The repeal of DADT passed. The Dream Act did not pass. DADT doesn’t take effect immediately.
According to the Washington Post:
“This is the defining civil rights initiative of this decade,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “Congress has taken an extraordinary step on behalf of men and women who’ve been denied their rightful integrity for too long.”
Being gay has for decades been grounds for discharge, and tens of thousands of service members have been expelled after their sexual identities were exposed – sometimes under questioning. An estimated 13,000 troops have been discharged under the “don’t ask” policy that President Bill Clinton, after failing to reverse the policy, authorized as a compromise in 1993.
What people don’t remember is that Clinton put in DADT as a last resort. He would have preferred to make being gay a non-issue. however, Congress had threatened to make the rules stricter if Clinton issued an executive order. Much has changed in 15 years.
The years-long legislative debate over the policy came to an end Saturday as senators voted 65 to 31 to send the repeal legislation to President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to eliminate the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly. Eight Republicans joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus in the vote; four senators did not vote.
Good for those 8 Republicans and shame on those who voted no.
As for the Dream Act, to me, it is a waste of human resource. A country that continually complains about social security not being sustained should try to get all the high paid workers it can. If students work hard, keep out of trouble and have superior grades, they should be entitled to complete for college, regardless of the status of their parents. I am tired of this sins of the father business when dealing with children.
From the Washington Post:
On Saturday, that strategy was in ruins after Senate Democrats could muster only 55 votes in support of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a measure that would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Under Senate rules, Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome Republican opposition to the bill. The House of Representatives had passed the measure this month, 216 to 198.
The irony of the DREAM Act’s failure is that it had strong bipartisan support at the start of the administration, and advocates thought it could generate momentum for more policy changes.
But as the country’s mood shifted on illegal immigration, support among Republicans and some Democratic senators evaporated, with many decrying it as backdoor amnesty for lawbreakers. Even a former co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), voted against it.
I wonder how McCain ended up voting? Shame on those senators who voted nay. Kids are once again victims. Its a sad day when we crap on kids who have grown up American because of their parents. No one is asking anyone else to pay the bill. Just let the kids into college.
“If students work hard, keep out of trouble and have superior grades, they should be entitled to complete for college, regardless of the status of their parents.”
Not when those students are 35 years old. Like HCR, the DREAM Act had significant flaws. The argument that something needs to be done does not justify doing just anything that partisan politicians dream up.
I don’t disagree with the 35 year old ceiling either and I don’t know why it is so high.
Perhaps it had to do with military enrollment. I haven’t read the act.
I don’t think we will ever get a bill that satisifies everyone. And I do think these kids who have studied hard and done well deserve to compete with everyone else.
I think it is a travesty that a lame duck session of Congress is voting on these controversial issues. Many of these legislators are retiring or have been defeated and therefore lack the legitimacy to represent the voters. The intent of the 20th amendment was to put an end to lame duck sessions.
@kelly
They were elected for a given amount of time. We are still in that time, regardless of who they are. Could we have said the same thing about George Bush once he was on his way out? He would have been on his way out regardless of who won.
Whose intent was to put an end to lame duck sessions? If that were the intent why didn’t they just say so? I bet you weren’t so quick to complain about lame duck in as the 109 Congress went in to the lame duck session.
I never understood the reasoning behind the 35 yr age ceiling on the DREAM Act either.
As to DADT, while I was at Robins AFB recently the Air Force newspaper that comes out there had a big article on planning for the repeal of DADT as far as the Air Force was concerned. It mentioned for example, there are no plans to have separate quarters or bathrooms/showers for homosexuals, as logistically that would be a nightmare and very expensive to implement. It was interesting reading however, but I forget the rest of the details.
There are no separate facilities for gays and lesbians before DADT.
Gainesville,
There are SOOOOOO many jokes to be made about the Air Force and that statement about DADT…………
I wonder if the repeal of DADT requires the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to be revised. Does anybody know?
Cheers and Cheers! The Senate got it right on both counts! Seems rare, and hopefully a little taste of what’s to come!
Emma & Gainesville Resident,
I was considering the 35 year age cap last evening. And I ended up thinking it could conceivably happen, a 13 year-old brought here in 1988, would be 35 today. The longer the issue is ignored the higher that cap will have to go to address the possible scenarios.
