DREAM ACT FAILS TO PASS IN SENATE

60 votes were needed out of 100 to stop debate and vote on the bill. 52 votes were secured. Some Republicans are suggesting they would support a watered-down DREAM Act bill. That may not be necessary since many GOP Senators will likely will be gone after 2008 when Hispanic voters have their say.

Comments

[runcpaync]

Hello,
Does someone know a good pay day loan service?
I have read about http://www.paydayloanseo.com that is a good company, but i wan't to know if someone has used this service before and his oppinion.
Looking forward for an answear.
Thanks,
runcpaync

[johndoepr]

Thanks for your job, this thing is very good. Good bye.

[L]

"The only way around this is to see if you can get the current court to overturn that decision and you don't need a new law in Congress to do that. "

Greg,

Going by the record of the supreme court and composition any decision can be overturned by court .. I will not be surpised if they overturn Griswold v. Connecticut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

[L]

"Then why not wait till 2009 and legalize all illegals in one go? I believe that will happen at some point. Maybe not this year but definitely after the presidential elections."

I dont think any president want to take this issue up in his/her first term risking the second term. I dont see any LBJ (strictly speaking with regards to his record on Civil Rights legislation), who was willing to lose the south for a generation.

[Greg Siskind]

"It then follows that one way to make DREAM pass by gaining support from the anti-immigrants would be to include legislative language that overturns that decision. Note that no deportation would be required.

But of course that would never happen."

I presume you missed the part of your US government classes regarding the Constitution and the power of the Supreme Court to declare something unconstitutional. Congress doesn't have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court. The reverse is the case. The only way around this is to see if you can get the current court to overturn that decision and you don't need a new law in Congress to do that.

[Sid]

"The preferred terms are Poppy for him and Junior for the current President. President Poppy & President Junior, if you will!"

:-) OK. I thought Junior's nickname was Dubya from the way 'W' is pronounced in the south.

[USC]

"the Bush Sr. era"

The preferred terms are Poppy for him and Junior for the current President. President Poppy & President Junior, if you will!

N.B. I like President Junior's stance on the immigration issue!

[Sid]

"The antis are not getting on board any pro-immigration measure. PERIOD. You can take solace in the fact that the antis, Senators included, are not all that different from rats. Rats always desert a sinking ship. That is borne out by the growing number of Republican Senators who have decided not to seek re-election!'

Then why not wait till 2009 and legalize all illegals in one go? I believe that will happen at some point. Maybe not this year but definitely after the presidential elections.

[Sid]

"Tut, tut! I should write to MIT and Harvard Business School and ask them to refund my tuition!"

If you were taught that as part of downsizing during a recession, the managers run a sort algorithm on the employees, in ascending order of points received during the performance evaluation and fire the first N employees, then you should ask for a refund. It's usually very indiscriminate when entire divisions are being shut down.

Layoffs during a recession are different in nature from the annual spring cleaning, where the worst performers are let go. I'm basing this statement from what I've seen during the last recession and heard from folks who were here during the early 90's recession - the Bush Sr. era.

Microsoft is probably one of the few big tech firms that did not have major layoffs and continued to hire during the last recession. I guess having 60 billion dollars in cash helps.

[Sid]

"The point that I have repeatedly tried making is that a H1b does not equal a GC. It is merely a visa that allows you to wait “in country” rather than wait for your turn outside the country. You could wait out of country if that was to your advantage and not have to deal with the flawed H1b. Your choice entirely."

Not really. Unless you're in nursing, how will you get an employer to sponsor your GC? It's not like the Canadian point-based system where anyone can apply without a sponsorship.

Apart from FB immigration and EB3 for Schedule-A workers (maybe a few more exceptions), what are the ways of getting a GC if you are outside the country?

[Sid]

"I maybe wrong on this but my understanding is that when EB GC applicants apply for AOS their dependents receive EAD/AP. If that is true then the kids should have no problem remaining in the US to pursue work or study. Greg, please correct me if I am wrong."

Yes, you're right about the first part. The EAD/APs are issued for a year at a time and the renewal is linked to the status of the principal applicant's AOS application. So, if the principal AOS applicant loses his/her job within 6 months of the I-485 filing and/or cannot find another company (with a similar job profile) to continue the GC sponsorship, the dependents are out of status right away. If the entire GC phase takes 6-10 years instead of 2, the probability of something like this happening increases.

[USC]

I assume (from your name) that you are a US citizen now, so you don't have these constraints anymore.

Yes. As to the rest no argument with the fact that the H1b should be improved so as to reflect the realities of life!

[Sid]

"If it were me, I would have no problem getting a job."

I don't know if you've talked to F1 students who graduated during 2002-2003. Most companies had this firm policy not to sponsor H-1Bs. I'm not talking about people who graduated from random univs. Many of my IIT friends with MS degrees from places like Stanford and UT Austin had a tough time. Many had to go back. I consider myself very fortunate that I managed to survive those couple of years before the job market started to rebound in 2004.

When there is a recession like that companies don't make exceptions. Most of the big companies had firm policies not to sponsor any H-1B candidate. If you were already on H-1B, they would not sponsor a transfer. The day you lose your job when you're on H-1B you're out of status. There is no firm directive on how much time you have to find another job but the general consensus is 1-2 months. Given these constraints and the fact that during a downturn, layoffs are usually indiscriminate, a lot of things can go wrong for even the smartest of H-1Bs.

I assume (from your name) that you are a US citizen now, so you don't have these constraints anymore.

[USC]

"USC - That's an interesting idea."

Thank you! It could be made more (or less) liberal by simply changing the 50.1% figure to 25% and eliminating the minimum 10 year requirement.

[USC]

You have no moved from our discussion to an entirely different issue that of the problems faced by H1bs rather than the DREAM. The crux of my response was to respond to your contention that I was being irrational in not supporting GCs for H4s. My following one line responses were more flippant than anything else. Nevertheless, I stand by my contentions and respond as below:

“Then you have no clue…………You really have no clue"

Tut, tut! I should write to MIT and Harvard Business School and ask them to refund my tuition!

“A lot can happen in 5-10 years that could jeopardize someone's GC application. There's no point in me explaining this to you. You'll only believe it when someone like Greg enlightens you”.

