Florida Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Yesterday, a federal judge in a district Court of Appeals in Florida ruled that Florida's ban on adoption of children by gay and lesbian parents is unconstitutional. Forida Governor Crist agreed to cease the former law's enforcement immediately, opening the doors for thousands of gay and lesbian couples to begin the adoption process, thereby finding homes for even more children who so desperately need them. As probably all of you know, I am a staunch advocate for gay rights. This ruling will be significant for a couple of reasons:
1. The ruling will give necessary political momentum to the gay movement that will hopefully carry to 2012 when there will be Prop 8 take two (except this time, Camp Equality is pushing the initiative). In general victories for Equality such as this tend to have a ripple effect, changing the political climate for gays and lesbians such that the issue of homosexuality is put on the front burner of discussion, bringing the issues and grievances out of the closet, if you will.
2. When the ruling proceeds to the Supreme Court, a ruling in favor of adoption could nullify all laws banning gays from adopting in every state in the Nation.

Personally, this ruling is exciting for me. I have many gay friends who have adopted and are so glad they did. Knowing the children of many gay parents and seeing that they do not possess any abnormal developmental issues, I am extremely confident that gay adoption does not pose a threat for children.
The Prop 8 campaign ran a barrage of campaign ads claiming that should gay marriage become illegal, the children will somehow be compromised. These false and negative stereotypes hurt more than I can tell you. Aside from the political aspect of it, I had people telling me and everyone in the State of California that I am somehow dangerous to children, That I am a near satanic figure who wants to harm children. And when California passed Prop 8, it was personal. California told me that I am someone to be feared, and someone from whom to "protect children." This is why this ruling is especially touching to me, because it finally seems as though people aren't buying this anymore.

If you are not pro- marriage for gay people or adoption, I REALLY want you to comment and I swear I will not freak out and hate on you. We have a lot to learn from each other and I hope that this recent ruling can set up these discussions.

Love, The Power Gay

Obama's Middle East issues at the UN

Another issue that Obama addressed at the UN today was peace in the Middle East. Obama says it is time for Palestinians and Isrealis to pave the road to peace. He says that the two sides need to understand each other's arguments and rights, and respect them.
Obama also spoke of a world plan "to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years" and said the U.S has "joined with Russia to sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades."
I think, that as good as the plan for Isreal and Palestine sounds on Obama's part, he may be repeating the same logic people have had for decades. It is not a problem of what the countries must do, but whether they will do it, and for now, that seems unlikely. The same goes for the nuclear weapons plans. this kind of control would require the cooperation of Iran and other nations. Obama's plans seem to be simply the best, and most idealistic, but things are not as simple as he may like.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/23/un.obama.speech/index.html?hpt=T2

World Leaders Unite At U.N. Session To Battle Issue of Poverty

At the recent Millennium Development Goals Conference held for the United Nations assembly, leaders from all over the world gathered together and discussed their efforts in ending world poverty. However, most countries had their own opinions and goals regarding the current situation. Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said, "Our ability to end poverty and hunger and improve child and maternal health depends upon the long-term availability of fresh water, food, medicine, and raw materials that nature provides." While the president of the Central African Republic, Francois Bozize, said his country is taking steps at dealing with impoverishment and other issues, such as infrastructure and life expectancy. "Poverty rates in our country continue to be alarming," he shared.
Our very own President Obama was present at the conference, and addressed what he calls the 'new' U.S. Global Development Policy. "Our focus on assistance has saved lives in the short term, but it hasn't always improved those societies over the long term," he said, "Consider the millions of people who have relied on food assistance for decades. That's not development, that's dependence, and it's a cycle we need to break. Instead of just managing poverty, we have to offer nations and peoples a path out of poverty." Calling America "the global leader in providing assistance," Obama hopes the U.S. will reach out to countries that are moving to democracy from authoritarianism. "No one nation can do everything everywhere and still do it well. To meet our goals, we must be more selective and focus our efforts where we have the best partners and where we can have the greatest impact," he stated boldly.

As Olivia reported in the previous post, Obama may be on the verge of 'losing his mojo.' So what do you think? Are his plans to tackle worldwide poverty on spot? Or should he focus on fixing up his own nation first?

"How did Obama lose his mojo?"

Th article addresses the change in Obama's image since the election campaign. They claim he had a "rock star" image during the campaign, even recruiting "Obamacans, Republicans who crossed the aisle in 2008 to launch Obama to his historic victory". But critics say that he has now lost his edge, at a critical time in the battle for control of the House and Senate, losing these majorities will cripple his next two years as President.
The article also states that Democrats who stood by Obama's side during the election are now "running from him". The article also addresses the dissatisfaction many have felt with Obama's lack of productivity, as one man is quoted in the article "'Honestly I think he just promised to change too much in 20 month -- no man can do that," That same man, later says "President Bush left us in not the best of shape, OK?" he said. "This country was at the edge of financial destruction. He leveled it off. I think he's done a good job. Republicans ought to back off and quit complaining, start helping the president".
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/obama.mojo/index.html
So what do you think of Obama, two years after the election? And are the judgements of Obama's "change" (or lack thereof) are fair?

San Jose Cop

My cousin works for the Public Defender's Office for Santa Clara County, and some of the horror stories she has told me about them are frankly disgusting and terrifying. I'm going to focus on this one story, however, that really caught my attention. San Jose Mercury released a story today that talks about how a San Jose Police Officer came to the home of a 15 year old boy and handcuffed him and drew his gun on him. The boy's crime? Having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. The "arrest" turned out to be false, and the officer was just trying to scare the boy, as his girlfriend is the officer's stepdaughter. If you thought THAT was bad, when the boy's parents reported this to internal affairs to the SJPD, they charged the boy and the girl with unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge that is essentially never, ever enforced (by the way, the sex was consensual and the two have been dating "forever" allegedly).
This, to me, is so disgusting. Let's break it down, shall we?
1. The officer abused the boy. A police officer, regardless of relation to the suspect, cannot cuff and draw his gun on an underage boy that is of no immediate threat to himself or anyone else. You don't cuff someone for having sex. It sinply does not work that way. ON TOP OF THAT, a uniformed officer is abusing his powers and duties as a policeman by trying to "teach the kid a lesson" though the use of his municipally enforced badge. Talk about using the state to achieve personal gains. If cops are carrying out their personal issues while on duty and while in uniform, what's to say that they won't arrest someone for disagreeing with the City under the pretense of an alleged crime?
2. SJPD is transparently trying to cover it up. The SJPD is now trying to cover their tracks by claiming as though the cop was performing actions endorsed by the SJPD which is a clear case of avoiding the real issue at hand. This isn't exactly what I would call great PR work.
3. The cop has not right to enforce a private moral viewpoint. I don't care whether or not you believe premarital sex is wrong. I don't even care if it is illegal. I know from many of my friends who have had run-ins with cops for consensual underage sex that they DO NOT enforce that law. Why the officer suddenly decided to enforce this archaic and mundane law is clear: he was pissed that the guy was sleeping with his daughter and used the law to back up his anger. This is clearly wrong.
I'm sick and tired of people forcing their private moral views into the law. The officer should have handled it like a normal civilian and had a confrontation with the boy when not in uniform. That would make me feel more comfortable. But the fact remains that the officer abused his powers as an officer for his own personal issues. That's just plain immoral.

Love, The Power Gay

Short-termitis

Tom Friedman in the NYT:

Studying China’s ability to invest for the future doesn’t make me feel we have the wrong system. It makes me feel that we are abusing our right system. There is absolutely no reason our democracy should not be able to generate the kind of focus, legitimacy, unity and stick-to-it-iveness to do big things — democratically — that China does autocratically. We’ve done it before. But we’re not doing it now because too many of our poll-driven, toxically partisan, cable-TV-addicted, money-corrupted political class are more interested in what keeps them in power than what would again make America powerful, more interested in defeating each other than saving the country.

I agree with Friedman but wonder if he is living in a Cold War era box of relative consensus amongst elites and unable to accept that partisan bickering is actually normal.

On the other hand, previous generations of partisan bickering did not have the automatic feedback loop of polling and a daily news cycle.

Has the Tea Party Lost its Grassroots Cred?

This headline caught my attention because we recently talked about this in class. The article says that last week the Tea Party accepted a million dollar anonymous donation. There was a lot of criticism that even though the money was supposed to go to local groups, the central organization was granting the money, so it is still very much led from the top, not the bottom-up.
Do you think they have lost their grassroots reputation? Does the donation have an effect on their claimed grassroots ideals? How do you think will this change in image will effect their efforts as a party?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017179-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Torn Apart - Immigration Helping (?)

This past Sunday edition of the San Jose Mercury devoted the headline and a two page spread to a story called Torn Apart, a piece where a reporter followed the Jimenez-Mota family for a year.

The article and 30-minute documentary can be seen here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/torn-apart

I found it interesting, becuase two of the six children are Aragon students, and another recently graduated. The story follows the family through their struggles in a case for their mother to stay in the country (their father had already been deported).
I think that it is unfair of immigration Enforcements to target families. these people, regardless of their citizenship, claim America as their home and raise their children to take advantage of the opportunities avaliable. they work, and participate in the communtiy like any other American family. I think that the government should create a better system to allow these people to pursue citizenship, rather than live in fear and struggle.

So I want to know your opinion. Should ICE be targetting these families as they do? What should they be doing? Do you think they understand the impact they're having on these families?

27 States Get Bitten By Unemployment Bug

The month of August doesn't seem to have been a good one for those job-seekers out there. Although the national unemployment rate increased only a little last month, on a state-by-state basis, the job picture continued to look grim for states like Nevada, Michigan, and our very own California. These states reported unemployment rates higher than a whopping 12%, while the national average rate is only 9.6%. A total of 27 states recorded higher unemployment rates in August (compared to only 14 states for July).
Nevada had the worst rate for the fourth month in a row (with 14.4%, a record high), while Michigan followed with a close 13.1%. California recorded a 12.4% unemployment rate, and rounded out the top three states with the highest rates.
The western states seemed to be hit particularly hard, with its jobless rate rising to 10.8%. For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.
Based on the map below, the more red the state, the higher the unemployment rate.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Or will our battle with unemployment rage on?

To Label, or Not to Label?

As Courtney mentioned earlier, genetically modified salmon from AquaBounty Technologies Inc. may be the first genetically modified animal that is meant to be eaten (with the approval of the FDA). There is now a debate about whether or not the genetically modified salmon should be labeled to notify consumers that the salmon has been genetically altered. The industry representatives want the FDA to continue following the current labeling rules, which only requires GMOs to be labeled if there is "something materially different about the product" (Jennifer Corbett Dooren, Wall Street Journal). The industry representatives would not be in favor of labeling the genetically modified salmon because the labels will cause consumers to think twice about what they are buying and could deter the consumers from buying the genetically modified salmon even though there is no significant "material" difference, it just grows twice as fast as a normal salmon. No, the engineered salmon may not be different if we are talking about the "level of fatty acids," which is the same as conventional salmon, but there is a "material" difference in every single cell of the salmon. And, that "material" is DNA and there is a difference in the nucleic acids of the fish. True, if we considered DNA and the nucleic acids, all GMOs would need to be labeled, but there is a difference that consumers should know about because consumers should also have the right to know that their food has been genetically modified. This is different from the example in the Wall Street Journal article about the labeling of milk from cows that were given a growth hormone to produce more milk because the "milk produced by treated and untreated cows is exactly the same" (www.dairycouncilof ca.org) and the hormones only affect the cow to make it produce more milk. The salmon on the other hand is genetically different in every cell, and consumers ought to know if the salmon they are buying is genetically modified.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399404575506340629229692.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

http://www.dairycouncilofca.org/Milk-Dairy/MilkTypes.aspx

Did PG&E Do Enough?

As we all know, there was a catastrophic gas line explosion in San Bruno a couple of weeks ago that was very tragic and devastating. No one debates that fact. But now that we have acknowledge what happened, it is time to look at what happened and analyze what could have been done and/or what should be done now. Unlike the BP in the gulf Oil Spill which caused months worth of "exciting" news for the media to report, in my opinion, PG&E has taken ownership of the problem and has taken appropriate action to counter their mistake.

I don't believe that PG&E was negligent in its handling of the situation. According to fire crews, PG&E was extremely helpful in fixing the immediate problem. Despite this, many people claim that they had reported leaking gas to PG&E without much effect or action on its part. However, at this point, nobody really knows the FACTS, and most claims against PG&E are merely alleged. That is something I cannot make judgment on. State Sen. Mark Leno has vowed to investigate said allegations to see if PG&E needs to be held to more punishments.
To remedy the situation, PG&E gave $100 Million to residents affected by the explosion which, to be honest, doesn't translate to much per household. This to me is very honorable of PG&E and I'm glad they voluntarily paid and took ownership, but to be honest, I don't know how/if that money will translate to the residents affected. I hope that PG&E remains to be faithful to fixing this situation and I hope that they continue to take responsibility for this fiasco. In the meantime I respect what PG&E has already done and I hope it continues such efforts.

Love, The Power Gay

P.S. In case you haven't seen my comments from my previous post, I hope nobody was offended by either the title or anything said in the article. I agree, the tone was rather snarky and forward and perhaps too blunt. But I stand behind the content of what was said, if not the manner in which it was presented. My intention was not to insult anybody, but as Mr. Silton correctly observed "Your intention doesn't mean jack" (irony duly noted ;) ). If you were offended PLEASE let me know so we can have a nice productive conversation on the subject. And again, my sincerest apologies if you were offended. Furthermore, the face-lift line was a JOKE. Materialistic and shallow as it was, that's my kind of humor and I'm sorry if you don't subscribe to said style. Anyway, peace 'yall.

Google Transparency: A Look Into Declining Internet Freedom

Google's done it again! The week, they released a new online tool called 'Google Transparency.' This new application is an online report that shows internet censorship around the world. And, like all things Google-related, this new tool is definitely holding the spotlight. Contrary to popular belief, countries like Iran and China aren't the only places that have internet censorship. Thanks to this new application, people are able to see that countries ranging from Germany to Turkey to Australia and even to Thailand, all have some type of internet censorship. Google Transparency includes an interactive map that shows how many requests countries have made for Google to block or remove content.
Through this tool, users are also able to explore specific censorship instances. In Thailand, for example, Google was asked to remove YouTube videos that showed the Thai king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, with his feet near his head. Since their national law bans such offensive representations, they opted for the video to be removed, and Google agreed, however the video is still available in other countries. After "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" (an online protest in support of free speech) earlier this year, Pakistan similarly blocked YouTube for 10 days, as Google Transparency shows. Google said it hopes Transparency will help shed light on how the internet differs from country to country, and on the efforts of nations to block internet content.
However, their are some flaws in Google Transparency. Data about how many times countries have asked Google to remove content, as well as how many times they have requested information about Google users, is not uniform. It also does not include China because providing such information is illegal under Chinese law.
Dorothy Chou, a Google policy analyst who worked on the project, said, "The openness and freedom that have shaped the internet as a powerful tool has come under threats from governments who want to control that technology," and hopes that Google Transparency will be able to protect this internet freedom.
So what are your thoughts on Google's latest tool? Sure, it proves that internet censorship is happening all across the globe. But what is it doing to prevent it?

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Battle Rages On!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, here's a quick low-down. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,"sometimes referred to as DADT, is the policy used to restrict the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. It prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation while serving in the U.S. armed forces. It basically means what it's called: Don't Ask. Don't Tell.
Republicans and some GOP senators are in favor of keeping sexual orientation a secret, and thereby support the DADT policy. Democrats, on the other hand, are fighting to repeal this act, but their efforts are easier said than done. They need a total of 60 votes to open debate on this matter, and the only way they stand a chance of getting the numbers is to earn the vote of either Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, two Republican senators who are against the bill. However, it seems unlikely that either of these senators will join the Democratic stand, at least for this act.
The debate over this act has brought along hoards of people protesting and rallying for and against DADT. However, the advocate gaining the most media attention over this issue seems to be famous pop singer Lady Gaga. Fighting for the repeal of DADT, this celebrity pushed for the two senators to join the Democratic cause.

So what are your thoughts on this issue? Should DADT stay in place, or should we listen to Gaga's guidance: "If you are not honorable enough to fight without prejudice, go home."?

Genetically Modified Salmon

Although genetically modified crops have started to become more accepted in society, the FDA faces a decision about genetically modified animals. AquaBounty claims that it has genetically engineered a salmon that grows twice as fast, yet is still safe to eat. However, there are naturally many fears associated with genetically modified animals. If the FDA approves the genetically modified fish, then it will open the door to modifying other animals as well. Many also worry that genetically modified salmon may contain dangerous allergens, as it has never been eaten before. Not only a risk for humans, these new genetically modified salmon may have a detrimental effect on the normal salmon. Already a diminishing population, the normal salmon could not compete with the modified salmon. If a modified fish was to intermingle with the normal fish and procreate, then the modified ones would eat more food and have a negative effect on the natural salmon. However, AquaBounty says that the fish will be bred and contained in pools separate from the natural salmon, and will be in better conditions than many farmed salmon.

So, is this a fish or a frankenfish? Should we take advantage of these scientific advances, or stay out of nature? Although this could bring many benefits to food production, it also has the possibility of disrupting the food chain and containing dangerous allergens. This decision will have a HUGE impact on the future, with the possibility of a huge range of animals being genetically modified. Although I am extremely impressed with the Biotech industry and their accomplishments, genetic modification still makes me a little nervous. Although it is beneficial, I don't like the idea of changing nature. However, I am open to opinions and cannot wait to hear how the FDA will respond.

North Carolina's Death Penalty

The Racial Justice Act is new piece of legislation that was added in North Carolina last year, but the consequences of the law are still being debated. The Racial Justice Act requires "judges to let any inmate off death row if the judge finds that race was a 'significant factor' in the death sentence" and allows "future capital-murder defendants to claim racial bias" (Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal). Instead of being on death row, if the convict's case is successful in arguing that racial bias was a major factor in the death sentence, the defendant would have life sentences without a chance of parole. Although I would like to believe that the juries that convict the defendants are not skewed by the race of the defendant, such wishful thinking is just not true. I am in favor of justifying those defendants whose death penalty may have been wrongfully determined, but the Racial Justice Act just makes it too easy for the inmates to claim racial-bias of the jury to delay their sentence. In fact, 152 of the 159 inmates on death row have filed claims about racial bias regarding their death sentence. Not only will the trials take months to process and actually finish, but it is also difficult to prove that "race was a 'significant factor' in the death sentence." Not all cases will have the concrete evidence to prove there was racial bias in the decision of the inmates' sentences. In addition the new law "allows murder defendants to try to prove bias through broad statistical evidence, such as data showing that North Carolina prosecutors. . . have sought the death penalty more frequently against black defendants or in cases involving a white victim" (Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal). I just think it's ridiculous that "broad statistical evidence" could even be considered evidence in the first place. It is too easy to overgeneralize and skew the statistics to favor the defendant. On one hand the North Carolina prosecutors may be using the death penalty more for black defendants because the prosecutors are bias, but on the other hand, the death penalty may be used because there are just more black defendants who deserve the death sentence. I completely agree with the North Carolina Republican legislator Sarah Stevens' remark that "you shouldn't try a case on statistics. . . [because] statistics can be manipulated."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362404575479793817782142.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

Child Passenger Safety Week

Today is the first day of Child Passenger Safety Week. Not really much to say here, other than that the name of the week essentially summarizes its purpose. In reality, the issues of child safety, especially in vehicles, are important ones to take note of. Between January and July of this year, 23 children died as a result of being left or stuck in cars. Another 4 children are killed every day in car crashes. If you have younger siblings, cousins, neighbors, or kids you babysit, take a moment to check out this website about child safety in cars and make sure your family and friends are protecting their important cargo. And always remember: Safety First!