Let me add one last thing, I find it particularly irritating that Senator Manchin from West Virginia didn’t attend yesterday’s votes. What did he have going on(a party?) that was more important than representing his constituency and doing the job that he was elected to do.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/gop-attacks-manchin-skipping-controversial-senate-votes
I love it….”kids are once again victims”…..and in the great liberal tradition of NEVER recognizing that responsibility actually exists, we blame the Senate instead of the kids parents, who KNOWINGLY brought them here illegally. A waste of human resources? That’s just a hair overstated!
@Alanna
People get what they vote for! Anyone with half a brain knows that Raese was the better candidate, but the good old W. Virginians fell for Manchin posting a bill on a tree and blasting it with a shotgun. They wanted it….they got it! Manchin should have been present to vote “no” on the Dream Amnesty.
Which effectively makes it more and more unlikely to get passed. The more believable scenario is that it just doesn’t happen.
Allowing qualified young people to get an education or to join the military is not amnesty.
And yes kids are victims. It is totally ridiculous and stupid to not allow a kid with an outstanding GPA to not enter a public college because the parents were illegal immigrants.
These kids have no where to go. No one is asking for anything for free. Just entrance. Right now, a vote against the Dream Act is simply mean spirited.
amnesty:
A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses
What political offenses have been committed by kids who have studied hard and done the right thing? Being born? Not run away from home?
That’s what it boils down to, doesn’t it? “You’re mean, you big meany”
@Moon-howler
Yeah, if the law is broken, and the punishment is ignored, that is a general pardon, in this case granted by the government. “Especially” is not the same as “exclusively”.
And the hundreds of thousands who will chain migrate in due to these few “heros”, oh yeah, that’s amnesty, big-time. Face it, the right thing happened here.
1. Homosexuals in “hiding” have been bunking alongside straight people forever, and some of them have been suspected of being homosexual. So what? As long as they are all doing their jobs, it matters not.
2. Why stick homosexuals in separate quarters? If you are against homosexuality, wouldn’t that just promote more of it in addition to creating an “us vs. them” environment?
3. I think the cap on DREAM is indeed meant for military service. Perhaps there should be a stipulation that students must enroll by age 20 or go into the military if they want to qualify for DREAM.
I think we can find common ground if we raise the bar a bit, it’s just as Emma said DREAM had holes in it wide enough to drive several trucks through. I’d have zero issues if we passed a bill that stipulated that anyone who completed a four year tour and could produce an honorable discharge OR someone who received a degree from an accredited institution OR completed approved vocational training (sorry, enrollment isn’t good enough – you need to show me some follow through) would receive a green card. Amnesty is not a dirty word to me but it should be earned.
Immigration is extremely important in a global environment. Look what happened in Japan as the population aged. All the fiscal and monetary policy in the world won’t be able to dig them out of the hole they’re in. Kids take up less resources and contribute more to society, and rich countries (like ours) need them to counter aging demographics. We need immigrants, but we need them to be operating within the law. So yes, let’s raise the bar and tighten up DREAM for those already here but the more important issue is to make it easier for people to come here legally.
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
Actually its about education. And no, you aren’t a meanie. You are pig headed and can’t get past your own politics. What good does it do to have good students who could be getting a college education or honorable people serving in the military as dishwashers?
Why bother to work hard in school? Why not just be a gang member? Throwing up road blocks to immigrants is not a new thing in this country. The ‘illegal aspect’ just makes it
more politically correct to maintain an underclass.
And these kids are not culpable for breaking the law any more than your kids are guilty if they are in the car and you are speeding.
Sins of the fathers….
Cato, you and I are just approaching this from a different point of view. I don’t care about the ‘path to citizenship.’ I care about kids who have worked hard being allowed to enter college. Right now they can’t go to most 4 year colleges. I suppose those who don’t have paper work will just have associates degrees. Fine if that’s where you want to end up. Not os fine if you want to go on to be a rocket scientist.
I don’t want special privileges. Whatever the military requires past legal presense…nothing should change. I don’t want anyone to pay for their college. I do believe they are entitled to instate tuition if they have lived in state for whatever the requirements of that state is. Now if I Virginia kid wants to go to Maryland, then pony up. No instate tuition.
I have no problem with citizenship being tied to finishing military service or graduating from college. I would think they should have to go through the same thing any other immigrant has to do to become a citizen. I just want them to be able to enter college. And that is the main trust of the Dream Act.
There is no doubt in my mind that you could put something together whereby if these kids get college degrees (four-year), they could be given a pathway to citizenship. But they have to make sure they get millions of other illegals into the mix to try to ride the backs of these innocents. And that tactic alone justifies the failure. It can never be just “let’s give these kids a break”. It has to be “let’s give these kids, and EVERYONE else” a break. They deserve to fail.
Who deserves to fail? Kids who have worked hard in school? WHATever.
That sounds extremely paranoid. So put a sentence in the Dream Act that says no piggybacking.
I guess I am sitting here thinking…They are here. What is it you don’t want? If they are here….how can they get MORE here?
I must be missing something. The Dream Act or various forms of it has been around for more than a couple years. I can’t believe that some bright shining star Republican couldn’t find a way to prevent what Slow Poke fears from happening.
@Moon-howler
And you know what? I know many, many people who are at the top of their professions with only two year degrees. Perhaps the biggest lie ever told to American youth is that they need to go to expensive universities and obtain advanced degrees to succeed and prosper in life. Yes, there are kids that go on to become neurosurgeons and such but the vast majority of them end up with very poor return on investment in fields that have nothing whatsoever to do with their field of study.
I know this because I’m a chump who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars becoming “overeducated” myself.
Bottom line is that sanity needs to be restored to immigration policy and ASAP. It’s something that will happen, and soon, so I wouldn’t get too upset about the fact that it didn’t happen this go round. We agree in principle.
@Cato,
I don’t think being allowed to to go UVA, UMW, JMU, GMU is really going whole hog. In fact, right now a Dream Act kid might have a better chance of going to an expensive private school than a public 4 year school. Why? Private schools can set their own admission rules. Public schools can’t.
I don’t disagree with you about people thinking they have to go to Stanford at every turn. Plenty of folks have done real well at the children of a lesser god colleges and universities. I just want kids who have proven themselves in public school to be able to go to college, if they make the grade. I don’t want them stopped by artifical barriers.
Kelly – I don’t believe the repeal of DADT requires amending the UCMJ, although it might be advisable just for clarity. The UCMJ makes sodomy a criminal offense and it follows a decades old narrow definition similar to the definition that still exists in some laws in some states (you’d might be surprised what it considers a crime). The literal wording of the provision makes acts I’d bet my last dollar significant numbers of married couples engage in when they get romantic criminal conduct, and the statute makes no distinction between married or single, gay or straight … whether the person is giving or receiving doesn’t matter, the act is literally defined as a crime for both parties. The reason I don’t believe an amendment is required is that in my experience commanders and their lawyers used common sense in applying the sodomy statute. Over the course of my career, I saw it applied for non-consensual sodomy (most often when the victim had passed out due to alcohol or drugs and was incapable of consenting) and for sodomy with a minor (where the victim is too young to give knowing consent). The very few times I recall it being applied to consensual sodomy was when the act took place somewhere that made it a public spectacle. Consensual conduct behind closed doors between two adults never resulted in a criminal charge under the UCMJ that I can recall. The last time the Supreme Court addressed consensual sodomy between adults, the majority struck down the conviction and the application of the Texas statute, although Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented (their poor wives). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html [Here’s a link to a comparison between UCMJ sex offenses under Title 10 (the UCMJ) and federal criminal statutes under Title 18. http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/php/docs/comparison_with_Title18_3-2-05.pdf Note there is no federal law pertaining to sodomy analogous to Article 125 of the UCMJ.]
I disagree with you on passing legislation in a lame duck session. The 112th Congress doesn’t yet exist. Until it does, the 111th is still on the payroll and, for better or worse, represents us. I would agree that a party should not try to use a lame duck session to cram through new legislation as a parting shot before losing power, but when it comes to DADT and START in particular, over the past 2 years both houses of Congress have held multiple committee and sub-committee meetings, conducted multiple committee and sub-committee hearings involving dozens of witnesses, taken numerous “fact-finding” junkets, and commissioned multiple studies and reports. After investing that much time, effort, and money, I don’t believe they should punt to the new Congress that would then have to start over from scratch.
