The underlying purpose of the DREAM Act is to allow the United States to recruit “non-citizens” into its armed forces and use them as disposable cannon fodder for the colonial wars it wages abroad.
I hate to admit it, but I was quite pleased to hear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was unable to muster up enough votes last Saturday to win passage of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. (the so-called “DREAM Act“)
No, my reasons for opposing the DREAM Act have absolutely nothing to do with any of the silly arguments conjured up by rabid racists who’ve argued this legislation was a form of “backdoor amnesty” that would grant citizenship to “millions of illegal aliens.”
In fact, as a longtime defender of immigrant rights myself, I personally believe that the United States should seriously consider immediately legalizing the estimated 12 million undocumented workers who currently live and work within this country.
In my opinion, the DREAM Act is a reactionary–if not racist–piece of legislation which was crafted with the underlying purpose of luring undocumented workers into the armed forces to be used as disposable cannon fodder for colonial wars the U.S. wages abroad.
That it includes provisions benefiting a small handful fortunate enough to attend college doesn’t fundamentally alter the fact the DREAM Act’s sole objective is to get “non-citizens”–mostly darker skinned folk–to do the dirty work of maintaining the American empire.
Historically this is nothing new as British and French Imperialists aggressively recruited or conscripted hundreds of thousands of “non-citizens” into their militaries in an effort to defend their far-flung colonial possessions around the globe.
Perhaps it should be no surprise to anyone that previous versions of the DREAM Act were championed by President George W. Bush out of consternation that the wars he started in Iraq and Afghanistan would force him to reinstate the draft.
And like Bush, the Democrats support it because they too are concerned that as President Barack Obama rapidly expands overseas military commitments, more pressure will be placed on the armed forces to maintain adequate levels of staffing.
The Democrats also like the DREAM Act because they use it as a political ploy to make people think they are “pro-immigrant,” when in reality, they are implementing draconian policies that further criminalize undocumented workers and deport them in record numbers.
In a subsequent article I intend to post about this matter here on the Orange Juice blog, I’m going explore some of these issues a tad bit further, pointing out that the DREAM Act is pretty much a nightmare, and why progressives should oppose it.
[In the above photograph, French officers speak with soldiers conscripted from West Africa during World War I]
Republicans chose xenophobia over the potential recruitment pool that was to be created by the DREAM Act.
The bill was modified. One positive change concerned vocational school. You had two against one: college and vocational school against the military option.
Of course, the DREAM Act could be better. (return the community service provision, etc) but if this Federal version of it couldn’t pass the Senate, what makes us think a more progressive version could? Certainly not in the next two years. That’s a question that must be contended with. Civil disobedience? That was done. Phone banking, sit-ins, hunger strikes, marches, etc That was all done too in the name of the bill that lawmakers just failed. Reconfiguring the contours of power, large scale Latino voting blocs breaking from the Democrats? Sure, but that would take years to come to any fruition…years that leave these immigrant youth in a state of purgatory in the meantime.
CA DREAM Act is where the focus in the state should turn to. Governor Jerry Brown – who I didn’t vote for – has no excuse to do as his predecessor has done over the years.
> Republicans chose xenophobia over the potential recruitment pool that
> was to be created by the DREAM Act.
The irony is that when the Republicans voted against the DREAM Act, they acted against the interests of U.S. imperialism in the long run because it imposes limitations on a pool of docile labor they can rely on to use as cannon fodder for overseas wars.
But from their perspective, the DREAM Act is not needed right now because labor markets are glutted due to the capitalist crisis we are in and the armed forces now are able to get all the “citizens” they need to replenish the ranks.
Understand that the DREAM Act was originally introduced during a time when labor markets were extremely tight and armed forces were having an incredibly difficult time recruiting all the “citizens” they needed to maintain an all-volunteer military.
> Of course, the DREAM Act could be better. (return the community service
> provision, etc) but if this Federal version of it couldn’t pass the Senate, what
> makes us think a more progressive version could?
The purpose of my rather provocative post is to look at the DREAM Act for what it really is and perhaps offer suggestions that the movement pursue an entirely different strategy to achieve justice for all undocumented workers and their families.
I don’t think their fate should be tied to a pro-war piece of legislation that allows more poor Mexicans and Central Americans to be used as cannon fodder against poor Iraqis and Afghanis while the rich white “citizens” of this country sit back and watch them fight.
*But from their perspective, the DREAM Act is not needed right now because labor markets are glutted due to the capitalist crisis we are in and the armed forces now are able to get all the “citizens” they need to replenish the ranks.*
–The GOP’s calculations are out of touch with what the Pentagon has published in it’s strategic recruitment plans of which the DREAM Act is a part of.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100923/dreamact23_st.art.htm
*Understand that the DREAM Act was originally introduced during a time when labor markets were extremely tight and armed forces were having an incredibly difficult time recruiting all the “citizens” they needed to maintain an all-volunteer military.*
— The DREAM Act was first introduced in 2001 before the Iraq invasion and before the militarization of the legislation. Labor markets with respect to the DREAM Act must refer to skilled/professional labor pools as we are talking about college graduates.
> The GOP’s calculations are out of touch with what the Pentagon has
> published in it’s strategic recruitment plans of which the DREAM Act
> is a part of.
You’re right.
But some Republicans have actually argued we don’t need the DREAM Act at the present moment because people are out of work and that military service is a viable option for “citizens” that are unemployed.
For them, it’s not a matter of what the Pentagon’s needs might be twenty years from now, but short-term political gain. All they are concerned about is winning control of the U.S. Senate in 2012.
