"There is no constitutional right to come to America.  It is a privilege to be admitted."
- Cal Thomas (syndicated columnist), 2002 

18 December, 2010 


The DREAM Act (see description below of what it would have done if enacted) was defeated in the Senate today.  Its defeat was a significant and necessary victory for American citizens, including generations not yet born. 

Every attempt to pass an illegal-alien amnesty during the last ten years has failed, a testament to citizens' growing awareness -- and resulting activism -- of the nation-destroying effects of illegal immigration, as just a glance at California's desperate financial, cultural, and physical condition illustrates.  (See this article.) 

Key to the defeat of the DREAM amnesty were the votes against it by Montana's two U.S. senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester.  Please use their office phone numbers below to thank both senators for their votes! 

(Montana's Congressman Denny Rehberg voted against the DREAM Act when it came up in the House of Representatives on December 8.  Unfortunately, the DREAM Act did pass the House, which is why its defeat in the Senate was so crucial.  Phone calls of thanks to Congressman Rehberg for his vote, even though on the losing side, are also merited.)

==

"DREAM" is the acronym for "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors," and the DREAM Act purports to "merely" give legal status to people who were brought here illegally before they were 16 years old and who meet certain educational or military service requirements.  After all, they're here illegally "through no fault of their own." 

But, in fact, it's a mass amnesty that, besides legalizing those "youths" (who can be as old as 30 when they apply), will ultimately lead to amnestying their illegal-alien parents, too.  That's because when the "youths" have become naturalized citizens, they'll be able to sponsor their parents (the "seed" criminals) for legal U.S. residency. 

The DREAM Act could, according to current estimates, directly amnesty 2.1 million people who meet its stated requirements.  But the ultimate numbers would likely be significantly higher, as there would undoubtedly be huge fraud (as was the case with the original amnesty in 1986), since the DREAM Act doesn't specify any safeguards against fraud.  Then, counting the parents and other relatives who would later be sponsored for legal U.S. residency by DREAM's direct beneficiaries, the effective size of the amnesty would be larger still.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR MONTANA'S CONGRESSMAN AND U.S. SENATORS

Congressman Denny Rehberg

Senator Max Baucus

Senator Jon Tester