Log in

No account? Create an account
Uh, what? 
20th-Sep-2010 10:32 am
Guess I need to go back and read the bill. Got mail from the AFA urging that I contact my senators requesting that they do not vote to repeal DADT. Along with a bunch of clearly slanted, but quite possibly true stuff, they say:

To make matters worse, this bill will also turn every U.S. military hospital in the world into an abortion clinic, and will guarantee amnesty and a path to citizenship for certain illegal aliens.

Of course, no link was included, and a quick google does not provide me the text.
20th-Sep-2010 03:04 pm (UTC)
The defence authorisation bill includes the DREAM act, which allows citizenship to be granted to people who serve for some number of years in the US military. This is something that's (to the best of my knowledge) fully supported by the US services.

I'm not aware of anything that affects abortion provision, but I haven't fully been paying attention outside the DADT part of the act. Surely the Hyde Amendment would prevent it in any case?

Edited at 2010-09-20 03:07 pm (UTC)
21st-Sep-2010 12:34 am (UTC)
Oh, bless you! I have a sucky memory, and didn't remember what the bill was actually called. People on both sides have just been calling it DADT. Googling on "Defense Authorization Bill" got me to this bill -- which seems be the one they're talking about... but also showed me comments on "The Senate version of the Defense Authorization Bill includes Senator Roland Burris's amendment, authorizing abortion in military hospitals" and "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a democrat from the state of Nevada has announced that the DREAM Act will be included as an amendment in the defense authorization bill." And googling on the bill got me a list of all 5 versions. *sigh*. 1028 pages. And I'm not sure it includes amendments... Even if I didn't need sleep, and didn't have so much to do I don't know that I'd be able to read half of what I "need" to...
20th-Sep-2010 03:50 pm (UTC) - Preaching to the choir, I'm sure
I'm sure you wouldn't imagine otherwise, but I feel compelled to say: As someone who married a completely legal, nonsupsicious, white male Canadian and did everything above-board, allow me to mention that having a path to citizenship does not in any way mean you are given a golden key to our country. The aforementioned path involves tons of paperwork and many hoops and a lot of rules. I would hate to see what that path looks like if you have a different skin color, are young, and aren't already under a work visa.

Also, being that this rule applies to folks who got shoved into this country as minors and managed to stay and get themselves into learning or military institutions to better themselves and/or this country, I might argue with the guilt implied by the word amnesty above.
21st-Sep-2010 12:46 am (UTC) - Re: Preaching to the choir, I'm sure
Indeed. Several of my coworkers have become citizens (after MANY years of working for peanuts) -- and I host a conversation group at a Washtenaw Literacy English as a Second Language gathering -- and have seen some of the questions on the citizenship test (other groups do that); with my memory I wouldn't want to have to pass that!

People who are willing to work harder than many who were lucky enough to be born to the citizenship, while boasting less entitlement, are in my (rather judgemental) eyes more deserving of that citizenship.

If citizenship were to be forbidden to those who could not trace their ancestry to those born here 20 generations ago, I think many of those crying "foul" would be "SOL".
21st-Sep-2010 01:19 pm (UTC)
Burris is trying to make a "name" for himself so he can get into the special election to fill Obama's Senate seat. He's a blowhard and an airbag and apparently taking a page from Bart Stupaks idiocy to "make a name" while killing a perfectly good bill.
22nd-Sep-2010 01:52 am (UTC)
Oh right. Heh. _That_ Burris.
This page was loaded May 25th 2019, 3:43 am GMT.