Last Wednesday, immigration reform advocates cheered as the DREAM (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act passed the House of Representatives. DREAM, which would provide a path to citizenship to undocumented youths brought to the US by their parents conditional upon them attending college for two years or serving in the military, was all but certain to fail in the Senate. But the passage in the House gave advocates new life. Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has tabled the Senate version of DREAM with the hopes of passing the House's version before the lame-duck session ends. Passing the House bill would skip the "conference" process that is required when the House and Senate pass substantively different versions of legislation.
The obvious question for now is: does DREAM have a chance? Things are moving very fast in Washington these days, so, while DREAM remains a long shot, it's hard to make any determinations with any certainty. But certain key questions have become clear, and the answers to them may prove the determining factors in the days to come.
The most obvious and over-arching question is whether Democrats can get enough of their conservative members and Republicans on-board. Dick Lugar (R-IN) is the first and only Republican who has said he will support DREAM in its current form. But he, like all his Republican colleagues, pledged not to support any legislation before a tax deal was resolved. So, DREAM's fate is tied to whether and how a tax deal materializes. But there's also a content issue--namely, how much would DREAM advocates have to concede to Republicans to get the bill passed. This raises a few more questions.
The second key question is: what concessions might DREAM advocates be willing to make on immigration enforcement to get the bill passed? Republicans have long made the dubious "enforcement-first" argument--namely, that the government must massively increase enforcement (which it has done under Presidents Bush and Obama) before Republicans will talk about legalizing undocumented people (which they consistently refuse to do). So, one way to try to appease Republican senators would be to add punitive measures to DREAM that would threaten more deportations and/or greater militarization of the border.
But, as Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, acknowledged to me in September, "the risk [of a piecemeal strategy] is that the enforcement measures are disproportionate". Already, the Reform Immigration FOR America Coalition has been criticized from the Left for giving up too much on enforcement in its unsuccessful pushes for a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2007 and 2010. More recently, Democrats and pro-immigrant advocates made sacrifices on DREAM--e.g., reducing the age maximum from 34 to 29 and increasing the period for legalization to 10 years--to increase its chances of passage. As this week unfolds, tension will rise between A) conceding on their ideals vis-à-vis enforcement and B) the pressure of knowing that this will be the best opportunity to pass immigrant-friendly legislation for the next two years.
The third critical issue will be whether there is enough time to make a deal on DREAM. The lame-duck session is tentatively scheduled to end on Friday, December 17th. With the tax cut debate still raging and the START Treaty and defense authorization issue still on the debate, time is in short supply. The clock could quite easily run out before DREAM advocates get enough senators on their side. That said, the Democratic leadership could alternatively opt to extend the session, which could improve DREAM's odds. Last year, the Senate was still in session on Christmas Eve, and the stakes seem at least as high this time around.
Finally, there is the question of whether a longer lame-duck session could prompt another surge from supporters of the AgJobs Bill. Already in this lame-duck session, House Democrats considered pairing DREAM and AgJobs--which would offer legalization for undocumented farmworkers and ensure a more stable workforce for this country's growers--when they feared DREAM alone would not pass. The thinking on this combination is that AgJobs would increase the votes in favor by bringing in conservative Democrats and Republicans with rural constituencies. Ultimately, House Democrats opted for DREAM only and managed to get it through the lower chamber. If DREAM looks sure to fail in the Senate, though, and advocates have extra time in the lame-duck session, it is conceivable that the AgJobs lobby (growers and farmworkers) could try a final push for a DREAM / AgJobs combination. After all, if they fail to get anything this December, they--like the DREAM advocates--will likely have to wait at least two years for another chance at anything as appealing as what has been on the table this month.
Given all these questions, DREAM clearly remains a long-shot to pass the Senate in the lame-duck session, but there are still various moving parts that will determine its ultimate fate. So hang on to your hats--the next week or two could make for a wild ride.
(Cross-posted on www.americasquarterly.org.)
I guess the author didn't take the time to actually read the bill... The Act benefits illegal immigrants up to age 30 (up to 35 in some versions), meaning it's not just for "youths." It's for teens and adult illegal immigrants.
Also, there is NO REQUIREMENT in the Act that the applicants were "brought to the US by their parents." They can come on their own, as many 15-year-old illegal immigrants have.
Please stop spreading misinformation. Please read legislation before you write on it.
President Obama's entire immigration policy has focused on immigration enforcement. He has deported more immigrants over a two-year period than any President in the History of the United States. His broken campaign promise to address immigration reform in his first year in office is the very reason we have no immigration reform now. He had his chance to push the issue, and he let it pass.
As for the last Democrat in the White House, Clinton signed the current draconian immigration law (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) that stripped immigration judges of discretionary authority resulting in mandatory deportations for certain individuals, and that created 3 and 10 year bars for relatively minor immigration violations (i.e., overstaying your visa).
As for President Bush, he was more of a champion of immigration reform than Obama will ever be. He pushed the issue through Congress, and a bi-partisan deal was struck that then Senator Obama helped derail by introducing a poison pill amendment on the floor of the Senate which inevitably killed the bill. Conversely, President Reagan signed the last amnesty legislation.
As for the Dems in Congress Reid stalled CIR because he feared that it would sink his reelection bid, and Pelosi punted because she knew CIR would result in her losing her Speakership. If she would have acted maybe the Dems would still have the House.
This would be an environmental apocalypse for multiple species of large mammals, reptiles, flightless birds and other wildlife which depend heavily on the Rio Grande River for drinking water and prey habitat in this largely desert eco-system.
A border wall would also stop animal migrations from the north and south of the border. (in a 2000 mile border this would involve millions of animals).
The existing sections of border wall have already caused widespread human and animal destruction/death.
