010 at 9:34 am:
    Flag comment

    How dare our politicians sneak this bill through. Now I know that these guys that voted for it will do anything for a vote, and they need to be 86′d in the next election.

    I cannot for the life of me see the good in this bill. It goes against everything that America is built on. You are rewarded for honest, hard work. Not hand-outs and someone else paying your way. But that is what we do, we have the wage-earners foot the bill for those that could care less and they don’t even have permission to BE ON THIS SOIL!

    I am so mad, I’m changing my name.

  23. Cynic said on 9 Dec 2010 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, if it gets killed in the Senate, it will be on hold for two year - theoretically - as you never know what deal might eventually be struck with our newly elected congress.

  24. somadmom said on 9 Dec 2010 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    WASHINGTON – Democrats have delayed a showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally.
    Facing GOP objections, Democrats are putting aside the so-called Dream Act. They’re short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.
    Democratic officials say they’ll try to move a House-passed version after the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts. Republicans have said they won’t agree to consider anything else until those issues are addressed.
    The bill grants hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.
    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
    Less than 24 hours after the House carved out a path to legalization for hundreds of thousands of foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally, their hopes of legal status are likely to be dashed in the Senate.
    Democrats face an uphill climb to gather the 60 votes needed in a vote expected Thursday to advance the so-called Dream Act over opposition by most Republicans and a handful of their own members.

  25. PW Resident said on 9 Dec 2010 at 6:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Although I can see legitimate purposes of the DREAM Act, I think the bill introduced by Senators Durbin and Leahy is flawed and should be amended. If not, it should be voted down.
    My issues involve section 4. In the first case, there is a provision that the recipient may not have been convicted of a felony, or 3 or more offenses “on different dates”. So if a person is convicted of 5, 10 or even 20 charges on a certain date, it still counts as only 1. And they could do this another 2 times before they cannot apply for DREAM Act provisions. Excuse me? Is this the type of person we should encourage? How many charges have been reduced to misdemeanors for judicial expediency? We should permit none in order to qualify for DREAM Act or at a minimum the law should drop “on different dates.”
    Then there is a waiver provision that permits the DHS to waive parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act for “humanitarian, family unity” and public interest. In looking over the waivable portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, this means people with communicable diseases, people who could be become “public charges”, criminals and other less desirable elements just for “family unity”. Under that Act, the authority is reserved to the Attorney General but this broadens the waiver provisions for the DHS. So I assume that for “family unity”, a member of a gang could stay here no matter the crimes committed if his brother/sister receives status. It probably also covers parents who brought them here.
    This is too many loopholes and is therefore flawed from a public policy perspective.

  26. usa said on 9 Dec 2010 at 9:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    there are no legitimate parts of the “dream” act. The dream is only one of a criminal hoping to get ahead.

    Full frickin stop.

    You want to come to OUR country? Go to the consulate in YOUR country and obey the fing laws.

    Otherwise, you are a criminal. One fine day, Americans will take over and that will make you an endangered species. Capture on sight and remove to the closest border. If we see you again - you get to meet bubba in one of our finest prisons. On that same fine day, the slick little punk who was hiring you is also going to be in the same encounter group.

  27. Red, White and Blue said on 9 Dec 2010 at 9:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    *****Politiico said on 8 Dec 2010 at 2:54 pm:

    “You idiots are incredible. What grinch stole your Christmas? These are the same children who sit in your pew at a different hour, celebrate the same Christmas and celebrate this country as theirs.

    You are a reflection of hate. A business tie instead of a bed sheet. A mistake that has a charred soul.

    They will stand in judgement of you some day. I will help them to remember.”

    Well Politico, you had better reread your Bible again before you preach to me. See, there is a wall around Heaven and there is a GATE at Heaven, there is an ANGEL guarding the gate with a SWORD. You have to QUALIFY before you can enter Heaven.
    If you don’t, you are NOT getting in!

    Hmmm, sounds like there are rules there, requirements to met, walls, gates, guards to keep out those who fail to meet the grade. Do you lock your doors, lock your car, call the police if an intruder were to arrive, have a fence in your yard? Even Santa has a list and those who are good are rewarded, not the bad.
    Go preach to the rock, it might listen but won’t answer.
    How many illegals do you employ?

  28. Cynic said on 9 Dec 2010 at 11:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Intruders - in most states, maybe all 50, it is perfectly legal to shoot someone - not a relative - who breaks into your home at night.

    And of course, some states have passed the Stand you Ground laws.

    Many foreigners, including illegals, are not aware of these fine American customs.

  29. Citizen12 said on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:53 am:
    Flag comment

    DREAM act final vote - 216 -198.

    Eleven republicans did not vote and eight republicans voted for it.

    That would be at least 19 people who don’t understand who they are supposed to be representing and/or the depth of responsibility the people have entrusted them with.

    This is the U.S. Congress here, not the North American Union. Although it would be beneficial to have a few of our representatives speaking of behalf of the Americans they represent with a similar enthusiasm for the truth of say Daniel Hannan or Nigel Farage of the European Union.

    Daniel Hannan

    Nigel Farage

  30. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 4:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow. I am sickened by a lot of the comments left on here. First of all, this is a nation of IMMIGRANTS. The new incoming immigrants have every right to be here, just like your ancestors before you. Or did you forget that? I’m not saying coming here illegally is a good thing, but these people struggle all there lives and are now struggling to provide a better life for themselves but more for their children and future generations. Don’t we as HUMAN BEINGS have the freedom to pursue liberty and a happy life? Or are you going to say my morals are not right? The Dream Act gives these people the ability to do things the way YOU want them to. I have learned that no matter what you will never accept these people as human beings but as criminals and for some of you sub-human. For God’s sake we’re still considered a minority. You don’t want them to even integrate with your community. My parents were illegals at one point but are now fine citizens of this country because they were given the opportunity. I am grateful for that because I would not even be here if it weren’t for their hard work. We’re destroying your culture? Tell me then, what is your culture? Last time I remembered I had a hard time describing an “American” culture. I celebrate my Guatemalan culture because I will always be proud of my roots and I refuse to forget them. Ever thought of doing the same?

  31. Greg L said on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    So if illegal aliens “have every right to be here” despite federal laws to the contrary, I have to wonder whether any random person “has every right” to kidnap your mother, despite federal laws against that. If not, the mechanism that determines which laws one “has every right” to violate and which laws we don’t have a right to violate utterly escapes me.

    Perhaps you’re just far more enlightened than I and can figure out this qualitative difference intuitively. Because I’m just a knuckle-dragging neanderthal with limited mental powers, I usually rely on the concept that the law should be obeyed as written, and I don’t pick and choose which ones I adhere to and which ones I willfully disobey.

    Hey, maybe if I’m really a hard worker and trying to better my life, is it okay if I kidnap your mother so I can sell her to slave traders in order to feed my hungry children? It’s for the kids, after all!

  32. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m speaking in moral terms. Every person on the face of this earth has the right to better their lives. Who said these people don’t work hard? You have this general idea that all illegals are horrible people that are taking advantage of the system. I like you didn’t even address the question of the American culture that they are so-called “ruining”. The Dream Act gives these people the opportunity to better their lives by granting the rights of a citizen.

    As for you being a neanderthal? You said it, not me.

  33. Greg L said on 10 Dec 2010 at 6:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    So “in moral terms” you’re fine with people willfully breaking the law “in order to better their lives.” I can better my life by breaking into your house and stealing your possessions (fencing all that stuff will be hard work, by the way), especially if I take advantage of lax law enforcement that reduces my chances of being prosecuted for my crime.

    So strictly in “moral terms,” I suppose you’re fine with me robbing your house. Or is that particular law one I should respect, but the law that you select be the one people are free to disregard, and even be rewarded for violating?

    Funny how open borders liberals can’t manage to craft a logical argument and instead fall back on platitudes about people getting “opportunities to better their lives by receiving amnesty.”

  34. citizenofmanassas said on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:33 pm:
    Flag comment


    We are also a Nation of rules. I do not thnk it’s by chance that Nations that are successful are also ones with a good law foundation. The Nations that are populated by people who have a respect for the law are usually far better off than Nations where there is no rule of law. And, it’s also not by chance that many if not most of the our illegals come from Countries that are poorly run. So, if they want to make a difference, they can keep their “hard work” ethic in their own Country. We do not need illegals.

    Though, I’m sure you are also fine with illegals not paying taxes, not having car insurance, etc. Do you also think it’s fine they lie and cheat to gain access to social programs they are not entitled to? Do you think it’s fair for them to steal the credit and identities of others?

