Florida Senator Marco Rubio recently floated the idea of a Dream Act that would give some kind of legal status to undocumented young college students but insisted that the way to do it would be to leave out a path to citizenship because it would "encourage chain migration."
"The current DREAM Act would allow for chain migration, which would not only legalize these kids but help relatives, that'll be another 4 million people, and that raises red flags," Rubio said in late march during an interview with Juan Williams on Fox News Latino.
In other words, Rubio opposes offering the youngsters, many of whom are already graduate and post graduate students, the kind of status that would allow them to eventually sponsor immediate family members, much like Rubio's parents in Cuba were sponsored by his auntie in Florida back in 1956, before Fidel Castro came to power.
If the concept of legal status without citizenship sounds familiar is because Newt Gingrich has also been talking about this during his campaign. In a few of his appearances to Latino audiences, like in his visit to the Cielito Lindo Restaurant in South El Monte in February and even before, in his strange foray to a Mexican restaurant in New Hampshire where there were more cameras than Latinos, Gingrich talked about this idea of allowing some of the undocumented population to stay here without a path to citizenship.
I asked him about that in his visit to South El Monte. Wouldn't that amount to a brand new concept of keeping certain groups of people as permanent foreigners? American immigration law has never included such a cathegory, unless you count the Chinese Exclusion Laws which for about 60 years between 1880 and 1943 turn all Chinese citizens and their descendants into non entities, not citizens even if they were born here. A shameful part of our immigration history which we so often idealize but mostly don't know anything about.
"There are people who have been here for 30 years with green cards, very long term residents," said Gingrich to the question. "People who have been here for over 25 years and have deep family times we are not gonna deport therefore we have to find some kind of middle ground, the country will not give them amnesty, so we would offer them residency without amnesty."
Rubio and Gingrich did not actually come up with this idea. The concept of keeping citizenship out of reach for legalized immigrants it's actually the brainchild of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) a research organization that is part of the same lobbying group that pushed the "attrition thru enforcement" concept and the legal push behind the local and state anti immigration laws such as SB1070, the Arizona Law, that will soon be argued in front of the Supreme Court. CIS, FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute are all part of the same network of organizations in Washington that want to limit not illegal, but LEGAL immigration.
In March of last year, La Opinión published an interview with Mark Krikorian, CIS executive director, where he argued that Republicans could come up with a very limited Dream Act alternative that would give the youngsters a "permanent administrative visa", with all the rights of a legal resident without the ability to sponsor relatives. CIS had published a couple of papers by Stanley Renshon pushing that idea. CIS and FAIR have in mind a new immigration system where people can't sponsor certain relatives and where legal immigration would be reduced.
Likeminded congressman Phil Gingrey, from Georgia, has introduced a bill in Congress for several years now that has the blessing of this groups -but hasn't gotten anywhere- called "the Nuclear Family priority Act" , which will eliminate the ability of US Citizens to sponsor the immigration of adult brothers and adult children. In other words, Rubio's parents would not be able to immigrate today under the circumstances they did in the mid fifties. His great "American Dream" story would not had been possible.
Audrey Singer, immigration expert at the Brookins Institute says that legalization without citizenship is an idea that doesn't match with America's history and principles but that it makes even less sense in the case of "dreamers."
"We have always viewed legal immigrants as presumptive citizens," Singer said. "But to apply this to the children of immigrants...this children had no choice but to come to this country, they were living a life as a child and an adult made the decision. They are american, for the most part and we've already invested in their basic education. I don't think this makes any sense."
Also, Singer points out, family migration is not automatic and it usually takes a long time, given the limited quotas available, in some cases up to 20 years or more. But groups like FAIR and Numbers USA want us to believe that for every legalized and naturalized new citizen there's an automatic unlimited number of new immigrants that enter almost immediately. This is what they call "chain migration."
On the other hand, most political types know that the Dream Act is an increasingly popular idea. Polls show consistently that it has growing support among the American People -although the fact that it's not a priority doesn't give Congress any urgency to work on it-. It's also a good idea to figure out a way to integrate young college students and or college graduates - I have personally met many undocumented young people who have already graduated and even some who are pursuing PhD's- into an economy that will have a shortage of at least 3 million skilled workers by 2018, according to Georgetown University.
Nevertheless most republicans in Congress and prospective presidential nominee Mitt Romney are still opposed to the Dream Act because they argue it would "reward illegal immigration". There's also another concern to Republicans about the legalization of the undocumented -mostly latino- population. That with the image of the Republican Party being very attached to the Arizona Law and most anti immigration laws, the new citizens would tend to become Democrats.
But the Dream Act is supported by 90% of Latinos, even Republican Latinos. A good reason for Marco Rubio to find a way to make the Dream Act palatable to more people in his party.
Pilar Marrero is senior writer for Impremedia/La Opinion and author of "Killing the American Dream" published by Pallgrave-McMillan which comes out in early October.
Follow Pilar Marrero on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PilarMarrero
Yeah, and those are positions a lot more popular with Americans than even higher immigration and liberal "chain migration".
Why do I get the feeling Pilar has no interest in anything which would prevent the dream act situation from happening in the first place? Where is that in the DREAM Act? The "solution" is always amnesty, amnesty, and more amnesty. That "solution" just leads to more of the same.
Mexico is a rich country that has a very unfair way of life that keeps the poor in their place at the bottom while the rich get richer. (Yeah, I know, sounds like USA too, doesn't it?)
