Administration Shields Sexually Deviant Illegals and Supports DREAM Act

SEARCH FSM

Search Must Reads

National Debt Clock

A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!

View results

November 29, 2010

J. Christian Adams

Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (24)

Victor Nunez is an illegal alien from Mexico. Two years after arriving in the United States, he was convicted of petty theft for shoplifting. Then, he was convicted of a much more serious crime: He exposed himself in public. But even that wasn’t enough to have him removed from the country.

After a decade of his illegal presence, the Department of Homeland Security finally brought immigration charges to remove him from the United States. Crimes of “moral turpitude,” like exposing your genitals to children, are supposed to result in certain deportation.

The Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that he had two convictions for “crimes involving moral turpitude,” which under the immigration laws, makes one ineligible for the green card Nunez was seeking. Nunez was on a fast track back to Mexico.

But Nunez appealed, claiming that his conviction for indecent exposure was not a crime involving moral turpitude. To be convicted of this crime under California law, the offender must be shown to have willfully exposed his private parts in a public place or in a place where there are unwilling persons. Under the law, he also must “intentionally direct attention to his genitals for sexual purposes.” For his conviction, it was necessary for the government to show that Nunez intended to direct attention to his genitals for sexual purposes; his conviction demonstrates, specifically, that he sought to sexually arouse or gratify himself or his victim.

But to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco, there was no “moral turpitude” evident in Nunez’s crime. In an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the deportation order was reversed. Nunez gets to stay. Reinhardt reasoned that indecent exposure is not necessarily a crime involving moral turpitude.

This decision demonstrates a pervasive relativism that is infecting American jurisprudence, and most of the public has no idea it is happening. The law used to be about objective right and objective wrong. The plain meaning of words governed the law.

Judge Reinhardt downplays the seriousness and immoral nature of the crime, saying for example that what constitutes moral turpitude is “amorphous” and “could well divide residents of red states from residents of blue states.”

That’s comforting. I’m glad I don’t have to raise my children in the blue states if Judge Reinhardt is right.

It is true that the Obama Justice Department defended the ruling of the Immigration Judge and the Board before the Ninth Circuit, and would undoubtedly express disappointment over the decision. But if so, why has it done nothing to continue to fight the case? The Eric Holder Justice Department never even sought rehearing en banc (asking all the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case), or asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse Judge Reinhardt.

Does the Justice Department share Judge Reinhardt’s view that an illegal immigrant’s public exposure of his genitals does not satisfy the term “moral turpitude” thereby meriting deportation?

Why didn’t it appeal? The decision is far outside of the mainstream and not consistent even with the left-of-center California Supreme Court’s interpretation of sexual crimes. In fact, it is even inconsistent with an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit from last year, Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder. The entire Ninth Circuit held that what constitutes moral turpitude should be decided by the Board of Immigration appeals, not Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

So why doesn’t the Department of Justice appeal Judge Reinhardt’s opinion about indecent exposure by illegal aliens? Does Attorney General Eric Holder agree with it?

Of course, Judge Reinhardt does not have the best record when his cases are appealed to the Supreme Court. The Ninth is reversed by the Supreme Court more than any other. Even when writing for a unanimous Ninth Circuit, Judge Reinhardt may be the judge most reversed by the Supreme Court.

The Obama Administration claims that it is vigorously enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. The Justice Department’s unprecedented lawsuit against Arizona for trying to address illegal immigration proves otherwise. It has also been exposed through the release of internal memos that show the Obama Administration making contingency plans to implement amnesty by administrative fiat if the Congress fails to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

The Administration has already begun implementing those plans through formal new DHS directives to its career enforcement officials, ordering them not to enforce the immigration laws for what it calls “minor vehicular offenses,” if they were committed by illegal aliens who have received a high school diploma and attended two years of college. In other words, if they satisfy the amnesty requirements of a proposed law not yet passed by Congress called the DREAM Act, the DHS orders an effective amnesty.

That’s right, the Administration is enforcing a policy that has yet to pass Congress. Welcome to Legal Wonderland. Curiouser and curiouser it is.

When questioned about administrative amnesty proposals, the DHS press flunkies say “DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's illegal immigrant population." They say they will not suspend enforcement of immigration laws. And in truth, they don’t suspend the current laws for ALL illegal aliens, only for some.

