The DREAM Act is heating up in San Antonio. Yesterday, fifteen sit-in protesters were arrested at the local office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, according to the San Antonio Express-News – http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/police_respond_to_dream_act_rally_111008674.html. I found several interesting aspects to the story:
- Maria Berriozabel. One of the arrestees – Maria Berriozabel – is a former San Antonio City Councilperson. Leading up to the sit-in, most of the arrestees have been engaging in a 20-day food strike, but Berriozabel confessed to the media that she didn’t have the “courage” to join in the strike. Since when does a food strike take courage? Discipline – yes; commitment – yes. Unless Berriozabel has undisclosed health issues, she comes off as an attention-seeking dilettante.
- Scofflaw. One of the protesters is a self-proclaimed illegal immigrant. While I respect her willingness to take a stand based on principle, I believe the federal government (Obama) has obligation to stand up for principle, too. Enforce our immigration law. Don’t tell us you are too busy to deport someone who is openly daring you to enforce the law of the land.
- Hutchison’s opposition. The protesters are focused on Kay Bailey Hutchison because she has waivered on her DREAM Act position and is considered a swing vote. According to a press release from the senator, “Senator Hutchison has been consistent and clear about her position against the current DREAM Act legislation, particularly her concern that the current bill goes far beyond the intended group of children who grew up in the U.S. and attended primary and secondary schools here.” What is clear and concise about that? I look on her website for a clarification, but found nothing there. I surfed the internet and found only evasive vagueness. Only when I read comments from readers of the E-N article did I notice a significant issue that Hutchison might be referring to. The readers are concerned that U.S. immigration law currently allows citizens to sponsor relatives for citizenship (e.g., anchor babies). Thus, by bestowing citizenship on all of these students, we will eventually be bestowing it on their extended families. That fact militates against one of the principle rationales for the DREAM Act – i.e., the children shouldn’t be made to pay for the sins of their smuggling parents. Well, the DREAM Act would not only absolve the kids of any sin, it would ultimately inure to the benefit of the lawbreakers. That doesn’t make sense.