Slowpoke,
Are you saying the scenario that I suggested wouldn’t happen? Could you be a little more specific about what part you’re doubting?
It shows your level of hyper-partisanship to even to even say that after my whole point was about how they craft legislation to turn a simple idea into huge overarching programs. The people who craft the legislation know what they are doing and deserve to fail.
What you’re missing is the ability to understand who’s controlled Congress for the last six years, some of it totally unobstructed (health care). You also can’t seem to read the stories about how Republicans were repeatedly barred from making adjustments and amendments from bills. Lefty arguments….always full of garbage!
@Alanna
I don’t doubt that if the bill was limited to giving these kids who were brought here by their law-breaking parents a chance at citizenship through proven higher education (I’ll give it to Cato on this, a four-year degree doesn’t mean everything. How about a two-year degree?), or proven military service, then it might have a chance at passing. But we have include every unskilled, unvaccinated, and uneducated criminal that is six-degrees of Kevin Bacon from said “dreamer”. Don’t pretend to not know what I’m talking about here. If you pretend to not understand what I’m saying, then you ARE the reason why this fight will never end.
@Slow,
And you fail to realize who the President was from 2001-2009. There were 4 full years of an R Pres and R house and R Senate. 2003-2007. 2007-2010 seems like 4 years to me.
And saying I am partisan about the Dream Act is totally foolish. I don’t really care who passes it, just so it gets passed. To bar one class of
citizensresidents from attending college or joining the military for reasons beyond their control is unAmerican.And stop whining about the big bad Democrats. Both parties are worthless as crap. Republicans do it to Democrats and Democrats do it to Republicans.
I prefer to look back even further to the whole crew with their flies at half mast, trying to run Clinton out of office.
And how, pray tell, can a person have a proven military record if they aren’t allowed to enlist? The Dream act didnt pass in 2007 or 2008. I am supposed to believe NOW that there are real reasons? OH BS.
Of course, I know all too well, who was President 2001-2009, as I have demonstrated on many occasions. Obviously I got the six wrong (four from six is eight, carry the Bush, eight and six…..). Not foolish, realistic (I forget how y’all like to “reword” things. “Independents”, is it? The whole “I don’t care who or how, just get it passed” is one reason we are 13 trillion in debt (that and a couple of really dubious nation-building exercises..er…I mean, wars.) You may need to get over Clinton. It was a damn shame what they did to him, but you have to remember, a lot of those folks would like to have him back right now. I’m more for the education aspect than I am the military aspect, anyway. Just ask Rome what happens when you import warriors.
There are very few saints in the politics business and lots of sinners.
Look, though, I don’t even need to spend hours arguing these points with you. Come January 5, I’ll just be able to sit back and watch you libs moan the blues until 2012, when your hero gets booted, along with a bunch of Dem Senators! It’s ours to screw up! (and I do have supreme confidence in our ability to screw it up!)
Slow, you have no clue who my heroes are. I doubt that any of my heros will get booted.
Tell me, are all your personal investments in yourself? Are you really ready for those men and women who cleaned up after 9/11 to just suck it up and die? UFB. If that is a liberal thought to want to help people who are dying because of their service to country and others, then I guess you caught me.
@Moon-howler
“To bar one class of citizens ”
They are not citizens. Based upon the Dream Act, one could be brought here one day before their 16th birthday (unverifiable), they stay here for five years, So, now they’re 21. And they are “automatically citizens”?
Yes, I know that there are children brought here and live here all of their lives. They are still not citizens. THEIR PARENTS LIED TO THEM. Or if they didn’t lie to them, the children have been living a lie. It’s their parents’s fault.
Besides, if all of these other colleges are allowing instate tuition for illegal immigrants, I don’t see many barriers to them going to a four year college. If they want to become US citizens, they can get in line.
School records verify that a student has been here. Transcripts are legal documents. They provide grades, home address etc.
I stand corrected on the unfortunate use of the word ‘citizen.’ In the strictest sense, they are not citizens.
And no, that isn’t how Dream Act would work. It isn’t an automatic.
4 year colleges generally don’t allow illegal immigrants entrance. That’s the point. They can’t go to college with BA or BS as a goal. I don’t know of any 4 year colleges in Virginia (or any place else on the east coast) that will even admit them. That is the barrier. I believe citizenship is secondary to this issue.
