DREAM Act Would Allow Illegals With Criminal Records to Gain Residency, GOP Says
As President Obama and his Democratic allies push to pass legislation this year that would allow certain illegal immigrants to become legal U.S. residents, Republicans are pushing back with details about the DREAM Act that have gone largely unnoticed.
The legislation would permit young people to become U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It would apply to immigrants who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.
But Republican Sen. Jeff Session of Alabama released a "DREAM Alert" revealing that at least one version of the legislation would allow qualified illegal immigrants up to the age of 35 to gain resident status, prevent the Department of Homeland Security from removing any illegal who has a pending application – regardless of age or criminal record – and offers amnesty to qualified illegals with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs.
The alert says that not only would the legislation put an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, it would also give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.
Illegals who gain citizenship under this legislation will have the legal right to petition for the entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the U.S.
"In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act," the alert reads.
A spokesman for Sessions noted that two other versions of the legislation lower the age limit to 30 and won't grant illegals access to in-state tuition deals. It's unclear which version Democrats will choose.
Yet any of the versions should give Americans pause, Session's spokesman said. "The scope of this proposal is enormous, extending amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants including a number who have committed serious crimes, incentivizing further illegality and making it more difficult to develop a just and responsible immigration policy," said Session's spokesman Stephen Miller.
The bill failed to pass the Senate in September. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote during the lame duck session.
SOURCE
Salary bar to be £40,000 for highly skilled migrant workers
Highly skilled workers from outside the European Union will have to be coming to a job in Britain paying them at least £40,000 a year under new government plans.
The proposals are to be unveiled this week as ministers reveal the first annual "cap" on immigration into Britain which will apply from next April.
Last week Professor David Metcalf, chairman of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, recommended a total limit of between 37,400 and 43,700 workers a year from outside the EU. Mr Metcalf also recommended a 13 to 25 per cent cut in the number of "Tier 1" highly-skilled workers and "Tier 2" skilled migrants coming to the UK, despite worries from employers that they will be unable to fill key posts.
The Sunday Telegraph understands that under current plans Tier 1 migrants will in future have to come into a job paying at least £40,000 a year – putting the large majority of them into the 40 per cent tax bracket – with a contract for at least 12 months. New categories of Tier 1 immigrant will be unveiled including "investor", "major businessman" and "special talent."
In June, the Home Office introduced a temporary limit of 24,100 workers to enter the country before April 2011, when this cap will be replaced by permanent measures.
Any increase in overall numbers allowed in will be seen as a victory for Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who has protested on behalf of employers that they must be allowed to attract the best talent from overseas.
Mr Cable said two months ago he was being warned by business leaders that companies were relocating overseas because of what they saw as harsh restrictions in Britain from employing people from outside the EU.
The issue is one of the biggest fault lines between Conservative ministers and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
In the last year of the Labour government, net migration – the number of people coming to live in Britain compared with those emigrating – stood at almost 200,000. The coalition has pledged to at least halve this by 2015 – largely by cutting down the number of skilled workers.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment