You are hereBlogs / lisa savage's blog / DREAM workhorse for military funding??
DREAM workhorse for military funding??
I see where the DREAM act has become attached to the FY11 "defense" funding bill in the senate.
Just like the congress had education funding attached to the last war supplemental funding bill a few months ago. So orgs like my union could send out bulletins pushing members to call their rep or senator urging passage of the bill. Many members click without knowing much about the piece of legislation and certainly without being told that they are urging passage of the largest "defense" funding bill in history. Deception is a complicated game.
Respecting the educational needs of young undocumented immigrants is the aim of DREAM and this is a wonderful goal, but it's a tiny part of all that doesn't work about our immigration policies.
It makes me sick when ideals -- like not interrupting the education of undocumented youth -- are twisted for the profit of death dealers. But this is what our country has become.
And under DREAM service in the military would be equivalent to education as a path to citizenship.
I remember the fact that immigrants are offered a path to citizenship by enlisting came to light during the Winter Soldier hearings. We were in a local cafe screening the hearings and the young hometown waitresses were amazed by that fact.
DREAM is already a band-aid applied to a gaping wound and doesn't need this odious association to further weaken it. Real immigration reform is one of the many things that were supposed to change. Challenging AZ over SB1070 was a good gesture, but delivery on real change would have meant fixing large portions of the dysfunction of U.S. immigration policies.
Now immigration is brought in as a workhorse as congress labors to pass two war bills each year. One bill is hardly behind us before another bills begins the dark dance of committees and cloture and arcane rules. The chief executive of the nation renews the national "emergency" caused by 9/11. A constant state of war requires a constant flow of (borrowed to be paid back later) dollars gushing forth from our taxes and other revenues.
Private corporations are mercenaries paid for by public funds. Knowing this does not make me feel safer at all.
- lisa savage's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Well, what we call the government, anyway.
The article reminds me of this U.S. policy concocted I believe by Richard, Dick Cheney and possibly also Donald Rumsfeld. Stephen Lendman had an article about this I believe last week and there was a copy of it here, anyway. I don't recall who really initiated CoG, but am pretty sure that Cheney and Rumsfeld worked on this.
It doesn't matter who is President. It doesn't matter which of the two main parties wins the presidential elections. The real ruling elites make sure that it's either of the two large parties that wins and that whoever from these parties becomes President will be someone who minimally is moldable or else molded, to their liking; not the liking of the person who's either elected or is appointed as President, but to the liking of the real ruling elites. It's evidently why Dennis Kucinich was, imo, unconstitutionally prevented from being able to take part in debates between Dem. Party candidates who ran for the nomination to be able to run for the presidency in 2008; leaving only Obama and Clinton for these debates. It was definitely unconstitutional, unless the U.S. constitutionally is not a democracy. But it is a constitutional democracy; according to what I've always learned anyway. And this unconstitutional act against democracy in the U.S. could be rightly treated or perceived as an act of war on Americans, though surely most Americans wouldn't want or like to consider the reality in this manner.
That decision wasn't made by either Obama or Clinton. It's the ruling elites who made and enforced it, while the Dem. Party leadership treachorously went along with this, or acted in even worse terms of complicity; and the latter is not unlikely.
It's integral in a dark sense. The U.S. has long been this way, steadily, and always with efforts to try to deceive the public. It's continuity alright; just that it's dark.
In this darkness, it's a good idea to "drive" with the headlights on, and it's not a bad idea to use the high, instead of low, beams.