During the Hussein Soetoro administration, citizens of the united States were bombarded with rhetoric about “helping Dreamers,” “protecting Dreamers,” and “providing amnesty for Dreamers” with the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. A “Dreamer” is an individual who came to the united States with their parents, who entered the country illegally, and is now an adult. The rationale used by Hussein Soetoro centered on children being innocent of their parents’ actions, thereby absolving them of any guilt or crime in being in the US without proper legal status.
Prompted by the illegal, unconstitutional, unlawful actions by Hussein Soetoro regarding change in the immigration law, many “Dreamers” stepped forward to declare their presence in the united States in order to receive some sort of “amnesty” from the administration. Now, with the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, which could signal the eradication of unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional executive memos/orders, the Senate is working to draft a bill that would provide legal status to these individuals after a pardon for illegal alien invader Dreamers was taken off the table by the Hussein Soetoro administration.
Sen. Richard J. Dubin (D-IL) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), two veterans of the past immigration brawl, have spearheaded the effort claiming the deportation of some 740,000 illegal alien invader “Dreamers” was in humane.
According to The Washington Times:
They said they will try to have a bill written next week and ready to go in the new year, and perhaps pass it before the next Congress is sworn in and before Mr. Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration. Their goal, they said, is to halt deportations in the short term, giving lawmakers breathing room to take another stab at a broad legalization bill.
“I’ve talked to a number of my colleagues on the floor, on both sides of the aisle about this, and there are strong emotions in favor of helping these young people,” said Mr. Durbin, who has been working on the issue for 15 years.
But to succeed, he will need to overcome opposition from rank-and-file Republicans, whose party controls both the House and Senate and who have repeatedly rejected legalization attempts.
The Dreamers — a name adopted by young adult illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and who have kept out of major criminal trouble — are considered the most sympathetic cases in the debate.
President Obama in 2012 announced a program designed to give them an amnesty from deportation, which also included work permits entitling the illegal immigrants to driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.
Mr. Trump has vowed to revoke that program, which could throw the more than 740,000 approved Dreamers back into illegal status, making them eligible for deportation. Depending on how Mr. Trump structures his policy, he could cancel all of the amnesties immediately or refuse to renew them, meaning illegal immigrants would fall out of status over time.
Republican Sen. Graham admits Hussein Soetoro’s program was illegal but stated it was “unfair to blame illegal immigrants who were ‘tricked’ into signing up, providing their identities and addresses to immigration officials in exchange for the amnesty.” The prevailing thought is this information could be used by the new Trump administration to help deportation of illegal alien invader “Dreamers.” However, Trump has not indicated exactly how he will address these individuals; though, many suspect he will revoke Hussein Soetoro’s illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional executive orders.
“During the campaign, Mr. Trump appeared to be of a mixed mind about how he would treat those affected by his decision. He expressed sympathy but said the immigrants needed to get right with the law. Speaking at a forum in September, Mr. Trump said Dreamers who join the military were “a very special situation” and could be put on a path to citizenship.”
So, the question remains, “Should these Dreamers be provided legal status or not?”
Yes, these individuals entered the united States illegally when their parents, who entered illegally, brought them across the border. No child should be subjected to punishment for the sins of their parents. However, a minor child cannot be separated from the parent. If the parent is here illegally and is deported, the child should go with the parent. The parent should not be given leniency because of an under-aged child.
On a similar note, “Dreamers” came to the united States illegally with their parents, who crossed illegally. In the years these children grew to be adults, the parents did not change their status. And, once the children became adults or of age to be dubbed “Dreamers,” neither did the “Dreamers” present themselves to immigration to follow the law nor apply for legal status knowing they were in the united States illegally. So, knowing they were in violation of immigration law and took no action to remedy the situation, these individuals should not be given legal status.
While Graham may try to claim these individuals were “tricked to sign up in exchange for amnesty,” the opposite is actually true. These individuals were not “tricked.” They wanted the easy way out of a situation they themselves created by not declaring their status and applying for legal status once they became of age to do so. Graham’s excuse for these individuals wants to nullify the responsibility these “Dreamers” had to follow the law and do the right thing. Instead, these “Dreamers” were content to remain in the united States illegally, without legal status, until Hussein Soetoro waved his magic “pen and phone” to provide them with an avenue that did not involve answering to the law for their transgressions once reaching adulthood.
It boils down to the thief who isn’t the least bit sorry he stole, but is terribly sorry he got caught.
Now, these “Dreamers” want to inundate citizens with their “success stories” detailing how Hussein Soetoro’s illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional actions “changed their lives.” Regardless of any type of “life change,” the fact remains these individuals did not make one move to change their illegal status until Hussein Soetoro offered a “get out of immigration jail free” card. Instead of choosing to follow the law once they became of age, they chose to continue their illegal status, knowing they were here as illegal alien invaders.
The Washington Times reported, “The Center for American Progress released a report in October finding that more than 90 percent of those approved for the amnesty received driver’s licenses or ID cards, 54 percent have bought their first cars and 12 percent bought homes.”
Many citizens in the united States today have never been able to afford a home. Some have even lost their homes during the train wreck that is the federal government over the past decades. Many citizens still cannot afford to buy a car while some have experienced repossession of their cars. Still others have seen their hard earned pensions go bust or be severely cut to the point they need to reenter the workforce. So, what is the basis for the release of these statistics regarding “Dreamers” supposed to accomplish?
In one word — sympathy. Citizens are supposed to feel “sympathy” for these individuals who “signed up” for the illegal program initiated by Hussein Soetoro. The response the center hopes for is, “Oh my, these people might have to leave the home they just bought”; or, “it would be a shame for these people who have cultivated a life here to have to leave.” But, this “center” has little sympathy for the homeless citizens who have children, those who have their cars repossessed based on inability to pay due to unemployment, or those citizens who worked hard to provide for their retirement future that have to work to “get by.” (begin sarcasm) No, sympathy is to be reserved for “Dreamers” who like the thief isn’t the least bit sorry he stole but terribly sorry he got caught. Sympathy is to be reserved for those seeking the easy way out instead of taking personal responsibility. (end sarcasm)
If members of both chambers of Congress extended as much sympathy to the types of citizens previously described instead of immigration law violators, this republic might see a turn around in its economic recovery. If cities that pride themselves on being “sanctuary cities” for immigration law violators prided themselves more on addressing the problems of the types of citizens previously described, the cities might be a bit better off in every economic way possible. The same could be said for religious organizations, private institutions, corporations, and yes, even private citizens.
The first duty of Congress is to the Constitution, not “these young people.” Since the Constitution duly authorizes Congress to make immigration law, which has been done, the law needs to be enforced. It isn’t broken nor does it need to be “reformed.” It needs to be enforced and the provision of illegal pregnant women giving birth to children in the united States allowing the newborn to be a citizen needs to be gutted.
Citizenship, in a republic, awarded to those who apply and attain it is a privilege bestowed by the natural citizens of the republic through duly passed constitutional immigration and naturalization law. It is not candy to be handed out to those with their hand open who violated law to enter nor should citizenship be bestowed to newborns whose mothers entered illegally for the sole purpose of staying through birthing a child on US soil. And, citizenship or legal status should definitely not be bestowed upon individuals looking for the “easy way out” instead of going through proper channels after spending a childhood in illegal status.
“Dreamers” had a choice once reaching the age of adulthood — they made the wrong one. They should be willing to face the consequences. Doing what is right is never easy and sometimes is riddled with consequences. However, those doing what is right might find more “sympathy” among those they are demanding it from through demanding the “easy way out” of a situation they themselves perpetuated.