Tweet
My understanding is that Republicans oppose the DREAM Act because they oppose a path to citizenship for any undocumented immigrant, regardless of their circumstances. They don’t really care if the individual came into the country as a child, brought by their parents, with no recollection of their former country.
So I’m puzzled by this attempt to craft a Republican alternative to the DREAM Act, led by Florida’s Marco Rubio, which seems to be merely a weaker version of the original bill, with all of the path to citizenship elements that would make anyone disinclined to support an “amnesty” bill scream.
Essentially, the proposal involves several tiers: W-1 visa status would allow an immigrant to attend college or serve in the military (they have six years to get a degree). After doing so, they would be eligible to apply for a four-year nonimmigrant work visa (also can be used for graduate degrees.)
Next, applicants would be eligible to apply for a permanent visa (no welfare benefits.) Finally, after a set number of years, citizenship “could follow…”
The eligibility requirements are pretty much the same: young people (under 32) with a consistent residency in the US, arrival before the age of 14, no felony record, etc. They punctuate it with the silly “Must have knowledge of the English language, U.S. history, ‘and of principles of U.S. government’ requirement. I’d like to see some native-born Americans pass that test, but we’ll let that go.
So instead of a path to citizenship for DREAMers in this situation, the Republican alternative, known as the ACHIEVE Act, just provides a harder path to eventual citizenship, after a series of pointless hoop-jumping. To those who support a path to citizenship, they’ll ask “why don’t we just get on with it without these unnecessary extra steps?” To those who don’t, they’ll ask “why are we granting a path to citizenship to illegal aliens?”
This is just a classic example of the idea that the midpoint between two ends must necessarily be the proper course. It actually just burdens the individual DREAMer with a bunch of ridiculous steps for no other reason than the ephemeral goal of bipartisanship. I’m sure that, if the alternative is the status quo, DREAMers will take it. But it just shows the silliness of our legislative process.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Rubio wants Hispanics to come to America but he does not want them to vote for awhile I wonder how long it took for Cuban Immigrants to get the right to vote did they face these hoops to jump through?
Rubio wants Cred for bringing a full loaf when he brings only half a loaf. Will Obama be dumb enough to fall for it compromise and give Rubio Cred with Hispanics? ( Not that I think Hispanics will fall for it).
The GOP needs to get Hispanic votes to win elections they have already indicated they won’t change on Women’s Issues Birth Control, Abortion even Healthcare. The GOP won’t change on Gay issues. The GOP won’t change on student issues like student loans.
So they are relying on getting Hispanic votes.
But how can they get Hispanic votes if they got Sheriff Joe, Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs etc all still insulting Hispanics?
Just because Rubio is Cuban does not mean he will get Hispanic votes outside the Cuban vote. Jeb Bush speaks Spanish and is married to a Mexican ( poor woman ) he won’t get our votes either. The GOP however thinks that because Obama won because he is Black they just need a Hispanic or Jeb to get our votes.
its about IDEAS Mitt lost not because African Americans voted for the Black guy Mitt lost because his ideas suck.
Mitt won the majority of states that get more federal taxes than they pay to the federal government.
Mitt lost because his 47% base of government moochers is not bigger. Mitt’s job creator 2% failed to create jobs despite the Bush tax cuts.
We have more National Debt because the Bush tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and create more government revenue despite supply sider promises that this would be the case.
Again the election was won on ideas. Obama won the majority of states that pay more taxes than they get back from the federal government.
In other words Obama won the states that create jobs good enough that the workers don’t end up on welfare even when they have a full time job.
We did not want Mitt to turn our states into Georgia.
If the Dems try to pass the Dream Act again, I hope it fails. All the Dems do is attempt to pass bills piecemeal to push their agenda. I oppose these stand alone bills. The Dream Act and any other bill/legislation with regards to illegal aliens needs to be part of a comprehensive package. Liberals and Dems love to bash the GOP on their ‘hateful, racist’ immigration agenda, however the Dems have never put forth their own specific reform ideas.
There’s something I fail to understand on this topic generally, whether it is the Dream Act, the existing Obama policy, or this GOP burlesque:
Why is eligibility restricted to young people?
If two people meet all other criteria equally, but one is in their teens or twenties, and the other in their forties or fifties, I don’t understand why the older person should be subject to deportation, while the younger one is considered a suitable candidate for this route to legal residency and citizenship.
I don’t see why current age is part of the eligibility at all, but if one *had* to choose, isn’t the older person more deserving of this supposedly compassionate policy, since she is all the more accustomed to life in the U.S., and will, if deported, generally have a harder time adapting to her new “native” country, and less opportunity to establish herself socially and economically?
(Please note: I am not inquiring about why eligibility is limited to people who *arrived* in the U.S. before a certain age. I am talking about restrictions on the *current* age of the applicant.)