It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reid Adding Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


It's main purpose isn't defense though, so it shouldn't be attached to a defense bill. It should be left to rise or fall on it's own merits. If they can't get it passed without attaching it to something they know will pass then it needs to be taken back to the drawing board and redone or tossed in the trash. This is what leads to people voting against something they normally would have voted for and is what allows congress to sneak things in the back door that never would have made it out alive otherwise.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 

Not surprising. If you want to see abuse of the legislative process you need to look no further than the defense authorization bills. The next place you would look would be for bills that are for thing like disabled veteran's health benefits and other things that 99% of the country supports.

The game is that by putting things that have nothing to do with the real topic of the bill, they can then blame the other side for voting against it. "Senator Joe Blow voted against providing our military with the equipment they need". What really happened is that Senator Blow did not want to fund an ant hill museum in the bill sponsor's home state.

Both sides do this trash and it is why the President needs a line item veto



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think this DREAM legislation has long been the goal of the "amnesty" movement. They knew they weren't going to get amnesty but they overreached so the compromise would be DREAM. That bill defines contributing to America as consuming a college education, according to the article.

Basically as long as the illegals can get and stay in the military, or find some diploma mill to give them an Associate's degree, they're in as Permanent Residents. If this passes there will be a huge pressure on community colleges to grant Associates degrees to anyone with a pulse, and probably some affirmative action thrown in there as well to make sure they get in, get tuition paid somehow and pass.

So we'll get all these "credentialed" former illegals who now have to be given jobs, even though you know that others are more qualified. This whole thing should be defeated rather than pass the DREAM thing. If they want to come in as educated immigrants, let them obtain education by the usual competitive process and be evaluated competitively on their educational achievements for admission to the USA. We do admit people based on skills and education, but usually it requires a Bachelors (or more likely Masters or PhD) from a reputable university, not an Associates from any community college that will take their money.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet


Here is another prime example of an out of touch Congress. I one hand the amendment would allow people who join the military or attend college to become legal US Residents. But why do you need another piece of Legislation when all you need is a green card to join the US military and then you are fast tracked to becoming a citizen; As well as you can study in America with a Student VISA?

Is this back door amnesty, like Congress and this Administration has been aiming for all along? Or is it just another amendment that is what it really is? With This Congress who knows? Thoughts?


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Poed, in my mind the operative phrase there is "or attend college". What business has language like that got in a DEFENSE appropriations bill? Had they left it at military service alone, it might be justifiable, even if it was considered overkill, but to add that squarely places it outside the realm of "defense", and exposes it as a backdoor amnesty provision.

Just my 2 cents worth.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

Originally posted by Jenna
This is the kind of thing that irritates the daylights out of me. It's a defense bill and the only things in it should be defense related items. Not this crap.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




You are correct, I would like to see a constitutional amendment that gives the President line item Veto's; then it goes through the process of a normal veto bill. Also I would like Congress to be able to give an up or down vote on Presidential Executive orders for it to be a full law.


Under current power structures, I don't see the possibility of the president throwing a veto at this particular line item, but I get your drift, under a more equitable power structure.

Also, considering the abuses that have been perpetrated by executive order, I'm all for congressional oversight over them. Again, though, under the current powers structure, it might be moot.

Maybe after November...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

Originally posted by Jenna
This is the kind of thing that irritates the daylights out of me. It's a defense bill and the only things in it should be defense related items. Not this crap.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




You are correct, I would like to see a constitutional amendment that gives the President line item Veto's; then it goes through the process of a normal veto bill. Also I would like Congress to be able to give an up or down vote on Presidential Executive orders for it to be a full law.


Under current power structures, I don't see the possibility of the president throwing a veto at this particular line item, but I get your drift, under a more equitable power structure.

Also, considering the abuses that have been perpetrated by executive order, I'm all for congressional oversight over them. Again, though, under the current powers structure, it might be moot.

Maybe after November...


Obama has specifically suggested that if he can't get amnesty, he wants at least something like the DREAM act. He mentioned it by name. He'll sign it in a microsecond, but he doesn't want to talk about it because he knows current citizens are strongly against it on average. He wants to do it as quietly as possible.

It's up to the opponents to talk about it, to allow resistance, otherwise it would just slide through quietly.



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join