    Where would you draw the line for allowing an illegal to stay? After they have raped and murdered a child? After they have driven drunk and killed people? Or, do you also think those people still deserve to get a break.

  35. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey take my stuff. I’m not materialistic to begin with so go ahead. And there are illegals that pay taxes, stop generalizing everyone. Second why are you stereotyping illegals as people who would rape and murder people? Americans do it as well. As for social programs I know for a fact that they don’t use it anymore than we do. So you can’t use the idea of “illegals take advantage of welfare once they get here” The percentage of immigrants, illegal or not, that use social programs is the same percentage as Americans. You make it out to seem as if they come here to harm you or cause trouble and that’s what I don’t appreciate. Like I’ve stated before we’re a country based off immigration. Now all of sudden we can put up these laws to not allow people in anymore? That’s what I don’t understand, nor will I ever. I love this country but it’s hard to be proud of being American if I know there’s people out there assuming all these things just because I’m a certain skin color. I mean really? Do I have to take my passport everywhere I go now because I look like a possible illegal?

  36. Citizen12 said on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:52 pm

    I’m speaking in moral terms


    O.K. lets talk moral.




    1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
    2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
    3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
    4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
    5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
    6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
    7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
    8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

    I see nothing about breaking the law, lying, or stealing listed above but that is in fact what people who enter this country illegally do to get in here and to stay here. There is nothing moral about that.

    The Marxist dogma used to justify the actions of these people may have brainwashed them, but not us.

    There are very few people who are “all” bad. That is not the point. The point is people who side step the qualifications and break the rules not only damage themselves but many around them, and they are too concerned about getting what they want to worry about what they are destroying to get it. When you multiply that by millions who have done the same thing the negative impact to the ESTABLISHED society they have invaded are catastrophic on all levels.

    And it does not matter one bit how hard they work, how much they love their children or the reasons they use to justify their actions.

  37. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 8:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hm really?

    Your definition of moral also included:

    3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

    “rather than on legalities”

    Yeah morals are principles. Where would we be if our founders didn’t take risks? Where would we be if a lot of people didn’t take risks?

  38. Cynic said on 10 Dec 2010 at 8:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Moral - I think that it is immoral for our politicians to allow our schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods to be destroyed by this invasion of illegals and then want to pass legislation that would grant them an easy path to citizenship (amnesty) and then have this path paid for by the tax payers.

    Just how does this action (amnesty) benefit any non-traitorous American?

    Yeah, and my heart bleeds for the illegals when I hear their sob, sob stories.

  39. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 8:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow. Narrow-minded much? Invasion? You act if these were aliens from another planet. Have you forgotten that the British did the same to Native Americans? You guys just barged in and considered it “a right” to claim the land for yourselves. They’re not even coming here to claim land, they’re coming for opportunity. Who’s destroying what? My parents didn’t wreck anything when they got here. My family did no damage at all to this country. Many immigrants that I know have not caused any harm to anyone. Yeah that 6 year old illegal immigrant from elementary school is going to beat up that citizen over and graffiti the school afterwards. Are you serious? You are all generalizing once again that illegals are destroying your neighborhoods, etc. Amnesty is granted to those who have worked hard in school and got the good grades but can’t go to college. I know people who are at the top of their class but can’t go to the best college because of their status here. You’re telling me they don’t deserve that chance?

  40. USA said on 10 Dec 2010 at 8:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    I know people who are at the top of their class but can’t go to the best college because of their status here. You’re telling me they don’t deserve that chance?

    Yup, thats right. They are otherwise known as CRIMINALS.

    Get it? Break our laws and you are a criminal. Pretty simple, really.

    I wonder how things would be if we have the illegal immigration laws of, say, Mexico?

    Es la ley - right?

  41. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 8:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yeah because at age three they decided to come here. Ok, so if they’re parents are criminals in your minds, why are they to blame? Why can’t they become citizens? If you committed a crime and your child suffered the consequences as well, would that be right?

    This is the point I’m trying to make. We’re talking children of illegals. Fine, their parents decided to come here illegally, but why can’t their children at least get the better opportunites? The parents made the trip to get them here. They had nothing to do with it. Why are you so against this Dream Act that provides them the opportunity to become educated?

    If illegals are all criminals, shouldn’t we all be? Native Americans were here first. They had their societies established and we came and disrupted their way of living. Far worse than what today’s illegal immigrants are doing to us. They’re not putting us on reservations are they? We should all be in prison, if that’s the case.

  42. Anonymous said on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    You make it out to seem as if they come here to harm you or cause trouble and that’s what I don’t appreciate.–>MANASSAS, Va. —
    A Manassas area man is now facing murder charges after his 2-month-old son died of serious head injuries last month.

    A grand jury in Prince William Circuit Court this week indicted Henry Lusvin Morales, 25, of Daisy Court in the Manassas area, on a charge of felony murder.

    Prince William County police were called to the Morales home about 8:40 p.m. on Oct. 17 for a report of an infant not breathing, police said at the time.

    Two-month-old Dominick Morales was found suffering critical head and internal injuries, police said.

    The baby was taken to an area hospital, where he died about three weeks later, on Nov. 6.
    Morales, the infant’s father, is an illegal immigrant, and county police have notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a police spokesman said.

    Morales is being held at the Prince William-Manassas regional jail without bond, and on a detainer from ICE, jail officials said.

    Felony murder is defined as accidentally killing someone while committing another felony.

    If convicted of felony murder, Morales faces up to 40 years in prison.

    His trial date has not yet been set.


  43. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ok, how many Americans have that done if not worse to their children? Americans are not perfect angels.

  44. Citizen12 said on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, Proud and Grateful, what you’re holding to is if I rob a store run by your parents and grandparents and hide the money with my kids, they get to go out and spend it because, hey, they did not commit the crime?

    So they can’t go to jail because they did not commit the crime AND they can enjoy all the ill gotten booty they can carry because, hey, they are kids right?

    And hey, why should your parents and grandparents and your family be down on me anyway, I’m just trying to do the best I can, right? I’m the victim, I’m not the one with the money, and I’m not the one with the power, right?

    Your line of logic is the very reason the Marxist has had such an easy time in third world countries. And the reason they will likely stay third world.

    And your argument is as old as Uncle Karl himself.

    The charge of Eurocentrism is often made on the basis of remarks made by Marx in articles that he wrote in the early 1850s…..

  45. Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 11:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not if the child is three years old. They’re trusting their parents are doing the right thing. Another thing why is it that you guys compare this situation to these crimes. All these people did was come here. They’re trying to become citizens while being here. It’s not easy to get a visa here as it was 30 years ago. It’s easy for you to say get out when you’re born here. Even I recognize it that I was privileged being born here. I also want fellow human beings to get the same opportunity.

  46. Greg L said on 10 Dec 2010 at 11:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    So the way to to that then is passing a bill riddled with serious problems, prevented from being marked up in committee, prohibited from being amended, and rushed through the House in the last days of a lame duck session. If this were the actual intent of the folks who pushed this monstrosity, you’d think they’d work to craft a careful, narrowly tailored bill with bipartisan input that might gain broader support. Instead Pelosi and the gang tried to rush through another horrible piece of legislation that attempted to do something dramatically different than what they said it would do — namely to provide a mechanism for adult illegal aliens to obtain an amnesty that deeply offends a broad swath of the electorate.

    Pelosi’s gang as usual tried to sell America on one thing and deliver something entirely different. That she failed is something to celebrate.

  47. Cynic said on 11 Dec 2010 at 1:05 am:
    Flag comment

    “I also want fellow human beings to get the same opportunity.”

    Well, how many fellow human beings can we accommodate in this already overpopulated country?

  48. Anonymous said on 11 Dec 2010 at 5:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Mexico’s Dream Act is building a Southern Border Wall with Guatemala:


  49. citizenofmanassas said on 11 Dec 2010 at 8:16 am:
    Flag comment


    Stop losing focus. We are talking about illegals. They do not belong in the Country. Sure Americans commit crimes, but nobody is saying they should be rewarded for their criminal actions. And since you did not answer the question, I’ll assume that you would extend amnesty to even those illegals that have raped and murdered. And, right here is where you side gets tripped up on the issue. Your side says every illegal is a hardship case, or they were not aware of what they were doing etc. The message continues that all illegals love America(except it’s hard to say that with so many of them not bothering to learn English, to pay taxes, to not stop committing crime, and to stop flying the flag of their Country of Birth), how they will make America better.

    In reality, your side cares very little how many crimes illegals commit, in your eyes, no crime committed is enough to deport an illegal.

    Give me a break. There is no way you would allow people to break into your house, steal your property and make themselves at home.

  50. NoVA Scout said on 11 Dec 2010 at 10:21 am:
    Flag comment

    Proud - CoM goes nuts like that in public just to give those who oppose illegal immigration a bad name. It’s a parody. Enjoy the laugh value, but understand that it’s not meant to be taken seriously.

  51. Greg L said on 11 Dec 2010 at 4:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Excellent commentary on this by Peggy Sands:

    It isn’t just a problem with timing. While the legislation addresses the compelling plight of the illegal immigrant high school graduate, it suffers major flaws that make it patently unfair.

    Here are several big flaws.

    It discriminates against children of legal immigrants. Under the law, for example, high school graduates under age 30 who were brought to the country illegally before age 16 would have access to in-state tuition, publicly funded student loans and a green card. But foreign-born high school graduates in those same age groups who were brought into the country legally wouldn’t quality for these invaluable benefits. The DREAM Act benefits illegal immigrants only.

    Likewise, these illegal immigrants would only need to serve in the military for two years to expedite citizenship. Legal immigrants have to put their life on the line for three years before getting that benefit. That’s a difference that’s not just unfair, but potentially deadly.

    By favoring millions of illegal immigrants over legal ones, the DREAM Act surely will encourage more young foreign nationals to enter and/or stay in the U.S. illegally. While the bill is limited only to those currently in the country, it’s highly likely that once granted, the “dream” will be extended to future young illegal immigrants who graduate from an American high school “or its equivalent.” With such benefits, why come in legally?

    The age range is too broad. Because of the generous qualifying age range of before 16 and up to 30 years old, an estimated 2 million adult illegal immigrants would qualify immediately for green cards under the DREAM Act, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute — twice as many as normally are given out in a single year. Opponents call this unacceptable “sneak amnesty.”

    Some proponents also recognize this to be extreme and, last week, the upper age limit was reduced to 30 from 35 years old. But some argue that the upper range should be reduced to 24, while the lower age limit should be set at 10 or even 8 years old. That would better reflect the goal of the act to benefit students who’ve only known the U.S. as home.

    It’s being falsely marketed. Backers say the DREAM Act is the only way for illegal immigrant high school graduates to go to college. The fact is, they already can attend many highly tolerant colleges throughout the country. “We don’t ask students about their immigration status. If they’ve graduated from high school and qualify academically, they’re admitted,” Charles B. Reed, chancellor of the California State University system, told me in June. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of his position in November.

    To be sure, the DREAM Act does fulfill one dream — the dream of colleges and universities for more Hispanic students. Last winter the powerful Hispanic Association of College and Universities urged passage of the act, saying that it not only would send a positive message to Latinos, but would also help colleges qualify for a new $1 billion U.S. Department of Education fund aimed exclusively at Hispanic-serving institutions.

    To apply, colleges need to document that 25 percent of their students are Hispanic. The DREAM Act would be a rich source of such students.

    There are many compelling reasons why any immigrant who was brought into the country as a very young child and goes on to complete high school, college or serve in the armed forces with a clean record should be allowed to apply for permanent legal status.

    The DREAM Act can be fixed to benefit this more limited population. But that would require lawmakers to be brutally honest about the law’s real purpose. It’s about obtaining a permanent legal residency work permit (a green card). After all, what is the use of attending an expensive U.S. college if you don’t have the right to stay and work, if you can be deported at any time?

    Of course, looking at the DREAM Act as a work-permit bill makes it much more difficult to pass during a recession with at least 10 percent of American workers unemployed or underemployed. It’s much easier to pitch it as fulfilling the dreams of wonderful young immigrants who are in the country illegally to go to college.

    This spin is the DREAM Act’s biggest problem and why it probably won’t become law.


  52. Anonymous said on 11 Dec 2010 at 4:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    “PHOENIX - A federal judge has denied a request by the Arizona Latino Republican Association to become a party to the federal government’s challenge to the state’s new immigration law. The 230-member group asked the court to let it join Gov. Jan Brewer in defending the law against the challenge by the U.S. Justice Department. The group made its request a week before U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put the law’s most controversial portions on hold.

    One of the group’s arguments was that members were concerned that their interests may not be adequately represented by those defending the law. Bolton rejected that argument…”


    The leftist “judge” has already approved “friend of the court” briefs from dozens of groups: the ACLU, unions, 10 FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, including Mexico and all of Central America. Then she reject The Arizona Latino Republican Association’–which SUPPORTS SB1070, and which is made up of US citizens.

    Why? Because the Open Borders Mafia doesn’t want you to know these folks even exist. They want to perpetuate the LIE of a monolithic Hispanic bloc that is pro-amnesty, pro-illegal alien, pro-bleed US of A like one big host, the one-world welfare office - let US taxpayers foot the bill for schooling, medical care, social services…

    DHS confirms cheaper to deport every illegal alien than allowing them to stay

    On December 3, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Peacock, responding to request from several U.S. Senators, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote: “Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

    In July 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) released the results of a study which examined the costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local levels. The study found that U.S. state and local governments shell out $84.2 billion annually in various services (law enforcement, schools, social services, etc.), with California taxpayers alone, spending $21 billion on illegal aliens every year.

    The same study found that $29 billion is spent every year in federal funds on illegal aliens.

    So, while it would cost a one-time fee of about $135 billion to deport every single illegal alien in the country, it is actually a bargain considering the fact that it already costs us $113 billion annually to keep them here.

    In other words, the mass deportation would pay for itself in a little over a year.

    Incidentally, in 2007, the DHS estimated the cost of deporting all illegal aliens to be approximately $94 billion.


    DHS Fast-Tracking 84 Million Mexicans Allowing Them to Bypass Airport Security…


  53. USA said on 11 Dec 2010 at 7:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    t discriminates against children of legal immigrants. Under the law, for example, high school graduates under age 30 who were brought to the country illegally before age 16 would have access to in-state tuition, publicly funded student loans and a green card. But foreign-born high school graduates in those same age groups who were brought into the country legally wouldn’t quality for these invaluable benefits. The DREAM Act benefits illegal immigrants only.

    Any sentient being has to read this and come to the conclusion of WTF?

    Why are our politicians selling us down the river - and even better, why are we allowing this to happen?

    We don’t have to. Ever. Contact every living representative in your food chain and let them know this is over. It is over now. No more.

    You want the title, the perks, the power - fing earn it. Start representing the people who hired you. Thats us. Its not some scumbag landscaper, or builder, or restaurateur - its us, the little guys who pay your frickin salary, give you your fricking bennies that none of us have, that make your Merry Christmas merry.

  54. Anonymous said on 12 Dec 2010 at 12:41 am:
    Flag comment

    There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for providing a “path to citizenship” or any other privilege, benefit, subsidy or support crutch for people who have violated our immigration laws. Unless, of course, you’re a politician trying to pad your numbers.

    Strip this of all the bleeding heart “it’s for the children who have no say in this world” schlock, strip it down to the bare brass tacks and what we have is another attempt to import/ buy voters.

  55. citizenofmanassas said on 12 Dec 2010 at 12:36 pm:
    Flag comment


    It’s you and the other supporters of illegals that are the joke. I have never changed my position on the issue, and have been very consistent in asking those that support illegals at what point would their supporters no longer support amnesty for them. It’s amazing how up to that point their supporters love flapping their lips. Then suddenly they can’t seem to find a word to say.

    And, since “proud” has been given ample time to respond to a very simply request, one can assume they want every and all illegal to be granted amnesty. I’ll gladly say otherwise if there is a response.

  56. wirewhisk said on 12 Dec 2010 at 1:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    There is a way for those brought here illegally as children to go to college in the US and be here legally, but it is a costly and somewhat time consuming process, and not every child would be able to do it. This is how a girl named Izzy managed it this year:

    Izzy was born in Mexico. Her father is a US citizen but she’s only met him on a couple of occaisions. When Izzy was 5 months old, her mother showed up in CA and dropped Izzy off with her aunt and basically disappeared into the sunset. The aunt, who was here in the US on LPR status was granted custody of Izzy by a US court after no one could locate mom. Izzy gained a SSN, though it is not valid for employment. For the next 17 years, Izzy grew up in the US and went to school here. She graduated from HS in 2010 with a 3.8 GPA. However, since she was by all means in the country illegally, she was not eligible for a drivers license, nor could she legally gain employment. And once she was no longer considered to be a dependent of her aunt, she would then be considered to be responsible for her status as an illegal (minors are not held responsible for their status, that only happens when they turn 18).