American "spy" back from Iran

Detained beginning in July 2009 and suspected of espionage, Sarah Shourd is finally home, safe and sound. Two other Americans, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattel, have not been so lucky and are still in an Iranian prison. All three were arrested by the Iranian government last summer when they strayed over the Iraq-Iran border on a hike. After having been detained for 410 days, Shourd was released after concerns about her health, which has turned out to be fine. While Bauer and Fattel's mothers are glad Shourd has returned, they continue to fear for and wish to see their sons.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that he may allow the return of the two American men if Iranian nationals held in American prisons are also released. This statement has raised worries that the three innocent Americans have become pawns in an often heated international discussion about Iran's nuclear development. Since the Iranian government has determined Ms. Shourd had no "ill intention" when she crossed the border, and the three Americans were together at that time, it is clear to me that the Iranian government ought to also accept the truth that all three strayed into Iranian territory accidentally and release the remaining two prisoners. On what grounds do they still hold the men?

Christine O'Donnell and her "witchcraft"

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Tea Party and its surprising strength. Christine O'Donnell is the name often associated with this party; she is the Delaware GOP party candidate. Reflecting the conservative views of her party, she has been gaining lots of popularity and hopes to gain a seat in the Senate.

.... and she "dabbled into witchcraft"? When I saw this, I was not sure how to react. This old television clip shows her saying that not only did she experiment with witchcraft, but had a picnic on a "satanic altar." Watch the video above for more details. Should we be worried? I think no. Although this is strange and may be somewhat disturbing to some, it probably does not mean much. Everyone has their interesting backgrounds and she was a crazy teenager at one point like everyone else. Now, if this had been a more recent event, I would be a little worried. However, I am sure that she is no longer attached to these witchcraft ideals. People are always able to dig up dirt in politicians' backgrounds, and I don't think that this clip should be held against her. However, initially, I was extremely shocked.

"Dream Act"

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors bill (Dream Act), which is sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois, would give some illegal immigrants a chance to become U.S. citizens. The Dream Act would "grant six years of legal residency to high-school graduates who have lived in he U.S. continuously for five years and arrived by the age of 15. They would become eligible for citizenship if they attend college or serve in the military for two years during the legal residency period" (Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal). Although the Dream Act would encourage youths to go to college and join the military, the bill can be likened to an "amnesty program for children whose parents broke U.S. immigration laws" (Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal).

In opposition to the Dream Act, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alaska thinks that the Dream Act would encourage more people to illegally immigrate to the U.S. Sessions said, "when you take a policy that says you are going to reward people who have entered our country illegally with a guaranteed pathway to citizenship, and with billions of dollars in financial aid or benefits they would not otherwise be entitled to, what message are we sending?" First of all, to refute Sessions' argument, the Dream Act would not "guarantee" illegal immigrant youths a "pathway to citizenship." Indeed there will be a possible pathway to citizenship, but only if the youth meets the requirements of the act. The requirements include: the youth must not be "deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act," "has never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal," and "is a person of good moral character." (www.govtrack.us) Personally I don't think the "person of good moral character" requirement is specific enough. Who is to say what constitutes to "good moral character?" Sure, there are some pretty objective ones like the youth should not have murdered anyone because that's a serious criminal offense, but what if the youth shoplifted once? Does that make the youth ineligible because it's bad "moral character?" The bill should be more specific and define "good moral character." I do, however, agree with Sessions in that the youths would be rewarded with financial aid and other benefits that would cost billions of dollars. Perhaps I partially oppose the bill because I am applying to college and I can use all the money that I can get, but I oppose the fact that the youths would be able to receive "higher education assistance" that would otherwise go to citizens who also need the money. Although I also don't think that we should be "reward[ing]" people who have entered the U.S. illegally, I don't have a problem letting the youths join the military if they are patriotic and want to. The college part of the bill just poses a problem to me because of the whole financial aspect of it and how funds will be distributed. It's hard to say if the Dream Act will actually encourage people to illegally immigrate to the U.S., but it definitely adds to the reasons to do so because of the increase of opportunity to not only get higher education in college, but also to gain citizenship. A striking number is that "about 825,000 youngsters in the country illegally would likely qualify for legal status under the bill" (Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal). The military does seem to generally support the Dream Act because, as Louis Caldera said, "recruiters at stations were telling [her] it would be extremely valuable for these patriotic people to be allowed to serve our country."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-729

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858304575498072319915164.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5