Ball Blasts NY Dream Act

In response to a proposal in the state legislature that would resurrect most of the provisions of the failed federal Dream Act, Republican Senator Greg Ball has characterized it as a major victory for terrorists.
Ball, who is Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Thursday where he laid out the alleged security risks of the bill (SB 4179), which he labled as “a national security nightmare that should formally be renamed the ‘Terrorist Empowerment Act’.”
He argues that some requirements placed on DMV employees as the result of this bill would make it necessary for them to become experts at verifying every national identity card or voter card in the world.
Seizing on the driver's license portion of the proposal, which was a major controversy for former Gov. Elliot Spitzer, Ball said it would provide illegal identity documents to potential terrorists. "This is not about immigration; this is about security," he said.
Ball explained how the 19 terrorists responsible for 9/11 used over 300 fake IDs that were made with driver’s licenses and other documents.
In his statement, Ball did not address issues of financial aid, employment opportunities and health insurance coverage that are offered as incentives in the bill. Additionally, on Capital Tonight, Democratic Senator Dan Squadron laughed off Ball's rhetoric about the bill. All of this is probably a moot point, though, because the Dream Act will go nowhere in the Republican controlled Senate.

Fed Govt's Nightmare is New York's Dream

A version of the federal government's controversial Dream Act was introduced (SB 4179) on Tuesday into the New York Senate by Democrat Bill Perkins.
The bill provide illegal aliens who entered the country before the age of 16, and have demonstrated a commitment to education public service and strong morals, to have access to financial aid, employment opportunities and health insurance coverage.
There are currently no co-sponsors for this bill, which was very controversial in the federal government and is unlikely to gain any traction in the Republican controlled Senate. No previous version of this proposal exists in the state legislature during the last two year. This proposal is now in the Senate Finance Committee.