DREAM Act is just another amnesty bill for illegal aliens

(Regarding article, “DREAM Act fails to clear cloture hurdle,” Oct. 25.) Why don’t you report the truth about this amnesty bill using the name “the DREAM Act”? It’s just a stealth maneuver that would “grant conditional legal status to any illegal alien who claims to have arrived in the U.S. prior to age 16,” which opens the same old can of worms: How do we know that they were here before the age of 16? How can they prove that to us? Any illegal alien can apply for the program, and those who would gain legal status could sponsor any family members, allowing additional millions to access the program — without a DNA test.

There would be a ban on deportation for anybody who applies. Felons, child molesters, etc. — all an illegal would have to do is show up and say, “I was here before I was 16.” Then they get conditional legal status here, and they can’t be deported.

They would also be granted ready acceptance into colleges and universities. It’s everything that we fought to stop in the amnesty bill. This is the sequel. This is Amnesty Part Two. There’s nothing about extra law enforcement to secure the borders, or about sanctuary cities. Plus this: Illegals who apply for the DREAM Act can count their green card status toward the five years needed to attain citizenship, which lawful immigrants cannot do.

It’s very sad, and it’s not right. The DREAM Act is nothing more than the fast-tracking of illegals over those trying to gain citizenship through legal methods.

Pasadena, Texas

Nadler ‘warned’ no one
From Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

I write to correct the report in the Oct. 31 edition of The Hill (“CBC members pummel Department of Justice official”) that I “warned” Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Artur Davis (D-Ala.) about their questioning of John Tanner during an oversight hearing on the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. A review of the record will reveal that at no time did I warn any member about their choice of questions, nor would I.

As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, I take the Congress’s oversight responsibilities seriously. The purpose of the hearing was to review the Voting Section’s poor record of enforcing our voting rights laws, the politicization of the Section, and the poor management of the Section.

My comments were in response to Rep. Steve King’s (R-Iowa) suggestion that the hearing was occasioned by Mr. Tanner’s intemperate and inappropriate remarks about minority voters. In fact, the hearing was scheduled before Mr. Tanner made his controversial statements. At no time did I admonish any of the members about their line of questioning. In this case, Mr. Tanner’s remarks were a legitimate issue as they reflect poorly on his fitness to run an office charged with protecting minority voting rights.

The questions asked by Rep. Davis and Rep. Ellison were entirely appropriate and consistent with the purpose of the hearing.


Let’s go waterboarding
From Judy Romero-Oak

There’s a very simple solution to the waterboarding question. Let attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey and anyone who supports it, or is ambiguous about it, volunteer to experience waterboarding. Then they can decide whether or not it’s torture.

Albuquerque, N.M.