    Izzy wanted to go to college, but knew she could not stay in the US legally once she graduated from HS. So the family pooled their resources and hired an immigration lawyer who said that the only way for Izzy to go to college in the US and be in the US legally was for her to leave voluntarily and apply to return on a student VISA. The lawyer gathered Izzy’s transcripts, Izzy went through a criminal record check, recommendations from her HS teachers and community members, etc were gathered for the student VISA application. The day after Izzy graduated from HS, she and her lawyer went to the nearest immigration office and Izzy surrendered for a voluntary return to Mexico ( a country she was last in as an infant). She went to live with a great aunt in Mexico while the lawyer submitted her student VISA application. The lawyer said the process might take a couple of years. Well, five months later Izzy’s VISA application was approved, and she applied for and was accepted to a university in the US. She will return to the US LEGALLY next week. There are stipulations though. She must pay a higher tuition, and during school breaks she must either live in the dorm or return to Mexico. She is not permitted to stay with family members. Her aunt btw, received her citizenship before Izzy turned 18, but could not formally adopt Izzy because Izzy wasn’t born here.

  57. hmmm said on 12 Dec 2010 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    If Izzy’s father is a US citizen, then Izzy is too.

  58. local gop said on 12 Dec 2010 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    I find it laughable that no one is addressing the real issue here…how exactly to get rid of, to use your phrase, the 8-10 million undocumented immigrants (excuse me…illegal immigrants) that are in the US right now. Any immigration reform that doesn’t address that issue isn’t worth the paper its printed on. If it were as simple as holding accountable those who employ them than that would have been done already, but its not. There simply is no plausible plan to deal with those currently in the country. That being said, how is it amnesty to exchange military service for citizenship? Amnesty means you get a free pass, working to earn something isn’t amnesty, nice scare tactic title though, Greg.

  59. Anonymous said on 12 Dec 2010 at 3:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    “There simply is no plausible plan to deal with those currently in the country.”

    The “plan” thus far has been to grant them accommodations at every turn…

    How about we start scaling back all the perks and privileges that our government has so generously doled out…public schools, hospitals, welfare etc…

    As long as you keep tossing bird seed around your yard, the birds are going to flock to it…

  60. citizenofmanassas said on 12 Dec 2010 at 3:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP,

    I find it laughable that you and other would want child rapists, gang members, etc, to be rewarded.

    To further slam you….. How do police find wanted people? How do they find criminals? Police come into contact with illegals every day. Arrest them, pass them on to the Federal Government who then deport them.

    Any other questions?

  61. Anonymous said on 12 Dec 2010 at 4:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    hmmm said:

    If Izzy’s father is a US citizen, then Izzy is too.

    My father was a US citizen. My mother was not. They married overseas and I, their first child, was born overseas as well.

    As soon as my birth certificate was issued by the foreign nation of my birth, my father went to the US Embassy to apply for a Consular Report of Birth…that document, an official report of the birth of a US citizen on foreign soil, allowed my dad to apply for my passport.

    As my father’s career kept him abroad for many years, all of my five siblings, born in different foreign lands, went through the same process.

    And none of us, by the way, were ever granted citizenship by, or in any way eligible for citizenship from, the foreign nations were we were born in.

  62. Anonymous said on 12 Dec 2010 at 5:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    DREAM Arguments Pull at Heartstrings But Ignore Commonsense

    By Caroline Espinosa, Friday, December 10, 2010, 12:00 PM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

    The passage of the DREAM Act in the House on Wednesday makes me think how quickly we forget to be thankful after Thanksgiving. Instead of being thankful for the education and other opportunities they have already received, potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act amnesty are asking for more. More education, more jobs, more benefits, and everything else that comes with amnesty and American citizenship.

    These kids illegally received the benefits of American citizens. While the mantra of DREAM Act proponents is that their illegal presence is through no fault of their own and they didn’t have a choice in coming the United States, I cannot help but ask why the parents aren’t being held responsible. The parents had a choice and they chose to break the law, putting their children in this compromising position. The U.S. government should not take on the responsibility of other people’ s bad decisions.

    The unfortunate fact of the matter is that parents make bad decisions for their children all the time. In the cases of illegal alien minors (up to age 29 in the revised DREAM Act), the parents took a risk and their children benefited through education and jobs, but the consequences of their actions catch up to them. Their misdeeds are revealed and their kids have to deal with the consequences just as children of American citizens deal with the consequences of their parents’ bad decisions that affect them adversely. Yet, no accountability is affixed on the parents who broke the law to bring their children here.

    Too many people fail to realize that “ the land of the free” does not mean free from burden, responsibility, or consequences. While many of the human interest stories regarding the DREAM Act are compelling tales of personal struggle, law enforcement should not be based on convenience or individual circumstance. Period. When it is, everyone expects to be the exception and the rule of law crumbles into meaninglessness.

    Another favorite refrain of the so-called DREAMers is that they are wholly unfamiliar with their home countries. Personally, this one doesn’ t resonate with me. I have lived in four different countries in the past four years. I’ ve moved to each one not knowing anyone there or the language. I learned a new language. I made friends. I made a life for myself. Many people all over the world do this and are better for it. In most cases, there is no reason these kids would not be able to do the same.

    There are so many problems with the DREAM Act. But the bottom line is that no matter how you cut it, amnesty begets amnesty. How many more parents will risk bringing their children here illegally if we give amnesty to the ones here now? No one can know the exact number, but we know that it will be too many.

    Caroline Espinosa is a former U.S. Senator press secretary and spokesperson for NumbersUSA

    NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

    Proud in asking how would you explain this please, American citizens deal with the consequences of their parents’ bad decisions that affect them adversely. Yet, no accountability is affixed on the parents who broke the law to bring their children here.Why is that ?Thank you. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/carolinee/december-10-2010/dream-arguments-pull-heartstrings-ignore-commonsense.html

  63. wirewhisk said on 12 Dec 2010 at 7:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    The kids cannot illegally receive anything. They themselves are not illegal until they turn 18. Kids under 18 have broken no laws. Their parents might have, but the kids have broken no laws.

  64. local gop said on 12 Dec 2010 at 9:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Also, your plan for “deporting” illegals hinges upon police coming into contact with them in a some capacity. Are you really claiming that EVERY illegal immigrant will come into contact with police? There are many, many people that live their lives without ever doing so.

  65. local gop said on 12 Dec 2010 at 9:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Also remember that being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense. It’s not quite civil either. The burden of proof is right in the middle of criminal and civil. That being said, calls to treat illegal aliens like common criminals actually makes it harder to prosecute them and thus harder to deport.

  66. Proud and Grateful said on 12 Dec 2010 at 10:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m sorry I have finals to study for, to respond to all of you:
    They fly their flags? We can’t be proud of our roots and traditions?
    Don’t pay taxes? They will now if this Act gets passed.
    Speaking English? They try. Don’t say they don’t. English is a very difficult language to learn.

    Immigrants who come here are all middle class and up, although compared to our standards, is not much. If there are murderers and rapists here it’s a small percentage. Most have lived here for years without doing anything.

    Think of this. Immigration has been happening for years. Don’t you think some of those immigrants who have been allowed here before us, have at one point committed murders? Not every single person that comes in is perfect.

    What bothers all of you is the fact that its an influx of people coming in that are different from you. It’s happened with the Asians and it’s happening now. Instead of repeating mistakes of the past, why not focus on preventing those mistakes now? So what they’re flying their flags? Anyone who is proud of their heritage is going to fly their flags.

  67. citizenofmanassas said on 12 Dec 2010 at 11:22 pm:
    Flag comment


    At what point do you consider them illegal or law breakers? When they use a fake license to drive? When they do not have car insurance? When they steal a social security card? Or, when they buy one off the black market? When they do not pay taxes?


    in 2006, when the illegals and their supporters went on the rampage marches, they claimed to love the Country, yet where marching with foreign flags. Of course afterward they learned it was a PR nightmare, to claim to love this Country, but show love for another one. So, in an attempt to fool the public, for the next two years, surprise we saw American Flags are many of the rallies. As if all of sudden these illegals developed a love for America. Now, of course we’ve seen a backslide to seeing many foreign flags along with a renewed disrespect for America at the more recent rallies.

    When the first act they do is to break our laws when entering the Nation, ya, it pisses people off.