The Dream Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1116GxJ32:e1387:
It is like watching paint dry.
As to the “dream act”, we are all children of immigrants and these kids did nothing wrong except traveling with their parents. Why shouldn’t they have the same opportunities we had ? DADT is a travesty to human rights and doesn’t belong in our society.
Financial aid for everyone! Let’s make every child in all nations of the earth eligible for financial aid from the US government. Why, after all, should we not promote education? And why favor our own citizens, when citizenship ain’t nothing but a piece of paper.
I propose that for every child world-wide who has not committed 3 major felomies, we :
1. Award them a scholorship in the US school of their choice
2. Give them plane tickets to/from the US
3. Award their parents temporary residency, to give them something like equal footing during the length of their education
4. Perform the equivalenty of “forced busing” and mandate that American students go study in the original student’s country, to promote world-wide equality
Think of the boons to US businesses! We can have literally BILLIONS of new residents in our schools, shopping at our stores and renting from our landowners! Probably I think we can solve ouir deficit problem this way. As to the expense of paying for a billion kids’ college expenses, we can stack it onto the deficit.
The Dream Act is NOT about financial aid. Check out the Dream Act before spreading that one. The students involved have been here for years, brought here through no fault of their own. The object is to allow them to enroll in a 4 year college which they cannot do now, if the college is a public one.
Rick, where have you been? We have missed you. Last movie recommendations?
“The object is to allow them to enroll in a 4 year college which they cannot do now, if the college is a public one.”
ONE of the “objects” is about granting in-state tuition ad hoc. Allowing to enroll? They can do that now.
I’ve been staying busy at work. Moon-howler, but I do come here even if I post less. My sleeper movie pick is “Pirate Radio” which is on HBO these days, a very fun little movie.
NO, they cannot enroll in a public college. Not in Virginia or in Indiana at least. NOVA yes, 4 year public colleges no.
And yes, they would qualify for in-state tuition if they lived in state the required amount of time. It’s a year in Virginia.
I will check out Pirate Radio.
I want to see those Guardian Owls. Any other recommendations?
Best thing I’ve seen recently isn’t playing around here I don’t think but maybe it will eventually – a 5 1/2 hour biopic on “Carlos the Jackal”, “Carlos”. IFC has the rights and hopefully will be running it on TV again.
That reminds me of a great movie to recommend, Spielberg’s “Munich” about the Isreali terror squad that terrorized the terrorists who had slaughtered the Isreali athletes in the 1972 Olympics. Great great movie, my favorite Spielberg movie I’d say.
I’ve grabbed a few Stanley Kubrick blu-rays for cheap. The Blu-ray for “2001 A Space Odyssey” looks astoundingly good. It’s considered a good demo disc to show off the possibilities of blu-ray. The 20 minutes of head-trip special effects at the end looks fantastic.
And Christmas movie-wise I recommend “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Little Shop Around the Corner”!
Interesting take on this from both sides.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/12/state-lawmaker-wants-to-ban-gays-from-virginia-national-guard/1
Two days after the U.S. Senate completed congressional repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a Republican state lawmaker says he’ll propose banning openly gay personnel from serving in the Virginia National Guard, The Washington Post writes.
Delegate Bob Marshall, one of the most conservative members of the state House, believes it is unconstitutional to allow gays to serve openly. He cites Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution, saying it “[reserves] to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
A gay-rights group begs to differ, saying the National Guard must adhere to the same rules as other federal military.
Marshall, a possible U.S. Senate candidate in 2012, said he is drafting legislation for the 2011 session.
President Obama plans to sign the DADT repeal Wednesday.
I think Federal law now trumps state law because the Nat’l Guard falls under the US Army now.
The Guard (Air or Army) works for the Governor and falls under state law and control when they are in Title 32 (state) status and they work for the Army or Air Force and the President when they convert to Title 10 (federal) status. The solution may be for the federal government to cut off funding and take back the property (airplanes, helicopters, tanks, trucks, etc) it furnished the state if the state insists on rules inconsistent with federal law. Then Bob Marshall can lead his straight Virginia Army while they hold drill weekends using broomsticks to simulate bazookas.
I think it’s an interesting question if it’s even legal to do so…