But seriously, we are being asked to sacrifice to keep the rich Mexicans in their place, paying low taxes and exploiting Mexican workers.
Why not try to solve the problem overseas instead of making it America's problem alone?
Where does all this immigration end, then?
The answer is, it won't. The "chain migration" will be endless so we'll end up not just with 15-20 million new Americans citizens to provide for, but eventually with God knows how many -- 50 million? 60 million? And that would be just within this generation.
When everybody has kids and then their kids have kids, then what?
There has to be limits on things. It isn't 1912 anymore. America is not a big empty country with plenty of jobs for everybody.
The people who set up the scholarship probably intended that their scholarships go to Americans.
By the way, how many scholarship winners can't speak English? Not many, I would say. It is also true that private scholarships have gone to illegal immigrants. I have read about them.
What rights do Americans have in their own country to expect to get into schools and get a job? Are we supposed to sit around, jobless and broke, while what was intended for Americans go to illegal immigrants?
What country on Earth operates that way?
Continue to use the DREAM ACT as a "Christmas Tree" laden with all kinds of special exceptions and by including children who clearly do remember their home countries and came as older children at the behest of their parents and the DREAM will remain just that - only a dream. Just because an individual is under 18 does not automatically mean that the individual is a poor innocent completely devoid of subterfuge. Have DREAM supporters not noticed a gang problem in the USA? The number of individuals who actually fit the description of "young people who no longer remember their homeland" is TINY whereas current drafts of the DREAM Act would benefit millions.
As Senator Rubio highlights this, maybe it is time to examine the motives of those who push the current versions of the DREAM Act. Are they really interested in helping poor students whose home countries are places they hardly remember? Or are those students being used as human shields to create a monstrosity of a bill that makes the Simpson-Mazzoli loopholes look modest by comparison?
As it stands the dream act bill have allowed:
1. Adults, not children up to 35 years old.
2. All costs (hundreds of billions) would be on taxpayers while dreamers paid nothing.
3. It allowed known gang members to get amnesty too.
4. If you have 100 arrests and even two criminal convictions you can get amnesty.
5. They can turn right around and reward the abusive, neglectful parents who brought them here with citizenship.
6. They can't be deported for any reason once they apply.
7. They don't have to show anything to prove when they came here - fraud? Undoubtedly.
But wait there's more.
8. They can take basket weaving for two years and get a 1.5gpa and you will call them the best and brightest.
9. With unlimited hardship exemptions and NO criteria for who gets them we can bet most won't go to school or serve anyway.
10. There is nothing to stop you from demanding another dream act next year and another and another.
No thanks - I'll pass on the nightmare act. Good luck getting the voters to support it either, especially once they find out what is in this thing.
Note to mods - I will complain if you hold this post up. Thank you.
1.true
2.false-fear tactic used by republicans, when infact it would gain billions,exaggerated fear, "millions- billions".
3.false-gang members cant be in, because its a criminal background check- i can tell your not LE or military
4.false- see dream act
5.false-dehumanization tactic. abusive,- staying in a warzone, or a gangworld is neglectful, id hop 10 fences and cross 100 deserts, so my kids can have a chance for a better life. you never even met a foreigner- lilly white world.
6.false- deported if found guilty of a crime, past or present, on final deportation orders.
7.false- another fear tactic ,see dream act rules - you have to prove
8.sure , just like a fat mid west kid, i should pay for them? really? you think someone whos an honors student or living low status, would do weaving?
9.false- its an personal view point, these peopel have a need, not spoiled americans, many of them honor students, and the fact the dream act was proposed , shows theres a populace willing to go
10.false- there is, there hasnt been a final veto on the dream act. once a law passes it has checks and balances to keep it in place for a time before challenge.
undocumented pay taxes. not everyone climbed a fence, honor students are more likely to be foreigners ( fact) ,u deported a combat vets wife.nuffsaid
But I'll bet you haven't read any of the bills have you?
Here are two of the biggest ones. Find ANYTHING I claimed to be false "IN THE BILLS", not from one of your open borders, chambers of commerce, wall street, keep wages low sites.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3992:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s952/text?version=is&nid=t0:is:35
You can claim anything you want to - back it up with the actual bills that made it the furthest. I dare you.
What percentage of the documents presented will be fakes? How many people over the age cutoff will claim to be younger than than they are? The government will not verify the documents, as I recall, so don't you think the amount of fraud will be high?
My guess would be none. What would your guess be?
Maybe we should have the DREAM Act for other people who have broken the law. Let's say you robbed a bank, but since then have been a model citizen and are currently in college and never really hurt anyone during the robbery. The same argument could be made for anyone who has committed a crime and have been integrated into society and been law abiding since then.
The Left would like Wong to apply to the children of illegals as well. The executive branch has been awarding citizenship to these children even though there has been no SCOTUS precedent to do so. This must be stopped. These [people are not citizens because they REJECT the jurisdiction of the United States by flouting its immigration laws.
The supporters of anchors try to claim their parents were under our jurisdiction yet they are much much closer to diplomats then citizens.
Differences between citizens and illegals
1. Can't vote - legally anyway.
2. Must return home if their country demands it.
3. Can be represented by their foreign country in all legal matters.
4. Can leave this country at any time.
5. Can't get certain social program funds - legally anyway.
6. Are not required to register for selective service.
7. Are not required to serve on a jury.
I'm sure there are lots more. How are they "under our jurisdiction"?