ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE

Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average.
conservative columnist and former Bush speechwriter David Frum would like to see three more concessions on the DREAM Act to get conservatives to agree to the bill - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/middle-ground-on-dream.html:

Here would be my three main suggestions:

1) Lower the age of entry into the US. Even the new versions of the law extend amnesty to people who entered the US up to age 16. That allows too many people who entered on their own impetus rather than as part of a family group - and too many people whose first language will never be English. I'd lower to 12, to ensure we really are talking about children who have spent half or more of their lives in the US.

2) False statements in the application should be prosecutable. As written, lying on the forms is still a good one-way option: it might help, and it can't hurt.

3) For those who choose enlistment rather than college, I'd require honorable discharge rather than 2 years service as a prerequisite for regularization. For those who choose college rather than enlistment, I'd like to see some measure- I'm not sure how to write such a rule myself - to prevent the emergence of a huge industry of fly by night institutions that will enroll (and keep enrolled) all paying customers regardless of how terribly they perform. As the law is now written, that last is an all too likely consequence.

With those changes, DREAM could be genuinely useful as part of a package of immigration reforms ...


I would offer a few responses. On the first suggestion, the age of entry under the DREAM bill is UNDER age 16. I would only say that Frum should produce evidence that a large percentage of those age 13 to 15 enter on their own and without their parents. I'm doubtful.

On the point about prosecuting people who lie on applications, that's fine. Of course, visa fraud is a prosecutable crime already.

And on the third suggestion, the DREAM Act only covers institutions qualifying under the Higher Education Act of 1965. But I don't see a problem limiting the qualifying schools to those approved to issue F-1 student visas since USCIS already inspects those facilities to ensure they are bona fide educational institutions.




Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to Facebook Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to Twitter Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to Google Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to StumbleUpon Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to Reddit Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to Digg Submit "DAVID FRUM: WATER DOWN DREAM A LITTLE MORE " to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
  1. Jim's Avatar
    I see no problems overall. This is actually good because it means they are open to the DREAM Act. The other side just needs to compromise.



  2. joey's Avatar
    What other side needs to compromise jim? The dems have compromised on dream enough!!! What have the republicans given up? huh?
  3. Another Voice's Avatar
    Exactly is the same republican deal our way or the highway but, beggars can't be choosers, since the dems want DREAM and to please the Latino vote the need the Repubs more that the Repubs need DREAM...the dems have the weak hand here!!!
  4. Jim's Avatar
    "What other side needs to compromise jim? The dems have compromised on dream enough!!! What have the republicans given up? huh?"

    Then don't compromise!! Who wants it anyway!? I have absolutely no problem if the Dems don't compromise. If the DREAM Act does not pass or even go to a vote, majority of Americans, legal immigrants and everyone in the US legally whether as immigrant or on temporary work visa would not give a damn!!

  5. Jim's Avatar
    "beggars can't be choosers, since the dems want DREAM and to please the Latino vote the need the Repubs more that the Repubs need DREAM...the dems have the weak hand here!!!"

    Exactly!! The good news is they are just asking for a little bit more concessions and if you re-read what Greg wrote, 2 out of 3 of those concessions being asked are actually already being done or easy to do in the first place. So, it's really just the first proposal.
  6. Michael's Avatar
    The key is getting 60 votes in the Senate. If those concessions are the only way to nail down the last vote or votes, then we will have no choice.
  7. Another Voice's Avatar
    "If the DREAM Act does not pass or even go to a vote, majority of Americans, legal immigrants and everyone in the US legally whether as immigrant or on temporary work visa would not give a damn!!"