They are giving breaks to a larger and select groups of illegal aliens. This is worse than a backdoor amnesty. This is a backdoor amnesty that flaunts the rule of law. No matter your individual beliefs about immigration policy, in a nation governed by the rule of law, as passed by Congress, we should all agree the Executive Branch can’t suspend laws they simply disagree with.

The Administration has never openly stated they are suspending the enforcement of the immigration laws against sexual offenders, and in fact claims that serious criminals are its highest priority. Yet, the Justice Department is doing nothing to fight extreme pro-criminal alien decisions like this one from Judge Reinhardt.

And this case is certainly not unique among Ninth Circuit decisions rejecting government efforts to remove criminal aliens for sexual crimes. In May, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder, that an Arizona statue that made sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 18 years old illegal is not always “sexual abuse of a minor.” This, despite the reality that under federal law such behavior is considered an aggravated felony and almost always results in removal from the United States. The Holder Justice Department has not fought back and appealed this bad decision either.

The Obama Administration’s failure to vigorously enforce the immigration laws is becoming increasingly clear, and its failure to appeal bad decisions protecting sexual offenders like Nunez is dangerous. Department of Justice inaction will prevent many other sexual offenders from being removed from the country, at least if they live in the Ninth Circuit. DOJ inaction speaks louder than spin.

Judge Reinhardt is quoted as once saying in reference to the Supreme Court, “They can’t catch them all.” He is right about that, especially if the Justice Department doesn’t even try.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams is an election law attorney and was formerly with the Department of Justice Voting Section. He resigned after the Justice Department dropped already won voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (24) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (24)

Is anyone surprised that this administration continues to act in the opposite interests of the American people?

posted by: Karen Pinto
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 08:17 AM

These activist and ultra liberal judges are a threat to our society - both our culture and our safety - is there no way to stop them? Is there no way to force them to stick to the Constitution?

posted by: David Strong
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 08:29 AM

You take one person, Victor NuÃ±ez, and his wrong doing as a way to smear the Dream Act...all the while not even addressing the details of the bill in a neutral manner.

Nice.

"The Obama Administrationâ€™s failure to vigorously enforce the immigration laws is becoming increasingly clear,"

Does that explain why under Obama's administration there have been 10% more deportations than George Bush's 2008 administration...

and 25% more than George Bush's in 2007?

Just a thought.

"Is anyone surprised that this administration continues to act in the opposite interests of the American people?"--Karen

Well Karen, do us all a favor...and pick a point in time where everyone said "this administration is doing every single thing that every single person wants and I'm loving it!"

We'll wait.

posted by: C.A.
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 09:37 AM

i think the judges and the Obama administration are the deviant ones. How many days left until they are out of here? I think about 700.

posted by: Pete Simmons
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 09:39 AM

The Dream Act is a proposal that allows illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship through college or military service, so it amounts to amnesty. Even the moderate Sen Scott Brown said it was also playing politics with military funding, and that's why he didn't approve of it. The question is...are you for amnesty or not?

posted by: Evan Benson
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 09:46 AM

This is disgusting. I have a solution to the victims of this type of crime. When the perp exposes himself, just laugh and point. He may not try it again for fear of the same reaction. I wish I had thought of this before it happened to me years ago.

posted by: June
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Everything is working out just the way Obama and his people want it to. Their plan is to divide the United States so it will be easier for them to set up the NWO or the World Government that they are working towards. This is not a secret. American people are waking up so they have to push their agenda to do what they want. 80,000 Somali immigrants from a terrorist country are suppose to be allowed into the USA just this year. Wake up people.

posted by: kaafir
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Of course San Francisco would intercede.They are the Soddom and Gommorah capitol of the world.Their "Up The Back Alley" ritual will show you how depraved they really are.

posted by: Will
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Why not put the illegals in platoon formation and march them back accross the border? If that is too harsh borrow some cattle trucks from the Army and transport them back accross the border. Now that we would be rid of the illegals lets go to the prisons and do away with education classes, weight lifting and gym equipment, put the prisoners in tents put them to work and solve the prison population problems. Give the a diet of pinto beans, turnip greens and balonga sandwiches.

posted by: Arkie
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:55 AM

You are an idiot.

posted by: Janson
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:56 AM

It's not just the Democrats and this administration that is to blame. This is a bipartisan bill, originally co-sponsored by Orin Hatch although I think he's backed off of it. The elections probably scared him. Now I think Lugar and Hagel are still co-sponsors - Republicans.

posted by: Ross
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 11:42 AM

This doesn't surprise me - we have been tolerating the left wing and liberals for 3 decades - what did you expect from a rogue president. And I don't think 'we've seen anything' yet. They are kowtowing to Muslims/Islam as a religion.....in England Muslim men and boys refer to white women as whores and trash...check the # of rapes perpetrated by Muslim men.
To C.A. Exactly who did Obama deport?

posted by: June
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Chain Migration is the principal mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to over one million a year since 1990. This isnâ€™t counting the 1.5 million immigrants who arrive here, through legal channels annually. Eventually the people sponsored will end up on the taxpayerâ€™s welfare and entitlements program, which happened after the 1986--AMNESTY. As such, it is one of the chief menaces in America's current record-breaking population boom and the record attendant sprawl, traffic congestion, school overcrowding, dwindling energy supplies and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life. This type of immigration is very dangerous to our society as the US population is beginning to see the light, from the costs brought to them in higher taxes from catering to the illegal alien inhabitants by Liberal zealots.

Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ / on the U-tube website and then you will comprehend the seriousness of this mass immigration and the imminent predicament for this country in overpopulation. Titled, "Immigration by numbers--off the charts" and learn what our previous or current government has kept silent about. The out-of-control population explosion has severe implication on your taxes and this countryâ€™s infrastructure.

The invasion hasn't stopped and never will until we cut of all welfare entitlements?

posted by: Francis
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 02:05 PM

The DREAM Actâ€”a popular proposal to provide legal status to undocumented youth who entered the U.S. as children, graduated from U.S. high schools, and attend college or enter the militaryâ€”is the target of a smear campaign from anti-immigration hardliners. According to them, passage of the DREAM Act would cheat native-born students out of opportunities. This tired effort to pit immigrants and native-bornâ€”whether they are workers or studentsâ€”against one another is not only destructive, but has no basis in fact. Moreover, it ignores the economic benefits that come from legalizing a group of talented, hard-working individuals who want nothing more than to contribute to America and repay the country for the opportunities theyâ€™ve been given.

Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders, have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. The DREAM Act will help boost the number of high-skilled American-raised workers. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. Removing the uncertainty of undocumented status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.

The U.S. military also needs the DREAM Act. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, stated that the law would be â€œgood for readinessâ€ and would help to recruit â€œcream of the cropâ€ students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of Defenseâ€™s 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.

Yet, despite the popular support and extensive data that should make passage of the DREAM Act a no-brainer, there are those who continue to spread half-truths about it. Hereâ€™s a run down of some of the most typical myths and the facts that refute them.

Myth: The DREAM Act uses taxpayer dollars for scholarships and grants to undocumented students.

Fact: The DREAM Act states that undocumented youth adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants.

Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.

Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.

Myth: The DREAM Act gives undocumented students and their families access to public benefits.

Fact: DREAM Act students receive no special benefits and are subject to the same public benefits eligibility requirements as other legal immigrants. This means that DREAM Act students and families are NOT immediately eligible for Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid (other than emergency care), and numerous other federal benefit programs. In general, a person must be here as a lawful permanent resident for five years before they receive non-emergency federal assistance.

Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.

Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green cardâ€”a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.

Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.

Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.

Myth: The DREAM Act isnâ€™t just for students, but will benefit people of all ages.

Fact: Because the U.S. has failed to address the question of illegal immigration for more than a decade, an entire generation of young peopleâ€™s skills and contributions could easily be lost. The young people who inspired the DREAM Act ten years ago may now be in their early 30s and should be eligible to benefit when it becomes law. Consequently, the DREAM Act encourages immigrants 35 or younger to attend college or join the military, but they must still have entered the U.S. before they were 16 AND have been here for five years immediately preceding the date of enactment.

Myth: The DREAM Act legalizes criminals and gang members and lets people who have already been ordered deported avoid the law.

Fact: Immigrants convicted of serious crimes are ineligible for DREAM Act status; the DREAM Act excludes from eligibility most immigrants applying for benefits who have been under an order of deportation. Specifically, the DREAM Act states that an applicant may not have already been ordered deported unless they received the order before they were 16 years old.