  68. citizenofmanassas said on 12 Dec 2010 at 11:22 pm:
    Flag comment


    The last post should be directed at local gop.

  69. local gop said on 13 Dec 2010 at 5:19 am:
    Flag comment

    That’s all nice and dandy, but you’re still not addressing the glaring policy issue that is the 8-10 million illegal immigrants that are in the US right now. What do we do with them? I can spit out dozens of policy questions that you probably couldn’t answer because you haven’t thought it through all the way.

    And since when is flying a foreign flag a crime? Since when is flying a foreign flag an indication of a lack of US pride? Have you been to New York City? Have you seen the Irish flags all over that place (even on government funded fire and police stations)? What about Little Italy? Little Havana? Any highly ethnic areas of major cities? Your argument is based on emotion and not facts.

  70. local gop said on 13 Dec 2010 at 5:30 am:
    Flag comment

    No one is arguing for amnesty here, which is why I find the title of this post laughable at best. But policy makers do have to make tough decisions within the bounds of reality. Realty is that right now 8-10 million people are here illegally and the cost of deporting them all is in the billions, billions we don’t have. I haven’t read the bill so I will put a caveat on my comment–assuming there is a requirement of some sort for being granted citizenship, whether it be military service/college degree/fines/etc, it is not amnesty and is a much more realistic solution than mass deportations that would take decades to complete.

    That being said, we do need to recognize that this problem is not caused by the fence on the border being too short, its caused by the broken application process that people have to go through to get into this country legally. If we make it easier for people to get here legally, there will be less illegal immigration. That’s not to say we re-write the laws to make all illegal immigration legal, but it is saying that we have a system that is producing bad results and it needs to be fixed.

  71. Scout said on 13 Dec 2010 at 7:51 am:
    Flag comment

    CoM: if your concern is that a child rapist shouldn’t be the beneficiary of the so-called “DREAM Act” (we need to have a crack-down on these acronym names for legislation), why not just have a provision that says that if you’ve been convicted of raping a minor, you aren’t covered? Of course, I don’t think that child rapists benefitting from this is nearly the problem you constantly make it out to be, but just to allay your concerns, I would support that sort of exclusion.

    I do agree with the implication in you 2322 comment, however, that it’s nuts not to subject everyone to the requirements of driver’s competence testing, mandatory insurance, tax withholding, and social security contributions, regardless of immigration status. This is a big step forward for you, and it shows that you’re beginning to actually think about the policy problems, rather than just ranting. Keep it coming and you may reach a point where you can actually help address the problems that more thoughtful citizens, like Local GOP, are struggling with.

  72. Cynic said on 13 Dec 2010 at 10:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Eight to ten million illegals. That’s pure hogwash as even most of the liberals and open border crowd acknowledge that 20 million is a more accurate number.

    And, of course, if we abolish all our immigration laws, in favor of open borders, then there will be no illegal immigration. Or haven’t I thought this through all the way.

    Oh, and since our dedicated policy makers have it so tough and work so hard on our behalf, why don’t we create a National Policy Maker’s Holiday in their honor?

    It’s the least we can do to show our deep, and loving respect for their marvelous contribution to the Nation and yes , then entire world.

  73. local gop said on 13 Dec 2010 at 1:29 pm:
    Flag comment


    Ok, fine, make it 20 million, heck let’s go with 30 million. Because the more illegals the bigger the deportation problem becomes. Most reliable sources say 8-10 million, but if you insist on making it 20 million then go ahead. So, now that we have doubled the number, your plan to remove them is……

  74. local gop said on 13 Dec 2010 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Your snide comments about how tough policy makers have it show your lack of understanding about the way things are. Policy makers are not in policy for the glory or the money because they don’t make crap and no one knows who they are. They are in it because they want to serve the people (yes, there are those out there who are not selfish and actually want to help others). I’d support creating a day to honor them because it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the way we support CEO’s and corporate executives…bailouts and multi-million dollar bonuses on a tax payer dime ring a bell??

  75. Greg L said on 13 Dec 2010 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    If DHS can estimate the cost of removing illegal aliens to the precise specificity of six significant digits, they must have a method in mind. How else could they estimate the cost? Whether Cynic has a full-fledged plan or not is irrelevant, as there appears to be a plan within DHS to do just that.

    Local GOP, I’d suggest you contact DHS for the answer to your question.

  76. local gop said on 13 Dec 2010 at 6:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes because we all know that government programs NEVER go over their estimated cost. It amazes me that you have no faith in government to do anything, until it comes to pushing your agenda onto others. No one is debating that something must be done, but throwing money at the problem as you seem to be suggesting is not the solution.

  77. Get Bullwinkle! said on 13 Dec 2010 at 6:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ah, once again we have local commissar giving us great wisdom that no one can ever solve problem with illegal aliens. We should quickly give up and hand over country to the communists and if we are nice to them now maybe the communists will be nice to us later. Maybe they shoot us in head quickly rather then have us starve to death in filthy pogrom.

    Local commissar must have had very nice life so far to have so often opportunities to ignore how awful are the communists and anarchists he be so ready to tolerate.

    They are going to open up Chernobyl for tourism soon. Maybe local commissar can go.

  78. citizenofmanassas said on 13 Dec 2010 at 7:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local Gop.

    I guess you’ve missed or about the thousand times I’ve posted on this blog how to round up the illegals and kick them out. But for the benefit of doubt, I’ll say it one more time. Law enforcement come into contact with illegals on a daily basis. We have programs set up, for example 287G, to weed out the illegals that come into contact with law enforcement. We need to expand the program, and hold our elected officials to their word when they say they want to remove criminal illegals. However, because we have mealy mouthed elected officials, the problem never gets better.

    At one time drunk driving was not looked upon as being a major crime. However, over the last thirty years that mindset has changed drastically, and for the better. That’s what we need when it comes to illegals. We need to make it that they do not want to come here, knowing they will be found and kicked out.

    There is nothing wrong with flying a foreign flag, but when you want to win over the Citizens of this Country, flying a foreign flag is not smart, and does not win any support. That’s why the vast majority of Americans do not support amnesty. Because we know the illegals and their supporters are just putting a fake pr program on.


    I guess you are like local gop. I’ve been very consistent with pointing when illegal supporters defend illegals by asking them at what point would they consider not allowing an illegal to gain amnesty.

    Illegals commit many crimes a day.

    If I rob a bank, should I be able to keep the money even after serving a jail sentence? Should I be able to get a “speed pass” after being given a ticket for speeding?

    So, why should illegals be able to continue to benefit from their law breaking, that is why should they be able to stay in the Country? That’s why it’s called amnesty, because they are not really paying a price for breaking the law if they are allowed to stay here in the Country.

    To break down even further, every year or so, the local cable company will grant amnesty to those customers who have received cable without paying for it, or maybe a better package than what they have been paying. However, by fessing up and paying back the cable company, the offenders are not still entitled to keep receiving free cable.

  79. Cynic said on 13 Dec 2010 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP,

    Just for the record, could you please define the term policy maker - as you are applying the term?

    Get Bullwinkle!

    Brilliant analysis. Almost as good as one that a Policy Maker would present to us!

    “They are going to open up Chernobyl for tourism soon. Maybe local commissar can go.”

    Are you familiar with the Chernobyl ant dry fly pattern? It is called that because of its effectiveness in catching trout and other surface feeding fish.

    Fly anglers are in my opinion - for the most part - a liberal group. Hence, some fly anglers found the name to be offensive - making light of a catastrophe, etc.

  80. citizenofmanassas said on 14 Dec 2010 at 1:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Can’t you just feel and see the love in this video that is expressed by illegals and their supporters.

  81. citizenofmanassas said on 14 Dec 2010 at 1:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let’s try this again.


  82. Cynic said on 14 Dec 2010 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment


    So - according to the liberals and open borders traitors, we should even give them more benefits. Such actions will make them “love” us - then we can all live happily ever after!

  83. local gop said on 14 Dec 2010 at 8:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    policy makers are those who have a first hand in the policy making process. It can be anyone really, but here I am specifically referring to elected officials and high ranking government officials that have to actually plan and implement policy.

    Im not defending illegals so please stop trying to put words in my mouth. i am pointing out serious errors in your brilliant plan to deport 20 million people in a reasonable amount of time and ensure they stay out until they can legally return. Simply charging the police with doing it isn’t enough because not every illegal will come into contact with police. Additionally, there are not enough ICE agents to carry out this mission and the government cannot force local and state law enforcement agencies to participate in the 287g program. So you are stuck with massively expanding ICE to carryout this duty. Also it fails to consider those who have children in the US that are considered to be US citizens. Like it or not, the kid is a US citizen and you cannot simply deport the parents while the child remains in the US.