Of course. Some of us could be dead in which case immigration status is not going to matter to the deceased. It might matter to his/her family but you don’t make laws for the exceptions. If you do, you end up with a PG like position that H1bs should be abolished because there are the 1 or 2% that abuse the category!

“When entire divisions are shut down the smartest and the dumbest workers are let go. If you are the smartest, you'll probably find another job but you lose your place in the GC queue.”

The point that I have repeatedly tried making is that a H1b does not equal a GC. It is merely a visa that allows you to wait “in country” rather than wait for your turn outside the country. You could wait out of country if that was to your advantage and not have to deal with the flawed H1b. Your choice entirely. Chertoff said waiting “in country” and getting on with your life was a huge advantage. I agree with that. It is the only visa (aside from the L1) that allows you to wait in country and thus the H1bs are better off than other NIV.

Should the H1b be improved? Sure, but the DREAM act is not the place to do it. As Greg has already pointed out if you put up a myriad of measures into it, it starts resembling CIR and that approach failed so we need to try something different. The H1bs turn will come. Personally, I would be in favor the H1bs receiving a cap exempt GC if they have held H1b status for 5 years.

“When EB GC applicants apply for AOS on behalf of their dependents, everyone is considered to have shown immigrant intent”

I maybe wrong on this but my understanding is that when EB GC applicants apply for AOS their dependents receive EAD/AP. If that is true then the kids should have no problem remaining in the US to pursue work or study. Greg, please correct me if I am wrong.

[USC]

“Exactly. The same argument applies to future illegals. The DREAM act does not try to solve the issue of illegal immigration. In s/w terms, it is a hack, not a proper fix.”

No. The Border security measure that passed a month or so ago was the first step towards a fix. Just as the DREAM is a first step towards solving the illegal problem. If you don’t take the first step then the subsequent ones don’t follow. Durbin has already issued a veiled warning to this effect.

"What are your suggestions for improving it in order to make it palatable to the majority?"

First, the antis are NOT A MAJORITY. The vote was 52 and would have been 55. The antis are in a MINORITY. The 60 vote threshold in the Senate was designed to protect minority interests. However, the intention was never was to protect the likes of despicable minorities that the antis are.

“Obviously, it doesn't have to include provisions for legals since we are a minority and our opinions are worth nothing. What can be done to get the antis on board?”

The antis are not getting on board any pro-immigration measure. PERIOD. You can take solace in the fact that the antis, Senators included, are not all that different from rats. Rats always desert a sinking ship. That is borne out by the growing number of Republican Senators who have decided not to seek re-election!

[USC]

“USC/L&W what do you suggest? What is the best option for someone who is legal today but might be out of status during the next recession due to a job loss? Return home or continue to live illegally?”

If it were me, I would have no problem getting a job. If the recession became a depression and jobs became truly scarce I would move back. However, if I had a friend who chose to become an illegal and stay on and subsequently was legalized I wouldn’t be whining either (I would wish him well) because the greater the risk the greater the reward. Just like everything in life.

“Then stop supporting it and argue for a better written bill.”

Greg has made an eloquent argument to this which I reproduce below:

First, "politics is the art of the possible".

"the perfect is the enemy of the good" which is similar to the above phrase

It is clear that DREAM is the logical consequence of the 1982 Supreme Court decision to make public school education available to illegal immigrants.

It then follows that one way to make DREAM pass by gaining support from the anti-immigrants would be to include legislative language that overturns that decision. Note that no deportation would be required.

But of course that would never happen.
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/the_solution.htm

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

opinion in WP on DREAM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Greg Siskind]

"Greg,

I do not think most "legals" are asking for all H1b kids to be covered in DREAM. I think the point is that aged out kids are not covered. These kids lost their chance because of a stupid system and are now paying out of state tuition to remain in status.
I just wanted to clarify that- because this discussion is at times bordering on the ridiculous. Unnamed proponents of DREAM (and those against but mostly the proponents) on your blog have perfected their art of name calling and rational discussion is impossible.
So why is including aged out kids so impossible? That should make everyone happy...?"

LFWF - I think providing additional relief for age outs would be helpful. But remember that we can come up with hundreds of additional provisions that would arguably help one constituency in need or another. If we go back to this approach, we might as well try again for comprehensive immigration reform. And that proposal failed because it was loaded down with too many targets for the antis. I'm convinced that we're not going to get anything comprehensive for at least two years and the only hope for anything positive in the interim is to work like hell behind the scenes on small measures. For me the bottom line is that if to make the bill somewhat better, but the bill's chances of approval are hurt, we should pass on trying to include the provision.

Of course, DREAM is dead for a while and the time to work on getting a measure like this one tied in is now and go ahead and do the groundwork to build the case for this change and negotiate to get the provision tied in to future provisions of DREAM. There's time to do that now. But I wouldn't expect a provision to be just added in because people think it's a good idea and it's not fair to those that have worked like crazy to get a bill to the point of a vote to suddenly start saying support will be withheld because a particular group wanted to be added. If the age out kids can get grass roots support and can show that they can help expand the support for DREAM by being included and will in no way jeopardize the bill, then you've got a winner.

If you guys can read between the lines, you can clearly see that I am pro LEGAL immigrants. Actually part of the reason why I come visit this site is to read Greg's "Immigrants of the Day". It is fantastic, most of the time I am touched by those stories and heros behind the scene. They might not get well deserved exposure in the society.

I just don't think it would be nice for this nation to be "overflowed" with people who don't even want to learn English. I am against amnesty. However the issue of having millions of ILLEGAL immigrants already in the country needs to be solved in a rational and realistic way.

This country definitely need young, energetic, highly-skilled immigrants. To support the collapsing welfare system, to compete better globally, to add new blood to the aging population.

Even the EU is following suit and promoting their "BLUE" card program.

[Greg Siskind]

"According to one of the studies ... most of the dream act benificiaries are bilingual anyway so most of them will not have any problem with language.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/make-or-break-day-for-t_b_69613.html"

As usual, the antis just make sh&*t up. The article says no such thing. It doesn't refer to a study at all and only observes that some of the DREAM Act beneficiaries are probably bilingual and could help in jobs where language skills are needed. Can the antis please send some better debaters over?

