- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
The Dingbat says "it's harmful to the country." 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...osi-fence_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...osi-fence_N.htm
Pelosi Against Securing The Border
- Thread starter local 12 proud
- Start date
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
This is my favorite part:
"The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing illegal immigrants with lower in-state tuition rates."
Great. Then not only can these kid's families get away with not paying ANY taxes, but they will also pay less for the state services they enjoy. I have never heard of a country that attempts to give illegal immigrants more rights and benefits than its own citizens; I don't want the U.S. to be the first.
"The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing illegal immigrants with lower in-state tuition rates."
Great. Then not only can these kid's families get away with not paying ANY taxes, but they will also pay less for the state services they enjoy. I have never heard of a country that attempts to give illegal immigrants more rights and benefits than its own citizens; I don't want the U.S. to be the first.
Garfield1966
Veteran
Dream Act
Feinstein Statement
As for the wall, I agree with her. I think it would be a huge waste of money and would not solve anything.
As for the Dream act, I thought we were a republic? Should states not have the right to do what they choose in certain circumstances? The way I read the provision is that states would be allowed to provide the same benefits to non-residents as well as residents. Non-residents would not be receiving something that residents don’t.
If you are implying that they are being given an additional incentive to violate the law, that I would agree with and I think is wrong.
Feinstein Statement
As for the wall, I agree with her. I think it would be a huge waste of money and would not solve anything.
As for the Dream act, I thought we were a republic? Should states not have the right to do what they choose in certain circumstances? The way I read the provision is that states would be allowed to provide the same benefits to non-residents as well as residents. Non-residents would not be receiving something that residents don’t.
If you are implying that they are being given an additional incentive to violate the law, that I would agree with and I think is wrong.
delldude
Veteran
Whats the offset in letting them in as opposed to securing naturalization?
Oh...i'm sure there will be some type of disclaimer for ILLEGALS.
Dude..the mantra is Illegals= Democratic votes and don't deny it.Fat Ted told me so.....
Garfield1966
Veteran
Similar threads
