Marco Rubio, Romney Endorser, Proposes DREAM Act GOP Version

From cnsnews.com

Rubio Working on GOP Version of DREAM Act to Let Younger Illegal Aliens Stay Legally In U.S.

April 3, 2012

 

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says he is working to craft an alternative version of the DREAM Act that would allow younger illegal aliens who came to the United States “through no fault of their own” to stay here legally and, if they wished, get in line to become a citizen.

“There is nothing that prohibits them from getting citizenship,” Rubio told the Tampa Bay Times in an April 3 interview in which he explained his plan.  “We just don’t create a new pathway. The bottom line is they would have a visa of some sort and like they and any other visa holder in this country can get in line and apply for residency. You have to wait in line but you get to wait in line in the U.S. legally.”

“They would be here living, studying, working, while they’re waiting in line,” Rubio said. “We have a broken legal immigration system. Someone would say, ‘Well it’s going to take them forever to get residency.’ Well, that’s true of anybody. The system has to be modernized but that’s a separate topic. It doesn’t create a pathway to citizenship directly but doesn’t prohibit them from entering the regular pathway.”

As it currently stands, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, commonly known as the DREAM ACT, which was first introduced a decade ago, would grant conditional permanent resident status for a period of six years to those who came into the United States illegally before the age of 16. After the six-year period, those eligible would be able to attain legal permanent status if they obtain an associate-level academic degree or serve in the U.S. military for two years.

The DREAM Act, while first introduced in 2001, has never had the support in Congress to become law.

In an April 1 interview with liberal commentator Juan Williams on Fox News Latino, Rubio said he does not support the DREAM Act as currently drafted. But he said he would sponsor a proposal that incorporates the “idea” of helping young illegal immigrants by providing them with a special visa to allow them to stay in the country legally while waiting in line to get citizenship.


Embed »

continues at cnsnews.com

A constitutional criticism of this proposal, posted as a comment to this article, at cnsnews.com:

by Dixiesuzan

But it was my understanding that the US Constitution covered this matter rather thoroughly as follows—
US Constitution, Article I, section 9 —NO Bill of Attainder or EX POST FACTO Law shall be passed.—
Now what is an ex post facto law which the Congress CANNOT LEGALLY pass???

The words “ex post facto law” are a technical expression.  Ex post facto laws relate to penal and criminal proceedings which impose punishments or forfeitures.  An ex post facto law is one which rendered an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.  This definition is distinguished for its comprehensive brevity and precision.  Ex post facto laws extend to laws passed AFTER THE ACT, and affecting a person by way of punishment of that act, either in his person or estate.

For example—(1) an act done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, now made criminal; or (2) a law which aggravated a crime, and made the punishment greater than it was when committed; (3) a law which made a criminal act when done, no longer a criminal act, but an innocent one after the fact;  or (4) which altered the legal rules of evidence, and received less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

Thu,s any DREAM ACT whatsoever is just that, al DREAM of an illegal and Un-Constitutional ex post facto law which is no law at all but a usurpation and corruption of law.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”   U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)—    http://supreme.justia.com/us/1…   —And so Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), why are you wasting your time with seeking to develop clear and plain un-Constitutional laws when there are other Constitutional duties better suited to your office of public trust?   For ex post facto laws are not a duty requirement of Federal Senators, Sir


PatriotPantry IBD GoFoods 72Hour Emergency Kit

Comments

  1. If they want a revolution this sort of treason will hasten it, because it is coming–and soon!

Speak Your Mind

*