[legal-forever-waiting-forever]

Greg,

I do not think most "legals" are asking for all H1b kids to be covered in DREAM. I think the point is that aged out kids are not covered. These kids lost their chance because of a stupid system and are now paying out of state tuition to remain in status.
I just wanted to clarify that- because this discussion is at times bordering on the ridiculous. Unnamed proponents of DREAM (and those against but mostly the proponents) on your blog have perfected their art of name calling and rational discussion is impossible.
So why is including aged out kids so impossible? That should make everyone happy...?

[Sid]

Greg,

Apparently the DREAM Act in it's current form falls into the realm of impossible. What are your suggestions for improving it in order to make it palatable to the majority? Obviously, it doesn't have to include provisions for legals since we are a minority and our opinions are worth nothing. What can be done to get the antis on board?

[Greg Siskind]

To those who argue about giving green cards to H-1B kids, I think it is worth mentioning two truisms when it comes to the legislative process. First, "politics is the art of the possible"." In other words, what's a good idea is less important than what is realistically achievable. I would uncap green cards and H-1Bs if I could and I can make a lot of very good arguments for doing so. But do I bother expending energy on this? No way. It basically would remove me from the world of those taken seriously. Green cards for all kids of H-1Bs? Forget about it. It's not going to happen and if you spend your energy whining for that remedy, you're not likely to be taken seriously on achievable goals. If you want to win in politics, understanding what the real limits are of what people will support is critical.

The other phrase I always remember is "the perfect is the enemy of the good" which is similar to the above phrase. We've just witnessed this with the comprehensive immigration reform debate where pro-immigration groups refused to recognize that they were going to have to give up some of their positions and compromise. They may have felt good that they didn't compromise, but the people they were trying to help are worse off now than even before the CIR debate started. The point is that if you insist on holding out for the ideal solution, you'll likely get nothing.

[Dream Act guy]

For the Dream Act, the main documentation needed are easily traceable school records.

"The US is the only home many Dream Act kids know. For many, they do not know even the culture and the language."

The same argument equally applies for so many legal kids too

[Sid]

"So, your logic is that if you buy $10 in lottery tickets, and your co-worker buys $1, and your co-worker wins $100 million while you win nothing, that is discriminatory against you, unfair, and directly hurts you, since you bought more tickets. You see, there is no logic in this statement."

You're absolutely right. There's no logic in your statement. Getting a GC should not be like a lottery. There should be some order involved.

"That's an interesting idea. The only problem is that it can start to get very difficult to document presence in the country the longer in the past you look back. "

The problem with documentation arises only if the proposed idea requires documented proof. Most probably the documentation needed for such a proposal would be an affidavit by the benificiary or the family member.

[Dream Act guy]

Even if there is a ten year ban, the US will most likely not approve an application from someone who has an immigration offense.

The US is the only home many Dream Act kids know. For many, they do not know even the culture and the language.

[Greg Siskind]

"I don't like DREAM. My solution would have been to allow anyone who has spent 50.1% (with a minimum stay of 10 years) of their lives in the US, in legal or illegal status, continuous or non- continuous stay to be legalized. So, if someone came here at 35 he would have to wait till 70 but those who came at 10 would be able to legalize when they turned 20. No other strings attached."

USC - That's an interesting idea. The only problem is that it can start to get very difficult to document presence in the country the longer in the past you look back. I just remember for legalization applicants in the 80s how tough it was for some people who had little documentation to start with and who moved around a lot to get proof together.

[Sid]

"Or maybe, once in a while, they themselves should step up to the challenge and give their stories to the media to raise the profile of the issue."

The last few months have probably seen the maximum media coverage on issues affecting legals. All the major news sites have published multiple stories covering all different aspects. So, I don't think that is the issue here.

"Exactly. The same argument applies to future illegals. The DREAM act does not try to solve the issue of illegal immigration. In s/w terms, it is a hack, not a proper fix."

I think it does in legalizing the kids by supplying more potential recruits for army.

[Sid]

"No national interest is served in handing out a one time bonanza to current h4s and F1s but not to future or past ones."

Exactly. The same argument applies to future illegals. The DREAM act does not try to solve the issue of illegal immigration. In s/w terms, it is a hack, not a proper fix.

"You're assuming that the 1 million H-1B's stuck in the GC backlog will all get GCs."

"I don't see why they won't, its only a matter of time."

That makes me ask a question if someone concludes its only matter of time , why dont these kids and parents get out of the country and come legally. Its only 10 years , to quote "I don't see why they won't, its only a matter of time.""

[Sid]

"I don't buy the competitiveness argument put forward. As I said I don't like DREAM. "

Then stop supporting it and argue for a better written bill.

[Sid]

"I don't see why they won't, its only a matter of time."

Then you have no clue. A lot can happen in 5-10 years that could jeopardize someone's GC application. There's no point in me explaining this to you. You'll only believe it when someone like Greg enlightens you.

"Those that know what they are doing are never going to be without a job. You should know that. The ones who are not good enough, well you know the law of the jungle, it is all about the survival of the fittest. A recession gets rid of all the fat."

You really have no clue about what happened during the last recession do you? Entire companies and divisions were shut down. Everyone in those divisions were let go. Why do you think there are people with PDs of 2004 and beyond in EB categories even though they've been here since '98? Downsizing is not just about removing fat, it's also about closing divisions that are not as profitable. When entire divisions are shut down the smartest and the dumbest workers are let go. If you are the smartest, you'll probably find another job but you lose your place in the GC queue.

"I doubt that the kids would have shown immigrant intent. Their change of status applications should sail through."

When EB GC applicants apply for AOS on behalf of their dependents, everyone is considered to have shown immigrant intent.

[USC]

Correction

allows parents of USCs and LPRs to sponsor their kids without regard to age (no more worrying about age outs while you are standing "in line") or marital status "without them being subject to arbitrary quotas"

[Sid]

L & W,

I don't think you understand the meaning of discrimination. You don't have to harm someone directly in order to discriminate. You discriminate when you favor one group over another. The legal kids may not be in immediate danger of deportation (if you go by numbers, most illegals are not in any danger either). The issue is that if you're legal one day it doesn't take a lot to lose the legal status. I think Greg would agree to that since he deals with these issues everyday. Just because the legal kids are legal today does not mean that they will not be out of status tomorrow. What are the choices available to that family then? Should they follow the law and return to their home countries or should they take a cue from the 12 million illegals and their supporters and continue to live here illegally?

