IS THIS THE YEAR THE DREAM IS REALIZED?

Leaders in Congress today re-introduced the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act. The bill would allow immigrant students raised in the US and who are graduates of US high schools to attend college or join the military and embark on a path to citizenship.

The bill's lead sponsors in the Senate are Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN). In the House, the lead sponsors are Howard Berman (D-CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL).

Immigration advocacy organization America's Voice described the importance of the bill:

“The DREAM Act would fix one of the clearest examples of America’s nonsensical immigration laws,” said Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice. “For too long, high school valedictorians and college graduates have been unable to fully live up to their potential. Imagine growing up in the United States nearly your whole life, going to school, making it to college and living in constant fear of being arrested and deported to a country you hardly know.”

An estimated 65,000 undocumented young people who have spent their childhoods in America would be impacted by this important piece of legislation. An effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform would also include the DREAM Act.

“Their stories are heartbreaking but their spirit and resilience is nothing short of amazing,” Sharry continued. “For years, these young people, many working in the ‘United we Dream’ coalition, have courageously stood up and organized to change an unjust law. Now, Senator Durbin, Rep. Berman and the other cosponsors are also showing courage. Today’s introduction of the DREAM Act is a testament to their hard work and should serve as an inspiration to all of us as we work together to fix our broken immigration system.”

Comments

[Legal and no longer waiting]

Kamal, there is a difference between asking too much and asking for the right things and having widespread support. Antis have gotten into immigrants heads and are making them talk in "anti-speak" - quotas, restrictions, degrees, qualifications, admissibility bars. The conversation need to be reframe into things that make common sense and say "this is logical" to average Americans who know nothing about immigration. It is not optimistic, and it is not "asking too much" - what is too much and what is not too much can be decided later. The point is that you can't come out to the American public and start talking about "recapturing visas that were lost in the previous years when the quotas were not reached" because it is simply too confusing. "Givng permanent residence without waiting to those who lived in the US for 5 years and is eligible" is not confusing, you can explain it to a lay person.

[Kamal Jain]

"This is a good example of flawed thinking. The question should not be why they get exemption - the question should be - why don't we get exemption, too?"

And this is where we disagree. Even though I really like your optimism and hope that the "floodgates" will open and everybody -- both legal and illegal -- will be given a green card, I'm more on the realistic side and I really have a hard time imagining anything passing while the economy is in this state (and after the backlash at CIR'07 too). Aren't you afraid that by asking too much, you'll get nothing in the end?

[gg]

During the past few days there has been several positive developments related to immigration. The Hispanic lobby is working hard to push legislation through this year. Its time the proponents of legal immigration especially the H1, EB community start lobbying for their cause as they cannot expect US companies to lobby for them given the current economic situation.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

"They should wait in like anyone else in the line why should they get exemption from numerical limits?"

This is a good example of flawed thinking. The question should not be why they get exemption - the question should be - why don't we get exemption, too?

I believe, both Hispanic caucus and EB immigrants can agree that it would make perfect sense that anyone who lived in the country for 5 years or more should not be subject to permanent residence quotas (EB, FB, refugee). And anyone who lived in the country for 10 years should get automatic eligibility for permanent residence. Now, both groups can together negotiate with the pubs about the number of years they are willing to put into the law.

[Legal and no longer waiting]

"I agree that many of them see the EB and CIR are two fundamentally different issues. Each of them have specific issues and any legislation have to be tailor made to address then effectively."

Well, they are not different issues. The immigration system is inefficient, resulting in one group of people being stuck in the system, while the other group is simply getting spit out (anyone heard of 5,000 limit on unskilled worker category under EB immigration laws?). At the end of day it is the same system that needs to be fixed for the long term, and the solution that allows people to immigrate legally effectively in the future is the same solution for both groups. The symptoms of the problem may be different, but the solution is the same.

"I don't think CHC needs EB guys to pass CIR."
I agree with that.

"It is my opinion that CIR will pass, but the EB folks (irrespective of their "help") will be left bleeding in the gutter."
I disagree with that. If the EB people play their cards right, they stand to reap A LOT of benefits from the CIR. In fact, they will get a lot even if their don't play their cards at all - they only stand to lose if they antagonize the Hispanic caucus.

See above - the long-term solution is the same for both groups. The Hispanic caucus is not only interested in amnesty (even that can be turned into benefit for EB folks - think of being able to file for a green card after 10 years in the country with no sponsorship from a relative or employer) - they are also interested in creating a system where honest people can apply and get a green card fairly easily based on their employment and history of living in the country. This is not just an EB issue - it's a common issue, and this is the point that needs to be pushed upon. So far, I don't see EB people pushing for it.

[chupacabra]

And so far, we have seen only opposition from the EB advocates to the CIR."
----I am not sure if the EB folks really oppose CIR. Most of the EB folks I interact with are sympathetic to CIR and would like see an end to the plight of undocumented workers. I agree that many of them see the EB and CIR are two fundamentally different issues. Each of them have specific issues and any legislation have to be tailor made to address then effectively. But they don't oppose CIR.
However, they get upset when they don't see their plight being addressed as well and sometime held hostage. You may be aware of some EB folks who oppose CIR, but the opposition of EB from CHC is more palpable and direct.

"In politics, trust is a major part. I support you and I expect support for me. If I don't get it, I won't forget, and don't support you in the future, regardless what the support is for. So, this is pretty much self-regulating, tit-for-tat, with anybody backstabbing being on the losing end. Pretty much as described in game theory."

It is also very common in politics to completely forget your promise once you achieve whatever you want. At the same time politics make strange bedfellows and alliances for convenience. I would say politics is something where long term commitment, trust and friendship is not the most valued commodity.

I don't think CHC needs EB guys to pass CIR. It is my opinion that CIR will pass, but the EB folks (irrespective of their "help") will be left bleeding in the gutter. Politics have a lot of example like this.

[JoeF]

"So far we've seen only opposition to EB bills, and we are expected to be feeling nice and fuzzy about their causes, and to trust them they won't do anything bad again later?"

And so far, we have seen only opposition from the EB advocates to the CIR.
In politics, trust is a major part. I support you and I expect support for me. If I don't get it, I won't forget, and don't support you in the future, regardless what the support is for. So, this is pretty much self-regulating, tit-for-tat, with anybody backstabbing being on the losing end. Pretty much as described in game theory.

[Greg Siskind]

Kamal - The answer is yes.

[Kamal Jain]

Again, I don't want to sound bitter and all, but this is how things look like to me as a side observer. Is there anyone from IV or other EB-proponent organization talking to CHS people about this stuff and getting to work on a common strategy (or at least making sure there isn't any miscommunication and the two groups aren't antagonized unnecessarily.)

[Kamal Jain]

"EB people support CIR, and they can expect the CIR people supporting their cause. EB2 oppose the CIR, and they won't get any support for their agenda. It's as simple as that."

Hmmm. Let me see how this goes the other way:

"Illegal-lobby people support EB bills, and they can expect EB people supporting their cause. Illegal-lobby people oppose EB bills, and they won't get any support for their agenda. It's as simple as that."

Hmmm. So far we've seen only opposition to EB bills, and we are expected to be feeling nice and fuzzy about their causes, and to trust them they won't do anything bad again later? (Nothing against the people who will benefit from DREAM, but this is really disgusting.) Makes you wonder if EB people give their support and CIR gets passed whether they'll see any EB bills pass at all later. I just have this nagging feeling that the Hispanic Caucus wants to have a monopoly on immigration in this country and to decide unilaterally who comes in, who gets to stay, and who goes.

[Greg Siskind]

Kamal - I actually think the bill may have been introduced to spotlight a major plank in the comprehensive bill and it may not move as a separate piece of legislation. Durbin is likely to be a major CIR proponent.

[Kamal Jain]

"Here's the reality check pro-employment based (EB) immigration advocates need to know. EB immigration measures are largely being blocked from moving forward until the legalization pieces are finished. Same for a permanent reauthorization of E-Verify and some of the other enforcement pieces. Deal with the legalization pieces - DREAM, AgJobs and probably the wider CIR and you open the door for the EB fixes that need to happen as well. "

Greg, don't you think this is a bit hypocritical? I thought the whole point was to have a "comprehensive" (CIR) approach and that was why EB bill were being blocked. How come it's now OK to push for piece-meal legislation related to legalization (which is not "comprehensive"), but not OK to do the same for EB visas? Seems like another proof of the dirty tactics of the Hispanic lobby -- "s***w everybody else until we fix our own stuff" -- to me.

[Greg Siskind]

Damien - It's really hard to say on timing and a lot may depend on what happens with the big reform bill. We'll have to wait and see.

[Damien S.]

Hey Greg, it's so exciting to hear DREAM Act is re-introducedd in both Senate and House do u know anything about schedule for vote? how long do you think it will take to vote?

thanks.

[D]

OMG, This is liberal version of points based system :)

[JoeF]

"Deal with the legalization pieces - DREAM, AgJobs and probably the wider CIR and you open the door for the EB fixes that need to happen as well."

Indeed. I am in full agreement.
I've dabbled a bit in politics in my old home country (when I was in college), and it helped me learn how politics works.
EB people support CIR, and they can expect the CIR people supporting their cause. EB2 oppose the CIR, and they won't get any support for their agenda. It's as simple as that.

[Mike]

E) the alien has never been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, unless the alien--

(i) has remained in the United States under color of law after such order was issued; or

(ii) received the order before attaining the age of 16 years; and

(F) the alien was had not yet reached the age of 30 years on the date of enactment of this Act.

^ last time the age limit was 30 y/o

[D]

They should wait in like anyone else in the line why should they get exemption from numerical limits?

[AD]

Greg!

Lets face the truth. There was a bashing discussion last week and I did not participate in it. It's not my intention to restart it. So fellas please refrain from bashing each other.

Why did not DREAM pass last session? Because it got beholden to the CIR as the EB bills did. Dick was as passionate as he is and possibly more passionate last time with DREAM until he got the word that Pelosi is sold out to CHC. I am not trying to be an Elite here and I understand the game of politics. Yeah! I support CIR but CIR got screwed for what ever reasons in previous congress sessions. Now we have a different reason. The economy. I agreed in 08 that the Party of NO will not work together on the illegal front if legal issues are taken care of. Now in 09, The party of "NO" WILL and SHOULD have to brace illegal immigration reform and will come along with Dems when the time is right, unless they want a single party in the country. Its just utterly meaningless to hold meaningful reforms such as EB recapture and the Nursing bill.

We lack leaders who come out and say it loud and clear to Pelosi. Recapture will NOT solve the EB problem completely. EB problem will still be there and EB folks will continue to support CIR. Same thing applies to Nursing relief. The shortage on the Nursing and PT front will keep them clamoring for more numbers. If the Schedule A category is given another 50K, they will be gone in days. Back to the relief line again.

Pelosi and CHC should understand that they should let folks suffering from retrogression need a break from politics.

Oh well! Does Guitierrez really care? He knows that President Obama did the name sake when me met with Guiterrez. But he will not let the EB and Schedule A folks slip away. He is no better than Gentleman from Iowa.

[Greg Siskind]

I think standoff was the correct characterization in the last two Congresses. But the shift in power to the Democrats may have tipped the immigration debate as well. Too early to say at this point.

[AJ]

"Here's the reality check pro-employment based (EB) immigration advocates need to know. EB immigration measures are largely being blocked from moving forward until the legalization pieces are finished. "

So are things at an impasse then? The legalization advocates have enough votes to block any EB measures but the EB advocates do not have the additional votes needed to make legalization succeed.

[Greg Siskind]

Here's the reality check pro-employment based (EB) immigration advocates need to know. EB immigration measures are largely being blocked from moving forward until the legalization pieces are finished. Same for a permanent reauthorization of E-Verify and some of the other enforcement pieces. Deal with the legalization pieces - DREAM, AgJobs and probably the wider CIR and you open the door for the EB fixes that need to happen as well.

[Another voice]

"He wants to bring in a bunch of guys (again no issues there) who will not pay taxes for a significant time (as they go to school and get a degree) and file for FAFSA and at the same time drive away tax paying EB guys."

I can understand your frustration with this situation and these Senators they have not made things easy for all immigrants, but another way to look at this, is not if it is fair to you or not but rather how it will help people go to college and pay taxes once they are regularized as well as to serve in the military. Also in the politicians mind if they get on a path to citizenship soon since these are a large number of people they can vote and I guess thank them for their support for many years to come. I am not saying its right all the way but at least some immigrant friendly bills are getting on the table and hopefully that is a good signal for everyone else.

[Greg Siskind]

I'll need to review, but I believe it's the same as last time and I think there was a 25 year old age cut off.

[Another voice]

Greg,

Would this bill have any retro activity for the people that maybe already went to school (college) and perhaps would meet the same criteria? As I understand it the bill has some age brackets out lined in the proposal. Do you have any information in this regard?

[AD]

Keeps me wondering how much Dick Durbin wants to get DREAM act done and screw EB folks with stringent measures such as repealing 6th year extension (Senate bill 1007, what ever from last congress) at the same time. C mon, I have nothing against DREAM but this dubious stand of Durbin really irks me. He wants to bring in a bunch of guys (again no issues there) who will not pay taxes for a significant time (as they go to school and get a degree) and file for FAFSA and at the same time drive away tax paying EB guys. Good going! Senior Senator from IL. Kudos to you

Lets see what he, Grassley and Bernie are going to unleash on Apr 3rd.

[Greg Siskind]

I'd put the odds of CIR being introduced at 3 to 1 or better. Passing I would put at 50-50.

[Dev.d]

Greg, what in your estimate is the chance that CIR will be introduced this year and/or even pass. Cause as we see it, with past experiences, if its not now (first year of new president) its never right? and if never then the hispanic caucus backlash might change the tides again. There have been murmurs about it coming up in fall i think (including your post), so do you honestly feel there's a good chance in this recession environment,

[kyledeb]

Yes we can. See the following post for five actions people can take in support of the DREAM Act:
http://www.citizenorange.com/orange/2009/03/today-is-the-day-put-the-act-i.html

[George Chell]

Much better chance than CIR!