Their are high-tech means of monitoring our southern border (such as aerial surveillence) which are as effective and less damaging than an enormous border wall.
Our southern border views into Mexico are some of the most beautiful desert/mountain landscapes in the world.
Now imagine instead of those beautiful views, as you drive along our southern border, you instead see a 2000 mile long steel/cement wall covered by razor wire and patrolled by armed police....littered with dead animal carcasses...a safe/secure country or prison of fear?
Wouldn't it be interesting if the tables were turned and Americans desperately needed to migrate to Mexico and we were denied the ability to do so because of an enormous wall of hatred and fear that we ourselves built.
Think of all the things that could cause a nation to fall and then imagine it happening here.
Now let's be kind to our southern neighbors.
But the reality is that Mexico would not do any of the things the demand from us.
They wouldn't educate our kids - and teach them spanish.
They wouldn't give our kids born there instant citizenship.
They would never pass an amnesty for us.
They would never pay for our medical at their hospitals.
Etc.
But you are right in that we don't need the wall - the fence we have is doing the job in the high traffic areas. Now we just need to remove the rewards and incentives for them to come here (just like in Mexico) and those here will leave and no new ones come.
These phony environmentalists are just using the green argument as an excuse to perpetuate the movement of cheap, illegal labor. If you actually pay attention to what's happening on the border RIGHT NOW, you see that open borders are destructive to the natural environs.
Many of the Mexican immigrants now in the U.S (legal and illegal) are refugees from U.S. trade deals (NAFTA) which opened up Mexico to cheap U.S. agricultural/agribusiness imports into Mexico. These cheap agricultural imports into Mexico drove many Mexican farmers out of business. (some figures say a million or more Mexican farmers and their families were adversely affected).
Agricultural tariffs (border taxes) which protected Mexico's farmers from cheap U.S. agro-products have now been mostly eliminated.
Mexican farmers protested the elimination of these tariffs for years and were largely ignored
The destruction of small scale/native farming in Mexico drove many Mexicans to immigrate into America to work for some of the same agribusiness giants, and their contractors, who originally drove them out of business. (at near slave wages and dangerous working conditions). Other Mexicans turned to the drug trade. The drug trade grew dramatically in Mexico after the 1994 implementation of NAFTA.
Russia and many nations of Europe are now experiencing population declines which will likely destroy their economies if immigration into these countries is not increased. The U.S. has been spared these economy destroying population declines by having a robust immigration policy and... ironically...illegal immigration.
The only serious crime that most illegals are engaged in is looking for a job without a border pass.
Most immigrants are NOT drug cartel leaders or terrorists but poor people looking work. Amnesty for illegal immigrants would bring billions into the U.S. economy (taxes).
Since over half the illegals work off the books, it is absurd to think that they will demand that their employers turn themselves in to the IRS for not paying their taxes for all these years! Please tell us how that will work out and why the illegals will voluntarily take a pay cut and begine paying taxes that they have been avoiding all these years.
Border enforcement was supposed to occur after amnesty was granted to 1.8 million in 1986. Compounding the problem, regulations were never placed on employers who hired undocumented workers.
As an American I have to say I support this too. There is nothing wrong with allowing people who didn't break the law, these kids, earn their citizenship. Kids one, two, etc, years old cannot break the laws of the united states of America and we can't punish them for the sins of their patents.
These kids have to graduate from college with an associates degree or serve two years in the military. Usually kids with college degrees get jobs pay taxes and some of them even open up businesses and create jobs, that makes this good for our economy. If they can't do that then they need to serve two years in our military which is a win win because if they can't complete it they are deported.
I say pass the dream act, all opposition seems illogical and based on irrational arguments.
The bill though is not at all similar to what the talking points and pollsters use for information.
The reality is that via loopholes and hardship exemptions not a single one will ever be forced to go to college or the military. They don't have to prove that they are meeting these suggetsions anyway - an overworked immigration employee has to prove they didn't.
They can have up to three misdemeanor convictions, an unlimited number of arrests (even for felonies) and be known gang members yet still be ok.
They are given an instant 10 year work permit to put even more citizens out of work then the 30 million we have now.
They are able to get loans/grants and other taxpayer money.
If the pollsters asked citizens to read the bill, then asked them if they support it I doubt 20% would do so. And most of those would be illegals or family/friends, the wealthy, chambers of commerce or big business.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3992
I recommend you click on the highlighted sections referring to U.S. Code, for instance in Section 4 (a) (1) (C), to better understand the DREAM Act, because some of what you're saying is at odds with what the law actually says. In regard to persons of good moral character, and inadmissible and deportable aliens, you appear to have overlooked all but Section 4 (a) (1) (C) (iv).
I believe, also, that you're making too much of the "loopholes" and hardship exceptions. I recommend you carefully read Section 6.
================
Ooooo. The bill cost $6,300,000,000 and we are going to have to borrow the money to pay for it? That may be irrational and illogical to a Mexican National, but not to the Citizens of the United States. This bill is a bad deal for the American People, and it seems that it is being used to pay off the illegal aliens who help Harry Reid get elected. Really!
The Dream Act is a very bad bill.
1. Application: The DREAM amnesty begins with illegal aliens filling out applications. They merely have to claim — not provide evidence — that they meet criteria of having been brought to the U.S. before age 16 and being under the age of 30 at time of enactment and being present in the U.S. at least 5 years before enactment of the amnesty, among other criteria.
2. Work Permits Given: Upon filing the application, the illegal aliens are given a 10-year work permit to compete directly with the 22 million Americans who want a full-time job but can’t find one.
Estimates suggest that up to 2 million illegal aliens could legitimately qualify for the opening application, and perhaps a couple million more might be or look young enough to fraudulently apply.
Those millions would immediately be able to legally compete for any U.S. job...