    Im not saying you have to have everything planned out, contrary to Greg’s assertion, but I am saying that it is a serious policy debacle that has no simple solution. The immigration problem has been around for decades and trying to apply some cookie-cutter solution will result in nothing more than wasting more money we dont have.

  84. Get Bullwinkle! said on 14 Dec 2010 at 8:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh no, local commissar is not defending illegal aliens. Not at all. He is only trying to attack every other option from giving illegal aliens amnesty. Is very different thing, but only very educated liberals can understand such very fine differences.

    The rest of the world that not have head filled with local commissar garbage more likely to think local commissar is just full of shit.

  85. Anonymous said on 14 Dec 2010 at 8:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    More of UCLA Professor Kent Wong on DREAM Act: “This is racism”


    Got that right , Kent.

    Essentially, this is race war incitement. They’re revealing their real agenda…hatred of whites, especially white males, and of eliminating whites.

    On the topic of UCLA instituting required ethnic studies course that would teach students about other cultures, Kent Wong had this to say:

    “It would be a very strong and powerful statement for diversity,”

    “Behind the mask of a benign celebration of diversity lies a deeply corrosive rejection of all general norms, rules, or truths. This rejection of general norms, both those dealing with knowledge and those dealing with morals, derives from multiculturalism’s insistence that there are many essentially closed systems of perception, feeling, thought, and evaluation—each associated with some racially, ethnically, or sexually defined group. Thus, multiculturalism quite explicitly and appropriately sees itself as rejecting the Enlightenment belief in standards of reason, evidence, and objectivity, and principles of justice and freedom that apply to all human beings….

    …Multiculturalism modifies cultural relativism in two important ways. First, it ignores cultures as ordinarily understood and focuses instead on biologically defined groups within our society who may be recruited into political alliances based on heightening their sense of alienation and victimization. Thus, as the perceived political opportunities dictate, the multiculturalist focuses on the supposed existence of sui generis Afrocentric, Female, Hispanic, Homosexual, and/or Native American modes of thought and feeling.

    Multiculturalism is fundamentally anti-individualistic because it expects each individual to conform in his or her perceptions, thoughts, and assessments to those pronounced to be the authentic perceptions, thoughts, and assessments of that individual’s group. All genuine blacks must share the Black perspective. All genuine women must share the enshrined Female perspective. All homosexuals must share the Homosexual perspective—and so on. Your thoughts are either the collectively constituted thoughts of your racial, ethnic, or sexual group or they are thoughts insidiously imposed upon you by the dominant White Male perspective. Group-think is the mark of authenticity. Multicultural diversity both radically cleaves humanity into disparate biological collectivities and radically homogenizes people within these collectivities. For the multiculturalist, diversity is merely superficial.

    Multiculturalism’s second modification of cultural relativism consists in its expulsion of one supposed worldview—what multiculturalism misidentifies as the White Male perspective—from the Eden of equally sound worldviews. All group perspectives are equal, but one is less equal than others. The supposed reasoning on behalf of this expulsion is that the so-called White Male worldview is uniquely guilty of commitment to common objective norms of thought and action. Hence, it is said, this rogue perspective uniquely stands in judgment of other worldviews, subjecting them to its wickedly colonialist epistemic and moral standards. Thus, this perspective—as befits its White, Male, heterosexual roots—is uniquely totalizing, aggressive, and victimizing.

    In reality, of course, what is being condemned by multiculturalism is not some idiosyncratic White male, heterosexual perspective, but rather the human enterprise of seeking, articulating, and employing general norms that help us to distinguish between the true and the false, the plausible and the implausible, the good and the evil, the permissible and the impermissible.

    The irony is that multiculturalism wants to hew to its own judgments about the special defects of Western thought and the special injustice and oppressiveness of the liberal Western social and economic order while insisting that it cannot be expected to justify (or even identify) the philosophical or empirical premises of its own judgments. The excuse for this irresponsibility is the ritualistic claim that to accept these demands for justification is to succumb to the Eurocentric hegemony. Yet, at the same time, we are supposed to accept the truth of the multiculturalists’ historical and cultural analyses and the verity of their all-embracing evaluations.

    Multiculturalism presents us, then, with the spectacle of sweeping, confident, and impassioned moral, historical, economic, sociological, and aesthetic judgments and a simultaneous and often self-righteous refusal to take any intellectual responsibility for any of those judgments…

    The primary purpose of multiculturalist educational proposals is to instill in students and (increasingly) in employees and the population at large the demonology that the apparently benign, tolerant, liberal order is actually the most profoundly oppressive order ever to have existed. People are to be initiated into the delights of victimhood. They are to learn how to perceive themselves as victims (or victimizers)—not of superficial wrongs like murder, mayhem, and robbery—but of ever so subtle, exquisitely cunning, psycholinguistic domination. It is psycholinguistic domination, i.e., the construction of seductively hegemonic themes and discourses, that make the derivative evils of racial or sexual exploitation possible (indeed, inevitable). To recognize oneself as such a victim is to attain multiculturalist enlightenment and, not inconveniently, an all-purpose ticket for the increasingly lucrative multiculturalist gravy train.

    Students especially are to be taught that arguments, doctrines, works of art, or policy are never to be evaluated on their own merits. For there is no such thing as the objective merit or demerit of an argument, doctrine, work of art, or policy. Rather, these and all the other products of the human mind are to be revealed as mere valorizations of power. They are to be deconstructed to disclose their inner character as instruments of repression—or, presumably in the case of the privileged construction known as multiculturalism, as an instrument of heroic resistance.

    But is resistance objectively different from repression? Is resistance objectively better than repression? These sly questions might tempt the unwary multiculturalist back into the clutches of Enlightenment discourse. But the well-versed multiculturalist can recognize the serpent with her alluring offer of knowledge and can, as his greatest act of resistance, doggedly close his mind.

    Throughout the academy and eventually society at large, the multiculturalist demands that the classification of people by race, ethnicity, sex and/or sexual orientation be emphasized at every possible opportunity. Individuals are not to be seen or judged as individuals but as tokens of this or that tribe or caste. Since no one from one tribe (with the exception of white males) can be judged by members of any other tribe, each racial, ethnic, or sexual group must be assigned its own homeland, its own reservation within the university and within the worlds of commerce (cf., set-asides) and government (cf., Lani Guinier).

    Between the homelands comprising this new form of apartheid there can be, if multiculturalism is correct, no rational discourse, no rational evaluation, and perhaps not even mutual understanding. Given the premises of multiculturalism, there cannot even be any rational accommodation among the worldviews that are now supposed to be strategically united in their struggle against the White Eurocentric devil.

    Multiculturalism is the esoteric form of virulent ethnic politics. Remove what the multiculturalists describe as Male Eurocentric dominance and what, in reality, is the residue of liberal tolerance and belief in the efficacy of rational investigation and debate, and multiculturalism will proceed to do for the liberal university and for liberal society what ethnic politics has done for Yugoslavia.”


  86. citizenofmanassas said on 14 Dec 2010 at 9:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP.

    Where did I mention time frames for getting the job done? Stop making excuses for supporting illegals. Policy making has nothing to do with it. If you’ve not noticed the Federal Government is about the most poorly run institution we have. They can’t keep to a budget, etc, etc.

    Do police come into contact with every wanted criminal, or even ever criminal on a daily basis? So, does that mean, every police department in the Country should just close up shop, since they can’t catch them all in one day? Illegals will move on if they know life is not going to be easy for them and law enforcement will be on them day and night.

    Oh, Arlington recently voted to drop out of ICE run program that helps weed out illegals. Only problem is the agreement is with the Commonwealth and not the illegal supporters of Arlington, so Arlington has no say in the matter.

    Do we send adults with children to prison every day? Of course we do. Do we care about their children? Nope. So, why worry about the kids of illegals who are deported? If the parents are such fine parents, they should not have placed their kids in such positions to start with.

    Who said anything about allowing illegals back into the Country?

    It’s not that hard to do, unless there are people like you who are in charge, that are good at coming up with excuses for not doing anything to fix the issue.

  87. local gop said on 14 Dec 2010 at 11:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    add something of substance or go away.

  88. local gop said on 14 Dec 2010 at 11:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Again, you are missing the point. Im not saying stop enforcement because its too hard. Current laws are being enforced and people are being deported, but the problem is that there is not enough resources to deal with the severity of the problem.