USC/L&W what do you suggest? What is the best option for someone who is legal today but might be out of status during the next recession due to a job loss? Return home or continue to live illegally?

[Dream Act guy]

The Dream Act is a humanitarian bill to help kids and young adults who have no way to adjust their status in the US. Again, many Dream Act students cannot adjust their status because they would have to leave the country to do so triggering a ten year ban. Dream Act kids did not choose to come to this country and should not be punished for the actions of their parents.

Legal kids, at least, have a path to legalization through their parents. I know thats not much consolation for people stuck in the broken immigration system, and I don't really want to start comparing the groups. The solution, though, for legal immigrants (and their kids) is to help make the broken immigration system more streamlined and backlog free. CIR would help fix it, but Congress has failed to fix the problem.

BTW, Im in my mid 20's and would have benefited from DREAM. I am also a child of a legal immigrant, but our lawyer failed to file my papers in time to correct my status. If anybody cares, I can fix my status (due to 245(i) which many Dream kids dont have ) through one of the employment categories. I support all pro-immigration bills because the US is improved by immigration and because I get good karma from it too!

[USC]

"That's just semantics at best, and with high probability just racist. Why high probability racist?"

That's the most bizzare conclusion I have seen on this blog.

[USC]

"Ok. Point taken. Why don't you respond to my argument then?"

OK. This will be the last post though. It is late out here and the only reason I am even posting is that I am jet lagged.

"One argument put forward in favor of the DREAM act was that it would increase the competitiveness of the US. Hence the requirement of 2 years of enrollment in college or military."

I don't buy the competitiveness argument put forward. As I said I don't like DREAM. The kids should be legalized without requiring them to enroll in college. The least said about the military part, the better. I find it offensive that the United States would even think of enticing hapless 18 year olds with a GC.

"Then why should F1s be excluded? You can't explain these things with reason or rationality."

Sure I can. The legals and F1s should be excluded because DREAM is not a permanent measure. I assume it will have a sunset date. So, if it were made applicable to F1s & H4s it would only help out those currently in school. It wouldn't do a thing for those who were in school two years from now (or those who have already studied and returned home), assuming the cut-off date under DREAM had passed. Immigration policy should be based on the national interest (as well as humanitarian considerations) of the US. It is in the national interest to solve the problem of illegal kids in the country. No national interest is served in handing out a one time bonanza to current h4s and F1s but not to future or past ones.

The way to address this is in separate bill like I said. One that gives F1s a GC on graduation and an another one that allows parents of USCs and LPRs to sponsor their kids without regard to age (no more worrying about age outs while you are standing "in line") or marital status. In other words liberalization of FB categories. Of course that is anathema to the EB folks too!

"You're assuming that the 1 million H-1B's stuck in the GC backlog will all get GCs."

I don't see why they won't, its only a matter of time.

"That a job loss during the next recession would not hamper their chances and they would continue to remain in the US indefinitely on EAD/AP till they get GCs."

Those that know what they are doing are never going to be without a job. You should know that. The ones who are not good enough, well you know the law of the jungle, it is all about the survival of the fittest. A recession gets rid of all the fat.

"You should know that F1 can be denied if you've shown immigrant intent."

I doubt that the kids would have shown immigrant intent. Their change of status applications should sail through.

[Legal and waiting]

"I want to clarify one point that may have gotten lost in the thread, that I'm in favor of legalization of all illegals. I just don't favor bills that are discriminatory towards legals."

So, your logic is that if you buy $10 in lottery tickets, and your co-worker buys $1, and your co-worker wins $100 million while you win nothing, that is discriminatory against you, unfair, and directly hurts you, since you bought more tickets. You see, there is no logic in this statement.

The simple truth is - legal children are NOT getting hurt in any way by this legislation. Everything you were talking about is made up - their position does not change a bit, it is simply unaffected by the legislation. Would it be helpful to include children who have aged out - sure. I am not positive many of them would have taken that route, but aged out children are the product of the stupid immigration system, too, so they should be covered. Is it realistic to include them - I do not know, maybe we should write our senators about them. Or maybe, once in a while, they themselves should step up to the challenge and give their stories to the media to raise the profile of the issue.

[WA]

I am amazed by some of statements from the DREAM supporter towards legal immigrants. Lets take USC's statements (I am paraphrasing). USC doesn't want to give the same benefits to kids of legal immigrants because it would be unfair to kids of potential future EB3 immigrants. Kids that might or might not even come to the US! What kind of logic is that? What about the kids of potential future illegal immigrants whose parents haven't decided to cross the border yet for yet unknown reasons? Are you going to oppose DREAM because it would be unfair these kids that are not even in the US?

Kids of legal immigrants might have also grown up in US, call it home, and not know any other country.

As for the argument of not putting the DREAM act applicant behind the line of other legal immigrants already in line because future legal immigrants might have to wait 50yrs sounds very ingenious. Its like those anti-immigrants who do not want to legalize illegals because it won't be fair to the legals waiting in line, yet do not do what is necessary to improve the situations for the legals. As any immigrants can tell you, its not easy being legal in this country, you can easily get out of status.

Of course, its impractical to put the DREAM act applicants at the end of the line and processes the cases at the current rate. Wouldn't it be more fair to fix the system so that legals don't have to wait this long because otherwise future legal immigrants would still be stuck in this for a long time. The argument that DREAMers must be cleared sooner to make way for future legals doesn't hold water, if the current legals have to wait 10yrs now.

I hate to see that the DREAM act supporters are becoming so anti-legals. Yes, you can turn around and say DREAM supporters are trying to legalize the illegals and so they are actually not anti-legals. That's just semantics at best, and with high probability just racist. Why high probability racist?

I only wish the different immigrant groups push for benefits without harming the other groups.

[Sid]

I want to clarify one point that may have gotten lost in the thread, that I'm in favor of legalization of all illegals. I just don't favor bills that are discriminatory towards legals.

"Yeah, there will be 30 year old Korean Americans who speak not a word of Korean wandering the streets of Seoul!"

"don't even support that, let alone the antis. The h1b kids will either adjust status with their parents or go back if their parents choose to return. If the parents stay they will be fine, if the parents return then they have stronger ties to their home country and could return or change to a F1 visa if they want to pursue higher education in the US"

According to one of the studies ... most of the dream act benificiaries are bilingual anyway so most of them will not have any problem with language.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/make-or-break-day-for-t_b_69613.html

[Sid]

"False assumption.

You need to deal with the argument and not try to figure out my motivation/bias."

Ok. Point taken. Why don't you respond to my argument then?

[USC]

"Since you came in through the F1->H-1B->GC route"

False assumption.

You need to deal with the argument and not try to figure out my motivation/bias.

"Or maybe you are so eager to prove that you are morally right and the rest of us are wrong that you're willing to overlook these minor issues."

See above. When a poster attempts to personize it is an indication that he has lost the argument.

[Sid]

"I agree re the F1s, they should be offered a GC when they graduate. Their option to accept or refuse but that should be a different bill, one that deals with the competitiveness of US universities."

One argument put forward in favor of the DREAM act was that it would increase the competitiveness of the US. Hence the requirement of 2 years of enrollment in college or military.
Then why should F1s be excluded? You can't explain these things with reason or rationality. The only reasonable ways of explaining the DREAM act is lobbying power, creation of future vote banks and political clout.

"I don't even support that, let alone the antis. The h1b kids will either adjust status with their parents or go back if their parents choose to return. If the parents stay they will be fine, if the parents return then they have stronger ties to their home country and could return or change to a F1 visa if they want to pursue higher education in the US."

You're assuming that the 1 million H-1B's stuck in the GC backlog will all get GCs. That a job loss during the next recession would not hamper their chances and they would continue to remain in the US indefinitely on EAD/AP till they get GCs. You should know that F1 can be denied if you've shown immigrant intent. So, that may not be an option for many of the kids. Since you came in through the F1->H-1B->GC route, I would expect you to know these issues better. Or maybe you are so eager to prove that you are morally right and the rest of us are wrong that you're willing to overlook these minor issues.

[USC]

"I would say that applies for illegal 30 year old babies too. Deport the parents first , kids will follow them to build ties to wherever they belong."

Yeah, there will be 30 year old Korean Americans who speak not a word of Korean wandering the streets of Seoul!

[Legal and waiting]

"I would say that applies for illegal 30 year old babies too. Deport the parents first , kids will follow them to build ties to wherever they belong. "

Oh, Tom Tancredo, welcome to the forum. Anyting else you would like to tell us from your rasist agenda?

"I don't even support that, let alone the antis. The h1b kids will either adjust status with their parents or go back if their parents choose to return. If the parents stay they will be fine, if the parents return then they have stronger ties to their home country and could return or change to a F1 visa if they want to pursue higher education in the US."

I would say that applies for illegal 30 year old babies too. Deport the parents first , kids will follow them to build ties to wherever they belong.

[USC]

"Yes. Improve the legislation so that it includes legal kids as well. Let's see what the antis have to say about that."

I don't even support that, let alone the antis. The h1b kids will either adjust status with their parents or go back if their parents choose to return. If the parents stay they will be fine, if the parents return then they have stronger ties to their home country and could return or change to a F1 visa if they want to pursue higher education in the US.

"If it is the only realistic solution, why did it fail to get the votes?"

Noisy antis & craven politicians. Do you think McCain & Specter voted their conscience?

"The EB3 kids are not even in the US. They are not studying or expected to study or enroll in the military till their parents get GCs. I'm not sure how they can be included at this point."

Exactly! The point I was making is that H1b does not equal GC.

"I didn't mean just H4 kids. I think even H-1Bs who've studied in the US and current F1s should be included."

I agree re the F1s, they should be offered a GC when they graduate. Their option to accept or refuse but that should be a different bill, one that deals with the competitiveness of US universities.

"Please! Go read what Kennedy did in the 60s and 80s. Without him you wouldn't even be here. Incidentally, Kennedy voted against the 1986 amnesty. I will be charitiable and believe that you know not of what you speak!"

I used to be a big fan of him before the failed CIR in 2007, not any more. I still admire his concession speech (Dream shall never die) at 1980 Democratic party convetion in San Francisco.

[Legal and waiting]

"Our legal system should send out a strong message, we don't welcome "ILLEGAL" immigrants. If you want to come on LEGAL terms, that's OK. Period."

That's the absolutely most favorite of the antis statements. Yes, Tancredo agrees with you completely. He even goes to naturalization ceremonies and praises those new Americans who followed the law (most of the people naturalizing, of course, got their green cards in 1986 ammesty).

[Legal and waiting]

"There is nothing wrong with the Hispanic people. "

Yeah, every statememnt that starts with "I am not a rasist" everntually turns into KKK statements. Go away, you rasist!

[Legal and waiting]

"Just imagine all the illegals were "AWARDED" by our legal system, which would encourage millions more to come. It would only accelerate the process of US deteriorating into a 2nd-rate country. The nation already had too many big problems never got really resolved. The social benefits system is already collapsed."

Every single statement here is not supported by ANY evidence. You are the worst of all antis - just going around there, picking up hourse manure and throwing it on the forum anonymously.

Let's repeat.

"Just imagine all the illegals were "AWARDED" by our legal system, which would encourage millions more to come."

No evidence of that whatsoever. Illegal immigration is caused by the lack of legal ways to enter the country, nothing else.

"It would only accelerate the process of US deteriorating into a 2nd-rate country."

Absolutely not. Every period of high immigration, like 1880-1920, when net immigration was 4 times of what it is now, is associated with greatest periods of economic expansion and real wealth creation. Learn history befor making such moronic statements.

"The nation already had too many big problems never got really resolved."

Yesh, like Iraq war is caused by illegal immigration.

"The social benefits system is already collapsed."

Collapse of the social serives system is way overhiped, yet its weakening is caused by the changing demographics, with lower percentage of younger people, and higher percentage of older people. Since immigrant tend to come at a yhounger working age, mostly 20-40 year olds, immigration is actually is exteremely good for the social services system. Bernarke believes that quadrupling US immigration may solve the SS problem and ensure and long term well-being of the country. Again, learn your facts before posting BS.

[USC]

"Senator Kennedy......are for more illegal immigration and against legal immigration."

Please! Go read what Kennedy did in the 60s and 80s. Without him you wouldn't even be here. Incidentally, Kennedy voted against the 1986 amnesty. I will be charitiable and believe that you know not of what you speak!

"BTW, working without authorization is it deportable offense by itself?"

Yes, check an H-4 stub if you find one.

"DREAM requires that you have to be deportable in order to benefit. Now the funny thing is that any one on legal status can meet that condition simply by producing an affidavit or pay-stub showing work without authorization.

So if the legal kids can bring themselves to perform some illegal behavior, they can be processed under DREAM."

If this is not rewarding illegal behavior , what it is?

BTW, working without authorization is it deportable offense by itself?

[Sid]

"I support DREAM because that is the only realistic solution out of this mess. Do you have a different solution?"

Yes. Improve the legislation so that it includes legal kids as well. Let's see what the antis have to say about that.

If it is the only realistic solution, why did it fail to get the votes?

The whole point of DREAM was to pass a narrow piece of legislation due to the widespread opposition to the legalization of 12 million illegals. The goal was to appeal on behalf of these kids on humanitarian grounds. Once you exclude another group (legal kids) that is a very small fraction it ceases to be a moral and humanitarian issue. It then becomes an issue of who has more political clout and more funds for lobbying. Obviously, that will empower the opponents.

The EB3 kids are not even in the US. They are not studying or expected to study or enroll in the military till their parents get GCs. I'm not sure how they can be included at this point.

I didn't mean just H4 kids. I think even H-1Bs who've studied in the US and current F1s should be included . There is a very realistic chance that they will not get GCs or H-1Bs after graduation or due to the EB backlog. Why should they have to go back?

Like I said, when you exclude groups who are in a similar situation, it ceases to be a moral issue. The proponents of the DREAM act will be limited in their ability to appeal to the others on humanitarian grounds.

"I think it has been discussed somewhere in this thread or another one. I'm not sure if the legal kids are explicitly barred but they are not eligible."

DREAM requires that you have to be deportable in order to benefit. Now the funny thing is that any one on legal status can meet that condition simply by producing an affidavit or pay-stub showing work without authorization.

So if the legal kids can bring themselves to perform some illegal behavior, they can be processed under DREAM.

[Legal and waiting]

"So can I assume that you have a 30 year old "baby" that was brought in by you across the border because you speak for them?"

I do not speak for them - Dream Act Guy does. If you have questions, feel free to ask him.

[USC]

"Dont people who smuggle babies across the border shouldn't know the consequences of being undocumted alien?"

You missed the entire point. The US needs to address "its" problem. One that is of its own making. I have already acknowledged the complaint that you raise above, ie legal v illegal. I am sympathetic to it but that doesn't solve anything. Do you have a solution?

"No one is saying the dream act is unfair to h1bs , it is unfair to the kids whose parents followed the rules."

See above. Same complaint, same response

[Legal and waiting]

no name, if Durbin and Kennedy were for illegal immigration they would never proposed any legalization programs. Legalization makes people LEGAL - if you are pro legalization, you are for making people legal and agianst them being illegal, thus you are pro legal immigration and agaist illegal immigration.

"no name, and are you one of those kids of parents who followed the rules? If you are not, you do not know what they think, so don't speak for them."

So can I assume that you have a 30 year old "baby" that was brought in by you across the border because you speak for them?

"no name, and are you one of those kids of parents who followed the rules? If you are not, you do not know what they think, so don't speak for them."

And are you one of those kids who will benefit from the DREAM bill? If not you do not know what they think, so shoo...

[Legal and waiting]

"Some of the proponents or supporters of the Dream Act truly beleive in statments such as

"Legal, "obeying the rule of law" (especially, immigration law) does not make you a more valuable individual for this country. Period."
---

And I stand by that statement. The way you crossed the border many years ago or if you overstayed a visa is not going to impact if you are a valuable person for this country or not. Please not that "Legal" in my statement is referring to the person to whom this comment was made, as in "Legal Immi".

"Senator Kennedy said "we know what you are against but what are you for?"

Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin are for more illegal immigration and against legal immigration.

[Legal and waiting]

no name, and are you one of those kids of parents who followed the rules? If you are not, you do not know what they think, so don't speak for them.

[Sid]

"I am not sure if that is the case, I tried to understand the bill , Sid , Are you sure this bill bars the kids who satisfy the criteria to be eligible but lets say are on H4 or L2 VISAs?"

I think it has been discussed somewhere in this thread or another one. I'm not sure if the legal kids are explicitly barred but they are not eligible.

"We have all heard the complaint about this being unfair to the H1bs but why is that so? When those on h1b came here they knew exactly the pros and cons of h1b status. "

Dont people who smuggle babies across the border shouldn't know the consequences of being undocumted alien? No one is saying the dream act is unfair to h1bs , it is unfair to the kids whose parents followed the rules.

[USC]

"The fact that legal kids are not eligible is a glaring hole in this legislation."

Senator Kennedy said "we know what you are against but what are you for?"

Right now there is a huge problem that the US faces, namely, the huge population of illegals. The DREAM act promised to solve the problem of a small category of children. I can only see three resolutions (a) Deport 12, 13, 14, 15 year old kids to a country where they might not even speak the language (b) Put them at the back of the line behind the H1b's who are currently here and never mind that all future immigrants who might want to come here might be looking at a 50 year backlog. Tancedro will be pleased (c) Do nothing and let these kids live in the shadows and see a human being waste his life (d) enact "the DREAM."

The US is responsible for the illegal problem by letting it get out of hand. In real estate you have the law of "adverse possession" and then there are the "doctrine of latches" & the "clean hands doctrine" under which in a true Court of Equity the INS should be barred from deporting these kids.

As regards your comment that the kids of the legals should be legalized. I can only assume that you are referring to the kids of H1bs. I don't support that because doing so would make it unfair to those waiting in line outside the country, say an EB3 applicant in India who doesn't want to accept the restrictions that the h1b visa comes with and has instead chosen to work in India and will only come here when his GC is approved. See, when you give relief to one group, someone is always disadvantaged?

I don't like DREAM. My solution would have been to allow anyone who has spent 50.1% (with a minimum stay of 10 years) of their lives in the US, in legal or illegal status, continuous or non- continuous stay to be legalized. So, if someone came here at 35 he would have to wait till 70 but those who came at 10 would be able to legalize when they turned 20. No other strings attached.

We have all heard the complaint about this being unfair to the H1bs but why is that so? When those on h1b came here they knew exactly the pros and cons of h1b status. In point of fact the h1bs are the blue eyed visas of the NIV category.

I support DREAM because that is the only realistic solution out of this mess. Do you have a different solution?

[Legal Immi]

"The fact that legal kids are not eligible is a glaring hole in this legislation."

I am not sure if that is the case, I tried to understand the bill , Sid , Are you sure this bill bars the kids who satisfy the criteria to be eligible but lets say are on H4 or L2 VISAs?

[Legal Immi]

"First we should ask "Legal" or "Illegal"? Otherwise why do we need laws, or even attorneys???"

Some of the proponents or supporters of the Dream Act truly beleive in statments such as

"Legal, "obeying the rule of law" (especially, immigration law) does not make you a more valuable individual for this country. Period."

[USC]

"So we're grading on a curve? We expect the GOP to be anti-immigrant, so they get a pass? While it's disappointing that a few southern and western Democrats voted no"

Frankly, the Democrats that voted No, there weren't any surprises there. Nor that Hatch, Hagel, Bennett or Lugar voted Yes.

I am shocked on Specter & McCain (assuming the blogger has charcterized his position properly).

Disappointed on Smith, Murkowski, Stevens, Voinovich & Warner.

Pleased on Democrat Webb and Republicans Snowe, Martinez, Lott, Hutchison (amazed), Craig, Collins, Coleman & Brownback.

Immigrants?

First we should ask "Legal" or "Illegal"? Otherwise why do we need laws, or even attorneys???

Just imagine all the illegals were "AWARDED" by our legal system, which would encourage millions more to come. It would only accelerate the process of US deteriorating into a 2nd-rate country. The nation already had too many big problems never got really resolved. The social benefits system is already collapsed.

Too many American citizens are suffering from foreclosures, etc. While our public hospitals are still offering the best medical care to ILLEGALS for FREE. That's why every day more and more children were born to ILLEGAL parents. However lots of ILLEGALS are still not satisfied while getting free milk, free car seats, free delivery of their babies. They complain that the medical staff are not speaking Spanish. Our publish hospitals are now offering incentives for employees to speak Spanish. This is totally ridiculous, almost insane. Where do we want this nation to go?

Once the Hispanic gain control of the key ballots state, Spanish would become the official language. If you don't speak it, you and your kids will be humiliated at public places. Remember what happened to some children speaking German at school and got punished by teachers decades ago?

There is nothing wrong with the Hispanic people. Lots of them are very hardworking, kind and no different from people from elsewhere. However our nation could only sustain the current messy situation to a certain degree.

Our legal system should send out a strong message, we don't welcome "ILLEGAL" immigrants. If you want to come on LEGAL terms, that's OK. Period.

[Sid]

I agree with some of the points that were made in the statement from the White House.

The fact that legal kids are not eligible is a glaring hole in this legislation.

If the admissible age is 30, there are plenty of legals who've already studied in the US for 2-6 years who would fall in this category. Why is the conditional PR status not being extended to them?

Sorry, Greg. I'm not with you on this one. This is not about listening to one's conscience or morality. It's all about the power of lobbying and gaining future vote banks. Democrats are no better than Senator McCain in this regard.

Hopefully, an upside to this will be that legals will realize that sitting on the fence is not helping our cause. We need to get proactive and be better prepared so that we can make a stronger push for reforms in 2009. I'm not very hopeful of any EB reforms this year even if the DREAM act passes eventually.

[Legal Immi]

"We expect the GOP to be anti-immigrant, so they get a pass?"

Its not about GOP getting a pass on immigration but whether the leadership in senate did proper home work in making this bill palatable to more people, even the president(which i think is more pro immigrant than many of his party members) came with a statement opposing this bill. I dont see any way to convince Mr.Demint (I remember his name so much because on the Meet the Press debate he was proposing execution of doctors who perform abortions) or Sessions.

[Greg Siskind]

"I think its democrats in the senate that failed this vote"

So we're grading on a curve? We expect the GOP to be anti-immigrant, so they get a pass? While it's disappointing that a few southern and western Democrats voted no, it pays to remember that all but a handful of Republicans voted anti-immigration on this. And what is even more sad is that the GOP moderates on immigration - such as Specter and Lindsay Graham - voted no. One good piece of news. Sam Brownback voted yes and now that he's dropped out of the presidential race, he's hopefully gone back to being pro-immigrant.

[Legal Immi]

"I guess the final vote would have been 55-45 had Boxer, Dodd, and Kennedy been present for a vote. "

I think its democrats in the senate that failed this vote not republicans(you can expect Sessions and Demint to vote for these kind of bills).

Here is the list of Dems that voted no.

Byrd (D-WV) , McCaskill (D-MO), Landrieu (D-LA) ,Dorgan (D-ND), Conrad (D-ND),Pryor (D-AR), Baucus (D-MT) , Pryor (D-AR)

As far as the Byrd from WV his voting record on immigration issues is as good as Mr. Sessions record.

[Dream Act guy]

I guess the final vote would have been 55-45 had Boxer, Dodd, and Kennedy been present for a vote.

[Greg Siskind]

""As for the Dream Act, McCain told us that he would have voted against cloture (i.e., in favor of preventing a vote) because he "got the message" this summer that Americans want the border secured before we "go on to the rest." McCain would deem parts of the border secure when the governor of the relevant state so certifies. "

Nice to see a candidate who votes his conscience rather than what the polls tell him to do.

[Legal Immi]

John Mccain position on dream act

"As for the Dream Act, McCain told us that he would have voted against cloture (i.e., in favor of preventing a vote) because he "got the message" this summer that Americans want the border secured before we "go on to the rest." McCain would deem parts of the border secure when the governor of the relevant state so certifies. "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018851.php

[Greg Siskind]

"I get your sentiment, but let's look at reality here: most hispanic people in this country cannot vote. Cubans aside, Democrats have always had a lock on the Hispanic vote.

Hispanics now outnumber blacks as a minority group. However, I doubt that legal hispanics (with voting priviledges) do.

Republicans are going to lose for a host of reasons, I just don't think this is one of them. If anything, this issue will shore up their base."

MG - You're really, really, really wrong on your statement that most Hispanics either cannot vote or are Cuban and therefore vote Republican. These are myths and Republicans who believe them do so at great risk.

The Hispanic electorate is critical both because of its overall size and because of its concentration in key states.

There are an estimated 44,000,000 Hispanics in the US according to the Pew Hispanic Center (http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/34.pdf). Of that number, only 1/3 are estimated to not be eligible to vote because of their legal status. A high percentage are also not eligible to vote because they are under 18, but that statistic should obviously only be of temporary comfort to Republicans and pushing measures to deport the friends of these children obviously won't endear the GOP to that population as they grow up to be voters.

Pew estimates that 17,000,000 Hispanics are, in fact eligible to vote now, a 7% increase in just two years.

Here's a good article on the subject showing how Hispanic voters are very likely to shift elections in places like Arizona, California, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/28/hispanic.vote/?iref=mpstoryview

As for the Cubans, I grew up in Miami and have friends in politics down there. And the one thing they will all agree on is that Cuban Americans have been drifting to the Democrats for many years now, particularly as the first generation of immigrants is leaving the scene, as Republicans have dropped the ball on immigration and, believe it or not, as the GOP has enforced travel restrictions to Cuba, something deeply unpopular in a Cuban community that understandably gets emotional regarding not being able to see family members for decades on end. Here's an article from just a few days ago showing how the Democrats smell blood on this issue - http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/sensing-cuba-shift-democrats-target-trio-of-house-republicans-in-florida-2007-10-18.html .

[Legal and waiting]

What metters most, is that Hispanics are going to turn the tide over in "purple" states, like Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, so in a way, Republicans are going to lose on immigration issues.

[Legal and waiting]

"I get your sentiment, but let's look at reality here: most hispanic people in this country cannot vote. Cubans aside, Democrats have always had a lock on the Hispanic vote."

Both statements are incorrect. More than half of Hispanic population are citizens. Cubans are a relatively small percentage of Hispanics. GOP had up to 65% of Hispanic votes just several years ago. Now, they have less than 40%.

[Sid]

"Republicans are going to lose for a host of reasons, I just don't think this is one of them. If anything, this issue will shore up their base."

I think so too. I don't think immigration will be a major issue in the elections. The 9/11 emotions overpowered the anti-war sentiments the last time. Not going to happen again.

[Middle Ground]

"GOP Senators will likely will be gone after 2008 when Hispanic voters have their say. "

I get your sentiment, but let's look at reality here: most hispanic people in this country cannot vote. Cubans aside, Democrats have always had a lock on the Hispanic vote.

Hispanics now outnumber blacks as a minority group. However, I doubt that legal hispanics (with voting priviledges) do.

Republicans are going to lose for a host of reasons, I just don't think this is one of them. If anything, this issue will shore up their base.

"Can any one answer this question, Someone who is in conditional permannet resident status contribute to a candidates election and PACs , as far as I understand an LPR can contribute to a candidates election fund."

Yes, campaign contributions are possible. Conditional permanent residents have all rights and responsibilities of regular permanent residents. The only difference is that the conditional status is granted for a period of time after which you have to apply for removal of the conditions. If you are not successful in removing the conditions, your permanent resident status expires at that time.

[Campaign contributions]

Can any one answer this question, Someone who is in conditional permannet resident status contribute to a candidates election and PACs , as far as I understand an LPR can contribute to a candidates election fund.

[Sid]

I don't have any reason to doubt your sincerity. I'll wait for Senator Durbin's vote on the EB immigration reforms now that his pet project has had a setback. If he is pro-immigration instead of simply pro-illegals, he should not object to relief for legals as well.

[a]

"Sid, please understand that its just the pro-immigration lobby. "

Let me correct it slightly, pro-illegal immigration lobby , the reason i say is Sen Durbin voted against the guest worker programs that were supposed to end illegal immigration. If he is not for more illegal immigration why would he vote againt guest worker program which is essential for orderly immigration. He is the same person who thinks H1B program is evil.

[Dream Act guy]

Sid, please understand that its just the pro-immigration lobby.

[Sid]

The plan, as I understand it, is really good. I admire the illegal lobby for coming up with it. I wish the legal lobby were this smart and I'm not saying this with sarcasm. Many of the illegal families have US born kids anyway. With the Dream Act you make sure that at least one member of the remaining illegal families will become an US citizen eventually. That would at least give them the hope of a family reunification even if the illegal members of the family were to get deported. At least one person can remain in the US and fight for the entire family.

[Dream Act guy]

Yes, no name, you've found out our secret plan.

Oh, yeah? So you secretly wish that those Ds would change the name of the nation to "united states of mexico"??

[Legal Immi]

"Boxer was in California for the wildfire. I dont know where Dodd went, and Kennedy is recovering from surgery.

McCain was probably out campaigning.
"

McCain was not campaigning according to the washington times. I think he is trying to recover from shock of CIR by abstaining.

* Sen. John McCain ducked the vote, even though he was in the chamber minutes beforehand for another vote on a judicial nominee. Obviously it's a tough issue for McCain, who is running for president but has suffered by being identified with amnesty. But ducking this vote comes just days after he said assured conservatives he had seen the light on the issue. Today he missed a chance to prove that.

* Sen. Sam Brownback, after flipping on immigration during his presidential run, has now flopped back to where he was before, voting in favor of the Dream Act. This comes just weeks after he told the audience at one of the presidential debates he no longer supported special paths to citizenship for illegal aliens.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/dinan/2007/10/dream_act_falls_8_votes_short.html

[Beppe]

Hi Greg,
can you comment this article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21456667/

[Andy]

Poor kids...who will fight for the innocent? These innocent kids must be given a chance to live a peaceful life....what will they do if the Gov't does not allow them to get a decent education/job? Some will go astray to live for the day....