His best, though, isn't terribly effective. First, Walsh tries to scare people about the range of people covered, the maximum age of 35 means they "could have children or grandchildren of their own." Next, he complains that "are the costs of education and the lack of a guarantee that DREAM children will stay in the United States after taxpayers provide their education. An estimated 65,000 DREAM 'children' would be eligible for all benefits provided to U.S. citizens (ages 12 to 18). In addition, many DREAM 'children' could qualify for minority entitlements, causing U.S. citizens to lose out on college placement and financial aid."
This is followed by the usual warning about "family reunification provisions." Then, Walsh plays his trump card: terrorism!
Under current federal law, immigration and naturalization procedures remain poorly administered, and investigations are haphazard. The U.S. Congress is to blame for failed oversight.
A prime example is the recent case of Feisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan. On Oct. 5, 2010, in the United States District Court in New York City, Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the terrorist attempt at Times Square. The judge asked the naturalized citizen if he swore allegiance to the United States when he was naturalized in 2009. Shahzad replied, “I did swear, but I did not mean it.” This case and the ever more facile pathway to citizenship offered by the DREAM Act are part of a growing concern for the nation.
Of course, Shahzad has nothing whatsoever to do with the DREAM Act. But as far as Walsh is concerned, he makes a great bogeyman.