    Also, yet again you fail to realize that being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense. Equating it to throwing murderers in jail is just flat out wrong. The children of illegal immigrants that are born in the United States are US Citizens and have not themselves committed a crime. As much as you would like to ignore the constitution in this case (while whining that its not being upheld in other cases) it still stands as the supreme law. The government would be obligated to promote the general welfare and pay for the welfare and safe keeping of those children while their parents were deported. Children of felons (assuming there are no parents left after one is jailed( usually are sent to live with a distant relative, children of illegals will probably not have that advantage so they would be stuck in the care of the state.

    No, you did not mention a time line, neither did I. I passively asserted that your plan has an inherent implication of a reasonable amount of time to be carried out, unless you are proposing indefinitely importing 20 million people on a recurring basis? With no time line, who is to say when this theoretical program would end? Or even begin? If we have already deported every last illegal, then why continue to dump money into a program that is no longer necessary? That is why a time line is implied, and that is what I am talking about.

    And again, since you have an apparent problem with reading plain English I am not saying stop enforcement, or grant amnesty, or any other statement of hyperbole you choose to throw at me. I am saying that there are serious policy questions that have yet to be addressed in this debate that must be addressed before we can move ahead with reform. Why is that such an evil thing? Why is it so horrible to plan fully a massive program to deport millions of people? Ever hear the saying “If you fail to plan, plan to fail?” I for one don’t want to see it fail, so I plan.

  89. Cynic said on 15 Dec 2010 at 12:11 am:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP says:

    “Policy makers are not in policy for the glory or the money because they don’t make crap and no one knows who they are. They are in it because they want to serve the people”


    “policy makers are those who have a first hand in the policy making process. It can be anyone really, but here I am specifically referring to elected officials and high ranking government officials that have to actually plan and implement policy.”

    You say that they don’t make crap. Elected officials and high ranking government officials - assume you mean appointed officials - are paid quiet well for the screwing they give the voters and taxpayers. Now if you are including policy analysts, that’s a different story. Some may be paid well while others may not be paid that well. However, policy analysts do not make or implement policy. They may recommend a policy, but it is the elected official or high ranking official who make the decisions.

  90. local gop said on 15 Dec 2010 at 12:23 am:
    Flag comment

    What screwing? You are lumping every elected official, every appointed official, and every civilian government worker on every level of government in with a few bad apples. Check the facts, and get back to us when you have them on your side.

  91. Anonymous said on 15 Dec 2010 at 7:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m sick of hearing about how these children didn’t do anything wrong. Well, American children didn’t do anything wrong, but, they’ll be paying for the children of these anchor babies. Those of us who have fought against illegal immigration don’t deserve to have those children on our backs. Send them home.
    Why do Latinos think they should come here in larger numbers than any other group? Why do they think they should get to break into our country and use, for free, what we and our forefathers built? Why do they think it’s ok to have children and expect us to pay for them? Why do they insult us by waving their flags in our face, while demanding our children remove the U.S. flag? Because the judicial, executive and legislative branches of our government have told them they may. On the issue of illegal immigration, we have no representation. This crap better change in January. It’s been going on too damn long.

    The 14th amendment clears states that children born on U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof “ are citizens. This phrase means that any child that is born on American soil to parents whom are subjects(citizens) and owe their allegiance to America are citizens. It does not give citizenship to children of illegals. The 14th does not need to be altered, it need to be enforced. p.s. the 14th was never ratified by a majority of the states.

    This is the best assessment of the situation. A little long, but worth it. When this testimony was requested and submitted, Lamar Smith was the subcommittee chair. He is going to be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee come January.


  92. Doug Brown said on 15 Dec 2010 at 7:54 am:
    Flag comment


    Thanks for reminding me to renew my subscription to the Claremont Review of Books by your citation. It is without doubt the best publication of its kind in the nation. Anyone with teens or college kids still in the house should have it laying around the house. If the moonbats and leftist wingnuts that your kids run into while they attempt to navigate the lala halls of academia aren’t responsive to the reasoned and measured arguments which your kids will be armed with after reading the publication for a few years, then your kids can always roll up the oversized sheets of the weighty publication and use it to beat some sense into the mangy, mongrel muts howling on the left. :)

  93. citizenofmanassas said on 15 Dec 2010 at 8:09 am:
    Flag comment

    local GOP.

    Illegals can be kicked out of the Country simply for being here illegally. End of the story. But, I suppose to clearly spell it out for you again…. Many if not every single illegal here break other laws. Though, I guess you think driving with a fake license, without insurance, not paying taxes, etc, is not breaking the law.

    Of course this will be an ongoing process. Who said otherwise? You just keep making excuses for not doing anything.

    Many illegals have family members here, so that point of your post is does not really apply. I love how you come up with an excuse for not wanting to deal with the problem. Local, State and Federal officials work hand in hand on many different criminal activities. Yet, when it comes to immigration, you just think it can’t be done. Stop making excuses.

  94. Doug Brown said on 15 Dec 2010 at 8:23 am:
    Flag comment


    In regard to your response to Cynic, aren’t you engaging in the same hyperbole that you lash out at COM about?

  95. Cynic said on 15 Dec 2010 at 11:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Doug, did you forget? When it is in their best interest, liberals apply and abide by the rules. When it is not in their best interest, they ignore them!

    Local GOP,

    You have it backwards. They are a few good, honest elected officials/high appointed officials (good apples) and many bad apples.

    And, the bad apples do their best, to marginalize and drive out the very few good apples.

    For example, read and analyze the current budget with all it earmarks that the current U. S. Congress is foisting off on the Nation.

    And, of course, that wonderful Dream Act that the traitors are touting and trying to shove down our throats.

    What more evidence do you require?

  96. local gop said on 16 Dec 2010 at 2:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    You statement is without fact or evidence frankly. You are trying to argue that every government (state local and federal) is full or bad corrupt people with only a few good people. That’s just not the case. I actually have found the corruption and laziness to be more at the top levels than the lower levels.

    How exactly is DREAM being “shoved” down your throat? Those in power were put there by election. They are perfectly within their authority to pass this bill. Frankly if anyone is doing any shoving it would be the Senate GOP that is in the minority relying on parliamentary games to block things. Am I arguing that the bill is a good bill, no, but let’s not pretend that they are some tyrannical dictators that just showed up one day to bring their iron fists down on the people. We put them there.

    And frankly, we somewhat agree on one thing, most members of Congress are corrupt just by virtue of the fact that they are members of Congress. The hypocrisy on earmarks is laughable and its both GOP and Dems. However, atleast with the Dems we know that all they want to do is spend, spend, spend. The GOP ran on cutting spending and then turned around and refused to ban earmarks. Yeah that’s not hypocritical at all.

  97. citizenofmanassas said on 16 Dec 2010 at 6:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP.

    It’s being forced down our throats just like the health care bill was. Both this and the health care bill are unpopular with the American public. Now that we’ve had a year to look at the health care bill, those of us that opposed the bill have lots of data to show the libs were wrong about the bill, despite their promises and statements regarding the bill. The dems just lost the house in the last election, and lost seats in the Senate. They are acting as if they won the election. They know very well amnesty for illegals is not popular, yet, they care more for criminals than Americans.

  98. Cynic said on 16 Dec 2010 at 7:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP,

    I will bet that every major city and County (local government) in the world has corrupt leaders and that these leaders have significant influence on how these jurisdictions are run.

    “The hypocrisy on earmarks is laughable and its both GOP and Dems. However, atleast with the Dems we know that all they want to do is spend, spend, spend. The GOP ran on cutting spending and then turned around and refused to ban earmarks. Yeah that’s not hypocritical at all.”

    Earmarks = Corruption.

    The GOP ran on an issue they thought would win them elections and one of these issues in this election cycle was reducing spending. The Democrats appeared to be on the defensive during this election cycle.

    Now, remember that after the 2008 election, they were burying the Republicans. They were a party headed for extinction.

    Being the optimist that I am, I never accepted that analysis/conclusion as I knew that the Democrats would screw things up and when they did, this would revive the opposition - which in this case happen to be the Republicans.

    It is not that the Republicans did anything creative; it is just that the Democrats sank their own ship and the voting public elected more members of the other party to the House and state governorships.

    And now this cycle will repeat itself - and that is why there never is any or very, very, little progress.