Myth: The DREAM Act lets students cut in line in front of other lawful immigrants.

Fact: DREAM Act students do not compete for visas with other applicants for legal permanent residence. Instead, DREAM Act creates a separate program for students that requires them to earn legal permanent residence by attending college or serving in the military for two years while in a temporary legal status. DREAM will not affect the number of visas available or the time it takes to get a visa for those entering through traditional legal immigration.

Myth: The DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for U.S.-citizen students.

Fact: According to the National Immigration Law Center:

Most undocumented students are likely to have zero impact on admission rates of native born students: Since 2001, 10 states have made it easier for undocumented state residents to attend college by offering in-state tuition to those that qualify. A significant portion of the students that took advantage of this opportunity have done so in community colleges, which have open enrollment. The small numbers of students who will attend 4-year universities are not significant enough to affect the opportunities of others.

Institutions charged with education of our youth overwhelmingly support the bill. Well-established education organizations like the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Educators Association, the College Board, and prominent university presidents/chancellors support the DREAM Act.

posted by: Arthur
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 02:06 PM

The law in California exists so a person that was caught urinating in public does not have to register as a s. offender. Would you REALLY prefer that if your son gets caught urinating in public in your beloved red state that he will have to register as a s.x offender for the rest of his life?
Or the law should only be generous to your son?

posted by: D
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 06:17 PM

The DREAM ActÃ¢â‚¬â€a popular proposal to provide legal status to undocumented youth who entered the U.S. as children, graduated from U.S. high schools, and attend college or enter the militaryÃ¢â‚¬â€is the target of a smear campaign from anti-immigration hardliners. According to them, passage of the DREAM Act would cheat native-born students out of opportunities. This tired effort to pit immigrants and native-bornÃ¢â‚¬â€whether they are workers or studentsÃ¢â‚¬â€against one another is not only destructive, but has no basis in fact. Moreover, it ignores the economic benefits that come from legalizing a group of talented, hard-working individuals who want nothing more than to contribute to America and repay the country for the opportunities theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been given.

Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders, have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. The DREAM Act will help boost the number of high-skilled American-raised workers. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. Removing the uncertainty of undocumented status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.

The U.S. military also needs the DREAM Act. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, stated that the law would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“good for readinessÃ¢â‚¬Â and would help to recruit Ã¢â‚¬Å“cream of the cropÃ¢â‚¬Â students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of DefenseÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.

Yet, despite the popular support and extensive data that should make passage of the DREAM Act a no-brainer, there are those who continue to spread half-truths about it. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a run down of some of the most typical myths and the facts that refute them.

Myth: The DREAM Act uses taxpayer dollars for scholarships and grants to undocumented students.

Fact: The DREAM Act states that undocumented youth adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants.

Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.

Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.

Myth: The DREAM Act gives undocumented students and their families access to public benefits.

Fact: DREAM Act students receive no special benefits and are subject to the same public benefits eligibility requirements as other legal immigrants. This means that DREAM Act students and families are NOT immediately eligible for Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid (other than emergency care), and numerous other federal benefit programs. In general, a person must be here as a lawful permanent resident for five years before they receive non-emergency federal assistance.

Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.

Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green cardÃ¢â‚¬â€a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.

Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.

Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.

Myth: The DREAM Act isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just for students, but will benefit people of all ages.

Fact: Because the U.S. has failed to address the question of illegal immigration for more than a decade, an entire generation of young peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s skills and contributions could easily be lost. The young people who inspired the DREAM Act ten years ago may now be in their early 30s and should be eligible to benefit when it becomes law. Consequently, the DREAM Act encourages immigrants 35 or younger to attend college or join the military, but they must still have entered the U.S. before they were 16 AND have been here for five years immediately preceding the date of enactment.

Myth: The DREAM Act legalizes criminals and gang members and lets people who have already been ordered deported avoid the law.

Fact: Immigrants convicted of serious crimes are ineligible for DREAM Act status; the DREAM Act excludes from eligibility most immigrants applying for benefits who have been under an order of deportation. Specifically, the DREAM Act states that an applicant may not have already been ordered deported unless they received the order before they were 16 years old.

