Fox news is spreading lies and misinformation

reply to post by links234


Thanks for answering my question. From what I am seeing this will cost the tax payer on the state level? Remember if they leave the door open someone is going to use it.

reply to post by fallow the light


It's not always what they report on, but how they report on it. There is a difference.

In answer to Subjective Truth's question about borders, ultimately (this may not happen for centuries), that is my goal, a world without borders.

Everyone is so hung-up on the education option in this bill, no-one is looking at the other options for illegals.

- Join the military or get deported.

This bill is not to fund illegals.
It has only one purpose, and that's to provide more cannon-fodder for America's next war of aggression.

reply to post by muse7


I just wanted to point out a few things that are missing regarding this bill. It will require that the applicants have no criminal record, they will be subjected to background searches as its quite routine with immigration processes, and due to the nature of the crimes that would disqualify a potential beneficiary it will probably not just be a simple county criminal background search that you get in any city but one that is more thorough.

The bill also goes out of its way to ensure that federal tax dollars are not used to pay for the education of the applicants, with the exception of work-study programs or the ability to apply for loans which the applicants would have to pay back in full and with interest.

Furthermore, upon reading the bill, as it is quite short and simple, I found a few problems with the limited guarantees it gives its potential applicants of securing any kind of assistance, it essentially states that the applicant will only be eligible for the aforementioned assistance once they adjust their status to lawful permanent resident, which will only be achieved after the 6 year conditional status and upon already completing all the requirements including the 2 years of college education if that path is undertaken or the 2 years of military service.

Finally, the DREAM Act seems to have a deadline, the 5 years of continuous presence in this country is from the date of enactment only, so anyone ofter that or anyone that has been here less then 5 years continuously and who came as minors are not covered.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


No, its just the option of the state to decide whether they want to offer any kind of assistance such as in-state tuition to a conditional status resident, they don't attain permanent status until 6 years after applying for the DREAM Act.

Basically, right now the majority of states charge undocumented students, regardless of how long they have been in the state and whether they were entirely educated in their school system, out-of-state tuition rates which can be considerably higher compared to other students educated in the same system who had at least permanent resident status. Recall the applicants will have conditional status for the first 6 years and if they take the college route they might still not get in-state tuition.

There are only a handful of states that allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition charges, but it was their choice and they decided what the requirements where, for the most part they had to have been in the public school system for a certain number of years before they were considered to qualify for in-state tuition.

It will cost the states only if that is their choice and its voted by the people.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


In my view and illegal immigrant is that immigrant that came into this country through illegal means.

An undocumented immigrant also includes the above category and would be a more ideal way of classifying those suspected 40% of potential immigrant beneficiaries to the DREAM Act that came into the country through legal means on any kind of visa and became overstays thus losing their documented status.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


The OP placed a link to the incriminating video of fox news spreading the misinformation. But it was a quote by a republican senator who basically mentioned that it would give in-state tuition to the undocumented youth, which is not necessarily true unless the states chooses to do that.

Another thing that was not really mentioned in the OP post was in reference of the statement that the senator made about this bill encouraging more illegal immigration. Basically, I see the bill as being rather dated. It is only for those that came some period before the bill was enacted and it gives applicants only 1 year to apply, and the very last portion of the bill, as I read it here:

thomas.loc.gov...

(just search by bill number, search S. 3827, and select text of legislation to read the bill)

States about the report that will surface 7 years after the bill gets enacted to basically measure 4 things.

Those who were potentially eligible, those who applied, those who met the very basic initial requirements and those who met the either college or military service requirements in order to adjust their status to permanent resident 6 years the DREAM Act passes.

All of this contributes to a bill with a deadline contrary to what fox spread, and what has already been mentioned to a bill that does not require states to offer in-state tuition if they choose not to.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


very true. they seem to become befuddled when asked questions about their agenda. or when explaining it. they want to take your rights but they dont want to talk about it in fear of looking crazy or controlling. they want people to be created equally but they want to be treated as if they deserve more rights than you. they want you to share your wealth with every one but they dont have to. i just love freedom is all and i dont think i am owned by any one. not the fed and not even the people of the US.

reply to post by links234


cnn reports bias-ly against the GOP, tea party and conservatives. why dont you post about that? why dont you make a thread about cnn being bias against glen beck or o'rielly? maybe because it doesn't fit the progressive agenda? having an opinion that one does not agree with does not make them lies or misinformation. you cant blame one side for being bias with out blaming the other. i see a lot more fairness coming from fox than i do from cnn. or any progressive tv/radio program. yes fox does have their own agenda but so does the progressive media.

reply to post by muse7

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

Source

reply to post by fallow the light


CNN is far more balanced than Fox or MSNBC ever will be. I'm a socialist and I think the best news comes from the least watched news network.

It's not hard to be considered 'bias' against Fox, the GOP, the TPM or conservatives in general. Because the moment you hint at disagreement you've become 'biased'. Your sources are 'bias', your interpretation is 'bias', "you don't agree with everything I say wholeheartedly?! You're biased!"

reply to post by etshrtslr


I don't even know how to respond to such...ignorance. Read the bill and tell me if any of what you said is in there. In fact, please point it out, line by line.

Originally posted by links234


reply to post by etshrtslr

 

I don't even know how to respond to such...ignorance. Read the bill and tell me if any of what you said is in there. In fact, please point it out, line by line.

I wish it were as simple as pointing it out line by line nothing congress ever propose is that simple.... if you read the bill and the specific language in the bill and the fact the existing laws are being repealed with this bill it does in fact allow for those things I quoted in my previous post.

Here are just a few examples from the bill.

(a) In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.

(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident. 8 U.S.C. 1623

(2) WAIVER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.

This paragraph alone lets the secretary of homeland security do whatever he/she wants with respect to the provisions in this bill. The secretary can create any wavier for any ineligibility what so ever.....so in essence no one is ineligible under this bill.

reply to post by etshrtslr


The first two excerpts: The DREAM Act has to repeal the law that says you can't allow undocumented immigrants a post-secondary education...so that you can allow them a post-secondary education. How hard is that to understand? That still doesn't equate to amnesty or costing tax-payers money.

The third excerpt: This is referring to already existing law, provisions for the waiver that are part of 8 U.S.C. 1182. It doesn't create a waiver, it refers to something that's been in place for the past 58 years!

Immigration and Nationality Act