> The DREAM Act was first introduced in 2001 before the Iraq invasion
> and before the militarization of the legislation. Labor markets with
> respect to the DREAM Act must refer to skilled/professional labor pools
> as we are talking about college graduates.
Makes sense.
It should noted Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who sponsored the 2001 version of the act that didn’t include a military component, comes from Utah, a state that has a high-technology sector that rivals California’s “Silicon Valley.”
Senator Hatch is Chairman of the Senate Republicans High Tech Task Force and supported expanding the H-1B visa program that allows U.S. companies to employ foreign scientists, engineers, and programmers.
Reductive. Ad absurdam.
Where?
You act like war, imperialism and militarism explain everything, from the point of view of the Republicans, from the point of view of the Democrats, and from the point of view of both DREAM Act proponents and opponents. As though there weren’t a lot of other factors that are just as important or nearly so.
Just because the bill as it stands now COULD ENCOURAGE more immigrant kids to enlist doesn’t mean it should be opposed by war opponents. It could just as well be said that, since the bill makes it more tempting to get an education, that it could steer kids out of the military.
And don’t immigrant kids ALREADY join the military to get their citizenship? (Sadly a lot of them get it posthumously.)
Immigrant kids do enlist. There’s over 15,000 “non-citizens” in the U.S. military. A sizable portion of them are deported despite their service.
Undocumented immigrants are not allowed to enlist, hence the DREAM Act
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20101024/us-banished-veterans/
Vern Nelson wrote:
> You act like war, imperialism and militarism explain everything, from the
> point of view of the Republicans, from the point of view of the Democrats,
> and from the point of view of both DREAM Act proponents and
> opponents. As though there weren’t a lot of other factors that are
> just as important or nearly so.
Nevertheless “war, imperialism and militarism” are directly linked to economics–real material conditions–which are a major casual factor in explaining the reason why humans (especially politicians) behave the way they do.
The DREAM Act probably would have never come into existence if it wasn’t for the fact that tight labor markets made it incredibly difficult for the armed forces to recruit the “citizens” it needed to fight multiple overseas wars.
> Just because the bill as it stands now COULD ENCOURAGE more
> immigrant kids to enlist doesn’t mean it should be opposed by war
> opponents. It could just as well be said that, since the bill makes
> it more tempting to get an education, that it could steer kids out of
> the military.
Given that a majority of the “immigrant kids” who want to go to college under the DREAM Act will be ineligible for any kind of taxpayer subsidized financial assistance or substantial reductions in tuition, one wonders exactly where they will get the money to pay for schooling expenses?
Assuming that Microsoft founder Bill Gates doesn’t offer these “immigrant kids” a scholarship, should we make the assumption their parents who work at 3 a.m. in the morning mopping floors at Newport Beach Office complex will be able to chip in some money to pay for their $40,000 a year tuition?
In addition to this, given that the Obama administration is rapidly expanding programs that make it easier for employers to check the identifies of their employees to determine if they are “illegal,” what jobs will be available for them to sustain themselves while they get an education?
The U.S. military, however, has lots of resources available at its disposal and recruiters will no doubt be able to offer “immigrant kids” assurances they will receive food, clothing, and shelter–and maybe an education–providing they sign papers agreeing to be cannon fodder for the next eight years.
> And don’t immigrant kids ALREADY join the military to get their
> citizenship? (Sadly a lot of them get it posthumously.)
And many more of these “immigrant kids” will be coming back in body bags under the DREAM Act because “non-citizens” are ineligible to do jobs in the military that require security clearances.
Until they receive their citizenship papers, they will be spending years in the military doing the dirty work that “citizens” won’t have to do. Sounds like how they are treated in civilian life, doesn’t it?
Who owns the US educated children of Mexican Nationals?
As children, they broke no law, and therefore could apply for US citizenship.
You know, I had never considered the DREAM act as a bill enabling the govt. to make cannon fodder of the unsuspecting. I have always contended that our army is disproportionately made up of the poor, uneducated, young, Southern-bred, men and women who act out of desperation and no place else to go. Thus the draft was a great equalizer and I think we should return to it if we insist on perpetuating these despicable wars. This idea behind the DREAM act was enlightening and has given me something to think about.
Merle Moshiri
Merle Moshiri wrote:
> Thus the draft was a great equalizer and I think we should return to it if
> we insist on perpetuating these despicable wars.
I’m opposed to the draft, but it is interesting to note one way the Bush administration was able to overcome pressure to reinstate it was to privatize many functions originally performed by the armed services.
The reason why Halliburton, Blackwater, and other independent contractors are in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they are doing jobs that used to be done by soldiers and other military personnel.
Although it is more expensive to hire a private company to prepare thousands of hot meals for soldiers, it is less risky politically to do that than to draft people into the armed forces to perform the same task.
Cost-wise I think it’s a wash. The government’s on the hook for taking care of military personnel for a long time after they serve. A mercenary’s on his own once his job’s done.
Cook to answer your question, the children of undocumented persons who were brought here after they were born and before they were 18 did not break any law by thier choice, but they are considered to be here illegally and subject to deportation. This is the case even if they attended and graduated from our schools or colleges. Under current law they could not apply for citizenship as they are here illegally in violation of current law. That is basically what the dream act changes is the status of this group of children.
As far as cannon fodder, the less money you make the more likely you may end up volunteering to serve in the service. Duane is correct the that Previous administration hired private security to do the job of our military to avoid having to resort to a draft.
While I support going after those who supported the attacks against us and those who supported them, our unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a total disaster for our country. We should have been done with the Afganistan situation and had most if not all our troops home by now, but our focus as way off target due to the actions of our previous President.