    You are right.... however there is something wrong when you put forth this argument as a vindication of fairness... to people not helped by DREAM, don't forget that it's a two way street. if DREAM passes water down, you will need the DEMS and the HC to reform the legals too, and they may just return the favor in the same way by not giving a damn about some water down reform on legal immigration... You know something like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, you always get more out of people when you shot straight than when your screw someone somehow...
  8. My 2 cents's Avatar
    Only the Dems want the Dream Act. They are playing right into the hands of the Cans by this arm twisting. Instead of scratching each other back, the Cans could come away with some Dem skin lol!!!!
  9. George Chell's Avatar
    If they want to stop the Sharia Law in OK, they need to legalize the Christian illegals from Mexico, not just the kids...the country needs more Christians to stop the Sharia Law!! Are these folks really Christian or as I have frequently insisted that they are white skin worshipping pagan heathens masquerading as Christians....

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#40481496

    They want to stop the Sharia Law...power comes in numbers...legalize the Christian illegals from Mexico.
  10. AJ's Avatar
    They can increase the number of years spent on the non-immigrant visa to 13 or the pre-naturalization period to 6, and sell it by saying that even a 15 year old who obtains a visa at age 15 would have spent more than half his life in the country at that point. Alternatively, since they are trying to reduce the number of people who qualify, there's always the possibility of introducing a cap if the real concern is that too many people will qualify to vote DEM too quick. And the part about ensuring people are native speakers of English is rather moot because for all practical purposes, the education industry considers anyone who graduated high school from a select group of countries or someone who obtained a PhD from a US college to be a native speaker of English.
  11. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    "If the DREAM Act does not pass or even go to a vote, majority of Americans, legal immigrants and everyone in the US legally whether as immigrant or on temporary work visa would not give a damn!!"

    Actually, I disagree with the premise. Legals should care if DREAM act does not pass. It would mean that any further piece meal immigration legislation will not be possible, which is really bad news for those waiting for green cards. If DREAM Act passes, and the lawmakers don't see much of a backlash (which they won't since the only people pissed off by the DREAM act are deeply entranched Tea party republicans and will never change their vote), then the lawmakers will be a lot more willing to consider other immigration legislation.
  12. My 2 cents's Avatar
    LNLW, I hope you don't have to take your words back. I don't see anything being done for legals irrespective of Dream Act's fate. I hate to be pessimistic but it's the stark reality.
  13. Jim's Avatar
    "Actually, I disagree with the premise. Legals should care if DREAM act does not pass. It would mean that any further piece meal immigration legislation will not be possible, which is really bad news for those waiting for green cards. If DREAM Act passes, and the lawmakers don't see much of a backlash (which they won't since the only people pissed off by the DREAM act are deeply entranched Tea party republicans and will never change their vote), then the lawmakers will be a lot more willing to consider other immigration legislation."

    I was not surprise by your reply. I was actually expecting it. However, that's your opinion. I hope you won't be surprised if other people thinks exactly the opposite. I even know 1 immigration lawyer (Ron Gotcher) that thinks DREAM and any form or type of amnesty won't pass and that is good for piece-meal immigration reforms. I am not 100% convinced either way but obviously leaning more towards the latter.

    I just hope you are at least open to the notion that you may wrong and those who thinks otherwise maybe correct.

    *link to Ron's comment: http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/pending-immigration-legislation-32/dream-act-beneficiaries-clarification-12712/index3.html
  14. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    My 2 cents, well, I did not guarantee that other legislation will be for sure enacted. I clearly stated that it will be more likely. Nothing is this world has 100% certainty, just look at quantum physics. That includes your pessimistic forecast ;-)
  15. Jim's Avatar
    "They can increase the number of years spent on the non-immigrant visa to 13 or the pre-naturalization period to 6, and sell it by saying that even a 15 year old who obtains a visa at age 15 would have spent more than half his life in the country at that point. Alternatively, since they are trying to reduce the number of people who qualify, there's always the possibility of introducing a cap if the real concern is that too many people will qualify to vote DEM too quick. And the part about ensuring people are native speakers of English is rather moot because for all practical purposes, the education industry considers anyone who graduated high school from a select group of countries or someone who obtained a PhD from a US college to be a native speaker of English."