Myth: The DREAM Act lets students cut in line in front of other lawful immigrants.

Fact: DREAM Act students do not compete for visas with other applicants for legal permanent residence. Instead, DREAM Act creates a separate program for students that requires them to earn legal permanent residence by attending college or serving in the military for two years while in a temporary legal status. DREAM will not affect the number of visas available or the time it takes to get a visa for those entering through traditional legal immigration.

Myth: The DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for U.S.-citizen students.

Fact: According to the National Immigration Law Center:

Most undocumented students are likely to have zero impact on admission rates of native born students: Since 2001, 10 states have made it easier for undocumented state residents to attend college by offering in-state tuition to those that qualify. A significant portion of the students that took advantage of this opportunity have done so in community colleges, which have open enrollment. The small numbers of students who will attend 4-year universities are not significant enough to affect the opportunities of others.

Institutions charged with education of our youth overwhelmingly support the bill. Well-established education organizations like the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Educators Association, the College Board, and prominent university presidents/chancellors support the DREAM Act.

posted by: Patriot
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 08:23 PM

This is one misleading article. Its the not illegal aliens' or the current administration's fault that that a person like this can stay in the US because of bureaucracy. The Obama administration has deported 400,000 illegals in 2009. more than bush ever did in a year. This administration is harder on deporting illegals than GW BUSH ever was!

The Dream act is for people of good moral character so the sexual deviant shown here will not qualify.

This article is BULLSH*T!

posted by: JEFFERSONIAN
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 08:34 PM

The message of this "article" is just plain retarded. It's the as using a fat pedophile to justify that all fat people are pedophiles.

Also Dream act requires crystal clear criminal record for applicant to qualify, would this man qualify? No fucking way.

posted by: Anon1720
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 08:34 PM

Opposers of the Dream Act are completely misinformed and the unfortunate part is that they are so vocal about it. Instead of merely reading misleading articles like the one above, take the time to read the actual bill. Most of the opposing opinions on here are sound bites fed to you by groups that are simply racist and instead of proposing solutions to the immigration problem which has been created by both democrats and republicans, they just say that all immigrants should be sent back.

posted by: michael
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 09:17 PM

@June: Either point and laugh (your great suggestion), or -- I learned this one at age 15 -- just look bored, flap your arm dismissively, and state "No thanks, I don't smoke."

posted by: Spikeygrrl
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Placing this individual under the same article of the Dream act is just devious and misinformed. 1.Under the Dream Act anyone with an active deportation will not be accepted. 2. He does not posses a "good moral character" with his violations, that's just an utter lie. 3. He did not enter the states before the age of 16. You really eat all the trash people tell you without questioning them huh? I wish people would take more the initiative to inform themselves before posting "articles" even if it were for political points.

posted by: Anonnymous
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 04:55 AM

I know a woman who is 53 and is petitioning for her 22-year-old Eastern European husband. She actually believes that people buy her love "story". She's a former cop and works as a security shift Manager at the Intrepid Museum in Manhattan. How can a woman who once enforced the law get involved in a scam marraige(probably for money). Being wise to the potential scrutiny, they recently moved in together. But I doubt she'll get away with it though. ICE has an extremelly challeging vetting process for newly married couples. This is a not-so-compelling arugent for the DREAM Act but something should be done.

posted by: Dan
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I do feel nor do I understand why some people feel that we should continue to GIVE AWAY AMERICA. We have laws on the books concerning people that break into our country, so why don't we enforce them. Would you give an intruder into your home free room and board and just hand things over to them? They say that AMERICA is not fair towards illegals...well take a look at other countries laws, especially Mexico...they are worse than we are. If you come to American legally, then you can stay, if not, you should go home...no matter how long you have been here. If you are born to anyone other than an American and you are in our country, you take on the status of your parents. NOT AUTOMATICALLY AN AMERICAN!! We work hard and pay plenty for the write to be American and live free in this country.

posted by: CJ Downs
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 05:55 PM

Most poeple are OPPOSED to the dream act, actually many law abiding people's dream is deportations of the free loaders, no more leeches.
Illegals and or their parents need to go back home to improve their own country

posted by: eds
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 05:58 PM

Eurabia Watch

Administration Shields Sexually Deviant Illegals and Supports DREAM Act