  99. Doug Brown said on 17 Dec 2010 at 12:17 am:
    Flag comment

    This is related to what Cynic and local gop are discussing. There is a very strong connection between corruption at all levels of gov’t and the breakdown of our immigration system. Congressman Cleaver’s rise to the head of the black caucus in the next Congress has the potential to be a public relations disaster for the dems that will easily eclispe the Charlie Rangel and Jefferson scandals. The link below is a sample of what we can expect from Cleaver:



    Cleaver is perfect example of how local corruption can go up the food chain and infect state and federal government. There’s a tendency to focus too much on the corrupting influence of the federal government without an adequate appreciation of the roles played by local and state gov’t in undermining the federal government from doing its job.

  100. citizenofmanassas said on 17 Dec 2010 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Here is another example of the impact illegal aliens have on the Country. Now, why if illegals are such good people do they continue to break additional laws once in the Country? http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2204490

  101. local gop said on 19 Dec 2010 at 1:57 am:
    Flag comment

    The majority of illegals do not sneak across the border, contrary to popular belief. The majority stay here after their visas expire and never renew. The article you posted was about people (that are not even referred to as illegal) producing fraudulent visas. You are again lumping in millions of people into a group of bad apples because of the criminal offenses of a few. Being here illegally is not in and of itself a criminal offense as you have ignored repeatedly. What is wrong with allowing the children of illegals, that have spent a majority of their life here in many cases, earn citizenship by military service? You have yet to explain that. I know you and Greg like to post illegal alien horror stories in attempts to scare people, but it doesn’t work with me.

  102. citizenofmanassas said on 19 Dec 2010 at 2:52 pm:
    Flag comment


    Why are there two different types of immigrants? One is called a legal immigrant and one is called an illegal alien. If there was no difference between the two, why have different names for them?

    Do you honestly believe this ring was not set up to help illegal aliens obtain documents in order to appear legal? No, I suppose it was just a bunch of American teenagers who wanted fake id’s to buy beer, and thought it would be neat to do so by speaking spanish. But, I wonder why ICE came in and put retainers on at least two American teenagers.

    Why reward illegal behavior? Why allow those that have broken the law to obtain benefits that Americans will not even qualify.

    Have you read the bill? One does not even have to complete a degree program, it applies to people up to age 29, hardly a child. It allows even those who have committed less than a felony to still apply for the program. It allows DHS to waive any of the requirements for illegals.

    That’s why I’m against allowing illegal children to obtain amnesty.

    And, thanks for pointing how illegals know very well they are breaking the law by ignoring the fact their visa has expired. Now, I’m pretty sure they are fully informed when their visa expires, and yet they still choose to ignore it.

  103. Cynic said on 19 Dec 2010 at 3:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Local GOP,

    Just how many illegals can be attributed to expired visas compared to those illegals who cross our borders - illegally?

  104. Anonymous said on 20 Dec 2010 at 11:20 am:
    Flag comment


  105. Anonymous said on 20 Dec 2010 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Proud and Grateful said on 10 Dec 2010 at 4:23 pm:

    The new incoming immigrants have every right to be here, just like your ancestors before you. Or did you forget that?

    Try to sneak into Mexico and remain there without papers. Mexico’s version of “Bubba” would be your worst dream.

  106. Cynic said on 20 Dec 2010 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    And we have every right to throw out the scum, parasitic, criminal illegals.

  107. local gop said on 20 Dec 2010 at 5:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe you should look up the word amnesty because performing a service to receive citizenship is not amnesty. You can still be against that, but call it what it really is and not what you are trying to scare people into believing it is. Its not amnesty no matter how many times you refer to it that way.

    Like I said, if you have some grand plan to deport 20 million people while working within the legal framework we have, in an amount of time that actually doesn’t cause more problems than it solves, knock yourself out. But as of yet you have not spoken to that problem and are merely repeating the same tiring talking points.

  108. citizenofmanassas said on 20 Dec 2010 at 9:43 pm:
    Flag comment


    And you keep repeating the same talking points of criminal supporters. Just sit back and think about that, you are debating in support of criminals. Let me spell it out for you again. Maybe this time you’ll pick up on it. If a person robs a bank, and gets caught and pays a fine or spends time in jail, does that person then get to keep robbing banks without getting into more trouble? If not, why should illegals get to stay in the Country? The law they broke is being in the Country and other laws. No other law breakers are able to continue to break the law after either being caught, and or being punished.

    We have a legal framework in place. Again, that is why there are legal immigrants and illegal aliens. We already have penalties for working illegally in the Country. The problem is that we have a lot of people like in charge, people who support criminals rather than enforcing the law.

    That’s why all the so called enforcement language in any of the amnesty bills is just BS. If those in charge are not enforcing current laws, what makes us think they will enforce any future laws?

    What problems(real problems, not excuses made up by criminal supporters) could possibly arise by getting criminals out of the Country?

    What type of illegal would you exclude from amnesty? One who has committed a felony? One who has committed a number of mistermeaners?

  109. Doug Brown said on 21 Dec 2010 at 12:49 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ve seen estimates that as much as 45% of illegals aliens came here ‘legally’ BUT there’s a catch the rampant fraud within the legal system is much more attractive to exploit than crawling thru the desert. Consequently, I’ve seen estimates that as much as 20 to 30% of legals are really illegals from the very start. Got that? Then one factors in the fraud and incompetence on the USCIS’ part and we really get into what the heck land.

  110. local gop said on 21 Dec 2010 at 6:10 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m done arguing with a light pole. I have told you dozens of time I do not support illegal immigration, yet your only come back when faced with tough questions is “you just support criminals.” What part of “illegal immigration is not a criminal offense” don’t you understand? Is that such a difficult concept for you? Don’t like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court if you want. By making it a criminal offense, as you seem to want to do, you are ironically making it much more difficult to deport illegal immigrants than if it were to remain at the current status. But I’m sure you’ll just call me a child-molester/rapist/murderer supporter…again.

    I am not arguing for open borders, no enforcement of existing laws, or any other “nightmare amnesty” BS charge you choose to hurl at me. I am saying that this is a real problem that needs a real solution. Sitting here and yelling to “deport ‘em all” is not a real solution because its not practical given the limited resources and size of the issue.

  111. citizenofmanassas said on 21 Dec 2010 at 9:12 am:
    Flag comment


    You are the one that does not understand. And since you seem to think there is only one kind of immigrant, take it up with the Federal Government that believes illegals aliens are not good for the Country and need to be deported. Why are currrent laws in place to deport illegals? I’m not saying anything differently than current law.

    I guess you’ve missed or about the dozens and dozen times I’ve posted on this blog that current laws need to be enforced. And what are those current laws? That illegal aliens need to be deported.

    And, I’m sure you will just keep saying I’m not providing means of deporting them.

    Why don’t you answer your own question, since you don’t answer mine?

    You claim to not want amnesty for illegals, but also claim to not know why,how, etc we can take care of the problem of removing illegals.

    If a person committed a criminal act against your family, would you want to hear from the police they are too busy to offer assistance or were unable to come up with a solution for trying to find the person responsible for the act?

  112. citizenofmanassas said on 21 Dec 2010 at 12:30 pm:
    Flag comment


    I realize you are just talking in circles, and believe that you are being “clever” with doing that. You really do not see a problem with granting amnesty to “kids”, and really do not have an issue with illegal aliens.

    Why do I say that? Because you keep asking the same question, how to take care of the problem.

    As I’ve said many many times, current laws need to be enforced. That means if a person is illegally in the Country, they can be removed. If they are working illegally in the Country, they can be removed. If they break additional laws, such as driving without a license, insurance, etc, etc, which you obviously do not take into account, or simply do not see as breaking the law, since you think illegals once in the Country never break other laws.

    You do not think having local or State law enforcement, who come into contact with illegals every day, is part of the solution, sicne you down play how that might impact the illegals decision to stay in a particular area if they realize law enforcement are focused on illegals.

    You continue to bring up artificial time frames, though nobody else does, as if that somehow invalidates any attempt to crack down on illegals.

    Come on just admit your not serious about the issue. Because if you really are, you would certainly not ignore what I and others have posted on how to take care of the problem.

    We can go after the companies that hire illegals, but not every illegal in the Country is working, so we also need to target gangs and other criminal activities, such as drug and people smuggling. We also need to weed the illegals out of schools, it’s a cost that many school districts simply cannot afford, including the City of Manassas.

    Is there any type of criminal conduct. in your mind, on the part of an illegal that would make you not support giving them amnesty?

    And if so what is it?

Comments are closed.

Views: 2443