    Good suggestions. At least you are making suggestions rather than just say there aren't anything more to give when it is them that needs it passed and not the other side.
  16. George Chell's Avatar
    The link below shows that everyone wants someone to hate...

    http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Comment+Intolerant+Maclean+article+shows+anti+Asian+bias+persists/3909498/story.html

    which once again brings me to my point...if we dont have an illegal immigration problem, the antis will go after legal immigrants...happened in the UK, nearly happened in Australia, and in Canada, well, it has not happened yet..but resentment against all Asians is there among the white Canadians despite a relatively liberal skilled immigration policy...we need someone to hate, and when we have too many people to hate, we select one, and that one now is the illegal immigrant!
  17. Jim's Avatar
    "You are right.... however there is something wrong when you put forth this argument as a vindication of fairness... to people not helped by DREAM, don't forget that it's a two way street. if DREAM passes water down, you will need the DEMS and the HC to reform the legals too, and they may just return the favor in the same way by not giving a damn about some water down reform on legal immigration... You know something like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, you always get more out of people when you shot straight than when your screw someone somehow..."

    Thanks. Personally, I am for the DREAM Act. I wouldn't make suggestions or suggest to those who needs it to compromise some more If I weren't. I am talking about the rest and expressing their sentiments. I was also sort of doing a reverse psychology as well.

    Bottom line, like you've mentioned. Beggars can't be choosers.
  18. My 2 cents's Avatar
    LNLW, I am just stating the obvious. You can be optimistic. I live in reality & the outlook is bleak for legals. Maybe yourself & AV are the only ones in this blog who think otherwise.
  19. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    My 2 cents, I am not optimistic. I am realistic - the probablity of something passing goes up or down. It does not mean that it goes to 80% or 90%, it may just go from 5% with no DREAM act to 30% if the law is enacted. Which one is bleak, you decide for yourself.
  20. Jack's Avatar
    You left out this:

    With those changes, DREAM could be genuinely useful as part of a package of immigration reforms that should also include the following:

    1) Employers should be held strictly liable for employment of illegal aliens - ie "I didn't know" should no longer be an excuse, just as "I didn't know" is not an excuse for violations of the clean air and clean water laws. At the same time, we should remove prison as a possible punishment and substitute tougher fines. It's more important that punishment be certain than that it be draconian: the goal is to raise the projected cost of using illegal labor and thus incentivize the employment of legal labor instead.

    2) A sense of the Congress' resolution against a general amnesty for illegal aliens, to dispel any illusions generated by the past decade of amnesty activism. The goal again is to change the incentive structure by sending clear messages about what can be expected in future.

    ---------

    Proponents aren't including anything like 1), e.g., mandatory E-verify in it--it's a straight legalization with nothing to prevent the situtation from still happening. The political logic of past amnesties is that amnesty will not be needed again because of our new enforcement measures. I.e., there won't be a next time. I wouldn't hold my breath on stronger enforcement, David.

    Is he kidding about 2)? DREAM Act is considered a "down payment" on MOAA (mother of all amnesties). Luis Gutierrez is trying to make amnesty fundamental to ethnic identity in a way even Tamar Jacoby is uncomfortable with and he isn't going anywhere. Half the Congress isn't going to come out against general amnesty--they're long committed to it (at least by their words). I have no idea what Frum is talking about. You can't pass a law that says there can't be a future law granting general amnesty. Some meaningless resolution will give the amnesty lobby a big chuckle and be impolitely ignored. Oh, and meanwhile the president is busy telling the world we only want to deport you if you commit the most serious violent crimes.

    His other posts are pretty interesting in which he criticizes the original DREAM Act and actually attempts to debate a true open border ideologue--the guy who actually wrote:

    "What were you supposed to do? Consign yourself and your daughter to a life on the edge of poverty out of respect for the American rule of law? Please."

    "Yes, the DREAM Act also incentivises illegal activity. But if the activity is not one that ought to be illegal, perhaps we should consider changing the law?"





Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: