"Dream Act" Fails

[cammando]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_immigration_students

[bballfamily]

Immigrants can already earn a shortened path to citizenship by serving in the military. By serving in the military they also receive money for schooling after their service.

There is no need for this act.

[True blue (and gold)]

So very, very sad.

[woodsrider]

Just so I am clear, this bill gives citizenship to any illegal that was brought here before they were 16 and if they enroll in college or have enrolled in college?

[ladiesbballcoach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

 

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (the DREAM Act) is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that was first introduced in the United States Senate on August 1, 2001[1] and most recently re-introduced there and the United States House of Representatives on March 26, 2009. This bill would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."[2] Military enlistment contracts require an eight year commitment, with active duty commitments typically between four and six years, but as low as two years.[3][4] "Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated [according to the terms of the Act] shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act." [5]

[ladiesbballcoach]

From same link:

 

2010

The 111th Congress continued to consider the DREAM Act bill throughout 2010. S.3992, a new version of the DREAM Act, includes numerous changes to address concerns raised about the bill. Among other things, S. 3992:

 

Does not repeal the ban on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not force states to charge in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not allow illegal immigrants to gain access to Federal Pell Grants and other financial aid.

Lowers the age cap for eligibility for the DREAM Act to 29 on the date of enactment. Additionally, in order to be eligible, individuals still must have come to the U.S. as a child (15 or under), graduated from a U.S. High School (or received a GED from a U.S. institution) and be a long-term resident (at least 5 years). An earlier version of the DREAM Act (S. 1545 in the 108th Congress), authored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and cosponsored by Senator John McCain, did not include any age cap. This bill was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee on a 16-3 vote.

Does not grant legal immigrant status to anyone for at least 2 years. Previous versions of the DREAM Act would have immediately granted legal immigrant status to individuals who met the bill’s requirements. Under S. 3992, an individual could obtain “conditional nonimmigrant” status if he proves that he meets the age (currently 29 or under and arrived in the U.S. at 15 or under) and residency requirements (5 years or more) and:

Has graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED;

Has been a person of “good moral character,” as determined by the Department of Homeland Security, from the date the individual initially entered the U.S. (previous versions of the DREAM Act only required an individual to be a person of good moral character from the date of the bill’s enactment);

Submits biometric information;

Undergoes security and law-enforcement background checks;

Undergoes a medical examination; and

Registers for the Selective Service.

Further limits eligibility for conditional nonimmigrant status by specifically excluding anyone who:

Has committed one felony or three misdemeanors;

Is likely to become a public charge;

Has engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting;

Has committed marriage fraud;

Has abused a student visa;

Has engaged in persecution; or

Poses a public health risk.

Gives a conditional non-immigrant the chance to earn legal immigrant status only after 2 years and only if he meets the DREAM Act’s college or military service requirements, and other requirements, e.g., pays back taxes and demonstrates the ability to read, write, and speak English and demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, principles, and form of government of the United States.

Further limits "chain migration." DREAM Act individuals would have very limited ability to sponsor family members for U.S. citizenship. They could never sponsor extended family members and they could not begin sponsoring parents or siblings for at least 12 years. Parents and siblings who entered the U.S. illegally would have to leave the country for ten years before they could gain legal status and the visa backlog for siblings is decades long.

Specifically excludes non-immigrants from the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Conditional non-immigrants also would be ineligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other entitlement programs.

Establishes a one-year application deadline. An individual would be required to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status within one year of obtaining a high school degree or GED, being admitted to college, or the bill’s date of enactment.

Requires anyone applying for the DREAM Act to show that he is likely to qualify in order to receive a stay of deportation while his application is pending. The DREAM Act is not a safe harbor from deportation.

Requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide information from an individual’s DREAM Act application to any federal, state, tribal, or local law enforcement agency, or intelligence or national security agency in any criminal investigation or prosecution or for homeland security or national security purposes.

Places the burden of proof on a DREAM Act applicant. An individual would be required to demonstrate eligibility for the DREAM Act by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Additionally, individuals would continue to be excluded if they have received a final order of deportation, have engaged in criminal activity (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act), or present a national security or terrorist threat.)

 

The DREAM Act, along with a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2011. On September 21, 2010, the Senate filibuster of the bill was maintained in a 56-43 vote; it would have taken 60 votes to stop the filibuster and continue the progress of the bill.[31] The following day, Durbin introduced the bill once again along with Richard Lugar. Only two senators cosponsored the bill and it was defeated again.[32] Less than a month later, on November 16, President Barack Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House by November 29th.[33] The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act in December of 2010,[34] but the Senate did not, failing to have enough votes (55 yays - 41 nays) to secure cloture and move to a vot

[ladiesbballcoach]

Before complete defeat of this bill falls at the feet of the Republicans, I wanted to include this story.

 

 

The 55-41 vote was mostly along party lines, though a handful of Democrats — perhaps fearful of their 2012 election outlook — also voted against the DREAM Act.

 

This latest vote really didn't ever have a chance in the current political climate, which has moved decidedly against liberalizing immigration laws in recent years. Nonetheless, as droves of disappointed activists left the Senate galleries after the vote, several were crying – a sign of how emotionally charged the issue had become.

 

“I’ve known the names of most people and how they would vote for a long, long time,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chief sponsor of the bill. “We’ve been working on the fringes to try to get the five. We’d hope for a few more on our side of the aisle and a few more on their side of the aisle, but we didn’t achieve it today.”

 

The DREAM Act would have passed if Democrats had shown unity on the measure.

 

But five Democrats voted against the legislation: Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and both Montana Democrats, Jon Tester and Max Baucus. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin announced his opposition to the DREAM Act Saturday in a statement Saturday but missed the vote.

 

Three Republicans crossed party lines to vote for the bill: Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Utah Sen. Bob Bennett.

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46573.html#ixzz18ZYxGU00

[All Tell]

I am of a mixed mind about this. Do you let children benefit from the criminal (and regardless of semantics, being her illegally is a criminal act) of a parent even if the children had nothing to do with those acts. Say a parent of a 2 year old successfully swindles a large sum of money from someone, dies and tries to leave that money to his/her children. If it is discovered years later that the money was illegally obtained should the children benefit from their parents illegal actions and keep the money?

 

On the other hand in most instances these people were brought here as children and have been raised as Americans, many having no recollection of life in another country. Is it the right thing to do to send them back to a life they have no memory of?

 

I just don't know.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I am of a mixed mind about this. Do you let children benefit from the criminal (and regardless of semantics, being her illegally is a criminal act) of a parent even if the children had nothing to do with those acts. Say a parent of a 2 year old successfully swindles a large sum of money from someone, dies and tries to leave that money to his/her children. If it is discovered years later that the money was illegally obtained should the children benefit from their parents illegal actions and keep the money?

 

On the other hand in most instances these people were brought here as children and have been raised as Americans, many having no recollection of life in another country. Is it the right thing to do to send them back to a life they have no memory of?

 

I just don't know.

I concur 100%. Not sure how I feel about it.

 

It seems that the conditions are pretty good and strict.

[Zoot Soup]

Got 55 votes and it didn't pass? What is wrong with our system?

[Zoot Soup]

The system is broken when we can install a president that didn't win a popular vote, but can't pass a bill with a 55-41 majority. Unbelievable.

[True blue (and gold)]

I am of a mixed mind about this. Do you let children benefit from the criminal (and regardless of semantics, being her illegally is a criminal act) of a parent even if the children had nothing to do with those acts. Say a parent of a 2 year old successfully swindles a large sum of money from someone, dies and tries to leave that money to his/her children. If it is discovered years later that the money was illegally obtained should the children benefit from their parents illegal actions and keep the money?

 

On the other hand in most instances these people were brought here as children and have been raised as Americans, many having no recollection of life in another country. Is it the right thing to do to send them back to a life they have no memory of?

 

I just don't know.

 

I've spoken on this topic at length before, but I will say that if I did not personally know some of these kids that I might be in the same state of limbo that you are in. However, I do know some that fit the very strict criteria that LBBC posted and are pursuing college degrees. I've taught them in school, watched them contribute on the athletic field and court, and saw them stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. I've seen them cry when a fellow classmate was killed in a car wreck and I've watched the smile on their face as they walk across the stage to receive their diploma.

 

I am saddened beyond words that the Dream Act did not pass.

[bballfamily]

So very, very sad.

 

What is sad, that they will not take advantage of what is law already?

The difference between current law and the proposed law is that no one is allowed to tag onto the individual's time in the service.

[All Tell]

Got 55 votes and it didn't pass? What is wrong with our system?

 

Nothing at all. The left didn't complain about the syetem when they were in the majority and blocked GWB's judicial nominees.

[All Tell]

I've spoken on this topic at length before, but I will say that if I did not personally know some of these kids that I might be in the same state of limbo that you are in. However, I do know some that fit the very strict criteria that LBBC posted and are pursuing college degrees. I've taught them in school, watched them contribute on the athletic field and court, and saw them stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. I've seen them cry when a fellow classmate was killed in a car wreck and I've watched the smile on their face as they walk across the stage to receive their diploma.

 

I am saddened beyond words that the Dream Act did not pass.

 

I don't for a second think that many that are affected by this are wonderful, productive people who may not even know that they are not citizens. BUT what makes it a gray area to me is the idea that children shouldn't be allowed to benefit from an illegal activity of a parent even though they may have had nothing to do with it.